There is more where that came from- both from what Alamo-Girl has saved on her site to what I've accumulated in timeline format; this is just a sampler skimmed from the top.
There were some great threads on North Korea back before 911 on this forum.
Maybe some others have more to add.... like Torricelli and his curious dealings in that region...
1999 MAR XX “The White House is working behind the scenes to ensure that missile defense won't be "technologically possible" for at least a decade... In this case, it's important to look past the public proclamations. Which brings us to the Space Based Infrared System, or SBIRS-Low for short...
SBIRS-Low is the heart of any U.S. missile defense system, from the simplest--such as using our current fleet of Navy Aegis cruisers to launch anti-missile interceptors--to the most advanced space-based lasers. ...
On February 4, just two weeks after Secretary Cohen's announcement of a pro-missile defense policy, the Air Force cancelled its contracts with TRW Inc. and the Boeing Corp. for two SBIRS-Low demonstration projects. The reason for these cancellations, according to Aviation Week and Space Technology, was to "avoid cost-and-schedule impacts on the SBIRS-Low constellation."
But this is nonsense. In fact, Boeing and TRW will be paid the lion's share of the contracts anyway, including the portion that covered the cancelled demonstration projects...” - Kennedy, Brian T. "Clinton Administration's Forked-Tongued Defense Initiative" The Claremont Institute March, 1999 http://www.claremont.org/ballmiss/kennedy3.cfm (5 APR 2001)
1999 JUL 27 “U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said today President Clinton is employing word games and abusing the constitutional lawmaking process to cover-up his administration's ideologically-driven opposition to protecting the American people from ballistic missile attack. "Every American must understand that the Clinton-Gore administration strongly opposes the deployment of a national missile defense system," Inhofe said. "They must also understand the President's position has not changed in spite of signing a bill into law last week which calls for the deployment of such a system. "In the spirit of redefining what the meaning of 'is' is, the President has brazenly chosen to interpret this new missile defense law in a manner contrary to its intended and stated purpose. In so doing, he makes a mockery of the Constitutional lawmaking process and once again illustrates the threat posed by his incessant deception, manipulation and dishonesty."
Inhofe was referring to President Clinton's actions Friday in which the President a) signed into law a bill calling for the deployment of a national missile defense system; and at the same time, b) issued a statement claiming the bill actually called for no such thing. - Inhofe, Senator James "Inhofe says Clinton cannot hide Administration's opposition to missile defense." July 27, 1999 http://www.senate.gov/~inhofe/pr072799.html (6 APR 2001)
I've been trying to think what I could add, but frankly you've summed it up very well - and since the original question covers so much ground, I'd have to include huge chunks of the Downside Legacy to clear the air on what really happened to national security under Clinton - so here goes:
STATUS OF U.S. MILITARY: