John Bolton deserves to remain U.N. envoy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) ("refers to" template is now "reference") |
||
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}} | ||
{{ | {{reference|Keep John Bolton at the United Nations}} | ||
{{ | {{reference|Stick With Bolton: America could use stability at the U.N.}} |
Latest revision as of 19:35, September 17, 2006
This is an opinion item.
Author(s) | Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial board |
---|---|
Source | Las Vegas Review-Journal |
Date | August 4, 2006 |
URL | http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Aug-04-Fri-2006/news/8862932.html |
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.
This item refers to the previous opinion item Keep John Bolton at the United Nations.
This item refers to the previous opinion item Stick With Bolton: America could use stability at the U.N..