The Workday Liberal

Monday should be a very interesting day at the U.N. It seems that Kofi Annan and John Bolton have a disagreement to iron out and a previously scheduled meeting set for Monday will be when the figurative scatological reference hits the veritable instrument used to circulate air.

It seems that Mr. Bolton came out swinging when The U.N. United Nations human rights chief, Louise Arbour, spoke out regarding human rights being sacrificed on the altar of the war on terror.

"The absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice ... is becoming a casualty of the so-called war on terror,"

She never actually mentions the United States, but she does paraphrase Benjamin Franklin rather loosely:

"Pursuing security objectives at all costs may create a world in which we are neither safe nor free,"

Evidently not realizing that Ms. Arbour never actually mentioned the U.S., Bolton opened wide his mustachioed maw and spewed forth the following:

"I think it is inappropriate and illegitimate for an international civil servant to second guess the conduct of what we are engaged in the war on terror with nothing more as evidence than what she reads in the newspapers,"

Keeping in mind, she never mentions America (have I mentioned that already...) it seems to me highly questionable for the American ambassador to hold forth on the issue. To me this is similar to say, the U.N. commissionerr on graft and white collar crime coming out against bribery and corruption in exchange for favorable legislation, and having the Republican congressional leadership let loose an outcry. Sometimes prudence is the better part of valor.

It is obvious who she was referencing in her remarks, yet without actually naming America does it make sense for our ambassador to blow his cool and display such a sensitivity to these remarks. Would it not be better for him to allow the stated policies and remarks of those involved with the policies speak to our innocence? Let us remember, the U.S. denies the practices Ms. Arbour was discussing. George Bush says we do not torture detainees. Condoleeza Rice just announced that we do not "render" suspects to other nations in order for them to be tortured, and America abides by international law in these regards. So in effect, by blowing his stack, Bolton has implicated us by protesting too loudly. What gives here?

And who is John Bolton as the ambassador to the U.N. from America, the great purveyor of international freedom and democracy, to lecture the U.N. on which of it's employees should be allowed to say what to whom? Being the head of the U.N. human rights division, it is entirely appropriate and useful for Ms. Arbour to voice her opinion when she sees human rights being trampled. I do not recall Mr. Bolton coming unhinged when the U.N. cited China for it's abhorrent record on human rights. We profess freedom of speech and for all the world to follow our democratic example, yet when Bolton does not like what he hears he chides the speaker.


Let me forestall an attack I can see developing from the right on this issue. Those who agree with me are not saying that Bolton does not have the right to say what he said. We are not pulling the same stunt he did. We are simply using the same right he has to voice our opinions regarding something he said. Bolton is the one saying someone should shut up when it comes down to it, not those who respond to what he said.

Well Kofi Annan is having none of it, and good for him. John Bolton is intrinsically a bully and I hope with great fervor that Annan gives whatever Bolton b.s. thats dished out back in spades. I would absolutely LOVE to be a fly on the wall in that meeting. We can only hope that Bolton does not entirely lose his cool resulting in him chasing Annan about the U.N. or some such unpleasantness. If history is our guide however, I would suggest Annan wear his running shoes.