A defeat for Bolton could undercut US policy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (Oops, how did that happen?) |
Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (More "refers to" templates) |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
{{opinion|Confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 2006|Bolton should be confirmed|for}} | {{opinion|Confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 2006|Bolton should be confirmed|for}} | ||
{{opinion|Confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 2006|Confirmation should be filibustered|against}} | {{opinion|Confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 2006|Confirmation should be filibustered|against}} | ||
{{refers to|Why I'll Vote for Bolton}} | |||
{{refers to|A public advocate for the United States}} |
Revision as of 03:58, September 15, 2006
This is an opinion item.
Author(s) | Thomas M. Boyd |
---|---|
Source | The Boston Globe |
Date | August 1, 2006 |
URL | http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/01/a_defeat_for_bolton_could_undercut_us_policy/ |
Quote |
Add or change this opinion item's references
This item argues for the position Bolton should be confirmed on the topic Confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 2006.
This item argues against the position Confirmation should be filibustered on the topic Confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 2006.