Mechanical

America's Face: John Bolton?

So there's all this brouhaha about whether or not John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, should be our ambassador to the United Nations. The Bush administration nominated him, in large part, because of his strong anti-UN comments, including his comment that ten floors could be removed from the UN building in New York "without it making the least bit of difference." A born diplomat, yes?

Knowing in advance his harsh comments to the UN, it's not a difficult stretch to imagine that this is a calculated slap at the United Nations, a group the White House is quick to disdain. However, since that time, an extraordinary litany of allegations have come up against him. These are not the allegations of just one person, but of a number of individuals. These have been strong enough and convincing enough that even Republicans have been concerned about this choice of ambassador. And what are these allegations? Oh, just a few little things like lying to the confirmation committee, bullying subordinates, trying to eliminate those who disagree with him, fudging intelligence estimates, etc.

UN hating, bullying, purging dissidents, stretching intelligence estimates? While I can understand how some might object to this behavior, let's face it: if Bolton is confirmed, who could be a more honest representation of the US to the UN? He is the perfect embodiment of what our country has become.
Tags:
A depressing thought, and I appreciate as a Brit this could cause offence, but the objection to Bolton's nomination smacks of either a) rampant political naivety; or b) the head-in-the-sand approach - ie, if we don't let this guy represent us, maybe all the boodoggling/back-stabbing/lying will disappear.