Clinton Legacy Watch # 23: Confession of a Politicizer
(Washington, D.C.): This morning’s New York Times reports that
President Clinton made an
extraordinary admission yesterday in the course of a “drop-by” — an unscheduled appearance at a
White House meeting convened by National Security Advisor Samuel Berger with leading
supporters of legislation that would apply U.S. sanctions to protecting religious freedom
overseas:
- “What always happens if you have automatic sanctions legislation is it puts enormous
pressure on whoever is in the executive branch to fudge an evaluation of the facts of
what is going on. And that’s not what you want. What you want is to leave the
president some flexibility, including the ability to impose sanctions, some flexibility with
a range of appropriate reactions.” (Emphasis added.)
Even for jaded Washington operatives, such a presidential statement is extraordinary.
Perhaps Mr. Clinton would not have made it had he been aware that a journalist was in the room.
The import is clear, nonetheless: Congress — and the American people — must not
expect the
truth from the Clinton Administration if, as a consequence of being given the unvarnished
facts, sanctions or other measures are adopted that the President does not favor.
Examples of Clinton ‘Fudging’
Over the past five years, the Center for Security Policy has identified a number of examples of
misrepresentations by Mr. Clinton and his appointees that might now be seen as “fudging” of the
truth. Recent examples of some of the most serious of these from a national security point of
view are the following:
- The 1995 National Intelligence Estimate on emerging ballistic missile threats to the
United States. Facing the possibility that an accurate assessment of this danger might
have
encouraged Congress to insist upon the prompt deployment of effective, global missile
defenses, the Clinton CIA based this study upon preposterous assumptions,
produce the desired result (i.e., that there will be no threat of missile attack on the U.S. for at
least fifteen years). - Based, in part, upon this misleading analysis, the President has declared on over
150
occasions that there are currently no missiles targeted at the United States. This is more
than a fudge; it is patently untrue. (2) - A Presidential certification that China was not engaged in proliferation
activities that
would, under current law, preclude the United States’ nuclear industry from providing Beijing
with technology it seeks to build a new generation of power reactors. - Administration downplaying of the ongoing activities of Russian government
entities
and companies in the transfer of missile technology to Iran. An extraordinary
indictment
of the Clinton team’s efforts to misrepresent this behavior — and to compromise intelligence
sources and methods that contradict such misrepresentations — authored by Kenneth
Timmerman, which appears in today’s Wall Street Journal, is - Assurances that North Korea has given up its nuclear weapons program
— a
determination critical to the deal struck by the Clinton Administration, Japan and South Korea,
whereby Pyongyang would secure Western financing and equipment for two new nuclear
reactors (ironically, capable of producing far more weapons-usable plutonium than the ones
they are supposed to replace).(4) - Findings that the Palestine Liberation Organization under Yasser Arafat has: in fact,
renounced terrorism; amended its Covenant so as to eliminate calls for the destruction of
Israel and murder of Jews; and cooperated in the prosecution of Palestinians believed to
have killed American citizens. None of these is true. - A draft Pentagon report, whose conclusions were leaked to the Miami
Herald a few weeks
ago, declaring that Cuba no longer posed a threat to the United States. This conclusion
flies in the face of the abiding asymmetric threats (e.g., the ticking-time bomb nuclear
reactors
at Juragua, the Lourdes signals intelligence facility, Castro’s biological warfare program,
drug-trafficking, etc.) from the Cuban regime, but supports the Administration’s ambition to
normalize relations with Castro. - Representations to the effect that the Kyoto Protocol to the Global Climate Change
Treaty will have no impact on the readiness or future war-fighting capabilities of the
U.S. military. Such representations are inconsistent with the clear meaning and
negotiating
history of the Kyoto Protocol.(5) Perhaps the Clinton
Administration simply misunderstands
this reality; more likely, in light of the President’s statement about “fudging,” however, it may
be deliberately misleading the Congress.
‘Fudging’ on Arms Control
Arguably, the phenomenon of “fudging” national security verities by the Clinton
Administration
has been most insidious in connection with the arms control process. The
Administration has
systematically impeded the flow of accurate information to the American people and their
elected representatives about Russian and other countries’ non-compliance with arms
control commitments. Evidence of violations has been downplayed; congressionally-
mandated
reports delayed for months on end; and the facts concealed by issuing unclassified and classified
reports with differing conclusions.
Worst of all, the Administration has renegotiated or permitted the de facto
mutation of
agreements so as to legitimate (or at least paper over) noncompliant activities. Cases in point
include the START II and the INF Treaties, which have been modified in ways that substantially
diminish their benefits and add to their costs to the United States.
While previous Presidents have from time to time engaged in such behavior in the name of
“preserving the arms control process” — despite the fact that that process inevitably is adulterated
and its value compromised by doing so — the Clinton team has raised the practice to an art
form. With its “fudging” in this arena, whether it be via bending over backwards to ignore
violations, rewriting agreements and/or adopting double standards for compliance, this
Administration has done serious damage to U.S. national security interests.
The Bottom Line
No less striking than these instances of “fudging” is the fate meted out by the Clinton
Administration to those who had the temerity to tell the truth to Congress and the American
people. For example, R. James Woolsey, President Clinton’s first Director of
Central
Intelligence, is widely believed to have been cashiered for his forthrightness. And John
Deutch,
Mr. Clinton’s second DCI, certainly fell afoul of the President and his team when he spoke the
truth about the Administration being bested by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
With his own — albeit unintended — candor, President Clinton has served notice
on those
concerned with religious persecution and all other Americans: His Administration is
prepared
to “fudge” the truth, even when required by law to tell it. There is certainly
no reason to
believe that his executive branch will be more truthful when it is not required to do
so, or that its
policies will be consistent with the sentiment of the majority in Congress and the public if it gives
him the “flexibility” he seeks.
– 30 –
1. These included: 1) neither Russia nor China would pose a missile
threat to the United States;
2) neither Russia nor China would assist other countries in developing long-range ballistic
missiles; and 3) only the “Lower 48” states would be considered as targets — Alaska and Hawaii
being within range of shorter-range missiles that North Korea is expected to field within the next
few years. See It Walks Like A Duck: Questions Persist that Clinton CIA’s Missile
Threat was
Politically Motivated (No. 96-D 122, 4
December 1996).
2. See the Center’s Decision Brief entitled
‘There You Go Again’: New York Times’ Tim
Weiner’s Dubious Opinions Passed Off As ‘News’ (
3. See the Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy’s
Perspective entitled
The Big Lie: Long-term U.S. Interests Will Not
Be Served By Presidential Misrepresentation Of Chinese Proliferation Acts (
October 1997).
4. Fortunately, there is reason to hope that, thanks to the Asian
financial crisis, this deal may yet
come unraveled. See ‘Seize the Day’: Asian Financial Crisis Offers Opportunity to
End
Dangerous Appeasement of North Korea (No. 98-D
12, 21 January 1998).
5. See the Casey Institute’s Perspective entitled
Is the Administration Lying to the Senate
About Kyoto’s Adverse Impact on National Security — Or Just Kidding Itself?
(No. 98-C 70,
23 April 1998).
- Frank Gaffney departs CSP after 36 years - September 27, 2024
- LIVE NOW – Weaponization of US Government Symposium - April 9, 2024
- CSP author of “Big Intel” is American Thought Leaders guest on Epoch TV - February 23, 2024