March 14, 2005

THE PRO AND THE ANTI:

BOLTONISM (Samantha Power, 2005-03-14, The New Yorker)

Barring a sudden and improbable outbreak of independent judgment in the Senate, John Bolton will soon be confirmed as President Bush’s Ambassador to the United Nations, an institution he openly disdains. “It is a President’s prerogative to name his ambassadors,” Secretary-General Kofi Annan meekly told reporters last week. When he was asked whether he saw the nomination as a hostile act, he laughed and said, “I’m not sure I want to be drawn on that one.” At U.N. headquarters, staffers walked around in a daze of disbelief. They had hoped that Bush’s congenial European trip—combined with the U.N.’s moves toward internal reform and its indispensable role in pulling off the Iraqi elections—would spawn a U.S.-U.N. détente. Then came word that Bush was sending them Bolton.

“I’m pro-American,” Bolton says, as if that required him to be anti-world.


Here's a question: if, as the Left keeps telling us, the whole world hates, resents, dislikes, fears, or whatevers us, then isn't it fair to say that to be pro-World is to be anti-American?

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 14, 2005 5:40 PM
Comments

Here's another question: If the left keeps harping on how the world hates, resents, dislikes, fears or whatever us, isn't it creating a situation where the United States may actually say "Fine, if that's what you want I'm the boy to give it to you," and give the world something truly real to fear? Not the fantasies a group of self-important windbags have created in order to puff up their own egos regarding how daring they are "Challenging Power!", but something real to fear? Such as a USA that actually doesn't give a whoop-de-do?

I'm not predicting, just thinking out loud (so to speak).

Posted by: Mikey at March 15, 2005 8:57 AM
« SURGICAL BYPASS: | Main | HOW YA' GONNA STOP THEM FROM INVESTING IN THE WORLD'S ONLY RELIABLE ECONOMY? »