By Hilary White and Peter J. Smith
NEW YORK, December 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – John Bolton, the straight-shooting Acting US Ambassador to the United Nations, announced his resignation last week sending shock waves through American conservative circles. Although Bolton’s temporary appointment would have expired in January, he resigned because of opposition from the incoming Democrat-controlled Senate.
Bolton’s confirmation had stalled in the Senate more than a year, blocked by Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Democratic filibusters on the Senate floor. The ambassador twice garnered 54 votes and 56 votes – enough to win confirmation but just short of 60 votes needed to end a filibuster.
President Bush said he was “deeply disappointed that a handful of United States Senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate.”
Shortly after the success of the Democrats in last month’s mid-term elections, political watchers predicted that Bolton, a prominent “hawk” in Bush’s foreign policy, would be forced out of his UN position.
Bolton, who has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his opposition to Iran’s nuclear proliferation, had not made himself popular with the ruling powers at the UN either. In 2000, he helped to expose the UN’s attempt to establish itself as a global governing body that would supersede the sovereign rights of individual nations. Bolton warned that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was attempting a “coup d’état against the authority of the five permanent members of the Security Council.”
Bolton also led the Bush administration’s opposition on constitutional grounds to the International Criminal Court, working to exempt Americans from any possible prosecution by the Court.
Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family President Jim Daly both described Bolton as a “pro-life gentleman” to listeners of their radio program. Bolton had extended to them “an invitation to work with him in setting some policy there at the UN that would support the values we believe in.” They had a private meeting with Bolton and concluded that Democrats were opposing him because “he’s pro-life, pro-family, pro-morality and sees things the way we do regarding condom distribution and abstinence and other things.”
However Howard Phillips, Chairman of the Conservative Caucus, remarked that Bolton’s efforts as an ambassador defending life and family would have been undercut by the Bush Administration’s continued financial support of the UN. “If you’re giving to the UN, you’re making it possible for them to carry [Population Control Fund Activities] forward,” Phillips stated, emphasizing the Administration has given more taxpayer funds to the UN than the previous Clinton Administration, which ends up supporting the UN in its anti-life anti-American agenda.
“I like John Bolton, he’s a good man, but the problem with his service is that people tend to diminish hostility to the UN because of John’s presence there. The problem is not with who represents us there, but that we’re supporting an evil institution.”
Many conservatives predict that the United States will suffer from the partisan rejection of Bolton, because it may discourage well-qualified nominees from public service.
“We can expect to see the Democrat-controlled Senate reject other nominees who do not march in lockstep with the Senate’s liberal leadership,” said Tom Minnery, senior vice president of Government and Public Policy at Focus on the Family Action. “Good men and women will be denied the opportunity to serve their country—despite their impeccable qualifications.”
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Millennium Declaration Legitimizes UN Global Governance Agenda
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2000/sep/000911a.html