Commons snese is a commodity sorely lacking today. Take the UN. Here people look at the Secretary General as some all fired world leader, when the position is an adminstrative one. One of John Bolton's "sins" in the eyes of the One Worlders is that he had the audacity to point this out. Mona Charen has more in her commentary.
Here is Bolton's take on the post of U.N. secretary-general: "... One should not invest excessive hope in any secretary-general. The U.N. Charter describes the secretary-general as the U.N.'s 'chief administrative officer.' He is not the president of the world. He is not a diplomat for all seasons. He is not Mr. Friend of the Earth. And most definitely of all, he is not commander in chief of the World Federalist Army. He is the chief administrative officer. Nothing less than that, to be sure, but, with even greater certainty, nothing more."The UN is a cesspool of corruption and scandal. Bolton is a man that has the gumption and capacity to tell it as it is. In diplomatic circles that is more or less unheard of. It is clear that the dems/leftists do not want to change the status quo. The question indeed should be do they not.
A wound to the quick! In a few words, Bolton ridiculed liberal U.N. worship. It's no surprise that they did not thank him for bringing them down to earth with a jolt. Bolton's point in that article is that the United Nations is a tool, not an end itself. Rather than the "parliament of man" liberals fondly imagine, the United Nations is a collection of nations each pursuing its own interests, and an unaccountable bureaucracy awash in waste, sloth, luxury and abuse.
Frankly, in a decade that has brought us the Oil for Food scandal, the child sex slave trade carried on by U.N. workers, U.N. failures to confront horrific human rights disasters like North Korea and Sudan -- indeed, even offering the genocidal regime of Sudan a place on the Human Rights Commission (other members: Zimbabwe, Congo, Cuba, Saudi Arabia) -- the real question ought to be not why John Bolton isn't sentimental about the United Nations, but rather why Democrats are.
Bolton was placid during his grilling -- though why so few Republicans chose to attend the hearing is anybody's guess. Perhaps sensing that substantive policy differences with Bolton would not be enough to sink his nomination -- he is, after all, supposed to represent President Bush at the United Nations, not President Kerry -- the Democrats switched tactics. This is a well-worn pattern by now. We saw it with Robert Bork, and then with Clarence Thomas and countless others. It is the find dirt game. Or perhaps the invent dirt game.Oh my goodness, a manager that actual yells at a subordinate that lies or is incompetent. Imagine how hurt that subordinate must have been. This is utter nonsense. It it best we keep the dems/leftists away fromany military basic training. They would be aghast. Drill instructers have actually been known to yell at recruits.
It has now reached truly hilarious depths. It seems, don't say this too loud, that Bolton has been known to yell at subordinates, particularly those who lie to him. This intelligence has led Democratic senators -- and two very limp Republicans, George Voinovich and Chuck Hagel -- to conclude that Bolton lacks the proper "temperament" for a high-ranking position in the U.S. government. Can anyone say this with a straight face?
Here's the real bottom line: Republicans have permitted this to happen. If the president had backed Bolton more forthrightly; if Republican senators had supported him during his hearing; and if two Republicans had not bid for The New York Times' approval, this could not have happened.
When the dems/leftist approach of going after Bolton on his ideologic thoughts on the UN failed to be the issue they wanted it to be, they went after his management style. When that did not turn out to be enough to sink Bolton, they have gone to character assasination. John Bolton is exactly the man we need at the UN. Time for him to be confirmed is now. - Sailor