Much Ado Over Bolton?

... anyone on the left who thinks that Bolton is going to go in there and ruin the UN hasn't been paying much attention, either. Pardon me if I also think that claims Bolton is going to destroy the UN are a touch, shall we say, overwrought. The UN is flawed, but any changes Bolton might institute will be minor. You want to change the UN- tell Congress. They pay the damned bills.

So, to sum things up, I really don't care other than that I think a President should have his nominees confirmed. I would rather he nominate someone else, but it won't matter. In six months this will not even be an issue other than in hysterical MoveOn.Org fund-raising e-mails. I have complete faith in the capacity of the United Nations to chew up and spit out whoever we send there.

And while we are on the topic, I have mentioned that I think the UN is flawed. Absolutely. Part of the problem is structural and a reflection of the member's self-interest, as I mentioned above.

It's an interesting point to suggest that it doesn't matter who the US sends to the UN as its ambassador because of the structural and procedural problems with the UN itself. However, the US needs someone who is strong enough to reflect the US view at the UN and to demand change from within.

Congress can and should act to force reform from the outside - it does pay more than 20% of the bills at the UN - but reform has to come from within as well. In other words, the UN needs all the reform that the US can muster, and getting someone who will have the willpower to see that task through is a necessary component. Bolton appears to have that ability.