202. elliot803 - May 25, 1999 - 5:56 PM PT
That's an awful lot of power to give one man. Or one small group of people. What if we think we're electing Jimmy Carter, and get Martin Sheen from The Dead Zone instead.
203. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 5:58 PM PT
Oh please, let's have a serious conversation.
204. FreeToChoose - May 25, 1999 - 5:59 PM PT
PincherMartin
"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."
I recall that there were impressive claims about the Soviet economy. This does not mean that I simply reject the Chinese claims, but economic claims in an opaque economy ought to be viewed cautiously. Having said that, there are economists with far better credentials who can explain how even gains such as they have accomplished are hardly proof of the superiority of their economic organization.
205. FreeToChoose - May 25, 1999 - 6:02 PM PT
PincherMartin
"There is no practical difference between the policies."
Agreed. But there is a political and perceptual difference.
206. elliot803 - May 25, 1999 - 6:08 PM PT
FTC:
I assume then that you will never parade U.S. economic growth rates as evidence of the "superiority" of its economic organization over that of European nations, or any other nation, for that matter.
(But then, since Europe has enjoyed higher long-term growth anyway, that wouldn't really be an option.)
PM:
Why is it so unreasonable to believe that a rogue (depressed? mentally ill?) President might not launch a nuclear attack on another country, if he has the power to do so?
207. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 6:09 PM PT
FreeToChoose --
"I recall that there were impressive claims about the Soviet economy. This does not mean that I simply reject the Chinese claims, but economic claims in an opaque economy ought to be viewed cautiously."
Yes, there have been accusations of inflated growth estimates, which probably some truth to them, but the Chinese economy has experienced tremendous growth rates, and it is hard to imagine it squeezing out much more growth in the present time. The Soviet claims were also true: they also experienced real growth during the fifties and sixties -- that growth was not a mirage.
The key seems to be that you don't need freedom to build an industrial economy -- an authoritarian state (Soviet Union, China, South Korea can do that just fine, and some argue (Francis Fukuyama) arguye they can do it better than democracies. But in the shift from an industrial to a service-oriented economy, the authoritarian state seems to have trouble making the transition. This was why I added my parenthetical (yet) in my first post to you.
208. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 6:11 PM PT
Ohio:
The "2 denials out of 700 requests" was just repeated on hannity and Colmes, in a question posed to Dan Burton.
Liberal Clinton defender Alan Colmes did not dispute the numbers.
PLEASE!!!
Your president is counting on you!!
Please tell everyone that these numbers, which both conservative Clinton-haters and liberal Clinton-lickers all accept as true, are in fact false!!
You're the only one who knows the real truth!
Call President Clinton and get him to release the "real facts"!! How much longer will he allow these libellous falsehoods to persist!
209. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 6:15 PM PT
Elliot --
"Why is it so unreasonable to believe that a rogue (depressed? mentally ill?) President might not launch a nuclear attack on another country, if he has the power to do so?"
While there are no constitutional barriers to a President launching a nuclear weapon, there are institutional barriers, and if a President appears to be unstable, there are ways to keep him from doing something insane.
I believe in Nixon's final days, Alexander Haig took steps to remove the nuclear "football" from the President's power.
210. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 7:03 PM PT
Bill Richardson's mantra: "It's time to move on..."
Richardson has blitzed the talking-show circuit telling all who would listen that there is no need for finger-pointing, no need for laying blame where it belongs, and above all no need for further investigation.
It's time to move on, he concludes. Mistakes were made but there's no point living in the past.
Okay.
Sure.
211. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 7:28 PM PT
Fred Thompson on the Chinese-money scandal:
"This is the only campaign-finance scandal *in history* where only the donors have been prosecuted. Usually it's the recipients. Think about that."
212. cllrdr - May 25, 1999 - 7:37 PM PT
Pssst, Ace!
IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON!
213. AuNaturel - May 25, 1999 - 7:51 PM PT
"Why is it so unreasonable to believe that a rogue (depressed? mentally ill?) President might not launch a nuclear attack on another country, if he has the power to do so?"
I understand that when Nixon was approaching impeachemnt there was an informal agreement among the Joint Chiefs that lacking clear evidence of a Soviet attack the military would refuse the Presidential order to do so. Even orders for conventional attacks would be filtered through the Speaker first.
214. DaveCook - May 25, 1999 - 8:02 PM PT
Velma: Good work, Scooby and Shaggy, he really fell into your Scoopy-trap.
Scooby: Rooby-Roo.
Velma: Now, we'll see whose been dressing up as a Chinese Dragon and swimming in the Potomac.
(unmasking whoosh).
All: Presi-dent Clinton!?!
Fred: Bill Clinton was trying to pick up campaign donations from the Chinese Ambassador, but he couldn't sneak out the front gates of the White House. His only chance was to swim to the Chinese Embassy and he dressed up as a Chinese dragon to scare away Fisherman.
Velma: Our first clue was when we found the Chinese Ambassador picking up Big Mac wrappers from the White House lawn.
President Clinton: ..and I would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for those meddling kids and their dog.
Scooby Doo: Rooby Roo!!!
215. CalGal - May 25, 1999 - 8:08 PM PT
Scooby Doo bites DaveCook in the ass for forgetting his reward, the reason for his being, the BEST PART of solving mysteries, when Velma gives Scooby his, um, snack.
Rooby Roo!!!!
216. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 8:56 PM PT
Michael Kelly: THE CLINTON SYNDROME
Washington Post
May 26, 1999 Michael Kelly
For fair use
The lawyers, flacks, hacks and good Democrats who assured us that it didn't really matter that the president was a pathologically dedicated liar -- because, you will recall, he only lied about that which gentlemen should lie about -- might now wish, in light of the Cox Report on Chinese espionage, to revisit their position.
On March 19, in the wake of press reports disclosing an ongoing campaign by the People's Republic of China to steal America's nuclear secrets, the president held a news conference. He carefully characterized China's espionage as occurring "in the mid-'80s, not in the 1990s" -- not, in other words, during the years in which China was funneling cash into Clinton's campaign coffers and Clinton was hailing China as America's "strategic partner."
ABC's Sam Donaldson asked the obvious question: "Can you assure the American people that, under your watch, no valuable nuclear secrets were lost?" Clinton was unequivocal in his answer.
"You asked me [a] question, which is: Can I tell you that there has been no espionage at the labs since I have been president?" Clinton said. "I can tell you that no one has reported to me that they suspect such a thing has occurred."
Later another reporter returned to the subject. This time, Clinton prefaced his denial with a bit of his patented weasel talk: "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."
At this time, Clinton had already been briefed by his national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, about Department of Energy and FBI investigations into ongoing Chinese espionage at the laboratories. The Cox Report, released yesterday, states that Berger informed the committee that he had briefed Clinton &
217. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 8:58 PM PT
that he had briefed Clinton "about the theft of U.S. nuclear information in early 1998." A last-minute footnote reports that Berger changed his story in recent weeks, and "advised the Select Committee that the president was briefed in July 1997, although no written record of this meeting exists."
What is more, Clinton had received, in January 1999, a written executive summary of the classified version of the Cox Report, prepared by the president's national security staff. Again, such a summary surely included the report's conclusion, as written in the declassified version, that "the People's Republic of China has stolen classified information on all of the United States' most advanced thermonuclear warheads, and several of the associated re-entry vehicles [in] an intelligence collection program spanning two decades, and continuing to the present. The PRC intelligence program included espionage . . . and extensive interactions with scientists from the . . . national weapons laboratories."
Indeed, any competent summary must have gone into some detail on the subject of continuing Chinese espionage in the Clinton years. In the declassified version, the Cox Report states that "in the mid-1990s, the PRC stole from a U.S. national weapons laboratory classified U.S. thermonuclear weapons information"; that "significant secrets are known to have been stolen as recently as the mid-1990s"; that Lawrence Livermore scientist Peter Lee had in 1997 passed to Chinese weapons scientists classified research on submarine detection; that intelligence agencies had reported in 1996 the Chinese theft of neutron bomb technology from a U.S. lab.
So, on the day before the release of the declassified Cox Report, White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart faced a press corps that wanted to know why the president, on March 19, had asserted that no one had reported to him, ever, even suspicions of "espionage at the lab
218. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 8:59 PM PT
So, on the day before the release of the declassified Cox Report, White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart faced a press corps that wanted to know why the president, on March 19, had asserted that no one had reported to him, ever, even suspicions of "espionage at the labs since I have been president." Clearly incredulous reporters spent 57 questions trying to worm the truth out of Lockhart. The president's man evaded, obfuscated and retreated on occasion into outright misstatements of fact.
Asked about the case of Peter Lee, Lockhart pretended that Clinton had been speaking in his March 19 statements only to the issue of nuclear espionage at the labs, not espionage in general. (Cute, huh?) Asked about Clinton's briefing by Berger, and about the January summary of the Cox Report, Lockhart again hid behind the pathetic claim that Clinton's March 19 statements had been "accurate" because Clinton had been asserting ignorance of specific acts of espionage, not of a general knowledge that espionage might have occurred on his watch.
On March 19, President Clinton lied, not about private acts -- not about sexually exploiting or harassing or assaulting this or that unfortunate woman -- but about the gravest issue of national security imaginable. Congress should force Berger to testify as to what precisely he told Clinton, and when. Congress should also subpoena the written summary of the Cox Report Clinton received in January. Congress should not let this lie pass.
Michael Kelly is the editor of National Journal.
219. CalGal - May 25, 1999 - 8:59 PM PT
Ace,
Link, dammit.
220. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 9:00 PM PT
Cal:
No.
221. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 9:00 PM PT
There is no point linking when Ohio is going to come in and deny everything. Better to put the whole article on display so he doesn't make a fool of himself yet again.
222. BoomerJeff - May 25, 1999 - 9:01 PM PT
So once again, the President's men implore us to "move on."
That's what the cops say when crowds gather to gawk at an auto crash.
Why is it that with this President we're always being urged to "move on". Why can't we stop right here for a few weeks? Why can't we stay right here till everyone in the country understands what has happened?
223. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 9:03 PM PT
CalGal:
Please parse the lie above, and explain to me:
1) how it isn't really a lie;
2) how it doesn't affect his job performance;
3) how it isn't really any of my business;
4) how it isn't important anyway; and
5) how Clinton was entrapped into lying by various nefarious forces allied against him.
You have thirty minutes to complete your essay. Please begin.
224. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 9:06 PM PT
If you deign to wax philosophical, you might also answer this question:
Why does a man who has done nothing blameless feel compelled to tell such a brazen lie-- TWICE in the same press conference?
225. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 9:11 PM PT
No takers? Anyone? Buehler? Anyone?
226. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 9:12 PM PT
"done nothing blameworthy" is what I meant, of course.
So let me try that again:
Why does a man who has done nothing blameworthy feel compelled to tell such a brazen lie-- TWICE in the same press conference?
227. CalGal - May 25, 1999 - 9:18 PM PT
Ace,
You don't seem to remember the last time we discussed this situation. I'm crushed and devastated.
228. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 9:20 PM PT
May 26, 1999
Spying Charges Against Beijing Are Spelled Out by House Panel
By JEFF GERTH and JAMES RISEN (NEW YORK TIMES)
...
The committee's criticisms of the Administration's policy of easing technology exports to improve political relations could also become an issue in the Presidential campaign...
...
And it offers a new view of efforts by the Chinese military to funnel money to a Democratic fundraiser in 1996: that the money, given by a Chinese military officer, Lieut. Col. Liu Chaoying, who met President Clinton at a benefit in 1996[!!], "was an attempt to better her position in the United States to acquire computer, missile and satellite technologies."
...
The report criticizes the looser controls on technology exports, a cornerstone of President Clinton's commercial diplomacy, but does not assign blame for lax security at the laboratories. A principal finding is that the United States did not become "fully aware of the magnitude of the problem" until 1995.
[The committee] faulted the cooperation it received from the Administration and from Hughes and Loral as less than complete.
Specific complaints involve the failure of some Cabinet departments to turn over some documents or allow some interviews and the fact that Berger took 40 days to respond to a written question about when President Clinton was informed about the spying reports[!!!!- why was this such a difficult question?].
Berger originally told the committee that the President was informed in early 1998. But this month, long after the report was completed, Berger changed his account and said he had briefed Clinton in July 1997.
A senior aide to Berger attributed the delay and inaccuracy to poor staff work and distractions from American bombing of Iraq, which began a few days before Berger's reply.
The committee relied on Berger's first account, saying the President was not briefed unt
229. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 9:21 PM PT
until early 1998 "even though" the scope of the problem was first uncovered by intelligence officials in 1995. The officials then briefed Berger in 1996.
...
These are some of the report's findings:
The Chinese Government has 3,000 "front" companies in the United States, but American agencies seem to have little knowledge about their existence or activities. In the 1990's, China stepped up its use of front companies for espionage.
