4 responses to “Explaining Boltonmania”

1. 

   Sean Hackbarth

   November 14, 2006 at 7:49 pm

   I like Bolton too. In a body that doesn’t respect the U.S. and is a means for a piddly nation like Namibia or the Sudan to be on par with the U.S. an aggressive ambassador is refreshing.

   However, any U.N. ambassador, even Bolton isn’t “vital” to the war (to use the words at Stop the ACLU). Politics is the art of the possible. With Bush’s political capital low he’ll need to spend it on fights that earn him a better return–a federal judge or two for example.
2. 

   ski

   November 14, 2006 at 7:51 pm

   What is really wonderful about Bolton is Bush used him to explain that the UN is really not America’s Friend, but functions completely in its own self interest; not the interest of sovereign countries.

   The future Americans now understand this and it looks like America has a future in the world and dealing with other countries.

   Of course he didn’t find WMD per Plame’s instructions, but that’s all CIA.
3. 

   Steven Taylor

   November 14, 2006 at 8:59 pm

   Sean,

   For what it is worth, were I in the Senate, I would likely vote for Bolton’s confirmation. However, were I President, I wouldn’t waste my time on this fight.

   Ultimately that is what this all boils down to.
4. 

   Sean Hackbarth

   November 15, 2006 at 1:18 am

   Steven, I agree. There are bigger fish. Especially since the U.N. ambassador makes new at most once a year. If Bolton’s the linchpin to winning the war American strategy is really screwed up.