President Bush is right on the mark with his "recess appointment" of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. The opposition of congressional Democrats is nothing more than their continuing strident and highly partisan reaction to the ebbing of their power since the Reagan Revolution. They are abusing the "advise and consent" provision in a crass politcal gavotte that places their narrow voter rejected policies ahead of public interest. Far left senators, such as Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Chris Dodd and Charles Schumer are attempting to use the limited consent power to make de facto appointments.
They operate in oppositon of the will of the people, who, like it or not, made George Bush president by a convincing margin, and gave Bush more allies in Congress. His public mandate trumps any attempted usurption of power by any other elected individual or even a congressional cabal.
Unreasonable Democrat opposition disregards the needs of America, and the importance of having a person at the U.N. during these critical times. Sensitive international negotiations and the world fight against terrorism are more important than the petty partisan anxieties of the diminishing opposition.
In addition to the process, John Bolton is a good pick. Nothing in the prolonged, intense and sometimes vicious vetting process surfaced that would disqualify Bolton. The fact that accusations were limited to his management demeanor attests to the vacuous arguments of the senate Democrat leadership.
The facts that Bolton is aggressive and forceful, demanding of underlyings, and a sometimes harsh critic of the U.N., are all in his (and our) favor. The U.N. is rife with anti-American and anti democracy sentiments. It has been ravaged by monumental scandals that have risen to the very top leadership. If this was not an international body, some U.S. attorney would be issuing indictments about now. If Bolton turns out to be a hardliner for America, so be it. We do not need another Chamberlain-esque, pin-stripped, pale-pallard mildtoast.
Finally, this is one job where the president is entitled to having HIS person. The U.S. ambassador does not set policy, but only advocates. He is the eyes, ears and voice of the Executive Branch, not the spokesperson for the the minority malcontents in the Congress. To have it otherwise would cripple U.S. foreign policy.
It is stunning to see just how much damage a few senate Democrats will wreak on America in the name of their own partisan interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment