Clinton for UN Sec Gen

[Corlyss_D]

This would be too perfect if it happened. I can just see Hillary trying to explain how US foreign policy would not become subordinant to UN policy, assuming there is such a thing. Loose Cannon Bill is the 800 lb gorilla in Hillary's candidacy.

King of the World

Hillary Clinton is clearly running for president of the United States. But many observers are convinced that her husband Bill is also running for something. After following Mr. Clinton's seven-city barnstorming tour of Canada last month, the Western Standard magazine concluded that he was the only man who "could launch a global tour to campaign for the job of secretary-general of the United Nations -- and get people to pay him for it."

The idea isn't farfetched. Secretary General Kofi Annan must step down in December, and Mr. Clinton himself has told friends the job does intrigue him. Two years ago, when asked by ABC News if either the UN job or one heading the World Bank appealed to him, he replied: "Once you've been president, if you want another job, those are the only two that... might be appealing."

But how to campaign for such a post without appearing to campaign? Simple. Tour the world giving lectures on international topics at $150,000 a pop. Craft a "we are one-world, and all interdependent message" that appeals to the vanity of UN supporters without sounding too threatening to supporters of nation-states. In Canada, Mr. Clinton said the way to fight Al Qaeda is to have the world "work on a set of common values." By working together to fight climate change, poverty, AIDS, childhood diarrhea, the world will be both a better place and one less vulnerable to terrorists, he explained.

Mr. Clinton also takes care to point out his diplomatic skills. He plugs his close relationship with the Bush family -- President Bush asked him and George Bush Sr. to head up American tsunami relief efforts in Indonesia. In the next breath, he notes that Kofi Annan made him a special envoy for tsunami reconstruction.

Bill Rusher, a former publisher of National Review and longtime student of Mr. Clinton, told the Western Standard that Mr. Clinton's world travels have all the appearance of a campaign. "This is a man still in his fifties with nothing to do and a great desire to do it," he says. "It would occur to him that the world makes a great political stage."

And one he is using to great effect. When Mr. Clinton is asked who would make a good UN secretary-general, he often touts Tony Blair, his friend and current prime minister of Britain. But Mr. Blair plans to stay in 10 Downing Street until well after Mr. Annan's term expires late this year, so that suggestion is simply Clinton flattery that also serves as a diversion.

What some critics are calling the "Clintonpalooza" tour is winning converts. Harper's magazine recently concluded: "There is only one solution to enhancing the utility and image of the U.N. in America... Embed a super-American at the highest level... To prove his or her worth, a secretary general needs to be seen dashing around in dangerous places, practicing deft diplomacy, defusing crises, and doing things that our own diplomats seemingly no longer know how to do. Who better to play this role than Bill Clinton?"

Sportsbook.com certainly agrees that Mr. Clinton is a contender. Mr. Clinton is currently tied with Thailand's foreign minister, Surakiart Sathirathai. Both men are being sold at odds of five-to-two. But while Mr. Sathhirathai is openly proclaiming his interest in the UN job, Mr. Clinton doesn't have to. He just has to keep doing what comes naturally to him -- traveling, schmoozing and speaking.

-- John Fund

[Werner]

For anyone but the pathological Clinton haters, an intriguimg thought. At least here is a man with a brilliant mind, a strong worth ethic, and a sense of the politivally possible.

And while Bill goes to the UN, I'll be just as happy to keep Hillary in the Senate.

[BWV 1080]

I am not a "pathological Clinton hater" but the man did play a key role in making sure the UN did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Not only that, but recently released papers show that his administration was aware of what taking place:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/ ... 56703.html

US president Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, classified documents made available for the first time reveal.

Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president knew of a planned "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" before the slaughter reached its peak.

It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder about 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington policymakers.

The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings.

"It's powerful proof that they knew," said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide.

Now this sort of moral cowardice ought to put him out of the running, but in truth he will be right at home in the UN

[dulcinea]

Mention TWO foreign policy accomplishments of the Klingon--Christopher--Albright administration. Keeping peace in the former Yugoslavia by means of forces of occupation--what else?

[jbuck919]

[quote="BWV 1080"]I am not a "pathological Clinton hater" but the man did play a key role in making sure the UN did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Not only that, but recently released papers show that his administration was aware of what taking place:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/ ... 56703.html

The Sydney Morning Herald (you have to check the fine print to figure that out)? Going a little far afield to find grist for our mill, aren't we, Steve?

[jbuck919]

This all seems a bit far-fetched to me. The UN Secretary General has never been from a great power and I don't see a former president of the US of any stature or persuasion being the spectacular break with that tradition.

[BWV 1080]

The Sydney Morning Herald (you have to check the fine print to figure that out)? Going a little far afield to find grist for our mill, aren't we, Steve?

The story was widely reported & it is all over alternet - hardly a right wing site, go look for yourself John instead of making snide comments.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20872/

But Clinton's buck-passing covered up the hideous truth that he knew about the genocide from the start, and could have done something about it. Three months before My Life came out the National Security Archive, a Washington D.C. non-government research institute sued in court and got hold of classified intelligence reports. The most damning were the eyes-only national intelligence daily reports that the CIA supplied to Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and other top administration officials on the Rwanda massacres. In the reports, diplomats, military and UN officials, aid workers, and intelligence operatives on the scene gave first hand accounts of the holocaust, and told of boasts that Hutu leaders made to wipe all Tutsis out.

The documents are smoking gun proof that Clinton knew from the moment that Hutu thugs hacked to death the first innocents that the slaughter was in full swing. Barely two weeks after the carnage started, Clinton officials privately called the killings genocide. Yet, Clinton, Gore, and Secretary of State Madeline Albright would not publicly use the word. A chilling eyes-only Defense Department memorandum advised Clinton administration officials that if they used the word genocide to describe the carnage it would compel the government "to do something." They followed the script to the letter.

It took more than a month before the word "genocide" on the killings seeped into the Clinton administration's vocabulary. But administration officials watered it down by blandly calling it "acts of genocide."

Even after the UN shook off its see-no-evil slumber, and authorized troops to intervene, Clinton tried to stonewall the deployment of forces, drug his feet on providing funds for the deployment, and reneged on the U.S.'s promise to provide military vehicles to transport troops and refugees from the killing fields. In 2000, Foreign Affairs Magazine assessed the UN and the U.S.'s Ostrich act on Rwanda. It concluded that prompt action could have saved more than 100,000 lives. The intervention would not have required one American soldier, or lengthy debate in Congress. It could have been accomplished for the relative paltry sum of $15 million.

But that isn't the final chapter in the shame and hypocrisy of the Clinton administration over Rwanda. During his truncated visit in 1998, Rwandans were incensed that Clinton did not visit the genocide monument the government had erected a few moments drive from the airport where he spoke. The monument was erected expressly for Clinton's visit. The same day Clinton spoke, forty Tutsi villagers were massacred a few miles driving distance from the airport. Clinton made no mention of these deaths after he departed, or massacres that were reported in Eastern Rwanda. In his last two years in office, the reports continued to pour in of massacres. There's no record that Clinton again publicly condemned the bloodletting.

[BWV 1080]

Here is another right-wing screed from Alternet:

http://www.alternet.org/story/9494/

A man I believe will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest Presidents."

That was the judgment of Bill Clinton that Al Gore pronounced during a tacky pep rally at the White House shortly after the House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton on December 19, 1998. Republican and conservative foes of the Vice President are fond of playing that soundbite repeatedly to remind voters, especially conservative-leaning ones, (as if reminding were necessary) that Gore, perhaps more so than Hillary, faithfully stood by a sex-scandalized Clinton. Yet Gore's excessive, lackeyish praise of Clinton came to mind for a different reason, as I read a report released this month on the Rwanda genocide by a panel established by the Organization for African Unity.

The seven notables on the commission -- including the past chiefs of state of Botswana and Mali, the chairwoman of the Swedish Committee for UNICEF, a former chief justice of India's Supreme Court, and a former Canadian ambassador to the UN -- were asked by the OAU to review the 1994 genocide in which 500,000 to 800,000 people were slaughtered, the actions that preceded the April-to-July massacre, and the world's response to the killings. Their verdict is hardly shocking to anyone who has paid attention to this gruesome episode in which Hutu extremists attempted to wipe out the minority Tutsi.

The nations and international bodies that could have attempted to stop the killing, the report concludes, chose not to do so. The report, which received modest but insufficent media attention, convincingly condemns the United Nations, Belgium (a former colonial occupier), France (which maintained close relations with Rwanda), and the United States -- meaning, the Clinton Administration.

The report recalls that after the genocide began the Clinton Administration refused "to accept publicly that a full-fledged ... genocide was in fact taking place." Under the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, once a genocide is recognized, the nations of the world are obligated to prevent the killings and to punish the murderers. But the Clinton gang did not want to become involved in Rwanda -- after 18 American soldiers had been killed in Somalia six months earlier.

In addition to resisting mention of the G-word, the report says, "the Clinton Administration held that there was no useful role for any peacekeeping operation in Rwanda under the prevailing circumstances." Clinton's position was that there was no obligation to act and nothing much to do. Canadian Lieutenent-General Romeo Dallaire, who commanded the hand-tied UN peackeeping forces in Rwanda, believed that with a larger force -- 5000 instead of 2000 soldiers -- he could halt much of the slaugher.

As the genocide proceeded, the Clinton Administration went along with -- or forced -- the UN Security Council decision to reduce Dallaire's force to what the OAU report calls "a derisory 270 men." And as the carnage continued, "the UN dithered in organizing any kind of response to the ongoing tragedy. The Americans, led by US Ambassador Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious action by the UN."
For instance, in early May -- a month into the genocide -- the UN considered sending in a force of 4000 soldiers with a mandate to end the bloodshed and to restore law and order. The Clinton Administration, though, expressed reservations about establishing such a mission -- even though US troops would not necessarily be part of this action. "It is unclear," Albright said then, "what the peace-enforcement mission would be or when it would end." The OAU commissioners have a sharp response for her: "This was a shocking statement, since it was perfectly obvious the purpose was to stop the genocide. But since the Clinton Administration would take any steps to avoid acknowledging that a genocide was in fact taking place, its spokespeople were forced right into June to resort publicly to weasel words about 'acts of genocide' that made them look ridiculous to the rest of the world -- except, of course, to peers on the Security Council who had adopted the same shameful position." The report observes: "At every stage ... US Ambassador Madeleine Albright could be found tossing up roadblocks to speedy decisions for effective action."
Eventually, the Security Council did approve a new UN mission in Rwanda of 5,500 troops. But, the OAU study says, "the US did all in its power to undermine its effectiveness." The deployment of this force was delayed as Albright pressed conditions upon the UN. Then after Washington promised to lease 50 armored personnel carriers to the UN forces in Rwanda, the Clinton Administration caused "another extraordinary delay." (Commander Dallaire felt the APCs could play an important role in saving trapped civilians.) The report notes: "Before [the US] would agree to send its APCs to Rwanda, the world's wealthiest nation raised the original estimate of the cost of the carriers by half, and then insisted that the UN (to which the US was already in serious debt) must pay for returning the carriers to their base in Germany."

That is, the Clinton Administration nickel-and-dimed while thousands of men, women and children were being hacked to pieces. (By the way, the total cost of the APC deployment was $15 million -- less than what Hillary Clinton will spend on her Senate campaign.) It took the United States weeks to get the APCs to Uganda, where they sat unused. By the time the genocide ended on July 17 -- when the Rwanda Patriotic Front, a Tutsi rebel force, pushed out the Hutu military -- not one of the vehicles had made it to Rwanda. And none of the soldiers of the beefed-up UN mission had reached Rwanda.

"Let us say," the report notes, "that this Panel considers it beyond belief, a scandal of the most shocking kind, that the genocide was ended before a single Blue Helmet [UN peacekeeper] representing [the new mission] ever materialized" in Rwanda.

The report damns the other players besides the United States. It assumes that prompt and forceful UN action could have stopped the killings. That proposition -- obviously open to discussion -- does make sense. Even a skeptical analysis of possible UN military options in Rwanda published by Foreign Affairs earlier this year conceded that 125,000 lives could have been saved through outside military intervention. For our purposes, the main point is this: Clinton didn't bother to try.

