MSNBC: UN Sec. General More Powerful than U.S. President

Chris Matthews just proclaimed on Hardball that Bill Clinton's desire to become UN Secretary General would mean he was going for the really big top job, after having some problems with the U.S. Presidency.

Did anyone else see this??? Very scary!

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Did anyone else see this??? Very scary!

Hillary for president in 2008 and Bill the U.N. Secretary General who would have thunk it. As if the world isn’t bad enough.

Constructed chaos, and total control. If we had both the Clinton's running the world, we would fall in the NWO faster than anyone could have imagined.

I dread the day this happens, because I have a strong feeling that it will.

then why couldn't the UN secretary general prevent us from bombing Iraq ????????

because the commander in chief of the most powerful military wins

Originally posted by radagast
then why couldn't the UN secretary general prevent us from bombing Iraq ????????

because the commander in chief of the most powerful military wins

This is why I think George W. Bush is fighting the NWO and the theories attempting to link him to it is a smokescreen. The real plan is to have Bill as UN Secretary General and Hillary as U.S. President. A problem will occur (engineered) and the solution will be Hill passing U.S. sovereignty over to the UN. Watch out!

The day that US Soverignty is turned over to the UN I think it should be every citizens duty to lay waste to every suit on capitol hill by any means necessary. No outside body should ever control the US, and such an act would in my oppinion authorize the citizens to excise the current govermenty by force.

The transcript from Monday January 10th's Hardball has been released.

Here's the exact quote I mentioned:

MATTHEWS:  Anyway, I‘m sticking to my plan.  Anyway, I just love the idea of him going for the top job.  You know, like, he had a few problems with the presidency, but then he goes for the really big job, president of the world. 

The full transcript is here: www.msnbc.msn.com...

very good link people i think clinton will get his seat at the u. n. and if hillary doesnt get in the white house then bush will stay in under his martial law enforcement.
Be prepared to fight the elusive enemy!

I feel clinton will become the new Sec. General of the UN, i think the job will basicly go to his head. If the New world order is going to pass, then Bill bring it about.

Bll may well become sec-gen of the UN, however contrary to what the idiot quoted said it is not the top job in the world, hell the ceo of microsoft has more power than the UN.
However hillary will never be president and if the dems are dumb enough to run her it might be the last mistake the democratic party ever gets a chance to mke.

Just shows that Chris Matthews is a 'talking head' with no real grasp of the world's situation.

Instead of returning to objectivity after the Rathergate scandal, Matthews is caught trying to resurrect and deify his last great political hero.

C'mon, folks -- Chris Matthews was being facetious.

It's a joke -- and none of you got it.

The UN is nothing but a bunch of socialist mendicants and third-world thugs who have their paws out for First-World (primarily US) largesse, then turn around and excoriate us for having the gall to be successful.

Contrary to what many believe, the job of Secretary General rotates by geographical area, and there is nothing which says that a former national leader can become secretary general. Here are the ones we've had so far:

Sir Gladwyn Jebb (United Kingdom), acting, 1945 to 1946.
Trygve Lie (Norway), February 1946 to November 1952.
Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), April 1953 to September 1961.
U Thant (Burma), November 1961 to December 1971.
Kurt Waldheim (Austria) 1972-1981
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Peru) 1982-1991
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), January 1992 to December 1996.
Kofi Annan (Ghana), January 1997 to present.

Both President Clinton and Chilean President Ricardo Lagos have rumored to be wanting the job, but neither has come right out and said so. Nonetheless, given the sorry state of the UN, its secretary-general, whether Clinton or Lagos, would (rightfully) be considered a poser and a bozo.

Besides, it's Asia's turn this time. My guess is that it'll be Thai Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, who is being pushed by the PRC and also has US support.

The sec-gen of the UN is totally run by people around him. Boutros Ghali was run out of there the moment he started to speak for himself. Kofi Annan doesn't do a thing that Maurice Strong doesn't whisper in his ear first.

The US pres is likewise run by his handlers (like WBush) unless he has been a loyal player for the NWO for a long time (like Bill Clinton). But I doubt they will put Clinton in there anyway. He would do well for them though as he can definitely deliver a speech. He as sec-gen and Hillary as pres together would make quite a photo-op.
Can you imagine?

ok, sit down and breathe... ok here i go, are you ready.. AHEM:

THERE IS.. NO "NEW WORLD ORDER"

Ahem thank you, now, the only "NWO" if you could even call it that-is marshall law that could be implemented in the U.S or im sure other countries in the event of a devastating nuclear attack or such-ive also heard that agencies such as FEMA can gain control-by a presidential order only might i add, in order to sort threw the devastation. so rest assured, there is NO NWO... and might i add, (i cant remember the link i have to find it tho) ive recently read about plans in the U.S Government to use nuclear weapons in the event of an imminent takeover of the U.S by a foreign power. which basically means that in the event that some nation actually becomes stronger than us and invades-the U.S would not hesitate to launch a full scale nuclear strike to defend its territory.

That was a wonderful assertion, but just that, an assertion.

I don't like the term NWO either but it is a short form that people relate to. I define it as a group of plutocrats who have manipulated the world economy, events, technology, culture and media for a LONG time. They hope to continue this and there are elements among them who have even more sinister ideas in the planning.

In that sense, the NWO does exist. I am not trying to convince you either way. It is becoming obvious to more and more people. You'll see it for what it is and label it as you see fit in your own good time.

The term "new world order" is the name given to the movement of a one world government that is believed to be waiting to take power. The main theory state that a group, society, called "the illuminati" are the ones who are pushing for this movement. The illuminati is believed to be controlled by 13 bloodlines, some state alien/human bloodlines(i dont actually believe that), but yeah, this is a basic statement to what the New World Order is all about.

Sorry Off_The_Street, I don't see the logic in your post. You say that;

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Contrary to what many believe, the job of Secretary General rotates by geographical area...

And

Besides, it's Asia's turn this time.

According to the same post they have been:

Sir Gladwyn Jebb (United Kingdom), acting, 1945 to 1946.
Trygve Lie (Norway), February 1946 to November 1952.
Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), April 1953 to September 1961.
U Thant (Burma), November 1961 to December 1971.
Kurt Waldheim (Austria) 1972-1981
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Peru) 1982-1991
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), January 1992 to December 1996.
Kofi Annan (Ghana), January 1997 to present.

Witch by geographical area is:

Europe
Europe
Europe
Asia
Europe
South America
Africa
Africa

It doesn't not look much like a rotation to me. North America hasn't even held the post yet.

Looks to me it could be all set for the Clintons to move in?

Besides, I somehow hope they do. If there is such a thing as the NWO I sincerely hope its controlled by people like the Clintons, and not people like the Bushes. There is still hope for planet Earth...

What the crap is wrong with clinton. Come on he kicked others countries asses without ever sending in a single stinking troop to fight. He had some of the most sucessfull military operations during his presidency. He had more balls than anyone I have ever seen during his whole deal doing the government shutdowns and all. So get off clinton, I know of no other person I would want in a high up position.

incase you didnt notice...he also let all those scu m b ag terrorists into our boarders.... he also cut military funding like most democrats...


This is from The Heritage Foundation, merely to back what ive stated and its at www.heritage.org...

i know its long, and i just want to say im making a point, NOT STARTING AN ARGUMENT OR WAR (of sorts)


"The Facts About Readiness. In the early 1990s, the Bush Administration began to reduce the size of the U.S. military so that it would be consistent with post-Cold War threats. Under the Clinton Administration, however, these reductions in forces escalated rapidly, with too little defense spending, while U.S. forces were deployed more often.

Because the security of the United States is at stake, it is imperative to present the facts about military readiness:

FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade.
Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. The number of total active personnel in the Air Force has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased from around 393 ships in the fleet in 1992 to 316 today. Even the Marines have dropped 22,000 personnel.

In spite of these drastic force reductions, military missions and operations tempo increased. Because every mission affects far greater numbers of servicemen than those directly involved, most operations other than warfare, such as peacekeeping, have a significant negative impact on readiness.

FACT #2. Military deployments have increased dramatically throughout the 1990s.
The pace of deployments has increased 16-fold since the end of the Cold War. Between 1960 and 1991, the Army conducted 10 operations outside of normal training and alliance commitments, but between 1992 and 1998, the Army conducted 26 such operations. Similarly, the Marines conducted 15 contingency operations between 1982 and 1989, and 62 since 1989. During the 1990s, U.S. forces of 20,000 or more troops were engaged in non-warfighting missions in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1996), and Iraq and Kuwait (1998).

This dramatic increase in the use of America's armed forces has had a detrimental effect on overall combat readiness. Both people and equipment wear out faster with frequent use. Frequent deployments also take funding away from ongoing expenses such as training, fuel, and supplies. Moreover, the stress of frequent and often unexpected deployments can be detrimental to troop morale and jeopardize the armed forces' ability to retain high-quality people.

FACT #3. America's military is aging rapidly.
Most of the equipment that the U.S. military uses today, such as Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, surface ships, submarines, bombers, and tactical aircraft, are aging much faster than they are being replaced. Due to a shortsighted modernization strategy, some systems are not even being replaced. Lack of funding coupled with increased tempo and reduced forces strains the U.S. military's ability to defend vital national interests.

As weapons age, they become less reliable and more expensive to maintain. The services have attempted to provide for their higher maintenance costs by reallocating funds, but they often take the funds from procurement accounts, effectively removing the money from modernization programs. Shortages of parts and aging equipment are already affecting readiness, and the effects are expected to worsen. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon recently reported that spare parts are so scarce that the Air Force is made to "cannibalize" perfectly good aircraft for spare parts.

FACT #4. Morale is on the decline in the U.S. armed forces.
According to an August 1999 U.S. General Accounting Office review, more than half of the officers and enlisted personnel surveyed "were dissatisfied and intended to leave the military after their current obligation or term of enlistment was up." Because U.S. servicemen are the military's greatest asset, a ready U.S. military requires bright, well-trained, and highly motivated active and reserve personnel. Unfortunately, due largely to low morale, the services are finding it difficult to recruit and retain servicemen.

Conclusion. Under the Clinton Administration, the U.S military has suffered under a dangerous combination of reduced budgets, diminished forces, and increased missions. The result has been a steep decline in readiness and an overall decline in U.S. military strength. Nearly a decade of misdirected policy coupled with a myopic modernization strategy has rendered America's armed forces years away from top form.

To deny that the United States military has readiness problems is to deny the men and women in uniform the respect they deserve. America's military prowess can be restored, but policymakers must first admit there is a problem. Only then can the President and Congress work together to reestablish America's top readiness capabilities.""

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is how much power Clinton handed - what would essentially be himself - through Executive Order, during his own Presidency.

The bottom fifth of this page, while being kind of outdated outlines some of the things President Clinton did to allow US sovereignty to transfer to UN jurisdiction. While most people that could rise to the position of Secretary General would have absolutely no sway with the US, President Clinton would. That goes for the rest of the world too, I believe.

The UN would be a drastically different organization with him at the helm. And personally, it makes sense to me NWO-wise.

[edit on (1/21/0505 by PistolPete]