Democrats Fear U.S. Supremacy

The John Bolton nomination hearings have degenerated into character assassination. The Dems are bent on destroying a man in order to prove they still have power. The American people's rejection of Democrats, giving the Republicans the reins of the executive and legislative branches, has left them angry.

John Bolton isn't really the target of their attacks. They have President Bush and the House and Senate in their cross-hairs.

There is a another subtext to this drama--the Democrats' fear of U.S. supremacy. They are uncomfortable with the U.S. being the world's only superpower. Rather than lead, they prefer to take a backseat to the United Nations.

On September 12, 2002, President Bush addressed the UN General Assembly. I consider it among his most memorable speeches of his first term.

In that speech, Bush laid out the case for UN action in Iraq. More importantly, Bush clarified that he, while intending to maintain an active role in the international community, would ALWAYS act to defend the American people.

Bush explained that if the UN failed to act in a fashion that supported its own policies, the UN would confirm its irrelevance. Some members of the Security Council showed they prefer a UN characterized by irrelevance and corruption to a UN that embodies integrity.

On September 12, 2002, one day after the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the President made clear the U.S. was not subordinate to the UN.

Of course, Bush was criticized by liberals who are uncomfortable with the strength of the U.S. They are more comfortable with allowing the UN to assume the role of the world's sole superpower. For example, it was clear that John Kerry's campaign, and his "plan" for foreign policy, was based on kissing up to foreign powers and the UN. (Remember Chirac's endorsement of Kerry?)

In short, Democrats behave as though America's future should rest in the hands of the UN. They insist they put America's interests first; but those words are empty, because words without action are meaningless.

This Dem mentality has been on display throughout the Bolton discussions.

The purpose of their persistent personal attacks on Bolton's character is to make Bolton out as a man incapable of diplomacy. They aren't comfortable with him. After all, how could the U.S. ambassador be someone with a strong voice, like Bolton, when the U.S. should be subservient to the UN?

In his 2002 address, Bush said:

"The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"

"We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well."

The Bush administration wants the UN to be an honorable organization. Given the present impotence and corruption permeating the UN, a strong, unflinching ambassador representing the U.S. makes sense. It is necessary.

However, it does not make sense and becomes unnecessary if one believes the U.S. should be subservient to the UN. If one is content with the status quo of disgrace at the UN, John Bolton is the wrong person to be ambassador.