Right Wing Nut House



Filed under: UNITED NATIONS — Rick Moran @ 9:48 am

When John Bolton was first proposed as Ambassador to the UN, many of us on the right cheered lustily. Bolton’s reputation for directness and a no-nonsense attitude toward diplomacy made him the perfect candidate to take the UN by the scruff of the neck and shake some common sense and necessary reforms into that corrupt and useless organization.

In this, the mustachioed Bolton has not disappointed. He is a lion among sheep, pushing relentlessly to clean up the worst of the abuses that have rocked the international community while drawing howls of rage from the left here and in Europe for not being a typical American UN flunkie, tiptoeing around Turtle Bay and trying not to step on anyone’s toes.

Bolton is not only doing a little toe-stepping, he has put the UN on the rack and is turning the screws. Following the insulting remarks of a British UN official about how “the role of the UN is a mystery to Middle America,” Bolton let him have it with both barrels and then threatened to yank funding for the UN unless someone apologized:

“Maybe it is fashionable in some circles to look down on Middle America, to say they don’t get the complexities of the world and they don’t have the benefit of continental education and they are deficient in so many ways,” Mr Bolton added. “It is illegitimate for an international civil servant to criticise what he thinks are the inadequacies of citizens of a member government.”

The tough-talking US envoy reiterated that the dispute could harm important reforms to the international body. He also hinted that the US Congress, which controls American government spending, might reconsider US funding to the UN, which accounts for 22 per cent of the organisation’s annual budget. “Congress has the power of the purse and they feel quite strongly on a bipartisan basis that America has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent, even people from Middle America,” he said, with a note of sarcasm. “I don’t think we have seen the end of it.”

Indeed, Bolton has decided to make the gentleman’s remarks something of a causus belli. The official, Kofi Annan’s chief deputy Mark Malloch Brown, said in the same speech that that there was “too much unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping” from conservatives and Middle Americans. Bolton’s response on Tuesday in New York was a classic:

“We are in the process of an enormous effort to achieve substantial reform at the United Nations,” he said. “To have the deputy secretary general criticize the United States in such a manner can only do great harm to the United nations.

“Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations,” he added. “Even worse was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people. This was a criticism of the American people not the American government by an international civil servant.”

Taken aback by the virulence of Bolton’s broadside, Kofi Anna began to backtrack furiously:

Before Mr Bolton arrived in London, Kofi Annan, the UN chief, tried to play down the controversy. “I think the message that was intended is that the US needs the UN, and the UN needs the US, and we need to support each other,” Mr Annan said. “I think the speech by my deputy should be read in the right spirit and let’s put it behind us and move on.”

No such luck my greedy and corrupt friend. The fact that the speech was delivered by your second in command is a pretty sure sign you signed off on it, Mr. Secretary-General. What you didn’t count on was an American diplomat calling you out for your insulting and egregiously ill considered remarks.

Annan figured that he’d get some kind of mumbled apology and a promise to try and stifle the cries of outrage coming from the right. This is especially true of Fox News who have been lambasting the UN and Annan’s leadership for years over any one of a number of horrific scandals, least of which is the Oil for Food bribery scheme that has implicated Annan’s son Kojo and which may have played a large role in the decision of some of the UN’s Security Council members not to support the US invasion of Iraq.

As a genuine Middle American, I’m grateful to Ambassador Bolton for standing up to this kind of casually obscene anti-Americanism and elitist hooey. Those stuffed shirts had finally better get used to the idea that Bolton won’t stop until the UN is changed from the personal fiefdom of a few corrupt bureaucrats into a useful international organization that can truly contribute to the peace and security of the world.


  1. Bravo, Mr. Bolton. The arrogance of that collecton of hats and dresses is staggering.

    Comment by Tom — 6/9/2006 @ 10:04 am

  2. What a load of complete hooey.

    Malloch Brown was dead on correct. THe RW in this country, including this nuthouse, has carried on a relentless, and totally dishonest UN bashing campaign for a long time now, such that very few, if any, of those who access these “information” sources have anything close to a clear well rounded impression of the role the UN plays in the world.

    It is a classic example of demagoic propagandizing. The UN, an American invention, has as its purpose the creation of a forum for communication amongst world governments, to serve as an alternative to the battlefield for conflict resolution. Not the kind of thing that immediatly impacts the daily lives of average citizens. The classic easy target for demagouges.

    The very act of “defending” the UN, or the concept of the UN requires a degree of long-term serious thought about the consequences of foreign policy. How can an appeal to that compete with a blowhard making the case that gays are destroying your marriage, or that Old Glory is being burned on every street corner, or that Mexicans are engaged in a reconquista, or any of the other BS “issues” that the right uses to distract the people from serious engagement with the relevant issues of the day?

    Bolton is a gross embarrasment. His phony little attempt to portray these comments as an “insult” to middle America is patently transparant. The comments are, quite properly, a smackdown to the demagouges of the American right, of which Bolton himself is a prime examplar.

    Comment by Tano — 6/9/2006 @ 11:28 am

  3. Rick,

    I think it is a bit pollyanna-ish of you to think that the UN can be “a useful international organization that can truly contribute to the peace and security of the world”. They will never change. An organization that thinks “Palastine” is/should be a legitimate country (along with a freely elected terrorist government, I might add) can never be taken seriously, nor should be allowed to dictate anything to the United States. We must discontinue all funding and send the UN HQ packing - off of American soil. And they can take Tano with them.

