302. AceOfSpades - May 26, 1999 - 8:29 PM PT
Au:
I agree that China is not a credible threat *at the moment.* But you have no idea what will come in the future. As the last month has shown, relations between countries can quickly deteriorate due to something as innocuous as an outdated map.
Furthermore, China is a totalitarian regime. The thing about totalitarian regimes is that they sometimes get madmen and fanatics and zealots and genocidal maniacs leading them.
And madmen, I'm sure you've heard, can't be reasoned with.
303. RosettaStone - May 26, 1999 - 8:36 PM PT
Ace: Thanks for going over there tonight. I think you made quite an impact.
304. AceOfSpades - May 26, 1999 - 8:47 PM PT
Rosetta:
No problem.
By the way: Your posts over there are more reasoned than your posts over here. Why is that?
Au:
Furthermore, China is the world's biggest weapons proliferator, according to a 1997 administration report.
Yes, we shouldn't overstate the damage which has been done. But neither should we understate it. Quite a bit of damage has been done. As Chris COx says, "giving this information to China is like putting it into 'the stream of commerce.'" The Chinese have no particular reason not to proliferate. In fact, I'm sure they rather like the idea of rogue states threatening the US.
305. stamper - May 26, 1999 - 8:57 PM PT
Ace Rosetta
the thing that jexster is trying to get i am sure is that it is not nice to cast aspersions on President Clinton's character as he is a bible carrying Born Again Christian, probably like jexster himself. Now some would say he has no character to cast aspersions on but i reason that is on of those hyperboles.
Can you boys see how quick i'm catching on to these new words?
306. stamper - May 26, 1999 - 8:58 PM PT
One other thing, jexster is much like me whan he says he has not read the Cox Report. Why bother to read something you just are not going to understand.
307. AceOfSpades - May 26, 1999 - 9:01 PM PT
Stamper:
You know the professional wrestler Rowdy Roddy Piper?
he was supposed to be Scotish. Sometimes he would "remember" this and speak with a Scots burr. Sometimes he would seemingly forget that he was supposed to be a Scotsman and talk with a Californian-American accent.
You're a bit like Rowdy Roddy in this respect.
308. stamper - May 26, 1999 - 9:14 PM PT
Ace
Well i don't forget how i talk or where i came from, Ace, but i take a lot longer to post, and i preview, and i do by best. In some ways the credit goes to you ,cause whaen you compared me to that geek who could swallow a whole live chicken and a few others had their little fun i decided i would shape up. Besides Dolly helps me with my spelling and my grammar so i can not take all the credit.
309. stamper - May 26, 1999 - 9:15 PM PT
Ace
Besides, it just more than likely post hoc ergo proper hoc.
310. AceOfSpades - May 26, 1999 - 9:31 PM PT
Stamper:
I didn't mean to make fun of you, Stamper. I thought you were affecting a rural-sounding accent to disguise your identity. I never would have made fun of you if I thought your accent was *real.* As a matter of fact, I apologized for it, *if* it was real.
And yet I'm still thinking this is a put-on. I'm still thinking you're Rowdy Roddy Piper.
311. stamper - May 26, 1999 - 9:34 PM PT
Ace
Let's take it to the Play Pen.
312. robertjayb - May 27, 1999 - 2:04 AM PT
Spy Threat to U.S. May Be Marginal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.P. INDEXES: TOP STORIES | NEWS | SPORTS | BUSINESS | TECHNOLOGY | ENTERTAINMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filed at 2:39 a.m. EDT
By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lost amid the alarm over the alleged Chinese theft of U.S. nuclear secrets is a conclusion being articulated by arms control advocates, intelligence officials and even some Republicans: The threat to the United States may be marginal at worst.
China has yet to field a weapon a decade after it purportedly stole design information from U.S. nuclear weapons labs, they say. Some of the information Beijing's spies allegedly collected is now declassified. And in the strange world of nuclear strategy, a somewhat improved Chinese nuclear arsenal may actually add to superpower stability, these critics argue, by reducing the chances that anyone would be tempted to launch a preemptive first strike on China's arsenal.
These cautionary voices have been drowned out amid the uproar on Capitol Hill over a special report by a House select committee on Chinese espionage that studied China's efforts to improve its nuclear warheads and the missiles that deliver them.
Also lost is the fact that Tuesday's report is filled with conditional phrases: the People's Republic of China ``could'' or ``may'' take detrimental actions ``if the PRC decides to develop'' weapons it currently does not possess.
``The depiction of China as an impending nuclear nemesis just does not accord with the facts,'' said Robert Norris, a nuclear weapons expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an arms control and environmental organization.
Continued Spy Stuff
313. wexxford1 - May 27, 1999 - 3:01 AM PT
ENTER THE CLOWNS IN THE CHINA THING. What qualifications does this clown Richardson have to determine that ' American secrets are now safe . '? Fraygrants who get a look at this ass on TV may find it charitable to kick in a few cents to buy the Richardson persona a new hairpiece ,not to mention a new script .
314. wexxford1 - May 27, 1999 - 3:08 AM PT
Missing in the steaming mounds of PR bullshit about 'American secrets" is this : How much has Congress appropropriated to preserve these little secrets ? $1 trillion over the last 5 years. Or just what amount ? Which Senators have oversight in the matter. Should they be castrated right away, or tried on Court TV? Which outfits are responsible for secret-guarding duties ? Let's name the names and castrate the bastards who allowed them chinks to steal us blind. While you are up, give those morons who swallow this shit a sixpack.
Bring on MAD magazine to give this China shit the treatment it deserves.
315. benear - May 27, 1999 - 6:06 AM PT
Well PM thinks I am silly. Of course, I only spent 10 years of my life inside the DOE weapons complex. What would I know?
My assertion that when EVERYTHING including cafeteria lunch menus are classified then it becomes an unmanageable situation is just plain silly.
I assume PM is a nuclear engineer, or high explosives expert, or at least a radiochemist, since he is so expertly knowledgeable of how easy it is to keep nuclear weapons design information secret. Yep. It is easy to tell the difference between one document and another, all labeled classified, in a pile of a million documents.
316. benear - May 27, 1999 - 6:09 AM PT
A whole lot of shrieking going on in here.
317. benear - May 27, 1999 - 6:23 AM PT
Anyone interested about the organization of DOE?
Probably not, but here goes anyway.
In a word, it is an organizational mess. A perfect organization for anyone who wants to take credit for when things go well and avoid blame for when things go wrong.
First you have the organization in Washington at DOE Headquarters. The big boys are in the Forrestal building on The Mall. Much of the real work goes on out in Germantown. The Secretary and Assistant Secretaries appear to be in control. For example, the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs has overall responsibility for the nuclear weapons program.
Out in the field you have the Operations offices. The ones of note for the weapons program are Chicago Operations where all the reactor research is going on, Oak Ridge Operations where all the materials research is going on, Savannah River Operations which has the only functioning reactors and plutonium processing and San Francisco Operations which oversees LLNL and LBNL. But the Big Dog in this scandal is Albuquerque Operations which oversees Los Alamos.
The Operations Offices have a great deal of autonomy and each Operations Office Manager reports directly to the Secretary. Here is the first juncture for confusion and obfuscation. The Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs and the Manager of AOO are both responsible.
318. Ronski - May 27, 1999 - 6:26 AM PT
Close down the DOE. Close Commerce. Close Education. Close Transportation.
There.
A good first step.
319. benear - May 27, 1999 - 6:43 AM PT
Now in Albuquerque, in addition to Los Alamos they are in charge of Sandia (electronics and telemetry), Kansas City Plant (electronics manufacturing) Pantex (used to be weapons assembly but is now mostly disassembly) and WIPP (transuranic waste disposal). The AOO organization mirrors DOE HQ. There is a Manager of Defense Programs who is in charge of the nuclear weapons programs and reports directly to the Manager of AOO with a dotted line to the Assistant Secretary for DP.
Then you have the Area Office Managers and Lab Directors. For example, the Los Alamos Area Office Manager reports directly to the AOO Area Manager not to the Manager of DP. The Lab Directors, themselves, are largely autonomous. So autonomous that in the bureaucratic in-fighting, the Lab Directors are as powerful as the Assistant Secretaries.
Did you follow all that? This is an organization with a lot of "dotted lines". I am hearing reports that some heads will roll at DOE. It will be interesting to see which ones. My bet is it will be the Assistant Secretaries. The ones who are political appointees with no real power and little control over what happens on a day-to-day basis.
320. RosettaStone - May 27, 1999 - 7:20 AM PT
If anyone wants to see a JadeGold/AceOfSpades(Simon Templar) debate right now, go to TT in Politics folder under "The Cox Report: Espionage in DEMOville?"
Back to work for me.
321. Ronski - May 27, 1999 - 7:23 AM PT
benear,
Well, I enjoyed your report.
Seriously.
Thanks.
P.S.: New Mexico is far too wonderful a place to have all these defense-related sites and therefore be fully targeted for nuclear annihilation by our enemies.
322. goodfly - May 27, 1999 - 7:41 AM PT
Benear???? "Savannah River Operations which has the only functioning reactors". When did that happen??????
323. benear - May 27, 1999 - 8:01 AM PT
New Mexico IS a beautiful state. But one firmly wedded to the Federal tit. What land the Feds don't own is Indian Reservation. And New Mexico politicians understand how it works. No great cry for term limits there, no sir eee. And it doesn't frankly matter if they are Demons or Repugs.
Tennesse, is surprisingly similar. DOE's budget accounts for the largest segment of employment in that state. Zach Wamp (R) Tennessee, who was elected in the 1994 Repug "Revolution" has become "surprisingly" supportive of any amout of money DOE desires. The DOE federal jobs program (as I like to call it) is a scandal I wish the press and politicians would get off their lazy asses and investigate.
324. Ronski - May 27, 1999 - 8:08 AM PT
benear,
Yes. It is New Mexico's only flaw. That, and possibly the fact that Taos closes down a little too early in the ski season, even when they have tons of snow left. But in Western areas, that is usually determined by the dreaded Feds again.
325. Ronski - May 27, 1999 - 8:09 AM PT
TVA all over again.
