Bill Clinton/ Al Gore and The National Security Nightmare they helped create

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
1. Intelligence



Under the Clinton administration, the CIA's human intelligence capability was dessimated. Over-reliance on technology as opposed to human assets has undermined the intelligence gathering capabilities of the United States. Under Clinton-era rules, the CIA was discouraged from using "people of questionable character" (so to speak), even to aid security efforts in the United States.



2. Bill Clinton was offered bin Laden in 1996 from Sudan



He declined. bin Laden's hatred of the US was well-established at this point. He was known to be behind several attacks.



3. China: Clinton sold-out the United States' own security by giving advanced nuclear technology to the Chinese. He reacted in typical ho-hum fashion when it was proven such technology had been stolen.



4. North Korea



The 1994 "Framework" (Read: Treaty that doesn't have to be approved) laid the groundwork for the current crisis. In exchange for (literally) a promise not to develop nuclear weapons, Clinton sold advanced nuclear reactor technology (or allowed it to be sold) to the North Koreans.



5. Iraq



Clinton, using nearly the same arguments the current President did, bombed but didn't finish the job. In reality, this was inneffective, and may have only emboldended Saddam by demonstrating he could, in fact, survive a US attack. Clinton's lame bombing campaign did nothing to punish Saddam for refusing to cooprate with inspectors. It essentially delayed the problem of Saddam for the next administration



6. Under Gore, security reccomendations for the airlines (such as reinforced cockpit doors) were ignored. This was under Gore's direct sphere of responsiblity.



7. The US Embassy Bombings



Clinton responded by lobbing cruise missiles from 1,000 miles away. No ground troops. No follow-up. He destroyed a lot of aspirin, though. This was round 1 in the War on Terror. Terrorists=1. US=0.



8. The USS Cole.



Let me make it simple: Nothing was done. Nothing. This was Round 2 in the War on Terror. Terrorists=2. US=0



9. After 9/11, Clinton said "The moment the second plane hit I knew it was bin laden". Perhaps he could explain #2 to me then. Terrorists=3. US=0.





The primary responsiblity of the President is national defense, and Clinton failed miserably on this point. Bill Clinton was a disaster of a President for this reason alone. He allowed nuclear technology to be sold to the Chinese (missle tech) and the North Koreans (reactor tech). He refused bin laden, bungled Iraq and dessimated the CIA. He also demoralized the military and reduced its budget. Under his watch, the United States was seen as impotent on matters of national security.



Discuss Clinton's role in creating many of the national security problems we have now.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 34
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001







    7. The US Embassy Bombings



    Clinton responded by ..... He destroyed a lot of aspirin, though. This was round 1 in the War on Terror. Terrorists=1. US=0.







    i thought it came out that this was false.
  • Reply 2 of 34
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    burningwheel:



    Quote:

    i thought it came out that this was false.



    I don't know if it made aspirin, but it was a pharmaceutical plant. The owner even filed suit in the US Court of Claims.



    OMG BIOTERRAR!
  • Reply 3 of 34
    thttht Posts: 3,304member
    We don't have any national security problems. Overall, it's been the same since the creation of this nation.
  • Reply 4 of 34
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    1. Intelligence



    Under the Clinton administration, the CIA's human intelligence capability was dessimated. Over-reliance on technology as opposed to human assets has undermined the intelligence gathering capabilities of the United States. Under Clinton-era rules, the CIA was discouraged from using "people of questionable character" (so to speak), even to aid security efforts in the United States.



    2. Bill Clinton was offered bin Laden in 1996 from Sudan



    He declined. bin Laden's hatred of the US was well-established at this point. He was known to be behind several attacks.



    3. China: Clinton sold-out the United States' own security by giving advanced nuclear technology to the Chinese. He reacted in typical ho-hum fashion when it was proven such technology had been stolen.



    4. North Korea



    The 1994 "Framework" (Read: Treaty that doesn't have to be approved) laid the groundwork for the current crisis. In exchange for (literally) a promise not to develop nuclear weapons, Clinton sold advanced nuclear reactor technology (or allowed it to be sold) to the North Koreans.