In March of 1998, Clinton visited Rwanda and apologized. "All over the world," he said, "there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror." The United States and the international community had not responded swiftly enough, he admitted, declaring "Never again." This was a clasic Clinton apology, for he found a way to excuse his lack of action: We didn't do anything to stop the genocide, but we didn't know a horrific nightmare was happening.

Clinton was prevaricating -- and lying about genocide is bit more outrageous than lying about sex. The OAU report refers to the well-known fax that Dallaire sent the UN three months before the genocide began. In that dispatch, Dallaire warned an extermination campaign was coming. A few weeks later, the report notes, "Human Rights Watch was told that a US government intelligence analyst had estimated that if conflict was renewed in Rwanda, the worst-case scenario would involve one-half million people dying. Apparently, this analyst's work was usually highly regarded, but this assessment was not taken seriously." In February, the US State Department reported on the existence of death squads. Three days before the genocide started, a Hutu leader told several high-ranking UN officials that "the only plausible solution for Rwanda would be the elimination of the Tutsi." The report sadly states: "There were a thousand early warnings that something appalling was about to occur in Rwanda."

Once the insane killing was under way, information and news of the genocide flowed to Washington and the West. "There was," the OAU report asserts, "no issue of insufficient information in the US. Human Rights Watch and the US Committee for Refugees, both of whom had first-hand knowledge from within Rwanda, persistently held public briefings and issued regular updates on the course of events. That it was a genocide was beyond question. Within two weeks, the International Committee of the Red Cross estimated that perhaps hundreds of thousands were already dead." The report challenges Clinton directly: "President Clinton insists that his failure was a function of ignorace. The facts show, however, that the American government knew precisely what was happening ... But domestic politics took priority over the lives of helpless Africans." They are calling Clinton a liar -- and a political coward.

Madeleine Albright, now secretary of state, promptly attacked the report, declaring it was wrong for the commissioners to blame the United States. But, she added, while she was UN ambassador, "I followed instructions because I was an ambassador, but I screamed about the instructions that I got on this. I felt they were wrong, and I made that point." Isn't that an admission the OAU and others are right to question and criticize US actions (or lack thereof)? Moreover, if Albright believed the Clinton Adminisitration she served was pushing the wrong policy regarding a genocide, why did she not resign in protest? She wasn't willing to take a career hit to help end mass-murder?

I'd like to see Albright explain that to a woman the commissioners met at clinic in Rwanda that provides services to women brutalized during the genocide. This woman told the panel she had been imprisoned, tied to a bed for several months, and gang-raped continuously: "Her final words to us were the stuff of nightmares, vivid, awful, impossible ever to forget. She said, with a chilling matter-of-factness: 'For the rest of my life, whether I am eating or sleeping or working, I shall never get the smell of semen out of my nostrils.'"

Clinton displayed little greatness during the Rwanda genocide. Ask General Dallaire. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder related to his Rwanda service and in April retired early from the Canadian military for medical reasons. A few weeks ago, this poor soul -- hounded by the belief he could have forestalled the mass-murders had the UN and world powers authorized him to act in the early moments of the genocide -- was found drunk, lying in a park in Canada, curled in the fetal position. He recently revealed that he has twice tried to kill himself. A search of Lexis-Nexis turned up but one mention of Dallaire's suicide attempts in the American media -- a Toronto Star story that was published in The Baltimore Sun. In that article, Dallaire described his gut-wrenching struggle with PTSD: "You become very leery of the dark and the silence. The silence is intolerable."

Not for all. Clinton pushed silence at the time of the genocide, and Gore, Albright and other Clintonites tolerated that silence. If the history books do register Clinton as one of the "greatest," it will be an insult to the memory of hundreds of thousands slaughtered Rwandans.

[jbuck919]

The story was widely reported

Then why are you going to obscure or alternate sources to report it? Why not cite the Guardian, the Christian Science Monitor, The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, even, God help us, the New York Times or the Washington Post? Give me a story from such a universally recognized source and then I will examine the case on its merits. Until then I will not conduct my own search, but will assume that such sources had nothing to say that agree with the judgment of the case that you found by, well, hunting until you found it, I guess.

