102. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 11:41 AM PT
Since both men were in the United States when the call occurred, those words — "the president over here also agreed" — may indicate that President Clinton and China's President Jiang Zemin had agreed on how to spin the story if it got out.
The White House has strongly denied any such thing occurred.
Chung's contacts with Chinese intelligence were well known to Luu.
Chung's primary contact was Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying of the People's Liberation Army. She arranged the meeting between Chung and Gen. Ji, chief of China's military intelligence, who provided Chung with the money for campaign donations.
Robert Luu told Chung never to tell investigators about two U.S. satellite firms, Loral Space and Hughes Electronics, or their relationship with Liu Chaoying who, as head of China Aerospace, the company that lofts American satellites into orbit on Chinese rockets, had negotiated their Chinese contracts.
Fox News has learned that Congress was unaware Johnny Chung had been told above all else not to say anything about Loral and Hughes.
Loral and Hughes are currently under investigation for illegally helping China improve its missile technology. Sources say China wanted to keep the companies out of the scandal in order to protect its business arrangements and ability to acquire U.S. technology.
Another former Clinton fund-raiser, Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, has now also pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with Justice Department investigators. Sources say they have reason to suspect Trie also may have been involved with Loral and Hughes and their export relationship with China.
The Pentagon concluded two years ago that Loral and Hughes had harmed national security by helping China improve its missile technology, but the President kept letting the companies do business with China, signing waivers allowing the two companies to export their satellites.
A series of launch failures,
103. benear - May 25, 1999 - 11:43 AM PT
Why we have an official policy that states the US would use nuclear weapons first is beyond me. It is asinine.
104. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 11:44 AM PT
Majori:
You're a buffoon. You assume there will be no further conflicts, because there aren't conflicts *now*.
China doesn't have to attack us. It need only attack Taiwan. Now that they have a credible nuclear threat, we cannot intervene. As a high-ranking Chinese official said a couple of years ago, "The US cares more about losing Los Angeles than Taipei." Meaning that China's nuclear status now gives it carte blanche to do what it likes in Asia.
105. benear - May 25, 1999 - 11:53 AM PT
Message #97 You are right, AceOfNolinks. We are a civilized people whereas the Chinese are heathens who care not one whit about human life.
Makes that outpouring of emotion over the bombing of their embassy kinda surreal don't it.
106. marjoribanks - May 25, 1999 - 11:53 AM PT
Spades,
You think like a hick ignorant. The Chinese government does not.
There will be no attack on the USA, or on Taiwan, in the forseeable future. Why would there be? Any conceivable goal is being met right now.
107. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 11:57 AM PT
"There will be no attack on the USA, or on Taiwan, in the forseeable future."
Well, that's enough for me. And erudite to boot.
108. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
Benear
"We are a civilized people whereas the Chinese are heathens who care not one whit about human life."
Jeez. I was kidding about the font of foreign policy analysis stemming from one of Sting's songs.
109. benear - May 25, 1999 - 12:00 PM PT
PM: Message #99 Don't you think it is actually more likely that there will be a treaty negotiated acceptable to both sides? What is their motivation to spend themselves into bankruptcy?
110. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:02 PM PT
Majori:
Two words: Jenny Craig.
A few more words: A "threat," noodnik, does not imply use of force. The Chinese will now constitute a much more robust nuclear threat than they would have otherwise. Our foreign policy will be shaped and circumscribed by China's new threat.
China was lobbing missiles over Taiwan just two years ago, dope. Why do you think they were rattling the sabre? Just for shits and giggles?
111. benear - May 25, 1999 - 12:02 PM PT
Niner: The sarcasm was directed at AceOfNarrow.
BTW: Diva and I anxiously await spankings in Movies.
112. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:02 PM PT
"A few more words: A "threat," noodnik, does not imply use of force"
I MEANT:
A few more words: A "threat," noodnik, does not require the actual use of force
113. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 12:05 PM PT
Benear
I want you to know that no substantive differences will bar a good spanking. I cannot go there, however, as I know you damn hippies want to start up on Chinatown, in violation of the all hallowed rules. And with Tabouli as the Neville Chamberlain of the movie discussion, I shall play Churchill.
114. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:07 PM PT
Niner, Pincher:
Have you guys read my posting from FoxNews? I don't understand how this has failed to elicit any response from anybody.
115. RosettaStone - May 25, 1999 - 12:09 PM PT
(AP) Former Democratic fund-raiser John Huang has been quietly cooperating with the Justice Department's probe of Chinese campaign financing for months and will plead guilty to conspiracy to make illegal contributions, a legal source said today.
116. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT
Other things the Chinese stole in the past couple years:
Submarine-detection equipment
electromagnetic-pulse technology
"rail gun" technology
space-based weapon technology
conventional aviation-guidance technology
missile guidance technology (much of this was given to the Chinese illegally by Loral and Hughes, two of Clinton's biggest donors in 1992 and 1996. Loral and Hughes both lobbied hard to put all export controls in the hands of Commerce, which was much more loosey-goosey about selling technology to other countries. This move was strongly objected to by then-Sec. of State Christopher, the State Department as a whole, and the Pentagon. Clinton chose to ignore these voices and comply with Loral's and Hughes' demand.
Later, Loral and Hughes were being investigated by Justice for their unauthorized technology transfer to the Chinese. Clinton granted what was in effect a RETROACTIVE WAIVER, stating that such technology could *now* be transferred. The Justice Department objected, stating that such a waiver would make a prosecution very difficult. Clinton ignored the Justice Department and granted the waiver anyway-- essentially a get-out-of-jail-free card.)
117. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:23 PM PT
Democratic Representative James Trafficant has called on Sandy Berger to resign "for the good of the country"....
118. benear - May 25, 1999 - 12:24 PM PT
Let's see, where was Clinton in the late seventies when all this started? Oh. I forgot. This isn't a real serious issue that involves failings on all sides. This is just our last chance to appoint a special prosecutor and impeach the Son of a Bitch.
Hey, I'm all for it.
119. Ronski - May 25, 1999 - 12:26 PM PT
And which president did we impeach for permitting the theft of the secrets of the atomic bomb? I forget.
120. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:29 PM PT
Ronski, Benear:
You're missing the story. Espionage is one thing. The Presdient, of course, is not responsible for counterintelligence failures.
The President *is* responsible when he is advised of the espionage and then covers it up. We knew about the espionage in 1995. The President knew in 1996 at the latest. And yet he covered it up. He did not implement security improvements until *this year.* He continued granting waivers through 1996 and 1997 over the objections of State, Pentagon, and Justice.
121. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:33 PM PT
The submarine-detection technology and Stealth technology thefts occurred in *1997.*
Had the President taken aggressive steps to shore up security at the labs, these thefts *may* have been averted. No guarantees, of course.
I do not hold Clinton accountable for thefts which occurred before he was informed of the serious security problems at the labs (although he did sign an executive order in 1993 or 94 which lessened security at the labs).
However, he did NOTHING from 1995-1999. In fact, he did worse than nothing-- he continued granting waivers despite the knowledge that the Chinese were stealing technology which, combined with legal technology transfers, would greatly improve their nuclear and high-tech conventional forces.
122. Ronski - May 25, 1999 - 12:33 PM PT
But Ace, he was busy not boffing Monica. How can you expect him to concentrate on things like China under those circumstances, except to take their money, of course.
123. Ronski - May 25, 1999 - 12:35 PM PT
And another thing, if China does overrun Korea with their new weapons, does this mean it will be harder for American women to get their nails done, or easier?
124. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 12:37 PM PT
Ace
I'm convinced that the majority in these threads are armed with a "pish-posh" with regard to the allegations against Mr. Clinton. Initial reaction: trumped-up lies of the VRWC. When legitimacy seeps in, then the reaction is "So what? They ALL do it."
When the ramifications hit home in the form of a bi-partisan report, you move into "Does it really matter? I mean, are you really scared that China will use nuclear weapons?"
In the end, as with much in politics and with this President, the most egregious of fuck-ups (even those attributed to others) are glossed as no big deal.
125. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:39 PM PT
From the Cox Report...
B. Dividing the licensing responsibilities for satellites between the Departments of Commerce and State permitted the loss of U.S. technology to the PRC.
The 1996 decision to give Commerce the lead role in satellite exporting was properly reversed by the Congress.
Divided jurisdiction between Commerce and State over satellite export licensing has facilitated the loss of U.S. technology to the PRC.
While licensing authority regarding rockets has always remained with the State Department, in 1992 certain aspects of satellite licensing were transferred to Commerce.
For nearly a three-year period thereafter, Commerce licenses did not require Department of Defense monitors for launch campaigns. Accordingly, U.S. Government officials did not monitor several launches and launch campaigns. Given the PRC's efforts at technology acquisition, it would be surprising if the PRC did not attempt to exploit this situation.
In 1995, a Commerce Department official improperly authorized the transfer, in the context of a launch failure investigation, of information regarding rocket design that would almost certainly have been prevented had the Department of State been consulted.
In October 1996, all remaining authority for commercial satellite licensing was transferred to Commerce.
Legislation passed by Congress in 1998 eliminated the split jurisdiction and assigned all licensing of satellite exports to the Department of State.
126. davidtudor - May 25, 1999 - 12:40 PM PT
109109. So, what you are really complaining about is that Clinton seems to have the same luck as Reagan had. Teflon and all that.
127. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:42 PM PT
NeinMeinFuhrer:
It's the same pattern wrt to Monica:
1) It's all a lie
2) It's not all a lie, but everyone does it
3) Who cares? Yawn.
The paradigm breaks down at step 2 -- NOT every president is reckless and innatentive with regard to national security at the best, and criminal and treasonous at the worst -- and especially at step 3.
I can't wait to hear that national-security recklessness "doesn't affect how he's doing his job" and "We elected a PRESIDENT, not a Commander-in-Chief."
128. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 12:43 PM PT
david
No complaints here. Just an explanation. The business of hacks and mildly-read dabblers is the business of others.
129. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:45 PM PT
once again, from FoxNews:
"Chung last week told Congress he was under orders from the Chinese to keep the whole thing quiet. His orders, he said, came from a suspected Chinese intelligence operative named Robert Luu, who worked for a Los Angeles law firm.
In a phone conversation tapped by the FBI, Chung was told by Luu to say the campaign money came from the so-called princelings: Chinese leaders' grown sons, who live, study and often live lavishly in the West.
A transcript of the wiretap, obtained by Fox News, contains the following:
Luu: "Shove the blame on the shoulders of the princelings."
Chung: "So blame it on the princelings. Do not implicate the Chinese government."
Luu: "Yes. Chairman Jiang agreed to handle it like this; ****the president over here also agreed.****"
Since both men were in the United States when the call occurred, those words — "the president over here also agreed" — may indicate that President Clinton and China's President Jiang Zemin had agreed on how to spin the story if it got out.
The White House has strongly denied any such thing occurred.
130. davidtudor - May 25, 1999 - 12:45 PM PT
109109. No, I was correct. Meanwhile, it looks like you two boys are going to be stoking each other's indignation and tsk-tsking for a while, so see you all later.
131. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 12:45 PM PT
Ace
Yawn!
Can't we just move on. First, Hiatt-Steele, then this.
Boooooring!
After all, the Chinese are not any real threat to us but in the toy market.
132. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:46 PM PT
DavidBoringTudor:
No, wait, don't go. You always write such informative, interesting postings.
133. benear - May 25, 1999 - 12:49 PM PT
It IS a bipartisan report and so far reads dead on. But some of you act like the only thing the report says is it is all Clinton's fault.
Why even if he knew something in 1995 and 1996, there is no concrete evidence of a concerted coverup just speculation and wishful thinking. 1996 to 1999 is three years. It takes the government three years just to buy paper clips.
And Niner, please don't mistake me as an apologist for the Demons. As I read the Cox report, this stuff goes back to Carter. You were right, my questions will remain unanswered since no one is interested in discussing how complicated this is and how it is possible for it to have occured over the course of 25 years.
134. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 12:49 PM PT
tudor
Indignation?
I cannot imagine what would make you (or most of the political vassals) indignant.
When Ace and I indulge, consider it an antiquated ritual, like a Hopi Indian dance on a Trailways Tour.
Shit, take a picture.
135. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:50 PM PT
To all:
The Cox Report is NOT about foreign contributions to Clinton. That was not part of the Committee's jurisdiction. So don't expect such information in the Report.
I'm not an expert, but I have read most NYT, LAT, & WP stories involving Chinagate. If anyone has any questions about, say, how Loral or Chung or Robert Luu fit into this, ask me.
I promise I'll identify which parts of my answer are facts, and which is speculation. To the best of my knowledge, of course.
136. davidtudor - May 25, 1999 - 12:51 PM PT
Well, I see that condescension with a whiff of self-proclaimed humor is the flavor of the moment. What crocks you two are.
To use one of your favorite languages, 109109, Adios. Well, actually hasta luego.
137. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 12:52 PM PT
benear
Repost the list of questions. I think Ace may be able to help with some, and I too would like the answers.
I think the report chronicles lapses over several administrations. But Ace is correct. Apart from the intelligence detriments, which are staggering and must be corrected (we could get updated maps of Belgrade while at it), there is a credible issue of this administration's response to a known-threat (and its commiseration with what turned out to be spies).
And to just blithely lump it into the "Times are good/no big deal" genre . . . well, it makes the squawkers anachronistic, no doubt.
138. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 12:53 PM PT
david
Please. Don't go.
One more goodbye.
139. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:56 PM PT
Benear:
The Rosenbergs were charged, tried, convicted and executed within two and a half years.
Wen Ho Lee hasn't been arrested yet. The President did not enact security improvements until at least three years after he was told about the espionage.
Combine the Cox Report with these facts:
1) The Justice Department denied the FBI's request to wiretap Wen Ho Lee. In 1997, six hundred ninety eight FBI wiretap requests were approved by the FBI. Two were denied. One of those two was the Wen Ho Lee wiretap. Which is especially odd, since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which grants wiretap authorizations in spy cases, has NEVER IN ITS HISTORY denied a Justice Department wiretap request.
(PS, OHIO: You keep claiming this number is "invented" by the IBD. On Crossfire yesterday, Clinton Defender Rep. Robert Wexler was asked about this fact and he did not deny it. His defense was: "You don't know the quality of the evidence presented to the Justice Department. You can't second=guess the decision without knowing this. So yet ANOTHER person accepts the numbers as accurate and true. If this number is fictitious, as you quixotically continue to assert, why didn't the WH get this information to Wexler so he could defend Clinton better on Crossfire?)
140. Wombat - May 25, 1999 - 12:56 PM PT
If you are going to throw the term "treason" around, please explain how the Reagan Administration's selling arms to an avowed enemy of the United States and "sponsor" of terrorism against Americans was not "treasonous."
Thanks to Presidents since Nixon, China is now our "friend." Can one commit "treason" by ignoring the espionage of a "friend?"
Thanks to people like Ace and others, whose "get Clinton" agenda is obvious, this report will probably not be taken as seriously as it should.
I hope that US policy toward China will become more realistic in terms of what can be expected from a country that is our rival. It has not been for the last two decades.
141. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 12:58 PM PT
So, the matter bifurcates into two major categories.
First, the matter of stemming intelligence leaks and combatting foreign espionage.
[Of course, who cares? elliot has suggested dissemination for the sake of safety, and marj thinks the only "threat" is to the toy industry]
Second, Ace's allegations must be addressed: "The President *is* responsible when he is advised of the espionage and then covers it up. We knew about the espionage in 1995. The President knew in 1996 at the latest. And yet he covered it up. He did not implement security improvements until *this year.* He continued granting waivers through 1996 and 1997 over the objections of State, Pentagon, and Justice."
[Again, who cares? Boooring!]
142. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 12:59 PM PT
2) The Justice Department also denied the FBI's request to search Wen Ho Lee's computer-- this despite the fact that Wen Ho Lee has signed a waiver, every year, including the year in question, giving the government and law enforcement agencies the right to search his computer.
