Bolton: So Sad

About half the time, conservatives profess bafflement as to why liberals are so upset about John Bolton. The rest of the time, you read pearls of wisdom from Bolton fans like Andy McCarthy about how "we don't need an ambassador at the UN, we need a wrecking ball." The mustachioed one, it seems, was just the man for the job but "If John Bolton could not be confirmed after the job he did, there is no hope for a strong American presence there. More importantly, even with Bolton performing heroically, the UN was still a menace."

So, look, conservatives can agree with that or disagree as they like. But no fair being baffled -- this is the crux of the issue. Bolton and his biggest fans think the UN is a menace. Not that the UN is a flawed institution that sometimes can't or doesn't accomplish everything one might like. Rather, it's a menace. Not something that should be improved, but something that should be wrecked. Hit, in other words, with a wrecking ball. People who believe that a "strong American presence" in Turtle Bay means strident efforts to destroy the institution.

Comments

Matt,

Not to endorse McCarthy's idiocy, but I think you've misconstrued his post. He meant, basically: "If Bolton can't be confirmed as UN ambassador, no one decent can. Therefore, we might as well not have an ambassador and just seek to destroy the institution." Not, as you imply, that Bolton himself was a "wrecking ball" and therefore the ideal ambassador because our policy should be one of UN destruction. He's basically saying wrecking ball is second-best, not first-best.

A subtle distinction, I know.

Posted by Marshall | December 4, 2006 12:02 PM

Atlas Pam is having a meltdown, as predicted by Tbogg. She seems to think he actually, y'know, resigned--as opposed to being told to resign; she actually says no one of Bolton's character would agree to push Bush's sucky foreign policy.

Posted by Tom Hilton | December 4, 2006 12:48 PM

I think Republicans look terrific with their sausage curls, sailor suits, and face-size lollypops. And when they dig their index fingers deep into the recesses of their dimples, it just slays me. And the baby-talk. Yowzers.

I mean, if people whose motto is "Exterminate the brutes" can't feign innocence, who can?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 4, 2006 12:49 PM

Did you see Kofi Annan's statement on the matter?

"I think Ambassador Bolton did the job he was expected to do. He came at a time when we had lots of tough issues from reform to issues on Iran and North Korea. I think as a representative of the U.S, givenment, he pressed ahead with the instructions he had been given and tried to work as effectively as he could."

Now that's diplomacy!

Posted by Chris | December 4, 2006 1:52 PM

marshall, thats true, but both his support for bolton and his support for a "wrecking ball" is clearly part of the same sentiment. mccarthy holds both those positions for the same reason.

Posted by Anonymous | December 4, 2006 2:06 PM

Not to defend this administration's disastrous handling of international norms and institutions, but the UN does need shaking up. Bolton was the only major force calling for significant action in Darfur. That the UN is not doing anything is a testiment to its ineffectiveness. Does this mean that the idea of a UN is a "menace"? Of course not, thats retarded. I guess I don't really have a problem with Bolton using tough tactics to get the UN to act, I just worry about whether his intentions are to increase UN effectiveness or destroy the institution. Can anyone help me out with this?

Posted by Patrick | December 4, 2006 2:33 PM

I always hear a lot of chatter about how the UN is "ineffective" at accomplishing a lot of things that no one, including the US, is doing anything to accomplish either. I guess any organization can be a failure if you set the bar high enough.

Posted by Steve | December 4, 2006 3:14 PM

The UN needs much improvement, but I don't think that is why there is so much support for Bolton on the right. The ones I see defending Bolton so ferociously are the same ones call for the UN's abolishment. Reforming the organization doesn't seem to enter into the equation.

Posted by Josh | December 4, 2006 3:26 PM

I always hear a lot of chatter about how the UN is "ineffective" at accomplishing a lot of things that no one, including the US, is doing anything to accomplish either. Amen. I also hear a lot about how "ineffective" it is because it stands in the way of really ill-advised military interventions. Feature, not bug.

Posted by Pithlord | December 4, 2006 3:44 PM

I know why UN haters are supporting Bolton. But shouldn't the argument be about whether Bolton himself is bad for the UN? Its possible that he is, but I have seen some evidence that he has done some good stuff (pressing for more action, etc.).

Posted by Patrick | December 4, 2006 4:28 PM

Marshall: "[McCarthy is] basically saying wrecking ball is second-best, not first-best."

I disagree with this because McCarthy writes, "More importantly, even with Bolton performing heroically, the UN was still a menace." I think it is safe to assume that McCarthy would prefer to eliminate the "menace." His actual suggestion is that we "marginalize the UN," presumably because he recognizes that eliminating the UN is not feasible.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | December 4, 2006 9:43 PM

James Traub's recent book on Kofi Annan provides an amazing and brilliant account of what a disaster Bolton has been for US policy goals at the UN. His demands for over a hundred last-minute changes to the proposed post-millennium summit reform document in September 2005 had the effect of opening up the field to all the hardline third-world dictatorships which didn't want any reform at the UN. They had been going along with the changes because they were afraid of being blamed for the failure of a document that also would have contained important pro-third-world statements on security council expansion and so forth. But with Bolton's idiocy, it was clear that the US, not they, would be blamed for any failures. The effect of his bombastic diplomatic nudnikheit was to give power to countries like Cuba and Algeria, which didn't want any changes on the UN Human Rights Council, or any of the other reforms which the US had been pressing for.

Bolton isn't just a "hardliner" or a UN-hater. He's an incompetent diplomat. He should never be given a foreign-policy job again.

Posted by brooksfoe | December 4, 2006 11:17 PM

I hate to say this, because it goes against everything I believe in as a Citizen. But I could tell from the beginning that even the W Administration wasn't serious about getting Bolton confirmed. If they had, they would have dragged him to the barber to get a short, crisp haircut and to have the mustache shaved off.

Again, I hate to have to say it. But there is no way the guy was going to be taken seriously by anyone sitting in the Senate hearing chamber wagging that child molester mustache. This isn't 1895 and serious me don't have mustaches. They just don't.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | December 5, 2006 9:33 AM

By the way, was the item that floated around a year ago about how Bolton might have improperly used NSA intecepts against his political opponents ever confirmed?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | December 5, 2006 2:29 PM