Revised 9/17/00


April, 1996

"…in April of 1996 -- a Department of Energy official informed President Clinton's deputy national security adviser, Samuel Berger, (1) that China had probably stolen our secrets of making warheads small enough to enable long-range missiles to pack multiple nuclear punches, and (2) that the suspected spy was still at work in the Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico. Mr. Berger, who sat in on most of the political meetings with Clinton's Asian fund-raisers, did nothing. The internal security division of the Department of Justice apparently did not ask a court for wiretap authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. At Reno Justice, investigating any Chinese penetration is a no-no…" NY Times OpEd 3/8/99 William Safire "

April, 1996 for context:

Trie was officially appointed to the President's Commission on U.S.-Pacific Trade and Investment Policy, just two weeks after dropping off to Mr. Cardozo the two manila envelopes containing checks and money orders;

Wah Lim, Chinese-born American citizen and senior vice president and engineer at Loral Space and Communications wrote a letter to China Aerospace Corp. in April 1996: " Equally important, I believe, is the task of using this failure as an opportunity to insure that the Long March launch vehicles have the best reliable record in the future. Even if that means your engineers and Cgwic takes a little more time to implement several phases of improvements over time; I believe it is worth it. We, at Space Systems/Loral would like China Great Wall to be a strong supplier of launch services and we will do everything in our power to help you. " A few weeks later, the technical information was provided to China Aerospace.

CIA discovered evidence that China sold 5,000 ring magnets to Pakistan - used to develop nuclear weapons.

Commerce Secretary Ron Brown dies in a plane crash in Bosnia. 34 others parish as well. Many are Commerce Department employees. Commerce oversaw the satellite launches in China. Brown's body would later be discovered to have a suspiciously round hole in his head. No autopsy would be performed. The plane did not have a "black box". No safety investigation would be performed over the accident.

Monica and Bill have one of their final flings in the Oval Office study -- hours after Ron Brown's memorial service. Ms. Monica would then be transferred to the Pentagon.

Ronald Pandolfi writes a report for the CIA warning about military implications of Hughes Electronic's sharing of expertise with the Chinese. The CIA decides not to distribute the classified report to select government officials, as is routinely done with intelligence estimates, saying it was insufficiently rigorous.

Vice President Al Gore meets at the Hsi Lai Buddist Temple in Los Angelas. Alleged Communist Chinese spy Maria Hsia is his host. He walks away with $140,000 in campaign donations from "monks" which must later be returned. Maria Hsia is currently represented by lawyer Nancy Luque. Luque was the lead attorney for the 1996 Clinton/Gore campaign. She also represents Virginia housewife Julie Hiatt Steele who has been indicted by Starr's grand jury in relation to the Kathleen Willey assault and ensuing intimidation.



April 13, 1996
Energy Department officials tell Sandy Berger, then deputy director of the National Security Council, of reports that China stole warhead designs and information about the neutron bomb. According to the officials, the April 1996 briefing of Berger included evidence of the theft of the W-88 design, the need to increase security at the weapons laboratories and the report about the loss of neutron bomb data. "It was a pretty specific briefing," one American official who was present said.

July, 1996
The Energy Department completed an analysis of the neutron bomb case. The study, officials said, raised the possibility that the chief suspect in the W-88, Wen Ho Lee, a computer scientist in Los Alamos, had also been involved in the transfer to China of neutron bomb secrets. As they investigated further, Energy Department officials discovered that Lee had attended a classified meeting in 1992 in which solutions to the neutron bomb's design flaw were discussed, officials said.

China conducts it's final atomic test and says it will explode no more nuclear weapons in tests.

November, 1996
Deputy Secretary of Energy Charles Curtis orders a series of security improvements at the research labs, most of which are ignored or delayed.

March 19, 1997

Wall Street Journal 3/19/97 Editorial "…Just in the last week, we learned that FBI officials tipped off two NSC underlings last June about Chinese government intentions to influence U.S. politics. Mr. Lake says he was never told because the FBI advised the pair to keep it to themselves. The FBI replies that its agents told the NSC no such thing -- and why would they tell the NSC if not to have the information influence official policy? Stranger still, one of those FBI agents assigned as liaison to the NSC, Edward Appel, is now quitting the White House for undisclosed reasons. Attorney General Janet Reno also now says she tried to tell Mr. Lake about the Chinese tie last May but couldn't get him on the phone. Maybe Ms. Reno would have had better luck if she'd tried talking to Sandy Berger, then Mr. Lake's deputy and now successor as NSC adviser, who we know attended the weekly White House campaign strategy meetings all last year. This is unheard of among foreign-policy advisers, who usually try to distance themselves from campaign work. With so many new and odd developments, the Senate can be forgiven if it doesn't take White House explanations at face value. We're sympathetic to those who say that Mr. Lake, with his intelligence and experience, is about as good as we're going to get from this administration. But Jim Woolsey was a first-rate CIA chief, until he proved too independent for this president. The CIA is a secret, enforcement agency where such independence is vital, especially in an administration as given to corner cutting as this one. With the FBI now publicly feuding with Mr. Clinton over who knew what and when about Chinese influence, it stretches belief that a member of his White House responsible for China policy would now go to run the CIA, in charge of intelligence that might bear directly on the China-campaign connections…"


March 27, 1997

Margaret Warner interview with Sandy Berger: "…MARGARET WARNER: Attorney General Reno today defended the FBI’s decision to refuse your NSC’s request for some counter-intelligence information about China’s alleged attempts to subvert the U.S. election, and this was information you’re asking for, for Madeleine Albright, the Secretary of State, before her first trip to China. Now, are you--are you comfortable with that? How do you feel about that, that the FBI would not give you the information? SAMUEL (SANDY) BERGER: Well, the FBI is in a difficult position. Obviously, it has a law enforcement responsibility and a need to preserve the integrity of that law enforcement process. I would hope when there are matters touching on national security that there would be a willingness to share that information to the extent they deem appropriate. …"

August, 1997

"…In August 1997, Berger flew to Beijing to prepare for the October summit. He assigned Samore, a senior NSC aide in charge of proliferation issues, to assess the damage from the Los Alamos spy case. After receiving a briefing from Trulock in August, Samore asked the CIA's directorate of intelligence to get a second opinion on how China had developed its smaller nuclear warheads. It was, an NSC aide said, "a quick study done at our request." …CIA officials strenuously deny that the agency's analysts intended to downplay Trulock's findings. The FBI inquiry was stalled. At a September 1997 meeting between FBI and Energy Department officials, Freeh concluded that the bureau did not have enough evidence to arrest the suspect, according to officials…. But the suspect was allowed to keep his job and retain his security clearances for more than a year after the meeting with Freeh, according to U.S. officials…. " New York Times 3/06/99 Jeff Gerth

September 11, 1997
In testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger states that foreign visitors regularly attended White House meetings with Bill Clinton without background checks into their pasts. He also testified that he saw no evidence of "extraneous influences" on the Clinton Administration's foreign policy, despite visits to the White House by some questionable characters with overseas interests.Under questioning by Thompson, Berger defended his participation in weekly campaign strategy meetings during the Clinton re-election effort last year. Republicans also questioned Berger about a picture that was taken of him and international businessman Eric Hotung whose wife gave substantial contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). She is a U.S. citizen, but he is not. The meeting and photograph were requested by DNC chairman Don Fowler.


January 15, 1998

Malcolm Lee, a senior official on international economic policy, urged the staff to get more information about "what Loral did." "By no means should we downplay violations" in the memo to Clinton, Lee argued. Berger added a handwritten order: "Find out as much as you can . . . status/timetable/seriousness of DOJ . . . anything we can hang our hat on to characterize Loral's 'offense?' We need some more info."




Congressional Quarterly Weekly 1/5/99 ". Neither Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger nor Defense Secretary Williams S. Cohen has been in uniform. Only Vice President Al Gore, who was an Army journalist in Vietnam, has served in the military..."

Washington Times 2/3/99 Harry Summers ". In a Feb. 3 letter to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), National Security Advisor Samuel Berger says that a decision based only on technological feasibility "would ignore other critical factors that the administration believes must be addressed when it considers the deployment question in 2000, including those that must be evaluated by the president as commander-in-chief." "We intend to base the deployment decision on an assessment of the technology (based on an initial series of rigorous flight tests) and the proposed system's operational effectiveness," Berger says. "In addition, the president and his senior advisors will need to confirm whether the rogue state ballistic missile threat to the United States has developed as quickly as we now expect, as well as the cost to deploy." Further, "a decision regarding NMD deployment must also be addressed within the context of the ABM Treaty and our objectives for achieving future reductions in strategic offensive arms through START II and III." ..Cochran said he is "disappointed" by the letter from Berger, but does not intend to change the text of his bill. Cochran has 53 cosponsors, an aide said, including Hawaii Democrat Sen. Daniel Inouye, the ranking member of the defense appropriations panel.."