China stole unspecified thermonuclear weapons information, possibly from a national weapons laboratory, in the mid-1990's. This is in addition to China's acquisition of design secrets on seven nuclear warheads, including the neutron bomb and the W-88, the most advanced, miniaturized warhead.
China has stolen information relating to American re-entry vehicles, which shield warheads as they return to earth.
China illegally obtained ballistic-missile guidance technology that it has exploited for its own weapons.
China illegally obtained American research on electromagnetic-weapons technology related to satellites in the late 1990's.
China's agreement to allow monitoring of its use of American exports, which was announced at summit talks in Beijing in 1998, is "wholly inadequate" in general and "useless" in the case of advanced computers.
The report said Washington's policy of allowing corporations to police their own technology sales, a significant step taken in the first Clinton Administration, has not worked because national security interest "simply may not be related to improving a corporation's 'bottom line.'"
On the subject of aid by American satellite manufacturers for Chinese scientists, the committee found that in 1993, 1995 and 1996 the companies "transferred missile design information and know-how" to China "without obtaining the legally required licenses." The "illegally
230. CalGal - May 25, 1999 - 9:22 PM PT
Ace,
Hey, I archive these threads, dammit. Don't put all these articles in it! Puh-lleeeez?
231. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 9:23 PM PT
The "illegally transmitted" information has improved the reliability of China's civilian and military rockets and "is useful for the design and improved reliability" of future Chinese ballistic missiles.
...
[NOTE: Clinton has granted a retroactive waiver which effectively prevents Justice from prosecuting Loral and Hughes for these transfers.
But it doesn't affect his job performance. And he didn't do it because Loral and its CEO, Bernie Shwartz, were his Number One contributors in 1996, with Hughes Electronics also placing respectably on the list.
Trust him.
You have his word on it.]
232. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 9:24 PM PT
Cal:
No, I'm sorry, but there's no point linking an article when Ohio is going to come in and demand citations for everything. It's much more efficient to just post everything.
233. CalGal - May 25, 1999 - 9:26 PM PT
Oh, yes. I've noticed it makes a huge difference in the resulting debate.
234. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 9:28 PM PT
Cal:
So you won't parse that lie for me? Or do you concede it was a lie, was job-related, is my business, is important, and was not masterminded by a right-wing cabal?
235. CalGal - May 25, 1999 - 9:38 PM PT
Ace,
I haven't read the report yet, but as I told you the LAST TIME WE DISCUSSED THIS (and I'm still crushed you don't remember) that this was certainly job related. Do I think he should resign? Hell, no. Do I think you should care? Yes. Is it your business? Yes. Is it a VRWC? No. Is it important? Yes.
That cover them all?
236. stamper - May 25, 1999 - 11:37 PM PT
Well, the Clinton lickers are all out with the grease cans just a greasing up that pig so he will slip right through everybodies fingers.
"Mistakes have been made," hell Ace i posted that hours ago on the Play Pen where i probably should of stayed, but after reading every post from beginning to end i just got to laugh.
Old fat boy Clinton is just in the same old spot he was in before but he ain't worried because there is more guys with the grease can than those who can wipe it off.
A moron could see what's relly going on, but these Clinton defenders is a bit lower than morons, maybe.
237. stamper - May 25, 1999 - 11:38 PM PT
benear
Don't you go telling me when it's quitting time on the Foss Tug. that's for Rick to say.
238. OhioSTOPAS - May 26, 1999 - 3:35 AM PT
Ace: Regarding Message #172 et seq, for one thing you misquoted Tucker Carlson. Like the good bow-tied conservative weenie he is, he quoted as fact William Safire's unsubstantiated statement that of the "about 700" requests the FBI makes to have government lawyers pursue FISA wiretap applications, only "one or two a year" are refused. (Why can this neutral information require only be verified by Safire's anonymous source?) Inhofe embellished Carlson's statement by saying, without substantiation, that there were in fact only two denials in 1997, and they both pertained to Wen Ho Lee.
The operations of Justice Department under FISA have been discussed in closed session by Janet Reno. I don't know what she said. Nor do you. Nor does Rush Limbaugh.
239. OhioSTOPAS - May 26, 1999 - 3:40 AM PT
Essay question for Clinton-haters:
Compare and contrast: (1) Reagan administration's action (if any) in response to discovery that lab employee may have revealed neutron bomb secrets to China during Carter administration to (2) Clinton administration's action in response to discovery that lab employee may have revealed multiple warhead secrets to China during Reagan administration.
For extra credit, explain why slow action is "treason" but inaction is not.
240. AceOfSpades - May 26, 1999 - 4:37 AM PT
"The operations of Justice Department under FISA have been discussed in closed session by Janet Reno. I don't know what she said. Nor do you. Nor does Rush Limbaugh."
Uhhh, if it isn't true, why didn't Robert Wexler or Bill Press just say so? Why hasn't the Administration put out the facts?
Weak.
Compare and contrast: (1) Reagan administration's action (if any) in response to discovery that lab employee may have revealed neutron bomb secrets to China during Carter administration
Reagan didn't know about it, dope. Read the Cox Report.
to (2) Clinton administration's action in response to discovery that lab employee may have revealed multiple warhead secrets to China during Reagan administration.
Uhhhh, Earth to Ohio? Only the W-88 and ORIGINAL neutron bomb theft occurred before 1992. All the other thefts-- of all other warhead designs, of the modern neutron bomb design, of submarine tracking technology, of ballistic missile technology, of laser technology, of EMP technology, of rail-gun technology--
ALL OCCURRED 1992 OR LATER.
241. AceOfSpades - May 26, 1999 - 4:43 AM PT
From the Cox Report...
Wang Jun is the son of the late PRC President Wang Zhen. Wang simultaneously holds two powerful positions in the PRC. He is Chairman of the China International Trade and Investment Company (CITIC), the most powerful and visible corporate conglomerate in the PRC. He is also the President of Polytechnologies Corporation, an arms-trading company and the largest and most profitable of the corporate structures owned by the PLA. Wang's position gives him considerable clout in the business, political, and military hierarchies in the PRC.34
Wang is publicly known in the United States for his role in the 1996 campaign finance scandal and for Polytechnologies' indictment stemming from its 1996 attempt to smuggle 2,000 Chinese AK-47 assault rifles into the United States. He attended a White House "coffee" with President Clinton in February 1996 and was given a meeting with Commerce Secretary Ronald Brown the following day. He was also connected to over $600,000 in illegal campaign contributions made by Charlie Trie to the U.S. Democratic National Committee (DNC).35
How you guys feel about gun-control now?
