Delaware County (PA) Times
After characterizing Bolton as a bully, the editorial says:
-
Bolton’s hawkish philosophy is antithetical to the U.N.’s peacekeeping mission. His tunnel vision, lack of diplomacy and borderline xenophobia would only further alienate allies already alienated by the war in Iraq which he helped engineer.
To make John Bolton U.S. ambassador to the United Nations would dangerously fray the United States’ already eroding relations with the rest of the world.
-
The arguments against Bolton are so compelling that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should refuse to pass Bolton's nomination to the Senate floor. Sen. Norm Coleman should join in the refusal and demonstrate his willingness to stand up to the White House
-
Bolton was controversial in 2001 when the Senate voted 57-43 to approve him as head of the State Department's arms-control programs, a surprisingly divisive vote for a second-level position.
The rap against Bolton is that he is blunt, abrasive and combative, too much of a loose cannon for a post that requires some measure of diplomacy and restraint.
-
As the oil-for-food scandal shows, the U.N. could stand some tough, constructive criticism. But such criticism has to come from someone known for telling the truth, not for twisting it.
-
Barring a transformation that's hard to imagine, John Bolton, nominated by President Bush to become this country's ambassador to the United Nations, should be asked to seek other employment.
-
Whatever the organization's shortcomings, whatever functions it is incapable of performing, the United Nations is uniquely suited to address some international needs. That is why President Bush's nomination of U.N. critic John Bolton as U.N. ambassador may unexpectedly amount to an act of tough love.
