I liked Anne Applebaum's defense of John Bolton as the choice to be our U.N. Ambassador, especially this passage:
He has been skeptical of U.N. peacekeeping operations, skeptical of the U.S. obligation to pay its U.N. dues, skeptical of just about everything, really, to do with the United Nations.All of which makes him an ideal candidate to be America's U.N. ambassador. Bolton -- whom I've met but don't know well -- is blunt, which is an advantage in an institution where words are more often used to disguise meanings than to elucidate. He is unafraid of being disliked, which will be an advantage in a place where everyone will dislike him. In the past he has been unafraid of arguing his points, even in Europe, where they are deeply unpopular. Most of all, though, Bolton, who has been writing about the United Nations for decades, is one of the few people in public life willing to draw the distinction between what the United Nations actually is and what everybody would like it to be.
Heaven knows the U.N. needs more people like that.
The New York Sun had suggested this move two months ago, and toots their horn today. (via LGF)
UPDATE 3/10: Bob Tyrell may top them both with this:
Bolton has referred to North Korea as "a hellish nightmare" governed by a "tyrannical dictator." Ah, the lilt and substance of Moynihan and Kirkpatrick is about to be restored to the Security Council and the General Assembly. On another occasion, Bolton wrote that if the glass zoo on the East River that is U.N. headquarters "lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." I look forward to more of this kind of eloquence.Posted by dan at March 9, 2005 11:51 AM