242. AceOfSpades - May 26, 1999 - 5:00 AM PT
From the Cox Report...
"In addition, in the mid-1990s the PRC stole from a U.S. national weapons laboratory classified U.S. thermonuclear weapons information that cannot be identified in this unclassified Report. Because this recent espionage case is currently under investigation and involves sensitive intelligence sources and methods, the Clinton administration has determined that further information cannot be made public."
It's cute how Ohio and the Liberal Herd are spinning. Clinton demands that details of the most recent thefts be deleted from the public report. Then they're free to claim that no spying occurred on Clinton's watch.
Wrong.
As you can see from the above (just one of a hundred such "deleted by request of Clinton Administration" statements), there's a lot of espionage documented, but not *detailed*, by the Cox Report which occurs in the mid 1990's. That is, ELECTION TIME, baby!
It's the most recent cases, the ones Justice is ostensibly "pursuing," that must be protected from revelation, of course.
243. AceOfSpades - May 26, 1999 - 5:18 AM PT
Looks like Ohio's wrong again:
Compare Ohio's statement:
"Compare and contrast: (1) Reagan administration's action (if any) in response to discovery that lab employee may have revealed neutron bomb secrets to China during Carter administration"
To the Cox Report, endorsed unanimously by the Democrats on the Committee:
"On two occasions, the PRC has stolen classified U.S. information about neutron warheads from a U.S. national weapons laboratory. The United States learned of these thefts of classified information on the neutron bomb in 1996 and in the late 1970s, when the first theft -- including design information on the W-70 warhead -- occurred. The W-70 warhead contains elements that may be used either as a strategic thermonuclear weapon, or as an enhanced radiation weapon ("neutron bomb"). The PRC subsequently tested the neutron bomb. The U.S. has never deployed a neutron weapon."
Oh, PS, Ohio: Yes, that's right. The theft of the W-70 was discovered only "months later" in the late 1970's, on Carter's watch.
A later passage makes this clear.
So, okay, I was wrong. I guess Reagan did know.
Because the original theft both took place on Carter's watch, and was discovered on Carter's watch.
If you have a problem with the response at the time, take it up with James Earl Carter.
244. wexxford1 - May 26, 1999 - 6:08 AM PT
"Chinese Espionage " Soap for the Summer ? Yes. But...are we not madly over the top before the blatherpussing China chatter begins? Nine --yes,folks--N_I_N_E congressional committees are blathering about the greatest theft of secrets in the tired old history of mankind.Already, the TV lipflappers eyes are glazed over. Talk is very cheap, especially Chinese chatter . Did anyone hear of a single American garment or shoe manufacturer closing down the cheap labor,tax free operation in China ? Of course, not.Nothing real will intrude on a Chinese soap to keep the morons marching . Rock on Fraygrants. Rock on.
245. benear - May 26, 1999 - 6:17 AM PT
Good morning boys and men (you know who you are). Let's start with a link: National lab news
246. benear - May 26, 1999 - 6:23 AM PT
Since none of you turned in your homework, I assume you are unaware that All national labortories are under the purview of DOE. DOE is in the habit of contracting out the operation of the National Labs. Their current contractors are:
Los Alamos - weapons design - University of California
Lawarence Livermore - weapons design - University of California
Lawarence Berkeley - weapons design - University of California
Oak Ridge - materials research - Lockheed Martin
Sandia - Weapons telemetry design - Sandia Corp. (a Lockheed Martin company)
Argonne - Reactor research - University of Chicago
Idaho National Engineering Lab - Lockheed Martin
Brookhaven - Battelle/SUNY
Pacific Northwest - Battelle
Savannah River Lab - Westinghouse
247. RosettaStone - May 26, 1999 - 6:31 AM PT
I found the best quotes last night on cable came from William Safire, New York Times columnist, on CNN:
"Well, let me be the skunk at this garden party. Everybody's being very gentlemanly. I thought the cloud of fluff that Bill Richardson laid out before us of, everybody did it, it went back to Eisenhower and now we're cleaning it up--that's baloney.
What happened for the first time, is it got to the White House, to the president--excuse me--not to the president--to the White House in 1996, right in the middle of a presidential campaign, when Bill Clinton was raising a lot of money from Asian sources, and it came to Sandy Berger, the national security adviser, and what did he do? Zilch, nothing, paid no attention to it, forget about it, came back to him a year later. Again, nothing happened after the president was re-elected. The policy changed. The trade policy became much more rollover. The whole idea of being careful about what technology we sold to the Chinese--out the window."
248. benear - May 26, 1999 - 6:33 AM PT
Fundamentally, DOE contracts with Universities and One major defense contractor. Wen Ho Lee was, therefore, an employee of The University of Califoria with all the rights, honors, and fringe benefits associated with being an employee of that institution.
The national labs that are run by universities have employees that view themselves as essentially University Professors. They are ACADEMICS! Their goal in life is to have tenure. Given the length of time Wen Ho Lee was an employee of the University of California, I assume he had tenure.
Why hasn't Wen Ho Lee been arrested for espionage? I suspect there is a fine line between valid academic interactions with other academics in one's field of study including Chinese academics and espionage.
Well that's enough information for one day. TTFN
249. RosettaStone - May 26, 1999 - 7:10 AM PT
William Safire used the opportunity he had last night on CNN's Larry King to pressure U.S. representatives and senators to take the Justice Department's stonewalling PERSONALLY.
I think he hit a nerve.
SAFIRE: Now, everybody around this table here in varying degrees is down on the Justice Department, which has successfully stonewalled both the House and the Senate on this matter. I'd like to ask Senator Shelby, Chairman Shely, are you going to take this? Are you just going to roll over and allow the Justice Department to stick its thumb in your eye?
SHELBY: Well, let me answer you, Bill. First of all, we're not taking it. On a bipartisan basis, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate Intelligence Committee have been closely, rigorously examining the FBI director and the role of the Justice Department, headed by Janet Reno.
Last week, it was a tough hearing. There are probably going to be some more. I believe, myself, that there's culpability by the Justice Department, that the Justice Department headed by Janet Reno has just not up to the task, that the Justice Department adrift, that we can do better, that this Justice Department and--headed by Janet Reno and her top lieutenants have not served this nation well. And I don't have any confidence in it.
And I believe she should resign.
250. PincherMartin - May 26, 1999 - 7:34 AM PT
Benear --
What's your point? When an employee has tenure, they are not culpable for their crimes?
