I've been saying this for quite a while. I'm hardly a Clinton fan, but he is the best possible choice for this post. If anyone doubts that he would have Bush's very strong support, they haven't been paying attention to very much at all, including, but not limited to, Kofi Annan's absurd behavior, Bill Clinton's support of the Iraq War and the WMD intelligence, Bush's ability to be very warm and complimentary of Clinton, and the fact that this would completely cut off Hillary's attempt to run for President.

This could work. It depends on whether Clinton actually does good in the job (i.e. reform the UN) or use it to go against Bush.

I take the complete opposite view. I see Clinton assuming the position (no jokes please) with the huzzahs of the rest of the world. The next Sudan or Iraq would open the eyes of most anyone who is still paying attention to the UN. Clinton is going to be able to persuade the French, Chinese to go along? Isn't that Kerry's much derided argument?

Terrible idea, Bill Clinton is incapable of being an honest broker. To the extent that he is able to use the position to effect US politics, he will.

It'll never happen. Third world Annan-type princes in waiting will not allow a Westerner to jump to the front of the line. Bush is too smart to allow it. The only reason Clinton would want the position is to restart Israeli/Arab peace talks based on Clinton's failed plan, and thus shoot for the Nobel Peace Prize. Hillary should put her foot down, too. Watching Kerry get hammered over his 'global test' gaffe, the last thing she should want is her husband grading the exams.

Um, if he did accept it, what would it do to Hillary's prospects in 2008?

Bill only became interested in the job when he found out how much Annan was stealling. Besides, he is a pumhead now.

More to the point, we need to tear the building down and denounce the charter.

Pumphead.

More to the point, we need to tear the building down and denounce the charter.

Indeed, but why not wait 'till Bill's inside?

great idea to solidify The Pax America. the world can have its american president and the real power rests with a republican president. Kinda codifies the World structure now and defacto confirms American world rule pity poor chirac, etc when he reads this.......

If you run into Bill on the street, bring him to McDonald's and buy him 25 supersized meals.

Nothing in the UN charter prevents an American holding the office. It's simply a diplomatic arrangement. No one wants to give the US that much power. We are already a superpower and control the World Bank.

If the rest of the world accepts an American as Secretary General, they are fools. Clinton may be a political opponent of George Bush, but he is an American and based in American culture. He will serve American interests.

The only reason it should be opposed is that when the rest of the world wakes up and realizes how stupid they were, the backlash may be fierce.

If it happens, then de facto we are Rome Reborn and historians will point to that date as when America officially began ruling the world.

Chris:

Fierce? What are they going to do, pout?

oj,
Worst man to be President, as Geo Will called him, but, by far, not the worst President.
I'm with you on this one.
Regarding Hillary, she's the only waiting in the wings Dem who wouldn't be an unmitigated disaster for the Nation. Since she had her L word head handed to her in '93 on Hillarycare, she's shown herself to be a pragmatist first. On the whole GWoT thing she's been pretty consistent and pretty supportive, partisan politics notwithstanding.
I hope to live long enough for Hillary/Guiliani in '08. Wow!!
Mike

Hillary was smart enough to keep her congressional voting record viable on the war on terror and the war in Iraq, while delivering hit-and-run speeches attacking Bush that were to the left of her own votes. Those will be long forgotten by 2008, but the votes wiill live on and will help blunt any Republican attack about her being soft on terror. Whether her votes or her speeches represented the really Hillary is what's open to question.

As for Bill and the U.N., the fun thing to ponder is how the French ego would take the possibility of the U.N. Secretary General being married to the President of the United States. Even if they are both Democrats, the thought of such a close alliance (politically, if not emotionally) would no doubt cause Paris to blow a gasket.

Terrible idea.

Some days ago, Orrin wrote, "Even as we defend American sovereignty from transnationalist threats we need to acknowledge that America itself is the greatest threat to traditional sovereignty in the world today."

This implied a contrast between a robust U.S. interventionist policy on the one hand, and nation-states quietly minding their own business who would simply like to be left alone on the other.

Such a juxtaposition is false for two reasons. The U.S. is not narrowly pursuing its own self-interest but is acting in concert with declared (Anglosphere, Japan, et alii) and undeclared (non-Carolingian Europe, ASEAN countries) partners. In assuming "unpaid world policeman" duties such as keeping open the sealanes, the U.S. guarantees the prosperity even of hostile nations.

Second, the antithesis to the new U.S. policy, which no longer holds national sovereignty as sacrosanct under all circumstances, is not traditional sovereignty. Rather, it is the notion -- widely held among global functional elites -- that the history of human progress necessarily points to the establishment of a single world government, as a means to end war forever and share the wealth among all the world's people. The conviction that this global government will be established if civilization (mankind, even) is not to end is so deeply held by many in the elites that it is not even discussed much anymore. This one-world government will be based on the Kantian principles of "universal reason" as outlined by Brothersjudd commenter Robert Schwartz recently.

Most people, however, still view the effort to unify the world under a single regime as a dangerous and harmful dead end. The conflict, therefore, is not between an imperialist U.S. and some 200 sovereign nation-states: it is between the homogenizers in the UN, the EU, the NGOs, the universities, the judiciary, etc., and their opponents in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Making Bill Clinton the next Secretary General of the UN would be giving our opponents the gift of an extremely effective politician and demagogue. It would advance the agenda of the one-worlders by several years, with no compensation to be gained in return.

>Most people, however, still view the effort to
>unify the world under a single regime as a
>dangerous and harmful dead end.

B-b-b-but it worked on Star Trek!

If Bill Clinton went to the UN, it would only increase the number (and ethnicity) of interns in danger of assault.

Clinton is a sleazeball who hates America. He's perfect for the job.

The best thing we could do is kick the UN out of the US, quit the UN and let the Mets and Jets build a stadium on the East River.