, 2007
| Over 2 Million Served |




Home | Notes
Archives | Search
Links | About

Julia Gorin
The America Show
Episode 4
Jesus and Mordy
Watch Video Now


Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco
by Burt Prelutsky

America Alone
by Mark Steyn


The CRO Store




Keep Bolton, Can Kofi
by J. F. Kelly, Jr. [writer] 8/2/06

John Bolton has a thick white mustache which almost conceals his infrequent attempts at smiling and a scowl sometimes darkens his expression. America’s often maligned ambassador to the United Nations has been a frequent critic of the world body and he has seldom minced words in criticizing it. These attributes have earned him the condemnation of liberals like Senators Joseph Biden, Chris Dodd and Barbara Boxer. Combined with his intelligence and ability to speak with clarity, they also make him an ideal choice for the job.

J.F. Kelly, Jr.

J.F. Kelly, Jr. is a retired Navy Captain and bank executive who writes on current events and military subjects. He is a resident of Coronado, California. [go to Kelly index]

Democratic opposition to Bolton’s nomination and an ensuing filibuster last year blocked Senate confirmation of this able diplomat and administrator. President Bush therefore used a recess appointment to give him the job anyway, much to the dismay of liberals and UN groupies who think that he is too abrasive for the post. There is a term for the sort of character assassination process that Senate confirmation hearings have become. It’s called “Borking”, after Robert Bork, the learned and highly qualified judge whose nomination to the U. S. Supreme Court was blocked, not on the basis of qualifications, but rather because of his perceived judicial philosophy. Judge Bork also has a stern demeanor and a name that critics liked to pronounce disdainfully, almost like a belch. Like Bolton he was demonized on the basis of values and personality rather than qualifications for the job.

George W. Bush, for all his shortcomings, stands by his principles and his choices. His choice in Bolton was a good one. Ambassador Bolton may not be the most affable diplomat at the UN, but he is the right man for the job. His responsibilities, after all, do not include pleasing the world without borders crowd or the foreign or domestic critics of Bush’s foreign policies. Rather they are limited to pursuing the policies of the government he represents. This he has done admirably, so admirably, in fact, that one of his original detractors, Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio), changed his mind about him and now feels that it is urgent that he be confirmed by the Senate to continue at his post.

It should go without saying that the chief of state should be given wide latitude in selecting ambassadors to represent the nation’s foreign policies. His selections should not have to be subject to a vetting process by the opposition party in the Senate. It is disappointing, then, that there is even talk now of blocking Bolton’s confirmation again for a job that he is already performing with distinction. The man has demonstrated his competence by winning support for two Security Council resolutions condemning Iran and North Korea for pursuing nuclear weapons programs.

It’s unfortunate that the same degree of scrutiny cannot be focused on the qualifications and performance of the UN’s secretary general and his bloated staff of bureaucrats. Kofi Annan, in my view, is clearly not the man for the job. Performance, not good intentions and kindly demeanor, is the determiner here and his tenure has been marked not only by failures to resolve anything of consequence but by massive scandal, corruption and nepotism. He recently added to his lengthy list of disqualifiers by precipitously accusing Israel of intentionally blowing up a UN outpost in Lebanon and killing UN observers. This was a gigantic leap to a conclusion in the absence of any proof that it was deliberate. Israel insisted that it was an accident and apologized for the error.

This raises a larger issue regarding the purpose and utility of UN observers and peacekeeping forces. Exactly what have they accomplished so far in the Middle East? Well, exactly nothing. As a former Israeli official recently stated, Israel would welcome UN peacekeeping forces if their presence would aid in disarming the terrorists and assisting the Lebanese government in getting control of their own country. But if their purpose is to merely observe the conflict and stand idly by while Hezbollah continues to fire rockets into Israeli villages, then their presence is not only unnecessary but is counterproductive because they will be in the way. Can you imagine France, with its obvious anti-Israeli bias, heading up such a force?

Past performance of UN peacekeeping teams has been unimpressive. More often than not, they have been in the way. Only a few of the UN member states beside the United States, Britain and Australia have any appetite for actually engaging terrorists. Their under-funded armed forces are primarily for show. Diplomacy is their only option. They have neither the power nor the resolve to back up UN resolutions.

Why, then, are U.S. tax dollars still being spent to support this pathetic organization that is all form and no substance? That’s the question the Senate should be debating instead of John Bolton’s qualifications. CRO

copyright 2006 J. F. Kelly, Jr.



Apple iTunes
Apple iTunes
Apple iTunes
Apple iTunes
Apple iTunes
Applicable copyrights indicated. All other material copyright 2002-2007 CaliforniaRepublic.org