I recently heard rumors from some staffers inside the U.N.
Apparently W.J. Clinton has been making quite a few appearances and speeching engagements at the U.N. and the vibe is that he is looking to replace the embattled Secretary General.

This was from people who had spoken with him and/or heard him speak informally there in NYC.


Given that Clinton has been very active as an envoy of the U.N. for a while now and it has apparently been in the air since 2004.

Recently much has been made of his work for UNICEF and they have already begun to tap his fund raising ability for the program.

I did not find this topic when I searched and I was intrigued by it after my discussion with some "insiders" this weekend.

Questions to debate:
Do you think Bill Clinton is intending to be the new Secretary General?


Would he be good at the job?

I think Clinton wants that job very much.

I think he would be perfect for it.

The UN is good at one thing. Talking, talking, talking, followed by more talking. Action is something they are not good at. But, talking is. Especially politically correct, meaningless, irrelevant, and inconsequential talking.

It's in Clinton's sweet spot. He's great at talking up a storm. He'll talk everyone else under the table at the UN. He'll talk until he generates enough CO2 to cause localized global warming. He'll talk until the oxygen has been removed from the UN assembly and all other delegates have passed out.

When it comes to action and actually solving problems, he's right with the UN. Clinton, like the UN, sat on the sidelines while Islamist terrorists continued to strike at the US. He wondered, like the UN did, how it was all the US's fault. He, like the UN, coddled the terrorists themselves, tried to "feel their pain", and even invited them (Ararat) to the White House for more and more "talk".

When genocide was occurring in Africa, Clinton, and the UN, talked about how bad it was, how it should stop, and how terrible it was that black people were slaughtering each other by the millions. He talked, talked, talked, and then talked some more. But Clinton, and the UN DID nothing to stop the carnage.

When Bin Laden attacked our embassies, the USS Cole, and the Khobar towers, the UN talked about how bad it was, just like Clinton did. The UN then invited Syria to head up their human rights commission and Clinton got back to what he did best; telling the Secret Service to let that young woman, Lewinsky, though the back gate so that she could deliver "pizza".

Bush has hit the nail on the head; the UN is an irrelevant debating society. And who best to lead such a society? William Jefferson Clinton; the most irrelevant debater of modern American history. The two would go together like two peas in a pod. Like peanut butter and jelly. Like George and Gracie. Like Michael Moore and the democrat party.

It's a perfect job for Clinton. He has all the skills required, shares the same inherent anti-US bias, believes in same nonsense like Islamist terrorism is a result of poverty and that poverty in Africa can be solved by continued give-aways by prosperous nations to corrupt governments in Africa. Clinton is also a one-world-government type guy who believes that the US constitution is a warped document; especially when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

I say hire him.

And then throw the UN out of the United States and send it to Paris or Bejing where it belongs.

The US can then continue protecting our interests, our security, and our prosperity without all that pesky talk, talk, talk, talk, and more talk buzzing around like a nest of hungry mosquitoes.

Before I answer the questions I would just like to say congratulations to lordhelmet for already jeering this topic towards his own partisan ends. Lets keep this from being a rehash of 93-01. Also, I’m not sure this topic constitutes “news and current events.”

Do you think Bill Clinton is intending to be the new Secretary General?

There was some talk of this towards the end of the last election cycle. At the time, it seemed more likely if there was a Kerry presidency, but I'm not sure that hold up now. Especially since Clinton has become the Bush family’s adopted son the past few months.

To become the secretary he would need the President’s blessing.

Would he be good at the job?

The UN has to be reformed. Other than UNICEF I am not sure what the UN does to help people. Repeatedly the UN has failed to protect nations like Rwanda from harm. For the UN to truly work nations like the US, France, China, and Russia would have to shelve their national interests. The world is just not quite there yet.

I am not sure how Clinton’s micromanage style would work in the UN. I imagine it may work better there than it did in the US.

Do you think Bill Clinton is intending to be the new Secretary General?

I have no idea


Would he be good at the job?

Compared to the guy who's there now?
Kofi is probably a nice fellow but he's a one man disaster area as SGOTUN.

Compared to him I think Clinton would make an excellent Secretary General. He is, fairly well liked and trusted by most people as far as I am aware and nominating him for the job might possibly be the best diplomatic move GW Bush ever made. Its not as if Clinton could actually do any harm in the job and who knows, given his talent for charming the pants off other people, perhaps he could even do some good.

As is mentioned above, Clinton is good at talking and talk is is 99% of diplomacy.

I would be encouraged to see Clinton making yet another come back. He was the best US president I ever saw and I'm sure he'd be the best SGOTUN as well.

It would also be quite funny if his wife were elected President of the USA. Then, between them, they could sort out the whole world over breakfast.

Do you think Bill Clinton is intending to be the new Secretary General?
He hasn't told me personally, so I really don't know. It may just be fodder for/from the pundit mills.

Would he be good at the job?
As much as I don't really care for Mr. Clinton personally, I think he would be a much better SecGen than the current occupant of the seat. I stand by my opinion that the UN is little more than a ridiculously expensive debate club, but if we are to go to the trouble of hosting it on our soil, than we might as well try and make it the best ridiculously expensive debate club around. Bill Clinton would do a fantablulously splendiferous job at negotiating meaningless disputes between less-than-super-power nations, and actually would be better at fiscal oversight and running the bureaucracy and UN programs.

Do you think Bill Clinton is intending to be the new Secretary General?

I don't know- hard to say- I think if he wants the job he will get it- GW has a win-win here- he gets an American for SG and he appears non-partison- and with the TOTAL lack of credibility that GW has in the world, and being basically seen as an idiot- it might give America some standing in the world again instead of being seen as just a bully out of control that we are now.

Would he be good at the job?

Of course, he was probably the most competent President since Eisenhour, despite his other flaws- and the rest of the world (read- everyone but the religious right in the US) doesn't care who he is boffing-

he would probably be the greatest SG of all time, not kidding here- he is brilliant, a consensus builder, has enormous world stature, far more than our sitting president will ever have- and has something that GW has never had in the world scene- international respect. Not to mention, he understands the issues he sees before him, is very well informed, and does things like watch various news programs, read and stuff like that LOL

Before we get to Clinton, let's see if we can correct these mistaken notions.

They have helped over 45 countries conduct free and open elections. UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year on immunizations, health care, nutrition and education in 138 countries. The APDF (Africa Project Development Facility) has helped entrepreneurs in 25 countries obtain financing. The Facility has completed 130 projects - representing investments of $233 million and the creation of 13,000 new jobs, saving some $131 million in foreign exchange annually. The United Nations is leading an international effort to clear land minds from Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Rwanda and Somalia. UNIFEM has helped raise the female literacy rate in developing countries from 36% in 1970 to 56% in 1990. This list goes on. Over 170 negotiated ends to regional conflicts. Over 35 peacekeeping missions, over 10 ongoing right now.

They do MUCH more than talk. The problem is, what we tend think of as the UN is really the 'congress' of the UN. In the US, thousands and thousands of people work for the federal government - providing health care to veterans, immunizing schoolkids, working with local and state governments on economic development, serving in the military, patrolling our waters in the Coast Guard, and so on. But if we looked at Congress and thought it was the US, we would say that all they did was talk!

Do you think Bill Clinton is intending to be the new Secretary General?
I hope so.

Would he be good at the job?

Absolutely. I was not his biggest fan when he was president, but he would be perfect for this job. As president he was tough on terrorism; he helped eliminate the deficit from 12 years of incompetent Republican leadership; and he was a New Democrat, more centrist than many in his party. He is a good consensus builder, and a good negotiator.

Man some people are just testy that life was better under Clinton.

Perhaps it is time we took advantage of the UN instead of firmly preventing it from being anything more than a "debate club". Since republicans have so firmly embraced nation building and surfing waves of freedom, yada yada yada, they won't have a problem with strengthening the UN to deal with certain global problems instead of waiting till its too late and we have to spend an inordinate amount of American lives instead---unless they still are afraid of One World Guvmints taking away their personal freedoms and.......oh wait that seems to be the One thing we have done inhouse instead of outsourcing.

No one would be better for bringing about the changes in the UN better than Bill. Coals to Newcastle and all that.

After all we will need Coalitions of the Willing to fight terrorism--right, and we're gonna be preemptive in our approach--right, and don't forget not dealing with terrorist sponsoring nations--except saudi of course--right?

R-ight!

First off, your life is what you make of it. It wasn't "better under Clinton" unless you were part of his huge legal team (unprecedented in size). Then, you could make millions defending him against the multiple scandals he caused during his 8 years.

Second, outsourcing really picked up steam when Clinton was in office. He signed NAFTA and GATT and really opened up the floodgates when he granted China MFN trading status.

Track their exports from 1992 to 2000 and you'll see a huge jump. Ron Brown didn't spend half his time in China for no reason and all those illegal campaign funds, sent to the re-elect Clinton campaign in 1996 through fronts like restaurant owner Johnny Chung, weren't made just in jest.

But, to get back on topic, the UN is weak because of it's structure. The US have tried, from time to time, to whip them into shape but have failed due to the fact that a number of entrenched anti-US countries (notably France) can veto any resolution. Bush has tried to reform the obsolete group by appointing Bolton, but the democrats have blocked his nomination; ostensibly because they favor the do-nothing status quo of that group of talking heads.

The problem with the UN is that they don't even see the "global problems" that they are chartered with addressing. Genocide occurs and they say... "huh?". Terrorism picks up steam and they pick the terrorists to run their human rights commissions. Democracy holds on by a thread in the middle east and the UN declares that "zionism is racism".

The UN is decrepit and worthless because it has been hijacked by leftists with a socialist and anti-US agenda. They see the US as the source of most problems; not the greatest hope for mankind that this world has ever seen.

Given that, Clinton is perfect for that job because he'll fit right in and do nothing substantial to cause the US problems. Talk is cheap and at club-Clinton, talk is always on sale. Clinton's ineffectiveness was a disaster when he was president of the US but as secretary general of the UN, he would put his incompetence into action in a way that wouldn't cause us much harm. Like I said, he would bore that group to sleep with his talk, talk, talk, and allow reformers like Bush to keep moving our world in a positive direction through REAL reform and by confronting, once and for all, the Islamist killers who are determined to hurt me, you, and our families.

I know you'll have to read between the lines to detect how I really feel about our former president. Perhaps the more astute among AD people will be able to do that.

I thank God that I get a chance to beat up on Mr. Clinton yet one more time on this board!

Basically, if Mr Clinton is intending to be the new Secretary General, I applaud the action. Mr Clinton is known for doing only those things that best serve his political cause (or of course that of Hillary), so this would be a great idea.

He could sit atop the UN and have a replay of his administration.

CR and whomever else keeps claiming that Clinton was the most effective President since whomever... please explain why. Frankly, the only thing he even accomplished worth noting was balancing the budget; which happened primarily at the expense of scrapping the world's most prolific military (which of course we need now more than ever), cutting military salaries so badly that 30% of enlisted Military families qualified for gov't aid (i.e. wic or food stamps, etc), and being president during one of the most stable economic periods in American (and world) history....

The bottom line is that Mr. Clinton shouldn't really ever be in a posture that involves the actual defense of those defenseless. Consider the idea that he engaged in more military action than his 5 preceeding Presidents, of which no action (excluding Bosnia) really accomplished anything. He spent more money on diplomatic trips than any other President in History, and his wife made as many trips in the first 4 years as Bush sr and his wife combined. Flag waiving... that's it really. Oh, and not to mention that he even lost the nuclear codes, allowed Bin Laden to escape at the cost of watching a round of PGA golf, and never responded to any Al Qaeda attacks during his term (well... he did blow up that one aspirin factory in the Sudan). That ladies and gentlemen, shouldn't make anyone feel safe...

Consider the fact that we went into Rwanda months too late, accomplished essentially nothing in Haiti or Somalia, and only went to Bosnia under UN command (even though we provided nearly all military support- we were still under foreign command??? ) .

