Democrats have made a huge mistake in their pursuit of a political symbol over common sense. George Bush has selected John Bolton for the post of United Nations ambassador, and Democrats seem determined to pick a fight, wasting valuable political capital on a near non-issue. Democrats need to focus on fights they can win, or at least fights that are politically
advantageous. On a more personal level, I’d like to see Democrats engage in fights that are right.
Is John Bolton the best person for the job? Probably not. Is he the man that President Bush selected? Yes. The bottom line is that the main job of the U.N. ambassador is to be the voice of the president’s policy. It’s important to note the difference between creating policy and talking about it. How often do you hear the news media breaking stories about the U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations? The fact is that the position of ambassador is no kingpin in a presidential bungalow but a cog in the smallest of possible rotating wheels.
The Democrats have three major objections to Bolton as ambassador: his qualifications, his previous actions working in U.S. intelligence and his political opinions about the United Nations. The first and second protests are easily dismissed. First, his qualifications are about as important as his haircut. If President Bush has confidence in him, why should Congress protest? If it blocks Bush’s choice, there is no guarantee that the president won’t choose someone even less qualified.
Second, Bolton has been accused of trying to fire aides who didn’t present intelligence he agreed with. The best solution seems to be to get him out of the U.S. intelligence system. Because Congress doesn’t have the power to fire him, it might as well grease the track that will slide him down the hill from important decision-maker to meaningless bureaucrat.
But the third and most troubling path of pursuit against Bolton are attacks by Democrats on his past comments. Bolton’s opinions are not that inflammatory. They may even be justified. In one speech that Sen. Barbara Boxer criticized, Bolton said, “There is no being out there called the ‘United Nations.’ There is simply a group of member governments who, if they have the political will, every once in a while … protect international security. … I think it would be a real mistake to count on the United Nations as if it’s some disembodied entity out there capable of functioning on its own.”
His sentiments are entirely correct. When members of the Security Council can veto any kind of resolution they dislike, when Syria is a pivotal guardian of human rights, when member governments can sign onto essential treaties with reservations and wriggle through loopholes, I agree that the United Nations has been ineffective. Too often liberals see the United Nations as a representation of everything good in the world. People should be more skeptical, especially in the wake of oil-for-food scandals and accusations that U.N. workers frequently double as pimps.
Of course the United Nations has a lot of positive attributes. The bottom line, however, is that the United Nations failed to act in stopping genocide in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo. Bolton is right in his assumption that if the United States withdraws from the United Nations, it will collapse like a house of cards. Without the United States, the United Nations would be unmasked as another powerless anachronism.
The problem is that focusing
attention on Bolton is distracting from discussions of other nominees. I’d rather see voters focused on the nomination of Dr. Lester Crawford to the position of U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner. Crawford has presided over the push of questionable medication into the mouths of consumers, and he refuses to certify that he will release the “morning-after pill” into public
consumption. Crawford is timid before the wrath of religious conservatives at a moment when so many senators are deep in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies. Now is not the time to entrust public health to another of President Bush’s
cowardly lapdogs.
In other words, Democrats need to bolt from Bolton and concentrate on more important issues.

[email protected]