326. benear - May 27, 1999 - 8:13 AM PT
N-Reactor at Hanford was the last production reactor there. It was down for refueling and maintenance when Chernobal blew. Seems N was of similar design (graphite cooled with no containment dome) After millions of dollars of paper flying around, DOE could not ultimately prove that what happened at Chernobal could not happen at Hanford. Permanent decision to mothball N-Reactor was made in 1989. Savannah river is the only source now for plutonium and tritium. And SR's reactors are in stand-by because with all the dismantlement, there is no forseeable need for new plutonium in the system any time in the foreseeable future.
327. benear - May 27, 1999 - 8:17 AM PT
TVA: Second largest employer in Tennessee. FWIW.
328. benear - May 27, 1999 - 8:22 AM PT
Mark my words, whatever is at the heart of this scandal, it belongs firmly on the doorstep of DOE. I suspect in the coming weeks, we will hear little critisism of DOE from the Congressional delegations of New Mexico, Tennessee, South Carolina, or Idaho. Anyone wanna bet?
329. AceOfSpades - May 27, 1999 - 8:27 AM PT
Lieberman, the Democrat Republicans love to think will do the right thing but never does, gives us our daily dose of false hope:
"But not all Democrats were comfortable with the administration's handling of the espionage scandal.
It is clear "that this espionage has gone on through the Clinton administration and that, in hindsight, the administration's response --after notification -- was not as rapid as it might have been," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat.
How the Chinese stole secrets over the years is clear, Mr. Lieberman said. Why it was allowed "needs more explanation, but unfortunately descriptive words like incompetence, gullibility, wishful thinking and greed come to mind as possible explanations.""
Source: The Washington Times
330. robertjayb - May 27, 1999 - 12:19 PM PT
Memo: China Spying Found in 1984
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.P. INDEXES: TOP STORIES | NEWS | SPORTS | BUSINESS | TECHNOLOGY | ENTERTAINMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filed at 1:45 a.m. EDT
By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military intelligence assessment was short and to the point: China was improving its nuclear warheads by stealing technology from the United States. The year: 1984.
In language similar to that used in the Cox report 15 years later, the Defense Intelligence Agency stated that China is ``now deriving'' benefits ``from both overt contact with U.S. scientists and technology and the covert acquisition of U.S. technology.''
``Increased access to this technology and continued Chinese efforts will in the 1980s and early 1990s show up as qualitative warhead improvements,'' concludes the DIA document known as an ``estimative brief.'' It is entitled ``Nuclear Weapons Systems In China.''
As the blame game escalated Wednesday between Democrats and Republicans over alleged Chinese espionage, the National Security Archive -- a private Washington group -- released the document it had obtained from the DIA through the Freedom of Information Act.
even more spy stuff
331. AuNaturel - May 27, 1999 - 12:27 PM PT
"Mark my words, whatever is at the heart of this scandal, it belongs firmly on the doorstep of DOE."
I have always felt that the weapons work done at DOE should have been done at DOD. At the time the decision was made to use a civilian agency (AEC?) to do military development work, it was the original mistake.
332. AceOfSpades - May 27, 1999 - 12:37 PM PT
"The military intelligence assessment was short"
Ah, so it wasn't a 700 page, exhaustively documented effort put together by a select panel of respected Congressmen. It was the typical CIA cover-your-ass, don't-worry-too-much-about-this-but-I-have-to-give-these-warnings type report.
Thousands of these reports circulate from one low-level analyst to another.
No one pays any attention to them.
When an analyst thinks he has more than the typical "PS: Every country in the world is spying against us, you know," he gets in contact with his boss and lets him know.
Like Notra Trulock did, though he was forced to wait four months for an appointment with Secretary Pena. And was then demoted for bothering Clinton with all this boring, intern-free cloak and dagger stuff.
333. AuNaturel - May 27, 1999 - 12:41 PM PT
Ace, have you ever considered that Clinton wanted the Lewinski scandal to distract from Chinagate? if the allegations are true, I'd be far more inclined to impeach for treason or violation of his oath to "preserve protect and defend" than for lying about chasing after skirt.
334. AceOfSpades - May 27, 1999 - 12:47 PM PT
Au:
No. I've heard people speculate about that, but it's absurd.
335. arkymalarky - May 27, 1999 - 12:50 PM PT
Have you considered that Chinagate (neato, another "gate") might be a distraction from the even bigger scandal that Clinton is actually the head of the KGB and has been since he was in high school and the fall of the Soviet Union was just a ruse to get us off our guard? The attacks on Yugoslavia are in turn a diversion to prevent Americans from finding out that Clinton is really the ultimate double-naught spy agent.
336. arkymalarky - May 27, 1999 - 12:51 PM PT
Of course, 335 was to Au. This agreement thing is starting to make me nervous, Ace.
337. benear - May 27, 1999 - 12:51 PM PT
AuN. No it was not a mistake to put development and manufacture of nuclear weapons under a civilian agency. Harry Truman (and presumably Eisenhower and every President since) thought that it would be too tempting and dangerous if DOD alone controlled nuclear weapons. Also in the late 40s and early 50s the civilian uses of atomic energy were of as great or greater importance than military use. Eisenhower's Swords to Plowshares program, I believe it was called. In the early 50s they actually exploded weapons at the Nevada Test Site to determine their usefulness for earthmoving for construction purposes. Unfortunately, there was some nasty residual radiation that made further development of the Atomic Bulldozer not ummmmm.... cost effective.
