A U.N. enemy representing U.S.?

[struggle4progress]

In the months since his re-election, President Bush has gone out of his way to repair relations with the international community, especially with Europe. So what message, the world is wondering, was Bush sending Monday when he appointed John Bolton, U.N.-basher in chief, to be U.S. ambassador to the world body? <snip>

Beyond his stated views on the United Nations -- and more generally his low opinion of all things multilateral -- Bolton's general undiplomatic demeanor is a profound mismatch with the attributes usually associated with an American ambassador to the United Nations. It is a singularly sensitive position that requires someone who plays well with others. Bolton does not; he tries instead to commandeer the sandbox. <snip>

So which is it? Has Bush charged Bolton with working to reform and strengthen the United Nations, or with working toward its destruction? Given his record, both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate should start with a presumption that Bolton is a U.N. enemy who got this nomination for precisely the latter reason.

Unless Bolton can make a powerful case that he and the White House support the United Nations and seek to help it work more effectively, he should be rejected. The Senate should not accept complicity in an effort to destroy the only institution in this troubled world that is capable of resolving conflict without resorting to arms.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5283416.html