The Justice Department says that this decision was due to the fact that the Energy Department erroneously reported that Lee had NOT signed a waiver at all.
Either Justice is lying or the Energy Department is guilty of a collossal fuck-up. Energy should have known that ALL employees are required to sign this waiver every year. Justice should have known this too.
143. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 1:00 PM PT
Wombat
No. I think we should go back to Aaron Burr to get some reference on this situation.
144. verdeazul - May 25, 1999 - 1:02 PM PT
World History 101:
Seems that some sub-race
ripped-off the chinese for gun powder
and silk pajamas a long time ago....Oh,
when/where will it ever end?
(BTW: The french got a whole passle
of world-class nukes. Now, THAT is
worrisome...)
'zuldafuel~
145. benear - May 25, 1999 - 1:03 PM PT
Message #16 Is the best I can do. It's quittin' time on the ol' Foss Tug.
Gentlemen, I am afraid this debate is sooooo shallow. You want to know how this happened? HINT: It has to do with the very nature, organization, and history of the United States Department of Energy. Yea yea, Clinton is ostensibly in "control" of this government monstrosity. Yea right. TTFN
146. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 1:04 PM PT
...more evidence of something rotten in Denmark:
Notra Trulock, the counerintelligence officer who discovered the w-88 theft in 1995, repeatedly briefed the WH (and Sandy Berger) about the espionage but his warnings went unheeded and were dismissed.
In fact, his superior, a political employee named Elizabeth Mohler, ordered him NOT to brief COngress about his findings and ordered him to rewrite his report to NOT include his findings re: espionage at the labs. According to Trulock, she told him that Republicans would just use such information to undermine CLinton's china policy.
Mohler says she "does not recall" such a conversation.
When both were questioned under oath, both agreed to take a lie detector test so Congress could determine who was telling the truth. Trulock subsequently scheduled a polygraph at the request of COngress.
Mohler is now refusing to take the test.
147. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 1:05 PM PT
Benear
It is as shallow as you allow.
All
THE NY TIMES
"Attorney General Janet Reno made clear that she isn't resigning even though a Clinton administration loyalist, Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, suggested she consider stepping down over the handling of allegations of Chinese nuclear espionage.
"I'm right here, going strong," she told two reporters who encountered her in a Justice Department hallway. The Justice Department in 1997 declined to seek a warrant for electronic surveillance of Lee."
It appears that even a political hack like Torricelli has some substance and grasp of the problem. I wonder how Scaife got to him?
148. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 1:12 PM PT
Notra Trulock has since been demoted or fired. I forget which.
The Administration says that this was not in retalliation for blowing the whistle.
Further:
Bill Richardson said on meet the Press half a year ago that Clinton had been briefed on this in 1996. Sandy Berger claimed, under oath, in written interogatories, that CLinton had not been briefed until 1998. Then, when confronted with testimony of others, he amended his answer to say Clinton had been briefed in 1997. He claimed that other people's testimony "caused him to remember more."
Meanwhile, Al Gore's National Security Advisor (yes, he has his own NS advisor named Fuerth) was briefed in 1996.
Al Gore claims he was not briefed until 1998.
In March of this year, CLinton claimed that no one had informed him of so much as a SUSPICION that there was espionage directed at the labs during his administration.
Bill Richardson recently admitted on Meet the Press that Clinton had been informed of such espionage long ago. Definitive proof came in November 1998 at the latest.
How does the WH reconcile this statement with the facts?:
Joe Lockhart claims that the President was merely informed, "Broad brush," of classified information getting out of the labs to China. He maintains this is not necessarily the same thing as "espionage."
Bill Richardson claims that Clinton meant that no one had been CHARGED wrt espionage yet.
Al Gore claims that Clinton meant that there was no proof that the information came FROM THE LABS; that is, while Clinton knew espionage was going on, there was no conclusive proof it came from the labs. Thus, Clinton's answer was literally true, if misleading. (PS: The question Clinton was asked did not specify "from the labs." CLinton added that himself.)
Bill Richardson has since endorsed Al Gore's formulation, apparently superceding his own earlier int
149. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 1:13 PM PT
Benear -- Message #109
"Don't you think it is actually more likely that there will be a treaty negotiated acceptable to both sides? What is their motivation to spend themselves into bankruptcy?"
It's possible. The Chinese are very practical, and their first concern is to increase the economic wealth and power of their country. Participating in an arms race is not helpful to this aim. Still, there have been two concerns of late that lead me to believe that some kind of confrontation is in the works between the U.S. and China. The first is the Asian economic crisis. While China has escaped the worst of this crisis, it has felt some of its effects. If their economic situation should worsen, it would lessen the desire to cooperate in other areas.
The second concern is the recent rash of bad news that has deepened the mistrust between the two countries. The bombing of the embassy in Belgrade, the spy scandal involving the national labs, the fund raising scandal, the problem of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, Taiwan, human rights -- any two or three of these issues could be easily sidestepped in the interest of good relations (as they were in the past), but lately, all of these issues seem to be hitting the presses at once. Suspicions have been raised in both countries that the other side is taking advantage of the current relationship. This makes it difficult to continue with broadening economic and military cooperation, and if the relationship is not broadened, it will certainly slip back.
150. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 1:13 PM PT
Bill Richardson has since endorsed Al Gore's formulation, apparently superceding his own earlier interpretation.
151. theDiva - May 25, 1999 - 1:13 PM PT
Excuse me.
This is kind of on topic.
Niner, people are in the Movie thread talking about 'Chinatown' already.
