I'm not the biggest supporter of Bush by far (as has been well-documented here). But let's face it: partisan Democrats - and that's what they've been exactly - have been pretty silly to hold up a United Nations appointment without a simple yes/no vote.
I can see a rationale for stalling on something more important, if there's serious questions about a candidate's eligibility... but not on this one.
That said, I don't like how Bush is giving the United Nations some kind of special importance when it really has none. It was a brilliant idea in concept but in execution it's been one bungle after another ever since its inception. It would have been more ballsy to simply NOT appoint an ambassador on that basis alone, and hold out until Koffi Annan and the other powers-that-be at the U.N. got their act together. That would have been the far better thing to do over the long run.
But hey, I'm just a guy with a blog... what do I know?
0 comments:
Post a Comment