ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Thursday, July 27, 2006

The Next Great Failure for the Moonbats

will be their attempt to block John Bolton's nomination process for Ambassador to the UN. Here's Christy" I'm a Moonbat and I'm okay" Hardin Smith on the subject:

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be holding hearing(s) beginning today on the formal confirmation process for John Bolton to be the US Ambassador to the UN.
What, you say? Isn’t he already our UN Ambassador? Well yes, at the moment, via a recess appointment by George Bush when the Foreign Relations Committee pretty much threw up their hands in disgust at Bolton and Bush the last time around.

But this time, the Bush Administration is counting on the mess they have made of foreign policy, the nasty conflagration between Israel and Lebanon, the Kim Jong Il North Korea get a UN Post for Free card, and a whole host of other "look over there, something shiny" issues to slip Bolton in under the radar. Mainly, I think they are just hoping that no one is watching and that they’ve worn Congress down.

Well, they would be wrong. A LOT of bloggers have been working their butts off on this issue, and I wanted to bring a round-up of some of the latest information from people who are much more experts on this subject than I am, so we can all be more informed this morning before Bolton’s testimony begins.

– is a good place to start on why the Bolton nomination should be…erm..stopped.

– Steve Clemons has a great round-up post on HuffPo with lots and lots of useful links. Steve also has a piece on how the Bush Administration is pushing Jewish groups to support Bolton "with the arm-twisting innuendo that in this time of crisis in the Middle East, American Jews need to line up behind the guy Jesse Helms said ‘is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world.’" (Am I the only one that finds it creepy to phrase things in this over-the-top-evangelical-revival-tent style to American Jewish groups?)

– Sen. Chris Dodd is promising a "bruising battle" over the Bolton nomination. (And the Bolton photo on the MSNBC website is particularly amusing as well.) Sen. Russ Feingold is also not happy with Bolton, and has raised the word filibuster, or so I hear.
When I was in college, I worked for an NGO at the UN. I’ve been in the General Assembly Hall, the Security Council Chambers and all over the building, and I’ve met a number of the people who have dedicated their lives to striving toward peaceful solutions first, a commitment to human rights for all people around our globe, and a compassion for those who are caught in the crossfire on conflict and global disaster. I have personally met two US Ambassadors to the UN, one in the George H.W. Bush years, and one in the Clinton years — and both were thoughtful, considerate, accomplished and diplomatic. (I don’t say this is a boost to me, but by way of comparison to Bolton, whose demanding and gruff personality makes Jean Kirkpatrick look cuddly.)

They've got no clue about how to pick their battles, do they?

I mean, Ambassador to the UN is about the most meaningless job in the world - and for good reason. (Unless you're a jihadist under fire, I guess...)

And if they think that the body politic in the US is going to get concerned over the fact that Bolton is a straight-shooter who doesn't pay homage to the bullshit machinations at the UN, they'll find out how wrong they are... Most voters have been clamoring for someone like Bolton in that slot for some time. If only we had someone like him there in the '90s, perhaps Saddam wouldn't have been able to starve his people and enrich himself and the French at the same time.

A couple of points about Christy. It's interesting that she actually worked for an NGO at the UN. (I'd be curious to find out which NGO, but I doubt she'll disclose that). I think it's interesting in that when she was in college and wanted to "change the world," she decided the UN would be the best place. Is she that daft?

Second, in this post she mentions her admiration for Cox & Forkum (on our blogroll since ARC's inception). I find this hard to believe, since the authors of Cox & Forkum subscribe to the political philosophy of Objectivism (aka Ayn Rand). Their editorial cartoons are great, I agree with Christy on that. But they are more often than not slamming the UN, the Dhimmitude of the Left, and liberals in particular. Yes, they often take their shots at social conservatives, but much of it is deserved.

For example, does she think this cartoon is funny?

Or this one? this?

I mean, does she not "get" these cartoons? Or does she just like laughing at the idiocy of the Left's positions?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler