President Bill Clinton Lost Nuclear Codes While in Office, New Book Claims

[RamboLiberal]

Source: ABC News

When you're President of the United States, you can lose a vote, you can lose popular support, and you can lose a round of golf. But you're never, ever supposed to lose the biscuit.

That's what they call the card the president is meant to keep close at hand, bearing the codes that he has to have in order to launch a nuclear attack. And for several months during the Clinton administration, a former top military officer says they lost the biscuit.

Gen. Hugh Shelton, who served under Clinton as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tells the story in his just-published memoir, "Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior."

Shelton claims the story has never been released before, but Ret. Air Force Lt. Col Robert Patterson told a very similar account in his own book, published seven years ago.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/president-bill-clinton-lost-nuclear-codes-office-book/story?id=11930878

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Doesn't sound credible.

They can re-issue new codes, rather quickly. Sounds a bit like a smear job.

[liberation]

3. Bingo...

... there is no way that there were no issued codes for months at a time.

Also, I believe the codes are changed periodically.

[AndrewP]

21. It sounds like complete bullshit

Even if he did "lose" the codes, that would have been handled quickly. The story on ABC Nightly News last night made it sound like it was missing for months.

More right wing bullshit

[yourout]

2. Even if he did....so what? I seriously doubt even with the codes anyone could do much.

More to the point use of it by a US President would likely mean the end of mankind.

[secondwind]

4. True, and Carter had the codes in the pocket of trousers that were sent to dry cleaners....

so what? These things happen.

[jtuck004]

5. One person says 1998, one says 2000 - if you are going to run a con job

on the American people couldn't you at least have a cup of coffee and get your facts straight? Yet another soldier who just couldn't stand serving under someone who never served, forgetting that he didn't have the cred (or maybe the guts?) to stand up and ask the people for their vote, and Clinton did.

What nonsense. All the missles would just sit while we were slammed by ICBM's? 'Cause there is no backup? Does he think we are that gullible?

And if Bush-lite had needed to use them? "Well, I haven't really looked for it. I don't read much..."

Waste of time...

[Jim Sagle]

6. Yeah, right. Monica sucked those codes right out of him. /crock

I guess generdull Shelton couldn't keep his inner Republican leashed forever.

[JI7]

8. he endorsed Hillary and criticized the Bush administration

i think this is more about his personal issues with people.

[hayu_lol]

9. The briefcase containing all the codes necessary to insure a...

prompt launch, if necessary, are never more than a few feet from the President. This briefcase is usually carried by a Warrant Officer, not a Lt. Colonel.

Or, so we have been told for the last 15 years or so.

This likely falls somewhere between 'Clinton's rip off US One and Clintons rip off White House and Clinton staff trashes White House.

We all remember these.

The security around this briefcase makes it highly unlikely that the authors would have gotten permission to print such items...anywhere.

[wmbrew0206]

11. I am sorry, you are wrong. The "football" is almost always carried by a Major or Lt. Colonel.

Not sure where you heard it is carried by a warrant officer but that is not correct. If I remember correctly, there are four officers at one time with one of their duties is carrying the football. There is one officer from each service and they rotate the duty based on some schedule. The billet calls for a senior Major or junior Lt. Colonel.

Typically it is a senior Major who is seen as a rising star and is already or pretty much guaranteed to be selected for Lt. Col. The reason behind this is that the services want to get their rising stars use to working in Washington because when they become generals a lot of their time will be spent dealing with Congress and the President.

[JI7]

7. Shelton seems like a bitter guy , i remember he went after Wes Clark

he also had some criticisms of the Bush administration recently.

but his criticisms always come across as him wanting to get back at people for things that happened to him personally.

the title of the book is kind of assholish also .

he seems to like Hillary Clinton though as he endorsed her. but most top military guys seem to like her. funny since most of them didn't like her husband.

[wmbrew0206]

12. Shelton and Cohen seemed to be really pissed that Clark "reportedly" did an end run

around them and went straight to Clinton on several things. I think that is why Clark was forced out of EUCOM early and Shelton went after him in the media once.

I think the military brass like dealing with Hillary because she is just as tough as they are.

