WASHINGTON -- March 9 -- The nomination of John Bolton to become Ambassador to the United Nations is part of a continuing assault on international organizations and the concept of the international rule - this despite soothing words uttered in President Bush's recent European jaunt. This nomination is evidence of the White House's true position. Remember, "Watch what I do, not what I say"? We in Americans for Democratic Action are, indeed, watching and so are others. Nebraska's Republican Senator Chuck Hagel is quoted as saying, "I do have concerns, because the United Nations is a very important institution. We need to send someone to the U.N. that has the skills to work with the secretary-general," said Nebraska's Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. It's not often we find ourselves in agreement with Senator Hagel whose lifetime ADA voting record is a resounding 10 but this time we do.

We not only "have concerns" but we are also appalled by the nomination. Throughout his career, Mr. Bolton has been an outspoken enemy of the rule of international law and a determined critic of the United Nations. It's hard to imagine adequate words to describe the Bush Administration's selection but chutzpah and hubris come to mind.

In nominating Mr. Bolton to be the next United States Ambassador to the United Nations, President Bush is demonstrating his own complete disdain for both the United Nations and the rule of international law at precisely the time when he should be advocating for both - a period of extreme international uncertainty, the direct result of often ill-advised Bush foreign policy initiatives.

Instead, Mr. Bush has chosen to nominate Mr. Bolton who spearheaded U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court. Bolton sought to remove Mohamed ElBaradei as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency principally because Mr. ElBaradei disputed the Administration's contention that Iraq was a repository of weapons of mass destruction; it is worth noting that subsequent events have proven Mr. ElBaradei correct. In addition, Mr. Bolton opposed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the international bio-weapons conference, the ban on chemical weapons and the nuclear test ban.

Bad as all of that is, however, nothing is more damning than his own virulent opposition to the United Nations itself - the body to which he is being sent as ambassador. Mr. Bolton once said, "There is no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. Secretariat Building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make much of a difference." Diplomat? Ambassador? We think not. The result is the equivalent of sending Madame Defarge to the bakery to obtain pastry for Marie Antoinette. It's both ludicrous and dangerous.

When John Bolton was confirmed as Undersecretary of State in 2001, 43 Senators voted against him. The responsibility now is even more critical. Americans for Democratic Action urges the Senators to vote against confirming John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations.

###