John Bolton's Nomination

Robert Novak seems to be seeking to support Bolton's confirmation as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. (For example, this piece in the Union Leader.)

He seems to accept that the Democrats in the Senate universally oppose the confirmation. He notes that the White House and Senate Republican leadership have been having trouble keeping a couple of Republican Senators in line: Lincoln Chafee and George Voinovich. He notes that some of the people who worked with Bolton in the State Department are working against the confirmation. Mr. Novak, have you considered that perhaps Bolton is not the best person for the job?

Mark Malloch Brown, the distinguished Deputy Director of the United Nations, is portrayed as conducting a behind-the-scenes campaign to prevent the confirmation. Brown was brought into his current position to lead in the effort to reform the U.N., having previously served with distinction as the head of the UNDP and as a Vice President of the World Bank. If he in fact opposes Bolton, that alone should give the Senate pause!

Novak writes:

Bolton's confirmation for another two years at the U.N. would be bad news for the secretariat.

We need the United Nations now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine, and may need it in the near future to help with North Korea, Iran, and other countries. Does Novak really think it is a good idea to make added trouble for its Secretariat for the next two years?