*cough*
Thank you.
Carry on.
152. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 1:15 PM PT
WRT: "From the Labs"
Al Gore's formulation doesn't work, because CLinton claimed that no one had informed him of a SUSPICION of espionage against the labs. Even conceding arguendo that it hasn't been conclusively established that the information came from the labs, Clinton was informed of the SUSPICION that it was coming from the labs.
153. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 1:15 PM PT
Ace -- Message #114
"Have you guys read my posting from FoxNews? I don't understand how this has failed to elicit any response from anybody."
I did read it, but I don't trust it. Do you seriously think that Clinton had a powwow with Jiang to come up with talking points on the outbreak of a possible scandal?
154. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 1:18 PM PT
Pincher:
Luu may have been talking out of his ass. Of course, Luu also claimed that he knew the No. 3 man at Justice and could promise Chung leniency.
Luu definitely SAID these things, however. FoxNews has the FBI wiretap transcripts.
"Do you seriously think that Clinton had a powwow with Jiang to come up with talking points on the outbreak of a possible scandal?"
At this point, my mind is open. Do you seriously believe that such a scenario is implausible?
155. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 1:20 PM PT
"Of course, Luu also claimed that he knew the No. 3 man at Justice and could promise Chung leniency."
I don't mean to suggest that this makes Luu's claim either more plausible or less plausible. However, his assertion that he had an in with the No. 3 man at justice is *consistent* with his claim that the President had okayed the cover story.
It could be consistently truthful or consistently untruthful.
PS: Luu also promised the possibility of a presidential Pardon.
156. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 1:23 PM PT
Ace --
"At this point, my mind is open. Do you seriously believe that such a scenario is implausible?"
I'm willing to believe almost any bad thing that is said about Clinton, but Luu's (sp?) comments go too far.
157. Ronski - May 25, 1999 - 1:24 PM PT
Message #133:
"It takes the government three years just to buy paper clips."
I see that libertarian analysis is creeping into the mainstream, after all.
158. Ronski - May 25, 1999 - 1:25 PM PT
Or does that just go back to Mencken?
159. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 1:26 PM PT
Ace --
"PS: Luu also promised the possibility of a presidential Pardon."
Sounds to me like Lu is trying to cover his own ass by shutting Chung up.
160. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 1:30 PM PT
Pincher:
I find it interesting that, knowing what you do about Clinton's law-breaking to prevent embarassing information from coming out, you reject Luu's (and it *IS* Luu, with two u's) statements out of hand.
161. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 1:32 PM PT
Ace
I need to have more than Luu's ambiguous comment to make any judgement on it. In the meantime, I'll give Clinton the benefit of the doubt
162. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 1:32 PM PT
"U.S. and PRC lab-to-lab exchanges were ended in the late 1980s, but were resumed in 1993. Scientific exchanges continue in many areas including high-energy physics.6 Discussions at the U.S. national weapons laboratories in connection with the foreign visitors program are supposed to be strictly limited to technical arms control and material accounting issues. Nonetheless, these visits and scientific conferences provide opportunities for the PRC to interact with U.S. scientists outside of official meetings, and facilitate the PRC's targeting of U.S. weapons scientists."
163. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 1:37 PM PT
Pincher:
His statements aren't terribly ambiguous. He may have meant Bernie Schwartz, CEO of Loral, whom Luu wanted Chung to protect. Of course, Luu was also trying to get Chung to protect Michael Armstrong, CEO of Hughes, so it's unclear why he would have said "the President over here" rather than "The PresidentS over here."
He may have been lying, sure. Like I said, Luu's comments do not convince me. But I am curious about them.
I am also very suspicious of the sudden rash of plea-bargain agreements with Charlie Trie and John Huang.
Can anybody explain to me why Justice has not appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate these matters? There are allegations of Justice complicity here. Is this not enough for Reno to appoint a semi-independent Special Prosecutor (not a true Independent Prosecutor, a la Ken Starr, but a semi-independent one like Archibald Cox)?
Why is no one demanding this?
Why hasn't Reno decided to do it on her own?
Why does she persist in treating this like a normal prosecution?
164. jexster - May 25, 1999 - 2:04 PM PT
First of all -
Thanks to Irv who at Rosie's instance with support from me and others created this thread removing the subject from US politics where it has no place or relevance. I will not post to the Poetry Thread from my collection of limmericks.
Second of all -
This thread is RIP by Vidor Dan. I'd bet Blobo's coke bottle glasses, his freakishly small p---s on that.
165. OhioSTOPAS - May 25, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT
Ace: PincherMartin, in Message #161, has answered your (and Brit Hume's) accusation based on Robert Luu's alleged statement. As if Luu would know anything, even if Fox News is reporting Luu's ambiguous statement accurately.
Fox News and the insignificant Mr. Luu: LOL squared.
166. OhioSTOPAS - May 25, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT
Message #163: "Can anybody explain to me why Justice has not appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate these matters? There are allegations of Justice complicity here. Is this not enough for Reno to appoint a semi-independent Special Prosecutor (not a true Independent Prosecutor, a la Ken Starr, but a semi-independent one like Archibald Cox)?"
1. "Allegations of Justice complicity?" By FreeRepublic, Fox News, and Rush. Everybody else is just second-guessing her assessment of grounds for a FISA wiretap application.
2. I thought Reno did recently appoint an investigator.
167. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 2:22 PM PT
No, Ohio, she appointed people to conduct an investigation, who will report their findings back to her. She did not appoint an actual Special Proscutor.
168. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 2:24 PM PT
""Allegations of Justice complicity?" By FreeRepublic, Fox News, and Rush. Everybody else is just second-guessing her assessment of grounds for a FISA wiretap application."
Wrong. Robert Torricelli, a liberal Democrat, has called her failure to petition for a warrant "inexplicable" and has called for Clinton to discuss with her her ability to perform her duties and possibly step down.
This is the fourth time now I've told you this. You simply will not accept reality.
169. OhioSTOPAS - May 25, 1999 - 2:25 PM PT
Message #139: "In 1997, six hundred ninety eight FBI wiretap requests were approved by the FBI. Two were denied. One of those two was the Wen Ho Lee wiretap."
Assuming "approved by the FBI" is a typo and you meant "approved by the Justice Department", citation please. I have never seen any government statistics tabulating the number of requests BY THE FBI that government attorneys seek a wiretap.
If Representative Wexler didn't know this statistic is bullshit and why, it's because he's not as well informed as I (and readers of the Fray).
170. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 2:27 PM PT
Ohio:
No, idiot, you have a pet theory which no one else in the world -- including Clinton defender Wexler -- believes in.
171. OhioSTOPAS - May 25, 1999 - 2:30 PM PT
Regarding Torricelli: Like I said, second-guessing of a legal decision. He's not alleging "complicity".
Second-guessing, butt-covering and political cowardice are bipartisan traditions, Ace. No politician wants to be caught on the wrong side if Wen Ho Lee is proven to be a spy and ANY error by anyone (even if proven to be an error only by hindsight) made it possible for him to divulge state secrets.
172. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 2:34 PM PT
Last night's Crossfire:
CARLSON: We know that at some point, not in the Bush administration, Wen Ho Lee at Los Alamos came under suspicion of espionage. The FBI using this suspicion went to the Justice Department and said look we'd like to tap his phone to find out more. The Justice Department said no. Now there about every year 700 requests from the FBI to the Justice Department to tap phones. All but one or two of them are approved. This one wasn't approved. Do you have any idea why?
WEXLER: Well, the attorney general has stated that given the principles of the Constitution and the statutes and the evidentiary requirements that in this case it was not appropriate. And she has now provided for a task force to review what the Department of Justice has done to see if in fact mistakes were made.
CARLSON: OK, mistakes were made.
WEXLER: If they were made.
CARLSON: Let me see if I understand the reasoning here. The attorney general, the one who incinerated the compound at Waco, is telling us that in order to protect the civil rights of a man suspected of passing nuclear secrets to the -- our biggest military rival in the world, that we need to protect his civil rights so we can't tap his phone is that what you're saying?
WEXLER: Well, what our constitution says is that every American citizen is entitled to due process.
CARLSON: Needless to say...
WEXLER: ... under the law -- and please, that's right. These are very serious allegations. I know Janet Reno for years. Nobody is going to suggest to me that she would compromise our national security needlessly or for any political reason. She applied the Constitution the way it should be applied, that I'm certain of.
PRESS: Senator, I know you want to jump in, go ahead.
INHOFE: Well, I was going to say only two out of 700 -- they weren't concerned about the Constitution or the rights of the other 700, but just in these two cases...
173. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 2:35 PM PT
PRESS: Yes.
INHOFE: ... when it involved the most serious theft, perhaps, probably in the history of this country.
WEXLER: Are you familiar with the evidence that was laid on the attorney general's desk when presented with the question of whether or not to do the wiretap?
INHOFE: I'm only familiar with the fact that only two were rejected out of 700.
WEXLER: With all due respect senator, then, how can you criticize the attorney general's decision when you don't even know what evidence she did or did not have. If she didn't have sufficient evidence I am sure we agree she should agree she shouldn't break the law to do so. If she did have...
INHOFE: ... other 700 cases that she sat down and went through all the evidence? Come on, Senator. Come on.
WEXLER: Well let's just rip up the Constitution.
INHOFE: Rip up the Constitution?
WEXLER: No, no, we tried to do that during impeachment.
CARLSON: No, no, the guy had -- he failed the lie-detector test. He's on his way to being fired for suspicions of espionage. It's not as if they yanked him off the street and decided to invade his privacy. There was good cause to believe he was passing secrets, and there's better cause now.
WEXLER: There certainly appears to be good cause, but why don't we let the investigation occur and see what the information is before we start saying this person should have done, when we don't even know what evidence was before her.
PRESS: One of the great things about this country, Tucker, is that everyone accused of a crime still has their constitutional rights appreciated.
CARLSON: Well, that's the right thing. I agree.
PRESS: Senator, I want to get back to this -- there's a lot of finger-pointing here tonight and all day long. Joe Lockhart, White House press secretary, was asked about that at this morning's briefing.
Just quickly what his response to that was and get your respo
174. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 2:37 PM PT
Ohio:
I would strongly suggest you e-mail your pet theory to the White House and Wexler for immediate inclusion in their talking points. It seems you're so much smarter than they are, you know a magic-bullet defense to the charge that they don't.
175. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 2:43 PM PT
More fun from Crossfire:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE LOCKHART, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president did not know of specific allegations. What he knew of was that there were -- that -- two things. One is that we know that we're under no illusions that China and other countries try to acquire sensitive information from the United States. Two, security at the labs was not as strong as it could have been. So, that's what he knew.
