Shepard Smith said “We are America, We do not F*&^&*ing torture”…….Shepared Smith several moments later “oops”
I have been concerned about torture since Abu Ghraib became public knowledge. Supposedly these Privates were simply an abberation and did not reflect “American” policy. Hmmm, their defense was that they were just following orders from CIA interrogators. These Army officers were sacraficed to presever the code of silence of torture and the Bush administration did nothing. Now here is President Obama saying that the CIA interrogators were just following orders and therefor should not be prosecuted. I’m sorry, but that stinks of hypocrisy and I expect better from him. This is the very soul of our Nation and it cannot be swept under the rug. Do I wish this would just go away, of course I do, I HATE the idea of dragging this nation through public trials of CIA interrogators and elected or appointed officials. But in this op-ed by a former FBI agent, the reason NOT to torture is crytal clear.
” We are America, We do not torture!”
go get em tiger!
Good to see a little passion there. Cable TV doesn’t have the same restrictions as network. Do they have the 5 second delay. I think I actually saw that show or was in ear shot and didn’t even notice. Oooops.
Good grief, who cares what Shepard Smith says? Most of cable
“news” is just a show – “Rants for Ratings”.
Want to learn something? Read today’s New York Times series on
immigration – “Remade in America – A Family Divided By 2 Words,
Legal and Illegal”. An answer, in part, to the “kick them all out”
crowd – I was moved by the story of a highly intelligent young
lady, brought to this country as a young child, who graduated
from college with honors and tremendous accounting/math skills
who now faces deportation – from the only country she knows.
Who, pray tell, will benefit from that? Certainly not America –
we need all the educated productive young people we can find.
The effort supported by Leftists (and Elena) to prosecute “torturers” reeks of a purge, similar to those in China and Cambodia when new regimes came into power. The controversy centers around the practice of waterboarding, which generates the sensation of drowning. The problem is that torture has never been precisely defined in U.S. law, and so the fact that the 9/11 mastermind was waterboarded does not necessarily constitute torture. If the sensibilities of the lawmakers were offended, they had every opportunity to introduce legislation to outlaw waterboarding: Obama could have done it; senators/congressman on intelligence committees could have done it; plaintiffs could have challenged the practice in court. America was aware of the practice of waterboarding as far back as 2004 and Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006, but it was not until 2009 after Obama was elected that calls for prosecution gained momentum.
A key concept of a revolutionary movement is to identify a public enemy, while the revolutionaries concentrate on consolidating power and keeping its enemies on the defensive. While the media is diverted on this issue, Obama has been essentially nationalizing part of the economy. After 100 days in office, it appears that Palin was correct: Obama is a socialist. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
Kelly, I see you’ve been watching one of those “news” channels Poor Richard was talking about. I wonder, as you sat watching the same channel probably in the 1990’s how you felt when the entire nation was turned on its head over an extra-marital affair?
War crimes are a bigger deal than extra-marital affairs. Somehow the manufactured outrage machine is so much more powerful on the right that we don’t seem to realize that in this country.
There were no calls for prosecution under the Bush banana republic because we didn’t have a Justice Department that was willing to uphold the law. Now we have a Attn. General who acknowledges the RULE OF LAW (funny how that seems to work against you all of the sudden Kelly) and refers to torture AS torture. The United States has prosecuted waterboarding as not only torture but a war crime in the past. We signed treaties against it.
Again, the only reason this was not investigated before was that in the Bush banana republic, the Justice Department was not interested in upholding the law. They were involved in protecting the Bush administration FROM the law.
Kelly, you need to get some real information. This propaganda is eating your brain.
Oh, and also the Bush Justice Department was forced to WRITE the torture memos, so of course they couldn’t be counted on to hold themselves accountable. This is why a special prosecutor is the only solution here, because the Justice Department would still be investigating itself, even though it has now been purged of lawless partisans.
What an f’n great thread!! 🙂
Couldn’t help it.
It was a good article, Poor Richard. The story of the sister was touching. Maybe I will have time to work up something on it later.
Kelly, any point you wanted to make was detracted from when you start throwing the ‘leftist’ terms around.
Response to #8,M-H: Perhaps you are right about my point being lost, but the reference to Leftists pushing the torture agenda was not only accurate, but also rather entertaining. It is always interesting to see who squawks.
Nevertheless, please tell me where waterboarding is specifically prohibited by law. Some reasonable people do not agree that waterboarding is torture. I do not agree that waterboarding is torture.