I believe that the UN could serve a purpose, and could aid in stopping tyranny in places like Rwanda (where literally about 5X more people died than in Bosnia); but it would take someone with defense experience, someone who understands the value of force as a deterrent, and someone with a stiff upper lip who would force action in the UN. Maybe someone like George Bush sr....

Even if UN is "hijacked" by leftists with a socialist agenda, God bless them if they were able to accomplish the following (do you even read what other people post?):



As far as I am concerned, "reformers like Bush" and his clique made the world far more dangerous place then it used to be. I can expand on that, but hey, most people here on know how I feel about the sitting president, so I am not going to post lengthy diatribes in every post I make .

But back to the question at hand,

Nobody really knows whether Clinton wants this job or not. However, I think he would be great for the job. He is highly respected around the world, even though he is loathed by many in his own country (kinda like Gorbachev was)... his diplomatic skills are second to none, he is a great negotiator... I think he would be one of the better choices for the SG post.




I think a military budget like we have (see below) is worth trimming... significantly. One of the best things he ever did.

Interesting philosophy... but have you looked into truly Pork-belly budgets, such as the Health and Human services budget maybe??? Hmmm... take a gander. It's pretty bad.

You negate the fact that our nation's population is multiple times larger than nearly ever country you mentioned (with the exception of maybe China these days), the fact that we're the enforcement arm of both the UN and Nato, and that research and development are huge portions of the military budget...

OH- and you know what else is part of the military budget????
Flag waiving trips that the President makes... for instance, Clinton's trip to Africa. Consider the fact that it often took more than a thousand personnell to accompany a presidential trip, and that Clinton and his wife took more "diplomatic" excursions than Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and Kennedy combined. Why??? How did it truly benefit the US??
It didn't increase international trade, didn't reduce foreign tarriffs, didn't open new markets, etc. No economist would dispute these facts.

They didn't deter terrorist attacks, didn't change the fact that Korea and Iran are threats, etc.

It was like a little Clinton-ian vacation train. A Presidency of excess... he'd be great for the UN. There are million ways for him to launder money and get his fingers into other people's pots without being prosecuted... (ie. Kofi Annan!!)

But you didn't address the fact that Clinton so loathed the military that he forced a large number of our professional fighting force into Poverty. What a man... someone to look up to. (Just like ol' Kofi!)

I'll be very brief since I don't want to hijack the thread off-topic.
Military budget is a sacred cow of American politics. Nobody dares to touch it. There's absolutely nothing else like it. Which inevitably leads to no accountability. Look at the number of billions wasted by the military (and I mean wasted - look at the Comanche helicopter project which was yanked from Sikorsky Aircraft after 20 years in development).
Of course Clinton is loathed in the military! Anytime you cut the budget for any part of government, the person who does the cutting is not going to win popularity contest.
Is loathing justified? Since most of the military personnel are Republicans they sure subscribe to the idea of free labor market. Being a soldier is a job. When market conditions change, some jobs are going to be cut, and some jobs are going to get pay cuts. It is normal, and it is healthy. Those whose jobs were cut must either find another job, or look for a new line of work. This is what you, aevans, advocate in other labor-related threads. Why soldiers should be exempted from the laws of free labor market?

Whoa... you completely misunderstand free-market conditions. What you have to understand is that under a normally free-market, I have the ability to see alternative employment.

However, under Clinton's abhorrid military pay cuts, men and women whom were legally obligated to stay in the military, were subjected to financial strain (and working far under market conditions) while they couldn't leave.... if this was a liberal senator describing this it would be called a "Gulag"!!

Clinton's ability to SPIN ideas in the direction is his political machine, again, would be perfect for the UN. As we all know, his military spending cuts and actions in relation to terrorism have aided in causing the situation that we find ourselves in right now... (don't forget- we were attacked multiple times by Al Qaeda during his terms)

Could this thread get more off track?

Clinton is an intriguing prospect for Sec Gen of the UN. His work with Bush Sr. on the Tsunami relief efforts demonstrates where he can be very effective in his post presidency years. Does that translate to being effective as the leader of the UN? Possibly. He certainly would be a more effective leader than Kofi I would think.

