Posted on 11/03/2004 9:08:55 AM PST by Manic_Episode
Secretary General Bill Clinton?
In a couple of years, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's term in office will come to an end and the UN will be searching for a new king for the global debating society. And, given the unfolding details of the Oil-For-Food investigation that continue to pile up on his door step, the job may come up vacant even earlier than that.
The Oil-for-food program, as everybody knows by now, was established by the UN in 1996, ostensibly to ease the impact that economic sanctions were imposing on ordinary Iraqis.
The project was a fool's errand from the beginning, but it was popular among the Useful Idiot Brigades who argued sanctions should be lifted altogether because Iraqi babies had no milk and Iraqi hospitals had no medicine.
It was a fool's errand for reasons that should have been obvious to the most intellectually challenged member of the UN Security Council present on voting day: Iraqi babies had no milk and Iraqi hospitals had no medicine because of Saddam Hussein, not because of UN sanctions.
But the UN's 'solution' was to allow Saddam to sell limited amounts of oil in order to make money to buy 'Iraqi babies milk and Iraqi doctors medicine' -- voting into the record the implausible assumption that Saddam cared more about Iraqi babies than he did his grip on power.
The Oil-for-food program generated enough money for lots of milk and medicine -- about sixty thousand MILLION dollar-bills (if there WERE million-dollar bills).
But in January, an Iraqi newspaper listed about two hundred seventy foreigners suspected of illegally profiting from the oil sales. There were more accusations in a report by an American team, the Iraq Survey Group. Chief American weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, a special adviser to the Central Intelligence Agency, prepared the report.
The report said Saddam Hussein made eleven thousand million dollar-bills himself, all in oil profits outside U.N. control. It said his government imported military equipment and other illegal goods.
The report says the former government offered deals to hundreds of individuals, companies and governments in an effort to end the U.N. restrictions.
Many offers were aimed at Russia, France and China, all permanent members of the Security Council. The report also says there were illegal oil sales to Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt during the full period of the restrictions.
Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. oil-for-food program, is listed among those said to have received vouchers. He has denied any wrongdoing. So have Russia, France and others named in the report.
And at the top of the pile is Kofi Annan -- a king so out of touch with his kingdom that he decreed that the new, struggling (and innocent) Iraqi government must foot the bill for the investigation of how the UN stole its money in the first place.
Incredibly, Annan's argument amounted to the fact that, at thirty million dollars, it is only a drop in the bucket compared to what was already stolen from them, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Nobody laughed.
While the money earmarked for Iraqi babies and Iraqi hospitals flowed into the pockets of the thieves, Saddam's bloodbaths continued without interference.
Indeed, when the United States declared 'enough!' the thieves marshalled their Useful Idiot Battalions the world over to march in solidarity with Saddam, while chanting "Bush's War" and "no blood for oil." (Evidently, no food for oil was ok.)
I used to get a lot of flack from readers for referring to the antiwarriors as 'useful idiots' -- I don't so much anymore. As the details unfold about the complicity of nations with the UN to steal thousands of millions, it becomes perfectly obvious how useful they were to the theft.
That they were idiots is self-evident. Particularly since they still haven't shut up, even after they found out what they were defending.
Under the watchful eye of Kofi Annan, millions have been slaughtered, from Kosovo to Iraq to Rwanda to the Sudan. Uncounted billions of dollars were stolen to line the pockets of greedy diplomats, all of which was stained with Iraqi blood.
Despite all that, the UN still has its worshippers. Kofi Annan received the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the UN, while helping to keep a murderous dictator in power until Iraq's oil wealth could be squeezed dry.
Former President Clinton has been campaigning for Kofi Annan's job since before he left the Oval Office.
According to a 2003 column by the Pittsburg Tribune-Review, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is "under pressure to resign before the end of his second term in 2006." Should he do so, the General Assembly would select his replacement, on the recommendation of the U.N. Security Council.
It noted that Clinton had already lined up support for his candidacy for the secretary-general position from Germany, France, England, Ireland, New Zealand, a handful of African states, Morocco and Egypt, and it is unlikely Russia or China would object.
And it is worthy of note that, while the United States hosts the UN's headquarters in New York and is its single biggest contributor, no American has ever held the post of Secretary-General.
Globalists seem to love scoundrels. Kofi Annan can do no wrong. Yasser Arafat has more friends than Ariel Sharon. Fidel Castro is just a much-maligned victim of US imperialism. Jacques Chirac enjoys global respect.
I am not suggesting that Bill Clinton is running for the role of antichrist. Personally, I think he would be a good candidate, but he doesn't fit the Bible's profile. Neither does the UN. But he is the perfect man to finish the job of eroding the United Nations credibility that Kofi Annan started.
The Bible says that under the final form of global government, the power will emanate from revived Rome. As Europe expands, the UN increasingly looks to it for many of its institutions, like the World Court, World Bank, and, most recently, for its standing army.
The United States is steadily being pushed to one side. If Bill Clinton were appointed King of the World, there is no reason to believe the trend will do anything but accelerate.
A Clinton kingdom would be closely watched by his UN subjects for signs of favoritism towards the United States. That pretty much guarantees there wouldn't be. If anything, Secretary Clinton would have to side AGAINST American interests to prevent appearing to side WITH American interests.
The effect at home would be to accelerate the growing calls for America to pull out of the UN, while increasing America's global isolation.
Clinton is as unpopular among Americans as he is loved among the Europeans. A US pullout from the UN would mean its collapse. The European Union is the only realistic candidate to step in and pick up the pieces.
No matter who replaces Kofi Annan, from America's perspective, the UN is not just 'irrelevant' -- it is an active antagonist.
And a US pullout spells its end -- by anybody's analysis.
We need to stay in the UN just to veto France.
It would depend on he ability to speak french.
french have said they will not approve anyone who doesn't speak french.
Maybe the french would accept clinton, he knows how to say, "I have french fries with that".
Invade the place, de-louse it, and take over.
Correction++++++ Bent dicks are not considered for UN leadership roles.
I thought this had been debunked weeks ago. The UN Sec. Gen. can't be from a member-state on the Security Council. UN rules and the U.S. would have to approve a change of those rules.
It wont happen, no one trusts Hillary running the show.
Plus, how would they explain the extra set of shoes under the table. You know Hillary isnt giving it up.
Will Kofi "Famous Anus" Anan fall victim to an Arkancide?
I actually don't have a problem with Bill Clinton as UN SecGen -- as long as the POTUS pulls us out of the UN the minute after Clinton gets elected. Then we get to wave bye-bye and throw streamers to Bill as the UN Departs on a container ship for Geneva.
I thought that too, but some Freepers have pointed out that there is no such rule -- only a tradition.
This was Clinton's dream if Kerry was elected.
It sure isn't going to happen now.
I remember hearing that caveat during the last go-round. But I did some checking and was unable to find any such prohibition. Could you please help me out - I thought I had been thorough. Could you please point me in the direction of any source you have that confirms the prohibition against Security Council members taking the SecGen role?
Well...Germany wants a seat on the Security Council and the UN needs a new building. Do they have an old hotel in Bonn's red light district ?
The UN Sec. Gen. can't be from a member-state on the Security Council
Case closed. Thanks TigersEye. There's no room for this kind of discussion on SUCH A GREAT DAY!
I am LOL'ing all over the place!
I want to see Secretary General Colin Powell. Move Condi to SecState and appoint a new NSA. Condi/Guiliani in '08. Guiliani/Condi would be almost as good, but not as good.
Does Newt speak French? His doctorate thesis was on something like the use of French and Flemish instruction in schools in the Belgian Congo.
Just send Ollie North. Or do we want him for Pres in 08?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.