I agree that the rule of law must be followed. But the fact that we do not all agree on the definition of torture means that further legislation is required before there can be any prosecution. If the law is clarified and someone then breaks it, then prosecution should take place.
Those who object to waterboarding have had 4 years to legislate against waterboarding, so really the current exercise is just politics.
Kelly, believe it or not, I don’t have particular strong feelings on waterboarding. It sounds bad enough, from descriptions I have seen on tv, that I would say it is a questionable practice.
I would say that as an American, torture should not be used routinely. Most experts tell us it is ineffective. I do not want to outlaw it totally. There should be times with the proper checks and balances, it could be able to be enacted if absolutely necessary. I also watch 24 so possibilities are in my mind.
I do agree that we need to define things before we outlaw them.
That was a fairly moderate squawk by the way. I don’t like ‘leftist’ labels. I tend to shut down when I see that word.
Not apropos of your post, and I’m happy to be on almost anyone’s blogroll, but you may be the only one to put me in the “Democrat” category.
Just out of curiosity, did Shepherd Smith get into any hot water over his ‘oooops?’ I ask because many FoxNews followers tend to be very conservative and might have taken offense. Does anyone know?
I was wondering if Fox put up a disclaimer (The views of Mr. Smith are his own and are not those of Fox News). It would appear that Mr. Smith was a bit “off script”.
Yea, it really does look that way. I wonder what the outcome was with the Fox powers that be as for being off script also? That sounded a little too ‘moderate’ for Fox. Throw in a little F word and some rat’s asses and I expect some of the foxites were having the ‘big one.’
My friend who is a die hard fox fan (knows them all by name, it is her home page) had not heard about it.
Sorry about that James, I will ask Alanna to move you over to where you belong. I expect that is probably a first for you. I hope we didn’t ruin your reputation.
Perhaps he had had a drink before he came on stage.
Moon-howler,
I knew you had an authoritarian streak in you, but this is too much.
I like safety nets.
On the other hand….Wouldn’t it have been cheaper, quicker, safer for 4000 troops, and God knows how many Iraq civilians if Saddam could have just been politically assassinated?
Let’s not rehash the whole Clinton thing. As a federal employee with a clearance, having an affair usually means losing your security clearance. Clinton had a security clearance, therefore he should be held to the same standards as federal employees and contractors who hold security clearances. I hold a high level security clearance, and if I had an affair I’d lose my clearance and lose my job. This is something everyone seems to miss. So where’s the outrage that Clinton’s employees get fired for doing something that he did?
It has been reported that information gained from waterboarding has saved lives. And, the employees doing it were following orders from higher ups. Should the higher ups in the CIA be prosecuted? I don’t know. But I do know it is not the black and white issue (waterboarding is bad) that some make it out to be. To compare it to Clinton’s affair is ridiculous – he opened himself up to blackmail if some foreign country had somehow found out about it – this is the reason you lose your security clearance if you have an extra-marital affair. Clinton held the highest level security clearance – one that usually someone is scrutinized to a high degree including polygraph tests, etc. The president doesn’t undergo that of course, but he should be held at least to the same standard as his employees. Worse, he lied and attmempted to cover it up. If someone lies on their security clearance application, or lies to an investigator, that’s another cause for losing your security clearance.
Apparently, there’s a double standard, Clinton obviously did not lose his clearance. He did lose his lawyer’s license, not that it matters. And that was decided by some judges, who knows whether or not they were Republicans. It’s a little tiring hearing the double standard on Clinton. Any gov’t employee who held a clearance, if an affair was found out, would lose that clearance very fast. And that would lead to inability to do their job, which would lead to them losing their job.
I know why I’m back in moderation – I’m not at home (I’m on a business trip) using a computer I don’t often use. Must have logged in with a different e-mail address or something. I don’t think this is any moderation glitch, it just thinks I’m a new poster. No big deal!
Now you want to assassinate heads of state?
Those who live by the sword…
Mackie, do you qualify the missile strike Obama ordered recently that killed 18 on the Afghan-Pakistani border as “living by the sword”?
Just curious.
Wonder if his decisions will ever be investigated by the Justice Department.
A couple posts back, the Virginia Tech shooting was addressed. I tried to post but for some reason my posts weren’t going through so I’d like to post it here.
I’ve always felt that the way the events leading up to the shooting weren’t even explored was a real disgrace. Are we incapable of introspection as a nation?
