Sunday, July 30, 2006 | 7:38 a.m.
There is a time to act and a time for people to act out. Now is the time for action.
Later this week, the U.S. Senate will start the debate about whether to approve President George W. Bush's nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. In the immortal words of the beloved Yogi Berra, this is deja vu all over again.
It was less than a year ago when Bolton's name was sent to the Senate for confirmation to replace John Negroponte. It was less than a year ago that Senate Democrats and a Republican or three objected to that nomination.
That he would not be approved was clear, so President Bush did what others have resorted to in the past when their choices were not looked kindly upon - he made a recess appointment, which meant that Bolton was in and all the angst over his nomination was deferred to another time.
We are now at the other time. So what, if anything, has changed so that Bolton's nomination will get a different result?
For starters, and this is the most important change, time has passed and the world, this country and those who opposed him in the first place have seen Ambassador Bolton in action. Emphasis on the word "action," which, when combined with the United Nations, is a mouthful of opposites not often used in the context of that world peace organization.
That's right. We have had the past eight months to watch and learn as Ambassador Bolton has placed his stamp on the workings of the United Nations and the way that molasses-like organization does business. And I, for one, like what I have seen.
But my vote means nothing. What counts are the senators who have taken up positions in opposition. They threaten to unseat Bolton just when we need a strong leader, well seated atop a diplomatic horse of progress, who has the determination to challenge the inert forces of the United Nations, to which progress means going nowhere at all.
I am concerned about what may happen this week because many of my friends in the Democratic Party are poised to make a grave, long-term mistake in favor of some short-term gain. And some of my friends on the Republican side of the aisle are content to let them do that, even though they know that our country needs solidarity behind this choice, not more politics as usual.
It is no secret that this world is knee-deep in a years-long battle of the classic "good versus evil" as more and more countries, which once could never agree with one another, have coalesced around one overriding truth: that the rise of fanatical Islamic fundamentalism is the single greatest danger we face as peace-loving people the world over.
And if countries that once warred with one another can agree on a common goal for good, why should it be so hard for intelligent, responsible Americans to do the same?
Well, for one thing, this is a political year and each side is looking for advantage over the other and also is looking at the moves of others to determine where that advantage lies. That is a perfect recipe for a disastrous do-nothing policy at a time when do-something is the demand of the day.
I don't know if it serves any purpose to go over the various reasons senators like Chris Dodd and Joe Biden oppose Bolton so strongly. It should be sufficient to suggest that their well-intentioned and principled positions might be better fought at a better time - a time when there is no threat of Hezbollah's actions spilling over into Syria and Iran; a time when there are no nuclear arsenals being built in Iran and North Korea, and a time when lethargy in the United Nations is not finally giving way toward some positive movement.
A time when there is relative calm so that such fights can be aired fully rather than at a time like this, one of crisis when every decision is amplified - for good or bad.
The truth is that we have had eight months to watch Bolton's on-the-job activities, and I would bet that most reasonable people would be hard-pressed to criticize the job he has done. Especially the job he is doing right now.
You know the one - the job of aligning disparate interests like China, Russia and a few Arab countries with the policy of the United States, which is to hold terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and their puppet masters in Iran and Syria responsible for the mayhem that is currently unfolding in the Middle East.
That kind of hard-nosed diplomacy doesn't just happen. It is the result of determined and intelligent persuasion by people who know what they are doing and where they are doing it.
The person leading that charge at the United Nations has been John Bolton, which means at this time and in these circumstances we would be foolish - and it would be counterproductive - to try to change horses.
Not only would that send a terrible message to those who look for weakness in the West, but it would also throw fuel onto the fires of political one-upsmanship at a time when that is wholly unnecessary.
To the extent that there are good and valid reasons to oppose the imperial nature of the Bush presidency and the work of his minions to advance that cause, there is an election just a few months away in which those issues can be debated and approved or disapproved by the voters.
But right now we are in the middle of some very tense and very real times in which men like Bolton are needed to advance the cause of freedom.
This is not the simple "we are at war so we must follow the leader" pap that we fell for during the last election cycle. We are too smart as a nation to fall for that one again without a more thorough examination of the facts, I hope.
No, this is about when to fight principled and historical battles that can be fought on other fronts and at other times and when to admit that a man like Ambassador Bolton can and is doing the job that the United States needs.
It is really that simple. I trust those who vote on such things agree.
archive
