After Bolton

It would be a waste of enormous talent and intellect not to employ John Bolton in some critical capacity in the Bush administration.  Bolton  is an extraordinary man but it's hard to know where Bush stands these days.  That said, there is much talk of his replacement. The New York Sun editorial speaks of it here;

There will be now a scramble to fill Mr. Bolton's shoes. Among those touted as potential successors are George Mitchell, a Democrat who was a failure as a Middle East peacemaker; Senator DeWine, who doesn't have much of a foreign policy reputation and who failed to win re-election in Ohio; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador in Baghdad who has skillfully deflected onto President Bush the blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq. Our own instinct is that at this point a good confirmation fight would be worth more than the confirmation of any one of the above.

Terrible choices all. Spineless, gutless.

Mr. Bush could get this kind of illuminating fight with the nomination of, say, Claudia Rosett, the brilliant journalist who pursued so doggedly the oil-forfood scandal. Senator Coleman and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are other inspired partisans who come to mind. But there will be plenty to choose from. To the extent the United Nations is useful at all, it is as a megaphone for explaining American policy to the world. Sending anyone to Turtle Bay with hopes of doing anything other than delivering the American message, trying to catch crooks misusing taxpayer dollars, and blowing the whistle on the anti-Israel bias would be naïve. The best move the president would make is to react to the defeat of Mr. Bolton by moving now to hold back as much money as he can of the $5 billion a year America spends on the United Nations. It's the least he could do if he can't get his most trusted choice as envoy to look out for how our money is spent.

Excellent choices all. I like Rick Santorum. He would be my pick. He's a man of vision. He represents American values and he kowtows to no one. Would the Senate reject one of their own?

UPDATE: It's time for new thinking.

Comments

[Rick Richman]

Of course Santorum would be a good choice, as would Claudia Rosett or Anne Bayefsky.

But I think Andy McCarthy may have made a more perceptive point yesterday at The Corner:

“Please, someone explain the upside that outweighs the downside such that we should be agonizing over a quality replacement rather than using that energy to marginalize the UN, consider a replacement organization, or -- better -- rely on other international alliances and ad hoc coalitions to address international problems.”

We are long overdue for a new international organization -- The League of Democratic Nations -- to be formed by the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, India, Japan, South Korea, Israel, the nations of New Europe (Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland), and any other countries ready to commit themselves to a new charter of freedom and democracy.

Those countries can then withdraw their useless funding of a corrupt U.N. and provide the funds instead to the new organization, after which the U.N. can take its rightful place in the history of failed institutions that outlived their purpose.

Such a new organization would be worth the time and efforts of people like Santorum, Rosset and Bayefsky -- or John Bolton.

[Richard Davis]

The left despises Rick too much, he'll never get it.

Form a new UN, start with US, Israel, and Australia. Stop funding the anti-Jew UN.

[DoctorDentons]

Rick Santorum lost me when he campaigned against Pat Toomey and for Arlen Specter in the last elections...Pat is a staunch Conservative and would have been an asset for GWB...Santorum even had his staff openly aiding Specter...Santorum has been taught a lesson that other "beltway conservatives" had better learn, "You dance with the one what brung you to the ball". Maybe he has learned his lesson, but I doubt it.

[Abu Daboo Doo al Bedrocki]

I was thinking maybe George Allen, he is not afraid of a fight, and would be an ideal conservative candidate. Although, it might be good to do as the Sun urges, withhold our dues. For that matter, maybe we just withhold appointing anyone to the post. It would send the signal that we are not playing anymore and, along with stopping our dues to the UN, it would show our disdain with the organization and its corrupt members and practices.

[DoctorDentons]

Abu Daboo: I tend to agree with you and the Sun...We are getting nothing from the UN but a bunch of grief and they hate our guts but love to live in NYC and screw up my streets and parking...I would love to see them go.

[lonbud]

...skillfully deflected onto President Bush the blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq...

OMG, y'all just don't get it, do you?

The unilateralist, "I make the rules or I take my bat and ball and go home" approach is a failure. It's not "us against them," it's "we are all in this thing together." Do the work. Figure it out. Bunch of freaking pre-schoolers y'all are.

Rick Santorum is a character straight out of Dante's 5th Circle. Not a likely candidate for diplomatic success on any front.

[DoctorDentons]

ionbud...Why do you think you have to name call when making a comment? I disagree with some of the comment but I do it with reason that's because I'm an adult...Your comments only show your level of mentality and the lack of being able to make a cogent argument without resorting to crass comments...you fucking idiot.

[lonbud]

Glad tidings to you, as well, DoctorD!

[turn]

You don't have to be a 'unilateralist' to know when the game is rigged. And when you cannot win and the players are not as interested in playing as they are in pursuing their various grudges, it's prudent to quit the game and find some folks with whom you can accomplish something.

The only reason to be a (paying) member of an organization is to achieve some benefit. This is benevolent self-interest. The U.N. does not benefit the U.S. in any meaningful way, and it's obstruction in the advancement of freedom is enough reason alone to call our involvement quits.

I like the idea of Mr. Richman above. Because, in the end, we simply cannot do worse than the U.N.

On another note: we can float all sorts of ideas about who would be good in such a position and who we don't like (for whatever reason). We're not going to get someone perfect. We're not going to get someone everybody likes.

[--mdd--]

Turn, you are not as optomistic as JF sKerry. You know if he ran this country it would be Kumbaya and roses everywhere. LOL.

--His comment from yesterday--

But Kerry said the ambassador's departure is another opportunity to clean house.

"Like Secretary Rumsfeld's departure, Ambassador Bolton's resignation offers a chance to turn the page at a critical period. With the Middle East on the verge of chaos and the nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea increasing, we need a United Nations ambassador who has the full support of Congress and can help rally the international community to tackle the serious threats we face," he said.