338. Wombat - May 27, 1999 - 12:53 PM PT
It's a well-known fact that the British entered World War I to distract people from the Curragh Mutiny.
339. AceOfSpades - May 27, 1999 - 12:56 PM PT
"Also in the late 40s and early 50s the civilian uses of atomic energy were of as great or greater importance than military use."
Oh? Like what?
Nuclear energy is underutilized today. What kind of civilian uses did they have in the 1940's and 50's? Producing radium for glow-in-the-dark watches?
I rather doubt that the civilian applications of nuclear energy have ever been more important than the military applications. I rather doubt this will change in the fifty years.
340. AuNaturel - May 27, 1999 - 1:03 PM PT
Civilian use of nuclear energy peaked in the late 60s, early 70s in the US. How long has it been since a nuclear power plant has gone on line?
I suspect a lot of the reason it was put under a "civilian" agency was to separate another part of the DOD budget so as not to make it look so large.
341. benear - May 27, 1999 - 1:04 PM PT
Well, AceOfIgnorance you are just plain wrong. It was widely touted in the 50s that atomic power would make electricity so cheap that it wouldn't pay to meter it. In 1945, the war was over. People went home and started thinking about other things. The whole rationale for the inception of the AEC was to develop and promote nuclear power. Weapons were a secondary function at the time. Afterall, no one else had them.
As for magnitude of use, there are 109 commercial nuclear power plants in this country with at least two reactors each. By comparison, DOE as at most 50 reactors, total, throughout its history. And its reactors are all relatively small because they are used to make plutonium not electricity.
342. AceOfSpades - May 27, 1999 - 1:05 PM PT
I seem to remember that putting it in the hands of an *civilian* agency was supposed to be a PR move to convince other countries to sign the Atomic Energy Treaty. After all, other countries wouldn't want American *military* officials certifying them as compliant.
343. AceOfSpades - May 27, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
"It was widely touted in the 50s that atomic power would make electricity so cheap that it wouldn't pay to meter it."
Touted, sure. They thought they'd have them crazy flyin' space cars by 1955. But never in history has the limited energy production of nuclear power ever exceeded the military value of nuclear weapons.
344. benear - May 27, 1999 - 1:10 PM PT
Comanche Peak in Texas was the last nuclear plant to go on line in this country. It went critical in the early 90s.
345. AceOfSpades - May 27, 1999 - 2:19 PM PT
Over on Freerepublic, some joker (and I mean that in a good way) named IowaHawk has written a very funny news parody about the Cox Report. Recommended to conservatives, and maniacs like Ronski and AuNaturel.
Definitely not recommended to libs. First, you wouldn't find the jokes funny. Second, you wouldn't find the jokes at all, because you lack an actual sense of humor.
346. benear - May 27, 1999 - 4:34 PM PT
AuN and AceOfDoubts, what would I know. You guys obviously have superior knowledge of the history of DOE. I defer to your opinions.
In the meantime, my beach weekend starts now.
347. PincherMartin - May 27, 1999 - 6:05 PM PT
Befuddled, benighted, Benear --
"Well PM thinks I am silly. Of course, I only spent 10 years of my life inside the DOE weapons complex. What would I know?"
Yes, you are a very silly girl, and if the DOE kept you on the payroll for ten years inside a DOE weapons complex, it explains many of the problems they currently have.
"My assertion that when EVERYTHING including cafeteria lunch menus are classified then it becomes an unmanageable situation is just plain silly."
Yes, exactly. When you compare the classifications of lunch menus to nuclear weapons design, you are PLAIN FUCKING SILLY. I already explained to you that such broad coverage of classified information need not lead to a problem, but apparently you didn't catch that.
"I assume PM is a nuclear engineer, or high explosives expert, or at least a radiochemist,"
No, I'm not a nuclear physicist or engineer nor have I ever worked at one of the national labs, but I have studied under and worked under people who were nuclear physicists or did work at the labs. And as I explained to you before, I have handled classified material of varying degrees, and I know that the situation you describe does not lead to the kind of "unmanagable situation" that is now being alledged in the papers.
"since he is so expertly knowledgeable of how easy it is to keep nuclear weapons design information secret. Yep. It is easy to tell the difference between one document and another, all labeled classified, in a pile of a million documents."
Look, shit-for-brains, the design work is almost certainly done on stand-alone computers in areas that have limited access. In other words, and unlike your implication, no one is likely to confuse the lunch menu with the design for a nuclear weapon. Your description of the material being unmanageable is better described as being "not managed at all."
348. PincherMartin - May 27, 1999 - 6:30 PM PT
Befuddled, benighted, Benear --
You know, I'm enjoying this organizational schematic of the DOE that you've been providing for us the last couple of days, but you have still failed to show how it is relevant. For example:
"The Operations Offices have a great deal of autonomy and each Operations Office Manager reports directly to the Secretary. Here is the first juncture for confusion and obfuscation. The Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs and the Manager of AOO are both responsible."
