Political Forecast

A group of anti-John Boltoners posts this video (obviously edited) where, among other things, he says there isn’t a United Nations. I’m gonna (gasp!) side with Chris on this one and say the man is a poor choice for United States ambassador to the UN.

I have been a staunch advocate for United Nations reform for the past several months. The oil-for-food scandal and the crisis in the Congo have troubled me a great deal, and I believe the UN has strayed far from its purpose, mandate and heart. I believe it has essentially become a place where European diplomats engage in America-bashing at the expense of true solution building.
However, a reformed and strong UN can have a position in world politics well through the 21st century. It is clear that, as traditional conflict becomes less likely and the world’s next wars will be fought against non-state actors like terrorists, it will require the united effort of nations to be victorious.
Proponents of Mr. Bolton have argued that a shakeup at the UN is not only good but necessary, and that it is in the United States’ interests to provide an ambassador who will question UN practice. I couldn’t agree more. However, an ambassador who believes that unilateral control of the world is an inevitability, that the world cannot be united in the quest for peace and that the United States is the only country that believes in what is right and good is not worthy of a mandate from our nation.
Read Mr. Bolton’s most notorious argument:

There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along.’

and ask yourself: Is that the voice of a reformer, or someone who has given up?