[BWV 1080]

The story was widely reported

Then why are you going to obscure or alternate sources to report it? Why not cite the Guardian, the Christian Science Monitor, The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, even, God help us, the New York Times or the Washington Post? Give me a story from such a universally recognized source and then I will examine the case on its merits. Until then I will not conduct my own search, but will assume that such sources had nothing to say that agree with the judgment of the case that you found by, well, hunting until you found it, I guess.

OK John, you want to look at the source documents they are here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/

Here is the Guardian story (The Sidney story was a reprint of it):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 31,00.html

Here is another long article in the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genocide

[Werner]

I'm not about to try and judge the details of this long story - just suppose the story is right to some extent and that Clinton recognized the genocide and - for reasons not specified - took no action.

His successor decided differently in judging the risk of Saddam Hussein vs. Afghanistan. The consequences are still playing out. Can you really say that this was a right or a wise course?

[BWV 1080]

I'm not about to try and judge the details of this long story - just suppose the story is right to some extent and that Clinton recognized the genocide and - for reasons not specified - took no action.

His successor decided differently in judging the risk of Saddam Hussein vs. Afghanistan. The consequences are still playing out. Can you really say that this was a right or a wise course?

What does one have to do with the other? The Clinton Administration stymied a UN reaction in Rwanda that could have cut short the killing there - that is a fact of history that has become clear as time has past. In ten or fifteen years we will have a similar perspective on Iraq.

[jbuck919]

The story was widely reported

Then why are you going to obscure or alternate sources to report it? Why not cite the Guardian, the Christian Science Monitor, The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, even, God help us, the New York Times or the Washington Post? Give me a story from such a universally recognized source and then I will examine the case on its merits. Until then I will not conduct my own search, but will assume that such sources had nothing to say that agree with the judgment of the case that you found by, well, hunting until you found it, I guess.

OK John, you want to look at the source documents they are here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/

Here is the Guardian story (The Sidney story was a reprint of it):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 31,00.html

Here is another long article in the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genocide

It looks like them's the facts. Sorry, Steve, you are not responsible for my not being up on events.

Coincidentally, one of the social studies teachers here is showing Hotel Rwanda, which required that the kids get parental permission.

[Dies Irae]

Bottom Line--- I would rather (by far) have Bill Clinton occupying the oval office as Pres. of the U.S on his worst day, than G.W. Bush on his best day.

PS- Not going to engage in a debate over this. Simply stating my preference.

[BWV 1080]

It looks like them's the facts. Sorry, Steve, you are not responsible for my not being up on events.

Coincidentally, one of the social studies teachers here is showing Hotel Rwanda, which required that the kids get parental permission.

That's a great idea.

This would be another movie to show kids, a documentary interviewing the leader of the UN forces, Canadian General Roméo Dallaire (the Nick Nulte character in Hotel Rwanda). This guy was a real hero who was emotionally crushed by his powerlessness over the situation and the UN's lack of support


http://www.whitepinepictures.com/dallairesite/index.htm

[Corlyss_D]

For anyone but the pathological Clinton haters, an intriguimg thought. At least here is a man with a brilliant mind, a strong worth ethic, and a sense of the politivally possible.

Yeah, but did he ever do anything?

Barry, tell me again . . .

[Barry]

For anyone but the pathological Clinton haters, an intriguimg thought. At least here is a man with a brilliant mind, a strong worth ethic, and a sense of the politivally possible.

Yeah, but did he ever do anything?

Barry, tell me again . . .

Um.........yes.

Go back and read the piece you've shown me on Clinton and the global economy.

[Corlyss_D]

This all seems a bit far-fetched to me. The UN Secretary General has never been from a great power and I don't see a former president of the US of any stature or persuasion being the spectacular break with that tradition.

Well, let's be realistic. There has never been a UN Sec Gen from a great power, much less the US, and they are not about to elect one now unless the lilliputian dictatorships and tyrannts that infest the UN could be assured that said UNSG's #1 job would be to frustrate the US and bring US policy in line with UN policy. Clinton is admirably suited for such a job, because his two greatest accomplishments were not getting in the way of the US economy (inaction) and bollocksing up Republicans in the Congress (malicious interference). Those just happen to be the two greatest strengths of the UN as well.

