The wrong Bolton
: The problem with John Bolton as UN Ambassador is not, as it turns out, that he is critical of the UN but that he is an ass. George Voinovich says he won’t support Bolton because:
“Bolton would have been fired if he worked for a major corporation,” Voinovich said as the panel opened final debate on the nomination. Bolton is “the poster child for what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be,” Voinovich said.
But I do believe we need someone critical of and skeptical about and demanding of the United Nations in that post. The notion that we had to put someone in the UN who loves the UN is ludicrous in a politically correct way, especially as the UN proves to be such a mess (see any angle of its involvement in Iraq, from the war to oil-for-food scandals to abandoning the nation). The UN is a mess and we should be in there demanding reform and results. So we need a reformer, not an ass.
: UPDATE: Following the Bloomberg story above, the AP reports that Voinovich will vote to pass the Bolton nomination to the full Senate: the political compromise.
: TO CLARIFY: In response to the comments, I thought this was clear but I’ll make it clearer: I’m not saying he’s an ass; I have no idea or way to know whether he’s an ass. I’m saying the process is saying he’s an ass and that’s why it has appeared at various moments that he may not get approved. What I’m really saying is that we should not lose sight of the notion that whether it’s Bolton or not, what we need is a critic and skeptic of this flawed organization. If the right person gets rejected just because he’s an ass, then the process is an ass. Is that clearer?
