Explaining Boltonmania
 |
Steven Taylor | Tuesday, November 14, 2006 |
Sean Hackbarth does a pretty good job of explaining the basic appeal of Bolton. Although, I have to wonder how True Believers will react to being compared to Ned Lamont boosters! :)
About the Author: Steven is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Troy University in Alabama. He is the author of the book Voting Amid Violence: Electoral Democracy in Colombia, forthcoming from University of New England Press and the contributing editor on Colombia to the Library of Congress’s Handbook of Latin American Studies. He has his PhD from the University of Texas in Austin and a BA from the University of California at Irvine.
He does most of his blogging at PoliBlog, which he started in February 2003.
- None Found
- Berlin Wall Fall: 20 Years Later
- Oklahoma High Schoolers Are Very Familiar With George Washington, Thanks
- Was Fort Hood Massacre ‘Terrorism’?
- Making Jobs More Expensive
- House Trades Freedom for Health Coverage, Senate’s Move
- Hasan a Muslim First, American Second?
- OTB Caption JamTM
- Taking “No” As Iran’s Answer
- Update on the Fort Hood Massacre
- OTB Latenight – Soft Cell
I like Bolton too. In a body that doesn't respect the U.S. and is a means for a piddly nation like Namibia or the Sudan to be on par with the U.S. an aggressive ambassador is refreshing.
However, any U.N. ambassador, even Bolton isn't "vital" to the war (to use the words at Stop the ACLU). Politics is the art of the possible. With Bush's political capital low he'll need to spend it on fights that earn him a better return--a federal judge or two for example.
What is really wonderful about Bolton is Bush used him to explain that the UN is really not America's Friend, but functions completely in its own self interest; not the interest of sovereign countries.
The future Americans now understand this and it looks like America has a future in the world and dealing with other countries.
Of course he didn't find WMD per Plame's instructions, but that's all CIA.
Sean,
For what it is worth, were I in the Senate, I would likely vote for Bolton's confirmation. However, were I President, I wouldn't waste my time on this fight.
Ultimately that is what this all boils down to.
Steven, I agree. There are bigger fish. Especially since the U.N. ambassador makes new at most once a year. If Bolton's the linchpin to winning the war American strategy is really screwed up.
Comments are Closed
