Oh, boo-friggin’ hoo

Democrats and liberals everywhere have been doing quite a bit of whining, soothsaying, and doomsday-ing ever since the prospect arose that President Bush might use a recess appointment to make John Bolton the Ambassador to the U.N. The funny thing, to me anyway, is that it was never a question of whether or not he could do the job…it just always came back to a variation of one point — he isn’t nice.

Oh God, help us. Everyone repent your sins, this is the 666th sign of the apocalypse. (It’s time like this I wish I had a way to make my blog auditory so you could hear the Ben Stein-like sarcasm that was supposed to have. Oh well.)

So the main argument against Bolton is that he doesn’t mince words, and thinks that the U.N. is a lot of fluff with very little substance. Sounds like my kind of guy. I was doing some research on what people have said about him, and I came across this news article that said something along the lines of ‘one of the reasons that North Korea refused to participate in 6-party talks is because John Bolton referred to Kim Jong Il as a tyrant.’

Oh, I’m sorry, I was under the impression that someone who rules a government with an iron first, forbids his citizens from leaving the country, or even talking to people outside of the country, lets his people starve to death and executes political dissidents WAS a tyrant. No? Oh, honest mistake. I can see why John Bolton would come to the same conclusion.

I find it rather interesting that John Bolton gets blamed for North Korea not participating in talks, but yet no one seems to understand that — hey, if Kim Jong Il wasn’t being a narcissistic, maniacal douchebag bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and committing egregious human rights violations, there’d be no reason for the talks in the first place.

All John Bolton did was call a spade a spade. Kim Jong Il IS a tyrant. The fact that he got upset about being called such is his own fault. What, we have to be nice to tyrants now? I guess we better be careful, or they’ll pull out of the Non-proliferation Treaty, start developing nuclear weapons, and create an international crisis. Oh wait…

What’s everyone so afraid of with this Bolton appointment? That he’ll go to New York and not play the bullshit diplomatic game or pretend he likes everyone? We’ve been making nice with these people for 50 years and what has it gotten us? Well, it's one of the most anti-Semitic, anti-American, intellectually bankrupt and dishonest institutions in the history of mankind. The United Nations is an institution that refuses to condemn suicide bombers in Israel, while at the same time repeatedly condemns Israel for its operations against terrorist organizations. It's an organization that refuses to use the term 'genocide' in the condemnation of the actions in Darfur, Sudan, where Muslim militias slaughter Christian minorities. They allow countries like Libya to chair the friggin' Human Rights Commission. Hello? Integrity? Where are you?

Heaven forbid someone would go to the United Nations and point out its absurdity. Alcoholics don't like being called alcoholics either. But they're still alcoholics. Sometimes the truth hurts, especially when it's the flagship organization of the liberal/progressive ideology. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.

People are also concerned about what kind of representation John Bolton will be of America. Personally, I'd rather American be represented by someone who doesn't coddle tyrants, doesn't pretend to like intellectually bankrupt, socialist regimes, and actually tells the truth. Suffering fools happily is not a virtue.