Now John Kerry should have been hung long ago for consorting with the enemy while this nation was at war and Ted Kennedy should have been tried by a jury of his peers and convicted of the murder of Jo Kopechny, so these are two men for whom I have little (no...NO)respect.
So I decided to find out for myself just what all the brouhaha against John Bolton came from. Here it is, balanced against what his opponents have to say.
From AXIS OF LOGIC (whose title says a lot to us WWII babies):
those familiar with his record believe that there is no one in U.S. public life today more ill-suited for that position than Bolton. His nomination reflects nothing less than an affront to the American people, the diplomatic community and people of goodwill everywhere. It is not a matter that he is too conservative; rather, it reflects the concern generated by his stint as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security in the first Bush administration where he was demonstrably its most extremist member.
It's the second Bush administration and one of the things they're objecting to is Bolton's examination of the International World Court, which UN supporters taught without examining but Bolton examined. One thing he said, "one might assume that the ICC is simply a further step in the orderly march toward the peaceful settlement of international disputes, sought since time immemorial. But in several respects, the court is poised to assert authority over nation states, and to promote its prosecution over alternative methods for dealing with the worst criminal offenses.
"The Court's flaws are basically two-fold, substantive, and structural. As to the former, the ICC’s authority is vague and excessively elastic, and the Court's discretion ranges far beyond normal or acceptable judicial responsibilities, giving it broad and unacceptable powers of interpretation that are essentially political and legislative in nature. This is most emphatically not a Court of limited jurisdiction. Crimes can be added subsequently that go beyond those included in the Rome Statute."
And there's a lot more.
What opponents don't like about Bolton are the two things I like about him: 1)he speaks plainly and keeps to the point and 2) he does his research. You HAVE to like a man who does his research in a world that usually doesn't bother.
Back to objections:
By selecting an individual who has spent the last decade repudiating basic norms of international cooperation and civility, his appointment is tantamount to an absolute rejection of multilateral cooperation and U.S. accountability.
That's because he speaks the truth with passion and without decorating it with half-lies and compromises. Bolton can be bold. That kind of plain talk is just what the Germans, French, Italian, Spanish and third-worlders need -- and what they haven't been getting since Jean Kilpatrick (bless her forever) was UN Ambassador.
For example, Bolton horrified libs when he said, "I think if the conference can concentrate on the central issue of the flow of illicit weapons into areas of conflict, then I think there is broad room for agreement. But if it drifts off into areas that are more properly the subject of national level decision making, then I think there will be difficulties. And I mentioned several areas in the draft program of action that the United States will strongly support, and I mentioned several areas that we would not support."
He's a no-nonsense, don't-waste-my-time-with-trivialities kind of person and that's just exactly what the UN needs. Thank goodness he's not the Clinton style of do-what- they-want-and-make-it-look-good kind of diplomat. That's what his opponents want to see.
John Bolton has supported the Nicaraguan contras, supported normalizing ties with Taiwan regardless of its effect on China-U.S. relations, advocates "regime change" rather than negotiation with North Korea, led the effort within the State Department to "unsign" the U.S. from the Rome Statute (as referenced above), sabotaged a 2001 UN bio-weapons conference in Geneva by refusing to agree to unilateral arms trafficing, and publicly accused Cuba of having an offensive biological warfare program (which has been denied but not disproved). A man after me own heart.
The liberal Council on Hemispheric Affairs is hysterical:An Unforgivable Choice as UN Ambassador and every single exaggeration they scream points to a milder truth that underscores the very reason he should be confirmed.
I hope the first thing he does is triple the rent on the UN building and cut all US funds earmarked for the operation of the UN. Why can't Paris or Brussels make room for them? Let them harrass the Paris Police for a change.
From all I've read all over the internet in Mr. Bolton's speeches and interviews, he's EXACTLY what we need in the UN.
And since he is, the people who are frantic to get back into political power and who don't give a hoot about what happens to the United States as long as the world love us are jumping through the trees like a bunch of rabid monkeys. Too bad we have to fight them; it would be more fun to sit back and watch.