Posted on 02/01/2005 10:01:58 AM PST by tvn
In the letter, U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms, the 83-year-old Republican, who left office in 2003 after five terms, worries that the former president has aspirations to lead the U.N. after Kofi Annan retires next year.
``I'm sure you might agree that putting a left-wing, undisciplined and ethically challenged former President of the United States into a position of such power would be a tragic mistake,'' Helms writes.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter Tuesday. It contains a petition that asks President Bush to ``rebuke all efforts by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and every other liberal in Congress to push for Bill Clinton to become Secretary-General of the United Nations.''
A spokesman for Clinton did not immediately return a call seeking comment Tuesday and the former president has said nothing publicly about wanting to lead the U.N.
.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
This is something that some people have been warning us about for some time now. One shudders to imagine one Clinton back in the White House & the another at the helm of the United Nations.
if you put billy boy in charge of the u n
you might as well make theodore us ambassador to the u n
same garbage
No, they will not accept Clinton as the next Sec. Gen. simply because the UN prefers to select one from some third-world dysfunctional country. They'll choose another anti-American, corrupt Kofi Anan.
I've heard it said that the countries which are permanent members of the Security Council cannot provide the Secretary General. There would be a way around that for Clinton--move to some third world country and renounce his U.S. citizenship.
There would be a way around that for Clinton--move to some third world country and renounce his U.S. citizenship - In THAT case he finally will get my vote
Agreed. I mean, what makes more sense than putting a corrupt leftist in charge of a corrupt leftist organization?
Again I must say this is not entirely GW's desire. He has these advisors that are influenced deeply by the elites that actually keep them in office or power. If GW was a TRUE conservative he would have put the Klintoons on trial. Opportunity galore but wouldn't let Ashcroft go after it. The "Two-Party Cartel" takes care of their people. Once in, this cartel elects 99% of theirs back in office to rape & plunder the people with taxes & regs while thay vote themselves raises & bigger pensions.
God forbid!
NO. Your premises are sooo wrong.
If Bubba hasn't already demonstrated his willingness to do exactly the wrong thing for America, what does he have to do?
Nevermind "flaming" you -- I'm thinkin' along firing up the rotisserie ;-)
Huh? Use the FR search engine and enter "Mia T".
Not true. The Council provides nominees to the G.A. to vote on, and by "tradition" they've rotated areas and haven't had one from a member state; but, there's no rule against it.
Carolyn
"Huh? Use the FR search engine and enter "Mia T"."
- Nothing matched your criteria.
The search engine didn't find anything, but let me rephrase my statement anyway.
There wasn't enough evidence of a direct link to Clinton to justify attempting to prosecute the President of the United States.
In the past, people holding that office would resign rather than disgrace the office of the President. Clinton obviously was not willing to do so, and the liberal media supported him in that disgustingly enough.
Sorry. I couldn't disagree more with that. I've read more than a few books which document Clinton's traitorous perfidy. Maybe you haven't. For sure you need to go outside the NYSLimes etal, but I don't think it's too hard to find. You could check out "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", a very well-written & researched (with documentation) tome.
Also, use the FR search engine's pull-down feature to search for "Mia T" by POSTER.
I found Mia T ‘s Incredible Work just one example.
Good luck with your search. I, for one, am truly honored to be here and learn from all the fantastic folk! God Bless.
Lots of circumstantial evidence. The Clintons hung out with a lot of criminals. They received a lot of campaign donations. The even received a lot of illegal donations, however others took the fall for that.
There was mountains of circumstantial evidence, and quite possibly enough to build a solid case agains a common person.
However, Kenneth Star who's job it was to investigate many of thses issues always seemed to run into dead ends.
People would refuse to testify. The clintons would refuse to cooperate and throw up one legal distraction after another. There was lots of evidence, but it wasn't hard evidence, and there was always someone else who took the fall without rolling over on the Clintons.
The loyalty they get from those around them iss amazing. Either they illicit true devotion, or people are really more afraid of what would happen if they betrayed them than of going to jail.
Coincidently there were a number of suspicious deaths among associates of the Clintons.
In the end, Star determined there wasn't enough evidence to indict either of the Clintons on charges other than Clinton's little perjury mishap.
His investigation succesfully prosecuted a number of criminals, but the Clintons stayed just out of reach.
Maybe Star should have taken what he had to the grand jury.
Maybe he would have done so if our Congress followed through on their duty when Clinton was impeached.
Regardless, Slick Willy managed to slip away without being held accountable for the multitude of criminal actions that always seemed to occur around him.
There was more than enough evidence for numerous convictions. What was lacking was backbone. Even though much of it was circumstantial (you said mountain, and I agree!)....I mean, do you really believe Hil just happened to find those billing records the way she claimed?...."circumstantial" in the Clintons' case means lots of dead bodies and highly improbable coincidence(s). That some even went to jail for refusing to testify does not ameliorate the fact that they should have been found guilty based on the mountain of evidence. "Circumstantial" does not equal innocence, as Clinton defenders would want the sheeple to believe. Ask Scott Petersen(sp?).
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.