The debate begins anew.
'œHe's back!' said Thomas Boyd in The Boston Globe. A year ago, John Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador bogged down amid bitter acrimony in the Senate, as critics questioned his temperament and his qualifications for the sensitive post. As a veteran State Department official, the sharp-tongued conservative had long made known his disdain for the international body, once saying the U.N.'s New York headquarters could lose 10 floors, and 'œit wouldn't make a difference.' When a key Republican joined the Democrats in opposing the nomination, President Bush resorted to a rare recess appointmentinstalling Bolton without the Senate's 'œadvice and consent.' But now Bush wants to keep Bolton in the slot permanently, which means he'll need Senate confirmation. So, once again, Bolton is facing 'œthe painful run of the congressional gauntlet.'
It will be somewhat less painful this time, said Byron York in National Review Online. The main objection to Bolton last year was that as a headstrong State Department official, he had 'œharangued, harassed, and pressured people who worked with him.' But Bolton has been under intense scrutiny for a year now, and there have been no reports of tossed staplers or hissy fits. 'œInstead, Bolton has been quite visibly doing his job'serving as an articulate spokesman for the U.S. position. Thanks to Bolton's tireless work, said Peter Brookes in the Baltimore Sun, the Security Council finally demanded that Iran stop enriching uranium. He also got sanctions imposed on North Korea after it test-fired seven missiles. Bolton is even forcing the corrupt U.N. to reform its internal management. 'œIn less than a year, he's become our hard-charging advocate at the U.N., advancing and protecting American interests. It would be foolish to swap ambassadors now.'
The Providence Journal