-Caveat Lector- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > WND Exclusive Commentary > by: Jon Dougherty > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Clinton committing America to suicide > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com > > The "war" in Kosovo, now that an unworkable peace has been established, is no longer > featured on the front pages of most major U.S. newspapers. All we are left with is >cleaning > up the mess, picking up the costs of our damage, patting Clinton on the back for his >"military > genius," and babysitting two warring factions -- again -- for the next millennium. > > A far more dire military situation than Kosovo has evolved, however, in regards to >U.S. national > security. And no matter how you try to spin it, the seriousness of it is nobody's >fault except > William Jefferson Clinton. As de facto "commander" of the U.S. military and >president of this > great nation, ultimately it is he who sets national security policies real military >leaders must follow. > > For years defense experts and, in some cases, serving military commanders have been >trying > to warn Americans that the Clinton administration is decapitating U.S. nuclear >weapons systems > to the point where many are now non-existent. Simultaneously, with the help of a >compliant > mainstream press, Americans have been told that those concerns are unfounded because >Russia > and China are no enemies of this state, that they too are disarming as we are, and >that no Russian > or Chinese nuclear threats exist in the first place. Besides, Clinton apologists >maintain, even if > they were a threat, neither can match the "power, reach and technological >superiority" of the > United States. > > Maybe in 1988 after the Reagan years, but in terms of military technology that was a >long time > ago. And as hundreds of thousands of current and former military personnel will >attest, a lot can > happen -- or not happen -- in a decade. > > At this time our nuclear force is a shell of what it once was, which would be just >peachy if the > United States did not face any threats to our existence from potential enemies with >similar or > better nuclear capabilities. But America does face those threats, and the list of >countries that > could be aligned against us in the future is growing. Worse, the U.S. has either >directly provided > much of the necessary upgrading technology or, at a minimum, has -- via the >taxpayers -- paid > for upgrading the newest weapons systems. > > Hostile countries are now fielding those weapons and, if you care to, you can take a >guess as > to where they are being aimed. > > It's one thing to shut down a tank production line or scale back the number of B-2 >bombers you > plan to build. But in this day and age, it's quite a different (and more dangerous) >thing to > unilaterally rid yourself of nuclear weapons. But that is what the Clinton >administration is doing. > > Here's a rundown of our current unilateral nuclear disarmament: > > •Clinton has signed Presidential Decision Directive 60, which changed the onus of >our nuclear > response. In the past the U.S. military has been able to "respond on warning" of a >nuclear attack. > No longer; Clinton has required our military commanders to receive direct approval >from him before > they can order the retaliatory launch of U.S. nuclear weapons against a country who >launched at > us first, even though U.S. commanders would know within seconds -- via satellite -- >when an > enemy's missiles were launched, and from where. > > •Clinton has ordered that America reduce her nuclear warhead deployment to 2,500 >warheads -- > far fewer than Russia, and before Russia has even considering ratifying a treaty >limiting warhead > deployment. This means, essentially, that the doctrine of "MAD" -- Mutually Assured >Destruction -- > no longer applies because the Russians can destroy our retaliatory capability at >once, and still > have enough inventory in reserve in case they need to launch further nuclear strikes. > > •According to Joel M. Skousen, a political scientist and avid Russia analyst, "The >most savvy > Soviet-watchers can point to a host of evidence indicating that the so-called >'collapse' was > engineered to disarm the West and garner billions in direct aid to assist Russia >while inducing > the West to take over the economic burden of the former satellite states. But the >most ominous > evidence is found in defectors from Russia who tell the same story: Russia is >cheating on all > aspects of disarmament, and is siphoning off billions in Western aid money to >modernize and > deploy top-of-the-line new weapons systems aimed at taking down the U.S. military in >one huge, > decapitating nuclear strike." > > •Though considered at one time, the Clinton administration has killed any effort to >build a U.S. > -version of a mobile nuclear ICBM. The conventional nuclear missile deployment >wisdom in other > countries rejects the notion of a fixed in-ground launch site because of the U.S.'s >ability to locate > and target those sites. And since those countries do not possess the number of >weapons America > has, they have opted to build and deploy mobile missiles because they're harder to >target and destroy. > > •Clinton has refused to acknowledge the absolute necessity of an advanced >anti-ballistic missile > defense system (ABM), even though the proliferation of these weapons has increased >nearly 5-fold > since he became president. > > •Clinton has ordered all nuclear weapons production halted, while the Russians, >Chinese, Indians, > Pakistanis and North Koreans continue to develop them. Our current top ICBM, the >Peacemaker, > is over ten years old and the technology is stagnant. > > •There are reports that the new Russian Topol-M ICBM has technology incorporated >within its > warhead that scrambles U.S. radar signals necessary to target them with an ABM >system. Without > new research and testing, the U.S. cannot possibly develop the necessary >countermeasure to > defeat this technology, which leaves us vulnerable. > > •While the Russians especially have a large and complex civil defense program, the >U.S. has > abandoned any notion of civil defense, leaving every man, woman and child at risk >during a nuclear attack. > > •PDD 60 also forbids any naval sub nuclear retaliation without direct contact with >the president. > This is a mistake considering any first strike by an enemy would almost certainly >destroy most, > if not all, U.S. communications links. > > Clearly, military policies like these serve only to weaken this nation and commit it >to suicide. > What I can't figure out is where in the United States Bill Clinton thinks he'll be >safe from the > fallout > of countless nuclear attacks made possible by his own clueless irresponsibility? >Hollywood? > Jon E. Dougherty is a senior writer and columnist for WorldNetDaily, as well as a >morning > co-host of Daybreak America. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