    5. Iraq



    Clinton, using nearly the same arguments the current President did, bombed but didn't finish the job. In reality, this was inneffective, and may have only emboldended Saddam by demonstrating he could, in fact, survive a US attack. Clinton's lame bombing campaign did nothing to punish Saddam for refusing to cooprate with inspectors. It essentially delayed the problem of Saddam for the next administration



    6. Under Gore, security reccomendations for the airlines (such as reinforced cockpit doors) were ignored. This was under Gore's direct sphere of responsiblity.



    7. The US Embassy Bombings



    Clinton responded by lobbing cruise missiles from 1,000 miles away. No ground troops. No follow-up. He destroyed a lot of aspirin, though. This was round 1 in the War on Terror. Terrorists=1. US=0.



    8. The USS Cole.



    Let me make it simple: Nothing was done. Nothing. This was Round 2 in the War on Terror. Terrorists=2. US=0



    9. After 9/11, Clinton said "The moment the second plane hit I knew it was bin laden". Perhaps he could explain #2 to me then. Terrorists=3. US=0.





    The primary responsiblity of the President is national defense, and Clinton failed miserably on this point. Bill Clinton was a disaster of a President for this reason alone. He allowed nuclear technology to be sold to the Chinese (missle tech) and the North Koreans (reactor tech). He refused bin laden, bungled Iraq and dessimated the CIA. He also demoralized the military and reduced its budget. Under his watch, the United States was seen as impotent on matters of national security.



    Discuss Clinton's role in creating many of the national security problems we have now.




    Now, if we come up with a list of things Bush did to make the world a not so safe place are you going to just sit by and accept it?
  • Reply 5 of 34
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    1. Intelligence



    Under the Clinton administration, the CIA's human intelligence capability was dessimated. Over-reliance on technology as opposed to human assets has undermined the intelligence gathering capabilities of the United States. Under Clinton-era rules, the CIA was discouraged from using "people of questionable character" (so to speak), even to aid security efforts in the United States.



    Why do you insist on making comments about the intelligence community when you obviously know nothing about it?



    good for you that one found out one small element of the degredation of US intel in the 90's. Of course, what was much more important was the systematic reliance on technology. As far as intel from sources on the ground, the biggest problem by far was the fact that those in the in the field tend to be somewhat rouge and very difficult for analysts in the states to deal with or get information from. This is the largest problem attempting to be solved post-sept 11, though progress has recently slowed as attention was diverted to Iraq.





    Anyway, the Bush admin has done the most damage to the intelligence community. Since the facts didn't back up the Bush agendas, the Admin has openly attacked the community from the get-go, and stepped it up dramatically after sept. 11. The Iraq war, however, brought the specter of politicized intelligence to a full reality. Rumsfeld went so far as to create the Office of Special Plans because no tradition intel agency would back up the claims since they were not mased in fact.



    Since the war has ended and it has been revealed that the Bush admin's politicized intel strategy doesn't produce real information, there has been another revolution. Maybe you didn't notice, but the intelligence community is fully at war with the Bush admin, and the most dramatic evidence of that is the Uranium scandal.



    But, in the end, the biggest problem has been the analysis and dissemination of information, not collection, so do a little more than reading a short piece by Robert Baer before you try to make defintive statement. While he is certainly correct in what he says, he focuses on that issue because it is the one closest to his job with the agency.



    Anyway, you would do well to zip your mouth and actually learn a thing or two when it comes to things you don't know anything about. Last week I gave you a list of sources where you can begin to learn about it.
  • Reply 6 of 34
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Hmm. I see the pattern you are proposing, you are saying responsiblity was not taken by the previous administration. Unfortunately, it seems to starting all over again with this admin.



    Quote:



    I think the thing that discouraged me about the vice president was uttering those famous words, 'no controlling legal authority.' I felt like that there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that--I believe they've moved that sign, 'The buck stops here,' from the Oval Office desk to 'The buck stops here' on the Lincoln Bedroom, and that's not good for the country.



