... or is it, fools seldom differ? I always get those two mixed up.
Anyway, it appears Hunter over at DailyKos has the same opinion of soon-to-be-lame-duck U.N. ambassador John Bolton that I do:
Mostly, however, he's going to be ineffective -- and I expect given the visibility of the post, comically so. No, I'm not thinking Bolton is going to start any wars, any more than I think he's going to "reform" the ambassadors around him. There's not like there's any goodwill among the international community left to squander, so he can expect to be treated, by both friend and foe, with lazily shaded revulsion. They've been following the stories closer than any of us have. They know what they're getting. And, to be honest, John Bolton fits the studious non-diplomacy of George W. Bush like a furry glove. Short of nominating a horse wearing diapers to be his next U.N. Ambassador, I'm not sure how Bush could make his contempt for the international community any more clear.
Geez, two completely different bloggers who think John Bolton is going to be a completely ineffectual, loathsome prat. What are the odds of that?
1 comment:
I agree completely with you both -- I was also going to blog on Hunter's column.
All this crap about how Bolton will reform the UN. Give me a break -- why would they listen to this blowhard when neither Powell nor Rice can stand him?
I can hardly wait until Bolton's first speech -- will the cameras dare pan the assembly to show how many chairs are empty?
Post a Comment