And the fact that Nikki Giovanni is nowadays lauded as a heroine is an abomination considering that she probably did the most psychological and emotional damage to the student in her class known as Cho.
Abuse begets abuse, does it not?
I have done some research that indicates what most likely happened is that Cho Seung Hui actually snapped under the pressure of abuse he received at the hands of the English Department of Virginia Tech. Here is some sociological analysis of the conditions that pushed him over the brink. The analysis contends Cho was ‘mobbed’ by his peers and by the English Department. Contrast this sober analysis with the superficiality and over-the-top melodrama of the actual news coverage:
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/vtmassacre.htm
And here is a priceless firsthand account of a fellow English major who was persecuted by the very same English Department just a year before Cho. The persecution was due to his writing vividly, creatively, and without restraint. They tried to destroy him because he gave free range to his talent. This student was threatened with prison and almost had his child taken away by these mediocre professors. His essay about his experience and how it relates to Cho is powerful and eloquent. It filled me with sadness.
My favorite part:
http://truthaboutvtshooting.blogspot.com
James,
Honestly, it was deliberate. I noticed Anti was under the Liberal/Democrat category on your blog and wanted to return the favor. All in good fun though. 🙂
Mackie, you really have provided no proof of your theory and are relying on blob gossip. Reliable sources, including family members, have said that Cho had emotional problems for many years. Actually, your remarks about Dr. Giovanni and the English Dept at Tech are rather libelous.
I guess there is always a conspiracy about something in your world.
As for assassinating heads of state, isn’t that what ultimately happened anyway?
No proof? I linked you to a sociological analysis of the events leading up to the shooting prepared by Kenneth Westhues, Professor of Sociology at University of Waterloo.
Even more damning is the illuminating firsthand account of Joe Newbury’s victimization and persecution for nothing more than writing creatively.
Joe Newbury summed it up pretty well:
As for my remarks about the vaunted Nikki Giovanni being libelous…well…I guess she’ll just have to make some room in this world for someone else’s opinion besides her own. Her massive self-centered insecurities, that led her to flay an emotionally crippled young man alive in front of all his peers, notwithstanding. What she did was equivalent to a professor trying to force a quadriplegic to dance in front of class and then viciously kicking them out of class when they were unable to do so.
And she called Cho ‘evil’ and ‘mean’?
For sure his act was an act of evil. But it was not done in a vacuum. Sometimes people abuse their positions of authority. Sometimes the abuse is cruel and wicked and Nikki Giovanni truly deserves to be considered guilty in this respect.
Tragic events such as these rip the fabric of our society open for us to see the bleeding wounds underneath. We have a chance at these points to do the work necessary to improve our culture. Unfortunately in our comic book society with it’s comic book culture, the only acceptable interpretation of such profound and tragic events is inevitably of a comic nature. When we fail to ask the right questions because we’re afraid of the brutal answers, we end up failing the innocent people who paid the price for the deficits in our culture.
PUH-leez. One ‘sociological analysis’ doesn’t make it true. Were Dr. Giovanni not so well known would you be making such claims? How about Dr. Roy? Was she abusive also?
I honestly don’t want to hear anything about abuse to Cho, after he killed 32 people. There is no cause/effect relationship. Your attempts to justify his actions are typical of a society that excuses the most heinous crimes.
He really should not have been in school. He was too mentally ill, obviously.
Mackie, I work with creative writers all the time. Some writing is more disturbing than others. Some people even believe that good writing is MEANT to disturb.
However, if a student writer persists with particularly violent or deviant themes, constantly moving to the more and more grotesque, and if the student also seems to be a loner or to have some issues, it’s time dig a little deeper. Obviously, there is little an instructor can do alone, but for the safety of the student and others, teachers should try to keep an eye out.
While there may be a corelation between Cho’s classroom stress and his final action, there’s no cause/effect relationship. As MH says, Cho’s family knew he was mentally ill. The class might have been the proverbial straw that broke the back, but that straw could have been anything, really.
This is kind of a moot discussion because the academic, social science and political worlds have beaten the issue to death: what more could have been done, and how does this affect educational policy? If you want to read more, go to Inside Higher Ed and search “Cho” or “Virginia Tech.” You’ll get a whole lot more there than you will on any blog.
MH, I agree it would have been much better to knock off Saddam than torture or kill civilians and soldiers. War never offers good or kind answers, unfortunately, so we don’t know that any one thing would work.
I don’t believe in torture.
