Clinton administration

From Conservapedia
(Redirected from Clinton Administration)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wag the dog.jpg

The Clinton administration (from January 1993 to January 2001) was characterized by a budget surplus, free trade internationally, military interventions in southeastern Europe, missile strikes at key moments whenever his approval ratings fell to 47%, reform of the Great Society welfare system, and impeachment. While Bill Clinton claimed credit, most of the success in his era can be traced to Republican majorities in Congress that crafted welfare reforms and a budget surplus.

Clinton voter Coalition

Bill Clinton
1994 cartoon by Tom Toles shows Clinton was all things to all people

Focus groups and opinion polling

Needham (2005) argues the "permanent campaign" is said to have reached its apogee in the incumbent communications strategies of Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. However, their assiduous courting of public opinion while in office has been used to explain both the high approval ratings of these leaders and their unpopularity for long periods of their incumbency. This apparent paradox suggests that the permanent campaign model is too blunt an instrument to usefully describe or evaluate incumbent communications. Its assumption of continuity between election campaigning and office-holding fails to explain how the strategic terrain changes once a challenger takes office. The concepts of branding and relationship marketing can be used to highlight the difference between gaining support in the one-off transaction of an election and retaining voter loyalty in a post-"purchase" setting. The success of Blair and Clinton in establishing a relationship with voters from within office can be assessed using six attributes of successful brands: simplicity, uniqueness, reassurance, aspiration, values, and credibility. As incumbents, facing challenges in shifting strategic and institutional environments, Blair and Clinton developed messages that were simple and appealed to voter aspirations. Voters remained sceptical about the extent to which these leaders embodied values and delivered on their promises.

Suspicions often arose during Clinton's tenure about the timing of cruise missile attacks to manipulate public sympathy at crucial points when his approval ratings sagged. On several occasions [1] generally when the approval ratings dipped to 47%, surprise cruise missile attacks[2] were launched which resulted in a 10-point gain in the public opinion polls. Nick Gillespie of Reason remarked,

Consider, for instance, the relative lack of scrutiny accorded the August 20 cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan … immediately after the bombing, polls showed that close to half of all Americans thought the missile strikes were meant to divert attention from the president's sex life… the Sudanese bombing suggests something else as well: If and when the public's and the media's attention shifts from the president's sex life to wider-ranging inquiries about how he makes deadly serious policy decisions…"[3]

Voter demographics

Bill Clinton with Clinton Foundation co-founder Jeffrey Epstein.
The Presidential Vote in Social Groups (percentages)
% of
% of 3-party vote
1992 1996
Social group Clinton Bush Perot Clinton Dole Perot
Total vote 43 38 19 49 41 8
Party and ideology
2 Liberal Republicans 17 54 30 44 48 9
13 Moderate Republicans 15 63 21 20 72 7
21 Conservative Republicans 5 82 13 6 88 5
4 Liberal Independents 54 17 30 58 15 18
15 Moderate Independents 43 28 30 50 30 17
7 Conservative Independents 17 53 30 19 60 19
13 Liberal Democrats 85 5 11 89 5 4
20 Moderate Democrats 76 9 15 84 10 5
6 Conservative Democrats 61 23 16 69 23 7
Gender and marital status
33 Married men 38 42 21 40 48 10
33 Married women 41 40 19 48 43 7
15 Unmarried men 48 29 22 49 35 12
20 Unmarried women 53 31 15 62 28 7
83 White 39 40 20 43 46 9
10 Black 83 10 7 84 12 4
5 Hispanic 61 25 14 72 21 6
1 Asian 31 55 15 43 48 8
46 White Protestant 33 47 21 36 53 10
29 Catholic 44 35 20 53 37 9
3 Jewish 80 11 9 78 16 3
17 Born Again, religious right 23 61 15 26 65 8
17 18–29 years old 43 34 22 53 34 10
33 30–44 years old 41 38 21 48 41 9
26 45–59 years old 41 40 19 48 41 9
24 60 and older 50 38 12 48 44 7
6 Not a high school graduate 54 28 18 59 28 11
24 High school graduate 43 36 21 51 35 13
27 Some college education 41 37 21 48 40 10
26 College graduate 39 41 20 44 46 8
17 Post graduate education 50 36 14 52 40 5
Family income
11 Under $15,000 58 23 19 59 28 11
23 $15,000–$29,999 45 35 20 53 36 9
27 $30,000–$49,999 41 38 21 48 40 10
39 Over $50,000 39 44 17 44 48 7
18 Over $75,000 36 48 16 41 51 7
9 Over $100,000 38 54 6
23 East 47 35 18 55 34 9
26 Midwest 42 37 21 48 41 10
30 South 41 43 16 46 46 7
20 West 43 34 23 48 40 8
Community size
10 Population over 500,000 58 28 13 68 25 6
21 Population 50,000 to 500,000 50 33 16 50 39 8
39 Suburbs 41 39 21 47 42 8
30 Rural areas, towns 39 40 20 45 44 10

Source: Voter News Service exit poll, reported in The New York Times, November 10, 1996, p. 28.

Crime Bill of 1994

The Superpredator Act of 1994. Feinstein, Kerry and Biden are clearly visible with President Clinton. The bill is known for its sentencing disparities which led to mass incarceration of Blacks.[4]
See also: The New Jim Crow

In the wake of the Central Park jogger attack, Democrats took action to deal with what they perceived as a problem with "Superpredators." Sen. Joseph Biden boasted of his greatest legislative achievement passage of the 1994 Crime bill which locked up 10% o\\\\\\f the Black adult male population of the United States.[5][6]

When President George H.W. Bush asked for a record increase in funding to fight the War on Drugs, Biden told a TV interviewer
"In a nutshell, the President's plan does not include enough police officers to catch the violent thugs, enough prosecutors to convict them, enough judges to sentence them or enough prison cells to put them away for a long time."[7][8]

Biden, Ted Kennedy, and Strom Thurmond worked on proposals that raised maximum penalties, removed a directive requiring the US Sentencing Commission to take into account prison capacity, and created the cabinet-level “drug czar” position. In 1984, they passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which, among other things, abolished parole, imposed a less generous cap on “good time” sentence reductions, and allowed the Sentencing Commission to issue more punitive guidelines.

Biden bragged on the Senate floor that it was under his and Thurmond's leadership that Congress passed a law sending anyone caught with a rock of cocaine the size of a quarter to jail for a minimum of five years - the notoriously racist hundred-to-one sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. In the same speech Biden took credit for civil asset forfeiture and seizure laws, and demanded to know why Papa Bush hadn't sentenced more drug dealers to life in prison or exercise the death penalty once Congress had given him that power.[9]

Biden's version of a new crime bill added more than forty crimes that would be eligible for the death penalty. Biden boasted “we do everything but hang people for jaywalking.”[10] The NAACP and other groups lobbied against the bill.[11] Although the 1991 crime bill was defeated by Republicans, the 1994 Biden/Clinton crime bill was passed.[12]

By 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Human Rights Watch reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level they had been under Ronald Reagan.[13] Biden's "social planning" had proven effective.

The Leftist Jacobin magazine summed up Biden's record:
"It’s not as if Biden didn’t know what he was doing.... He just didn’t care. Biden had made a calculated decision that the elections he would win were worth the damage he inflicted....
But even if Biden has subsequently learned the error of his ways, the rank cynicism and callousness involved in his two-decade-long championing of carceral policies should be more than enough to give anyone pause about his qualities as a leader, let alone a progressive one."[14]

Healthcare fiasco

Main article: Clinton health care plan of 1993

In 1993, the Bill Clinton proposed a significant government-run health care reform package. Clinton had avoided discussing health care plans during the 1992 election campaign. Despite prohibitions on nepotism he set up a task force headed by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, to come up with a "comprehensive plan" to enforce universal socialized health care on all Americans, which in addition to the gay agenda was a cornerstone of the administration's first-term. Various documents relating to the how the Task Force spent government funds still as of yet have not been disclosed.

The recommendation, announced by President Bill Clinton in an address to Congress on September 22, 1993, consisted largely of buzzwords and slogans developed through focus groups with a complicated proposal running more than 1,000 pages. The plan called for a mandate on job creators and employers to withhold the cost of health insurance (equal to one-eighth of GDP) from workers paychecks and funnel money to health maintenance organizations (HMOs). The plan dubbed "Hillary Care", was well received by liberal political leaders and socialist commentators, and was promoted by mainstream media organizations as likely to pass the Democratic-controlled Congress.

As the 1994 mid-term elections approached public opinion soured on the plan because it was overly bureaucratic, expensive, inefficient and restrictive of patient's rights and free choice. The effort to bring about rejection of the legislation included minimal advertising criticizing the plan, including the famous Harry and Louise ad, which depicted a middle-class couple despairing over the plan's bureaucratic nature.

Meanwhile, Democrats headed for cover and tried to disassociated themselves from the President, offering competing plans of their own. Some liberals criticized the plan, preferring a Canadian-style single payer system.

On September 26, 1994, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell announced that the plan was dead and did not even bother holding a vote on the bill to force Senators to go on record. The defeat weakened Clinton politically, and contributed to widespread public frustration with the remnants of New Deal socialism. In the 1994 election, the Republican revolution gave the GOP control of both houses of Congress, ending the threat of a Clinton-sponsored health care plan.

Political analysts observed the success of the Republican Party was the result of the Clinton Administration attempting to move the country towards socialism at the very moment the failures of socialism were so evident worldwide.

1993 World Trade Center bombing and aftermath

The terrorist group al-Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, simultaneous bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and an attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

Jamie S. Gorelick served as Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno and authored the 1995 Gorelick memo, erecting a wall of separation between CIA intelligence gathering activities and FBI counterintelligence activities. The Wall Street Journal reported that "during the investigation of the first World Trade Center bombing, Gorelick instructed then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and United States Attorney Mary Jo White that for the sake of "appearances" they would be required to adhere to an interpretation of the wall far stricter than the law required. [2] The Journal also noted, "the Mary Jo White prosecutions and the 2001 Moussaoui arrest were among our best chances to uncover and unravel the al Qaeda network before it struck the homeland. But thanks in part to the Clinton Administration's concern with appearances and in part to its legacy, these investigations were hamstrung. [3] Scott Wheeler observed, "Because the memo created a barrier for U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the FBI, one of its unintended consequences might have been to prevent the FBI from receiving the necessary intelligence to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the worst in American history.[15]

Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft told the 9/11 investigating commission, "The simple fact of September 11th is this ... We did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies. Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls." [15]

Ramzi Yousef, who delivered the explosives in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing killing six people, is the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a top figure in al-Qaeda. After the September 2001 attack, it was the opinion of many investigators and analysts that the perpetrators of that attack had a state sponsor - Iraq. A number of details, including the fact that Yousef was travelling on an Iraqi passport, as well as the date of the 1993 attack - the second anniversary of the U.S. liberation of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War - furthered suspicions of Iraqi involvement in the 1993 incident. His uncle, Sheikh Mohammed was one of the masterminds the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, and was arrested in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003.[16] The Clinton administration neutered the American intelligence agencies that could have stopped the September 11 plot.[17]

Proposal to privatize Social Security

Performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since Clinton asked to privatize Social Security; Clinton made his proposal at or near the top of the investment cycle when stocks were overvalued, prior to the crash.

In 1999 President Clinton proposed investing the Social Security Trust Fund in what some might consider "risky" assets in the stock market and bonds. The stock market then was in the late stages of a bull market cycle with stock prices and indexes overvalued. Clinton told a joint meeting fo the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate,

I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector, just as any private or State Government pension would do.[18]

Opioid epidemic

The Clinton administration ignored scientific data and allowed the mass distribution of opioids.[19]


See also: History of Democrat racism

Wen Ho Lee was a Taiwanese-American scientist who worked for the University of California at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Lee was publicly named by United States Department of Energy officials, including Secretary Bill Richardson, as a suspect in the theft of classified nuclear-related documents from Los Alamos.[20] Richardson was criticized by the Senate for his handling of the espionage inquiry by not testifying in front of Congress sooner. Richardson was less than truthful in his response by saying that he was waiting to uncover more information before speaking to Congress.[21]

