Tuesday, April 19, 2005

The Bolton Vote

Frank Gaffney has a column in today's Washington Times in which he lays out a strong case for the confirmation John Bolton as UN Ambassador:

John Bolton is eminently qualified. He has worked for years — including in the first Bush administration and through the current presidency, as well as the years between — on matters directly relevant to his future assignment. Even his critics acknowledge Mr. Bolton is deeply knowledgeable about the organization and reform of the U.N., coalition-building diplomacy and some of the most pressing problems confronting this country and the U.N. — notably, state-sponsorship of terror and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).


If Mr. Bolton is confirmed it may be the best thing to happen to the United State's relationship to the UN in decades.

The New York Times is reporting that Slow Jow Biden will ask that the vote on Bolton's confirmation be delayed. Is there anything that the Democrat's aren;t willing to obstruct. Has anyone considered the possibility that besides being over qualified for the job as ambassador, Mr. Bolton was the most likely nominee to be obstructed and opposed by the Dems, thus allowing Rove and company to paint the Dems as complete obstructionists, not just of judicial nominees but of everything this administration is trying to do? Of course the power hungry Dems have been more than willing to oblige the administration in the pointless obstruction.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.