No tremendous shock here, but the New York Times has done it again. Specifically, in editorializing against the services of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, the Times has reinforced the perception that it has become an active arm of the liberal and world-elite.
The editorial, "Blocking Reform at the U.N." says that Ambassador Bolton is "threatening to hold up its entire two-year operating budget unless his demands for major reforms are met almost immediately."
First off, Bolton does not have any "demands;" It is the Bush Administration that does. Further, Bolton offered to the Security Council this: "I've proposed this three- to four-month interim budget as one possible mechanism to accommodate our desire to get the reforms fully implemented in the longer-term budget".
The Times continues its Bolton-bashing by stating: "Doing these things will require a close alliance between reformers and the secretary general's office and the ability to convince General Assembly members that a more credible and effective U.N. is in their interests. Those are exactly the areas where Mr. Bolton has done the most damage."
But this is as ridiculous an accusation as it gets. The United Nations--under the leadership of Kofi Annan--are the reason we see such trouble spots as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, oil-for-food, and rampant terrorism. It is a corrupt world body made up of corrupt nations. Listen to the New York Times condemn the United Nations “before it decided” to praise the United Nations:
"As it happens, the American reform agenda contains many good elements. No one can seriously argue that the U.N. is a rationally structured, efficiently managed body. And letting countries like Cuba, Libya and Sudan sit on a human rights commission that judges the records of other countries diminishes the U.N.'s most important authority, its moral authority."
So where does the New York Times stand? Unfortunately, one only has to read on to know: "Mr. Annan made a promising start earlier this year at building a consensus for reform, only to have it derailed by Mr. Bolton. Soon after taking over the American mission this summer, he issued a long list of last-minute demands. As a result, a special international summit meeting that had been organized to adopt real reforms ended up endorsing a document that was mostly fudge and mush."
So plainly, The New York Times opts for Kofi Annan and the bureaucratic fan-dancers of the U.N. over the sovereign right of the United States--who without, the United Nations would be about 22-25% poorer in regard to its operating budget, and 27% less for its peace-keeping budget.
As usual, an incredible spin by the times that gladly chooses to give the United States the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, and promote such world bodies as the U.N. that exist to do only one thing: displace America's sovereignty.