    George W. Bush

    October 3rd, 2000



    President Bush on Friday put responsibility squarely on the CIA for his erroneous claim that Iraq tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa, prompting the director of intelligence to publicly accept full blame for the miscue.



    Associated Press

    July 11th, 2000




  • Reply 7 of 34
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    True that.



    And SDW, do yourself a favor and read what keyboardf12 posted from tpm at the bottom of this page: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...0&pagenumber=4
  • Reply 8 of 34
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    SDW, you should provide some links. You states 'nothing was done', but you should do some investigation into what was actually done and show it. Then make the case that what was done was in fact, well not literally, but essentially nothing.



    Each point you make is an in depth discussion, but I think the generalizations you make are too sparse to actually discuss.
  • Reply 9 of 34
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    I think it's Bush that's been the cause of a national security nightmare with his need to go to war and thumping his chest in typical Bush rhetoric. He's pratically begged people to attack us and in the process irrated our allies to boot.
  • Reply 10 of 34
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    the problem is that 8 years later you can look back at any political leader and point out what they did that may have made things bad today. it's not unique to clinton/gore.



    in another 8 years, i'm sure someone could come up with a long list of what this administration has done that made the world a worse place down the line.



    hindsight is 20/20.
  • Reply 11 of 34
    That's right, its all the fault of the Clinton administration.



    I'm having a quiet morning, so I'll go point-by-point...





    1. The problem is not that the CIA?s ability to gather intelligence was impeded by the Clinton administration. The problem (as giant pointed out) is that the information does not always get to where it can do the most good. Personally, I?m of the opinion that the CIA?s being discouraged from buddying up with murderous scumbags (like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein) can only be a Good Thing.





    2. In 1996, Ali Othman Taha (then Sudan's foreign minister) asked Timothy Carney (then the US ambassador to Sudan) what could be done to improve US-Sudanese relations. The expulsion of Bin Laden was the second of six requests presented by the US. The Sudanese went one better and offered to arrest Bin Laden and hand him over to whoever the US wanted. The Clinton administration was unable to take the Sudanese up on the offer to arrest and deport Bin Laden because the Saudi?s refused to extradite and charge him and he had at that time committed no crimes for which he could have been indicted in the US.





    3. The theft of the nuclear secrets from the Los Alamos lab took place in the 1980s and was brought to Clinton's attention in 1997. Clinton?s response was to increase security at the labs. I seem to recall someone else being president in the 80s.





    4. In the early years of the Clinton Administration, it became known that the North Koreans were operating a heavy-water nuclear reactor (and building two more) with the intention of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. The Clinton Administration entered into the 1994 Agreed Framework in order to decrease the potential for nuclear proliferation. Under the terms of the settlement, the US would provide food, fuel, and light-water nuclear reactor technology to North Korea. Light-water reactors are regarded as having a low nuclear proliferation risk, as they create much less plutonium than heavy-water reactors.



    By the way, did you know that Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of ABB (1990-2001), which inked a $200m deal with Pyongyang in 2000 under which it would supply North Korea light-water reactor technology?





    5. This had nothing to do with national security. Iraq has never been a threat to the US. To go to war then would have been as wasteful and dishonest as going to war this year was. What Clinton did then was bullsh1t, but what Bush did subsequently was even worse.





    6. The Gore Commission found, as did the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Association, that reinforced cockpit doors are "no substitute for better airport security". Reinforced doors are also potentially dangerous in that they prevent cockpit access in the event that both pilots became unable to fly and increase the risk of the cockpit collapsing in the event of a rapid depressurization. The only airport security recommendation made by the Gore Commission that was actually implemented pre-9/11 was the checking of IDs at the departure gate. Other recommendations (body searches, bag matching, training of security personnel) were ignored by the FAA.





    7. I disagreed with Clinton?s actions then and I am not going to defend them now.





    8. Clinton designated a state of National Emergency and added Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (who organized the Cole bombing and who may have had a hand in the planning of 9/11) to target lists. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is reportedly now in US custody, having been arrested by Pakistani authorities in March 2003. So unless by 'nothing' you mean 'didn't bomb anyone' or 'didn't immediately find someone it took four years to find' I guess he did something.