However, I once had this inner ear test where they shoot water into your eardrum. You want to pass out but you can’t. It’s HORRIBLE! They make you talk while the world is spinning. And let me tell you, you can’t lie. I’ve been thinking this would be a better option than waterboarding. It doesn’t do anything more than make you so dizzy and discombobulated that you want to puke after….worse than any bed spins you’ve ever had.
But then again, maybe terrorists are immune to vertigo.
The link you left on the Tech thread was disturbing. It was the rantings of another ego-maniac, hell bent on his own superiority.
When a person gets along with no one, I think it says something. I stopped reading. The author was obviously disturbed also.
@Mackie
Moon-howler,
Please don’t put those kinds of words in my mouth.
What Cho did was an act of pure evil that can never be excused.
My point, that you’re ignoring, is that we ought to look at the complete picture. The Massengil report looks to be little more than a cover up when you find they refused to investigate what the English Department had done to Joe Newbury just one year before the massacre.
As for Lucinda Roy, I think what she did to Joe Newbury was pretty abusive. Here current attempt to frame this tragedy in favorable terms while offering a tepid nonspecific apology smacks of damage control to me.
I think it’s also quite telling that Lucinda Roy feels Virginia Tech may retaliate against her now that she is offering her opinion. It goes to show exactly where the priorities of that institution lie. Why wouldn’t they want her to tell her story? One word. Money.
Fortunately for her, she has the resources and a support system to withstand the abuse.
If you’re talking about the link to Joe Newbury’s account of his persecution at the hands of the Va Tech English Department:
http://truthaboutvtshooting.blogspot.com
I don’t know why you would disparage this firsthand account of what it was like to be at the mercy of those professors. The dysfunctionality of that English department is laid bare in his essay.
Lucinda Roy is a hero for trying to deal with the tradegy in her own terms. She definitely has post traumatic stress symptoms and guilt for not being able to do more for him, and feels in some way responsible for the tradegy. If the university goes after her for speaking out, shame on them! They bungled the handling of the whole affair, not locking down the campus after the dorm room killings.
Kelly,
Waterboarding was used as far back as the inquisition. The Japanese used it on our soldiers and we called it torture. The reality is that if you want to go down that road, that all these approved methods are NOT considered torture, than the several army soldiers that are sitting in jail, right now, should be given pardons.
“rule of law” apparently is only relevant towards immigrants, not as a tool to uphold international law and treaties.
As far as Clinton goes, oral sex does not equate to illegal wiretapping and torture. I do understand your premise Gainesville regarding blackmail as a tool to gain top secret information. Maybe instead of making extramarital affairs public business and therefor a tool to use against elected officials, we just oughta take the stance….who cares who cheats on who. I didn’t care when Clinton did it, I didn’t care when Gingrich did it.
I would add, the distraction caused by the republicans and their “wag the dog” mentality did more to harm this country than the actual liason between Clinton and Lewinsky.
Elena, I don’t care who is having sex either.
Here’s a good one for you.
INTERESTING GLOBAL FACTS ABOUT SEX
At Any Given Moment
FACT:
79,000,000 people are engaged in sex – right now.
FACT:
58,000,000 are kissing.
FACT:
37,000,000 are relaxing after having sex.
FACT:
We’re blogging.
Kind of puts it all in perspective, doesn’t it?
We might not have a congress if affairs make a person eligible for being fired. What kind of security clearance do members of congress have or does it vary depending on committee?
I tend to agree with Elena about ‘wag the dog’ mentality. I don’t think that we, as a country, needed to go through all of that. it was a witch hunt and hurt our world standing…not because of what Clinton did or didn’t do, but how stupid the American people acted over it. I was out of the country when the story hit and people were dumbfounded over the way our country was reacting. It was a real eye opener to me.
I am not defending maritial infidelity and if I had been Hillary I might have had to get new luggage and have it monigrammed LB but….I am not Hillary.
Mackie, yes, that was the article. Doesn’t the person’s overly inflated opinion of themselves sort of jump out at you? From the article:
(speaking of his own writing might be an example) Does the author really say that his quality of writing is what keeps his writing from not being totally disturbed. Warning! WOOOOP WOOOP WOOOP! Just reading that account made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Perhaps I have had to deal with more off-balance people in my life than you have. Alarms and whistles went off as I read.
Thumper, that post was scandalous but also very funny.
@Moon-howler
Um…Edgar Allan Poe, Ernest Hemingway and Sylvia Plath also wrote quality prose. Look how they ended up.
I once wrote a paper for psychology class. It was on the relationship between genius and insanity. Not every genius is insane, and not every insane person is a genius.
The quality of the prose may mark a healthy, imaginative intellect. The rest of the brain could be way off, however.
BTW, the “truth” blogspot does sound like a snobbish English major who thinks he’s smarter than the rest of the world. There are lots of people like that in academia and otherwise.
And if he’s so against violence and corruption, why is he writing about force feeding kids a buttocks? Hmmmmm……
Look, fiction is part of the writer. It’s not always the prominent part, but it IS a part. I go back to my assertion that if a student is obsessed with violence, you might want to take a look at what s/he is doing in real life.
I’m going to put myself out there again. I am a writer. I have written some pretty dark, depressing stuff. Where did I get the idea to be so dark and depressing? From some darker and depressing parts of my life.
We all have a darker side. It’s when that darkness starts to shut out the light that we have some real problems.
Elena – tell that to the folks who hand out security clearances. Somehow, I find it a double standard that federal employees who hold clearances, can have their clearance revoked for having an affair, but the people at the top like Clinton can’t. I don’t make up the rules. So I’m not sure what you don’t understand about it – ask anyone who holds a high level security clearance about the chances of keeping it if it is found out you are having an affair. They would be slim to none. It’s a simple fact. Again, I don’t make the rules.
And I didn’t bring up Clinton on here, someone else did, so not sure why I’m the one being criticized for that.
The difference with Gingrich was he didn’t have a top level clearance, and as far as I know wasn’t on any DOD committee where some senators/congressmen DO hold clearances. If he did have a clearance, then yes, it should have been revoked too, and yes, if in that case he couldn’t serve on whatever DOD committee from the House, than yes, he should have lost his post on that committee and also be held accountable for risking his security clearance. Again, I don’t believe he held one, as far as I know. Apparently, it’s OK to have a double standard, that is what’s being said. Also lying/covering things up is another reason to lose your clearance. Even lying about former drug use, if found out, is a reason to lose it. In fact it is better to admit to it – if it is just marijuana, as far as I understand that is not a reason to lose a clearance.
I don’t care what anyone does either, but again I don’t make the rules for security clearances, and until they are changed, I find it funny that Clinton could risk his clearance (well, apparently not as he never did lose it) but hundreds of thousands of people would lose it for what Clinton did. They would then lose their job, if like mine, a requirement of the job is the ability to have and hold a clearance. We get yearly lectures on what things could cause loss of clearance, and infedility is right there up at the top. So until DOD changes the rules, that’s where I’m coming from – and the top person (the President) holding a high level clearance, needs to set the example (or else, HE needs to change the rules – why didn’t Clinton then change the rules on clearances?).
Gainesville, so when military people get busted for affairs is it the security clearance or is it something else? I know that fraternizing is definitely a way to lose your current rank. People have also been drummed out. I don’t know that much about it. I know a lot of people don’t get caught.
I have always liked Clinton as a president. While I cannot possibly justify his behavior nor try to defend him, I also don’t want him assassinated. I actually don’t think he should have been asked. That is where my protest begins. Those who didn’t like him to start with probably won’t have the same blind eye as I do. That’s just human nature.
War crimes vs. marital infidelity. Which is minor enough to be ignored for political purposes?
Most Americans are old enough to remember that half of Washington and most of the media spent 8 years hounding Clinton for every imaginary “scandal” they could come up with. Remember “travelgate?” That was supposed to end in impeachment. Nope. The American people were not dumb enough. Then it was “Whitewatergate.” Oops. Not dumb enough again. So then they settled on impeaching the President for cheating on Hillary.
Or, to be exact, for the “rule of law” infraction, that is not being explicit about which kind of sex he had with Monica, while he was under oath.
Now these same partisan blowhards are injecting partisan politics into a very simple question re. torture, war crimes, and the rule of law: Should the United States uphold and live by the laws and treaties we have signed and expect other nations to follow?
Republican partisans are trying to say “rule of law” doesn’t matter in America, not anymore anyway. AND, this is where they really have a lot of nerve, they are saying that anyone who wants America to adhere to the “rule of law” is doing it out of partisanship???
Worse, Obama believes them. He’s saying the same thing basically.
But really, Obama’s motive is political agenda. He doesn’t want a partisan war getting in his way. The rule of law should not be optional. Even when you have a political agenda that most Americans agree with.
