Still haven’t much time to write but wanted to throw a quick thought out. Instapundit brings this to our attention and is thinking there is more to come in the story.
I’m thinking so, too, and wondering about the supposedly “open secret” (or rumor, depending on who you’re speaking to) that Bill Clinton would love to be the Sec. General of the UN. It doesn’t seem surprising at all, to me, to read that Kofi is getting a vote of no confidence (from a union, no less) right on the heels of Clinton’s re-emergence and the incredible, overhyped, coverage of his library opening.
I’m told this idea, of Clinton heading the UN, would be impossible for three reasons:
1. The UN charter would have to be changed, because the UN SecGen can’t be a citizen of a Security Council nation.
2. In all likelihood only a Democrat president would nominate Clinton for such a post.
3. The member nations would have to vote him in.
I dunno. I have no idea what the rules are, but it seems to me, only the first reason seems even remotely difficult to overcome, but then again – the Freepers wet dream has always been for the US to pull out of the UN Security Council. Perhaps they will rethink that idea, in light of Clinton’s ambition.
Who knows what might happen? No one, really. The UN “loves” Bill Clinton. Do they “love” him enough to change their charter for him? I wouldn’t be surprised at anything the corruption-addled UN did.
All I know is we are today reading reams of pages of hype about Clintonian “peace and prosperity”. Never mind that the “prosperity” largely rode in on the back of the Y2K Horse of the Apocalypse, and other illusions (remember how everything was supposed to go haywire at the stroke of midnight unless every business spent time and money amending their software? Remember the “irrational exuberance” of the “bubble”?) and the “peace” amounted to our nation not responding when our holdings, our embassies, our naval vessels and our buildings were attacked.
Peace is more than an absence of war. Peace is an absence of buildings blowing up with people in them; it is an absence of suicide bombers ramming into a ship and killing our sailors. In the 1990′s we were not at peace. We simply refused to respond to acts of war.
But never mind. The press and the Democrats are not interested in looking too closely at what “peace and prosperity” really means, if the Huckster Doofus is involved.
I am bracing myself: The next four years will be all-Clinton-all-the-time. While President Bush will try to move ahead with his vision to bring peace and democracy to the Middle East (and thus help the whole world out with this “nuisance” of Islamofascism, which no one of “sophisticated” mien wants to really address) his efforts – all of them, every single one – will be roundly derided. All of his substantial accomplishments will be met with rolling eyes and venom (if they are covered at all), while every excuse, grunt and scolding from a Clintonian mouth will be covered in rapturous detail. There is no sense complaining about it; this is the world as it is.
The overdone coverage of the library opening was predictable, and it was simply done to camouflage the fact that the Clinton presidency was largely as empty as the popular culture. Sound and fury, indicating nothing. That camoflauge will continue with the unseemly co-operation of the press, as these two toothaches of humanity gallumph forward on their planned trajectory. And no, it would not at all surprise me to learn that we’re peering into the Double Fanstasy of their lives: He to the UN, she to the White House.