John Bolton and the UN

President Bush has appointed John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations in a Senate recess after a five month stall by Senate Democrats, plus a few liberal Republicans. According to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the White House, or Bush, abused power and used a "cloak of secrecy." Well, the difference in the twain is that what Bush did happens to be constitutional, while the senator's actions often are not. According to my limited knowledge of Mr. Bolton, he takes a hard stance against the UN, often criticizing it in derogatory terms. So far, so good. The UN does deserve to be criticized and I think we would be much better without it. Spending money on the UN is not a good way to use taxpayer money, especially when much of the money is wasted through corruption. I also view the UN as a threat to our national interests. I fear that we risk losing some of our national, not to mention state, sovereignty when we entangle ourselves in such an institution. Read Washingon's Farewell Address. In it, he wisely warned against "entangling alliances." I wish our leaders would take heed to such warning.