I think some of the anti-UN bigots need to look closer at what the UN actually does. AS Quarkhead effectively pointed out, the UN does a LOT more than try and serve as the worlds cop (a role I will agree it is disastrously ineffective at). It is far more than a debate society. I does a lot of good in some areas, and is counter-productive in others. Can Clinton help fix that? Of that I am uncertain. He did successfully obtain welfare reform legislation, so its not unheard of for him to look innovatively at a problem.

Without looking at alternatives, I think I'd be willing to give him a shot at it.

Doc

I was really hoping that this thread would become a close investigation of 1.) The U.N. and 2.) Bill Clinton as leader.

There is ZERO reason to talk about George Bush in this thread.


I would appreciate it if the anti-Clinton crowd in here would actually link some sort of information to back up their reasoning for disliking Clinton. We all know he cut military spending so link the cuts he made if you think they are proof of his incompetence. Perhaps then we could discuss intelligently the leadership he may (or may not) have been showing in his decisions.

Likewise, Clinton supporters should find reasons they think he is the stuff of good leadership.

I think it is important to remember that, just because you may dislike the choices a leader makes, it is not necessarily a sign they are a bad leader...

The best CEO's in the world often make cut-throat decisions that can send thousands of people to bankruptcy..and yet they are celebrated as geniuses by their boards. So the effectiveness of their decision making is certainly relative.

If you have an opinion of Clinton either way you must remember that!
Perhaps you didn't agree with it but was it strong leadership? Was it "Hard Work"?
Or was it ineffectual pandering? Please help me out and show us how and why....

We need first, to determine what we think is a good role for the U.N. (if you think there is no good role for the U.N. then you shouldn't care who leads them and, hence, shouldn't bother posting here)

Then we can determine who would make a good SGOTUN.

Perhaps we can talk about Clintons effectiveness in terms of his history of Vetoes:
In PDF format

Or his first term with hotlinks

Historically speaking there just was not happening in the 90's. This is not a slight against Clinton. The military cuts were part of the necessary post Cold War changes that the US made and continues to make. The so-called terrorism lapses that occurred during his administration are unfair. Look how difficult it is for Bush to fight the war on terror and this is after 9/11. There were no catastrophic attacks on US soil (foreign terrorists) to justify a change in terror policy.

President Clinton played a part in the surplus during the late part of the nineties, but he cannot take full credit.

One area Clinton really succeeded was Free Trade. While there is still a lot of complaining about NAFTA and GATT, but free trade is an important part of sustained economic prosperity. At that time, no Republican President could have passed those bills, but Clinton was able to get the Democrats to vote for them.

The government was divided after 94 so Clinton really could not advance a real ideological agenda for the rest of his presidency.

I am not sure how Clinton would be a Secretary General, but he is at least competent.

Questions to debate:....just as a reminder....

Do you think Bill Clinton is intending to be the new Secretary General?

Don't know, haven't really been paying attention. Based on information I have seen here, it sounds possible. It also seems like a job Clinton would want, making it more possible.

Would he be good at the job?

Yes, I think he would be quite good. It suits his strengths and ambitions very well. He is well liked around the globe, and that would probably make him more effective. Also, his view of world politics probably sits quite well with the goals of the UN. It would also be a good choice domestically for political reasons. The real question, to me, is whether he would be willing to work with Bush on setting the agenda. Personally, I think he would. Consider his terms as President...he intentionally usurped the Republican agenda. I think his basic views are quite centrist, and he has shown throughout his political career the ability, even the actual goal, of adjusting his philosophy to suit the current political climate. So, there might be some friction, but that would probably take place no matter who was chosen. Given the other reasons I think he would be quite good, I'd say give it a shot and see how it works.

One thing just occurred to me about this. Wouldn't there be some conflict of interest given that his wife is a Senator? Worse yet, what if she does run for President in 2008 and wins (please please please do not take that as an invitation to discuss Hilary for President, its not)??? I would think being married to a senator would be a borderline conflict of interest, being the First Man to the President of the United States would be exponentially worse.