Does anyone have anything good to say to say about Bolton? I realize that my information comes mostly through liberal sources, but no one seems to think this appointment is a good thing. Here’s a sampling of letters from the NY Times. Even the 2 out of 6 who are pro-Bolton have nothing good to say about the UN. Their argument is that the UN is so bad that it doesn’t matter who we send or if he’s a big jerk also.
Bush’s reasoning for a recess apointment makes no sense. He carps about up or down votes, but won’t take the measures needed to get them. Like releasing the relevant docs, required by law, that were asked as part of Bolton’s hearings. Given the history, keeping executive privilege is clearly more important to this administration that anything (except making the rich richer I suppose).
Overall, I don’t know a lot about Bolton. I don’t mind if he’s an asshole frankly. What I mind is that he is being appointed to a post he is probably unqualified for, by appointment process, temprement, and past history. I like this post and this one by The Poorman, who seems to a know a sliver more than myself.
I like the Maher line.
I think he’s more like a doctor who has actually killed many patients, and should have had his license revoked long ago. It’s a wonder he is even allowed to practice medicine (diplomacy), but all his frat buddies are in power and are bringing him along.
Bill Maher said on TV tonight about appointing Bolton to the UN, “it’s like hiring a nanny who hates kids.”
Astute observation on the “up or down vote” thing.
I do think Bolton is technically “qualified,” becasue he’s been a diplomat for thirty years, and he’s worked for the UN before, but that doesn’t mean he’s the right man for the job. It’s like a doctor who finished dead last in Med School- he’s qualified to see patients, but not the most qualified, and Bush should have chosen the most qualified person.