251. PincherMartin - May 26, 1999 - 7:43 AM PT
Benear --
I thnk it's pretty obvious that if what you're saying is correct, then it's an unacceptable policy. People who work on nuclear weapons design should not have the full range of benefits and rights available to an academic. They certainly give up their right to privacy.
252. uzmakk - May 26, 1999 - 7:58 AM PT
How about this--
I speculated on talk radio this morning that this whole hemoraging of information began in our strategic battle with the Soviet Union during the cold war, at which time we would have had a small open channel to China. All the Chinese did was enlarge it. Bet a large dose of information flowed to China when we deployed the Pershing missles in "Europe". Weren't those 12 missles that showed up in Pakistan a couple of years ago from China and of the Pershing type? Our Pershings meet their Pershings.
253. benear - May 26, 1999 - 7:59 AM PT
My point, PM is the labs are research institutions run by Universities. They act like, smell like and quack like a University. Mr. Lee no doubt participated in many technical exchanges and academic meetings with his fellow scientists, some of whom were from China. The procedure for publishing a paper or participating in some academic exchange involves getting the approval of not only Mr. Lee's employer, but also DOE.
My point is he has not been arrested because they don't have the goods on him. Either they can't prove he transmitted classified information without approval or they approved of whatever information he did transmit.
254. RosettaStone - May 26, 1999 - 8:01 AM PT
Ace: JadeGold seems to think that "Simon Templar" is BobaFett. If so, thank you for posting in The Cox Report: Trouble in DEMOville? thread in the Politics section of TT.
Four Clinton-cultist fraygrants are posting there (in particular the vicious tP) and I can use the help of some good conservative writers there.
255. benear - May 26, 1999 - 8:12 AM PT
And it is not unlikely that classified information was transmitted with approval.
Up until the late eighties, a person couldn't fart at any DOE weapons site without it being labeled classified. I remember an incident in 1988 or so. The site I was working at was renegotiaing a contract with one of the labor unions. The union went on strike and set up picket lines at the front gate. As part of this labor unrest, an incident occurred. Everyone at the site (3000+) people knew about the incident. Many many of those people did not have security clearances.
To make a long story short, I met with the company's Classification Officer on a totally unrelated matter the day following the incident. As part of the small talk just prior to the meeting, I mentioned the incident of the previous day. At which point he abruptly said, "You can't talk about that. It is classified."
DOE is managing so much "classified" information that it is in a word, unmanageable. They have undertaken a very large effort to declassify information that is unnessarily classified. I am talking about tens of millions of documents.
Bottom line: The public is just finding out how unmanageable the whole thing is. And the Congress is Shocked, Shocked I tell you about what has occurred. They are as usual, hypocrites.
256. cllrdr - May 26, 1999 - 8:34 AM PT
You got it, b.
But enough of this trivia. Let's get back to the *really important stuff* -- Gossip!
"Simon Templar," eh? Interesting, very interesting. . .
257. benear - May 26, 1999 - 8:41 AM PT
AceOfSaint? I think not.
258. FreeToChoose - May 26, 1999 - 9:13 AM PT
In Message #206 elliot803 says:
"I assume then that you will never parade U.S. economic growth rates as evidence of the "superiority" of its economic organization over that of European nations, or any other nation, for that matter."
Yes, I might. Did you think your statement followed from mine? If so, let me know, and I'll explain the error, since none of our economists have jumped in.
"Why is it so unreasonable to believe that a rogue (depressed? mentally ill?) President might not launch a nuclear attack on another country, if he has the power to do so?"
Your position is that a mentally ill President might launch a first strike using nuclear weapons, but this same mentally ill President would be dissuaded if the target country had nuclear weapons? Do I understand your position correctly?
259. FreeToChoose - May 26, 1999 - 9:49 AM PT
In Message #216 AceOfSpades quotes the WP:
" "You asked me [a] question, which is: Can I tell you that there has been no espionage at the labs since I have been president?" Clinton said. "I can tell you that no one has reported to me that they suspect such a thing has occurred." "
Surely we have learned how to parse such a statement. Suppose that Berger walks in to tell the President about espionage at the labs. The President asks, "Are you telling me that you suspect espionage?"
Answer, "Absolutely not; we KNOW there has been espionage."
Clinton, "So I would be accurate if I told people that you haven't told that you SUSPECT espionage."
Answer, "well, ummm, technically accurate, if you don't mind being misleading."
Clinton, "have you forgotten who you are talking to?"
Answer, "Sorry, what was I thinking?"
260. Wombat - May 26, 1999 - 10:10 AM PT
FTC made a funny!
261. FreeToChoose - May 26, 1999 - 10:49 AM PT
Wombat
Sorry, I'll try not to let it happen again.
262. jexster - May 26, 1999 - 11:32 AM PT
This is why this "scandal" is a crock
- why the Reagan Bush bureaucrats who permitted the theft of 7 nuke designs can sleep well tonight
- why BloboFett will once more be left holding his FLP
- why Blobo and crew are sad sacks of borderline sanity and no political skill
- why this Thread is dead by Vidor Dan
"[LAT]Shaken high-technology executives braced yesterday
for restrictions on their overseas sales in the wake of
a House committee report charging that lax
enforcement of export controls let China get ahold of
valuable American know-how.
Executives and independent analysts warned that any
restrictions -- particularly that the government verify
that China does not use American-made computers
for military purposes -- would result in lost sales
without helping national security.
``Our biggest concern is that the industry will end up
losing market share to foreign competitors without
accomplishing any strategic goal,'' said Dan Hoydysh,
trade policy director for computer-maker Unisys.
263. Ronski - May 26, 1999 - 11:42 AM PT
And then, all of a sudden, the Left started embracing the benefits of free trade.
Some Libertarians wept for joy.
But others suspected that it wouldn't last.
264. jexster - May 26, 1999 - 11:43 AM PT
The Chinese Government has issued a challenge that should keep Blobo playing with himself well into the next millenium:
Please show us any direct or circumstantial evidence that supports any conclusion of theft cited in the Cox report.
Take all the time you want Ass of Blast.
265. Ronski - May 26, 1999 - 11:46 AM PT
I'm afraid the evidence vaporizes when it hits L.A.
266. PincherMartin - May 26, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
Benear --
Your point is silly. Yes, classified information is abundant, and even top secret information is common, but top secret nuclear weapons design information is not. Your notion that this information was transferred to the Chinese under approval is either ridiculous or indicative of huge problems at our labs.
However, I understand your point about the large amount of classified material that is difficult to manage. Just about any kind of information connected to the military is at least classified as "confidential". When I was in the military (I had a secret clearance), this "confidential" classification included such things as the number of people who were in your unit or when they were going on deployment (among many, many other things). If you were in a bar, and you told your drinking buddy (who is not in the military) you were leaving for South Korea next week to participate in Team Spirit, you *could* be in serious trouble. Actually, this kind of breach of security happens all the time, and nothing is done about it, because it isn't that serious. Most people intuitively know that the number of people in your unit or when you go on deployment is easy information to get, so there isn't any serious effort made to go after these kinds of violations (and indeed, most people in the military could very well have forgotten that some of this information represents a violation at all).
But we are talking about top secret nuclear weapons design information, which is not your run-of-the-mill stuff. If Wen Ho Lee did secure approval, then whoever gave it will soon find their nuts in a vice.
267. Wombat - May 26, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
Unless criminal activity can be proved to the satisfaction of people other than Acey, Rosetta, and other Clinton foamers, attempts by the Republicans to politicize this are not going anywhere.
Too bad the Republicans wasted their Clinton impeachment card on Clinton's sexual peccadillos. A national security scandal is much more galvanizing. It may do Gore a power of no good, though.
268. PincherMartin - May 26, 1999 - 11:51 AM PT
"Please show us any direct or circumstantial evidence that supports any conclusion of theft cited in the Cox report."
Oh please, don't be a fucking idiot.
269. PincherMartin - May 26, 1999 - 11:53 AM PT
Wombat --
Do you not think these charges are serious because of who is pushing them the hardest here in the Fray?
270. Wombat - May 26, 1999 - 12:04 PM PT
Pincher:
I do not deny the serious effects of a long-term series of security breaches. I am, as you appear to be, skeptical as to whether the statements gleefully bruited about by some Republicans and the Fray's coterie of Clinton haters will stand up in something resembling a judicial procedure (even an impeachment trial!) I would also point out that last year's impeachment adventures have probably inoculated many people against any allegations of wrongdoing, real or otherwise, against the Clinton Administration.
271. PincherMartin - May 26, 1999 - 12:12 PM PT
Wombat --
"I am, as you appear to be, skeptical as to whether the statements gleefully bruited about by some Republicans and the Fray's coterie of Clinton haters will stand up in something resembling a judicial procedure (even an impeachment trial!)"
Well, any talk of impeachment at this stage is silly, but it would be a shame if many of the more intelligent Fraygrants took their cues from Rosie as to how much attention they should give this issue. The allegations are extremely serious.
"I would also point out that last year's impeachment adventures have probably inoculated many people against any allegations of wrongdoing, real or otherwise, against the Clinton Administration."
Yes, I can see it here in the Fray. Can't you ignore Rosie long enough to look at the allegations yourself without prejudging the situation? It's as if when Rosie is on one side, you want to be on the other regardless of the merits of the case.
272. jexster - May 26, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
Then show us Pincher. No time limit.
Otherwise blather to your heart's content. You are good at that. Facts just get in your way.
This thread has a life of no more than 4 weeks.
And why else is that?
This is the question asked in the thread introduction:
"Discuss the implications for US/China relations."
There are 270 posts.
Find me 27, 10% that deal with the question.
90% or better deal with slinging mud at Clinton for not uncovering the security laxes of his republican predecessors.
More mud slinging. More bullshit.
Cite the evidence Pincher or continue to pull your pud.
Like I care/.
273. jexster - May 26, 1999 - 12:19 PM PT
Pincher -
You can favor us with answers to the previous message as you wait for the Russian Black Sea Fleet to debouche the Bosphorous on its way to help Slobo.
274. jexster - May 26, 1999 - 12:22 PM PT
My point is this.
Whether or not or to what extent the Chinese stole US secrets during the Reagan Bush administrations, the nature and quality of evidence supporting such conclusions, and the consequences, if any, to our relations with China....
All these issues are irrelevant in the debate now going on in public and in the Fray....
Smells like more of the same Blobo crap to me.
275. AzureNW - May 26, 1999 - 12:27 PM PT
benear -
Re: Message #253
"...the labs are research institutions run by Universities. They act like, smell like and quack like a University...."
I'll bet they don't any more. One unexpected side effect of the espionage scandal may be a massive brain drain from the weapons programs. No one with high-tech engineering skills is going to want to work in an environment so restrictive and intrusive as the weapons labs are becoming under the new security regulations, and no one has to in the current job market. Whatever state weapons projects are in now is about how they will be dumped on whatever clueless new recruits are desperate enough to pick up the pieces. That's frightening, because it's already clear that those in charge of the nation's nuclear weapons programs don't understand the processes well enough to oversee and manage them. The labs will be in chaos.
I would expect a backlash, too. Some people who have been thinking about spreading secrets around will go ahead and do so as they prepare to head out the door in anger.
276. RosettaStone - May 26, 1999 - 12:35 PM PT
Azure has a point. Many of the young engineers and scientists in America now are Asian-Americans. I would hate for dumb, white and black, Americans to paint a broad brush and think of them as spies.
277. PincherMartin - May 26, 1999 - 12:37 PM PT
Jexter --
Did you not take your medicine today?
The U.S. is not going to reveal their intelligence sources (as the Chinese have so slyly hinted by asking how the U.S. got all this information on China's new weapons capabilities), but the report's general conclusions are not being questioned by any American officials -- Democrat or Republican.
278. AzureNW - May 26, 1999 - 12:41 PM PT
The possible role of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in mitigating the impact of technology transfers to China is something I would like to understand better. This site I have been exploring today contains links to quite a lot of information from the pro-ratification standpoint, along with some arguments against.
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) Site
279. PincherMartin - May 26, 1999 - 12:41 PM PT
"You can favor us with answers to the previous message as you wait for the Russian Black Sea Fleet to debouche the Bosphorous on its way to help Slobo."
Spittlemeister --
Wipe your screen off before you read my posts, otherwise you will continue to misunderstand them.
280. PincherMartin - May 26, 1999 - 12:44 PM PT
"Whether or not or to what extent the Chinese stole US secrets during the Reagan Bush administrations, the nature and quality of evidence supporting such conclusions, and the consequences, if any, to our relations with China...."
Well, it wouldn't be the first time that a thread got taken off course, but at least Ace is in the neighborhood. His posts have been on the general topic of this scandal, which is what the Cox report has detailed.
