Liberal propaganda belches errata about John R. Bolton and it is either mirrored elsewhere or the errata is the mirror. For whatever, all that I can read to date as to naysaying about Bolton is that he’s both a President Bush nominee and that he’s allegedly yelled at various others in his lifetime. “Clashed with them,” it’s said. Challenged their information, it’s said.
Perhaps he had insights — something that those supervising the United Nations up to now (probably still as I write this) have not had, certainly if had them didn’t let loose the doubts, the questions, much of any sense of control about very huge and very seriously offensive issues.
So, to my view, a maleable, pleasant United States Ambassador to the U.N. makes little sense given the huge array of serious problems that are only now coming to light as having occured through and by the U.N. and for how long. About which, how long these terrible travesties have been allowed to continue, perhaps we’ll never know.
But, one thing seems certain: rapes by U.N. workers without penalty, reprimand, much more so cessation of their awful behaviors combined with the comparably-as-dreadful-if-not-potentially-far-more-deadly oil-for-food scandal (and it is scandalous — a lot of people were brutally murdered by those whose lives were made possible by this scandal, much moreso the many Americans who have given their lives afterward attempting to correct the problems made possible by the scandal itself) is more than enough to give rise to a decided representation with the U.N. by the United States and soon. Someone who does not accept intelligence reports at first hand, who presses for greater examination, who has (THE NERVE!) capacity and willingness to counter and question, someone like Bolton seems exactly the person who is needed to represent the U.S. in the U.N.
Bolton’s main detractors (long-Senate situated Senators Patrick Leahy (D/Vermont), Christopher Dodd (D/Conn.) and Joseph Biden (D/Delaware) have maintained presence in the U.S. Senate for enough years to be aware of the conditions in the U.N. but instead appear to have been looking the other way — perhaps — while most of the worst among the identified U.N. scandals occured.
(The outrage!) — Bolton asked questions, Bolton yelled, Bolton challenged perhaps Colin Powell (certainly Powell’s work to undermine Bolton suggests bad history, while Condoleezza Rice’s emphatic support of Bolton seems even more suggestive of good achievement, to the contrary), and those he called into question, perhaps to task, now reappear to refute him, to work away from solution toward party politic. I don’t buy the false smiles by the critics because they all seem far too intensely disturbed by the idea of Bolton’s confirmation than is otherwise reasonable, if we are to accept the reasons they say they object to Bolton. Even a tad as much of that outrage by these very same critics would be better applied to other things, but, no, it isn’t.
It makes me wonder about those with the faux smiles and the harsh denials, I have to share here, it surely makes me wonder what they were doing all those years all that money was being had and harbored by Saddam Hussein and commiserates and while all that human pain was being inflicted, all those years, to and by those affiliated with, connected to the U.N…while, meanwhile, all that droning on in the U.N. and by many of the currently most vociferal Bolton critics in our U.S. Senate, speeches on and on about anything but what was crucial.
(And, from 1999)…
“UN: rape used extensively by ABRI”
And, grim now grimmer: