I really doubt Bolton was originally nominated as a sacrificial lamb to appease the black helicopter base. Rather, the administration likely hoped to sneak him by the opposition while we were distracted with Social Security - like they have so much egregious legislation on the domestic front, from limits on class action to handouts to MBNA.

Fortunately, realists had a healthy reserve of foreign policy experts that weren't engaged in the Social Security debate, and they appear to have effectively mobilized against Bolton's nomination. Bolton is a fight we must win, for the sake of our international credibility as well as our national security interest in seeing a reborn, revitalized UN. But it is also the first step to shoring up our national security bona fides.

Rather than a sop, if Bush retreats on Bolton it will be just one more sign of the one-way nature of his prized "loyalty." He demands absolute loyalty from his underlings, but cuts them loose at the first sign of trouble.

That we are making the case, even if only to elites, is a good sign, an incredibly positive first step. We can win this must-win fight. If Louisville can come back from 20 points down, surely the Democrats can do the same on national security issues.

“...but CBS News is getting serious.”

I believe that this is the same CBS that employs Dan Rather. He tried to destroy President Bush with the phony documents. Pamela Falk is a professor at the liberal dominated City University of New York . How much credibility does CBS have at the White House?

David Thomson - As just a random fellow that follows politics, I am hearing many Republican criticisms of John Bolton. Look at Senator Domenici if you want an example. Senators Lugar and Hagel obviously feel like they've been put in a bad situation with the nomination, with the administration pressuring them to vote for Bolton out of loyalty instead of on his merits.

The Dan Rather comment is a completely extraneous attempt to change the conversation. If you have a real reason to doubt CBS' reporting, I would love to hear it.

On a different note, I've been impressed by your recognition of the importance of saving/strengthening the UN. I'm still not exactly sure why you think that Bolton is the right man to do it, but that is a much different debate than the broader question of the importance of international institutions.

“As just a random fellow that follows politics, I am hearing many Republican criticisms of John Bolton. Look at Senator Domenici if you want an example. Senators Lugar and Hagel obviously feel like they've been put in a bad situation with the nomination...”

Republican criticisms? These Republican senators have admittedly expressed their reservations regarding John Bolton’s nomination. But one needs to read between the lines. They are simply demanding that Bolton distances himself from the more extreme interpretations of his past statements. This is something that he should be able to do. Once again, you must also remember that Bolton only needs 10 votes (of 18) to win confirmation.

Why do I like John Bolton so much? This is how some of his enemies perceive him:

“Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:26 pm    Post subject: JINSA ZIONIST OPERATIVE JOHN BOLTON JUST NAMED AS US AMBASSA

JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) Zionist extremist operative John Bolton has just been named as US Ambassador to the United Nations (UN)”

Hey, with enemies like that---John “JINSA ZIONIST OPERATIVE” Bolton must be doing something right. How can I not support him? You show me someone who opposes Bolton and in many, if not most instances, I will point to an Israel basher.

What puzzles me is the 'up yours' attitude this nomination represents, much like the nomination of Wolfowitz to head the World Bank.

Is Bush that arrogant and indifferent to the opinion of others, including leaders of his own party? Or is he that clueless and lacking control over the decisions he makes, or pretends to make, on a daily basis?

The video footage of Bush 'explaining' why he nominated Wolfowitz ('the Pentagon is a large organization; the World Bank is a large organization') reveals an individual who lacks the simplest understanding of what he's doing.

Can Bush be that ignorant?

I can't think of one Republican who is opposing Bolton. I sure wish that CBS lady Falk would name some names. I think she means Bolton is receiving a lot of partisan criticism from Democrats; really she is trying to manufacture controversy as per usual with CBS. As for those ambassadors - they are all de facto Democrats in the year 2005. Kinda like calling Hillary a Republican because she was the president of the college Republicans and a Goldwater fan back in the 1960's.
I will admit this: Steve is doing an A-1 job of stirring up the pot. Of course, if someone did that in 25%+ of UN member police states the security forces would put an end to that activity quickly.

Here is some info about the UN wanting to regulate the internet:

In a series of speeches over the last year, Zhao has suggested that the ITU could become involved in everything from security and spam to managing how Internet Protocol addresses are assigned. The ITU also is looking into some aspects of voice over Internet Protocol--VoIP--communications, another potential area for expansion.

"Countering spam is just one of many elements of protecting the Internet that include availability during emergencies and supporting public safety and law enforcement officials," Zhao wrote in December. Also, he wrote, the ITU "would take care of other work, such as work on Internet exchange points, Internet interconnection charging regimes, and methods to provide authenticated directories that meet national privacy regimes."

I guess there is no reason to believe, based on the previous UN God Complex behavior, that the UN would actually try to censor anything? Is anybody listening??

Dave and Rob,
You guys missed again. The full moon was a couple days ago.
Dave, you say if someone opposes Bolton he opposes Israel? Not only is that lunacy but it's close to a treasonous accusation. The day we start running our government decisions through Jerusalem you'll see that fabled sign in D.C., "Would the last American to leave its shores please bring the flag." I imagine if your dreams come true you'll use it to clean up the defecation that belabors your existence.
Rob, if Republicans don't agree with you you simply "de facto" them? I know in the last couple days I guessed you were in high school but I was off somewhat. In a couple years when they finally acknowledge your meager accomplishments and grant you admission to junior high , take some history, civics, and elementary logic classes.
You two get your brains rattled by 9-11? Loosened the woodwork and out you crawled.

"You show me someone who opposes Bolton and in many, if not most instances, I will point to an Israel basher."

I oppose Bolton and I support Israel :)
But seriously, stop harping on your ridiculous accusation of anti-Semitism (I posted this in another thread, but I'm hoping you'll actually see this somewhere). It is a baseless accusation and nowhere do you make the slightest effort to prove your point. If you can prove it, please go ahead. But if you can't, then don't say it. I'm sure it's probably offending to some people (not to me. When you say that it irritates me though). You can't just call people racists. That's not how it works.

Time to invent a Kerik-like nanny problem?

I had thought at first that Wolfowitz was going to be a sacrificial goat (err, lamb), but then came the Bolton nomination. It is, I suppose, possible that Bush actually thought this one through in such a way that he'll get Wolfowitz by tossing Bolton to the wolves. But I am doubtful. (for example: the Kerik affair. Bush really wanted Kerik to be approved, and really seemed to think he would be approved.)

"What puzzles me is the 'up yours' attitude this nomination represents...."

But the 'up yours' attitude isn't represented just by the Bolton nomination; it seems to be this Administration's reason for being. Just how long *can* this go on? and why? I am puzzled as well. Why set up this country as standing alone against the world? How is that going to benefit anyone?

This makes no sense.

It's been a very long time since I was young. I've lived through enough "history" to be thoroughly confused and upset to see it recurring.

Chuck, perhaps part of the answer lies in the very tightly controlled environment that Bush seems to live in. He really seems to see and hear no one who disagrees with him. Whatever disagreement he is aware of is clearly being filtered through his own people; he simply does not believe that we, the opposition, have any valid points because he never actually interacts with any of us.

He also seems to have an extremely low standard for measuring performance on the part of his people; actual achievement counts for little while loyalty is all.

Bolton’s nomination is wrong for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. If our troops are to be relieved of their burdens in any reasonable timeframe, international cooperation is needed. John Bolton is clearly the wrong person to work at the UN for that cooperation.

Even if reforming the UN were a higher foreign policy priority than the international war on terror, which of course it is not, John Bolton is still a poor choice.