John Bolton deserves to remain U.N. envoy

From Discourse DB
Revision as of 19:35, September 17, 2006 by Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) ("refers to" template is now "reference")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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
Quotes-start.png "So, will Democrats with broader ambitions -- such as Sen. Hillary Clinton -- now go through the exercise of a purely partisan filibuster to deprive the United States of a representative who, according to his U.N. colleagues, has been calm, firm, forthright and effective?" Quotes-end.png


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..