elected iran a state where stoning is enshrined in law, lashings required for women judged immodest. how do we make sense of it? john bolton, former ambassador to the u.n., he knows the hallways of this all too well. good morning to you in southern california. why would the u.n. make such a move? >> well, it's business as usual at the u.n. you know, i think most americans are outraged when they hear that iran is going to be voting on questions involving women's rights, but this is par for the course at the u.n. it's nothing exceptional. and i think it should tell us about a lot of other things that happen at the u.n., what the culture is and so on. i think there's one other important point. you know, the united states could have called for a vote and voted no on this nomination. but we probably would have been almost alone. but this nomination, this election, went through on a consensus basis, meaning we didn't stand up and oppose it. bill: why would that be the case, then?