[Jeneral2885]

17. Clark was a scapegoat

Shelton wanted full control

[wmbrew0206]

20. Full control of what?

[Jeneral2885]

25. Of military control

especially over Kosovo

[wmbrew0206]

26. Not to be arugementive but how so?

Shelton was upset that Clark was going outside his chain of command when he went directly to Clinton without notifying Shelton or Cohen. Apparently he did it more then once.

I don't see that as wanting full control, I see it as ensuring that the SecDef and CJCS are kept in the loop and maintaining the chain of command.

[BootinUp]

27. This was a NATO operation keep in mind

which made it a more complicated situation. Then there was also a lack of political support from Congress which made the admin and the Pentagon fail to make the full committment Clark was asking for. But yes Clark took initiative to insure success and pissed off his superiors. Of course he did get the job done. In the final analysis its hard to argue with success.

[wmbrew0206]

28. Being a NATO operation really doesn't change anything IRT the chain of command.

Afghanistan is a NATO operation and nothing I have read ever had Tommy Franks went around or tried to Gen Meyer and Rumsfield. Every time he talked with Bush, they were in the room or on the conference call. Same thing with Schwarzkopf during the Gulf War. Powell and Cheney were the gate he went through to get to H. W. Bush.

I am sorry but nothing you have listed is a reason for a Combatant Commander to go around the SecDef and CJCS. If Clark was going to need more assets or more support, both the SecDef and CJCS would need to weight in on how they could best support those options.

Let me ask you this, do you think that General Mattis at CentCom has a direct line to President Obama and does not have to tell Gates or Mullen about it?

Also, please don't think I am bashing Clark. He was successful in Kosovo and had a very long and distinguished career. This is more of an analysis of why he left EUCOM early and if it was justified.

[BootinUp]

29. The US troops in Afghan. are not part of the NATO force.

Get your facts straight.

I have said all I desire to. Enjoy.

[wmbrew0206]

30. I am sorry but you are wrong. Some of the US troops are part of NATO's ISAF, but others are not.

It doesn't really matter, since both US Forces and ISAF forces are headed by the top American general in Afghanistan. It was McCrystal, now it is Petraeus. The same principal still holds, Petraeus has to go through his chain of command ie CC CentCom or EUCOM to CJCS Mullen and/or SecDef Gates before going to Obama. He cannot jump the chain of command by going straight to Obama.

[BootinUp]

31. lol. How the bleep was I wrong?

I never said Clark didn't ruffle some feathers. And I never said there weren't 'some' US soldiers in the NATO force. Clark had diplomatic/coordination duties above and beyond Petraeus and McCrystal as the SACEUR working directly with foreign government heads of state.

Clark got the job done and he wouldn't take anything back or do anything different if he had to do it over again from what I know about him.

[wmbrew0206]

34. I was responding to your post that said "US Troops are not part of the NATO Force"

I took that to mean that you were saying ALL US Troops in Afghanistan were outside of the NATO force. If that is not what you were saying than I am sorry.

I understand the argument that Clark had some role above and beyond a normal Combatant Commander since he is the head of NATO. I still have not ever seen anything that says that the SACEUR has the ability to by pass the CJCS and SecDef to go directly to the President.

Here is a description of SACEUR duties from an article about the most recent change of command:

SACEUR is responsible to NATO’s Military Committee, the highest military authority in NATO, for the overall direction and conduct of military operations for NATO. SACEUR, always a United States flag or general officer, is dual-hatted as Commander U.S. European Command. His command is exercised from Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) at Casteau, Belgium.

http://www.pims.org/news/2009/07/07/change-of-command-at-eucom-and-shape

I still see EUCOM/SACEUR as a DoD post and not somehow outside the DoD. As part of the DoD, he is still answerable to the CJCS and SecDef, more SecDef than CJCS.

[BootinUp]

35. No worries, but the way I look at it is

that the Generals are and have always been political. You will see clashes amongst themselves and the Pentagon and the Sec Def and even occasionally the civilian CoC. Why because they need to get their messages out there when the chips are down. When they take on a mission, they want to win and will do what it takes like advocating for what they need. The good ones, anyways. Look at Petraeus even. These are complicated issues and Generals do have to play some politics.

