Well, so far there’s Alan Dershowitz and there’s ..well, there’s Alan Dershowitz…it’s worth pulling out some of what he writes:
The senators have had a year to observe and evaluate Mr. Bolton
directly on his performance as our ambassador. They can intelligently
vote based on what he has done at the United Nations …
Mr. Bolton is right to be skeptical [of the UN], and all the
great U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations – from Adlai Stevenson to
Arthur Goldberg to Pat Moynihan to Jeane Kirkpatrick – have shared that
skepticism. Mr. Bolton is absolutely justified in pushing for
reform of the notoriously corrupt and inefficient bureaucratic
structure in Turtle Bay. As he once said, “If member countries want the
United Nations to be respected … they should begin by making
sure it is worthy of respect.”
Most importantly, Mr. Bolton understands that his job is to
represent the United States and our interests to the world, and
not the other way around. When The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank chided
Mr. Bolton for “disparaging the very organization he would serve,” the
Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto promptly corrected him by saying,
“the American ambassador to the U.N. is supposed to serve America, not
the U.N.”
I have observed Mr. Bolton’s performance with regard to Israel
and its conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas. On many other fronts he has
proved himself a staunch advocate of freedom and human rights –
specifically in Sudan, North Korea and Cuba. Some critics have argued
that Mr. Bolton is better in his public role as advocate than in
his behind-the-scenes role as conciliator. But at this point in history,
the United States needs a public advocate who can further its
case in the court of public opinion. No one does that better than John
Bolton.
More here .