The Seattle P-I has an editorial today on President Bush’s recess appointment of John Bolton to U.N. Ambassador. Unwittingly, the P-I has demonstrated the biggest flaw of leftist foreign policy.

The P-I has two criticisms of the Bolton appointment. First, according to the P-I, Bolton is a bad choice because he will have "prickly relationships with his colleagues at the United Nations" which "will make consensus-building that much more difficult."

This criticism is intellectually dishonest. It is nothing more than griping about President Bush's foreign policy. It is abundantly clear that President Bush thinks the United Nations as an organization is dysfunctional and an impediment to progress. Reform of the United Nations is desperately needed for the good of all humanity. We do not need a representative there who embraces and enables the flawed culture of corruption at the United Nations. President Bush wants a representative who opposes the status quo and pushes for change.

Had he been elected President, John Kerry would have undoubtedly appointed a different type of person to be his Ambassador at the United Nations. He would have wanted someone there who would have been chummy and comfortable with the various crooks, thugs, nepotistic incompetents, and out-and-out villains who dominate the United Nations. The P-I probably would prefer such a person – they endorsed Kerry for President after all.

The United States’ foreign policy, however, should not be crafted to make scoundrels happy – it should be to advance America's interests in the world.

Secondly, the P-I faults Bolton because he doesn’t have a bipartisan consensus – "Bolton's recess appointment will be one more reference point for critics of the administration -- another symbol that bipartisan support is sought only when critics agree with the president."

Somebody should tell the P-I editorial writers that “when critics agree with the president" they are not critics – they are supporters. Anyway, why would the President seek bipartisan "support" from people who disagree with him? It makes sense for the President to cobble together sufficient votes to get his programs enacted without expanding the scope of support to the point that the political costs are exorbitant. How much would you have to give Senator Patty Murray anyway to get her to agree with a Bush man at the United Nations?

Furthermore, this second complaint is disingenuous. They whine that Bolton doesn't have bipartisan support. Let me translate: he won't be effective because the Democrats in the Senate don’t support him. If bipartisan support was helpful for him to do his job, however, aren't the Democrats hurting him and by extension America by opposing him? Of course not, it is the opposition party’s duty to oppose – they are under no obligation to vote for anything or anyone a President wants that they do not agree with. But that doesn’t make minority opposition a disqualifier for government programs or appointments. The P-I, and their fellow leftists, need to reread their dictionary definition of democracy – it means majority not minority rule.

In the final summary, the left's complaint with Bolton is that he is not "nice." That is the biggest flaw of leftist foreign policy: it is all predicated on being "nice." Be nice to brutal thugs who oppress their people. Be nice to crooks that steal and leave their people impoverished. Be nice to self-important bureaucratic blowhards who make things worse in the world rather than better. Be nice to the people who hate us and want to kill us for the very reason we have freedom.

Making "nice" our top priority has been (and would be again) a national disaster. History has taught us to be nice when we can, but always be firm when we must. John Bolton is the right man for the job at the United Nations.
- posted by Thomas @ 1:25 PM