Apparently your long tenure at the DOE has blinkered your vision. What bureaucracy does not have overlapping jurisdictions? The answer: Most of them do, and the overlapping jurisdiictions are just as likely to stop this kind of problem as they are to lead to it. One of the reasons two agencies might be given authority in one area is to prevent abuse by a single agency.
349. benear - May 27, 1999 - 7:35 PM PT
You're right, PM. I am an idiot. I have nothing further to contribute to this discussion.
350. goodfly - May 27, 1999 - 7:51 PM PT
Benear: There is no existing"source" for tritium. Presently it is "Cannabalized"from existing degraded stocks. Future tritium will be produced at TVA reactors and processed at SRS.
351. benear - May 27, 1999 - 8:17 PM PT
Fly: you are right. I have not been following closely since June 1997 when I removed myself from the DOE complex out of disgust. As of then, there was talk of using commercial reactors to produce tritium but the issue was fraught with complications, not the least of which was crossing the line between commercial nuclear and military programs. This option was being discussed as a stopgap until a new reactor could be built at SRS.
How is it you know so much?
352. jexster - May 27, 1999 - 11:41 PM PT
I'm as willing as the next guy to accept a Chinese Threat to US Security - well maybe AU Naturel is more hawkish - but the Cox Report?
Seems at least one important allegation *may* be just so much Chow Fun.
Local TV is reporting an article in Friday's SF Chronicle casts doubt on the Cox Committee's charge that a house in the Richmond District is a real live "nest of spies". The house, described by neighbors and owner as a "bed and breakfast" for Chinese scientists and business types in the US to learn free market practices and US tech, is, according to the Cox Report, an evil presence on our shores - a major source of espionage.
Unfortunately, the Friday Chron is not posted yet. But Safe House or B&B?- Check it out!
Perhaps this weekend, I'll saunter over and place the bastards under my personal surveillance.
I know too much about the history and the record of another House Committee to accept the Cox Report hook, line and sinker like some Fraygrants I know. Of course the agenda of these folks has nothing whatever to do with the Nation's Security.
The House Unamerican Activities Committee was equally sure of itself.
I just don't like baloney with my chop suey.
353. PincherMartin - May 27, 1999 - 11:42 PM PT
Benear --
Contribute all you want, but don't expect your resume to make your arguments for you.
354. jexster - May 27, 1999 - 11:48 PM PT
"But never in history has the limited
energy production of nuclear power ever exceeded the
military value of nuclear weapons."
Folks another wild ass statement from the Ass hissef.
355. jexster - May 27, 1999 - 11:54 PM PT
Benear -
I see you've met Pincher. Pincher's a nice guy but as for the breadth or the depth of his knowledge....well my good friend is a bit lacking.
Forensically Pincher is a freaking disaster.
To wit the Witless one does this all the time when she gets her tit in the wringer:
"Look, shit-for-brains,"
Benear meet Pincher "The Russians Are Coming, Where's My Valium" Martin.
356. PincherMartin - May 28, 1999 - 12:00 AM PT
Less spittle, my man.
357. stamper - May 28, 1999 - 12:13 AM PT
jexster
Well if you are not something else. You don't read the Cox report, you scoff at the HCOUA even though history has shown that we had commies up the gazzo. One of the things i've learned about you sonce i've been on the Fray is that truth has no meaning for you whatsoever. All you care about is your preconcieved ideas which even a dumb ox like me can spot as commie propaganda. but you have a nice way a puting things and that i like.
358. jexster - May 28, 1999 - 1:16 AM PT
Stamper:
If you want people to think that you know shit from shinola you really ought to get your acronyms straight:
" HCOUA". Try HUAC.
Not good Stamper, not good.
359. jexster - May 28, 1999 - 1:17 AM PT
Now Pincher don't go gettin your pussy in an uproar.
360. CharlieL - May 28, 1999 - 5:36 AM PT
I think Walter Pincus of the Post said it best in an interview on NPR Wednesday evening. He said the Chinese *may have* stolen the mesaurements of the W-88. Up until then, nuclear warheads were spherical and could not be placed into missles easily. The W-88 has a tapered cylindrical shape, so it is easier to place without wasting space or creating drag on the missile.
The W-88 has about 7,000 parts. Pincus says that speculating that the Chinese could build a W-88 from its measurements is like saying they could steal the design for an engine block and use that to build a Corvette.
There is no proof that anything was actually stolen, no matter how often AceOfBobo replaces the words "may have" with the word "did" in the Cox Report.
361. AceOfSpades - May 28, 1999 - 5:40 AM PT
Good, CHarlie. So the only thing stolen on Reagan's watch were some measurements. Terrific.
Unfortunately, submarine detection technology, legacy codes, detonation tech from Sandia, EMP tech, etc., was all stolen during CLinton's watch.
362. CharlieL - May 28, 1999 - 5:42 AM PT
Prove it, Ace. You haven't been able to do it on Table Talk yet, and the people who actually read and understood the report ate your lunch over there.
363. CharlieL - May 28, 1999 - 5:44 AM PT
"Submarine detection technology"
A photograph of a wake in the ocean, which was used in a public forum talking about the use of wakes to discover the location of submarines.
Water skiiers, beware! You may be defeating national security by fouling submarine wakes. I believe Clinton has been seen near the beaches in California during his administration. I think he should be impeached for it.
