Bolton at the U.N.

Neal Boortz has a blurb about the Bolton brouhaha with which I concur:

So why do Democrats have their panties in a bunch over Bolton's appointment? It has nothing to do with the reasons they've given. Stories about abusing subordinates and manipulating intelligence aren't why the left opposes Bolton. Rather, it's because Bolton is not an internationalist UN-worshiper. He believes the United States is a sovereign nation and the world's only superpower. This irritates leftists like Kofi Annan and Teddy Kennedy. They believe the United Nations should be the world's only superpower, with taxing authority and military control over its member nations.

Everything points to the probability that John Bolton will stand up to the U.N. and do whatever he can to right some of the many wrongs over there. But even if he could singlehandedly clean up the egregious corruption, eradicate the ineppititude and nullify the tangled webs of international treaties that threaten sovereignty, there would still be a U.N. that wants to be the only national superpower, with taxing authority and military control over its member nations to whom we will continue to contribute billions and billions of dollars annually.

It would still be an institution whose main unstated purpose is to redistribute our wealth to undeserving Marxist dictatorships. It's the home of international socialism and as such is a waste of our time, space, money and consideration.

Maybe Ambassador Bolton will be the kind of leader we need at that corrupt body. Maybe he can insure that the "Food for Oil" investigation isn't just forgotten like the Sandy burglar affair. Maybe he'll be able to slow down the bureaucratic creep toward global influence and entangling treaties. Maybe. Only time will tell.

Still, if nothing else, it's good to see the flummoxed reaction of the left to his recessed appointment.