UN vs. Bolton vs. America

So here’s my theory on why Bush wants Bolton as the ambassador to the UN (because I know you look here for deep political insight).

Clearly John Bolton would not reform or “shake up” the UN, as the neo-cons publicly claim. One angry and unlikable man cannot reorganize a multinational assembly. Democrats and sensible Republicans, on the other hand, are focused on the fact that he’ll further discredit the US and alienate other countries. This is true, but it’s of little consequence to Bush and his people.

He’d really be there to talk shit on the UN, and attempt to discredit it in the eyes of Americans. Most people here are uncomfortable with the thought of the UN frowning on our country. After all, it’s one of the loftiest and most idealistic concepts in politics, even if it does have some problems. But if there were someone who would say the UN is useless, powerless, and scandal-ridden… well, would anyone really care if they didn’t like us? Would anyone care if we ignored their rules?


I’ve said it before, but I’d like to reiterate: the neo-cons are waging a war with the left and “mobilizing their base” with language and words. It doesn’t matter if the words are true, because if enough anti-UN Bolton quotes slip into the media, then they will become apart of the neo-cons’ mythology of how the world works. In fact, even if he’s not nominated, part of the work has already been done.

His nomination is just another maneuver by the Bush peeps to remove public criticism and checks on the regime’s power.