Truth be known, I wasn't happy with his recess appointment when his nomination was blocked the first time around. His opponents said that he was brutal, mean, and bad at management. They hinted that there would be a mass exodus from the US's mission to the UN. When he began his tenure, I kept waiting for the moment when he would do something shameful in the public sphere. Has anything like this happened?

The guy believes, as I now believe, that the UN is a lovely environment for high-minded and ineffectual discourse. It seems riddled with corruption with little or no oversight. Even worse, it panders to the worst elements, like the Arab bloc, who have proven adept at using the machinery of the UN for their own petty purposes. The cold war is over. Is this entity still useful?

Bolton has lambasted the secretary general for his lousy performance. He has defended US interests with great aplomb.

And he has spoken bluntly but respectfully about the greater issues facing the international community, from Iran to North Korea.

Why are the Democracts making an issue of this guy? There are so many other blatant and obvious fish to fry. Iraq is a disaster; our economy is in a death spiral; and people are working harder for less with lousy health insurance in the richest country in the world that can't spare a few $$ for minimum wage workers.

Who cares about John Bolton. Let's move on.

Mr Scherer's screed about Ambassador Bolton is remarkably candid and opinionated. I am curious if the writer would feel differently about the gentleman if he were groomed more to his liking? Or perhaps only certain personages may hold and keep their opinions about a world body supposedly organized to promote and keep order amongst the nations of the world?

I didn't read a single complaint in the article about what Ambassador Bolton's achievements actually have been since he took office based on his recess appointment. The ambassador has indeed been effective, including obtaining a Security Council resolution condemning North Korea's July 4th missile launches. As for Senator Kerry's dueling with Ambassador Bolton, is it the senator or the ambassador who is being stubborn when refusing to change or shift opinion? Perhaps both gentlemen hold strongly felt beliefs about the best way to deal with the Hermit Kingdom, and stand by their beliefs. Yet the writer clearly believes that Ambassador Bolton ought to be the one to change his mind. Or does Mr Scherer actually object to pen-twirling and doodling and is this the basis for disqualifying a nominee to such an important post?

I didn't realize that Salon's Washington correspondent was a style editor. Somehow, haircuts have been transformed into a statement of disdain and rebellion. It is one thing to strongly disagree with a man's opinion and demeanor, another to argue that his coiffure is a method used to insult opponents. This article was full of personal disdain and an ad hominem attack upon a public servant. The writer is entitled to his opinion and to his opposition to the Ambassador's nomination to the posting; his attacks upon the gentleman's personal grooming is a demonstration of how far he needs to stretch to find a basis of attacking the man.

Regards,

Ralph M Sherman

St Clair Shores, Michigan

Bolton has been a disaster at the UN. He has offended everyone, and according to a recent article in the NY TImes, even his "allies" (off the record) say that he is worse than useless. He set out to destroy the UN and he has exerted himself to do so. I do not think that now is the time to write off the UN or the need for international law and an international body. In addition, Bolton is personally not the sort of person I want representing me as an American. He is an American of the ugliest and most repellant type. I say get rid of him, bankrupt him, sell his house, bury all of his belongings in a swamp, strip his name from the public record, and abolish all references to every idea he ever had. He is a scumbag.

I can't believe that Salon articles are now leading with fashion critiques for the first two full paragraphs of an article. That's the kind of crap we mock the mainstream media for. I should haved logged off and watched the Daily Show. .........None of us wanted Bolton nominated, but he's there now. Have the hearings, have the vote and let's go back to focusing on what's really important. Bolton is not the problem; he's just a symptom. The problem is his boss and hers, Condoleeza Rice and George Bush.

This is what passes for journalism at salon.com? What a pantload!

Mr. Sherman opines:

The ambassador has indeed been effective, including obtaining a Security Council resolution condemning North Korea's July 4th missile launches.

What is effective about a toothless UN resolution? Neither China nor Russia will let the UN do jackshit about Korea. As a matter of fact - who gives a shit if Korea has nukes - if they use 'em on us they'll be blown off the face of the earth.

Their crazy-ass dictator has caused a great deal less trouble for the rest of the world than our chimpanzee-brained Texan. How many Muslims has Kim Jong Il killed? Bush is up to about 100,000. How many US troops has Kim killed? Bush is at 2,500 and counting.

I'm far more concerned about an SUV running a stop sign or avian flu than I am about any danger from north of the 38th parallel.

The sad thing about Bolton is not his silly mustache or lousy haircut - it's the fact that a blowhard pipsqueak represents what used to be the leader of the free world.

. . . because the complainers in the letters section are far too numerous. But, still, can't you guys run these articles by a copy editor before publishing them? The word in the fifth paragraph should be "flout," not "flaunt." This is a high school mistake, and it just adds to the early criticism that's been leveled against the article.