Associated Press 2/21/99 "...The night before Cuban MiGs shot down two Miami-based planes of a civilian rescue group, an adviser to President Clinton warned the White House of a possible confrontation, a newspaper reported Sunday. Richard Nuccio told The Miami Herald that he never got a reply to the memo he sent at 6:44 p.m. on Feb. 23, 1996, using the White House's electronic mail system. The e-mail went to Sandy Berger, now Clinton's national security adviser, said Nuccio, who has since left the White House. Nuccio said he also tried several times to speak to Berger by telephone but got no response. White House spokesman P.J. Crowley told The Herald that Berger received Nuccio's memo, "but he did not have a chance to read it that evening." He added: "Rick was acting on his intuition. In point of fact, we had no intelligence to suggest that the Cubans would act in a hostile manner." ..."

National Review 2/22/99 Bill Gertz ".. ..Cohen also announced that the administration's 1996 plan to develop a system in three years and then decide whether to deploy it in three years more was "a rush to failure," something no one bothered to mention when the plan was announced. Cohen said the three-plus-three plan would now become three-plus-five, with the earliest possible deployment slipping from 2003 to 2005….. When asked what will happen if the treaty cannot be renegotiated, Cohen said, "Then we have the option of . . . indicating we would simply pull out of the treaty." For arms controllers like Bell, who have an almost theological devotion to the ABM Treaty, the defense secretary had committed a heresy, prompting Bell to hold a press conference the next day to repeat what national security advisor Samuel R. Berger had said only a week before Cohen's announcement: "We remain strongly committed to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.".."

New York Times 3/06/99 Jeff Gerth "…In early 1996 Trulock traveled to CIA headquarters to tell officials there of the evidence his team had gathered on the apparent Chinese theft of U.S. nuclear designs…. As Trulock gathered his charts and drawings and wrapped up his top-secret briefing, the agency's chief spy hunter, Paul Redmond, sat stunned…. "This is going to be just as bad as the Rosenbergs," Redmond recalled saying. The evidence that so alarmed him had surfaced a year earlier…. From what they could tell, Beijing was testing a smaller and more lethal nuclear device configured remarkably like the W-88, the most modern, miniaturized warhead in the U.S. arsenal. In April 1995, they brought their findings to Trulock….In June 1995, they were told, a Chinese official gave CIA analysts what appeared to be a 1988 Chinese government document describing the country's nuclear weapons program. The document, a senior official said, specifically mentioned the W-88 and described some of the warhead's key design features…In late 1995 and early 1996, Trulock and his team took their findings to the FBI….This suspect "stuck out like a sore thumb," said one official…. By April 1996, the Energy Department decided to brief the White House. A group of senior officials including Trulock sat down with Sandy Berger, then Clinton's deputy national security adviser, to tell him that China appeared to have acquired the W-88 and that a spy for China might still be at Los Alamos…By June the FBI formally opened a criminal investigation into the theft of the W-88 design. But the inquiry made little progress over the rest of the year…. The bureau maintained tight control over the case…. In April 1997, the FBI issued a classified report on the labs that recommended, among other things, reinstating background checks on visitors to Los Alamos and Sandia, officials said. The Energy Department and the labs ignored the FBI recommendation for 17 months. An Energy Department spokeswoman was unable to explain the delay…"

New York Times 3/06/99 Jeff Gerth "…In early 1997, with the FBI's investigation making scant progress and the Energy Department's counterintelligence program in limbo, Trulock and other intelligence officials began to see new evidence that the Chinese had other, ongoing spy operations at the weapons labs…. But Trulock was unable to quickly inform senior U.S. officials about the new evidence. He asked to speak directly with Pena, the energy secretary, but had to wait four months for an appointment…. Pena immediately sent Trulock back to the White House -- and to Berger…."In July 1997 Sandy was briefed fully by the DOE on China's full access to nuclear weapons designs, a much broader pattern" said one White House official. Officials said Berger was told that there was evidence of several other Chinese espionage operations that were still under way inside the weapons labs…. Berger quickly briefed Clinton on what he had learned and kept him updated over the next few months, a White House official said. As Trulock spread the alarm, his warnings were reinforced by CIA Director George Tenet and FBI Director Louis Freeh, who met with Pena to discuss the lax security at the labs that summer…."