364. AceOfSpades - May 28, 1999 - 5:45 AM PT
Chuckles the Unfunny Clown:
Sorry, pal, but there aren't many "may haves" in the report; the report is all "did" and "was stolen." The "may have" bullshit is just some stuff you want to believe.
I'm glad that nothing important was stolen on Reagan's watch, though. Thanks for pointing that out.
365. AceOfSpades - May 28, 1999 - 5:47 AM PT
Chuckles:
Yeahp. That's what it was. A photo. It wasn't that he explained how the mathematics of the wake-analysis worked, or drew them a formula.
Right? No. It was "just a picture of a wake."
The conversation ends here, since you know absolutely nothing and are an absurdly dishonest partisan.
366. CharlieL - May 28, 1999 - 5:49 AM PT
Keep calling names, Ace. It's proof that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
You call names in almost all your posts, don't you?
Pincus was asked specifically about the W-88. His response was that was all that *may have* been stolen WRT that specific warhead.
But, keep on making inferences where there is no evidence. You have built your entire reputation on the Fray and TT by talking through your hat when you have no clue.
Within 3 posts of yours on TT they had you pegged, and crushed your misrepresentations and misunderstandings of the Report.
367. CharlieL - May 28, 1999 - 5:52 AM PT
"The conversation ends here..."
I'm glad to see you are taking FreeRepublics Patriotic views to heart:
"Ignore people who are better informed than or disagree with you." The two are synonymous, you know. People who disagree with you tend to be better informed and better able to reason.
I know! Why don't you call some more names? It will make everyone respect your pointless-of view even more!
Now, go and run away while claiming victory. It hasn't worked in the past, and it didn't work here.
368. AceOfSpades - May 28, 1999 - 5:56 AM PT
Chuckles:
Go quote the passage re: the submarine wake, and we'll see who's right.
I dare you.
Of course, you won't quote it, because you know damn well what a fool you'll look like. It's easier just to talk about what you heard on the famously level-headed NPR.
Quote the passage, Chuckles.
Or else shut your fucking mouth.
369. PincherMartin - May 28, 1999 - 7:44 AM PT
How do I get to this famous Table Talk debate?
370. AceOfSpades - May 28, 1999 - 7:55 AM PT
Pincher:
It is not worth it. CharlieL is a genius compared to most of the posters there. Which is pretty scary.
But here's how you do it:
Go to www.salonmagazine.com
go to the bottom of the page, click on TableTalk
you will be presented with a bunch of topic areas. Click on Politics.
In politics, you will see a fucking bazillion threads. There will be no order to them, but you're looking for "The Cox Report: Trouble in DEMOville?" This *should* be one of the first dozen or so topics.
Somewhere along the way you will have the opportunity to Register as a member. This is free. You will have to Register to post.
The registry will ask for a REAL (ISP) email address, for the Salon staff only. But it will also ask for an email address which will be shown to other posters. I strongly advise you to not give out your real e-mail address for this second query. Either make up a bullshit one or get a yahoo email account. (If you leave this line blank, I believe the system will automatically fill in your REAL email address, so I wouldn't leave it blank.)
371. PincherMartin - May 28, 1999 - 8:16 AM PT
Ace --
Thanks
372. RosettaStone - May 28, 1999 - 8:19 AM PT
Ace: Actually they have some really smart and nice people at TableTalk, and then they have people like me. (g)
373. AceOfSpades - May 28, 1999 - 8:21 AM PT
Rosetta:
I find the people there pretty disgusting. Some of the people in the Star Wars thread were okay, but the political guys are all uninformed hacks.
374. OhioSTOPAS - May 28, 1999 - 8:24 AM PT
Says the Cox Report,
"Congress was not provided adequate briefings on the extent of the PRC's espionage program."
Unfortunately, no elaboration is provided. We've all been curious about what was in the sixteen briefings on security issues that were furnished to Congressional committees, and how these briefings were inadequate (even constituting a "coverup" in the accusations of some). However, the Cox commission is silent on what information was provided to Congress, and when.
But an article by Jeanne Cummings in today's Wall Street Journal (page A20 - back page of "A" section - in my edition) states:
"Key congressional committee chaairmen were briefed about security concerns at DOE nuclear labs in 1996 . . . For example, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Arlen Specter . . . was briefed on July 11, 1996 . . . A year later, Sen. Richard Shelby . . . was briefed as well.
"The senators confirmed that they got those briefings. Mr. Specter said the briefing was primarily focused on security lapses at the Energy Department labs, and that the committee instructed the FBI to report on the situation. That 60-page document was turned over to Congress in April 1997. . . ."
Some "inadequacy". Some "coverup".
375. RosettaStone - May 28, 1999 - 8:32 AM PT
Ace: Well, I disagree. You need to spread you polemic wings and engage others. It sharpens your skills.
You are too protected here, winning every argument, every time, against fewer and fewer people.
376. AceOfSpades - May 28, 1999 - 8:35 AM PT
"Congress was not provided adequate briefings on the extent of the PRC's espionage program."
Unfortunately, no elaboration is provided... However, the Cox commission is silent on what information was provided to Congress, and when.
