There is an article on Blogs for Bush about the Democrats having a painful lesson over the recess appointment of John Bolton as Ambassador to the U.N. Especially after they read this statement from Kofi Annan:
Secretary-General Kofi Annan said today that he looked forward to working with John Bolton, appointed today by President Bush as United States Ambassador to the United Nations. “We will welcome him at a time when we are in the midst of major reform,” he told reporters.
“I do know Ambassador Bolton and I’ve had dealings with him in the past. He’s very able and he’s very bright,” Mr. Annan added in response to questions…
Very able and very bright. But, wait a minute, the Democrats have been claiming that he is the worst possible candidate for the job. As Mark Noonan says:
How’s that? “He’s very able and he’s very bright”? I thought that he was the worst possible man we would send to the UN…could it be that our Democrats exaggerated a bit? Could it be that the UN will work with whomever we send up because, well, we’re the United States – the most powerful nation in human history and without us the UN is a completely worthless talk-shop? And given that our representation is vital to the existence of the UN, maybe it is good we send a critic of the UN up there in order to try and forge some reality and decency in an organization mired in corruption?
Nah. Can’t be that…it all must be part of some Evil Bush plot.
Rather than complaining about the President abusing power (which he isn’t)the obstructive Democrats should recognize that Bolton was appointed by the President five months ago, and it is sheer political opposition that has kept him from being appointed prior to this. The Senate has an obligation to advise and consent to the President’s appointments. They did not do that in the case of John Bolton.