Posts Tagged ‘Bill Clinton’

Bill Clinton stopped North Korea’s nuclear weapons program – back in 1994

January 6, 2016

Though N Korea’s claims to have tested a hydrogen bomb have not yet been confirmed, it is worth remembering how Bill Clinton made a deal that he claimed would stop N Korea’s nuclear weapons aspirations in 1994.

NY TimesOctober 22nd 1994:

After almost four months of difficult negotiations, the United States and North Korea signed an agreement today to end their dispute over North Korea’s nuclear program but kept secret many details of how the accord will be put into effect. ……

After the signing today, North Korea’s chief negotiator, Kang Sok Ju, described it as “a very important milestone document of historic significance” that would resolve his country’s nuclear dispute with the United States “once and for all.” He said the agreement, once put into effect, would resolve “all questions of the so-called nuclear weapons development by North Korea” that have raised “such unfounded concerns and suspicions.” “We have neither the intention nor the plan to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Kang said.

At a news conference in Washington, President Clinton said the treaty was “a good deal for the United States.” “The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments,” he said. “Only as it does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.”

Stevengoddard notes the similarities between Clinton/N Korea and Obama/Iran

2016-01-06-11-52-03

Clinton/N Korea vs. Obama/Iran

Advertisements

Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby and droit du seigneur

December 31, 2015

I noted – or thought I noted – that Hillary Clinton’s attack on Trump’s “sexist attitudes” petered out when he responded by bringing up Lewinsky and Bill Clinton. How Bill Clinton got away with his blatant sexism and treatment of women in awe of his position still perplexes me. It was a period when a display of “sexual power” by Bill Clinton in the US seemed to be admired by the electorate just as much as Silvio Berlusconi’s bunga-bunga excesses were admired by the electorate in Italy.

I am not sure though that what Bill Clinton got away with as a minor transgressions, can be transformed and utilised by Hillary Clinton as being something positive and to her benefit. In fact, that she was quite as forgiving of his peccadilloes as she was does not reflect that well on her today. It suggests that she also shared his attitudes of the time. It will not be long before his strategic blunders in Somalia and his downright cowardice in Rwanda are compared to her apparent incompetence in Benghazi, Libya.

But today as Bill Cosby finally faces a criminal charge, it occurred to me that there is a commonality of the attitudes exhibited by Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby. They both felt their positions entitled them to certain “perquisites”. No doubt it was, to some extent, an attitude of the times they reigned in, but that does not excuse them. There were very many others of their time, who also reigned as kings of all they surveyed, but who did not succumb to the de facto power they had. They both effectively believed in a form of Droit du Seigneur. Bill Cosby reigned as king of the TV world and all aspiring young women, who felt he could be of some advantage to their careers, were seen by him as “fair game”and part of his right of office. Bill Clinton was king of the White House, and all female groupies, interns and the like caught up in his train, were also seen as “fair game”, and part of his perquisites of office. Neither could (or can) see that they did anything wrong. Hillary Clinton also accepted – perhaps reluctantly and only by default – Bill Clinton’s Droit de Seigneur at that time. Her relatively weak “feminist” credentials are not enhanced by her acceptance of Bill Clinton’s transgressions.

It does not mean that Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton were not likeable. They still are. So was Rolf Harris. But they represent a time that has gone and attitudes that are not defensible – even for their times. They could have chosen – as others chose – not to indulge in the excesses available to them.

I am not sure that Hillary Clinton can get any advantage – except among the already converted – by relying too much on Bill Clinton’s support.

 

Bill Clinton probably forgot to wash the server before Hillary wiped it

September 13, 2015

It is probably a good idea to wash before you wipe.

The Washington Post is now reporting that Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server may not have been “wiped” after all and that all her e-mails may well be recoverable. Hillary is probably not very amused. A month ago Clinton was being rather sarcastic about her “wiping” servers with a cloth. The FBI had reported that attempts had been made to wipe her server and Clinton responded at a press conference

When asked specifically if she wiped the server, she ‘ummed’ and ‘ahhed’ then jokingly said “what with a cloth or something?

washing up

But perhaps her dishcloth reference was based on reality. Perhaps she really did think that that was how servers were “wiped” clean.