New York Times 3/06/99 Jeff Gerth "…With Berger now paying close attention, the White House became deeply involved in evaluating the seriousness of the thefts and solving the counterintelligence problems at the laboratories. Trulock's new findings came at a crucial moment in U.S.-China relations. Congress was examining the role of foreign money in the 1996 campaign, amid charges that Beijing had secretly funneled money into Democratic coffers. The administration was also moving to strengthen its strategic and commercial links with China. Clinton had already eased the commercial sale of supercomputers and satellite technology to China, and now he wanted to cement a nuclear cooperation agreement at the upcoming summit, enabling American companies to sell China new commercial nuclear reactors…."

New York Times 3/06/99 Jeff Gerth "…In August 1997, Berger flew to Beijing to prepare for the October summit. He assigned Samore, a senior NSC aide in charge of proliferation issues, to assess the damage from the Los Alamos spy case. After receiving a briefing from Trulock in August, Samore asked the CIA's directorate of intelligence to get a second opinion on how China had developed its smaller nuclear warheads. It was, an NSC aide said, "a quick study done at our request." …CIA officials strenuously deny that the agency's analysts intended to downplay Trulock's findings. The FBI inquiry was stalled. At a September 1997 meeting between FBI and Energy Department officials, Freeh concluded that the bureau did not have enough evidence to arrest the suspect, according to officials…. But the suspect was allowed to keep his job and retain his security clearances for more than a year after the meeting with Freeh, according to U.S. officials…. "

New York Times 3/7/99 David Sanger "…"The information that we were provided in 1997 made clear that there was a serious security problem at the national labs dating back to the mid-1980s, which we were going to deal with in a systematic and comprehensive way," Berger said in an interview Saturday. The authority to tighten security and begin a major counterintelligence push at the laboratories arose from a directive signed by Clinton in February 1998, after a nine-month investigation into security lapses at Los Alamos National Laboratory and other laboratories. But Richardson said Saturday that "the major reforms were instituted in October 1998, a month after I came in" as energy secretary, succeeding Federico Pena. In other words, the tightening happened nine months after Clinton's order was signed, and 18 months after the details of the security breach were first relayed to the White House…."

NY Times OpEd 3/8/99 William Safire "…Throughout the 1996 Clinton campaign for President, China's agents of influence had the run of the White House as they raised millions for the Clinton campaign. Chinese military intelligence officials were waved in without clearance. U.S. executives contributed megabucks as they lobbied for easier approval of sales of sensitive technology to Beijing. In the midst of this -- in April of 1996 -- a Department of Energy official informed President Clinton's deputy national security adviser, Samuel Berger, (1) that China had probably stolen our secrets of making warheads small enough to enable long-range missiles to pack multiple nuclear punches, and (2) that the suspected spy was still at work in the Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico. Mr. Berger, who sat in on most of the political meetings with Clinton's Asian fund-raisers, did nothing. The internal security division of the Department of Justice apparently did not ask a court for wiretap authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. At Reno Justice, investigating any Chinese penetration is a no-no Over one year later, after news stories and columns about Clinton's "Asian connection" had stimulated law enforcement officials and a Senate committee to bestir themselves, F.B.I. Director Louis Freeh and Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet went to the office of Energy Secretary Federico Peña. "Louis and George read him the riot act," a meeting participant tells me, "about lax security at Los Alamos." But nothing happened for a year and a half. Senator Fred Thompson's hearings on the Asian connection were politicized and truncated by John Glenn and Tom Daschle. Not until late 1998, when a bipartisan House select committee under co-chairmen Chris Cox and Norman Dicks began asking questions about Chinese espionage, did a new Energy Secretary begin to lock the barn door…"

