Democrats opposing John Bolton’s confirmation as U.N. ambassador are criticizing him for being someone who, while willing to work with other nations, will take the hard line if he feels it’s in the United States’ best interests. I’m not sure why they’re so surprised: look at the philosophy of the guy who nominated him.
Besides, just because someone has been critical of an organization doesn’t mean he can’t work with it. And while we’re at it, imagine what a loss it would be to lose out on someone who could actually make a very important world organization better. But no … we’ll probably end up with a candidate who believes that if the majority of the U.N. Security Council supports something, it must be right.
I have no strong opinion on Bolton, himself, except it’s a bit disconcerting to keep reading “Bolton this” and “Bolton that” in news stories about the flap. I keep getting images of Michael Bolton as our ambassador to the U.N.
“How am I supposed to vote for this resolution …?”
3 comments:
No comments on the many Republicans who are also opposing him?
There is that.
At the time, it seemed Bolton's detractors' biggest criticism was his knocking the U.N., and that seemed unreasonable.
The more info that emerges about Bolton, however, the "mooter" my original blog post seems.
Post a Comment