Could we lay all conspiracy theories aside for a moment and explore how Bill & Hillary Clinton would respond if y2k became a #6 or above? Isn't it rational to assume that if martial law is declared he would remain as president? Isn't it also rational (given his passed actions) to assume that he would take full advantage of a crisis that was dumped in his lap. Isn't it also rational to assume given his penchant for cover-ups and lying that he would not tell the citizens the full extent of the crisis if it was in his best interest to wait until it WAS A FULL BLOWN CRISIS, so that he could remain in office?

I've been reading all this stuff, some of which is ridiculous on this forum. But I don't see how this is a conspiracy. It seems to me it would just be business as usual for the Clinton administration.

Of course, the nation would be toast. Actually burnt toast if he continues in office indefinitely.

Please don't flame me for being a conspiratorist. I don't listen to weird radio programs or read any militia based junk. Just musing during this apparent lull in the y2k news.

-- LindaO. (lindao@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999

Answers

Billary would LOVE the chance to continue his po-dunk 'good ole boy' Boss-Hogg administration in the advend of national disaster. His administration has shown many things, but a willingness to realistically share power or allow freedom in any way shape or form is definately not one of them. The greed-heads of the country will always find a way to retain power...even at the cost of others lives and comfort and freedom

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 06, 1999.

The only thing worse than two Clinton administrations is three Clinton administrations!

-- curtis schalek (cschalek@earthlink.net), September 06, 1999.

Think about what this "could" mean...

Community Conversations
The Y2K Problem:
Frequently Asked Questions

President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion

http://www.y2k.gov/ community/faq.html

[snip]

I've heard rumors about the President declaring a national state of "martial law" for Year 2000 transition. Is this true?

The President has no intention of declaring martial law for the Year 2000 transition. Under so-called "martial law," ordinary law and judicial processes are temporarily replaced by military rule, which is usually accompanied by curfews and other restrictions on individual rights (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of assembly). No President has ever declared a condition of martial law that applied to the entire country. In fact, not since President Lincoln placed several areas of the country under martial law during the Civil War has any President directly proclaimed martial law on behalf of the Federal Government.

Presidents have often issued emergency or disaster declarations for weather-related disasters and civil unrest which have sometimes been accompanied by individual State National Guard units being called into Federal service along with Federal troops to provide support or restore order in communities. It is not expected that the Y2K transition will create a need for such action, but the Federal Government will be prepared to take such action if circumstances warrant.

[snip]

And don't forget to "parse" the wording Clinton-style... such as this sentence...

"No President has ever declared a condition of martial law that applied to the entire country."

Oh. Just partial? Or is there always a first time for everything?

Since this comes from Koskinen's site, and he's a "direct report" to the President, I like to imagine that Hilary was looking over Bill's shoulder when he reviewed the statements and made languaging (lawyer- esque) corrections.

;-D

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 06, 1999.

And while parsing it, don't forget the phrase "has no intention of".

Didn't say "won't", just said "no intention".

World of difference in those few words.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), September 06, 1999.

Here's an article that may shed a little light on the Clinton strategy for Y2K:

Paula Gordon's White Paper, Part 4

What accounts for the current approach that Administration has been taking concerning Y2K? It may be that the President has not taken to heart the concerns that have been expressed to him regarding the seriousness of the problem. On the other hand, he may have some recognition of the seriousness of the problem, but he may have determined that substantially increasing Federal efforts to address the problem now is not the best policy. Could it be that the President has purposely decided to wait until around the time of the December 31st rollover to bring substantial resources to bear on the problem? If so, why would he have made such a decision? and could it be that he has made such a determination based out of concerns for the economy and political concerns? In June 1999, someone told me off the record that the President told some acquaintances of hers that he is indeed waiting for the December 31st rollover and the aftermath before committing more substantial resources to the Y2K. On July 28, at the Y2K Conference at George Washington University, Congressman Dennis Kucinich revealed that he viewed the President's actions in just this way. (See the Appendix of Part 4 for the transcript of the excerpted exchange between Congressman Kucinich and Paula Gordon. The excerpted exchange is also available at (

ht tp://www. gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon/1999conference.html

)

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), September 06, 1999.

I don't think the Clintons really GI.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 06, 1999.

LindaO.

No, you don't have to "listen to weird radio programs or read any militia based junk" to be very concerned. Anyone who hasn't had his/her head in the sand for the past 7 years, who has watched this guy in action and read a little has got well founded reason to be concerned. This is why so many good, upright citizens are a little rattled as they watch this thing unfold.

sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), September 06, 1999.

considering his pal from Arkansas is running F. E. M. A. everything is in place

-- Vincent Falco (vince-duke@worldnet.att.net), September 06, 1999.

Does speaking of Clinton Corruption have any of you heard of the Clinton- Tyson Chicken connection. Believe it or not Tyson Chicken has been involved in some seriously corrupt stuff including white slavery, drug smuggling, bribes, influencing several government agencies including the FBI, etc. Anyone who does not think this guy is crooked needs to brush up on some arkansas politics. Supposedly Clinton used to recieve envelopes of money once a week via private jet on behalf of Tyson Chkn while he(clintax) was governor.

-- gp (georgiaperry@mindspring.com), September 07, 1999.

Interesting related thread last week: The Dog who Didn't Bark"

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001LaA

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), September 07, 1999.