Bolton quits as U.N. ambassador
Now, before you start screaming, I know Bolton was a guy who was always happy to insult Hamas and other terrorist groups from the microphone. That, however, it doesn't mean he's right for the job of UN Ambassador. In fact, as I've argued previously his blunt manner and anti-UN stance is exactly what makes him spectacularly wrong for the job. I means. is there anything more irrelevant than an ambassador who offends his host before he even starts the job?
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment