October 26, 2004

• Ah yes, worldnetdaily.
• Thought experiment: GWB wins Nov. 2, clean and clear. WHC wins too. GWB asks, rather, demands, absurd, groundless help from UN in imperialist invasion of Iran. WHC relishes the opportunity to tell him to fuck off. Outcome? Now, replay, with Kerry in office. For the sake of argument imagine Kerry making a better supported, but still imperialist, request for support. WHC reaction? Outcome?
• whoops, wolof. shoulda checked the link. I kinda enjoy my thought thingys though.
• I had thought for a while that Clinton would make a great U.S. Secretary of State, but Secretary General is an interesting possibility as well.
• You forgot Poland. Poland would probably approve too. Sorry. Couldn't resist
• Those are fun ideas, mwhybark.
• Pfft, but NZ broadcasters can't call Bill Clinton a cheeky darkie like they can with Annan.
• I've heard this from numerous news sources lately. Doesn't mean it's anything more than a rumour, but it isn't just coming from one source, and I can certainly see Clinton being drawn to the role. As much as I think Bill Clinton can be an incredibly effective leader and negotiator, I personally hope it doesn't happen. Just imagine the fodder it would provide for the rabid right in America: "See, see! We told you about the UN! Lefty lefty lefty! Danger! You want us to support and pay for ANOTHER Clinton administration!?" It would be a gift to them as much as it might be a help to the greater world. And if Bush is re-elected it would give him too much traction against the UN, both via his base and what I am sure is his quite intense personal dislike for Clinton. What the UN needs right now is a strong leader with as little appearance of bias as possible. There was talk last year of a former Canadian foreign affairs and finance minister named John Manley running for the job. I like Manley but he has little international profile outside diplomatic circles. He was well liked and respected by both sides in the US and he isn't a polarizing politician. The UN needs somebody like that in the top job for it to get the influx of money and support that it so desperately needs from the US.
• kwyjibo Clinton as SecState I could definitely get behind. In a role that makes him first and foremost an advocate for America while working with the world community he would have both a chance to do some global good and to rehabilitate his image at home in the eyes of the right. If Kerry moves Powell to SecDef and puts Clinton in as SecState I think the US might be able to make some great moves. I live in hope.
• I can't imagine any Democratic president appointing Bill Clinton to Secretary of State -- why would any politician in his right mind appoint a guy who would be able to upstage him publicly at any given moment? Look at how Kissinger was able to run circles around Nixon and Ford. It will never happen. As for the UN job, it's hard to imagine the rest of the countries voting for an American as Secretary-General, especially in light of the last couple of years.
• ...why would any politician in his right mind appoint a guy who would be able to upstage him publicly at any given moment? Bush appointed Colin Powell, himself once heralded as a potential shoe-in for President had he run for the Republican nomination. Ah, the "right mind" thing... But seriously, I can see your point.
• Pfft, but NZ broadcasters can't call Bill Clinton a cheeky darkie like they can with Annan Really? More info possible?
• Other World Net Daily Articles: "Discovered papers: Hanoi directed Kerry" "Americans burn U.N. flag in rage" "What is U.S. role in biblical prophecy?" What are the other news sources that report this? It is intruiging, but would take a Kerry victory next week to be even remotely possible.
• Wait, isn't he ineligible to be Secretary of State, since that's on the succession list?
• Maybe, shawnj (although I think that technically an ex-prez could hold office in the line of succession). But the UN Sec'y-Gen is not the same job as the US Sec'y of State. The UN SG is more like the prez of the UN.
• It is my understanding that as a citizen of one of the countries on the security council he's inelgible to be the UN secretary general. I can't seem to find anything on the web to back that up, but I can see the logic in such a restriction.
• Right you are, shawnj: SecState is 4th in line. I haven't time to read the relevant passages in the US Consitution but I bet you're right that that prohibits Clinton from being SecState. This thread has got me thinking about who Kerry might appoint as various secretaries. Interesting to speculate. I wonder what he might do with Gore if ol' Al is up for it, or is Al similarly excluded?
• Here is the Charter of the United Nations. I don't see any mention of a prohibition based on membership in the Security Council (I just searched the doc for "Secretary-General"), but there is this: "The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs." - Article 8
• There's no restriction from Clinton being SecState, or even Vice President. The ammendment states that he couldn't be elected into the office again. There's plenty of people who want him as a veep, I've heard the idea tossed around a lot.
• Here's an article from CNN explaining the why's and how's of Clinton becoming the VP.
• Shit man, the freepers would crap themselves with one-world-government, tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theory angst.
• Wolof: here's a summary of Paul Holmes' radio broadcast where he called Kofi Annan a "cheeky darkie".
• Jerry G / shawnj / Mr. K: There actually is no restriction from Bill Clinton becoming Secretary of State, or even VP for that matter. However, from what I've read by constitution scholars is that on the issue of succession, he would (most likely) simply be skipped over, just as Madeline Albright would've been had the others in line all died at one time. Albright isn't a "natural born" US Citizen, and would have just been skipped over to (If I recall correctly) the Sec. of Defense (or was that Attorney General?). Either way, Clinton could be a holder of any office in the line of succession, but he would most likely be skipped over if the issue arose.
• chimaera: Article II would've prevented Albright from becoming president, and Amendment XII would've prevented her from being VP. But neither of these, nor Amendment XXII, would prevent Clinton from being elected VP, and from there becoming president. Article II gives the requirements for President (native-born, yada). Amendment XII says VP must meet same requirements. Amendment XXII says Pres can't be elected for three terms. This is according to Michael C. Dorf [who] is vice dean and professor of law at Columbia University, where he teaches civil procedure and constitutional law. He is the co-author, with Laurence H. Tribe, of the book "On Reading the Constitution." The way he describes it, it seems pretty clear cut. He looks at both word-for-word and in-spirit-of interpretations of each relevant part of the constitution. Of course there'd be some philibustering by the GOP, but that's always the case with them and Clinton. If Clinton did ever run for VP, he should either do it on a 3rd party ticket, or as the running mate of a female or non-white presidential candidate. If they failed to make it to the white house, they'd still carry enough states to put a dent in the current status quo.
• It would be very difficult impossible for Hillary to run for President as long as Bill was UN Secretary General.