Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | Emotional Implications Of Recent Democratic SpokesGarbage |
»
|
|
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Pitched Battles
If you thought the fight over federal Appeals Court nominees was tough, what can you possibly say about the contest over U.N. Ambassador-nominee John Bolton?
WASHINGTON — Majority Leader Bill Frist (search) reversed course on John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (search) on Tuesday, after earlier declaring the prospect of a floor vote dead in the water.[...snip...]
But after meeting with Bush, Frist came out to the cameras stationed at the White House and said he would schedule a third vote to end debate and vote for confirmation.
"The president made it very clear that he expects an up or down vote," he said, adding that Democratic resistance has nothing to do with Bolton, but everything to do with resentment toward the president.
If the Democrats were willing to bend a little on Dubya's judges, but are absolutely inflexible about his U.N. ambassador, we might well infer that the U.N. and the positions America takes there are of greater importance to them than what happens in the federal courts. That goes a long way toward explaining vitriol of this caliber:
Bush To The U.N.: Drop DeadPresident George W. Bush seems to be on the verge of bypassing the Senate for the time being and appointing John Bolton, a lightning rod for controversy, as ambassador to the United Nations while Congress is on recess this summer.
This gesture would confirm to the rest of the world the low esteem in which the Bush administration is believed to hold the U.N. and international law and diplomacy. Under such an appointment, Mr. Bolton would take his seat at the U.N. under a cloud, without the support of the Senate or the American people.
[...snip...]
The bigger questions regarding the disdain Mr. Bolton openly has expressed for the U.N. and international law in the past and his reputation as a blowhard and bully, have receded into the background, though they should be of greater concern to the Republican majority in the Senate. Mr. Bolton would bring to the U.N. qualities that are inimical, if not destructive, to the diplomatic role he would be playing.
President Bush insists that he wants to send Mr. Bolton to the U.N. to get the organization to clean house. Just how much stature would such an ambassador enjoy, having neither the authority of the Senate or American public opinion behind him, to bring about reforms?
[...snip...]
Mr. Bolton appears to have none of the qualities that would inspire others to listen to him. His appointment, even for a limited period of time, would hurt the U.N. and American interest in making it work better.
As has been amply demonstrated by such doings as the "Killian memos" scandal and the absolute prohibition on reporting positive developments in Iraq, one can't expect honesty from the Old Media any more. In assessing editorials, one must set the bar even lower; Old Media opinion writers hold themselves to no standard of accuracy or civility. But the above is some indication of how great is the Old Media's desire to besmirch the Bush Administration and its candidates. It achieves a new record for cramming lies and distortions into a five hundred word column.
Once more: our focus should be on the implications of the resort to such tactics, rather than on our anger over the tactics themselves. This is where the Democrats have chosen to "pull out the nukes." If it doesn't suggest that they insist on kowtowing to "international opinion" and placing the massively corrupt U.N. above the accountability Americans expect from governments and quasi-governmental bodies, then what does it suggest?
The sovereignty of the United States isn't at risk over this -- we can certainly do without a representative in the U.N. -- but it's an additional data point by which to trace the Democrats' death spiral toward total political irrelevance.
If this trend continues, and is reasonably well reported on the Web, if nowhere else, the 2006 elections could well deliver the GOP a cloture-able Senate majority. The implications for the Democrats' presidential aspirations in 2008 are left as an exercise for the reader.
Comments
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