Clinton probably just forgot that you must wash your server first before wiping it. Or was it that Bill, who she shared the server with, was supposed to do the washing while Hillary wiped?

WaPo:

The company that managed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail server said it has “no knowledge of the server being wiped,” the strongest indication to date that tens of thousands of e-mails that Clinton has said were deleted could be recovered.

Clinton and her advisers have said for months that she deleted her personal correspondence from her time as secretary of state, creating the impression that 31,000 e-mails were gone forever. ……… To make the information go away permanently, a server must be wiped — a process that includes overwriting the underlying data with gibberish, possibly several times.

That process, according to Platte River Networks, the ­Denver-based firm that has managed the system since 2013, apparently did not happen. “Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped,” company spokesman Andy Boian told The Washington Post. “All the information we have is that the server wasn’t wiped.”

The server that Clinton used as secretary of state was stored at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and was shared with her husband, former president Bill Clinton, and his staff. The device was managed during that time by a State Department staffer who was paid personally by the Clintons for his work on their private system. ……….

All the e-mails from Clinton’s tenure at the State Department were on the server when the device was taken over in June 2013 by Platte River Networks, four months after Clinton left office. ………

A company attorney has said that all of Clinton’s e-mails were then migrated to a new server. The e-mails were removed from the second server in 2014, with Clinton’s attorneys storing those they deemed work-related on a thumb drive and discarding those that they determined were entirely personal. Copies of 30,000 work e-mails were turned over to the State Department in December and are being released to the public in batches under the terms of a court order.

So if it was all Bill’s fault maybe Hillary can turn this around.

Clinton Foundation got millions from Swedish firms to avoid being blacklisted for Iran involvement

June 3, 2015

That the Clinton Foundation functioned as a channel for lobbyists to get access to Hilary Clinton is an open secret. But I certainly had not expected that there were such large money flows from Sweden and Swedish firms to the Clinton Foundation which apparently allowed them to carry on business in Iran without being blacklisted. Some payments were even made directly to Bill Clinton. It seems almost as if the Clinton Foundation may have specifically targeted firms and countries susceptible to US actions as sources for lobbying money.

So far I don’t see this being covered by the Swedish media but the Washington Times has a very long article. There is a clear Wikileaks connection since much of this information is obtained from diplomatic cables revealed by Wikileaks.


Update: Swedish Radio is now carrying the story but just quoting the Washington Times article. The radio report points out that they have not been able to check the story and imply that it is not reliable since it is from a right wing paper which is opposed to Hilary Clinton. But I note also that Swedish radio is generally very biased in favour of the Democrats in the US (and the Social Democrats/Greens at home).


The Wikileaks connection is interesting. I cannot help thinking that there must be a hidden back story as to why Assange has been hunted and prosecuted by the Swedish authorities for a quite ridiculous molestation/rape allegation. The allegations are by two women who shared a bed with him – quite willingly by their own accounts. The prosecutors first declined to take the matter further and there is surely also a hidden back story as to why the whole prosecution was restarted. Maybe this story is one of the reasons. But why does the Swedish prosecution based on what seems to be rather flimsy “statements” continue? What other Swedish – US connections are there that the Swedish government did not or does not want revealed?

Washington Times:

Bill Clinton’s foundation cashed in as Sweden lobbied Hillary on sanctions

– The Washington Times – Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Bill Clinton’s foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Washington Times.

The Swedish entity, called the William J. Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse, was never disclosed to or cleared by State Department ethics officials, even though one of its largest sources of donations was a Swedish government-sanctioned lottery.

As the money flowed to the foundation from Sweden, Mrs. Clinton’s team in Washington declined to blacklist any Swedish firms despite warnings from career officials at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm that Sweden was growing its economic ties with Iran and potentially undercutting Western efforts to end Tehran’s rogue nuclear program, diplomatic cables show.

“Sweden does not support implementing tighter financial sanctions on Iran” and believes “more stringent financial standards could hurt Swedish exports,” one such cable from 2009 alerted Mrs. Clinton’s office in Washington. Separately, U.S. intelligence was reporting that Sweden’s second-largest employer, telecommunications giant Ericsson AB, was pitching cellphone tracking technology to Iran that could be used by the country’s security services, officials told The Times. …….. 

