Clinton Surgery

[The Hierophant]

Here we go

Seems Clinton is a key player in China's quest for "brutal domination of the Earth", well, that's according to the 'Christian Crusade' anyway Whoever and wherever you are, it would appear that interesting times are afoot [img]smile.gif[/img]

The big question for you though Oblivion is even if you do happen to take this sensationalist bile to heart, what are you gonna do about it? Hmmm? Whatcha gonna do? Gonna sit on your computer fantasizing about executions? Hmm? Is that it? I hope so. I like large doses of impotent frustration in the people I disagree with [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 09-06-2004, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Felix The Assassin]

Since this can of worms has been opened, we might as well dig deep into it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a395232242b41.htm

Crime/Corruption Breaking News News Keywords: CLINTON-CLINTON-GORE-RENO TREASON, RICO
Source: WorldNetDaily.com
Author: Paul Sperry
Posted on 06/22/2000 08:35:00 PDT by Mia T

ALL THE PRESIDENT'S SCANDALS


Revenge of Gary Aldrich
Clinton-Gore security meltdown
sad vindication for ex-FBI agent


By Paul Sperry
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON -- He could crow, "I told you so," and
who could blame him? Even early skeptics Sam Donaldson
and Tim Russert have confessed to him, in private, that he
was right all along.

But that wouldn't be his style. The soft-spoken, almost
diffident, FBI agent who first warned of the White
House's reckless disregard for security procedures, is also
too busy exhorting other federal whistle-blowers to come
forward to inform the public of a dangerous pattern over
the past nearly eight years: the systematic dismantling of
safeguards across the entire U.S. security complex.

Gary Aldrich could also dish out dirt (and there's "a ton,"
he says) on the Clinton appointees who smeared him in the
press as a "pathological liar." After all, he would know,
having read their sensitive FBI "302" reports while vetting
them for jobs.

But to this day -- even though he's retired from the bureau
and can't be fired or sued for violating The Privacy Act --
Aldrich holds his tongue.

It's not easy for him, judging from his pained eyes and
clenched jaw. During a two-hour interview in his Fairfax,
Va., office, he came close to returning the favor when a
few White House names popped up.

So what stops him? "My own ethics," he said.

In 1995, Aldrich left the
White House, where he
worked as one of the FBI
agents tasked with clearing
new White House hires for
security passes.

The next year, his book,
"Unlimited Access: An FBI
Agent Inside the Clinton
White House," was
published. The shocking
bestseller charged, among
other things, that White
House officials were hiring
hard-drug users and other
security risks over agents' vetoes. Many of them gained
access to classified information without proper clearance.

After being pilloried by the White House and its friends in
the prestige press as a "liar," Aldrich became withdrawn.
And when other law-enforcement agents failed to back his
story -- and his own agency turned over his manuscript to
the White House, without his consent -- he became
disillusioned with his whole profession. He was out on a
long, lonely limb, and the sound of sawing was deafening.

But slowly, with each new report of security lapses, his
story of loose security and reckless conduct has been
confirmed.

At the White House, drug and gun smugglers were waved
into fund-raising coffees with the president and vice
president. One Clinton donor with Beijing ties even
managed to sneak a foreigner past the Secret Service
using a bogus driver's license.

But it's not just the White House.

A recent undercover sting by Congress turned up alarming
security failures at 19 government agencies, including the
Pentagon and even Aldrich's former employer, the FBI.
And now, with yet another major security breach at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, more and more fingers are
pointing back to the White House.

In every agency that deals with protecting
national-security secrets, normal security rules and
procedures have been ignored, changed or tossed during
the Clinton-Gore years.

Clinton appointees have kicked open lab gates to foreign
visitors, even ripping out the doors to the Energy
Department's executive suites. They've shelved security
badges. They've cut funding and staff for Pentagon
background checks, resulting in a backlog of hundreds of
thousands. The CIA's own director downloaded classified
files onto an unsecured home computer used, among other
things, to access Internet porn. Officials at the State
Department, where escorts were no longer required for
foreign visitors, have "lost" top-secret laptops.

Meanwhile, Russian and Chinese spies run amok.

But there is one place where security is tighter, Aldrich
says: The Democratic National Committee headquarters.

In 1998, Aldrich founded The Patrick Henry Center for
Individual Liberty to aid and support whistle-blowers
opposed to serious wrongdoing, especially involving
national security, in the federal government.

One of his clients is a former senior Energy Department
official who exposed to Congress the dismantling of
military lab security by Clinton appointees -- and suffered
reprisals for it. After he was effectively fired from his job,
he says the administration had him tailed.

Another Aldrich client is a Pentagon official who also was
harassed for blowing the whistle on the department's
loosening of background investigations.

"We're running a civilian witness-protection program here,"
Aldrich, 55, said.

The center plans to broadcast ads on a Washington-area
FM radio station, entreating federal employees to come
forward with what they know about Clinton corruption and
attempts by his political appointees to undermine national
security.

The spots will appeal to their "sense of patriotism, shame,
you name it," Aldrich said. They'll also let them know their
rights.

Aldrich served 26 years as a special FBI agent,
specializing in white-collar crime such as fraud and
political corruption. He married an FBI agent. They have
three teen-agers.

Save a portrait of American patriot Patrick Henry ("Give
me liberty or give me death") hanging behind his desk, his
office walls are bare. But his desk is stacked high with
paperwork. WorldNetDaily sat down with Aldrich to talk
about the recent security lapses and what can only be
described as sad vindication for his troubles. This is the
first of a two-part interview.

WND: You really were the first to sound the alarms about
the security problems in this administration. It turns out it
wasn't just the White House. The security breakdown
appears to be systemic, cultural, cutting across the entire
Cabinet, even our military labs. Do you feel vindicated?

Aldrich: The only way I could ever feel vindicated is if
they actually went in there and pulled the untrustworthy
bastards out. Which they're not going to do.

Q: Why the laxity in security? You had access to
classified information about Clinton and national security
issues. What do you think's going on?

A: I would go further than that (laxity) and say it's a
national security meltdown, which is a direct consequence
of policies and procedures from the top, from the White
House.

And also because of the appointments of certain
individuals to key posts in these agencies that deal with
national security, like the Department of Energy and over
at the CIA. They bring political appointees into those
positions who have the authority to alter the security
set-up, and they do.

Q: Like who?

A: In the case of Energy, it was Hazel O'Leary who
knocked out all the barriers. In the case of CIA, it was
(executive director) Nora Slatkin. She was so hostile to the
process of badges and background investigations she
refused to carry her own badge. And so they had to have
an employee walk around the CIA with her carrying her
badge to put it up against the various checkpoints. She
refused to wear a badge. In the case of the Department of
Energy, for example, Hazel O'Leary didn't like the
discriminatory nature of the different colored badges,
which would allow you in different places in the Energy
Department and labs. Therefore, she ordered all badges
should look alike so people didn't feel bad about the kind of
badge they had.

This is the kind of liberal, la-la thinking that has permeated
(the federal government). And what was the response of
the so-called intelligence community, the people who are
charged with making sure the country is safe?
Capitulation, silence, transfer, retirement. The people who
were charged with protecting the national security of this
nation took a pass.

And I'm angry about that, because they all enjoyed those
(high-paid) GS-13, 14 positions. They all had great medical
benefits and they got great retirement programs. They also
took an oath. And yet, when it came down to it, very few
stood up against this. And instead, they turned their backs
on it and walked away. And that says something about the
kinds of people the government is hiring into these key
positions. I'll say it again: Career, federal security
professionals took an oath to the Constitution to defend this
nation against threats foreign and domestic. For them to
know what they know, and to stand by and watch it
happen, is as close to treasonous as I can imagine anything
is.

Q: Why should we worry about this "meltdown"?

A: First of all, billions of dollars are spent every year to
maintain a perception that we're protecting national
security. If in fact we are not, we need to save that money
and use it for some better purpose, or give it back to
taxpayers.

But of course, there is a need to protect national security.
The need is to protect -- not just the classified material and
the people like the president, for example, from harm, but
-- the policies and tactics that are being discussed, for
example, at the White House that deal with the way we
conduct commerce with other nations.

It's not just about lobbing a bomb into New York City. It's
about our plans the next time we have an economic
summit. How are we going to address certain issues, you
know, where are our bottom lines? What will we agree to?
What won't we?

Suppose you're buying a car. You go into a dealer, and all
discussions between the salesman and the manager about
you buying the car are held in your presence. And let's
suppose you get to also see all their internal paperwork.
How could the car dealer conduct transactions to their
benefit? They couldn't. So it's not just about protecting
secrets that save the lives of sources and spies in foreign
lands. It's not just about stopping some nutcase from some
hostile nation from walking a satchel charge into the Oval
Office. It's about that, too, but it's also about the business
of this nation.

But having said that, the only security the Clintons seem to
be concerned about is the political kind. When some
reporter walked into the Democratic National Committee
headquarters and was able to wander around because they
had loose security over there, all hell broke loose. They
called an immediate meeting of all personnel and they
stressed that everyone, everyone had to be escorted and
wear a badge. The security is tight as a drum at the DNC
and loose as a goose at the White House. What does that
tell you? They know the difference between loose security
and tight security, you bet your butt they do.

And the third element is this: (State Secretary) Madeleine
Albright, (State policy director) Morton Halperin and the
rest of Clinton's friends have said repeatedly that one of
the most dangerous things that we have in the world today
is that America is too strong. Now if you have that
mentality from the top, doesn't that suggest that it's OK for
China to get our missile secrets; it's OK for Russia to plant
bugs in the State Department; it's OK for spies to wander
around? Because it's a lopsided playing field anyway, and
we need to even it out? And if these secrets get out, it's
not such a bad thing?

This is their worldview. America is too strong, and we're a
threat. It's a "small-world-after-all" theme. That's fine.
You know, I like to talk about that in church. But when
you're protecting a nation, I really think you need to have
more of an adult approach.

Q: So why isn't there more public outrage about the
administration's cavalier attitude towards national security?

A: The normal American can't imagine people in the
White House who don't have U.S. interests in mind. They
can imagine that people are working in the White House
who want to alter things a little bit this way, or tweak them
that way. But they can't comprehend that we would
actually have traitorous people inside our White House,
some of them at the highest levels. Look, the Clinton
administration doesn't care if China or Cuba or North
Korea get our secrets. They don't care. It isn't because
these people are stupid. They don't care.

Q: How much do you think the public knows, through the
media, about this national security "meltdown," as you call
it? Could you put a figure on it?

A: I'd say 25 percent. One of the reasons is the disinterest
on the part of the media overall. But, despite recent
(inside-the-Beltway) interest in national security, for a long
time there were just a couple of us carrying around a
candle in this town. (Former Reagan Defense official and
Center for Security Policy director) Frank Gaffney is
another. For the longest time I couldn't find interest even
on Capitol Hill about the issue of national security, except
for on the part of a few. Remember that most of these
problems at the White House related to national security
were run by the House and Senate intelligence
committees. I never saw any interest on their part, not until
recently. I had high hopes when Republicans took over
Congress that we'd see some attention paid to these
matters. Lord knows, we gave them a road map. Yet, they
by and large haven't shown an interest. Now there's
something wrong with that.

Q: But isn't a lot of that disinterest because of the
post-Cold War zeitgeist? I mean, I've talked to some
senior Bush administration officials, people who were
involved in defense programs, so-called cold warriors, who
have turned quite dovish.

A: I can assure you there were also a lot of people in the
Bush administration who did see it a different way. Look,
Republicans have also made great commerce of it (the end
of the Cold War), especially in relation to China. Just look
at the PNTR (permanent normalized trade relations) vote.
They were talking about trade, while we were talking
about their ICBMs targeting us and their slave-labor
camps. We were talking about the U.N. listing China as
the biggest offender of human rights. We're talking about a
godless ideology where everybody's a slave. When all you
have is commerce on your mind, it's hard to think of
anything else.

Q: You dealt with former senior Clinton aide Patsy
Thomasson when you were in the White House. Are you
comfortable with her, in her new State Department job,
being in charge of our foreign buildings, including embassy
security?

A: No. She wasn't any good at security at the White
House, and she's no damn good at security at the State
Department. The woman's background speaks for itself.
She worked for a convicted drug dealer, and she was in
charge of drug testing at the White House. And now she's
evidently in charge of diplomatic pouches? It's a joke,
frankly. It makes you wonder if there isn't some other
grand plan here on the part of the Clinton administration to
downgrade and downscale national security until we don't
have any at all.

Q: What do you think of Secretary Albright and President
Clinton cracking jokes to the press about these security
leaks?

A: Going back to my law-enforcement background, there
was a kind of con man who really was head and shoulders
above the best con men. And that con man would crack
wise about what he was doing. We caught many of them
like that. They would actually put into their documents little
signs and signals that they were crooks, that they were
con men, as a joke. Because they thought the people they
were fleecing were so stupid, they would never notice
what they were doing to them, and they'd get a good yuck
at their expense. That is a mentality that law-enforcement
officers are very familiar with. And it's shared by this
president and a lot of his people.

Q: How would you recommend George W. Bush handle
this national security mess, should he inherit it?

A: As a candidate, Bush must talk about it incessantly on
the campaign trail. If he doesn't prepare the public for it, it
will never get fixed. Unless he lays a foundation down
now, he won't have the mandate for it if he's elected. You
can bet Democrats will fight it by screaming, "This
ridiculous defense buildup will blow a whole in the deficit!"

Tomorrow: The interview heats up as Aldrich shares
his insider knowledge on a range of White House
scandals, while naming names and condemning "media
corruption at the highest level."



Paul Sperry is Washington bureau chief for
WorldNetDaily.

[Gab]

Oblivion, how the heck is that absurd if I (not to mention other people) think you're going a bite too far accusing Clinton of treason. That is pretty extreme! Since he apperently did it solely for money, I'd say that's far more corrupt than treasonous. Do you have proof and a good explaination as to exactly what kind of military secrets he sold to the Chinese?

The Rosenbergs were executed by the electric chair, not sent to the gas chamber. Did you acually not know that or were you trying to test my knowledge?

Edit: Even though Felix gave a source, i'd like to see yours.

[ 09-06-2004, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[aleph_null1]

Originally posted by Gab: Since he apperently did it solely for money, I'd say that's far more corrupt than treasonous.

This is actually an excellent point that you've raised, Gab: Does intent matter in treason?

It could be (and has been) argued that President Clinton was unaware of the full extent of the secrets which he sold to the Chinese. This would make him blindlingly incompetent, but this alone is not usually a capital crime.

Is an act treasonous by its nature alone, or must the intent of the agent be considered?

[aleph_null1]

On another point I'd forgotten: Had President Clinton given the Chinese highly valuable defense secrets, out of his ideological sympathies with the communist nation, would you respect him more?

I would... of course, I'd also condemn him for high treason, but I'd respect him as he died...

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by aleph_null1: On another point I'd forgotten: Had President Clinton given the Chinese highly valuable defense secrets, out of his ideological sympathies with the communist nation, would you respect him more? I would... of course, I'd also condemn him for high treason, but I'd respect him as he died...

China is the future dude. You might as well just accept it [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Gab]

Originally posted by aleph_null1: quote: Originally posted by Gab: Since he apperently did it solely for money, I'd say that's far more corrupt than treasonous.

This is actually an excellent point that you've raised, Gab: Does intent matter in treason?

It could be (and has been) argued that President Clinton was unaware of the full extent of the secrets which he sold to the Chinese. This would make him blindlingly incompetent, but this alone is not usually a capital crime.

Is an act treasonous by its nature alone, or must the intent of the agent be considered? [/QUOTE]You've summed exactly what I've been trying to say [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] .

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Gab: Oblivion, how the heck is that absurd if I (not to mention other people) think you're going a bite too far accusing Clinton of treason. That is pretty extreme! Since he apperently did it solely for money, I'd say that's far more corrupt than treasonous. Do you have proof and a good explaination as to exactly what kind of military secrets he sold to the Chinese? The Rosenbergs were executed by the electric chair, not sent to the gas chamber. Did you acually not know that or were you trying to test my knowledge? Edit: Even though Felix gave a source, i'd like to see yours.

Gab, while I don't have the time at the moment to check out this story and see if it's true or not, selling secrets to other countries for money is still very much treason.

[The Hierophant]

Well, from what I gather, Clinton sold rocket technology to the Chinese. Not specifically weapons tech. This has a variety of uses, the Chinese space program being an apparently obvious one. Yes you can use rockets for deploying warheads. So what? Now you know how the rest of the world feels. Alot of us arn't too keen on the proliferation of American nuclear armaments either. But it just goes with the territory of international superpower politics. I seriously doubt that any national leaders would ever be so utterly foolish as to actually engage in nuclear warfare. The CCP arn't who you should be worrying about, they would have far too much to lose in a nuclear exchange.

I remember reading a quote from Clinton in 'Time' magazine stating that he wants to live in a world that will not be totally hostile to the USA once the USA is inevitably no longer the sole superpower on the planet. So sharing technology with a rising super-power and establishing closer relations with them would be a pretty good way of building diplomatic bridges I would imagine.

The Chinese as a people, and as a nation, are not evil, bloodthirsty totalitarians. Trust me on this. [img]smile.gif[/img] They are hard-working, industrious, and are not deluded by the self-aggrandising mob rule of theoretical 'democracy' (a grenade I throw to get discussion on the nature and merit of democracy going) Cold-War era 'anti-communism' is old and tired. Do the world a favour and stop invoking old xenophobias and try getting to know strangers instead of unconditionally fearing them.

[Felix The Assassin]

Back onto topic. It appears he is doing just fine. Good news.

Clinton Recovering After Quadruple Heart Bypass

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ple_clinton_dc