John Bolton is definitely a polarizing character. He's a tough-talking diplomat; a real bull in the china shop sort--perfect for the role of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Yet critics are aghast at the choice. They claim Mr. Bolton wants to destroy the U.N. This is true, nothing would please Mr. Bolton (and many others, I might add) more then to obliterate the U.N. But Mr. Bolton is speaking metaphorically when he says this. Like many neo-conservatives, he holds the U.N. in contempt: a black hole for corruption (like the Oil-for-Food program); a place where petty despots hold sway. He wants the U.N. to be more effective, but this isn't going to come about through backroom dealings, as is current practice, but through open and frank discussions and, yes, even some arm-twisting.

That Mr. Bolton's brusque manner will alienate allies and enemies alike is of little concern to me. It has been proven that talking nice will get you nothing but contempt, especially in the rarified air that is the Security Council. Everyone--including liberals--agree the U.N. needs tough love, so who better to give it then its most vocal critic?