--- Well, the Democrats on the Cox Committee say they were not adequately briefed. Are they lying? Answer, please. Either they are correct or they are lying. You can't have it both ways, Ohio.
"Key congressional committee chaairmen were briefed about security concerns at DOE nuclear labs in 1996 . . . For example, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Arlen Specter . . . was briefed on July 11, 1996 . . . A year later, Sen. Richard Shelby . . . was briefed as well.
"The senators confirmed that they got those briefings. Mr. Specter said the briefing was primarily focused on security lapses at the Energy Department labs, and that the committee instructed the FBI to report on the situation. That 60-page document was turned over to Congress in April 1997. . . ."
--- The Cox Report states the briefings were not adequate. As I've explained before, I can "brief" you by telling you that security at the labs may need looking into, but I'm on it. If I hide from you the powerful evidence of SERIOUS espionage going on, you will not realize how urgent the situation is, and will just mark it as number 88 on your "Things to look into list."
The espionage at the labs demanded immediate action. This evidence was hidden from Congressmen.
Either that, or your beloved Democrats are lying, and Sen Kerry (on the Senate Intelligence Committee) is guilty of negligence.
You can't have it both ways, Ohio.
Which way do you want it?
377. OhioSTOPAS - May 28, 1999 - 8:55 AM PT
"adequacy" is a judgmental term, Ace. Nobody's "lying" if they say the briefings were "adequate" or "inadequate", just ass-covering with the use of hindsight (as I've said before, a long-standing bipartisan tradition).
But it's getting harder and harder for Clinton-haters to defend the charge of "coverup" as the facts come out. Today's WSJ report is but one of several punctures in the rapidly deflating "ChinaGate" balloon. The Cox Report was of more use to Clinton-slanderers before it was released.
378. AceOfSpades - May 28, 1999 - 9:02 AM PT
The scandal is Janet Reno's "inexplicable" failure to petition for a wiretap for a suspect (the word "inexplicable" was used by liberal Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli).
The scandal is the Clinton Administration's failure to "adequately brief" Congres about the espionage. (That quote is from the Cox Report, which was written by four respected Democratic Congressmen.)
The scandal is that Clinton failed to do anything about security for four years, acting with such negligence that the first words which come to mind to explain it are "incompetence" and "greed." (That quote is from Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman.)
Are Lieberman, Torricelli, and Dicks lying, Ohio?
379. OhioSTOPAS - May 28, 1999 - 9:30 AM PT
"Inexplicable failure" to seek a wiretap? Here's the "explic":
"Based on the facts reported to us in 1997, the department determined that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of probable cause" to believe Lee engaged in clandestine intelligence-gathering on behalf of a foreign power, which is the standard for seeking a warrant in national security cases, Reno said." (5/28 Washington Post)
Legally, this determination of no probable cause was sound, wasn't it? (Ass-covering Senator notwithstanding.) Have any of the people slinging allegations about the Justice Department thwarting the FBI's investigation by not seeking a wiretap of Dr. Lee bothered to offer their analysis of the applicable legal standards?
380. AceOfSpades - May 28, 1999 - 9:41 AM PT
Yes they have, Ohio.
Kerry explained that EVERYONE on the Senate Intelligence Committee believed the wiretap should have been sought-- including the Democrats.
He (I think it was him) explained that in cases of national security, the AG has the duty of siding with the government. What harm would it have caused to present the application to the court? If they were denied by the court, so be it. But why not *try* to get the wiretap?
Further, as you know, the FISC has NEVER rejected such an application.
NEVER.
Which suggests that they're a bit less demanding than a normal court. Indeed, that's why there's a special law to cover this situation.
And "probable cause" is not a terribly high threshhold of evidence to meet.
381. AceOfSpades - May 28, 1999 - 9:45 AM PT
So let me get this straight:
Toricelli, Kerry, Lieberman, and Dicks are all lying and "covering their asses"?
Why do you assume that these men are all "covering their asses"? What evidence leads you to this conclusion?
Is it not much more likely that Clinton is lying?
What MOTIVE do such Democrats have to embarrass the President? The President's motive is obvious. But what's Kerry's motive? If there was no reason to get a wiretap, why doesn't he just say so?
Why doesn't Torricelli just say so? Why not Lieberman?
Why not just say that the Republicans are all lying? Why side with them?
Why, Ohio, why?
Furthermore, Clinton brazenly lied about this on March 19, 1999. You admitted he lied, by saying "So what?"
If he lied then, a lie which was bound to be exposed within weeks if not days, why wouldn't he lie about something more important, which he thought he could get away with?
What makes you trust this man?
382. JJBiener - May 28, 1999 - 11:11 AM PT
Ace - "What makes you trust this man?"
Because it is too scary for him not to.
383. jexster - May 28, 1999 - 11:39 AM PT
The Ass of Blast may be forgiven, he lives by Sludge errrr...Drudge.
The rest of you may ask:
Cox Report: Hard Evidence or Baloney Chow Fun?
384. OhioSTOPAS - May 28, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
Ace: I said "So what if he did?" I didn't, and don't concede that he did. But in any event, a press conference is not the place to discuss confidential national security matters. President Eisenhower lied about Gary Powers and the U-2, as he damn well should have.
