Main | New Website>>

Main | Mumbai Blasts>>

Main | Allegations of fraud stain Mexican presidential el...>>

Main | The Infidel Bloggers Alliance>>

Main | Will the DLC break off to form its own party?>>

Main | I knew something like this had to exist somewhere ...>>

Main | China and North Korea>>

Main | Moralistic Libertarians>>

Main | Democratic Libertarianism>>

Main | Update>>

Sunday, July 23, 2006 | 1:56 PM

Posted by

A couple of days old, apologies.

Senator George Voinavich, a Republican from Ohio who has actually stood up against the Republican leadership on a couple of key issues, recanted his opposition to Bolton as the ambassador to the UN in a Washington Post editorial.
Ambassador Bolton's appointment expires this fall when the Senate officially recesses. Should the president choose to renominate him, I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists -- and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort -- than to drag out a possible renomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted to lead our nation at the United Nations at a time when we are working on these historic objectives.
Funny, he didn't seem to be bothered about that two years ago.

Even more puzzling is this, inserted seemingly out of context into the middle of the article:
The deteriorating situation in the Middle East cannot be ignored. The terrorist organization Hezbollah has all but formally declared war on Israel, taking Israeli prisoners and launching more than 1,000 rockets into Israel over the past week.
The US, including Bolton, has actually opposed UN involvement in the Mideast situation, making me further wonder whether he actually has any idea what he's talking about.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home