good/bad news: Bolton still undecided

Republicans call it a filibuster. Democrats call it a request for more information. Any way you slice it, it's a delay in an up-or-down vote to instill John Bolton as our ambassador to the United Nations. Now, granted, the U.N. needs some housecleaning. It's screwed up plenty, most recently in the oil-for-food scandal. But sending Bolton to clean it up is a farce. Like sending a fox to guard the chicken house.

John Bolton is the epitomy of the self-agrandizing politician. The petty bureaucrat's petty bureaucrat. He thinks nothing of attempting to ruin the career of someone who's hurt his feelings, as documented in the last round of investigations into his character which led to the delay in the vote so far. The kind of guy who, given the provocation, would start World War III in order to soothe his ego. He has what's been described as a "kiss up, kick down" style of management. Just the kind of guy to put in charge of getting the rest of the world to support our war on terror, right? We'd be better off with Cat Stevens (oh yeah, he's not allowed in the country anymore. Him and his "Peace Train" subversiveness).

Today's vote lasted about 35 minutes longer than average - hardly a filibuster - but Republican leaders squealed like pigs saying Democrats were violating the spirit of the agreement reached just days ago about putting aside partisanship and judging each issue on its merits or lack thereof. Which is exactly what happened. There are no merits to establishing Bolton in the position for which he is nominated. He's the antithesis of the position, and if he were posted there, all but the isolationists would be sorry.

This is exactly the reason that our current system of checks and balances was established. If left to their own devices, those in power would entrench their henchmen in the system (a la Grima Wormtongue), and nothing but impeachment and a major purging could redeem us and raise us from the depths to which we've descended.