Now Tim Johnson wants to deny John Bolton a vote for the UN ambassadorship. This is an executive appointment, so I don't have the same objections to a filibuster here as I do with judicial nominees. I think policy disagreement is a reason to vote against an executive nominee. But what is the argument against Bolton? Is it that he has a low opinion of the UN? I've posted this before, and I will again. From Jay Nordlinger:
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?
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.
The burden of proof is on those who still support the UN, not those who are highly skeptical.
Is the opposition based on the fact that Bolton is tough on those who work for him? Does that make him any different from half the US Senate? See Mark Steyn's take on the matter here.
Perhaps Sen. Johnson has a good explanation for his vote. He's a generally decent fellow and I am sure he means well. But recently it's been hard to tell his voting record from Ted Kennedy's.
By the way, sorry for the vulgarity in Nordlinger's quote. But at least he has the good taste to edit his expletives, unlike some local blogs.
Recent Comments