NavigationUser loginBlogad PremiumDonate with PaypalBlogad Regular David Swanson's new book is only $14.95.
"Daybreak urgently reminds us that good political intentions are not sufficient to ensure the continuation of our democracy; informed vigilance is vital to that task." |
Wm. J Clinton in the UN
I am supporting William J Clinton for Secretary General Of the United Nations, join me, write the White House and state your support. The right has already started their campaign to defeat President Clinton’s effort to become UN Sec. General. Fight for what is right. Peace
Join us & contribute Proud members of the Democratic Party Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy |
What's HotStop Global Warming [40,000] Single Payer Healthcare [100,000] Boycott FOX News Advertisers [100,000] Special Prosecutor for Bush War Crimes [100,000] Facebook / Twitter (Bob Fertik, David Swanson, Democrats.com) Local: connect with Democrats.com members in your State, County, Congressional District, and Zip Single Payer Health CareOut of Iraq PetitionForumsMy CongressUpdate your address so we can find your Senators and Representative. If your current address is correct but your Representatives are missing, please contact us so we can fix your data.
Protest and Organize!Syndicate Active forum topics
|
Printer-friendly version
You can't be serious
Clinton would be a disaster for the Democrats if he were the Secretary General. How well do think it would play with the Jewish vote if he were presiding over the biggest hotbed of anti-Semitism in the world today? Do you think that he would somehow make that disappear?
Every time the UN takes some stand or action against Isreal (which is pretty much daily), he would be conflicted because Isreal is our ally. The rest of the world knows this and would not trust him for that reason. If he didn't stick up for Isreal, it would probably hurt Hillary's chances. Whether you like Bush or not, he is a strong supporter of Isreal and an overwhelming majority of voters agree with that position. There is a good chance you'd see Clinton having to take the UN's position and oppose Bush on an issue relating Isreal or the Palestinians. Do you really want that given the support Bush would have?
I don't like Clinton at all. I think he disgraced the presidency with his personal failings and squandered the opportunity he had to accomplish great things. In spite of that, I would not want to see Clinton embarass himself or the presidency any further by persiding over the UN. The UN is feckless and corrupt. It did nothing in Rwanda when hundred's of thousands were slaughtered. It was useless in Kosovo. A list of the UN's failures would be endless. I would not want to see anyone from the US presiding over that sorry organization.
As Secretary General, Bill Clinton would be powerless to fix the UN, but would only further tarnish his already dismal legacy
President Clinton
Actually Presidnet Clinton was one of the most effective people in working out a resolution in Israel, he is still one of the most popular political figures, I believe he would be a great Secretary General, he is still very well respected in the world, and John Kerry stated if elected, would have sent President Clinton to the Middle East to work on piece, because he was so effective during his tenure. President Clinton is a true leader...
Bush is the most disrespected leader in the world.
"The only thing necessary for the perpetuation of evil is for good people to do nothing." ~Jane Elliott
Clinton was overrated in the Middle-East
Karl,
In 2000, Clinton pushed Ehud Barak, the Isreali Prime Minister, into giving away the store to Arafat to get a peace deal. Clinton desperately wanted something he could call a legacy. Even with Barak conceding virtually every point, Clinton still couldn't get the deal closed and Arafat walked away from the deal. Why did Arafat refuse the deal? Because he believed that if he kept saying no, Clinton would get him something even better. All the while Arafat was "negotiating", his terrorist minions at home were killing innocent Isrealis. The Isreali voters were so angry with Barak over this travesty that his Labor government collapsed and the Likud party took over. They've held power ever since and the carnage has continued unchecked. Unless I've missed something, this adds up to a big zero for Bill Clinton (Actually, I think he made the situation worse because he never put any pressure on Arafat to make concessions, but that's a matter of opinion). On a lighter note, I understand he gave THE cigar to Arafat - if it's true, I think it's a scream.
If you think Clinton was effective in the Middle East, tell me exactly what he accomplished. I'm not aware of anything significant.
P.S. to you and Keryusforward: I think Bush is great and I don't give a rat's *ss what the French, the Germans, the Russians or anyone else thinks about him or us. His job is to defend us, not defer to world opinion or the UN. Let's stick with the topic and not waste each other's time trying to change minds that are already made up.
your opinion
Your opinion would be taken more seriously if the verocity of it wasn't in question.
Most people believe that the legacy of President Clinton is one of the best.
"The only thing necessary for the perpetuation of evil is for good people to do nothing." ~Jane Elliott
Why don't you look it up
The failed peace negotiations took place in the Spring of 2000. Look it up if you don't believe me.
You asserted that ..."Clinton was one of the most effective people in working out a resolution in Isreal". The facts don't support that conclusion. If I've got it wrong, please set the record straight.
Why don't you try
looking this up?
If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. ~John Leland, July 5, 1802.
The article does not address
an important point: Who initiated the contact between Perle and Barak's advisers? If Perle or anyone else on the Bush team initiated the contact, then it was meddling and the Dems had a right to be upset. On the other hand, it is also possible, even likely that the contact was initiated by Barak. There is no way to know since neither the Bush campaign nor Barak's aides were willing to comment on the report.
It seems more likely to me that Barak was sounding out Bush to determine what he might expect if Bush won the election. At the time, Barak was caught between a rock and a hard place: He was under great pressure from Clinton to make concessions in the peace negotiations and was also under pressure in Isreal because his popularity was plummeting. A possible solution for him might have been to wait for a new administration in Washington. I believe Bush was leading in the polls at the time, so it seems logical that Barak would want to know his views.
Even without Perle, there was no way that Barak could have conceded on Jerusalem (he would not have survived a certain No Confidence vote in the Knesset). In any case, it didn't matter in the end: Arafat walked away from the best deal he was ever going to get, Barak's government collapsed in March 2001 and Clinton never closed the deal.
KarlMarx claims to knowledgeable about Isreali affairs. Perhaps he'll weigh in.
Your Opinion
I thought I was quite clear last time, you wouldn't ever give President Clinton a compliment on his legacy, Repugs are so jealous of his success.
Again if your voracity wasn't in question I would taken your comments more seriously, but I have spent enough time making my self aware of what goes on in Israel as a Jewish American, that is my Homeland.
"The only thing necessary for the perpetuation of evil is for good people to do nothing." ~Jane Elliott
Clinton's legacy was
not all bad. He did have some achievements and was a brilliant politician. In fact, had Kerry followed his advice, he might have won the election. Clinton has great personal magnetism (I actually met him once at a dinner to honor George Mitchell and saw it first hand).
On the plus side:
- The Family Leave Act
- The Defense of Marriage Act
- Welfare Reform (He doesn't really deserve this one since he vetoed it twice and only signed it when his advisers told him he'd lose the 1996 election if he didn't. I'm in a generous mood tonight, so he can have it.)
- Kosovo
- The Good Friday Agreement
- Presided over a period of great economic growth (I believe a President's ability to influence the economy is very much overstated. Clinton was lucky on this - it happened on his watch, so he gets the credit. I don't believe his policies caused it. The Republican Congress balanced the budget.)
- His failed Health Care Plan was instrumental in the Republicans winning Congress in 1994. (Sorry, but for me, it's a positive.)
On the other hand
- He failed to recognize the terrorist threat and deal with it appropriately. HUGE failing, his biggest.
- His personal conduct was atrocious. He disgraced the presidency and was a terrible example to the children of the country. This might not matter to you, but it does to me. Also HUGE.
- His administration had one scandal after another - Travelgate, the FBI files, campaign finance law violations, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. Again, HUGE.
- He left office with the economy falling into recession
- His venture into Haiti was waste
In retrospect, dismal was probably too strong a word. After laying it out and thinking about it, I still believe his administration had more negatives than positives. He had enormous potential and could have been great, but he let scandal and personal failings dominate his presidency.
Clinton Are You Kidding Me?
Why would a Republican Administration nominate a former Democratic President? Come on people! Clinton one of the best Presidents? I hardly think so. He will go down as a decent President not one of the Best. On a high level, I don't think the Monica thing was so bad, but the President lying under oath is just unacceptable and indefensible. He also wasn't agressive enough when Islamic Radicals began to attack us (Kobar Towers, the Embassy Bombings, U.S.S. Cole, 1993 attack on the World Trade Center). I also thought he should have intervened (put a coalition together )in Rhwanda and saved millions of lives. He also completely blew the mission in Somalia. All of that stuff cannot happen on your watch and still be considered by History to be a great president. The reality is that he was like most two term presidents, a good first term followed-up by a bad second-term.
Hey Lenny
Just FYI U.S. Presidents don't nominate the secretary General of the United Nations, and you're "I'm really a moderate" game is weak,
Brian D. Glennon
Fundamentalists, Christian, Muslim or Jewish are the root of all our problems today. FIGHT RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS!
brian@takebackamerica.us <
Just for clarification, no on
Just for clarification, no one from a major power will ever be choosen as the SG of the UN. Not an American, a Russian, a Chinese, or a German. Why do you suppose the the SG position has always been filled by someone from either a neutral, or a third-world country?
Think about it.