Third Party & Independents Archives

Wow. That would rule! David, you donate to Kerry’s campaign, and I’ll see what I can do about registering the rest of the Loony Toons gang as Democrats. :)

I would welcome Clinton as Secretary General. I think it would be great for the UN and the U.S. But it will never happen, no matter who is elected in the U.S.

We look at the late 1990s in the way Europeans of the 1920s looked back at 1913. Pressures were building, but we didn’t see them. They had not burst out. It was the pleasant warm autumn before the onset of a cold winter. Naturally, we all look back on this with fondness and Bill Clinton is there.

Bill Clinton is the most charismatic person I have ever met. Everybody likes Bill Clinton in person, although he is clearly the kind of guy everyone likes even better in retrospect. If he was not American, he might have a chance. But charisma goes only so far in a world still run by national interests. As it is, UN members would support his candidacy until the last minute, when they would find reason to say no and embarrass the U.S.

It would only make sense for Clinton to be head of the UN as Demoncrats seem all too willing to hold this corrupt organization up as the ultimate arbiter of good and evil. The primacy of the United States Constitution has been gradually eroded since the inception of the UN and the ascendance of a power hungry, self-serving Americaphobe would only further their goal of “America Second”.

As much as I dislike Clinton, he would probably be better than Kofi has been. Moreover, he is probably much more moderate than we could expect given the current (regretable, irresponsible) nature of many of the powerful nations in the UN.

The UN is currently a completely mess- and only a powerful person can even begin to fix it. On the other hand, a man that stood by a watched Rwanda happen doesnt exactly instill confidence in me as the head of an organization concerned with protecting human rights.. eh…

Clinton is one of the best political minds in America. He can play several moves ahead on the political chess boardwith no problem.

The article posted makes good sense to me. Anything but Bush representing the US around the globe. His cadre of neo-cons will bring us to fascism (corporate power is greater than the power of a democratic electorate), and we’re nearly there.

jack, if Kerry is elected and he restores the worlds confidence and trust in the U.S. lost by the Bush rogue state impression left upon the world’s nations, and he would have two years to do so, Clinton’s nomination could easily be successful.

CWKnotts, would you mind providing some evidence for such a statement? Seems to me the U.N. was the instrument of the U.S. for decades. Simply because the U.N. disagrees with a rogue President, doesn’t mean the U.S. has lost any of its power or constitutional supremacy, just confidence and trust with Bush 43 at the helm.

Misha, you have a defensible criticism of Clinton on Rwanda. Clinton has stated he wished he acted differently and sooner on that issue. Who among us has not made mistakes. Appears Clinton has learned from his, unlike the current Oval Office holder. The only thing stopping Bush from repeating Iraq, is lack of resources.

I agree with you he would be a moderating influence in the U.N., and the potential for the U.S. reinstating its previous leadership in the world is huge with Kerry and Clinton working together in the Oval office and U.N. for world stabilization, and reducing the terrorist threats. I suspect we would even see Carter play a significant advisory role in such a scenario, and he is preeminently respected throughout the world.

David, as you know, I actually supported the Iraq war, and was not too concerned that the UN did not go along. The main reason for this is I have lost all respect for the UN as a body that enforces human rights norms. They simply fail to act time after time, and given the nature of the irresponsible nations who couldnt care less about human rights that have prominent roles in the structure of the UN, this is hardly surprizing.

That having been said, anything that can bring stability, sanity and initiative to the UN again would be welcomed in my eyes- even if that means someone as personally distasteful to me as Bill Clinton is elevated to such a powerful position. After all, Clinton did act strong in Kosovo- so he has shown some understanding for the obvious idea that force is needed to protect human rights against ruthless thugs.

KERRY WILL LOSE.

a. Iowa Electronic Market, a futures market, run by the Univ. of Iowa, predicts Bush victory. The site has been wrong only twice. That’s a better predictor than any poll, or any campaign spin.

b. www.Tradesports.com - a futures market where you can bet who will win the election also suggests that Bush will win.

In both places, people put their money where their mouth is.

These are the facts. Just the facts.

David,
The plans for the “World Court” have been underway for longer than 3 years 10 months (the current term to date of President Bush). The World Court premise is such that the United States Supreme Court is subordinate to the WC insofar as the rulings of the USSC can be summarily overturned even in direct contradiction to the U.S. Constitution. That is one. Another would be the inability of the United Nations to recognize the sovereignty of the Nation State, referred to by the United Nations as “States”. The United Nations decrees that its constitution has primacy over all “State” constitutions. The United Nations has stated that all speech is protected so far as it does not interfere with the mission of the United Nations. Now, in correlation to the United States Constitution which states solely that the freedom of speech shall not be abridged. That does not place the mission of a government over that of the rights of an individual. If the United Nations wishes to abridge our rights enumerated under the US Constitution it has set about framing a situation under which U.S. rights may be suppressed. Two. If you wish more to be enumerated please do say and I will oblige.

The U.S. is already the world’s only superpower, accounting for about more than a quarter of almost everything (GNP, military might, Nobel prize winners) except population. The world resents us and thinks we are already too powerful, too lucky and too rich. They resented us during the Clinton administration too and there are many world leaders still nursing a personal grudge against Clinton. Clinton is not as popular as some of you seem to think. World leaders are polite to former world leaders because they expect they won’t be back.

But forget all that. Just look at objective reality. Nobody would believe that a former American president would not put America first. Put yourself in the shoes of someone anywhere else in the world. It would look like, and might be, a U.S. takeover of the UN.

Ben Franklin said that there are no certainties in life except death and taxes. You can safely add a third: no American will ever be Secretary General of the UN as long as there is an America and as long as there is a UN.

And the reason we are so great as a nation is our freedom. Freedom which has been guided by the realities of responsibility and our collective morality upon which our nation was founded. Freedom without guiding principles is bound to bring anarchy.

David,
If the UN were an instrument of the US for decades as you say, why would the UN have given credence to dictatorial regimes by allowing them the right to sit as equals with democratically elected governments. The credibility given to the UN by leftist Americans is such that they do not wish to recognize the importance of the individual, much the same way that the collectivists at the UN subjugate rights of individuals to the supremacy of the organization.

Bill Clinton will not be Secretary-General of the UN regardless of who is elected President. The rest of the world could care less whether he is Democrat or Republican; they see him with a more important, overriding label: American. No American has ever been Secretary-General. I seriously doubt that, in today’s world, any American could ever get enough votes in the UN, which, in the last 20 or so years, has become a bastion of anti-Americanism. The US contributes far more money to the UN than any other country except Japan, yet the UN is simply a stage for other countries to bash us. Since we are the world’s lone superpower, we do get some of our issues addressed, but so long as countries like Libya or Cuba are on human rights committees, something is terribly wrong at the UN. I don’t think that Clinton would be a bad choice to head the UN though. Look at the bright side: he can’t screw it up more than it already is.

Troy, your argument is so transparent. The argument laid out in the article gives swing voters a reason to vote for Kerry and against Bush. Thus, you contend that there is no chance whatsoever Clinton could ever be elected Secretary General, despite the fact the polls and research indicate third world countries love Bill Clinton and they constitute the majority of votes in the U.N.

CWKnotts asked : If the UN were an instrument of the US for decades as you say, why would the UN have given credence to dictatorial regimes by allowing them the right to sit as equals with democratically elected governments.

For the same reason President Bush gave credence to an Islamic dictator with nuclear weapons and billions of our tax payer dollars to the old chap as well. The dicatator is in Pakhistan and his name is Musharraf.

Jack said: The world resents us and thinks we are already too powerful, too lucky and too rich.

The world is a big word, Jack. Do you mean the Japanese think we are too powerful, lucky and rich (PLR)? Do you mean the Australians think we are too PLR? How about the South Africans? What about the Taiwanese? No, there are just too many examples to refute you statement that the ‘world’ resents us.

This kind of statement of yours is such an oversimplification and overgeneralization as to make it a meaningless statement with countless examples of peoples in the world who would contradict your view. In fact, your view seems to reflect that of a wealthy thief living in Beverly Hills, who sees everyone else as coveting what he has.

Hermes1LA, everytime I walk into the cornerstore I have to wait on losers buying lottery tickets. They are losers because they bet and the odds are astronomically against them. Betting people are hardly rational and your anecdotal evidence is about as useful in a rational debate as a bucket with holes in the bottom.

David,
Excellent News Catch, I was hearing that about Clinton and have spent time to look it up. While I think he would be good not only to America, I do hold some reserve about him heading the UN without a committment from All Countries to begin to make the necessary changes that is needed to ensure that Iraq and Sudan does not have to happen.

Although I am against given up our miltary, I do see a serious need for an International Military Force/Civilization Structure Organization on our Planet and in Space. Clinton would be good at the “Butt Kissing.” However, I want Powell in charge of the Military Force.

If America & Company is serious about removing Terrorism as a WMD than we must be willing to take the necessary steps to move the world in that direction.

Thanks, Henry. I have not read the U.N. charter in full. I will have to do that very soon. However, it seems to me that it should be very narrowly defined and very specific in establishing its relationship to other sovereign nations, its missions, its authority, and its resources.

I have the feeling, but, this is pure speculation on my part, that the charter is far too broad. It will be interesting to see what provisions are in the charter for amendments.

David,
Although I have not kept up with the UN Code, I do know that in order to look at the UN we must look at how NATO, UNICEF, and other world organizations do business.

The only real problem I can easily foresee with building a real UN is insuring that the “People of the World” have a vioce in what takes place not just the governments.

Henry, of course that will be a tall order, since the charter does not provide for input by the people’s of the nations, only the sovereign leaders. All the more reason for leading other nations toward democracies where there voice will be at least somewhat represented by their leaders through an election process.

David,
Stalin killed 20 million people yet we allied ourselves with him when our national interests coincided. These were our NATIONAL interests not the interests of the League of Nations. We did not allow Stalin a role, even an equal role, in the democratic process to influence the course of our own self-governance. David, you’ll have to do better than that. We are allied with Mushariff out of pragmatism, not acquiescence.

I still hold my two previous examples of UN attempts at primacy as true, do you not?

David,

Once again, you have blinders on which prevent you from seeing reality. As you said, the world is a big place. Some countries are envious of our position (e.g. France) and some others just don’t like us (e.g. Cuba). Those countries will prevent an American, even the beloved Bill Clinton, from being elected Secretary-General. In addition to that, you have failed to consider that many countries feel we already have too much power, so they will not hand over the UN Secretary-General’s position to us as well. That is mainly why no American has ever been Secretary-General. Your article may give swing voters a reason to vote for Kerry, but it is just like the people waiting in line for the lottery: they have a better chance of being struck by lightning than winning.

CWKnotts, I love your argument, the UN accepts dictatorships and that is wrong, we support Musharraf for nationalistic purposes, and that is right. They hypocrisy of this stand is laughable. And you really expect such leadership in the US to have any credibility throughout the rest of the world on a “spread democracy” platform? How about Bush conceding to an Islamic Government in Iraq. This argument that we are right because we are we, but, others are not regardless, is a way of thinking that will truly hasten our nation’s demise, IMO.

As for the UN, show me the passages in the UN charter that support your view, and I will concede it needs changing.

Troy, I understand the premise of your opinion, but, you still fail to ackowledge or dispute factually Clinton’s popularity with third world nations. Hence, in light of articles by those studying these issues about Clinton’s popularity with a majority of nations in the UN with a vote, I can only accept your opinion as just that, an opinion. I have evidence to support my opinion, you have provided none to support yours. Thus, I will stick with my opinion until new evidence comes to light to change it.

Are you aware of the recent international polls which show most people in the world like Americans? If not, you should really get a bit more informed about world opinion before placing yours in place of it.

David

I perhaps I used the term “world” too broadly, the same way people generally do when they say the world dislikes George Bush. The leaders of countries will make the decisions so let’s consider some of them. We don’t have to look at all the countries of the world. No candidate can become Secretary General without unanimous consent of the Security Council and there are only four of them, so our work is easier.

China – Relations with China under Clinton were HORRIBLE. The Chinese leadership never forgave Clinton for bombing their Embassy during the Kosovo crisis. They have signaled that they prefer to stability of a second Bush term to trade frictions that Kerry has more or less promised in his rhetoric about protectionism, outsourcing etc. It doesn’t get better for Clinton/Kerry outside the government. Chinese dissidents are still disappointed that Clinton didn’t help them more in the late 1990s and have publicly called Kerry weak. Probably no chance on getting them on board for a Clinton candidacy no matter who wins. Worse if Kerry is president.

Russia – U.S.-Russian relations were good in early Clinton, horrible during the Kosovo crisis, okay but less good later on. They are better under Bush. Clinton had a good personal relationship with Boris Yeltsin. On the occasions when Yeltsin wasn’t drunk, I expect they had good conversations. Yeltsin in gone. Clinton and Putin have no personal relationship. Putin and Bush have a good one. Putin said last week at a news conference that terrorists are hoping for a Kerry victory. “The goal of international terrorism is to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term” he said. Mikahail Margelov, head of a parliamentary foreign affairs committee and Putin advisor, said that a Kerry administration would be “largely a Pandora’s box”. Not much chance for Clinton here either. Again, chances are better with Bush, but not good generally.

France – forget about it. The French coined the term hyper power to describe the U.S. during the Clinton administrations. I have personal experience with French diplomacy during the Clinton administration. The French would not even sign onto the Clinton’s “Community of Democracy” initiative – Even though they seemed to support every part of it - because it came from the U.S. They say they like Clinton now so that they can bother us about Bush. During the early Clinton administration, they said they liked Bush 41 so that they could bother us about Clinton. If you think they would ever go for an American as Sec General, you don’t know the French.

Brits – maybe yes. Blair liked Clinton; Blair likes Bush; Blair would probably like Kerry. He is a very friendly guy. Although the British press would have a field day making fun of Clinton.

So we probably have one vote. We need consensus on all of them. Bottom line: Clinton has no chance.

I honestly did not think anyone was serious when they talked about Clinton as Secretary General. Was everybody asleep during the Clinton administration? In 1999 there was serious talk of a rupture in the NATO Alliance. Our allies complained about a lack of U.S. leadership. The Arab street was up in arms about Iraq sanctions and our attacks on Iraq/Sudan/Afghanistan. The Chinese were fuming about their Embassy. The French was screaming about American unilateralism. It was a lot more like today than you all remember. That is the way it is for the world’s superpower.

The only thing stopping Bush from repeating Iraq, is lack of resources.

Ain’t that the truth.

I have lost all respect for the UN as a body that enforces human rights norms. They simply fail to act time after time,

Misha, the UN has no executive power. That’s not their function. The UN is a forum to air issues between nations.

When the UN passes a resolution that involves military action, it needs to solicit troops from its member nations. That invariably means the United States (though other nations are starting to fill the power vacuum that Bush has left - Australia in East Timor, France in the Ivory Coast and Congo, China in Haiti). If they issue a resolution and it’s not acted upon, that invariably means the United States is uninterested in acting upon it.

You can blame non-involvement in Rwanda on Clinton. You can blame it on the other 190 nations that refused to commit troops. But I don’t see how it can be blamed on the UN as an organization.

Also, the UN charter focuses on ensuring the territorial integrity of its member nations. Internal disputes like Rwanda and Sudan are mostly out of the UN’s bailiwick.

I blogged on UN reform here a while back. Among other things, the UN needs rule sets and procedures for handling internal crises in member nations and for indicting and overthrowing dictators like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il.

If Clinton could get the Republican Congress to balance the budget, then I think he could enact some serious UN reform.

CWKnots & Troy,
While in recent years the UN has had its problems so has our own government been involed in scandals. Iraq’s Oil for Food Program shows that our major oil corporations and at least three citizens are named in the Congressional Report and is now being investigated. Therefore, America can not throw “The First Stone” in placing blame.

If you look at its history when the US and Britain was engaged in setting the agenda you will find that is has done some good things. Here is a web site that highlights UN Major Achievements Additionally, being that we share this planet and universe with others how do you think we should deal with them?

As our society begins to start to explore and live in space, it is in our national interest to lead the rest of the world to live in a peaceful existance. Understanding that a nuke is not the most powerful weapon and everything we want to do cost money, We the Citizens of Planet Earth must be willing to invest our money in the future or stay in the S#$% we are in.

Henry,
The Earth does not have money or currency, individual nations do. We do lead through peace. The United States has never had the empire of other nation-states: France, Britain, Russia (USSR), Netherlands. Some of this may be attributable to the time in which the US came into its own but most is simply the principles upon which this country was built. The United States is not the problem; It is the solution. This country is not perfect, far from it, but there has never been a better form of government, including the United Nations.

Has anyone ever thought of the inequity caused by the unicameral system used by the UN? Proportional representation of the sort of our house of representatives would allow the United Nations to be more palatable to more people. The equal representation of the sort of our Senate which is used by the UN gives Togo the same voting power as the US and Japan. The population of nations should not be the factor for apportioning representation unless the burden of fees is also directly apportioned. Fair? Yes. Will it ever happen? No.

David
What would you have us do in the forum of international politics? Should we go to the UN and turn away when Castro seeks to engage us? Should we have not allied with Stalin? Should we follow foreign policy of the kind that Clinton saddled the CIA with: thou shalt not deal with dirty people. I personaly would rather have the leader of the “Islam Bomb” country as an ally than an unengaged adversary.

David,

You have no evidence, only wishful thinking. I agree with Jack - I really didn’t think anyone was serious about Clinton becoming Secretary-General. Clinton is a very charismatic guy, but that won’t be good enogh to overcome the factors I cited that will oppose his election. Jack’s posting is excellent in further addressing some of these factors. Repeating your wish over and over won’t make it come true.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

The expression of contradictory ideas to those upon which the UN were based IS NOT protected. The US constitution provides for popular change (Constitutional Convention) wheras the UN had specifically prohibited this.
Ex:
Article 23
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Does this mean that “Right to Work” States are “illegal”?

Now the one thing I can say os that, unlike the current nominee for the DP, Clinton IS an etremely personable guy. I am sure if in a room with him he would be the type of person you would want to listen to, so your idea of his charm overcoming all other international concerns is rooted well but that would suppose an open minded world/UN without the destruction of the American Way, and that won;t happen.

CWKnotts,
I did not say that the UN had good policies nor that any country followed them as of today. I forget how many violations our country has and is breaking. Nevertheless, as civilization stands on the egde of exploring and living in space it is in our national interest to use the UN or a different international governing body to work together in order to build and maintain a stable world.space society.

The problem will be is to create a law enforcement agency that has the ability to deal with those who want to break it. Right now the organization is our military and unless we accept the role of “The World Police Officers” we will lose our American Way.

Troy, obvious you didn’t follow the link by your statement that I have no evidence. Oh, well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.

David,

Spouting cliches doesn’t prove your point either.

I did read the link you provided. I see nothing there that would constitute evidence. It is simply repeating hearsay. It also focuses on the fact that Clinton wants the job, and it also stresses that if Kerry wins, he probably would not want Clinton in that position. Clinton has many hurdles to clear before he even could get considered.

Well Troy, since it appears Kerry is going to be elected, time will tell, eh?

I must agree, albeit reluctantly, with Jack. There really is no chance that an American - no matter who - will head the UN. The UN is headed by a person from a small, usually third world country in order to give the illusion that they have a voice in the UN.

Another random note: Doesn’t the US maintain a huge debt to the UN?

David:

I havent seen much evidence that points to Kerry winning. The most I have seen in this regard is that it will be a close race, but most of the polls show Bush leading, though sometimes within the margin of error.

I don’t see Kerry pulling it off, though it is a lot closer than I predicted it would be, so far.

As far as Clinton heading the UN, it will never happen. You can argue that he would be wonderful, you can argue that he deserves it, you can argue that he would make necessary reforms, but it simply will not ever happen. To have a US citizen, and especially a former President, running the UN would be like having the UN in the US’s pocket, which other countries already think. I dont see them allowing it to go further.

Not a realistic option at all, though certainly fun to talk about.

jbod and Bush supporter’s et.al.

I hear you speaking with a monolithic voice against even a remote possibility that Clinton could be elected as Secretary General. Given the reality that the Republicans believed Kerry did not have a prayer in hell of defeating an incumbent President in war time just 8 months ago, I can only laugh at the communal lack of imagination.

Clinton could run and have a very real possibility of winning UN election on a simple platform that would rally nations, especially 3rd world nations around the globe. This platform I envision is 1) I have a remarkable relationship with the President of the US, and we both believe that the US must make amends for its non-payments to the UN. 2) In order to bring this reparation of past payments due come about however, it is essential that the UN vote for me in a majority. 3) I will use all of the skills, knowledge, and expertise I acquired as a successful President who brought those on the left and right together in bringing forth legislation that I could sign as President, to the office of Secretary General. 4) It is my utmost goals to help secure stability and security for nations especially from unsecured WMD, to negotiate rising living standards and equitable trade agreements for all the nations of the world, and to recreate the United Nations into the organization it was intended to be. An organization which prevents international wars, stops acts of genocide and large scale violations of human rights, and works toward trade agreements and international laws that empower the hope and reality of living wages for living standards throughout the world in ways in which all nations involved can benefit.

If Clinton makes this appeal both to the people of the world, and he can, as well as to the leaders of the nations in the UN, and if Kofi Annan is his contender, I believe it is very possible for Clinton to win. In fact, I even see the possibility of Annan becoming complicit in such a scenario depending on who else is running, in realizing that Clinton would be the best choice.

Anything is possible in the realm of politics. And the monolithic denial of this fact by Bush supporters here demonstrates to me a very real fear of such a scenario even having a chance of coming true. I can’t seem to stop the smile that comes from that thought. Reminds me of the Kerry commercial with the Ostrich and eagle, seems so apropos’ in light of this debate.

UN General Secretaries don’t run for election. They win consensus AND none of the permanent members of the Security Council can oppose their candidacy. Any permanent member can veto any candidate for any reason. In practice, any Security Council member can blackball a candidate in secret.

Remember, these are government officials, not “the people.” The people don’t get to vote. The Chinese hate Bill Clinton; the Russians don’t care for him; The French are French. There are good reasons for three of the five members to veto Clinton and it only takes one.

Forget about the veto for a minute. The world’s regions informally take turns. The former Norwegian PM, Gro Harlem Brundtland was very popular at the UN, but couldn’t get the job because she was European. The Latin Americans and South Asians are eagerly waiting their turn. Why would anyone give up their turn for Bill Clinton. There is no chance.

But did you hear that if Bush loses the election, they are going to make him head of the League of Islamic Nations. About the same chance.

jbod and Bush supporter’s et.al.,
Would any care to discribe what Bush would do? Maybe Mr. Baker could get control on the UN.

If Bill regains his health, I think he has the ambition to make a run for secretary general. I personally think Jimmy Carter would have a better chance, but he may not have the desire. Interesting post, David.

In the nightmare that is a 43 2nd term, Bill shouldn’t be overlooked. Actually, Bush may want to nominate Clinton to the UN. Having Bill in the UN would leave Hillary unable to run in ‘08 for all practical purposes. (The NWO conspiracies not-withstanding)

CER
The U.S. is the largest contributor to the UN and always has been. The United States funded 22 percent of the UN regular budget, as well as more than 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget

The United States is a generous supporter of key UN programs, funding:
— 51.4% of the World Food Program budget to help feed 72 million people in 82 countries.
— 17.1% of the United Nations Children’s Fund budget to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 162 countries.
— 14.1% of the United Nations Development Program core budget to eradicate poverty and encourage democratic governance.
— 25.8% of the International Atomic Energy Agency budget to ensure safe and peaceful application of nuclear energy and prevent the illicit use of nuclear material for weapons.
— 22% of the World Health Organization core budget as well as significant voluntary resources, helping to prevent and control epidemics and to improve standards of health.
— 25% of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees budget to help protect refugees and facilitate their return home or re-settlement in another country.
— 25% of the International Civil Aviation Organization budget to ensure safe, efficient and economical air travel.

We are like the rich uncle. We don’t get credit for what we give because we COULD always give more. But we are clearly doing our part. We sometimes withhold money for particular reasons when programs are being mismanaged or overly political. That is probably what you mean.

Jack, thank you for assisting my argument with the following statements The former Norwegian PM, Gro Harlem Brundtland was very popular at the UN, but couldn’t get the job because she was European. The Latin Americans and South Asians are eagerly waiting their turn. Why would anyone give up their turn for Bill Clinton. There is no chance.

Don’t you see? There is no candidate from any nation that is going to get unanimous support, and that leaves a lot of room for wheeling and dealing. Thank you. The possibility definitely exists.

SydOpus said: Actually, Bush may want to nominate Clinton to the UN. Having Bill in the UN would leave Hillary unable to run in ‘08 for all practical purposes. (The NWO conspiracies not-withstanding)

Now that is a true to piece of insight and politically astute in the extreme. Bush claims bipartisanship, sets Clinton up to fail in the bid after nominating him, thus ending Clinton’s ultimate hope for heading a huge bureaucracy again. Bush would love that scenario. Wonder if Clinton’s vanity would permit him to refuse the offer?

Jack said: “We sometimes withhold money for particular reasons when programs are being mismanaged or overly political. That is probably what you mean.”

But you miss the psychology of the scenario, Jack. One can be friends with another for half a lifetime, but let one friend betray another just once, and that friendship can never again be mended. Kyoto treaty, anti-proliferation treaties, nuclear testing and development agreements, world court, annual dues, any one or two of these were sufficient to end the friendship between the Bush administration and the UN as a whole. With a new President, there is hope for restoration of relations with a new friendship that can be trusted, eh?

BTW, lovely word games, Jack. UN General Secretaries don’t run for election. They win consensus AND none of the permanent members of the Security Council can oppose their candidacy.

And pray tell, how do they establish that concensus, by mind reading? Do they record the tally of the member’s decision? So, let’s assume they establish concensus by voting, and count the tally to determine if concensus has been reached. Sure sounds a helluva lot like an election to me, whatever word games you want to play with the process. Appreciate the chuckle.

Yep, Bill wants to be Secretary General of the UN, and Hillary wants to be president. Now talk about a monopoly of power.

This nation is on a nosedive.

Write in John McCain and feel the pride and honor we used to feel before our nation was
trashed over the past few decades.

http://members.acsworld.net/acrediblepresident/

David

All administrations have withheld money from the UN from time to time, as have most UN members. Some members barely pay anything at all. There has never been a year since the founding of the UN when the U.S. was not the single biggest contributor to the UN and its programs. If you want consistency, there it is.

Consensus is very different from election. Votes are not taken and not counted. In consensus everyone agrees enough to accept the result. Consensus is more like picking a restaurant with your in-laws than an election. If stubborn uncle Joe really hates to eat at Denny’s, you aren’t going there even if everyone else would have voted yes.

If, for example, the French or the Chinese want to kill the nomination, they can do so pretty much in secret. They could publicly support the nomination, kill it in secret, and deplore the fact that it has been killed in public.

The Chinese hate Clinton for what they think he did to them and these guys have long memories. Absent a new government they will kill it. And Clinton has other enemies among the world’s rulers.

Beyond all that, I think you really overestimate Clinton’s popularity. He never even managed to win a majority of the American voters. It is a lot easier to be popular if you aren’t running for anything. Oprah Winfrey is probably the most popular woman in America. She wisely doesn’t test her popularity by running for office. Or take a more relevant case, when George Bush was governor of Texas, he was one of the best liked and most popular in the various governors’ conferences. As soon as he ran for president, his old Democratic friends forgot about that. What a surprise.

Jack, where are you getting this information regarding the concensus opposed to voting? Being skeptical by nature, I would like to know the source of your information.

One thing is for sure, Bush does not have a prayer of getting a nominee to the UN position and the press around the world has been documenting why for over a year now as has WatchBlog.

As for Clinton’s popularity, having not travelled the world myself, I will take the opinion of foreign correspondents and international pollsters word for it until more solid information is available, rather than a partisan opinion from a Bush supporter. Just seems the prudent thing to do in terms of information management.

David

The five permanent members of the Security Council can veto anything for any reason. As for consusus, just read how any of the UN Secretary Generals got their job and you will see the process at work.

I have never seen a international poll that asked anyone about Clinton’s popularity. I have traveled and worked overseas when Clinton was president. It was not that good. I was looking for some news stories re and came upon the following set of articles the Washington Post’s page about the Embassy.

China Rejects U.S. Explanation For Belgrade Embassy Bombing: But Beijing Allows America’s Side of Story to Be Told on TV (Post, June 18, 1999)

War Crimes Court Is Looking at NATO: Strikes on Yugoslav Targets Questioned (Post, Dec. 29, 1999)

Bombing of Yugoslavia Awakens Anti-U.S. Feeling Around World (Post, May 18, 1999)

CIA Analyst Raised Alert On China’s Embassy: Concerns Unheeded Before Belgrade Attack (Post, June 24, 1999)

Change all the references to Yugoslavia to Iraq and you could run the same headlines today.

Ah the good old days under Bill Clinton. How the world loves him.

Clinton is highly regarded around the world as a person intent on peacemaking. His role in N. Ireland promoting a settlement their with Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams, his paving the way for China’s acceptance into the WTO after his visit there, his visits to Kosovo made him popular and respected in the world for taking humanitarian action, his presiding over the 1993 Middle East peace treaty, — all these and more are his legacy in the minds of other nations.

For those member states in the UN who want leadership that will work for peace in the world and can mediate, Clinton will be viewed as a very viable choice. Of course a lot depends on who else is nominated, but, his legacy will be touted and his name recognition and his record of brokering between differing parties and interests will speak well of his nomination if Kerry chooses to go that route.

P.S. P.S. Clinton’s popularity as a former president has rebounded since his troubled days in the White House when he faced impeachment and numerous scandals, according to a recent Wall Street Journal-NBC poll.

This same phenomena of memory is universal and will work to improve international regard for Clinton in 2006 as well. I really do think it is Ostriching for anyone to discount the possibility, that, or partisan revulsion.