The important thing is that everyone who had a need to know, such as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee (see my Message #374), had been briefed, and they had.
385. JJBiener - May 28, 1999 - 11:54 AM PT
Jex - Did you get your mail?
386. jexster - May 28, 1999 - 1:16 PM PT
Yes I did and tnx JJB
387. AceOfSpades - May 28, 1999 - 1:36 PM PT
Ohio:
Explain how his statement was not a lie. Michael Kelly's most recent column (available at the Washington Post (LOL) website) contains his full quotes. It also contains relevant cites from the Cox Report, which he was given in January.
Please explain to me how it wasn't a lie. You're the one asserting it isn't a lie, you explain to me how that's possible.
388. goodfly - May 28, 1999 - 5:10 PM PT
The following is a sensible response to the hysteria generated by the kooks who think they can maybe this time score.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/friedman/052899frie.html
389. jexster - May 28, 1999 - 5:53 PM PT
Thanks for the link Goodfly.
Looks like you know chop suey from baloney chow fun.
Clicke here.
As for the Ass of Spades - you continue according to your lying and inaccurate form.
Yawn
390. jexster - May 28, 1999 - 6:04 PM PT
Not for the Faint of Heart - A Real Chicom Spy Web Site!
391. jexster - May 29, 1999 - 11:58 AM PT
I'm not much for predictions or saying things that others can rub my nose in. I choose my issue very carefully and take care that I not be guided by knee-jerk.
Here's one, I'll boldly venture:
This Thread, this issue is headed for a partial birth abortion.
If you wanna know why, as if you already didn't, - just ask!
392. goodfly - May 29, 1999 - 4:29 PM PT
Ass of spades:#387 "relevant cites from the Cox report" If that is your criteria I guess that makes you a Cox sucker. (not original with me but so apt for you).
393. RosettaStone - May 29, 1999 - 4:45 PM PT
Notice the way that Clinton enablers are now trying to do the same thing to Chris Cox that they have done to everyone else who takes on the current administration.
No matter that all the Democrats on the Cox Committee agreed with the findings, and that 30 percent of the report is still secret, they still try to destroy the messenger. It's so consistent. Everyone who takes on the Clintons are the bad guys.
394. robertjayb - May 29, 1999 - 10:30 PM PT
Chinese espionage overvalued?
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 30, 1999; Page A10
Two eminent nuclear scientists, both of whom directed national nuclear laboratories when key U.S. warheads were developed, say information allegedly stolen by China through espionage was not as valuable as portrayed by a House select committee that published a report on security lapses last week.
The two are Harold M. Agnew, who directed what was called the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory from 1970 to 1979, when the W-88 warhead for the Trident submarine-launched missile was developed; and Johnny S. Foster, who directed the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 1952 through 1965, developing the first miniaturized nuclear weapons as well as the so-called neutron warhead, the W-70. They said data on U.S. nuclear warheads that the committee concluded were obtained through Chinese espionage only added to what China's scientists already knew: that powerful, miniaturized nuclear weapons could be built.
395. OhioSTOPAS - May 30, 1999 - 5:00 AM PT
Robert: Interesting link.
If these scientists are correct, we've all been too hard on President Reagan for letting China steal that information.
396. jexster - May 30, 1999 - 7:54 AM PT
Listen up Ace, and now FELLOW Loons, Rosie has spoken:
"DavidDuke=Jexster"
{tears in eyes, sniff, sniff, blowing my nose}
Thanks ever so Rose. Thanks to my family and friends everyone who brought me to this high honor.
Being named and validated as a whacko Right Wing Republican is the high point of my life on the Fray.
397. jexster - May 30, 1999 - 8:04 AM PT
Ace -
Clinton did not lie on 3/19. But I am not going to waste my time arguing about it.
I want to inform you that Bob Schieffer, leading in to Face the Nation and Chris Cox, says that we are now in Cox Report Anti-climax - overwhelmed by gun control and just about every other issue du jour in DC. Evidently Schieffer is either very smart or has been reading my posts.
Like I said. Take it on faith. THERE IS NO SCANDAL. Got it?
I am a certified and certifiable Right Wing Whack job JUST LIKE YOU!
Thanks Rose!
398. uzmakk - May 30, 1999 - 8:22 AM PT
Jexster:
Am I agreeing with you when I say that this Chinese Spy Scandal bothers me not in the slightest, except for the existence of the scandal.{ie. the politically concocted scandal} Desparation on the Right Wing Wacko Republican side?
399. uzmakk - May 30, 1999 - 8:24 AM PT
Desperation(sp)
400. jexster - May 30, 1999 - 12:44 PM PT
Uzzie -
As an ex officio member of the Feckless Whacked Right Wing I would have to tell you that we of the Nutter Wing of the Republican party are desperate.
Desperate but not seriuos
Elliot's kisses drive me delerious
Hey Ace:
How bout some baloney with your chop suey!
"Two eminent nuclear scientists, both of whom directed national nuclear laboratories when key U.S. warheads were developed, say information allegedly stolen by China through espionage was not as valuable as portrayed by a House select committee that published a report on security lapses last week."
So desperate Uzzie that Chris Cox was, according to my sources, visited by the Ghosts of HUAC.