281. JJBiener - May 26, 1999 - 1:14 PM PT
Jex - Why are you so intent on misrepresenting the situation? It is clear from the Cox report that espionage occurred during Clinton's watch. Why do you deny it?
282. davidtudor - May 26, 1999 - 1:25 PM PT
Briefly, three different perspectives from today's Wall Street Journal.
Surprise of surprise, the lead Editorial, while frothing in many directions as only the lead Editorial of the Wall Street Journal can, hones in on the purported links between the purported espionage and Democratic fund-raising (and, natch, manages to get in a reference to Gore at the Buddhist temple). They also take the opportunity to get at a lot of old sores, as evidenced by their last three sentences: "The details we do not yet know, but what is altogether too clear is the climate and culture were set from the top of this Administration. As we asked when the President stumbled into a war he still does not have the will to win (!!!! - sorry, my own editorial comment), does character matter yet?" This then conveniently leads to a pitch for their NEW now five volume Impeachment Commentary which you can get for $63.95 plus shipping and handling.
A news article on the back page of section one, however, is entitled "Evidence Stays Scanty in Chinese Spying Case; Some Officials Unsure U.S. Suffered Major Losses". Again briefly, the thrust of this article is that indeed there were some very sloppy practices involving downloading of materials and similar blunders by a number of people who should have known better, but that the proof is still out as to what real damage actually occurred and whether any of this equates to espionage.
To be continued.
283. davidtudor - May 26, 1999 - 1:30 PM PT
282, continued.
The third article, same page, is a column by Gerald Seib. In some ways the most interesting. A couple of quotes concisely summarize it:
"The demonization of China now sees to be well under way. In search of a post-Cold War enemy to take the place of the Soviet Union, American politicians increasingly are trying to fit the Chinese into the part." "The point here isn't to deny that serious Chinese espionage has taken place. Clearly some has. ... But the broader task is to put it in perspective. Increasingly, political pressures are pushing the U.S. toward a self-fulfilling prophecy: Treat China as if it is inevitably hostile and dangerous, and it is more likely to become hostile and dangerous." "In short, what Americans sometimes see as Chinese hubris may well be Chinese paranoia. Does China's political insecurity make it dangerous? Of course. But does it make China, like the Soviet Union of the 1940s, a natural enemy? No. If nothing else, China and the U.S. have pwoerful common economic interests that the U.S. and the Soviety Union never shared. Hostility isn't inevitable, unless we make it so."
Incidentally, it is common knowledge that the editoral and news staffs and editors despise one another. Passionately.
284. Ronski - May 26, 1999 - 1:41 PM PT
Gerry Seib is no conservative, if that's what you mean.
285. Wombat - May 26, 1999 - 1:45 PM PT
Pincher:
I had written an erudite response to your query, but it disappeared into the ether.
If the information we get concerning Clinton's alleged involvement in this scandal comes from the same sources that brought us Clinton's love child, the Clinton link to the Starbucks killings, and Dan Burton's "proof" that Vince Foster did not commit suicide, as gleefully propagated by the Clinton foamers in the Fray, you are goddammed right I am not going to believe it.
If evidence of culpable and/or criminal negligence that can stand up in a real court when brought by a real prosecutor (who is not working hand in glove with the Republicans), emerges, then let the chips fall where they may.
286. Ronski - May 26, 1999 - 1:58 PM PT
China is particularly ethnocentric and has always been. Given our own ethnocentrism, it is hard for Westerners to understand this, but China will never seek world domination.
China considers the West a good trading partner and source of technology, but otherwise not a society to emulate. They will not abandon their authoritarianism and Confucianism, which are closely related.
China does expect to be the dominant power in Asia, someday. It will also, like nations on the Asian continent in a long contiguous line from Israel to North Korea, continue to work on and build up a nuclear arsenal. All of these nations believe it is important for them to do so for strategic reasons.
China will never become as powerful economically as the U.S. The very idea is preposterous, because they will never permit the kind of personal freedom that is necessary to produce Western-style innovation. Rather, like Japan, they will continue to borrow (or steal) technology from the West and adapt it.
Our relations with China should not be warm. They continue to brutalize the people of Tibet, engaging in the kind of ethnic cleansing favored by Imperial and Soviet Russia, working towards outnumbering the native population of a weak state and destroying its native culture.
On the other hand, we should have no reason not to continue trading with them, and placing our manufacturing there. We both gain economically, and no one gains anything in nuclear war.
287. AzureNW - May 26, 1999 - 2:26 PM PT
The point is being made that only in the very worst case scenario will China or any other Asian nation have relatively few nuclear missles capable of reaching US soil. But it would be easy for an Asian nation to target US or allied troops queued up for a conflict like the one in the Persian Gulf or the Balkans with the weapons technology China has obtained.
I sincerely hope the US has not already made the mistake of setting the precedent of using these kinds of weapons.
288. davidtudor - May 26, 1999 - 2:32 PM PT
Very succinctly and well put, Ronski. There are a number of other statements in the Seib column which go to and support your comments. A few more quotes, if I may: "In their romantic view, Americans look at China and see a huge and potentially powerful nation, home to the world's largest and fastest-growing market. They see an awakening giant. What Americans often miss, though, is the gnawing Chinese sense of inferiroty, the belief that their giant country remains under-appreciated in a world increasingly dominated by the West and the U.S. From the Chinese view, a whole host of recent events are cause for worry. Militarily, the Persian Gulf War showd that U.S. military technology can do things the Chinese army can only imagine. Politically, concern over Serbia's treatment of Kosovo could morph into concern over China's treatment of Tibet. Commercially, the failure of the U.S. to agree to Chinese engry into the World Trade Organization shows that Beijing still doesn't fit into the First World."
a bit more will follow.
289. davidtudor - May 26, 1999 - 2:36 PM PT
the bit more that follows:
"Above all, the Chinese have an economic system that, while mushrooming, still must struggle to pull the ocuntry into the 21st century. 'China is on a course of economic renewal that is going to present them with so many challenges that, unless we make them, they're not going to become our military enemy,' says Democratic Sen. Robert Kerrey....But at least the ecnomic system is modernizing. China's political system, and its view of human rights, remains antiquated and oddly out of sync with the country's economic advances."
I really do hope that we don't end up making China a "them."
290. viewpoint - May 26, 1999 - 3:06 PM PT
davidtudor Message #282. Thanks for the perspective in your sequence of posts.
GW Bush Jr seemed a bit nervous to me when he took a whack at Clinton on this yesterday. He noteably avoided the question of how a president who was an ex-CIA chief (his dad) would allow the lax security on weapons research.
