Yes sir. So says Captain Ed concerning the nomination of John Bolton while pointing to this Times story about this letter signed by "Seventy-six leading security policy practitioners" endorsing the Bolton nomination to UN Ambassador.
From the letter:
...Some retired diplomats suggest that Secretary Bolton's positions on various controversial arms control treaties should disqualify him from serving at the UN. Their criticism is misdirected. Mr. Bolton's views about each of these accords are identical to those of President Bush. While the signatories are certainly free to oppose the Administration's positions, their differences seem to be with a man twice elected by the American people to design and execute security policies, rather than with one of his most effective and articulate officials in advancing those policies.
We believe, moreover, that the Bush Administration's stances on such treaties reflect a clear-eyed assessment of the real limits of diplomacy with nations that do not honor their commitments, that deliberately conceal their activities so as to defeat verification and that seek to use bilateral and multilateral agreements as instruments of asymmetric warfare against nations like the United States that abide by their treaty obligations. Far from being a disqualifier, this view is an eminently sensible and responsible one in light of past experience.
In short, Secretary Bolton's formidable grasp of the issues of the day, his exemplary previous service to our country and the confidence President Bush reposes in him will make him an outstanding and highly effective representative to the United Nations...
Says Captain Ed:
...The United Nations is a disgrace. The US should not send someone to Turtle Bay that would make the current corrupt and incompetent regime comfortable. We need to make them as uncomfortable as possible. John Bolton will not shrink from that task, and he will demand that any UN-negotiated treaties and sanctions carry verification and substantial penalties for failure. Had the UN not transformed itself into the League of Nations for the past fourteen years and allowed the permanent members of the Security Council to be bought off with Iraqi oil futures, then Bolton's nomination would not be necessary. The UN will get the US ambassador it has plainly earned.
Yes.
Solomon,
Appreciate the abundance of posts you are becoming a more prolific poster the past week especially. Great post. Captain Ed is great. Wasn't there some controversy as well regarding Canadian posters that read a report he published on some Canadian scandal?
Also the Lipstadt post is excellent as well and while if I were her I WOULD NOT have appeared with that hateful miserable soul the Wash Post reporter's points are valid as well.
I suppose it would be like people constantly accusing you of being a criminal and you are not. You prove you innocence once, twice, thrice etc... and no matter what you do you keep getting accused of it, double jeopardy aside here for theoretical purposes, after a while you can't spend your entire life doing this.
The Deniers are relentless commited to their miserable goal in life and the attention it can garner them as well. Lipstadt didn't see it as necessary to provide this miserable **** any more attention that he did not deserve.
Furthermore, the W Post guy minimizes the danger of this human being and those who are openly and secretly attracted to him eiuther through unfotunate curiosity from the publicity he garners or for ammo they seek.
Hey thanks. I point to the Canada issue in the post below this one. Interesting.
BTW, Squaring the Globe has a post on CQ's traffic here. Yikes.