Bolton as Reformer

I don't think Tom Friedman adds anything to the Bolton debate by suggesting that Bush should nominate his dad to go back to the UN, but he does characterize nicely the new conservative talking point on the need to name someone like Bolton in order to "reform the UN":

The White House claims it needs the pugnacious Mr. Bolton at the U.N. to whip it into shape and oversee real reform there. I have only one thing to say in response to that pablum: Give me a break. We do not need a U.N. ambassador to "reform" the U.N. That is not what America needs or wants from the U.N. You want to reform the U.N.? You want to analyze its budgets and overhaul its bureaucratic processes, well, then hire McKinsey & Co. — not John Bolton. (Everyone knows he prefers to torch the place.)

"Reforming the U.N." is without question one of the most tired, vacuous conservative mantras ever invented. It is right up there with squeezing "waste, fraud and abuse" out of the Pentagon's budget. If the White House is concerned about waste, fraud and abuse, let's start with Tom DeLay and our own House.

Sorry, but we don't need a management consultant as our U.N. ambassador. What we need is someone who can get the most out of what the U.N. does offer to America.

And let's face it, the people who are calling for reform of the UN don't really want to reform it — they want to destroy it by pulling the US out. They see internationalism not as something that can benefit US policy, but as an inherent impediment to what they view as our proper role as the global hyperpower looking out for its own.

I've never understood the wingnut opposition to the UN and other international organizations, but now is not the time to give any ground. As we know from the Social Security debate, the dirtiest trick is to say you support something in order to kill it. Let's not give them the chance.