A scene from the movie "The Omen II", or Bill Clinton at an early age? hehe
Posted on 03/10/2003 8:33:32 AM PST by kinghorse
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:02:49 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Once again the future of Bill Clinton has become a hot topic that rivals
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
A scene from the movie "The Omen II", or Bill Clinton at an early age? hehe
FYI:
20 June 1996: The New York Times runs a lead story, datelined 19 June, quoting "senior officials" that the United States government would oppose a second term for UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali and that it would use the veto, if necessary, in the Security Council to block his candidacy. The officials are said to have described the decision as "irrevocable". A "senior official" was said to fault the Secretary General for "resisting" US-led initiatives to "reform the bureaucracy" of the UN. -- In statements to the press, the French government affirms its strong support for the Secretary General.
Yes, I agree, that's their plan - king of the hill on all counts. And whereas I can't see any way to stop The Twisted One from becoming SG, I don't actually think Ol' Table Legs can make it to POTUS... Billy-boy has the charisma - not her - and that is what's needed to gain POTUS status in the US...
You needn't be terribly bright, terribly experienced or have any morals whatsoever to become POTUS.. you just need to be reasonably good looking, have bags of charisma that shows up well on TV, be able to deliver the quick retort in a debate and to be able to pick sly folks to keep watch and guide you along the way (and where needed perform a timely dirty trick or two). Sad but true. Fortunately, Ol' Table Legs has absolutely NO charisma, so I can't see her making it. (Nevermind the fact that she looks like a mud fence in a rainstorm.)
Face it, Bill’s biggest friend in DC in none other than George W. Bush.
Clinton probably thought that as "Secretary-General" he'd be directly in charge of all Secretaries worldwide.
Articles like this one simply illustrate that our press is either uneducated or willfully deceiptful.
The UN Charter forbids the Secretary General from coming from the 5 Permanent Security Council countries.
So to get around that proscription, Clinton would either have to renounce his citizenship and gain status somewhere else (but not another member of the 5), OR the UN would have to get a change to its Charter past a U.S., UK, Russian (they hate Bill because of Kosovo) or Chinese (Clinton bombed the Chinese embassy in Serbia) veto.
And then, Clinton would have to avoid a personal veto from any of the 5 permanent Security Council nations, as those 5 have to be in unanimous agreement on the Secretary General.
But this article addressed none of that.
Typical.
That poor "journalist" probably made all "A"'s in her university curriculum, too...
Could you please post the the document that states that someone from on of the 5 Permanent Security Council nations cannot serve as SC?
I would not call Clinton an American.
He is the definitive anti-American; an American quisling....the UN will love him
Carolyn
Hmmm.. well, you're assuming that the US government will have a Republican government when this change takes place. If the government is Democrapic to you really think ANY Democrap will rise up to veto such a proposal??? Hardly. He's a shoe-in.
Unfortunately, I strongly believe that Bush. Jr., like his father, will lose in a bid for a second term. Now look, don't get me wrong, I don't want to see this any more than the rest of you, but mark my words it will happen. The economy is indeed in the dumps, and Americans more often than not vote their pocketbook.
Add to that the fact that Bush, as much as I agree that this war is indeed a just war, has screwed it up ROYALLY. He failed to learn the lessons of Teddy Roosevelt and others by carrying a big stick and talking softly - or, as others might put it, by saying "good doggie, good doggie" just long enough for you to find the biggest damned rock you can with which to smash the bastard. Instead, GWB has shouted loudly, ranted and raved, waved his sword and generally carried on so much that he's given that rag-head (and all the peacenicks and UN weenies) all the time they needed to get their act together and build a huge resistance to any successful millitary action. He now has both a monstorous international rift going amongst the 'allies' and Bagdad is also now more fortified than Fort Knox. Good going, George. Sorry, but I'm sorely disappointed. With all good intentions he's overplayed his poker hand by not keeping a poker face, and now it's come back to bite him as well as biting our international reputation and most importantly our valiant troops. This war will now be a messy and complicated mire which will take not years but decades from which to extract ourselves.
He should have just quietly talked about giving time to peace, encouraging Sadam to comply, and generally looking like a limp-wristed Jimmy Carter in a pink dress... and all the while preparing for war with the pretext that he really does NOT want to use such means.... and then after a month or so of that he should have quiely worked with the 'allies' to pull together a UN proposal in which there was a deadline - no matter what else it said, just some sort of date... and when that deadline was reached the UN would have been forced to go along with war and we would then be free to unleash the hell of war upon that evil little bastard and there would have been no competent resistance here or abroad.
As it is, GWB has lost both this war and the economic one as well - and he will therefore lose the next election, and for that I am truly despondent.
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.