Let me quote the illustrious leader of the free world :

Q Mr. President, if you were an ordinary citizen, would you save a little food for Y2K? (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: You know, we've had so many jokes about that, about taking our pickups to Arizona and all. The answer is, no. America is -- (laughter) -- I wouldn't, because I think America is in good shape. We have worked very, very hard on this. I want to thank the Vice President and John Koskinen, who's helped us. I want to thank all the big -- the financial institutions, the utilities, the other big sectors in our economy that have gotten Y2K-ready. The only problems left in the United States that we're aware of are with some of our small businesses who basically haven't yet made sure that they're Y2K compliant. But the United States is doing fine, and I wouldn't hoard food, and I wouldn't hide. I would be trusting, because I think we're going to make it fine

(end direct quote)

... now, we have several choices to make:

1. The prez knows that of which he speaks, he's well informed on the many aspects of the problem, and is openly speaking the truth.

2. He's poorly informed, and politicing, telling us what we want to hear, the status quo is maintained, bad things do not happen to Americans in America, etc. (Possible assesment)

3. He's well informed, and lying through his teeth, for the purpose of letting a technological catastrophe blindside 260 million people, resulting in great death and at a cost of many bbbillions of dollars in damage and lost revenue, radically changing the social, political and possibly national landscape into total chaos, believing he and "they" can control the outcome of this chaos and form it into their own creature.

With Occam's (?sp) razor in mind (the most obvious answer is usually the correct one), which do you think is more likely? And if #3, do "they" really think the transition would not be problematic?

.....little help, please....

-- Hillbilly (Hillbilly@possum.creek), November 10, 1999

Answers

This is a vexing question. Even tho he is a pathological liar, what possible motive would he have to withhold catastrophe-preventing info from the nation? I believe he has been advised that there will not be a meltdown.

-- (lars@indy.net), November 10, 1999.

Lets see;

Have I ever lied to you before? (NO!)

Do want to stay in power forever (N0!)

Now what is this Razor thingy?

-- The (Prez@witehouse.gov), November 10, 1999.

How about #4 -

He only wants enough chaos to insure the continuation of his presidency into a 3rd term - a chance to "save the day" a la Mighty Mouse - and an opportunity to redeem his place in history a la FDR. After all, we * know* it wasn't his fault that it happened, it was, um, the small businesses and the hoarders and those other countries. And he really believes it won't be a 10, just a managable 7 or 8.

-- Sy O'Nara (allbets@reoff.com), November 10, 1999.

Anything the president says should not and can not be trusted. Clinton has been advised as to the risks. He knows there are just too many weak links for this chain to withstand the tension.

If'ya ask me, BJClinton is hoping to rule the civilized world in an uncivilized way.

When he says one thing, the wise do or react in the opposite direction. Heed these words. Your own civilzed survival may depend on it.

Best of luck!

-- Protruth (Protruth@conservative.org), November 10, 1999.

How about what's behind door 5? The president has been informed of the problem, (although there is some question about this in my mind, as his 'point man' on this is a lawyer, not exactly the person I'd have put in charge of understanding and responding to a technological problem), and further, has been informed that there is no longer enough time for every person in America to prepare, even for a modest event, and that the attempt would simply precipitate the panic NOW instead of in January.

Let's see, announce, and there is no upside potential (he looks like a moron because it happened on his watch), the downside potential is enormous (panic might actually worsen the problem by redirecting resources which could be used to mitigate the effects). Hmmm, which one? which one?

-- just another (another@engineer.com), November 10, 1999.

6th Possibility:

The Prez was told 2 years ago by the REAL POWERS (corporations) to butt-out of Y2K, it wasn't HIS problem. Further, the public has twice elected a Republican controlled, corporate owned Congress. We are seeing the direct results of how Republican style "government out of our lives" works. Got a problem? Congress will study it and report it to death. In the end, they side with the $$$ that got them elected in the first place.

