Big Dog as Sec. Gen. of the UN?

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/10210010aaa038a4.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=LATEBRKN&Type=News&Filter=Late%20Breaking

How friggin cool would that be?

I've always liked Clinton, and I think he'd make a fine UN Secretary General. But if we're going to have a dog in the post, then I'd rather see Snoop.

- Ace

Do they have interns?


Bill would be a very good thing for that organization. At least he wouldnt be scamming the world by allowing Saddams to play with sanctions.

Actually I think that UNICEF is a better fit for Clinton. Both have proven their irrelevance to the rest of the world, their self-centered nature and their ability to act as money sponges while posing as "righteous protectors of the downtrodden".

No sarcasm and I am leaving the thread. But I am serious. He'd be much better at a UNICEF post.. and much less dangerous to the world.

I'm being sacrastic and I am not leaving this thread.

Ya, Bill is a real evil marauder

It's true. Eight years of peace and prosperity is a horrible thing. I'm just happy we managed to survive it.

I just think having an international crew of interns will make him even more powerful. Just think with a cadre of Swedish, Thai, Latin, Japanese, African and American interns servicing him around the clock Bill Clinton will likely establish world peace in a matter of weeks.

Our intelligence system didn't.

And let's not forget that little civil war in Eastern Europe that we've been interfering in since the early 90's.

OMG I can't believe you said that Neehai !!

I can't beleive people still think him getting blown in the whitehouse is such a big deal. Kenedy had marilyn Monroe and just about every other president has taken advantage of the power one way or another, a large portion of them sexually. He was just one who happened to get caught. Regardless, I don't want the Gov. in my bedroom and I don't belong in theirs either.

That said, I think Clinton would be an excellent addition to the U.N. Staff the man is exceptionally brilliant and fair.

I don't think most people do. I do think people took exception to him lying about it. He shouldn't have lied, but in my opinion they shouldn't have been allowed to ask the questions in the first place in public.

After all, Bush practically ran on the platform that he fucked his wife, unlike Clinton. However, most people didn't care.


It didn't? Do explain.

We averted a number of attacks and even left Furious George with plenty of info that he decided to ignore. The nation was good under Clinton. I was there.


What can I say? Some days i just have cock on the brain. You know how that is.

Wow, he would be the perfect Honest and Forthright person to head the ominously pending Oil for Food investigation...Never lied before a grand jury...nope not once.

You don't even know what Oil for Food is.

LOL!

Show me one president since carter that HASN'T lied before a jury (grand or not).

Pardon? I do know, or at least as much as the handlers at the U.N. will release. And as for that much, how do you know what I know? How do you know better? Just being a liberal doesn't make you any more truthful or knowledgeable than any other left or right leaning politico.

So, to wit: There was a process in place via the U.N. under the auspice of Humanitarian Aid whereby Saddam was allowed to sell a set amount of oil to provide food and necessary medical supplies to the Iraqi people during the U.N. embargo, pre-Iraq war. Saddam instead sold the oil, and pocketed some of the loot, and bought other thing with the rest. The U.N. investigation (whenever) will center around the various member nations (or better, individuals within those nations) who knowingly sold prohibited items to Saddam, not just weapons or ammo...cars, luxury items, etc.

So, where is the gray area, exactly?

So, are you mad at me because you are Russian, French, or one of the American companies sighted? Or because I busted on your idol?

Don't worry, as a non-partizan hater of both sides of the present American political system, I don't blast Clinton solely on any political grounds. He is an untrustworthy liar (like Bush is today). Google him on his past real estate dealings, his prior knowledge of Osama's activities, and check into his whole "I did not have sex with that woman" crap in front of a grand jury...

Xtop, it would be a lot more credible if you knew what you were talking about.

Clinton lied about getting a blow job. Big deal. The rest is just speculation.

I'm not a company, I'm just a big bitch.

Oh yea, I hate both sides too which means any criticisms I make (even if I have no idea what I am talking about) are cool.

Lies are such a buzzkill man. Power to the non-partizans! (and the non-patrisans too)

Be groovilicious and prosper dude.

Right on, and truth be told, my rant was partially coffee fueled. Though, I'm still fuzzy as to exactly how you feel that I don't know what I'm talking about, clarification if you feel like it. If I have misstated anything about the Oil for Food investigation (or if you have any additional info), let me know. I hate just being told I'm wrong with no stated reason from the accuser as to how and why...only because I'm a pain in the ass. Still, in the vein of my nilhilist leanings, I choose not to really care deeply about the OforF...or Slick Willie..or lil' George..or Frankenstein. Clinton heading the U.N...who cares. Oil for Food...pfft. Neither is really worth getting froggy on a SL thread.

*pops an after work brewskie*
Advice taken, my groove is now in progress.

It is a very big deal. Ask anyone who's ever been a government employee with a top secret or higher security clearance.

The lie (not the blowjob) would have been cause for immediate revocation of a security clearance at that level. Most of us would have ended up at best with no job and a federal felony conviction on our record. At worst, Leavenworth for an extended visit.

And, since I know you will bring it up:
- There's a lot of difference between saying something that you believe to be the truth, then later discovering you had been misinformed, and staring straight into a camera and telling a bald-faced lie that you KNOW, beyond any doubt, is a lie.
- Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Just because the troops on the ground haven't located stores of chemical weapons doesn't mean they didn't (or don't) exist. It's not like they didn't have weeks (and in some areas months) of advance warning to hide stuff. FFS, they found a dozen MiGs buried in the freaking sand last year. There's no telling what else is buried in those deserts.



I was there when Clinton's military drawdown resulted in the gutting of the most prolific overt intelligence operation the DoD has ever had.

Clever, that Saddam. Hiding his WMD instead of using them. I'll bet he's really chuckling to himself from his jail cell right now.

This is a good argument. Based on this, we could invade Canada next for harboring little men who live in trees and make cookies using elven magic. Just because we don't find them doesn't mean they aren't really there.


Are you really serious? As I recall the Big Dog was getting the job done. I can't believe you would oversimplify this issue to pin it on Bill Clinton. Here's a bucket of water for your pants.

His real estate dealings were looked into... and nothing was found. His prior knowledge of Osama's activities.... he passed on to his successor, who proceeded to ignore them until about 3000 people were killed. (Which finally got that successor's attention.) And the 'I did not have sex with that woman' bit? Was at a press conference. Not in front of a grand jury. The reason he wasn't found guilty of perjury is that he didn't COMMIT perjury. (His answer to the grand jury was entirely legally accurate.)

And yes Neehai.... honestly I don't know how we survived the Clinton years. I'm so glad we left the failed economic policies of the past in favor of the jobless economic recovery and soaring deficits. Isn't it great?

I agree Corwin although I found the what the meaning of "is" is statement insulting, especially coming from a Rhodes scholar. I was disappointed. But will I say he was a bad leader because of that? Absolutely not. I think he had what it took and then some. During his tenure we enjoyed a prosperity that hadn't been seen in a LONG time.

I think it would be great if he became the secretary general. It could possibly mitigate some of the resentment the international community holds towards the US. Beyond that, I think he is very capable of handling the job.

I wonder what non Americans would think about him in that position?

I think it would make most people that already have very little respect for the U.N. have even less.

No big loss really. The people who have no respect for the UN are the kind of people that tend to invade sovereign nations looking for elves in trees.

whoa.. read that wrong.