John Bolton Would Be Good For The UN

If you had to distill it down to one thing, you might say the Democrats just don't like Bolton's criticism of the United Nations. To their credit, they dug up a lot of quotes by Bolton that clearly indicate he has, indeed, been critical of the UN. Those opposing Bolton in the Senate, and the liberal/Democratic hangers-on automatons who duly follow suit, never miss an opportunity to use Bolton's own words to attempt to defame his character, and damage his chances of being confirmed as the new U.S. Ambassador to the UN.

I think my favorite John Bolton quote is from his famous 1994 speech:

Democrats see this quote, and it drives them wild. Why? Two reasons. First, he denigrates the sacred United Nations, a, for them, sanctified organization they see as the only legitimate world power and arbiter; and second, he correctly identifies the United States as the "only real power left in the world."

While Bolton is defending his comments as being "taken out of context," I would tell him he is spot on, or perhaps, he "hit the nail on the head," so to speak. I would also tell him, and the Democrats in the Senate and those actively participating in a so-called "grassroots" effort to "Stop Bolton," that this statement makes him even more qualified to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, if not, Secretary-General.

Who better to represent America to an organization that is in need of serious reform than someone who is brave enough to point out its flaws? The United Nations has repeatedly failed to carry out its mission. Its list of failures would, rather, should be reason enough for its closure (among the UN's list of recent accolades include the Oil for Food scandal and its inability or rather its unwillingness to enforce its own resolutions on Iraq, a failure that led to the US being forced to take the lead in disarming Saddam Hussein). Of course, the dismantling of the United Nations is high improbable, so in reality, the United Nations, like the U. S. Social Security system, is in need of reform. For the United States to send an ambassador to the UN who turns a blind eye to the problems and historic failures of the UN would be grossly irresponsible on our part, and only perpetuate the inefficiencies that blatantly exist in the pork barrel organization.

For Democrats to continue to press Bolton's criticism of the United Nations as cause for him not being confirmed is absurd. If being critical of a national or international body, be it governmental or other, would otherwise disqualify many individuals who currently serve in United States government. Let's take for instance, former Presidential candidate, and current US Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry.

A heated election campaign saw lots of footage and photos of a younger John Kerry participating in anti-war, anti-government demonstrations, as well as scores of audio clips of the young war veteran openly criticizing the United States government and the presidency. Of course, there are plenty of things that could be mentioned, but the point is clear.

Democrats saw and heard this, and still thought he should be President of the United States.

So John Bolton was critical of the United Nations, so what? Does that mean he can't serve as ambassador? If criticism is grounds for Bolton not being confirmed, then ipso facto, any person (elected officials included) who are openly critical of President Bush, the Bush Administration, or government in general, are automatically disqualified from serving in government, or ever running for President. Absurd isn't it? That's democratic logic. Criticism of liberal bastions is one of those things that is not a freedom of speech issue. Criticism of conservative or Republican issues or officials is grounds for promotion in liberal circles.

The magic of being in the United States is that we are free to speak our minds, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Even better, if there is something we don't like about our government, we can elect someone who will work to change it. If that is not an option, one can always run for office. Someone who openly disagrees with establishment is often encouraged to run for office, just as John Kerry did.

I certainly don't think Kerry's criticism of the government or the presidency in his youth disqualifies him to serve in government or run president (there are plenty of other things that make him unfit to serve). Additionally, I don't think the Congressmen in Washington who openly criticize the Bush administration should be disqualified either. In that vain, John Bolton need not be passed over merely for his criticism of the United Nations.

Being able to criticize and disagree openly is part of what makes this country the best in the world; it is not a means to disqualify a qualified individual from serving the United States as Ambassador to the United Nations.