Bishy on Bolton
Bishul Akum, house moron at www.godolhador.blogspot.com, appears eager to reveal that he knows as little about world affairs as he does about Jewish theology. He has submitted a guest post on Michael Bolton and because I did challenge him to write it in the first place, I've agreed to publish it. Here it is, followed by my response: (All errors of logic, grammar and spelling are SIC)
The recent appointment of John Bolton has great significance. First of all for those who don't like the recess loophole Clinton did it many times. But not to stray I am quite pleased.
The UN has become a caricature of an organization. Where do we start? Is it that they had no problem having a Nazi be Secretary General.Or the excellent job they have done in keeping the world in order.They really handled the Pol Pot holocaust well and they did a bang up job in Namibia and Angola.Rwanda was a smashing success and let's not forget the Iran Iraq war.
This bastion of progressive movements through out the world had traditionally been a pro USSR satellite and recently has become a haven for all brutal 3rd world dictatorships who are progressive in name only.How are countries look Syria,Libya and Sudan on the human
rights council?The security council is open to every regime sans Israel.What do we have here?Not to mention rampant corruption such as Kofi Annan's son oil for food sham.What happened to all the aid North Korea was given?The inmates are running the asylum!
President Bush aware of this craziness has appointed a very cabale ambassador to this post John Bolton.as Jews we should be tickled pink.To quote the New Jersey Jewish News Many in the pro-Israel community are backing John Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations because they consider him a great friend and defender of the Jewish state who is willing to shake things up in defense of Israel.
Bolton played a major role in getting the UN to repeal its odious "Zionism is Racism" resolution when he was a State Department official in the Bush 41 administration, and he shares Israel's view that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat. Besides that why does the US need a panderer in such a position?To get our heads knocked in everyday.Maybe Michael Moore would off been more suitable.
Granted sometimes we need diplomacy but as Bolton put it "it would be great if the UN were 10 stories shorter " Take no prisoners John!
Well, it seems Bishy has been doing sit-ups under parked cars again.
First off, no one objects to the president making a recess appointment. It's legal, and not unprecedented. And, also, no one disagrees that the UN is a corrupt almost useless alliance of dictators, petty thugs, and others who are often too weak-willed to fight when it's necessary. Though we do appreciate Bishy's little attempt to re-discover America on our behalf, none of his breathless discoveries are exactly new to those of us who reside on the left-middle part of the American political spectrum.
The objection to Bolton, simply, is that sending him to the UN is rather like sending me to a Vatican Synod. Bolton has about much faith in the UN as I do in the Catholic Church, so what possible good will it do to send him to the UN? Who among the other representatives will trust him? Or attempt to work with him? Or rely on his judgment? Or view his presence as an act of American good faith?
I can agree that the UN is a brocho l'vatala but if you're going to go to the bother of sending an ambassador in the first place, why wouldn't you send someone who at least stands a chance of being able to get something done?