On December 10, 1999, Lee was arrested, indicted on 59 counts, and jailed in solitary confinement without bail for 278 days until September 13, 2000, when he accepted a plea bargain from the federal government. Lee was released on time served after the government's case against him could not be proven.[20] He was ultimately charged with only one count of mishandling sensitive documents that did not require pre-trial solitary confinement, while the other 58 counts were dropped. Just before releasing Lee, Judge Parker told him: "It is only the top decision makers in the Executive Branch ... who have caused embarrassment by the way this case began and was handled. They did not embarrass me alone. They have embarrassed our entire nation and each of us who is a citizen of it. I might say that I am also sad and troubled because I do not know the real reasons why the Executive Branch has done all of this.'[22]

While Judge Parker was uncertain as to the "real reasons" behind the Executive Branch's actions, Wen Ho Lee's supporters have asserted that the Clinton administration targeted Lee because of his race.[23] They contend that the government engaged in illegal racial profiling when it investigated, prosecuted, and terminated the employment of Wen Ho Lee.[24]

Foreign Policy

Critics of Clinton argued that he lacked a knowledge of world affairs. In his 1992 speech at the Democrat National Convention, he devoted one minute to foreign policy issues in an oration that lasted an hour.[25] Clinton entered office after the U.S. won the Cold War, and the U.S. was the only superpower. There were no major foreign crisis during his presidency. His foreign policy was based on five principles: 1) strong alliances with Europe and Asia, 2) positive relations with former adversaries, 3) a global perspective on local conflicts, 4) the adaptation of national security priorities to incorporate technological advances, and 5) effective economic integration.[26]

Butfoy (2006) argues that in the 1990s the "revolution in military affairs" (RMA), which produced "smart" weapons like cruise missiles, came of age. This apparently transformed how America viewed the relationship between force and international relations. It looked as though technology was framing foreign policy. In particular, smart weapons enabled Clinton to combine risk minimization with an expanded security agenda. However, we should be wary of ascribing technological determinism to the conflicts of the 1990s dominated by Washington's flexing of its strategic superiority, such as its bombing of Belgrade. As shown by comparison with US strategy after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Washington's stance in the 1990s was shaped by linkages between technology and specific political circumstances. As these circumstances changed, so did the RMA's place in US efforts to shape world order.

North Korean nukes

Clinton gave low-priority to foreign policy issues and anything that would take the focus off his domestic agenda.

From 1985 to 1992, North Korea "bought time" for its nuclear weapons program by entering into a series of agreements under which it promised to "de-weaponize" its reactors and halt further production of plutonium. Clinton wanted to remove the possibility of a crisis before his 1996 re-election bid. By Clinton's second, however, North Korea violated the terms of most of the non-proliferation agreements, and simply abandoned compliance with the rest.

In 1994 Clinton signed an agreement on paper with Kim Il-sung accepting a vague promise that North Korea would temporarily halt its work on a nuclear weapon. The "agreement" was known as the "Agreed Framework."[27] The agreement gave North Korea food and oil. In addition to oil, the United States and others rendered free, unconditional food aid while not demanding any real reform of its inefficient, Stalinist agricultural system.[28]

By 2000, the food and other forms of aid Clinton gave North Korea amounted to over $61 million. By 2003, the North Korean regime amassed enough time and resources to build and test a nuclear device.


Clinton tried to contain Iraq, and used military attacks to make the point. Clinton launched a small cruise missile attack against Iraq in 1993 as a response to a suspected terrorist assassination attempt made on former President George H. W. Bush in Kuwait. In 1998, Clinton threatened military action when Iraq denied full access to UN weapons inspectors. On February 11, 1998, Bill Richardson told Margaret Warner of the PBS News Hour regarding Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction,

"We think this man is a threat to the international community, and he threatens a lot of the neighbors in his region and future generations there with anthrax and VX....Are we going to stand back and allow Saddam Hussein to continue developing Weapons of Mass Destruction?"[29]

1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

See also: Near abroad

At the time of Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine held the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, including an estimated 1,800 strategic warheads, 176 long-range ballistic missiles, and 42 strategic bombers.

To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the December 5, 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The memorandum included assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine's territory or political independence. The countries promised to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine.

The United States took custody and control of Ukraine's obsolete nuclear stockpiles for disposal in exchange for assurances by the United States and NATO to safeguard Ukraine's independence. Ukraine was coaxed to give up it nuclear weapons in exchange for a written pledge, should Ukraine ever be threatened or invaded, the United States would be there to intervene with military power.

By 1996, Ukraine had returned all of its operational nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for economic aid and security assurances, and Ukraine became a non-nuclear weapon state party to the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The last strategic nuclear delivery vehicle in Ukraine was eliminated in 2001 under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). It took years of political maneuvering and diplomatic work, starting with the Lisbon Protocol in 1992, to remove the weapons and nuclear infrastructure from Ukraine.[30]

Human Rights

Supporters of human rights faulted Clinton's ideological transition from Wilsonian idealism to realism, especially regarding China and Bosnia. They gave high marks for his efforts at pushing peace negotiations in Haiti and the Middle East, the use of economic sanctions against North Korea, India, and Pakistan, and his efforts to get a chemical weapons convention. However, they give low marks in terms of human rights for inaction on the genocide in Rwanda and the Russian repression of secessionist Chechnya.

Middle East

There was little progress in the Middle East, where US support for Israel angered the Arabs. While Clinton made some accomplishments, including the 1993 Oslo Accords, the death of Israel's prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 slowed the peace process. The election of Ehud Barak as prime minister in May 1999 appeared to give the president his last chance to achieve a foreign policy success. A meeting at Camp David between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Barak in December 2000 produced a plan to create a Palestinian state in about 95% of the West Bank and Gaza. The plan was not accepted by the public on either side. President Clinton's hesitant political style was partially responsible for the lack of a lasting peace settlement.====Japan==== Relations with Japan, the main American ally in Asia, started off poorly. Yet by 2000, both sides realized how important friendship was, and this led to a redefinition and strengthening of the US-Japanese alliance. Although some changes have occurred in the asymmetry of power in the post-Cold War alliance with the relationship becoming less unequal, US interests still dominate, for the weakness of the Japanese economy limited its self-confidence.


Clinton started off with heavy criticism of the lack of human rights in China. The main issue was Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status for China, favored by China and American business and farm interests but strongly opposed by religious and human rights groups. Clinton's policy, which began with a 1993 executive order to make MFN status conditional on Chinese reforms, changed as lobbyists pushed a trade relationship with China and forced the issue to be separated from the government's human rights policies.

As the Chinagate scandal progressed, Bill Clinton adjusted his China policy in 1996 and advocated dialogue and engagement; this led to a change in relations. But Washington continued to criticize China on the issues of Hong Kong, human rights, trade, arms sales, Taiwan, and questionable political donations to US election campaigns. Clinton welcomed General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, genocidal mass murderer of Falun Gong and Butcher of Tiannanen Square Jiang Zemin's to the White House. The major factors affecting the relationship include: the enduring impact of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre when the Communist Party crushed a democratic movement with the army; the negative coverage of China by American media, American psychological insecurity caused by the rise of China, and US domestic politics grappling with a thirst for cheap Chinese manufactured goods while American factories shut down and jobs fleeing to China.


Relations with India were expected to improve following the end of the Cold War. They did not do so as both sides mishandled relations. The contradictory policies of the Clinton administration that simultaneously pressured India to liberalize its economy while criticizing New Delhi on human rights and nuclear issues undermined the very officials who strove to improve ties. In the face of criticism from Washington and opposition at home, Indian diplomats lost their enthusiasm for rapprochement. The controversy that surrounded the passage of the Brown Amendment, which restored aid to Pakistan in 1995 despite Islamabad's violation of the 1985 Pressler Amendment, is a case study of the delicate nature of the Indo-American relationship. In resurrecting Cold War rhetoric, Indian parliamentarians and American congressmen demonstrated their unwillingness to establish a new relationship. However the George W. Bush administration reversed policy and developed close, friendly ties to India.


Relations with Canada went smoothly. Thanks to the precedent set by the Brian Mulroney government and the administration of George H.W. Bush in the resolution of issues such as the acid rain problem and the Pacific salmon dispute. A friendly relationship between the Canadian prime minister Jean Chrétien and Clinton helped, as did the strong economic growth enjoyed by both countries. In addition, there were multilateral and bilateral institutions in place, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, to resolve some major disagreements. However, the relationship faces a number of challenges in the future. While concerns about ballistic missile attacks and threats of international terrorism are priorities for Americans, Canadians do not share those concerns but view the importation of American culture into their country with trepidation, and there are no institutional structures in place to resolve disagreements on these particular issues.

Mexico and NAFTA

Clinton, with GOP help, passed a free trade agreement over the objection of most Democrats and labor unions. The implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) generated political disagreements and stress in Mexico, involving issues of economics, labor unions, environmentalism, and international power. Mexico's financial crisis of 1993–95, which led to peso devaluation and new dislocations in that country, and disputes between Clinton and the Congress also exacerbated NAFTA's implementation. Nonetheless, the positive consequences of NAFTA included increases in Mexican imports to the United States and shifts in the trade balance in Mexico's favor.

NATO and Eastern Europe

Accused of war crimes in Yugoslavia, Madeleine Albright (left) Clinton (center); Ukrainian nazi colluder Joe Biden (right).[31]

Much attention was devoted to Eastern Europe.

Clinton actively promoted the expansion of NATO to the east, over the objections of Russia. Russia wanted to maintain some degree of control over its former satellites, and they wanted true independence. The NATO expansion was a political decision. An expanded NATO gave full play to political functions aimed at merging East European nations into NATO and bringing about their transformation into Western-style political and economic systems. NATO members will continue to work toward containing Russia if it fails to integrate itself into the West and returns to its traditional expansionist practices. The Russian transformation and NATO's adjustment influenced each other.

Russia and Ukraine

President Richard Nixon sent Clinton a letter on March 21, 1994, after returning from a secret fact finding mission for Clinton to Russia, Ukraine, Germany and London. Nixon wrote about CIA puppet leader Russian president Boris Yeltsin “As one of Yeltsin’s first supporters in this country and as one who continues to admire him for his leadership in the past, I have reluctantly concluded that his situation has rapidly deteriorated since the elections in December, and that the days of his unquestioned leadership of Russia are numbered...His drinking bouts are longer and his periods of depression are more frequent...Most troublesome, he can no longer deliver on his commitments to you and other Western leaders in an increasingly anti-American environment in the Duma and in the country...American and Russian businessmen are ripping off the aid programs shamelessly. In the past two years, Russians have sent over $25 billion of Switzerland and other safe havens....The Russians are serious people...One of the reasons Khrushchev was put on the shelf back in 1964 is that the proud Russians became ashamed of his crude antics at the U.N. and in other international forums....the situation in Ukraine is highly explosive. If it is allowed to get out of control it will make Bosnia look like a PTA garden party....If there is one thing I would bet on at the present time, it is that God is alive in in Russia; communism is dead.”[32]


With the breakup of Yugoslavia civil wars erupted leading to genocide. With NATO support—but without UN approval—Clinton sent in the US Air Force to launch air strikes on Serbs in Bosnia and later deployed twenty thousand troops. The goal was to protect Muslim Bosnians from genocidal attacks from the Serbs. The policy eventually worked in Bosnia but later had to be extended to nearby Kosovo. Clinton briefly consulted Congress, but promised the troops would soon leave. They remained for years.