    9. See point 2.





    Anyway, I don't see why any of this matters anymore. Bush caught Bin Laden and ended international terrorism forever, didn't he?
  • Reply 12 of 34
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Quote:

    By the way, did you know that Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of ABB (1990-2001), which inked a $200m deal with Pyongyang in 2000 under which it would supply North Korea light-water reactor technology?







    Ooh. Forgot about that one... ABB is swiss right? Was this the one he really did not want to leave when he was named SoD?





    P.S. You made great points btw...
  • Reply 13 of 34
    Yep - they're based in Zurich. I'm not surprised he didn't want to leave, he was getting over $190k a year just to sit on the board...
  • Reply 14 of 34
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    While SDW is apparently busy working to present a new make-believe senario (probably something along the lines of "kneelbeforezod, let's just say none of that is true, then what?) I just want to add to what I was saying before about the intel community:



    Quote:

    But according to a former CIA officer, the politicization of U.S. intelligence has devastated many in the field -- and dangerously weakened our country's security.



    "We're hearing from dozens of [intelligence] people. A lot of them are very demoralized," says Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran who worked as an agency analyst under seven presidents, from Kennedy to the first President Bush. "The cardinal sin in this business is to cook intelligence to the recipe of high policy," he says.



    McGovern is a member of the "steering group" of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of retired spooks, some highly decorated, which has been speaking out for several months about a dangerous fundamental breakdown in the U.S. intelligence system -- a system, McGovern asserts, that must remain free of White House meddling if it is to play its vital role in protecting the nation's security. VIPS has published a series of articles and open letters to the White House; its latest letter to President Bush on Monday denounced the administration's "campaign of deceit" in driving the nation to war, and demanded Vice President Dick Cheney's immediate resignation in light of his central role -- particularly Cheney's allegedly deliberate use of the fraudulent Niger-uranium report to sell Congress on the war.



    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html
  • Reply 15 of 34
    That's an interesting article (although I'm sure it will immediately be discounted by one or two posters here simply because its on Salon)...I hadn't heard much about VIPS before...



    I thought this was particularly interesting:

    Quote:

    People in this town are intellectually unable to believe that there can be a group working inside Washington without a partisan agenda. When we say we're dedicated to the pursuit of truth and career protection for people pursuing truth, people's eyes glaze over, and they shrug and say, "Yeah, right." It's a hard thing to believe.



  • Reply 16 of 34
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    7. The US Embassy Bombings



    Clinton responded by lobbing cruise missiles from 1,000 miles away. No ground troops. No follow-up. He destroyed a lot of aspirin, though. This was round 1 in the War on Terror. Terrorists=1. US=0.



    8. The USS Cole.



    Let me make it simple: Nothing was done. Nothing. This was Round 2 in the War on Terror. Terrorists=2. US=0



    9. After 9/11, Clinton said "The moment the second plane hit I knew it was bin laden". Perhaps he could explain #2 to me then. Terrorists=3. US=0.











    There's little doubt that Clinton was a major duetch bag but round one of the terror war came somewhere between Beirut and Iranian Embassy. The failure to respond was early and can be blamed on Carter/Reagan. But yea Clinton ****ed up big time and he should feel some guilt about what happened on 9-11.
  • Reply 17 of 34
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    While SDW is apparently busy working to present a new make-believe senario (probably something along the lines of "kneelbeforezod, let's just say none of that is true, then what?) I just want to add to what I was saying before about the intel community:







    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html




    Little back ground for ya. I know you're so scary smart and well read I'm posting it for everyone else.



    From Best of the Web Today



    'Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity'

    Give Nicholas Kristof credit for being slightly ahead of his time. The New York Times columnist has been beating the drum for more than a month now about purportedly "politicized" intelligence on Iraq, and now the entire percussion section has joined in. And unlike fellow Times columnist and former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, who is a fount of pure partisan rage, Kristof at least seems to have a reasonable, high-minded argument. Here's how he put it in his May 30 column (the link is from the next day's Paris edition of the Times):



    [Intelligence professionals] are coming forward because they are fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world--that intelligence should be nonpolitical--and are disgusted at efforts to turn them into propagandists. . . .



    The atmosphere within the intelligence community is so poisonous, and the stakes are so high--for the credibility of America's word and the soundness of information on which American foreign policy is based--that an outside examination is essential.




    In that column, Kristof introduced the world to a group that styles itself Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. This outfit made another appearance in yesterday's column:



    Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of retired spies, issued an open letter to Bush Monday reflecting the view of many in the intelligence community that the central culprit is Vice President Dick Cheney. The open letter called for Cheney's resignation.



    So who are these purported voices for "sanity" and against "politicization"? Blogger William Sjostrom did some online sleuthing, and here's what he found:



    VIPS does not seem to have a website, but its email is [email protected], and their open letter appears to have been published at CounterPunch (run by Alexander Cockburn, the Nation columnist), an outfit whose staple is stuff comparing Bush to Hitler. VIPS also published an open letter in opposition to the war at Common Dreams back in February. The spokesman for VIPS is Raymond McGovern, a retired CIA analyst. McGovern's email is also at CounterPunch. He is giving a briefing today [Tuesday] with Rep. Dennis Kucinich. McGovern has compared the Iraq war to Vietnam, even saying that it could lead to nuclear war. He has charged that if WMDs are found in Iraq, they may well have been planted. He believes Tenet's job is safe because if Tenet were fired, he would reveal that the White House ignored intelligence warnings pre-9/11. McGovern has urged CIA analysts to illegally release classified documents to show what he believes to be true, specifically citing Daniel Ellsberg.



    Another member of the VIPS steering committee is William Christison, who among other things believes that the Bush administration is attempting to colonize the Middle East, jointly with Israel. He believes that the war on terror is being used to turn the US into a military dictatorship. He is also a backer of the left-wing UrgentCall, along with people such as Noam Chomsky, Barbara Kingsolver, Julian Bond, and Jonathan Schell.



    None of this proves that VIPS is evil, or even wrong. It does say that Kristof is trying to pass off a fairly left-wing group as a group of non-partisan "professionals."




    The question is: Was Kristof merely duped, or is this part of a broader pattern of dishonesty and delusion at the New York Times?
  • Reply 18 of 34
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott



    None of this proves that VIPS is evil, or even wrong. It does say that Kristof is trying to pass off a fairly left-wing group as a group of non-partisan "professionals."



    I'm not sure what to tell you other than *ahem* you, like SDW, need to spend some time studying the intel community before you make comments. This is the biggest thing in the community now, and attacking VIPS ain't gunna change the real world, son. Maybe you should skip yourself over to FAS and learn a thing or two.



    As for trying to discredit VIPS, those websites your little blogger cited are 'liberal', but it would be good for folks like you to remember how completely wrong you've been demonstrated to be. Everyone who been in opposition to the war knows counterpunch and common dreams, so you really aren't doing much other than grunting with your fellow pro-war apes when you use them as an insult. Remember, those of us with a clue don't really care what your lot does at this point. You're on the way down and out.
  • Reply 19 of 34
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,503member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    I'm not sure what to tell you other than *ahem* you, like SDW, need to spend some time studying the intel community before you make comments. This is the biggest thing in the community now, and attacking VIPS ain't gunna change the real world, son. Maybe you should skip yourself over to FAS and learn a thing or two.



    As for trying to discredit VIPS, those websites your little blogger cited are 'liberal', but it would be good for folks like you to remember how completely wrong you've been demonstrated to be. Everyone who been in opposition to the war knows counterpunch and common dreams, so you really aren't doing much other than grunting with your fellow pro-war apes when you use them as an insult. Remember, those of us with a clue don't really care what your lot does at this point. You're on the way down and out.




    Interesting, don't asnwer the issue, merely call him stupid and pretend he did not say anything. Some things never change.
  • Reply 20 of 34
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    Quote:

    Interesting, don't asnwer the issue, merely call him stupid and pretend he did not say anything.



    *shrugs*



    that's pretty much par for the course.
Sign In or Register to comment.