    Comment by Bill — 6/9/2006 @ 11:45 am

  4. What are the serious issues of the day that Tano claims the UN addresses? Darfur? Not a genocide, according to the UN. The Congo, where UN peacekeepers were trading food for sex? Oil for Food? Deterring Iran’s nuclear program? East Timor, where the following happened:

    “The massacre of the East Timorese officers occurred after renegade soldiers opened fire on the police as they left their headquarters under a truce brokered by the UN’s police commander in Dili, Saif Malik, also from Pakistan. Malik ignored advice that to lead unarmed Timorese police past the guns of the soldiers would lead to a massacre. “He was told by all his advisers not to take them out there, but he would not listen,” sources close to the investigation said.

    “He kept insisting the presence of the UN could protect them.” Instead the police were escorted out behind a blue UN flag and got less than 100 metres from their headquarters when two soldiers opened fire, killing 12 officers and wounding at least 20, including UN police protectors from the Philippines.

    The soldiers executed several wounded police at point-blank range, firing shotguns into their heads, sources within the AFP said.”

    (Hat tip to Belmont Club)

    Can Tano point to one UN diplomatic success in the past decade?

    Marty H.

    Comment by Marty H — 6/9/2006 @ 12:05 pm

  5. “Those stuffed shirts had finally better get used to the idea that Bolton won’t stop until the UN is changed from the personal fiefdom of a few corrupt bureaucrats into a useful international organization that can truly contribute to the peace and security of the world.”

    Maybe when he’s done with the UN, we could turn Mr. Bolton loose on Congress.

    Comment by Steven Donegal — 6/9/2006 @ 1:04 pm

  6. Rick,

    I’m pretty sure I love you.

    And John Bolton, too.


    Comment by NJ — 6/9/2006 @ 1:28 pm

  7. NJ:

    I sure hope you’re a female.

    Failing that, I sure hope you’re cute.

    Comment by Rick Moran — 6/9/2006 @ 1:29 pm

  8. NJ beat me to it. *wink*

    Comment by clarice feldman — 6/9/2006 @ 1:31 pm

  9. Great post. Mr. Bolton continues to show this detractors to be out of touch with the reality of the U.N. today. Pass Senator Voinivich a hankie…

    Comment by Karen — 6/9/2006 @ 1:39 pm

  10. I’m also with NJ (and a female, and cute, but unfortunately already spoken for ~ haha) Great post, great job Bolton. Just great all around.

    Comment by Kath — 6/9/2006 @ 1:54 pm

  11. Tano:

    A very good start. Work in Abu Ghraib, Haditha, “no operational connection”, maybe a mention of NASCAR and Wal-Mart, a link to some whiny Saint Sully post slamming “Christianists” and maybe, just maybe, Markos will promote you to diarist.

    Comment by Tongueboy — 6/9/2006 @ 2:09 pm

  12. Does Kofi really think that middle America’s opinion of the UN would improve if they knew more about what the UN was up to?

    There is a reason that the UN is located in NY and not middle America. Out there I would think that the locals only tolerate bull cr*p that comes from animals. Imagine a UN member caught in a criminal act explaining to the ‘locals’ that it’s ok because he has Diplomatic immunity!

    Bolton should push harder. The UN operates based on balance of power. Unfortunately, that means bad countries persist because the UN resists efforts to reform those members.

    Comment by Fred Fry — 6/9/2006 @ 2:21 pm

  13. Bolton is pretty well correct. Kofi thinks the US needs the UN? What’s he been chewing? The UN as a whole needs to be scrapped. There isn’t enough will among member nations to do true reform. They’ll do some small bit, and call it good. And, unfortunately, most will accept it.

    Comment by Billiam — 6/9/2006 @ 3:38 pm

  14. The UN is what theleague of nations that President Woodrow Wilson tried to get the senate to accept and they were snarter than Truman’s senate. Probably at some time, the one worlders like James (Peanut) Carter is pushing for. The UN wants to tax U. S. citizens to support that corrupt organization. we fought one war on taxation without representation. We may have to do it again.

    Bolton for President 2008

    Comment by Henry — 6/9/2006 @ 8:23 pm

  15. Bolton Continues To Roast the Farcical UN

    Rick Moran has an excellent summation of John Bolton’s red-hot reply to UN lackey Mark Malloch Brown, the British Deputy UN Secretary-General, who made a sneering speech that implied that the average American doesn’t properly understand the UN. From …

    Trackback by The Bernoulli Effect — 6/10/2006 @ 11:21 pm

  16. Squeel snapperheads Squeel!

    First time I saw Kofi I said he looked like he crawled out of a bottle of Mad Dog Liquor. those people are corrupt to the bone and Secy Bolton is right to do some flaying. Throughout the acts of dictatorial rulers, killing of innocent people and tyrants attempting to spread their influence this organization sat back and did nothing. Oil For Food, Rwanda, their milqtoast forces raping young girls, etc. They always want the power, the money and prestige but never any responsibility. Their stay in this country should be ended permanently along with our association with them. They feel indignant enough to insult us well they can go and handle their own afairs. The fact is, they need US more than we need them. that’s the one thing they’ll never admit.

    Comment by Jefferson D. Grindle — 6/11/2006 @ 5:12 am

  17. “The very act of “defending” the UN, or the concept of the UN requires a degree of long-term serious thought about the consequences of foreign policy.”

    The UN was created so that we never had to see the horrors of the Holocaust again. In 1993, they failed their mission in the worst way. Tano, since you seem to be the one ignorant of history and geopolitics, I’m referring to Rwanda. Up until that point I always erred with “hey, the UN is only trying its best in a bad world!” We said ‘never again’ not ‘never again as long as they aren’t black people’. (Oh and I blame the United States for not intervening as well, just the UN had the prime responsibility.) And don’t try your little “oh you ignorant Middle American” ad hominem. I’m from the bluest of the blue states, raised by blue-staters (I just happen to have a rational brain, unlike my brethren at home).

    Comment by Shawn — 6/11/2006 @ 8:10 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress