Some Say Selection of War Proponent Could Undercut Improved U.S. RelationsWhat improved relations are they talking about? After Bush and Condi made their "fence-mending" trips to Europe, and then joining Europe in its negotiations with Iran, Europe has still not contributed anything to Iraq, refuses to label Hezbullah a terrorist organization - despite the fact that aside from al Qaeda they have killed more Americans than anyone else over the last 25 years, and are now planning to sells arms to China that would be used against US troops in any confrontation with Taiwan. It seems for Europe, "improved relations" are when the US does what Europe wants.
Mark Steyn, meanwhile does an excellent job of describing Europe's and the Left's opposition to Bolton as Ambassador to the UN.
The New York Times wondered what Mr Bush's next appointment would be:
'Donald Rumsfeld to negotiate a new set of Geneva conventions? Martha Stewart to run the Securities and Exchange Commission?'
Okay, I get the hang of this game. Sending John Bolton to be UN ambassador is like ...putting Sudan and Zimbabwe on the Human Rights Commission. Or letting Saddam's Iraq chair the UN conference on disarmament. Or sending a bunch of child-sex fiends to man UN operations in the Congo. And the Central African Republic. And Sierra Leone, and Burundi, Liberia, Haiti, Kosovo, and pretty much everywhere else. All of which happened without the UN fetishists running around shrieking hysterically. Why should America be the only country not to enjoy an uproarious joke at the UN's expense?
No comments:
Post a Comment