Shelton was quoted as saying to Clark, get your face off the tv or something like that in a rather heated manner. And yes Clark was answerable to CJCS and SecDef.

Now McChrystal obviously went to far, and you can argue that Clark did, but my opinion is Shelton and Cohen should have supported Clark and then taken the credit for a job well done and cooled their jets in this instance.

[wmbrew0206]

39. I completely agree that at that level it is all politics and to a certain point, these generals

are trying to secure their legacy. Clark wanted to have his name on a victory (which was his job as SACEUR: to win) and Shelton and Cohen didn't like that Clark seen as getting most of the credit versus the Schwarzkopf, Powell, and Cheney model from '91.

I think Clark did a great job in Kosovo and Clinton probably gave him more latitude in face time than a normal CC because like you said, the American people and Congress weren't full behind the effort. I think that is what pissed off Shelton and Cohen and they got back at Clark for it by having him sent home early.

Cohen and Shelton used the chain of command argument to Clinton to have him removed. That is something that Clinton could have pushed back on, as it was his prerogative over how Clark communicated with him. I just don't think Clinton was going to overrule Shelton and Cohen to save Clark. It was just easier for Clinton to let them have their way rather than fight them and deal with all the Pentagon leaks it would have caused, which Clinton did need at that point.

[eppur_se_muova]

38. Blame ABC, not Shelton -- see response #37. nt

[cutlassmama]

10. and W never found them...

[msanthrope]

13. Thread win! n/t

[zulchzulu]

14. Breaking! Aqua Buddha has the Biscuit!

The timing of this is rather interesting...

[flamingdem]

24. We need to be talking about Aqua Buddha! ON YOUR KNEES! nt

[PopSixSquish]

15. See, Those Damn Democrats Can't be Trusted with Our Nation's Security

and Clinton didn't do enough to get Bin Laden!!!!

Just getting a jump on Fox News et al...

BTW - the codes get changed if they are thought to have beeen compromised. Hell, there's even a line about it in that "Air Force One" movie...

[Jeneral2885]

16. This is old news

[Blasphemer]

40. Yes, I recall this "story" being floated almost 10 years ago... nt

[Sheepshank]

18. I don't get this

Granted it's not a good idea to lose anything predicential or security...and it seems like the WH historians keep EVERYTHING, notes, memos, scribbles, doodles, notations in margins, everything. Codes are re-issued every 24 hours...so I've heard. That would make sense to me. So Clinton loses a code? Any reason the suspect that even if he did lose it, that is was the current code for that 24 house period?

[vaberella]

19. Is this some sort of stupid right wing BS?! Buffoons. n/t

[guruoo]

22. It's bullshit. The President doesn't carry the launch codes nt

[flamingdem]

23. CRAP MSM STORY TO DELEGITIMIZE CLINTON BEFORE ELECTIONS

please..

[AndrewP]

36. Bingo

[Spazito]

32. I remember when Shelton smeared General Wesley Clark and....

then refused to back up his smears. General Shelton was the man without integrity and character not General Wesley Clark, imo:

From an article in 2003:

Shelton has recently and famously said, in a public forum, that Clark's firing "had to do with integrity and character issues," adding that, for that reason, "Wes won't get my vote." Shelton has since refused to elaborate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2091194/

I don't think he is to be believed.

[hughee99]

33. Clearly it's a lie...

told by a bitter man who didn't get his facts straight, is a partisan hack, and propagated by the MSM to make Bill Clinton (who's not running for anything) look bad... and it's old news... and not a big deal.

Personally, I can imagine someone who carries a small credit card that they never, ever use, with a series of numbers on it occasionally misplacing it. Especially if they have a lot of shit on their mind (like most presidents tend to). Is it good? Of course not. Is it such an impossibility that it couldn't be true? I don't think so either. If Shelton's intention was just to make shit up to seriously harm someone, I'm sure he could come up with something better than a story that's been floating around for years. Especially since no one really cared that much the last time it was reported.

[eppur_se_muova]

37. BBC take on the same story places the blame on aide(s?), not Clinton ...

"The codes are usually held by an aide who remains close to the president. ... Gen Shelton said it was apparent that the president had not had the codes and that he had been unaware that an aide had lost them."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11591213

ABC: The A is for Authoritarian