With regards to Adam McKay's post, for anyone who can remain intellectually honest (a big "if" as Adam rightly centers on), if a Clinton administration nominated a so-obviously-not-qualified Bolton, we would've never heard the end of it. This guy is a clown, with many more better qualified candidates waiting to be nominated, and yet we're stuck with him. Why? Because Bush/Cheney/Rove are willing to go fifteen rounds and similar to their unwillingness to admit to any mistakes surrounding 9-11 and during the entire Iraq invasion and occupation, to withdraw Bolton is an admission of weakness in their mind. Forget competence and what the country deserves; hoist utter mediocrity or less at us and then defend it tooth and nail to show your principled. Pathetic.

By the way, the right-wingnuts defend this guy simply because Bush nominated him, period. Several Republicans who have not yet succumbed to "Stepford GOP" syndrome realize he's not fit for the job. What I keep reading from the outer fringe is he's a kick-ass dude -- just what the UN needs to shake it up (reform). Yeah, the same cowboy BS we heard leading up to the Iraq invasion.

Well, for that matter, why don't they only support the hiring of public school teachers who are on the record criticizing public schools. Bolton is on the record with harsh criticism directed at the UN. Heck, let's just hire teachers who hold a kick-ass, take-no-prisoners attitude towards public education. (I anticipate I'll be getting many a "congrats Ed for finally seeing the light!" from many an r-wingnut).

That kind of thinking is easy, and lazy, and dangerous. Problem: Iraq, solution: blow it the f*ck up. Problem: UN, solution: blow it the f*ck up. Etc. etc.