[jbuck919]

This all seems a bit far-fetched to me. The UN Secretary General has never been from a great power and I don't see a former president of the US of any stature or persuasion being the spectacular break with that tradition.

Well, let's be realistic. There has never been a UN Sec Gen from a great power, much less the US, and they are not about to elect one now unless the lilliputian dictatorships and tyrannts that infest the UN could be assured that said UNSG's #1 job would be to frustrate the US and bring US policy in line with UN policy. Clinton is admirably suited for such a job, because his two greatest accomplishments were not getting in the way of the US economy (inaction) and bollocksing up Republicans in the Congress (malicious interference). Those just happen to be the two greatest strengths of the UN as well.

I don't understand a single word of that. And you can't be telling us that you seriously think that this running joke of yours is a true aspiration let alone a realistic possibility.

[Werner]

Well, Corlyss...............wanna defend what W DID?

[Corlyss_D]

I don't understand a single word of that.

Except you have so many better uses for your time, I'd recommend you read more politics. There wasn't anything arcane about what I said, but you do need to know more than "Democrats good; Republicans bad."

And you can't be telling us that you seriously think that this running joke of yours is a true aspiration let alone a realistic possibility?

I have mixed emotions about it. I'd like to see it happen to put an end to the misery from Hope, Arkansas. On the other hand, I'll buy you dinner in the restaurant of your choice anywhere in the Universe if it happens. There ain't no way the UN GA is going to elect an American to the UN SG job. No way.

[Corlyss_D]

Well, Corlyss...............wanna defend what W DID?

W is not the topic of this thread.

[jbuck919]

Except you have so many better uses for your time, I'd recommend you read more politics. There wasn't anything arcane about what I said, but you do need to know more than "Democrats good; Republicans bad."

I see, so one of the main goals of the UN General Assembly is bolloxing (correct spelling) up the Republicans in the US Congress.

Edit: Nice job of editing a post just as I was moving in for the kill.

[Corlyss_D]

Except you have so many better uses for your time, I'd recommend you read more politics. There wasn't anything arcane about what I said, but you do need to know more than "Democrats good; Republicans bad."

I see, so one of the main goals of the UN General Assembly is bolloxing (correct spelling) up the Republicans in the US Congress.

The parentheticals are the main goals: inactivity and malicious interference with the US. To the extent that the Republicans are the dominant party vis-a-vis national security and the muscle it takes to secure international stability, yeah, the UN's job is to interfere with Republicans. That misbegotten collection of greedy murderous tyrants and dictators that dominate the UN and festoon its bureaucracy with their kleptocratic toadies has as its main goal to frustrate any international efforts, usually led by the US, to bring them to heel. After all, the original intent of the UN was to secure stability and democracy by excluding tyrannies. It flubbed the dub straight out of the box by letting the Russians not only in, but onto the SC.

bolloxing (correct spelling)

Not according to my Oxford, or to wikipedia

Edit: Nice job of editing a post just as I was moving in for the kill.

What did I edit? I'm sure you're right, but I just don't recall. Feel free to kill away, whatever it was.

[dulcinea]

Bottom Line--- I would rather (by far) have Bill Clinton occupying the oval office as Pres. of the U.S on his worst day, than G.W. Bush on his best day.

Pill Klingon is your idea of a great president???!!! You really don't expect or demand a great deal from your elected representatives, do you ?

[Cyril Ignatius]

For anyone but the pathological Clinton haters, an intriguimg thought. At least here is a man with a brilliant mind, a strong worth ethic, and a sense of the politivally possible.

And while Bill goes to the UN, I'll be just as happy to keep Hillary in the Senate.

Yes, the brilliant mind and strong work ethic that gave away military secrets to the Chinese, that was comatose through the gathering storm of Islamofacism, that ignored the Rwanda massacre, and turned the White House Lincoln Room into a high-price bed-and breakfast. You're right, he's perfect for the United Nations!