SEN. ROBERT TORRICELLI (D), NEW JERSEY: I think it's time for President Clinton to have a conversation with the attorney general about her ability to perform her duties.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To the best of my knowledge, no one has said anything to me about any espionage which occurred by the Chinese against the labs during my presidency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Now in addition to being suspiciously legalistic, that turns out to be false, because less than two months later Bill Richardson, the secretary of energy, was asked on television roughly the same question and admitted on live TV that in fact the president had been fully briefed about espionage committed by the Chinese.
176. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 2:46 PM PT
Ohio:
The "only two rejections out of seven hundred requests" allegation has been repeated dozens of times for three months, by FoxNews, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Christopher Hitchens, Brit Hume, Carl Cameron, etc., etc., etc.
If it simply isn't true, as your pet theory postulates, why hasn't any Clinton defender said so yet?
Why doesn't Clinton's point-man Wexler know it isn't true?
Why are they keeping its falsity a secret?
177. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 2:50 PM PT
Tucker Carlson asserts the 2 rejections out of 700 as true.
Senator Inhofe asserts it's true.
Robert Wexler concedes it's true, but argues that it's not so suspicious.
Bill Press doesn't deny it, either.
Tell me, OhioGenius, what do you know that a Democratic Representative, a Republican Senator, a conservative pundit, and a liberal pundit all don't know?
178. cllrdr - May 25, 1999 - 3:44 PM PT
Zz
(testing, testing)
179. DaveCook - May 25, 1999 - 3:46 PM PT
Seems to me Chris Cox is looking like a pretty good choice for VP.
180. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 3:53 PM PT
OhioGenius:
Why doesn't the White House respond to today's charge in the Washington Times?:
As it happens, when the FBI initially requested the wiretap in June 1997, the Senate was preparing to open its hearings on campaign-finance abuses. On July 8, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson charged that Chinese officials had "crafted a plan to increase China's influence over the U.S. political process." Meanwhile, the Justice Department, which was run by the president's pliable attorney general, was repeatedly rejecting FBI requests for wiretaps to investigate Chinese nuclear espionage.
In a normal year, the Justice Department routinely pursues 99.8 percent of the FBI's 700 or so wiretap requests. Janet Reno's Justice Department would have us believe that the one request that was rejected in 1997 just coincidentally dealt with the FBI's investigation of Chinese nuclear espionage at a time when Congress was investigating illegal Chinese political contributions.
If these facts are untrue, as you continue to assert based on nothing but a hunch, why doesn't a White House spokesman come forward and say so?
181. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 3:59 PM PT
More Democratic Quotes about Reno's denial of a wiretap:
Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Mr. Torricelli said how disgusted he was over the Justice Department's repeated failure to pursue FBI requests for secret warrants for wiretaps in 1997. Those wiretaps would have given the FBI access to an office computer and the telephone of a scientist working at the Los Alamos nuclear-weapons laboratory whom the FBI was investigating for espionage. Accordingly, the FBI did not gain access to the suspected spy's computer until the suspect was fired in March 1999. Then, the FBI learned that the suspect had downloaded into his unclassified office computer more than 1,000 computer files from the laboratory's classified computer system. Those files contained America's most sensitive nuclear secrets.
"[T]his is potentially the greatest failure of American intelligence in our history," Mr. Torricelli declared. "It is an extraordinary lapse of judgment in the highest levels of law enforcement, with consequences for a full generation."
Asked if Miss Reno should resign, the New Jersey senator responded, "I think the failures of judgment by the attorney general of the United States are inexplicable. I do not know how she could explain the failures to provide this wiretap, despite overwhelming evidence that there was probable cause and that the national security was being compromised." Pressed to say whether Miss Reno should resign, Mr. Torricelli bluntly replied, "I think it's time for President Clinton to have a conversation with the attorney general about her ability to perform her duties and whether or not it's in the national interest for her to continue." For the few who still didn't get it, he said he was not the only Democrat disillusioned by Miss Reno: "[T]here is something wrong when the United States Congress on a bipartisan basis has so little confidence in the chief law enforc
182. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 4:00 PM PT
enforcement officer in the country."
Indeed, Sen. Bob Kerrey, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, agreed with Mr. Torricelli's assertions that there was probable cause to obtain the wiretap and that national security was being compromised. "Most of us on the [intelligence] committee see [the FBI's wiretap request] as something that should have been granted," Mr. Kerrey noted two weeks ago, after his committee grilled Miss Reno. "We don't understand why the surveillance opportunity wasn't presented," Mr. Kerrey complained on May 12.
Four days later, however, Miss Reno still didn't have a clue. "I have reviewed the [FBI's] application" for a wiretap, she told CNN on May 16. "I feel the appropriate steps were taken." Really.
183. FreeToChoose - May 25, 1999 - 4:19 PM PT
In Message #149 PincherMartin says:
"The Chinese are very practical, and their first concern is to increase the economic wealth and power of their country."
If you really believe this, please explain why they haven't converted to a capitalist form of economy.
(My guess: they want to increase economic wealth as much as possible *within* the constraint of a repressive regime with themselves at the head.)
184. FreeToChoose - May 25, 1999 - 4:20 PM PT
Wombat
"Thanks to Presidents since Nixon, China is now our "friend." Can one commit "treason" by ignoring the espionage of a "friend?" "
In a word, yes.
185. FreeToChoose - May 25, 1999 - 4:22 PM PT
In Message #103 benear says:
"Why we have an official policy that states the US would use nuclear weapons first is beyond me. It is asinine."
