Bayou Calvinist

A Somewhat Eclectic Discussion by a Law Student Concerning All of Today's Major Topics, as well as, a Few Not So Major Topics

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Is John Bolton UNqualified?

Bolton is certainly a controversial figure today. Of course the true controversy, the true reason for opposition to his nomination, is not that which is stated by most Democrats and Voinovich. Like most things it is an ideological difference between the two primary camps in U.S. politics: namely Bush and Congressional Democrats. Each view the UN differently. And leaving aside for the moment any constitutional arguments concerning exactly what "advise and consent" mean when it comes to affirming presidential nominees, there is evidence (I would argue convincing evidence) to suggest that the two sides in this battle are not equal. Simply stated Bush's view is correct. The UN is not living up to its obligations. Not in actions, results, nor sometimes even in words. If the UN is to ever hold any power to change the world for the better, it must be reformed. Reform is not something which is always easy or pretty. In fact true reform almost never is. For this exact reason, all who hope for an international order that promotes freedom, democracy, economic improvement and a decrease in the need for military confrontation, should support John Bolton's nomination. As stated by Ion Mihai Pacepa in a recent National Review Online Article:

Bolton has said that, if the glass zoo on the East River that quarters the United Nations “lost ten stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” Some argue that this remark makes him unfit to be ambassador at the U.N. I strongly disagree. He gets it, and the U.N. will be all the better with an Ambassador Bolton there.

Read the entire article by going to the NRO link at left.


Post a Comment

<< Home