Further, 2 years ago Mr. Clinton was busy with more important duties (being railroaded in the House and tried in the Senate). His lack of interest in Y2K today, is partly due to him "missing the boat" back then. (Personally, I think the House Managers committed treason against the United States by impeaching Clinton on non-impeachable crimes. They failed to follow the Constitution even after 40 Law Professors testified that what Clinton did was NOT impeachable offences.)

I believe Mr. Clinton hasn't paid much attention to Y2K or its possible impact on the U.S. and the world. His comment the other day about being "technologically challenged" was a valuable in-sight for me, a clue to his own DGI status. Further, dealing with being impeached and tried just at the critical time when Y2K needed his full attention allowed it to slip by unattended to. His response to Y2K a year later, John Koskinen and $40 million dollars. Too little too late?

-- GoldReal (GoldReal@aol.com), November 10, 1999.

There is really only one thing to consider. Does this man have a record of telling the truth at all?

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), November 10, 1999.

The President has been a Good president for Good Times. I hope he is right about Y2K...

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in January.com), November 11, 1999.

He is a counterfeit.

Nothing would surprise me.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 11, 1999.

Lost track, option #8, he is trying (in his mind) to protect the country from all the enemies he has made that may take advantage of US if the truth were known. Poor excuse to let many millions suffer and/or die if it is in fact going to be severe. Your country maybe enscrewed, but don't try to mess with us cause we is Y2K Okey-dokey, really we are, trust me, have I ever lied to you before, well, besides that time?

-- maybe8 (bill@tinfoil.com), November 11, 1999.

You guys need to stop taking the red pills. Take the whites! The whites!

My guess is that Bill is in exactly the same situation as the rest of us. He's getting his reports through ten layers of flunkies, who are all pushing their own agendas and who are basing their advise (wherre it's based on any kind of data) on dodgy data received from businesses with (can you guess?) agendas of their own.

In other words: BILL DOESN'T KNOW ANY MORE THAN US.

And I don't believe he's evil or gunning for an "emergency" term. I think he's probably concerned and confused. And I think it's criminal - and I use that word carefully - that he didn't advise a MODEST stockpile, say two weeks worth, about six months ago. But right now, today, the best advise he can give is to say "No problem." Because it's too late to fix it, it's too late for all of us to stock. If he moves an inch on this matter, the food goes and the banks go, and then it all goes.

Please do try and put yourselves in his shoes for just one second.

-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), November 11, 1999.

"Please do try and put yourselves in his shoes for just one second."

I'd have a rather hard time doing that -- don't really enjoy lying to good people, have no desire whatsoever to screw around on my husband, couldn't imagine living the rest of my life after having bombed innocent people, never wanted to be a RULER OF THE WORLD.

Dick Morris said a while back that Herr Klinton makes sure he tells staff around him to keep info to themselves if it involves something he would have to inform the public about. This all related to the FBI and WACO scandal recently. He is making sure that he knows no specific details on year 2000 that he would have to inform the public, and with his morals he's not lying to the American public, everything's going to be just fine because he has absolutely no specifics that prove otherwise. You can be sure he has plenty of action plans for when it does though, and the wife is right there helping.

As far as the Republicans -- does anyone see any difference between the two parties. Seems to me they agree on just about everything of significance anymore, just follow the leader.

-- claurann (claurann@aol.com), November 11, 1999.

I agree with Colin. It is too late to isue a warning. It would only make matters worse. I don't trust Clinton, but I doubt that he knows as much as we do . He probably doesn't even know what questions to ask.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), November 11, 1999.

uh Bill, if it's so frigging funny, why did you spend $40,000,000 on a Y2K situational awareness center?

Hmmmm, now that I think about it, that is kinda funny. That's about the same amount that the independent counsel spent trying to nail your ass.

-- MoVe Immediate (MVI@yepimhere.com), November 11, 1999.