Citizen Journal Blog

Bill Kristol writes:

�the fight over Bolton is like the fight over [Robert] Bork. One hoped-for effect of Bork's defeat was to deter possible candidates for the Court from even considering certain judicial interpretations--just as the assault, in different circumstances, on Lawrence Summers at Harvard is intended to rule out of bounds the raising of certain questions in the academy. Bork's defeat had real consequences: 18 years of intellectual mediocrity and constitutional incoherence from the Supreme Court. Only now do we have the prospect of once again advancing a constitutionalist reformation for the courts.

Similarly, if the Bolton nomination is lost, there will be real consequences, as presidential appointees start shying away from tough decisions, confrontations with the permanent foreign policy bureaucracy, and "controversial" ideas so as not to be "Boltoned."

Replies: 4 Comments

Posted by: scooter On Wednesday, April 27th

wait, is our Ambassador to China a communist? Is he supposed to say, "That's okay, China. we don't mind the human rights violations" or does he say, "based on what you do our relationship is X, if you want it to change, do something else. change.)

An ambassador's job is to represent the US' interests, not be an apologist.

Posted by: Aaron On Tuesday, April 26th

This isn't about your or my opinion of the UN. The ambassador is supposed to be the person who communicates, who bridges the gap, who smooths out the rough edges of the relationship between countries or organizations. This would be like naming a known racist to be ambassador to South Africa. Regardless of what our opinion of South Africa is, if we want to have any kind of positive relationship, it's just a stupid idea.

Posted by: An American Observer On Sunday, April 24th

Hey Aaron! Ever think that the U.N. IS worthless?? Or, maybe you can name ONE significant achievement? I can name dozens of failures, from Korea to Sudan, that this useless organization has chalked up!!

Posted by: Aaron On Sunday, April 24th

What?

...

I just think back to that quote. The one where Bolton talks about how the United Nations doesn't exist.

It wouldn't be so bad if he was being appointed to ANY OTHER POSITION IN THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT. But this is just ridiculous. He is on the record as hating the UN, insulting it, saying it's worthless. Why would Bush appoint him to this position? Why???

CJ's Bloggers

"The Borking of Bolton"