I like Bill Clinton. I have always liked him. I voted for him in 1996 and for Al Gore because I hoped he would be like Clinton. But I don’t overestimate his popularity. By the time Ronald Reagan died, more than 85% of Americans (according to some polls) claimed they liked him. John Kerry uses RR as an example in his campaigns. That is because he is gone. He was less popular when he was in power and this goodwill would quickly evaporate if he was to come back.

Beyond all that, Clinton is American. I have been watching the American image closely for more than 20 years. Our reputation rises and falls, but there has never been a time when an American, any American would be accepted as the head of the UN. Even if Kerry is elected and everyone loves him, they will remain suspicious of the U.S. During the Cold War we used to say, judge capacity to do harm, not intentions, because intentions could change. Why should any foreigner not apply the same logic to us.

David:

I’m afraid you have missed my point about Clinton being the head of the UN. My comment wasnt about Clinton at all, in fact. It was about the possibility of a former US president heading up the UN.

Countries such as China and France already see the US as having too much sway and power with the UN. To have a former US President as the head of the UN would give the US additional power, and I dont see France or China allowing that.

Regardless of whether the world likes or dislikes Clinton, this will not happen. Its not the ostrich burying its head in the sand….its really just looking at the equations of what would need to occur for this to come about.

If I suggest that Badnarik might win the 2004 election, or perhaps that Lyndon LaRouche might win, you’d be wise to assert the many challenges that each would have to overcome. You’d be correct in stating that it would be the longest of longshots. So it is with Clinton becoming Secretary General of the UN. Using the “nothing is impossible” argument simply opens the door to any possibility, however ludicrous.

jbod, I am afraid you miss you the point. The very countries you mention whom you opine would be against a US Secretary General are the very countries most threatened by an ineffective and corrupt UN. Do not forget that unlike so many in the U.S., other nations believe in the necessity of a U.N. including the nations you cite. If Kerry and Clinton could make the case that the UN has its best chance of eliminating corruption and living up to is chartered mission under Clinton’s leadership, it follows logically, that Clinton could be a far more preferable candidate than others who might be nominated by other nations.

But, by all means, dismiss the notion on whatever grounds you feel you need to, no matter how much it might benefit the U.S. and the world’s nations and peoples. I do understand this kind of thinking, so many Americans upon realizing their own mortality become walking dead people 30 or 40 years before their bodies are put under the soil. Sad, but fear, skepticism, and doubt are powerful barriers to human effort and potential. And you may be right, fear, skepticism, and doubt may in fact prevent Clinton from every having a chance. I personally would choose to be one of the hurdlers than one of the hurdles, but, to each their own.

Clinton couldn’t manage to regularly pay our ordinary UN dues while he was president (although we paid enough in other ways) He never dared submit the Kyoto protocol or the ICC to the Senate, so he never managed to ratify them and they never went into force. In fact he didn’t even agree to sign either (a meaningless gesture that only caused trouble for the U.S. later) until almost his last day in office, hardly a spirited defense of multilateralism. In Kosovo he couldn’t get a UN mandate and went into action without one. It was during his administration that the French invented the term hyper power and said that his was the most unilateral administration in history. If he couldn’t get the U.S. to cooperate with the UN (which by the way, I don’t think we always should) how will he get it when he is not president?

In theory anything is possible, but some things have such low probability that they are impossible in fact. That is not defeatism to recognize that. Thinking positively is great, but if you expend a lot of effort on things that really won’t happen, you take away from those that can lead to real accomplishments.

Well, jack, you see impossible. I see very possible. You have your reasons, I have mine. That is what makes debate, debate. I hope for our country’s and the world’s sake, you are wrong in your assessment. I also hope we get the opportunity to find out.

David;

You stated the following in an above post. I’ve copied in your comments from another thread to highlight an issue. While you might choose to be a “hurdler”, you are doing nothing but becoming a “hurdle” by means of your “fear, skepticism, and doubt”, as exemplified by the second quote.

Sad, but fear, skepticism, and doubt are powerful barriers to human effort and potential. And you may be right, fear, skepticism, and doubt may in fact prevent Clinton from every having a chance. I personally would choose to be one of the hurdlers than one of the hurdles, but, to each their own.

Q: David, do you truly feel the United States is going the way of ancient Rome or ancient Greece, or the way of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev? Do you see our future as being so bleak?

A: I see how very easy it can be for the US to go the way of Rome, Ancient Greece or Russia…Yes,I think it is very possible the US could become a failed state and I see many evidences that we have already embarked down such roads.

Some hurdler!!!

jbod, forewarned is forearmed. Spotting the hurdles is half the job of hurdling them.