A defeat for Bolton could undercut US policy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (Undoing testing) |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
{{Reference|Why I'll Vote for Bolton}} | {{Reference|Why I'll Vote for Bolton}} | ||
{{Reference|A public advocate for the United States}} | {{Reference|A public advocate for the United States}} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:36, November 26, 2008
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.
This item refers to the previous opinion item Why I'll Vote for Bolton.
This item refers to the previous opinion item A public advocate for the United States.