'Betrayal': Is Clinton a traitor?

Great Debates
1

I’ve been reading Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security" and was wondering if anyone else was familiar with it, or with the issues Gertz raises in it. He makes some pretty strong claims for how and why the Clinton administration has placed political survival and advantage above the security or well-being of the American public, although he does stop shy of calling their actions treasonous. In particular, he makes a great deal about how Clinton et al have been cossetting relations with China to the deliberate detriment of US national security. Given a couple of recent threads on governmental conspiracies, anybody have any thoughts on this?

Felice

“Everything, once understood, is trivial.” -WES

2

Am I allowed to add in my 2 cents, or should I shut up and watch?

:slight_smile:

3

I think you should contribute your 2 cents. As a former government agent, you probably know more about this topic than most of us here.

(Just kidding :slight_smile: )

[ Note: Opinions offensive to Christians may have been censored by TubaDiva. ]

“Don’t screw with the moderators and administrators.”

4

Thanks DLV, I attempt to take the advice of distnacing myself, so you bring me a bag of it, and drop it on my doorstep. Thanks

Thus I wont say anything on this topic, unfortunately.

5

By all means, Mikey, if you have something to say, say it. That’s what this type of a forum is for.
Have you read the book? Do you know what I’m talking about, any of the specific events to which Gertz refers? Most of them were published in the Washington Times, so it’s not exactly secret.

6

I haven’t read the book yet, but I’ve glanced at it (my SO read it a while ago). I was amused by the appendices. The author included repros of allegedly classified documents at the end of the book, some with “Top Secret” stamped on them. It looked like he was trying to pass off fakes, IMO, but if they were real and not yet unclassified, it strikes me that he might be the traitor.

IOW, either he stole classified documents and published them, or he’s lying. Either way, I dunno how much credence to give him.

Am I correct in my assessment, felice?

And for that matter, who the hell is Gertz anyway? Have you seen anything else he’s written?

-andros-

7

I don’t know, Andros. The documents he reproduces appear to confirm the events as he describes them, events which were sufficiently publicly reported that there is reason to believe them. As you say, anybody with a laser printer can create a document that says, ‘Top Secret’ across the top: the only way to determine if it’s really secret is through the content. Since I’m not a DOD classification officer, I’m not qualified to judge that for sure. I did a little web-research and found some fairly reliable sources that quote THEIR sources as saying HIS sources are legit. (Follow that?)

No, I haven’t read Gertz’ other work, but I do know he’s a legit reporter for WT.

8

WT?

9

WT- The Washington Times.

Given I haven’t read the book, and my general feelings on Clinton are unprintable in this forum, I’m glad that I had something useful to add.

JMCJ

This could be YOUR sig line! For just five cents a post, JMCJ Enterprises will place YOUR sig line at the bottom of each message!

10

I have got to check out this book. But I have already formed my opinion of him a long time ago. Even though I am not a Catholic, he had the nerve to receive Holy Communion without any regard for the churches views of being a member first, and continued to lie about the scandals. But boy the pictures of him receiving Holy Communion flew in the Catholic papers everwhere. How much more sacreligious can you get? And nothing seems to stop this man! Why cut a deal for 71 billion dollars for Israel? I love Israel, but he’s not really for Israel, he’s in there for the Arabs and the Syrians. So, if that’s the case, why do we have to pay for this? Why don’t the Arabs pay the Jews to get this land back? Israel shouldn’t be giving the land back anyways!!!

Well, so much for sounding off here. I have to get ready for Shabbot. :slight_smile:

“Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” Psalm 119:105

11

Duh. Thanks, John. Well, the Washington Times has a distinctly conservative bent, but it’s not quite a fringe rag.

Thrifty:Taking communion was sacreligious? I don’t recall if Clinton is Baptist or Methodist, but IIRC most of the former and all of the latter practice “open table” communion. That is, they allow anyone to partake. Are you saying he took Catholic communion? Even so, where’s the sacrelige? I missed that one completely.

I’m also not sure about the Israel thing. We’ve had economic dealings with Israel since well before Willy came to office. They’ve been our allies since day one. What’s the problem?

-andros-

12

Just remember, Clinton is a politician.

As were Bush and Reagan.

