Tuesday, March 08, 2005


Stanley Kurtz in The Corner:

I wonder how Peter Beinart and TNR feel about the Bolton nomination. Apparently, the Democrats are planning a big confirmation battle. Do they think they'll gain anything by opposing a guy who puts America's interests first? Fighting Bolton is catering to the Democrat's base. Nothing could undermine the Democrat’s hawkish make-over than a big confirmation battle over Bolton. We’ve had Nancy Pelosi’s dovishness, Ted Kennedys call for an Iraq pull-out, the grilling of Condoleeza Rice, and now a big confirmation battle over John Bolton. (I know I've left out plenty, but who has time.) I can’t see how fighting Bolton is going to do anything but carve the Democrat’s dovish image even more deeply into stone.

Typical wingnut claptrap: Democrats just can't be serious about national security unless they acquiesce to every last item on Bush's agenda, which, with the nomination of the odious Bolton (more here and here), apparently includes further deconciliation with the UN (That's right, I invented a word.) Is it possible for these people to frame their arguments honestly?

As noted in the Salon article above, Bolton has been a bridge between the hardline neoconservatives and the dispensationalist Christian right, which is to say that he is the embodiment of all of this administration's bad foreign policy ideas.

Also, his haircut indicates extremely bad judgement.

No comments: