VF: Clinton knew Y2K was serious at the beginning of 1996

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The prez has known Y2K was serious since the beginning of 1996, according to the Vanity Fare article. Here are a few quotes:

"...Moynihan asked the Congressional Research Service to prepare a report on possible Y2K consequences. What came back in June 1996 was chilling: hospital systems failing, airplanes not taking off or landing, records being scrambled--one cataclysm after another. Moynihan passed the news to Bill Clinton in a July 31, 1996, letter, along with a recommendation that the president appoint someone who would ensure that all federal agencies--and the companies that did business with them--be Y2K-compliant by January 1, 1999."

"Moynihan was not telling Clinton anything he didn't already know; eight months earlier, Howard Rubin, chairman of the computer-science department at Hunter College, had briefed the president in detail. "Clinton understood that technology is more than the Internet and pulling wires through high schools," says Rubin. "He really understood how everything was tied together [and Y2K's] potential for broad-reaching consequences. He was very interested and very concerned." Al Gore was slower on the uptake. "How could this be a problem in a country where we have Intel and Microsoft?" he exclaimed when Rubin finished. Rubin shot back, "No way are you going to be able to run for office in 2000 if government systems are failing around you." Gore had no reply. "He was educable," says Rubin, "but with effort.""


"Frustrated, Horn cornered Clinton at the summer 1997 congresional picnic. "Look," he said to the president, "you've got to give leadership. The person you most admire is Roosevelt. And his most famous phrase is "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." You need to explain that to the American people in a fireside chat." Clinton promised him he would, and Horn sent him Y2K materials. But that was their last contact. "Normal Clinton behavior," says Horn. "They play this game of going right to the edge.""

Do I hear a future campaign issue here?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 13, 1998


How can there be an election? How can they tally if all's broken?

Besides, nobody else has stepped up to the plate to lead.

Gore is toast.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 14, 1998.

# # # 19981214

I've always pushed the notion of maintaining the voting precinct ( political ) organization WT-Y2K-SHTF! Paper ballots ARE compliant and work just fine, thank you!

It's worked in the past. No reason it won't again!

Presidents and Washingtonians will become virtually impertinent to the process ... Hmmm ... Just like the Founders had intended in the first instance! How about that?!

Everything will be local! Big, centralized government -- the worst evil of all -- will evaporate, instantaneously! Too bad!!

We'll do peachy ... individual rights intact ( again ) and sovereigh citizenship, too. Sounds good to the ears and soul! Doesn't it?!

Have to re-read history about the amazingly intellectual and inspirational Thomas Jefferson. What a phenom' he must've been for his day! Incredible! ...

Regards, Bob Mangus # # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), December 14, 1998.

Robert, I agree that everything will move to local government. It's that or disappear... and I know some places will just disappear.

I've thought about the ongoing impeachment effort for quite some time. Before I continue let me say I am in no way a fan of Mr. Clinton.

However, is there a better motivation for a bloodless coup than a y2k induced lack of a presidential election in 2000?

Surely, the power players in D.C. (elected or otherwise) understand the deep political disruptions and dislocations that will occur as a result of y2k. After all, Washington D.C. itself will be unable to operate because of their inability to address their own problems. Let alone, the actual government bodies and their suffering through their problems.

We're on the verge of a major financial and political meltdown and there has to be a reason why the stakes are SO HIGH that polls simply don't matter. After all, politicians base their whole lifestyle on polls.

So, why not start an effort to find a way to get power prior to the chaos and disruption by any means necessary short of gunfire (if possible, if necessary then gunfire as a last resort).

First get Clinton (pick a scandal, any scandal).

Then get Gore (campaign finance "abuse").

And what are you left with?

The Speaker.

The act of Impeachment has nothing to do with law and everything to do with politics. That's exactly what the founding fathers had in mind. That's exactly why the effort will not go away. There is quite a bit going on, behind the scenes, that we just aren't privy to and it all has to do with politics.

Forget the law.

Forget personal freedoms.

There are bigger things at stake for those who thirst for power or those who wish to hold on to power and there is no party line or idiology which seperates them.

We're witnessing a masterful game of political chess and the President has only a few pieces left to play.

My prediction?

He'll win this round by a very, very thin margin. He will not be impeached by the Senate. But eventually, sometime in early 1999, he will resign due to some unforeseen personal health reason. Deals been done and the game is over. The moves were recorded and the show is being played out.

Just the humble opinion of a non-conformist.

Mike =================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 14, 1998.

Friday I let myself get sucked, again, into another moral, legal should Clinton be impeached or not debate. I keep thinking that this issue is not worth my time, then I think what if y2k is just a bump in the road. It's enough to drive you to drink. I personally am afraid of the whole Washington establishment. I wonder if they are planning martial law before TSHTF. If they can get it together by March or so and set up military at major cities, they might be able to establish control. Of course, THEY would have to set up bunkers and provide for military families during the CRISIS, but from what I've read that's already being done. I just think Washington is making some plans while smoothing over and minimizing what effect y2k will have both nationally and internationally.

-- Kitty Burkheimer (usafree1@aol.com), December 14, 1998.

Why does it need politicians to tell the civil service IT managers about y2k. They were no less or more knowledgable about the subject than any other IT manager in the private sector.

Politicians don't live in the real world, most of them have never worked.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 14, 1998.

I wonder if Airforce One has filed flight plans yet for New Year's 1999. Denver and NORAD may make sense.

Yep. Sure looks like a chess game to me. Clinton might be able to checkmate them if he'd change the playing field. A Y2K fireside "chat" before Thursday comes to mind.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 14, 1998.

Diane, I've thought about that too! I've been waiting for that shoe to drop. It's a move he might play in some form or fashion but, in a way, I think if he does the news may be met with mixed reviews by the uninitiated and unaware and even the aware. He may actually do damage to the y2k awareness movement.

He should have held that fireside chat months if not years ago.

Mike ===================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 14, 1998.


I agree. But he tends to play a waiting game. Guess he won't have that "chat" until all the plans are in place, or until there is enough newsmedia momentum and an "event" that proves the issue. January 1999?


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 14, 1998.

I wonder if he knew about embedded systems--- for me, that's what changed Y2K from a drag to utter hell to contemplate.

Once petroleum came into question-------- he had to know he was sunk. His only out now is to buy or take an oil-rich country.

Whoa. I don't even want to follow this to any type of conclusion.

-- Lisa (none@here.com), December 14, 1998.

No Micheal, no, no.

If impeached, Clinton will have to leave. Gore appoints a new Democratic VP. If Gore is found as guilty of bribery as expected (based on the 120 eye-witnessess who have fled the country or refused to testify so far), then this VP (Gephardt perhaps) becomes President, he appoints a new VP.

Speaker of the House (and other members of the food chain) is immaterial unless both are simultanenously killed.

In the meantime, do you believe anything Clinton says? Why? Would you not want a confirmed liar out of the White House before Y2K hits? Gore is as liberal as Clinton, if not more so, so your precious liberal-society will continued intact. Only Gore might have a conscious - and his wife is more trustworthy, which will help too.

What are you afraid of?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 14, 1998.

How could martial law NOT be in place well before 2000? There will be no election, and electing anyone will be the last thing on anybody's mind. Do you really think there will be a functioning stock market/banking system by then? All it takes to bring the system down is for a significant number of people to GI and start calling in their bank deposits. Once they do, everyone else will have to do so, whether they GI or not. Critical mass will be reached this Spring at the latest. Go back to the E.O.s -the blueprint for our future- and look at the pretexts by which martial law can be initiated. These include economic disruption. Think of how people fight over food in a supermarket before a storm. Now think of that happening, after a stockmarket collapse and bank crash, all over the developed world as destitute people begin to look more closely at what spooked the herd, and begin to GI. FEMA is an enormous, black-budget-funded cold-war continuity-of-government plan. They are going to be "the government." They will be doing all the electing in 2000. The Great Experiment is over.


-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), December 14, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