Y'all sneered when Gore claimed he created the net (as you should). Yet there seems to be a large body of posters that really believe that Bill Clinton could personally have somehow prevented Y2k. Or that a different President would have saved us. This is such a silly and naive assumption that it hardly seems worth addressing.

Nonetheless it is clearly an idea which is deeply mired in this forum. So how 'bout it? Lets rumble. Explain to me why Dole or anyone else would have been a better choice as Commander in Chief for the recent years leading up to Y2k.

I contend that anyone who gets into office is a patsy for banking and oil. Don't matter what their color or gender is or what political agenda they claim to uphold. They are all shills and would all have sold us down the river to keep the big boys in backrooms happy.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), September 02, 1999

Answers

Well, lets see. de Jager's famous "Doomsday 2000" paper hit the geek press in 1993, and his message was that if all the geeks got busy RIGHT THEN AND WORKED THEIR ASSES OFF, we could avert doomsday in 2000. I don't know, that sounds kind of important to me, so I would think whomever was in the White House at that time should have taken the bull by the horns and made it high priority. (BTW, how old would Monica have been then?)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 02, 1999.

1. Clinton is solely and completely responsible for the loss of trust and the fundemental corruption and evil in the federal government. If ANY other person 9excluding perhaps Hillary) were Prsident, I would not fear the FBI, IRS, ATF, and other armed and deadly groups in the US government.

2. Clinton could have, in 1994/95/96 time frame begun y2k remediation in the federal government, and could have simply and esaily drug the country to compliant status simply by requiring that the states, counties, school districts, and utilities becom ecompliant by Jan 1999. In turn, he could have required all business be compliant or face losing their federal contracts. The combination assues that major, minor companies, and all their suppliers have to become compliant "early" and "verify compliance" to maintain their contracts. This eliminates the current crisis, ignorance and apathy.

3. He could have begun world-wide training to other governments before JULY 1999: this would eliminate the probable worldwide failures upcoming.

4. He could have demanded honest and realistic answers from his cabinet from th ebeginning instead of requiriing them to lie to cover up his incompetance, instead of encouraging them to lie to cover up his corruption, and instead of fostering an environment where lies are more valuable than truth. So now, who is a liar, and who is telling the truth in banking, finance, utilities, and the military? Who is telling the truth in law enforcement, when Reno has been covering up murders since March of 1993? Covering up scandals for the Clintons' since April of 1992? And before, such as Foster, election scandals in AR, and cocaine and drug trafficinig since the early 80's?

Who do you believe? Name ANY fice things Clinton has NOT lied about, then tell me if I should trust him?

Showe me ANY action he has taken that is not either been based on or resulted in: destroying the military, improving socialism/communism, removing US personal freedoms, enhancing his reelection, enhancing the Chinese, electing Hillary, increasing taxes, reducing economic freedom, or improving the US public's long-term good?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 02, 1999.

If every president was a patsy for oil, I don't think you'd be paying less per gallon adjusted for inflation than you were 20 years ago.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), September 02, 1999.

"Clinton is solely and completely responsible for the loss of trust and the fundemental corruption and evil in the federal government"

Uh... Nixon? A friend of mine puts it this way... Nixon drove the axe into the tree that is American politics... Clinton pushed the tree over.

-s-

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), September 02, 1999.

I think Robert nailed it. Lying in politics is nothing new, but Clinton more than any president I can think of has fostered an atmosphere in which truth telling is an aberration. Often we don't even call lies for what they are; all is "spin," which somehow doesn't sound quite so bad. Nixon did terrible damage, but I don't think he sucked so many people into a cult of falsehood the way Clinton has.

-- Thinman (thinman38@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.

The press viciously and persistantly attacked Nixon, they hated him personally, and all of his policies and political associates in general (many of which were dangerously too close to current socialism anyway, but that's a different story.

As a result, Nixon was stymied and harries out of office - he was PREVENTED from continuing any corruption - which, even in his case, was NOT treason, bribery, illegal deliberate foreign massive cash contributions, etc. He did cover up the initial breakin - which was clearly wrong - but he did not systematically corrupt the IRS, FBI, or the federal judicial systrem to keep himself in power.

Colton, forexample, went to prison for having ONE FBI file.

Clinton, in contrast, deliberately transcribed over 1200 FBI files, yet was not even held accountable for being to determine WHO hired the person who got the files. These files later are linked to further bribery and to immediate politcal blackmail. Other military and personal files (like Linda Tripp's) were leaked by Clinton to the press (who gladly published them) to intimidate and discredit witnesses.

The PRESS in Clinton's case, is an immediate part of the corruption - both directly by encouraging the spin, by concealing the spin, by defending the spin, by looking for more ways to spin, by ignoring bad news and deliberately encouraging even patently false "good" or favorable news.

When each of the Clintons' lie is revealed, they (the press) deliberately ignore it. They deliberately re-create the news to make these two look good, and deliberately discredit and defame opponents.

The press is an immediate part of his evil and corruption.

Now,

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 02, 1999.

Look, the truth is that the Y2K problem became well known on "his watch", and he had the time and resources to apply to it. Even in 1996, when he was elected again, he should have at that point gotten busy to ward off what is coming. (Of course, there are those who would argue that Clinton has been quite proactive, what with the All Those Executive Orders.)

Meanwhile, for all of you Clinton buffs, here is an interesting article about lawsuit filed against the FBI and the White House that appeared today. (Funny, seems not have made the general press...)

FBI Whistleblower Sues White House, FBI

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), September 02, 1999.

Am I the only one who remembers Watergate?

That, for me, was the defining moment when I Got It about politics.

Am I the only one who remembers Vietnam?

That was when I Got It about spin

Last but not least - How long has the SSA been remediating Y2k? Ten years? Do the math boys. Who was in office?

Finally for 100 points. What ex-president was once head of the CIA?

Are you telling me that the CIA didn't know about Y2k when the SSA started remediating? Do you honestly think they wouldn't mention it to their ex-boss who just happened to be President at the time? Do you really think that said President was SO stupid that he couldn't see that the excrement was going to collide with the ventilating device if he didn't do anything about it then?

What a crock.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), September 02, 1999.

R - I'm hearing you - but not understanding you, keep trying please.

The ONLY reason the Socail Security is as far along as it is now (the first agency "finshed", the first to actually convert syustems, not just window or "whitewash" a list a of non-critical crictical systems - like all theothers have doneunder the Clintons' administration - is that a Bush appointee started the SSA to recovery back in 1992.

Whether the CIA had anything to do with or not - and I doubt that they had since I know what they cover and the time frames involved - is meaningless. Unless you want to assume that because Bush is associated with the CIA he is somehow evil and corrupt.

But Clinton - who never served anything but his own selfish interests, who thoroughly and completely corrupt to the point of treason, is somehow excused because Bush was head of the CIA?

What do these have anything to do with other?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 02, 1999.

Robert,

I don't think Bush is inherently evil because he worked for the CIA. I think he was negligent in not getting the entire country Y2k aware back when remediation might have been a success.

The SSA took ten years and JUST finished. If all the govt agencies had started 10 years ago then maybe they would all be finished too.

Bush had the connections, the brains and the political clout to do something and he didn't. If he had then we would not be in this mess today.

Either he knew about it and didn't warn Clinton, or he warned him and when Clinton did nothing he never bothered to mention it to his loyal public.

I doubt Reagan had the brains to Get It, but Bush certainly does. For that I hold him accountable.

BTW, I really appreciate the civil and thoughtful tone of your posts. You're a pleasure to debate with.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), September 02, 1999.

"If every president was a patsy for oil, I don't think you'd be paying less per gallon adjusted for inflation than you were 20 years ago."

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), September 02, 1999.

I beg to differ because;

1) A successful parasite (in this case the oil industry) never kills its host.

2) Inflationary pressures on the oil industry have been offset by massively increased efficiency and lowered cost in refinery and delivery (thanks to microchips).

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), September 02, 1999.

I hold Bush completely accountable for several severe erros - one of them NOT leading any coordinated rebuttal to the Clintons' repeated lies over the past eight years.

Also for running a total inept and foolish campaign that was almost designed to lose the Presidency...as though neither he nor Dole really wanted it.

But y2k efforts really only require three to four years: two years at the county, small city, and emergency department level. Three years - four years at the medium/large city/state/federal level.

Four-five only for the huge federal levels (IRS, DOD, FAA ?, or SSA) - even the SSA has admitted its first few "years" were relatively ineffective. So the ten years spent by the SSA could have been shortened without undue problems - IF and ONLY IF - the whole government had resolution of the probelm as a priority since 94-95-96.

Companies, given that much time, have been able to finish.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 02, 1999.

"Also for running a total inept and foolish campaign that was almost designed to lose the Presidency...as though neither he nor Dole really wanted it."

This is a point I keep coming back to.

I sometimes wonder if they let Clinton win because they knew how bad it was going to be. Nice to have a good sacrificial lamb for Y2k - then let Jr.Bush take over and save the day. Although it doesn't look to me like it will work out that way. It looks like Clinton's skills as an attorney may keep him around as Pres or Dictator or whatever when martial law is declared.

It no doubt helped that Clinton is not anyone's idea of a nice upstanding young man. He already had a history of infidelity. It was pretty much a forgone conclusion that if you gave that lad enough room for his (ahem) rope that he was going to (er) hang himself with it.

You make good points about the time required to remediate - but imagine how many non-compliant parts and systems have been created in the last ten years. I believe the whole thing could really have been a non-event if it had been made public knowledge in 1989. So why wasn't it?

Even if efforts had started in '94. It would have cost millions more than if it had been started in '89. Now in '99 billions have been spent and billions more are being allocated right now. Those billions are costing people jobs. Even if they are able to fix it all by the witching hour, our economy has taken a hard hit.

Clinton is (at the least) a jerk, a liar, an adulterer, and well, an attorney. He doesn't even know how to smoke pot. He did not have the political connections or the experience Bush had. He had no ties to military. He alienated them early and often. He is the perfect scapegoat.

Meanwhile Bush knew. Meanwhile, all over the world we have been selling our corrupt technology while the ex-head of the CIA sat back and DID NOTHING.

The entire world blaims the USA for Y2k and you know what? They're right. If the upshot of this is an entire planetful of pissed off people then it seems likely that war is a definite possibility.

The money spent and the lives lost are the responsibility of every person who was in a position of power that could have done something and didn't.

I don't happen to believe Bush could have done anything. Nor do I think Clinton could have or can. There are plenty of grassy knolls in the world. Capiche'?

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), September 02, 1999.

The blame that Clinton deserves doesn't have a damn thing to do with his being a Democrat vs. a Republican. It has everything to do with his particular character weaknesses (such as lying so much throughout his life that I think he lies a lot to himself. This ties in with his great propensity for wishful thinking.) In one of her excellent books on American politics (not her latest one) Elizabeth Drew described Clinton as "a world-class blame shifter". I think I read those words in 1997.

It was in 1997 and 1998 that we got a torrent of blab from the White House as to how they had everything under control regarding Y2K.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), September 02, 1999.

Riversoma: I agree with you partially about the blame thing. There have been plenty of opportunities for many people to speak up that knew about this problem. Where have all the geniuses in the computer field been all these years? All of a sudden we are blaming Clinton and Bush and they wouldn't recognize a computer if it fell on them. Where are the Congressmen? We have said to watch out for the targets of the blame game. But are we not doing the same here without looking into our mirror?

-- Neil G.Lewis (pnglewis1@yahoo.com), September 02, 1999.

Neil,

Excellent point.

Did you see the State of the Union address? Gobs of applause for everything Clinton said until it got to Y2k. One person (ONE!) applauded. (A woman if I recall rightly) Everyone else laughed. Sent chills up my spine.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), September 03, 1999.