"John Bolton: Bolton v. the U.N."
James Taranto, the right-wing editor of the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal.com, made a revealing comment about Bolton’s nomination to be ambassador to the UN:
[I]t will be interesting to see how many Democrats take the side of the U.N. and complain about “harsh criticism” in light of the Sept. 11 attacks…
Taranto exposes what this nomination is about. It is a signal to the right-wing by the Bush administration that it is ready to attack the U.N. as an institution. That’s why Taranto describes being critical of Bolton as taking “the side of the U.N.”
And maybe I’m missing something here but what, exactly, did the U.N. have to do with the September 11 attacks? How do they make the U.N. less relevant or justify Bolton’s polemics against the organization?
This is the right-wing’s MO: anything that happens is further proof of the UN’s irrelevance. Don’t let logic get in the way.