End of bolting on Bolton

 “Bolton's Chances for Approval Brighten,” says AP story, citing Republicans’ returning to the fold on the issue, while in Wall Street Journal former UN official and head of World Food Program Catherine Bertini says he’s OK in her book, based on years of working with him.

 I've known him for 30 years, and I know that he expresses his views in a forthright manner so that everyone knows where he stands. But John listens with as much intensity as he speaks. He hears others' views, and will change his own if a counterargument proves convincing. I have seen him do this many times, and have been on both the "winning" and "losing" sides of discussions with him. It is difficult to participate in one of these discussions without developing a healthy respect for the logic of his conclusions -- whether one agrees with him or not. [Italics added]

That’s as to the character issue.  As to what’s good for us, she says:

 John had a strong commitment to supporting U.S. leadership within the U.N., and of the importance of the U.N. to the U.S. He made significant efforts to improve the workings of the U.N., plunging into matters where he thought the U.S. could enhance U.N. operations, but was wise enough to try to fix only what was practicable. But the instinct was to fix: Shouldn't we have a U.N. ambassador like that? [Italics added]

All in all, he’s her man, because he’s “a forceful player, alive to U.S. interests” and will promote “steps necessary to strengthen the U.N.”

Embedded in such a mentality is the shape-up-or-ship-out philosophy required for change, it seems to me.

No comments: