>>>>>Which is why I actually like the author of the article. Knowing that the editor will slap an imprecise qualification in the subcaption ("John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations" - which is not exactly true), he strategically inserted a preemptive correction somewhere deep inside the text: "Mr Bush's ambassador to the UN".
>>>>
>>>>John Bolton was not the U.S. ambassador to the UN? You must mean something different than I think.
>>>
>>>He wasn't vetted by Congress, he was actually filibustered against. He was Bush's finger-in-everyone's-eye own envoy, by means of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment.
>>
>>Oh, I remember the whole thing. The fact remains he did hold that post, regardless of how he got there.
>>
>>Naming someone as belligerent as him our top diplomat was the perfect statement of the Bush administration's attitude towards diplomacy and other countries.
>
>In fairness I think it was more accurately a reflection of the admin's atttitude toward the UN - hardly the same thing as 'diplomacy and other countries.'
>

To me the attitude has been about equal. Maybe I just won't give them a fair break.