We don't have such a policy. If you are convinced that we do, please cite it. I suspect what you mean is that we have very reasonably refused to eschew the first use. Such a decision is decidedly *not* the same as an affirmative policy to use nuclear weapons first.
186. AzureNW - May 25, 1999 - 4:23 PM PT
An interesting side of this story to me isn't what the Chinese have predictably done, but how the Clinton administration created and unleased this threat of mini-nuke technology on the world to support a policy of nuclear first strike against non-nuclear attacks, in appearent violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It was an arrogant and extremely dangerous move that has backfired, as predicted in this article.
Does the U.S. Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Program Pose a Proliferation Threat?
/*
The publicly-acknowledged goal of the DOE's SBSS Program is to develop complex integrated computer simulations as a replacement for nuclear explosive tests of integrated weapon system performance....
Senior DOE and national weapons laboratory officials have stated repeatedly that a major objective of the SBSS program is to achieve a "computational weapons testing -- virtual testing" -- capability as part of "DOE's long range strategy to move nuclear design from a test-based to a simulation-based approach....
This awesome threat must be weighed in the decision by any state to share thermonuclear weapons knowledge with another state, or to do so indiscriminately in an open scientific forum. It must be considered an important factor in deciding whether even the pursuit of additional knowledge in this area is required by the United States, especially in light of the steep economic and technical "barriers to entry" for other states seeking to expand the base of knowledge in this field....
*/
187. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 4:24 PM PT
...and such a policy has always been the US policy, which used to have much fewer men under arms than Russia, and of course has many fewer men under arms than China.
188. AzureNW - May 25, 1999 - 4:26 PM PT
One question the article brings to mind is how "computational weapons testing -- virtual testing" being done by the Chinese or anyone else is to be detected. The idea is that now a nuclear weapon can be tested without ever exploding one. All the testing is accomplished via software simulation.
189. AzureNW - May 25, 1999 - 4:28 PM PT
/*
"Why we have an official policy that states the US would use nuclear weapons first is beyond me. It is asinine."
We don't have such a policy.
*/
The U.S. in fact does have such a policy. The U.S. has a stated policy of first strike against non-nuclear states.
190. AzureNW - May 25, 1999 - 4:34 PM PT
Look into the history of Presidential Decision Directive 62, (PDD-62).
Nuclear policy gets new look
What would you call a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear state if not a first strike?
191. FreeToChoose - May 25, 1999 - 4:44 PM PT
AzureNW
Good link.
I confess I may have misinterpreted the concept of "first-use"; perhaps confusing it with "first-strike". I don't believe we have a policy affirming our right to initiate force against another country using nuclear weapons, but I can understand a policy related to the first use of nuclear weapons in an existing and escalating conflict.
My apologies to benear for misreading.
192. AzureNW - May 25, 1999 - 4:58 PM PT
FreeToChoose -
Thank you. I found a lot to think about in this report from the same site.
End Run: The U.S. Government's Plan for Designing Nuclear Weapons and Simulating Nuclear Explosions under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
193. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 5:31 PM PT
FreeToChoose --
Your parenthetical comment is correct. Their first concern is to maintain the territorial integrity of their country, and they believe the communist party is the only possible mechanism for doing so. However, after that, their first priority is to increse the wealth of their country. However, your "If you really believe this, please explain why they haven't converted to a capitalist form of economy." is not correct. Without going into your libertarian mumbo-jumbo, please explain how the Chinese are going to improve on their 8%-12% a year over the past two decades. The communist party's economic stewardship needs no lessons from you (yet).
194. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 5:32 PM PT
FreeToChoose --
Your parenthetical comment is correct. Their first concern is to maintain the territorial integrity of their country, and they believe the communist party is the only possible mechanism for doing so. However, after that, their first priority is to increase the wealth of their country, so your "If you really believe this, please explain why they haven't converted to a capitalist form of economy." is not correct. Without going into your libertarian mumbo-jumbo, please explain how the Chinese are going to improve on their 8%-12% growth rates a year over the past two decades. The communist party's economic stewardship needs no lessons from you (yet).
195. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 5:36 PM PT
"We don't have such a policy. If you are convinced that we do, please cite it. I suspect what you mean is that we have very reasonably refused to eschew the first use. Such a decision is decidedly *not* the same as an affirmative policy to use nuclear weapons first."
There is no practical difference between the policies.
196. elliot803 - May 25, 1999 - 5:40 PM PT
PM:
"Elliot -- How has an imbalance of power in America's favor been more dangerous for the world."
By making a nuclear strike more likely? The Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine rested on the idea that the threat of retaliation would deter a first strike by either the Soviets or the U.S.
197. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 5:43 PM PT
BTW, in Europe, the U.S. was not willing to give up its first use option until after the Cold War. Now that Russian convential forces are weaker than NATOs forces, the U.S. is willing to sign on to a no first use policy, but the Russian Federation is balking at it.
198. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 5:44 PM PT
Elliot --
Do you really believe we would use that option?
199. elliot803 - May 25, 1999 - 5:45 PM PT
AceOfBase:
"Maybe we can extend this theory to domestic issues... Maybe it will be a safer US if *everybody* carries a handgun... Same principle, right?"
Not really. That would be more like giving strategic nuclear weapons to every nation in the world, which I think would clearly be destabilizing.
200. elliot803 - May 25, 1999 - 5:49 PM PT
PM:
I don't consider it inconceivable. Does the President have the power to order a nuclear attack on another country without the consent of Congress?