The editorial stated that Bill Clinton is so well respected around the world that he would make an excellent U. N. General Secretary. The article further states that there are 2 problems: the U. S. is a permanent member of the U. N. Security Council and as such it would be difficult to have any one from the U. S. selected to what is essentially supposed to be a neutral post; and that Hillary is running for president, and if she is elected it would mean that other countries would have a hard time selecting the spouse of a head of state into the most powerful U. N. post. The article does have a ray of hope: that Hillary could put her presidential ambitions on hold to have Bill selected as the U. N. head honcho. Paraphrasing the editorial: the world needs Bill more than the U. S. needs Hillary.
True or untrue?
2006-06-15 14:17:48 · 10 answers · asked by Modest intellect 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Billy B, we are talking about the Secretary-General of the U. N. Bolton is the U. S. Ambassador to the U. N. Different posts.
2006-06-15 18:20:26 · update #1
Bad, very bad. First of all, the impediments mentioned in the editorial are real and persuasive. Secondly, but more powerfully, the current administration has squandered any good will we received after 9/11 and ruined our reputation world-wide and don't give a rat's *** about that. And thirdly, the current administration has been hostile to the UN and made many difficulties there, so it is very unlikely that any American would for some time be even mentioned for the job. And further, such an idea from the LA Times is only a desperate grasp at repair of the current damage and it is foolish to think that Clinton, or anybody "so well respected" could use his personal reputation to mend the ruins we are left with by this administration.
2006-06-15 14:30:00 · answer #1 · answered by sonyack 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the world needs ANYTHING more than hillary!! Of course the world loves bill - he's a sit back and do nothing sort of guy. Also, you shouldn't use the word head and clinton in the same paragraph.
2006-06-15 21:22:36 · answer #2 · answered by deidrec1962 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bill would be a hell of a lot better than Bolton! and much more respected than just about anyone else put in that post.
2006-06-15 21:23:55 · answer #3 · answered by Billy B 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow imagine that the hated Clinton loved in all parts of the world but this country, again what does that say about us.
2006-06-15 21:23:04 · answer #4 · answered by se_roddy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Now that sounds like it would reveal the real anti-Christ. Bill Clinton, head of the UN? That is downright frightening.
2006-06-15 21:21:43 · answer #5 · answered by kathy059 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, Bill always liked getting head, so now he can be a head. ..and what an appropriate body to be the "head" of!
2006-06-15 21:29:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not care if he is head of the UN, as long as he can't be President again.
2006-06-15 21:24:09 · answer #7 · answered by ginaforu5448 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is the biggest joke that I have heard all day. "Slick Willie" clinton and the LA Times are nothing but big JOKES!!!
2006-06-15 21:23:21 · answer #8 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Best of both would be nice,,,, two brilliant people,,,, everyone has skeletons in their closet,,, if honest,,, not every body's dirty laundry has been made public YET
2006-06-15 21:22:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just thankful he can't be President.
2006-06-15 21:29:48 · answer #10 · answered by computer_pc_doctor 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