Monday, December 12, 2005


He's bacck........ the man Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry noted with deep concern was NOT 'UN Diplomat material' (a complement) - not the kind of person we need "representing us" to the world body. They squashed a vote on him in a quest to tar and feather him so Bush had to give him a recess appointment.

This world body is one with
CHINA, Zimbabwe, Cuba and SUDAN on its Human Rights Commission while the US was kicked off of it.

A few weeks ago he got a landmark resolution passed condemning Hezbollah by name for the first time ever.

  • Following intense US pressure, the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday issued an unprecedented condemnation of Monday's Hizbullah attacks on northern Israel.This condemnation - slamming Hizbullah by name for "acts of hatred" - marked the first time the Security Council has ever reprimanded Hizbullah for cross-border attacks on Israel.
  • The condemnation followed by two days a failed attempt to get a condemnation issued on Monday, the day of the attack, when Algeria came out against any mention of Hizbullah in the statement.
  • When asked what changed from Monday to Wednesday, one diplomatic official replied: "John Bolton,"......

James Taranto notes in Opinion Journal Best of the Web further landmark steps Bolton is taking at the UN!

Turtle Bay Truth-Teller

Interesting things are happening at the United Nations, where U.S. Ambassador John Bolton is showing a propensity--disturbing, no doubt, to some--to tell the truth.

Last week the Voice of America reported on Bolton's response to the Security Council's refusal to pass a resolution condemning suicide bombing in which Palestinian Arabs murdered five Israelis at a mall in Netanya -

  • Diplomats attending the meeting say several Council members raised concerns about language in the U.S.-drafted document. Ambassador Bolton, however, blamed Algeria for quashing the measure by objecting to a passage urging Syria to close offices of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which claims responsibility for the attack.
  • "Other governments had questions about particular language. We were perfectly prepared to engage in discussions about constructive suggestions, but Algeria categorically refused to name Syria and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad," he said.

    The U.S. envoy later read the text of the statement to reporters, and lashed out at the Council for what he called "failing to speak the truth."

    He said - "you have to speak up in response to these terrorist attacks. It's a great shame that the Security Council couldn't speak to this terrorist attack in Netanya, but if the Council won't speak, the United States will.

At a dinner last night (no link; we were there), Bolton told the Zionist Organization of America to expect more such unilateral veracity. He singled out for criticism a recent U.N. conference at which Israel was literally wiped off the map (well, wiped off a literal map anyway).

U.N. watchdog Anne Bayefsky has a photo of the map of "Palestine" that was used in last month's annual U.N. Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People.

Bayefsky has a photo of Kofi Annan on the dais with the map in the background. The Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a press release Friday in which it "condemns the participation" of the secretary-general in a conference that denies the existence of a U.N. member state.

We would like to know where the 43 senators--42 Democrats plus the lachrymose George Voinovich--who blocked a vote on Bolton's confirmation, forcing President Bush into a recess appointment--stand on all this. One could wave away such outrages, and indeed we're inclined to do so, on the ground that the U.N. is a hopelessly corrupt and worthless institution whose expressions count for nothing. But that is an awkward position for Bolton's detractors to take, since they claim to believe in the U.N.

They don't really believe in the U.N., of course. As we noted in April, in 1991 many of them voted to defy the U.N.'s request for troops to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. They are "pro-U.N.," it seems clear, only when the U.N. is anti-U.S. But again, if the U.N. has "moral authority" when it takes Saddam Hussein's side over ours, how about when it seeks the obliteration of Israel?


Post a Comment

<< Home