Applying the “rule of law” should be a consistent standard, no matter what party is involved in the breaches of that law. And no matter if the law was broken by the most powerful among us. I am so angry that Bush and Cheny saw fit to blame, scapegoat, and imprison our soldiers who were just following orders. We cannot let that stand. We now know those were the orders. That was the policy. If the people who created that policy are not accountable, those soldiers should be released from prison and have their records expunged.
ShellyB: I absolutely agree that the rule of law must be upheld. Torture must not be tolerated. But that does not mean that illegal combatants have to be made comfortable. So the question is, where does discomfort end and torture begin? The Bush Justice Department stated that waterboarding is not torture; the Obama Justice Department says that it is. The way that waterboarding is applied may well determine whether it crosses the line into torture or not.
The only ways to clarify the issue are through legislation and the courts. Because the law is not clear, any prosecutions of past acts would not be fair.
If this was such a moral issue, then opponents should have taken on the Bush Administration while it was in power using those two methods. The Courts forced the Bush Administration to provide illegal combatants with access to the US justice system, rather than relying on tribunals. Similarly, opponents could have initiated lawsuits to prevent the Bush Administration from waterboarding illegal combatants. Congress could have have inserted language in funding bills for the Global War on Terror to forbid waterboarding. None of these actions were taken by Obama and Co in the four years since this tactic was first revealed.
So I find this moral outrage to be political posturing. I do not care about the other issues that you brought up.
Well, Kelly, we were all lied to by the Bush Administration. They told us it was a “few bad apples” but torture was in fact their secret policy. And the went to incredible extra-legal lengths to make it sound as if war crimes were legal in these documents that were released. And they did it all in secret without any oversight, and only a few members of Congress were briefed, and they were not allowed to share the information with anyone, even their own staff members. War crimes can become “legal” with no one held accountable if everything is done in secret, and the pubic is lied to, i.e. America does not torture. Those who were really paying attention tried to say, “It’s not fair to blame our soldiers, it’s not fair to convict and imprison our soldiers, it’s the orders they were given, it’s the POLICY that was wrong.” Like Janice Karpinsky, who also was a victim of the cover up.
Because of the ability to use secrecy and pretend it is for “national security” that they hid their war crimes, we do not have definitive proof until now.
But like I said, I am open to the idea of what Obama is saying. Let’s just move on because it is inconvenient to face up to what we have done. It will get in the way of my great achievements. And maybe those achievements will be more important than our moral standing, and the “shining city on the hill” we once stood for. But I also would like to have that back. And to do that we’d have to acknowledge what happened, and acknowledge that it was against the law, and against anti-torture treaties we have signed.
You seem happy to accept the “spin” coming from the same gang who has been lying to us all along. But there is no legitimate question about whether laws were broken. You are deceived if you believe that. The only question is whether it is better for the country to ignore the law in the interest of “moving forward,” and lower our nation to the shadowy valley below the hill.
But if we are the shadowy valley below the hill, then we don’t have the right to lead the world on matters of human rights or war crimes. And that would be not only a loss for America, it would be a loss for the world.
MH – been busy so just saw your question now. I’ve never been in the military so that is different. However, military people usually hold clearances, so if someone finds out about an affair that usually leads to a loss of clearance. But they have other rules I think as far as fraternization, I don’t know much about that.
Anyway, Clinton also flip-flopped on a classified program I was working on. He came into office, canceled it – then a year later decided oops, we need it, and wanted the same people working on it. I had already left that job at IBM as he also canceled a bunch of other projects that were going on at the Manassas location. It was not Congress, it was him directly along with the Secretary of Defense. They bungled that one, and the people who did work that program screwed it up badly. One of the untold stories of Clinton’s early years in office. The program is still classified so I can’t talk about it more than that. Given that, I’m not a Clinton fan for that reason. Initially he and his Secretary of Defense were briefed on the importance of the program but they thought in their ignorance it was not needed. It was a vital national security program, that later on they realized without it there was a gaping hole in our security, which they then tried to close by resurrecting it. That has nothing to do with the issue of the security clearance, but explains why I’m no Clinton fan. He didn’t listen to the briefing, which he was personaly given by someone high up in the military. Later on I heard that military high-up resigned in protest when Clinton resurrected the program, or maybe when he canceled it – I forget which, back in July 1993. Resurrected it in July 1994 at a higher cost than if it was kept going and never canceled. This is in the black program budget that not many people see other than certain members of Congress, but they have little oversight over it.