Mr. Clinton’s Swedish fundraising shell escaped public notice, both because its incorporation papers were filed in Stockholm — some 4,200 miles from America’s shores — and the identities of its donors were lumped by Mr. Clinton’s team into the disclosure reports of his U.S.-based charity, blurring the lines between what were two separate organizations incorporated under two different countries’ laws.

……… At the time of Mr. Clinton’s foray into Swedish fundraising, the Swedish government was pressing Mrs. Clinton’s State Department not to impose new sanctions on firms doing business with Iran, including hometown companies Ericsson and Volvo.

Mrs. Clinton’s State Department issued two orders identifying lists of companies newly sanctioned in 2011 and 2012 for doing business with Iran, but neither listed any Swedish entities.

Behind the scenes, however, the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm was clearly warning the State Department in Washington that Sweden’s trade was growing with Iran — despite Swedish government claims to the contrary.

“Although our Swedish interlocutors continue to tell us that Europe’s overall trade with Iran is falling, the statements and information found on Swedish and English language websites shows that Sweden’s trade with Iran is growing,” the U.S. Embassy wrote in a Dec. 22, 2009, cable to the State Department that was released by WikiLeaks. The cable indicates it was sent to Mrs. Clinton’s office.

At the time of the warning, Mrs. Clinton was about a year into her tenure as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state and the two were leading efforts in Washington to tighten sanctions on Iran.

……… The Swedes were resistant to new sanctions, telling State Department officials repeatedly and unequivocally that they were worried new penalties would stifle the business between its country’s firms and Tehran. At the time, Iran was Sweden’s second-largest export market in the Middle East after Saudi Arabia.

“Behind the Swedish government’s reluctance to support further sanctions in Iran, especially unilateral European measures, is a dynamic (though still fairly small) trade involving some of Sweden’s largest and most politically well-connected companies: Volvo, Ericsson and ABB to name three,” the U.S. Embassy wrote in one cable to Washington.

Several top Swedish officials made the case against proposed U.S. sanctions in successive meetings in 2009 and 2010, according to classified cables released by WikiLeaks.

“[Swedish] Sanctions coordinator [Per] Saland told us that Sweden does not support implementing tighter financial sanctions on Iran and that more stringent financial standards could hurt Swedish exports,” one cable reported. Other cables quoted Swedish officials as saying they were powerless to order banks in their country to stop doing business with Tehran.

Sweden’s foreign trade minister, Ewa Bjroling, met with State officials and said even though her government was obeying all existing United Nations and European Union sanctions, “Iran is a major problem for the GOS (Government of Sweden) because Swedish businesses have a long-standing commercial relationship in the trucks and telecom industries.”

Eventually, Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Bildt — Mrs. Clinton’s equal on the diplomatic stage — delivered the message personally to top State Department officials, who described him as “skeptical” about expanded Iran sanctions.

“Overall, I’m not a fan of sanctions because they are more a demonstration of our inability than our ability,” Mr. Bildt was quoted as telling State officials in a cable marked “secret.”

………. Current State Department officials and outside experts who advised the department on Iran sanctions told The Times that Sweden, and more specifically Ericsson, was a matter of internal discussion from 2009 to 2011 before new sanctions were finally issued. “The Ericsson concerns were well-known, but in the end many of the sanction decisions were arbitrary and often involved issues beyond the actual business transactions,” one adviser directly involved in the talks told The Times, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because he was describing private deliberations.

U.S. intelligence officials told The Times that they kept the Obama administration apprised of Ericsson’s activities inside Iran, including the fact that the Swedish firm had provided Iran’s second-largest cellular provider with location-based technology to track customers for billing purposes. The technology transfer occurred in late 2009, shortly after Tehran brutally suppressed a pro-democracy movement in that country, the officials said.

U.S. intelligence further learned that Ericsson in 2010 discussed with Iran’s largest cellular firm providing tracking technology that could be used directly by Iranian security authorities but never formally pursued the contract, officials said.

Read the full story.


%d bloggers like this: