And here's Sen. Barbara Boxer, on John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: "He's been very contemptuous of the U.N." Well, no sh**, senator. And you haven't? You weren't contemptuous when Saddam Hussein's government chaired the nuclear-disarmament committee? You weren't contemptuous when Qaddafi's Libya and Assad's Syria chaired the human-rights committee? You're not contemptuous that China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and other beauts sit on that committee?I reserve my contempt for her.
You weren't contemptuous when the U.N. stood by as thousands were slaughtered in the Balkans? You haven't been contemptuous at the U.N.'s performance in Rwanda, and Congo, and Sudan?
Liberalism used to mean something — e.g., opposition to tyranny and lies. And now? Opposition to George W. Bush seems most important.
Update: Nice commentary by Paul Greenberg in support of Mr. Bolton from the Washington Times
Some of us can hardly wait for John Bolton to get to the United Nations, where he promises to be the most candid U.S. emissary since the charming Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or maybe the astute Jeane Kirkpatrick.Heady company.
Each towered over (and told off) that distinguished den of thieves, tyrants, haters, apologists for terror, and pompous nullities who can speak forever and still say nothing. At the U.N., talk comes by the yard and action by the inch.
It's about time the United States once again sent the U.N. an ambassador with an attitude. Who better to represent the land of the free and home of the brave at this moment than a walrus-moustached, straight-talking, undiplomatic diplomat?
Update: There are some who make more reasoned arguments against Mr. Bolton, such as Stygius here and here.