http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/5348296.stm

Totally Serious but it would take two steps and would never happen

 

William Jefferson Clinton

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1511.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=41038

Totally Serious but it would take two steps and would never happen

 

William Jefferson Clinton

 

DISASTER

DISASTER

 

Of course sam, why have an American when you can have a Korean (front runner), Thai, India, or Jordanian? Oh yeah, he's a Democrat.

DISASTER

He couldn't be worse than the current leader. Seriously.

 

Plus how funny would that be?

He was talked about a couple years ago and according to rumours then, he was interested. Check out those two links.

all right, all right, yeah, i would prefer clinton to another flat out obstructionist like annan. i obviously have an avoidance to him, so sue me.

Totally Serious but it would take two steps and would never happen

 

William Jefferson Clinton

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1511.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=41038

 

I know this has been said before, and my reaction is that he would be really good, and really bad based on his Presidency. He would be an excellent diplomat and spokesperson for the UN. Even if you hate the guy, you have to give the man his due as an effective public speaker. He is an excellent communicator, and I think that is a big area where Annan has failed. One big area that would raise red flags is the propensity for scandal and problems to follow Clinton around. Right or wrong, his name got connected to a lot of really bad things, which is a real big problem in the UN right now. With as bad as the view of the US is in the world today, it would be 10 times worse if we sent up a SG to the UN that ended up being just as corrupt as everyone else. Another area of concern is that Clinton would have to be really proactive about pushing reform on the UN, which I am not convinced he would/could do at this time. It is almost better to leave it up to other countries vs it looking like it is coming from a US agenda anyways.

My impression is that there are few people outside of the United States who view the President as corrupt. A womanizer, perhaps, but corrupt no.

Bill Clinton would be a HUGE improvement over Kofi Annan

 

the UN doesn't really mean antything though, so it's all bs.

Edited September 16, 200619 yr by mr_genius

i vote adam west for UN sec. gen.

I think Billy could do the job fine. Seriously. He IS an eloquent speaker (when he isn't wagging his finger while lying in the face of the nation). However, I think that he may either

1) go anti-US on his first opportunity to 'prove' that he can be 'fair', or 2) decide something 'fairly' that happens to favor the US and have all hell break loose with the tinpot dictators crying foul.

DISASTER

 

 

Disagree. But then I guess all some rouge nation would have to do to get Secretary General Clinton to see things their way is send in some intern/bimbo to park herself under his desk. Hell of a lot cheaper than kickbacks on oil money, thats for sure.

Truth is, the frontrunner at this time is a prince of Jordan. The next Secretary General will be from the Asian group of nations, of which Jordan is one.

Truth is, the frontrunner at this time is a prince of Jordan. The next Secretary General will be from the Asian group of nations, of which Jordan is one.

 

Jordan is considered an Asiatic nation in the UN? Weird.

Jordan is considered an Asiatic nation in the UN? Weird.

Well, it is in Asia.

Well, it is in Asia.

 

I guess I always think of the Middle East of its own region.