Bill Clinton as possible U.N. secretary-general

Re “Paging Bill Clinton ... again,” editorial, May 28

Bill Clinton as secretary-general of the United Nations is no dream but rather a nightmare. The poor legacy of Clinton as president serves as a resume for an application to such a position.

How would Clinton’s contemptuous and inappropriate use of military force against a Somali warlord bode well for Darfur? How would Clinton’s failure to confront Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Yasser Arafat suddenly become the requisite strategy for dealing with dangerous regimes and terrorism? How is the naming of Chinese condoms a positive characteristic for the secretary-general? Clinton’s reputation as governor and president provides ample evidence that he is wholly incapable of leading an institution such as the United Nations to its rightful place within the world leadership.

CHUCK BUTTERICK

Justin, Texas

*

I heartily agree that Clinton would be the best choice for leading the U.N. He is brilliant, resourceful and experienced in peacemaking. World peace is more important than Hillary Rodham Clinton becoming president. She is clever enough not to run. She realizes that for the sake of solutions to disasters, peace and environmental threats, as well as control of the AIDS epidemic, she shouldn’t compete.

JACK GILMAN

Huntington Beach