It does seem a bit odd, doesn't it? I mean, Ambassador to the United Nations is an important post, but it isn't exactly the most important post, is it? John Bolton's overall views are not markedly different from those of Donald Rumsfeld or Condi Rice, so why is the left so extra determined to prevent his approval?
From what I've read around the web, Bolton's gravest sins seem to be that (a) he denigrates treaties like the defunct Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and (b) he takes a hostile view of Castro's anti-human tyranny in Cuba. For our leftwingers, treaties like the ABM are holy writ - anything which tends to hobble American power is a vital necessity. Additionally, after five decades on their knees to Fidel, the left isn't about to suddenly stand up, wipe off their collective chin and realise they've been worshipping a pig. Stopping John Bolton has become an exercise in re-affirmation on the left: a means of stating that international law (as expressed by treaty) is paramount in the United States and that Castro's Cuba is the shining light of the world.
Round about ten years ago I wrote, just to myself (the days of pre-blogophere, ya know?) that the most common aspect of leftwing thought is hate: our leftwingers are collosal haters, and they never forget or forgive. Stopping John Bolton is just a bit a payback for Bolton, long ago, saying a few bad words about Fidel and the ABM.
Man ... the bar on stupidity was lowered a bit today!
No comments:
Post a Comment