Biden war crimes in the bombing of Belgrade.[33]

There was no internationally significant human rights crisis in Kosovo immediately prior to the NATO bombardment that justified its intervention on behalf of the ethnic-Albanian population. The problems of warfare that existed in Kosovo were largely a result of Clinton's support for the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a narco-terrorist organization[34] linked to al Qaeda, with the intent of causing a crisis that justified intervention. The intervention was not humanitarian. NATO failed to produce evidence of massacres approaching anywhere near its claims. The intervention was illegal, destructive, and based on fraudulent claims.[35] According to Professor Robert Hayden from the University of Pittsburgh:

"NATO's attacks have been aimed against civilian targets since literally the first night of the bombing, when a tractor factory in the Belgrade suburb of Rakovica was destroyed by cruise missiles. Since then NATO targets have included roads, railroad tracks and bridges hundreds of miles from Kosovo, power plants, factories of many kinds, food processing and sugar processing plants, water pumping stations, cigarette factories, central heating plants for civilian apartment blocks, television studios, post offices, non-military government administrative buildings, ski resorts, government official residences, oil refineries, civilian airports, gas stations, and chemical plants. NATO's strategy is not to attack Yugoslavia's army directly, but rather to destroy Yugoslavia itself, in order to weaken the army. With this strategy it is military losses that are "collateral damage," because most of the attacks are aimed at civilian targets."

The level of damage done to clearly non-military infrastructural targets in Serbia would seem to render NATO military commanders and at least some NATO political leaders liable to the same charge that was made against Ratko Mladi and Radovan Karadi by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), "extensive destruction of property:" that they individually and in concert with others planned, instigated, ordered or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of the extensive, wanton and unlawful destruction of ... property, not justified by military necessity or knew or had reason to know that subordinates were about to destroy or permit others to destroy ... property or had done so and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent this destruction or to punish the perpetrators thereof."

The war supposedly in defense of human rights has produced war crimes by NATO, and a civilian casualty rate that is at least three time higher than the casualty rate of the "intolerable" violations of human rights that NATO was supposedly acting to correct.[36]


In Africa, Clinton expressed the exasperation of the American public after decades of single-party rule involving massive misuse and pillage of the continent's resources by local dictators. Clinton called for an end to protected European economic and commercial zones and for open competition on terms that would gradually eliminate African dependency. The Americans, in an effort to promote both democracy and prosperity, urged the African political class to create regimes in their states responsible to the people, to accept participation by opposition parties, and to install rigorous accounting and management procedures. Congress and public opinion supported the new initiatives, which involved much less public assistance to Africa and a great deal more private investment and mutually profitable trade. Essentially, American policy challenged African leaders to undertake reforms that would make them artisans of their own futures.


But for the efforts of President Clinton and his administration, and his special envoy Senator George Mitchell, the Good Friday Agreement (1998) reached between the British government, Irish republicans, and Ulster unionists would be impossible and the troubles would still be going on.


  1. The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism, Byron York, National Review Online, September 11, 2006.
  2. Airstrikes Against Iraq: 'What Happens Now?', U.S. Information Agency Daily Digest, December 21, 1998.
  3. Bombs Away - Troubling questions about the U.S. attack on Sudan, Reason, December 1998.
  10. The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America, Naomi Murakawa, Oxford University Press, Jul 10, 2014, p. 141.
  12. The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America, Naomi Murakawa.
  13. Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote, Michelle Alexander, The Nation, February 10, 2016
  15. 15.0 15.1
  16. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Admits 9/11, WTC 1993, Plot To Kill Clinton, By J.M. Berger,
  18. President Bill Clinotn's 1999 State of the Union Address, January 19, 1999. Retrieved from 19 August 2010.
  20. 20.0 20.1 Mears, Bill. "Deal in Wen Ho Lee case may be imminent", CNN, May 22, 2006. 
  21. Christopher McCaleb, Ian, "Richardson says FBI has determined drives did not leave Los Alamos" Template:Webarchive, CNN, June 21, 2000.
  25. The Presidents by David Maraniss, Pg. 626
  26. Samuel R. Berger, "A Foreign Policy for the Global Age," Foreign Affairs 2000 79(6): 22-39. 0015-7120
  29. Ambassador Bill Richardson, Online Focus, The News Hour Transcript, 11 February 1998.
  30. [1]
  31. Kosovo Indictment Proves Bill Clinton’s Serbian War Atrocities, by Jim Bovard, Jun 25, 2020. The Libertarian Institute.
  36. Humanitarian Hypocrisy. University of Pittsburgh.

External links