(Carter and Ford were technically politicians too, but it’s hard to imagine either of them doing anything.)

13

Andros…back from dinner here.

Yes Clinton received Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. I do not believe that there is an open table for Holy Communion unless you belong to the Catholic Church in order to receive the sacraments. They steppted over that line.
Yes I realize we are Israel’s ally, and God will bless those who bless His people. But,
in this instance, Israel should stand firm.
They won that land back in the 6 Day War and the Golan Heights during Yom Kippur, and they have already given away the West Bank and the Gazza Strip which leaves them with a land mass of only 11 miles across. How would you like the Texans to give all their land back to the Mexicans simply because you have some outside force insisting on it. Do you think Gov. George Bush and the people of Texas would be willing to do that for 71 billion dollars? I don’t think so. And the land of Texas wasn’t even promised to the Americans by God but the land of Israel was promised to the Jews by God through their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

“Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” Psalm 119:105

14

I’m vaguely familiar with Gertz’s work, more through his coauthorship of a W.Times column on military affairs than on the book in question.

He’s pretty well known for arguing that China is the new Soviet Union, the Communist menace from the east gearing up for the coming war pitting the Godless Commies vs. freedom loving Americans. He and his cocolumnist are particularly skilled at pointing out the lists of “pro-Beijing” employees in the current Administration, and accusing such employees (and Clinton, by extention) of selling out our freedom-loving compatriots in Taiwan to the Red Menace.

Needless to say, the parallels between his views and the right wing of the 1950’s are, well, striking.

To very briefly bring up some points that Gertz gives short shrift to, let me just bring up one issue, his support of a national missile defense. By not investing in a NMD system, Gertz has argued that an increase in the capabilities of China’s ballistic missile forces has threatened our security. The other side of the arguement is that deploying an NMD system would violate the ABM Treaty signed with the Soviet Union.

The important thing about the ABM Treaty is that it has paved the way for the SALT and START treaties, which limited and have reduced the number of strategic nuclear warheads in the arsenals of the US and (now) Russia. Abrogating this treaty would almost certainly end any chance of further arms reductions.

Do we need further nuclear arms reductions? Well, considering the huge costs of the Stockpile Stewardship Program (which maintains the nuclear warheads) and the fact that there is wide consensus that a credible deterrant force could be maintained with far fewer nuclear weapons, there is a strong argument to be made there.

And how much do China’s nukes threaten the security of the US? Currently they have about 20± missiles which could reach the US, and no strategic bombing capability to speak of. The US now has 100 times that many warheads which could be deployed against China. That is far, far in excess of a credible deterrent, I am sure you will agree.

The criticism that not rapidly developing and deploying an NMD system against such a threat from China (or North Korea, etc) constitutes a realizable threat to our national security isn’t really an assessment of the strategic situation, its more like anti-Communist hysteria.

15

To receive something, someone must give it to you. So the real problem in the communion bit is not with Mr. Clinton, but with the priest who gave him communion.

16

Well, there you go Monty :slight_smile:
Two wrongs don’t make a right.

“Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” Psalm 119:105

17

Felice: Thanks for the reference, I’ll go pick it up! :slight_smile: “Partners in Power” is a good read too. It’s about Hillary and Bill from childhood on.

Clinton? Treason? Nah, it never occured to me.

::::::ducking and putting on asbestos bvd’s)

18

I can’t comment on Gertz’ allegations because I haven’t read his book or any reviews summarizing it.

What I will comment on is the amazing tendency for Clinton’s critics to cast him in the harshest possible light. There is a certain segment of the political spectrum that cannot say Clinton is pursuing a stupid policy – they have to call it treason. He cannot be a mere shifty politician from a backwater state – he must be involved in drug trafficking and murdering his enemies. It’s not enough for him to have made a religious faux pas – he must be guilty of sacrilege.

I’m no fan of Clinton, but I don’t understand the need to villify him. So I take charges of treason and the like with a great, big, industrial-size grain of salt.

Up, up and away!

19

So, Clark, you’ve already met Phaedrus, then.

20

-andros- , Good one, :wink:

Seriously, I feel betrayed by Bill, but that is because my expeptions were too high as much as anything else. I am interested in the book though.