Mr. Diplomacy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|source=The Wall Street Journal | |source=The Wall Street Journal | ||
|date=September 7, 2006 | |date=September 7, 2006 | ||
|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115758777974955818.html | |url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115758777974955818.html | ||
|quote="As his critics would have it, Mr. Bolton's mission to the U.N. was supposed to be an act of diplomatic sabotage by the Administration. Instead, his tenure has been among the most constructive of any U.S. ambassador since Jeane Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan." | |quote="As his critics would have it, Mr. Bolton's mission to the U.N. was supposed to be an act of diplomatic sabotage by the Administration. Instead, his tenure has been among the most constructive of any U.S. ambassador since Jeane Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan." | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{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}} |
Latest revision as of 18:53, December 15, 2006
This is an opinion item.
Author(s) | The Wall Street Journal editorial board |
---|---|
Source | The Wall Street Journal |
Date | September 7, 2006 |
URL | http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115758777974955818.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.