Thursday, July 27, 2006

That Radical Bolton

Only recently has Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) come around from his inexplicable opposition to the confirmation of John R. Bolton as the United States' ambassador to the United Nations.

Some of you may recall that Voinovich spent the early months of 2005 lambasting Bolton, with said lambasting being the primary obstacle to his confirmation to the above post. Bolton's only crime, mind you, was that he was not part of the tea-and-crumpet, pro-socialism crowd that dominates at the State Department. Bolton had (and has) the audacity to favor the promotion of democratic reform, the protection of nations' sovereignty, a general hostility to terrorism and pro-terrorist regimes worldwide, and proposals for reform of a blatantly corrupt United Nations (which is best symbolized by its corrupt secretary general, Kofi Annan).

While I am thrilled that Voinovich has finally come around, and I anticipate that this shift will ultimately lead to Bolton's confirmation, I continue to be amused by Democrats who think Bolton is dangerous.

Dangerous? Please.

I ask you out there, those of you who find Bolton to be troubling, for whatever reason: what specific reason(s) can you give that demonstrate him to be a poor choice to represent the United States in the United Nations?

(Ground rules: (a) you have until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time; (b) your answers must be germane -- no Deuce-like non sequiturs; and (c) anyone who lapses into a discussion of either (i) how Bush stole the election, (ii) how Bush is evil, or (iii) neo-conservatism generally is automatically disqualified. My challenge, my rules.)


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?