291. RosettaStone - May 26, 1999 - 3:19 PM PT
Reality check. President Jimmy Carter fired CIA Director George Bush in 1977. Since he liked the job, Bush wanted to stay on but Carter would have nothing to do with it. No Cohen in Carter's presidency.
If any espionage took place in the late-1970s, it wasn't on Bush's watch. Plus, it's the FBI who are responsible for domestic counter intelligence.
292. davidtudor - May 26, 1999 - 3:19 PM PT
Viewpoint - I heard Bush the candidate (I don't think he is technically a junior) on radio the other night for the first time. Unless he projects much better on TV than he did on radio, Bush Lite indeed is apt. Thin, reedy voice leaving the impression of lack of gravitas. Not prepared to say that he makes Gore sound exciting, but...
Well, it was inevitable that as this thing works itself out in a political sense that Bush pere's CIA *connection* would become a matter of focus. Let us not forget that he was the Ambassador to China as well. I mean, he really should have known the extent of the potential problem, the Chinese capabilities and propensities for skullduggery etc etc etc. (um, not really serious accusations, just examples of the absurdities that will come into play on this one.)
293. jexster - May 26, 1999 - 3:23 PM PT
JJB -
I haven't read the Cox report. I am not sure that its so fucking clear.
My point is that, in the main, the debate over the Cox report is entirely bogus. Its more shit throwing and as such it will go nowhere. The American People have more common sense than you or the Republicans give them credit for which is why you idiots fared so poorly on impeachment.
They know that this is about stealing weapons secrets over 20 years. They may know that 7 nuclear weapons designs were stolen during Republican administrations. Ultimately they know that very little of what we are hearing here or in the news from your enfeebled Republican leaders has anything to do with what was stolen, when it was stolen or what are the consequences for this country.
I asked Pincher, I ask you, I ask anyone following this more closely than I - what is the direct or circumstantial evidence you think exists that even a paper clip was stolen by China?
My point in asking the question is - you have no idea because US National Security or US Policy towards China is the last thing this debate is about.
Mud slinging can only go on so long. My bet about 3 more weeks.
Then comes the question - "What is to be done?"
Because this issue is primarily one of Bucks. Because the GOP wants those big corporate bucks as much as the Dems do if not more, the answer is
NOTHING WILL BE DONE
THIS IS MORE BULLSHIT
Prove me wrong. Take the Chicoms up on their offer. I've not the time to waste.
I am too busy hunting down the indicted war criminal, moll of SLobo - ROsie Stone.
294. jexster - May 26, 1999 - 3:35 PM PT
Just appeared on Lou Dobbs CNN Money Line -
Republican chambers of commerce are lining up on Lou's show...."If we don't sell this shit the Swedes will."
Like I haven't been saying this for at least 6 months.
Go ahead with the partisan finger pointing. Seems to me more like pud pullin.
295. jexster - May 26, 1999 - 3:39 PM PT
For the record, I am doing my part.
I will not purchase a Tsing Tao beer or anything marked Made in China.
We have a several trillion dollar trade deficit each year with these enemies of America.
I don't want to finance the construction of bomb designs stolen from Ronnie Raygun.
As much as I dislike that goo-goo brain, he wouldn't have the foggiest idea if he were hit by a W-88 or a load of Pigeon Shit from Pincher.
[easy Pincher...riling you is such fun!]
296. AceOfSpades - May 26, 1999 - 4:02 PM PT
"Swedes will sell this shit"
Actually, we used to have a multilateral, international organization called COCOM which regulated high-tech sales to countries like China. There were twenty or so industrial, western nations who were parties to COCOM.
Clinton dismantled COCOM. Now every country decides ITSELF if a sale is in the "national interest."
Now every country's businesses are fighting to sell high-tech goods to countries like China-- and because Clinton dismantled COCOM, it probably IS true that if Americans don't sell something, someone else will.
But it was the dismantling of the COCOM regime that led to this situation.
Re: Policy with CHina
There is NOTHING much to discuss about our China policy, Jexster. We did not take punitive actions against Russia when we discovered they had stolen the A-Bomb. You don't punish a competitor nation from doing what all nations do (i.e., spy).
The only corrections we should be considering are tightening security and de-liberalizing Clinton's recklessly liberal high-tech export policy (some of this work has already been done).
You dopes want to blame CHINA because you desperately want to deflect blame from CLINTON.
But it doesn't work. China was "doing its job" when it spied on us. Clinton was not doing his job when he permitted it to go on for four years after it had been discovered.
297. jexster - May 26, 1999 - 4:19 PM PT
That's my point Blobo.
Its good for the political pud pulling and not much else.
When it comes down to the short strokes (pun), you hang in there with this mega crisis.
I'm looking for that Slerb Slut.
BTW - don't tell the asshole, Republican of course, on teh International Relations Committee who says we shouldn't be dealing with China - not even buyin a pork bun.
I would guard my avionics and smart bomb technology. That could bite hard in the butt.
298. DaveCook - May 26, 1999 - 6:16 PM PT
I think Wombat makes a fitting final judgement on the Clinton presidency "Pending further evidence, he probably doesn't belong in prison."
299. RosettaStone - May 26, 1999 - 6:41 PM PT
Long live Clinton's legacy.
The IMPEACHED President who was sited for CONTEMPT OF COURT helped destroyed the language and the trust that the people should have with their president telling the truth.
Reagan won the Cold War, Clinton brought it back and our children will live under the long shadow of nuclear meltdown.
300. verdeazul - May 26, 1999 - 7:56 PM PT
That's funny....
Reagan doesn't remember
"winning" the Cold War. It does not
even feel like anyone "won" anything.
Every pretender to being a real 'Player'
in the Pecking Order of the New World
Order is still cranking out lethal weaponry
(both, 'New and Improved' alongside old,
'Not Real Sexy But It Stops Weird
Ideologies Cold'!) or stockin' up the shelves.
What must far older civilizations think
about the frenzied weasel-pen that America
shows itself to be as this (western - measure)
millenium grinds to a grimy close? From the
mind-numbing weirdness of our Official
Reality broadcast by our official mediums
(T.V., Newspapers) to the parallel
'Realities' portrayed in the extremely
bizarre movies (extremely popular bizarre
movies) we export to the rest of the World.
I look out each passing day and see
a spiritual, moral, and leadership vacuum
which sucks and shucks and jives in a way
that eludes description because even our
language, our words, have been corrupted.
At present, America is feared, reviled
and it ain't beautiful.
z~