Washington Times 3/9/99 Editorial "…By early 1997, Mr. Trulock and other intelligence officials uncovered evidence linking the Chinese to several ongoing spy operations at the weapons labs. In July 1997, the DOE fully briefed White House National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, including reports about ongoing Chinese espionage inside the labs. Amazingly, none of these revelations seemed to alarm the Clinton White House, which was more interested in portraying the Sino-American relationship as a Clinton policy success story. It also put into question the administration's fanatical preoccupation with exporting high-technology products to China. It was the Clinton administration that had made it easier for China to purchase dual-use supercomputers. In March 1996, moreover, the White House reversed an October 1995 decision, which would have kept the State Department in charge of satellite-export licensing, and transferred that authority to Commerce. From U.S. satellite-manufacturing companies that were using China's space-launch facilities, meanwhile, China received technology transfers that will assist it in building missiles that can carry the multiple independently targetable warheads whose design China acquired from earlier espionage activity. None of these policies would look very good in the context of massive, ongoing Chinese espionage operations at the nation's weapons labs and congressional investigations of illegal Chinese contributions to the Democratic Party and the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign. So, the administration declined to inform congressional intelligence committees of the extent of China's spying. Congress never learned the full extent of the Chinese espionage until late 1998 when a House select committee investigating technology transfers to China heard testimony from Mr. Tulock, who had previously been ordered by acting Energy Secretary Elizabeth Moler not to brief the House Intelligence Committee in an earlier investigation. In the end, in unanimous bipartisan agreement, the select committee, chaired by Christopher Cox, adopted Mr. Tulock's assessment of Chinese activity and dismissed the White House's initial conclusion, which held that the Chinese spying should have no bearing on the administration's Chinese policy….."

Buchanan Press office 3/10/99 "…Republican Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan today demanded that National Security Advisor Samuel Berger explain his "dereliction of duty" in failing to alert congressional leaders to the theft of top secret U.S. nuclear warhead technology. According to a New York Times story March 6, intelligence officers at the CIA and the Department of Energy informed Berger in April of 1996 that China had acquired the design features of America's most sophisticated nuclear warhead. William Safire writes that Berger "did nothing." In early 1997, intelligence officials uncovered evidence linking the Chinese to several ongoing spy operations at the nuclear weapons laboratory in Los Alamos. Berger, fully briefed on these matters in July 1997, failed to alert congressional leaders or the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. "The allegations surrounding the transfer of atomic secrets to a potential enemy are the most serious since the Rosenbergs went to the electric chair for atomic espionage in 1953. Our security has been compromised, our technology stolen and our cities placed in mortal peril," Mr. Buchanan said. "Mr. Berger owes his country an immediate explanation for his laxity and inexplicable failure to inform Congress and the American people about the breach of our security. If Mr. Berger cannot satisfactorily explain his dereliction of duty, he should resign," Mr. Buchanan added…."

Dallas Morning News 3/10/99 Editorial Freeper Stand Watch Listen "…Security Adviser Sandy Berger. He is the one who apparently made the decision to keep mum about reports of Chinese espionage when Energy Department officials brought the news to him in April 1996, almost three years ago. Why would a national security guru choose to hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil? One possibility is that Mr. Berger subsumed the national security of the United States to the political fortunes of President Clinton in the 1996 election. It would certainly be consistent with a campaign that, as columnist William Safire puts it, gave "China's agents of influence the run of the White House as they raised millions for the Clinton campaign." …"


Reuters 3/10/99 "…The White House defended National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Wednesday after two Republican presidential candidates called for his resignation over the China nuclear scandal. Republican presidential candidates Lamar Alexander and Pat Buchanan issued separate statements demanding Berger explain what Buchanan called his "dereliction of duty'' in failing to alert congressional leaders to the alleged theft of top-secret U.S. nuclear warhead technology. Lockhart said Clinton had no intention of firing Berger… Berger was allegedly informed of the theft in 1996 but reportedly failed to tell Congress. "In response, Mr. Berger did nothing,'' said Alexander. ''For his unwillingness to act on this serious matter, Mr. Berger should resign. If he does not, he should be relieved of his duties by President Clinton.'' Buchanan said, "The allegations surrounding the transfer of atomic secrets to a potential enemy are the most serious since the Rosenbergs went to the electric chair for atomic espionage in 1953.'' "Our security has been compromised, our technology stolen and our cities placed in mortal peril,'' Buchanan said…. "

Washington Times 3/11/99 Bill Gertz "…"I'm outraged that this has gone on," said Sen. Robert C. Smith, New Hampshire Republican and chairman of the Senate Armed Services' strategic forces subcommittee. "And I'm shocked and outraged by the lack of response of this administration." Mr. Smith heads the subcommittee in charge of overseeing U.S. strategic nuclear weapons and Energy Department nuclear weapons laboratories. He plans hearings into the case of a Los Alamos scientist suspected of giving China design information on the United States' most advanced nuclear warhead, the compact W-88 deployed on U.S. Trident II submarine missiles. Mr. Smith said he is particularly upset by a New York Times report that a senior Energy Department official ordered an intelligence official to keep the spy case secret from Congress. "They were withholding information from Congress," he said. "That's what happened in the Government Affairs Committee --people wouldn't talk." …Mr. Smith said he is troubled by published reports that Elizabeth Moler, a senior Energy official, ordered a subordinate not to disclose the Chinese nuclear espionage in testimony before Congress, and by reports that White House National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger tried to cover up the Chinese nuclear spying. "If that is true, they shouldn't be given the time to resign; they should be fired," Mr. Smith said…."

Judicial Watch 3/11/99 "… Recently, Judicial Watch uncovered that security procedures remain so lax at the Clinton Commerce Department that anyone with a top secret clearance can walk out of the agency with classified documents in his or her briefcase. Indeed, Judicial Watch had already found that confidential and classified satellite encryptions, along with CIA reports on China, Russia and India, were taken out of the Department by Ira Sockowitz, a confidant of John Huang. The classified materials were perhaps bound for the Chinese. But the Clinton Administration and Congress have failed to thoroughly investigate this. Judicial Watch will, however. This underscores the serious national security weaknesses in the Clinton Administration. For instance, Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser who buried information about the breach of security at Los Alamos laboratory, is not trained in national security issues. He was an international trade lawyer, specializing in antidumping cases, at Hogan and Hartson, a predominantly Democrat law firm, before joining The White House. It is an understatement to say he thinks "politically," and not strategically. The Huang diaries are a window into the access potential Chinese agents have to classified national security information in the Clinton Administration. Given Huang's importance, they are perhaps the Rosetta stone, from which to do a serious investigation. Judicial Watch is carrying out this investigation in its multitude of lawsuits on Chinagate. Huang will be redeposed by Judicial Watch…."

Wall Street Journal 3/11/99 Editorial "…On their own the security lapses would be serious enough….. But the story's context invites an even more chilling conclusion. The Clinton Administration's inaction, after all, did not occur in a vacuum. It came in the thick of a 1996 re-election effort we now know included campaign contributions from those with ties to the Chinese government, its military and even its intelligence organizations In other words, at the same time the FBI and CIA were investigating the source of the Los Alamos leak, Vice President Al Gore was passing the hat among inexplicably wealthy Buddhist nuns, Mr. Clinton was serving coffee at the White House to PLA arms dealer Wang Jun and the Administration responded favorably to a request from a man who would be the Democratic Party's largest donor in 1996--Loral Chairman Bernard L. Schwartz--to transfer authority over licensing of satellite technology from the State to Commerce Department. Two years later Loral would be granted a Presidential waiver to export its technology to China, even though it was under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for previous technology transfers….More to the point here, neither of Mr. Clinton's predecessors involved their foreign policy people in campaign politics the way this Administration has. What makes Sandy Berger's lack of action on the espionage front so scandalous is that as deputy National Security Adviser in 1996 he sat in on the weekly White House meetings about the re-election campaign. And he wasn't alone. The President himself chaired a September 13, 1995, meeting after which Johnny Huang--Lippo's man at the Commerce Department--was transferred to the Democratic National Committee. The result was that a man suspected of having compromised national security continued at his post, and foreign scientists were allowed to visit lab facilities without background checks. Indeed, the White House began to tighten things at Los Alamos only late last year, after the arrival of Bill Richardson at Energy and after a bipartisan committee convened by Rep. Chris Cox looked into issues of Chinese espionage and technology transfer. Over at Justice, meanwhile, the Attorney General resolutely refused to follow the recommendations of either FBI director Louis Freeh or her handpicked prosecutor, Charles La Bella, to appoint an independent counsel to look into any Chinese connection to the 1996 campaign…."

Year of the Rat (excerpt) 3/11/99 Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II Freeper report pg 182 "… "Samuel R. 'Sandy' Berger is President Clinton's national security adviser and a true Friend of Bill (and Hillary). He met the first couple when all three were political operatives on the McGovern campaign of 1972. In the years leading to Clinton's first inauguration in January 1993, Berger was a Washington-based lawyer-lobbyist.

"In an interview with Washington Post columnist Nat Hentoff, Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pointed out, 'Sandy Berger was the point person at the Hogan and Hartson law firm for the trade office of the Chinese government.' So far as we can determine, this statement has never been denied by Mr. Berger." – "

Washington Times/CNN Freeper LarryLied 3/11/99 "…"Contrary to CNN's report, which said the White House was "only briefed about the possible technology secrets theft in mid-1997," the White House was, in fact, first briefed in April 1996. At that meeting, Mr. Trulock and several other senior DOE officials informed then-Deputy National Security Adviser Sandy Berger that China appeared to have reproduced and successfully tested the W-88 warhead -- America's most advanced nuclear weapon, eight of which are deployed on each Trident D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missile. Mr. Berger, who was promoted to national security adviser in 1997, was also told that the suspected spy continued to work at Los Alamos." Washington Times Editorial 3/11/99 …"

The Washington Post 3/11/99 Michael Kelly "…President Clinton's China policy, a mess of corruption and carelessness and naivete, is collapsing under the weight of its own fraudulence, exposing the nation Clinton calls America's "strategic partner" as a threat to America's security and a thief of America's nuclear secrets, and exposing also the president and senior administration officials for their efforts to minimize and hide this unwelcome fact. For the past six years, the White House has lied about China. It pretended, against all evidence, that the People's Republic was sincere in its promises to curb its persecution of democrats, Catholic priests, Tibetan monks, pregnant women and other enemies of the people. It pretended that China was sincere also in its promises to curb its spread of weapons of mass destruction. It pretended not to understand that China regarded the United States as enemy number one in its campaign to achieve regional dominance, particularly over Taiwan. The days of pretense are dwindling down to a precious few….. But Trulock's warning came at an awkward time. The administration was on the verge of the 1997 "strategic partnership" summit with Beijing. It was also facing congressional investigations into charges that the People's Republic had illegally funneled money into the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. Very awkward, really. So Berger buried the embarrassment. He assigned National Security staffer Gary Samore to look into things, and Samore asked the CIA to come up with a theory of the case other than Trulock's. The CIA dutifully reported that Trulock's analysis was an unsupported "worst-case" scenario, and Samore dutifully told Berger that no one could really say where the truth lay….. The reforms were not instituted until Bill Richardson, Pena's successor, did so in October 1998 -- 30 months after Trulock's first warning, 18 months after the full alarm, nine months after Clinton's directive. In the meantime, the administration did everything it could to keep things buried. The Times reports that the House Intelligence Committee asked Trulock for a briefing in July 1998. Trulock asked for permission from Elizabeth Moler, then acting energy secretary. According to Trulock, Moler told him not to brief the committee because the information might be used against Clinton's China policy. Moler told the Times she doesn't recall this. The White House's secret would have remained secret had it not been for a select investigative committee headed by Republican Rep. Christopher Cox. Cox's committee unearthed a pattern of more than two decades of Chinese nuclear spying, including the Los Alamos case. The secret leaked…. The White House is waging a desperate rear-guard campaign to force the Republicans to redact evidence about the administration's suspiciously deleterious approach to the Los Alamos spy case and also evidence suggesting linkage between Clinton's China policy reversal and campaign contributions from parties desiring that reversal. But these tactics will probably fail. An angered Republican leadership is considering taking the matter to the full House, where an unexpurgated report could be voted out over Democratic objections. Good. Let a thousand flowers bloom…."

New York Times 3/15/99 William Safire "…Does Lieut. Col. Liu Chaoying, daughter of a top Chinese general, provide a link between the stealing of secrets at our national laboratories in the 80's and the purchase of secrets from our American satellite and computer manufacturers in the 90's? Did a U.S. company help China widen the acquisition envelope of its SA-12 anti-aircraft missile by 20 degrees, and are Air National Guard F-16 pilots now being briefed on their new danger? Is it true that even now, tens of thousands of E-mail messages every month flow out of our national laboratories at Sandia and Los Alamos -- but our National Security Agency's Big Ear fails to monitor them? Is Berger telling the public the same story he told the Cox committee under oath? If so, why was President Clinton denied knowledge from 1995 to 1997 about this most damaging atomic spy coup since the Rosenbergs? Isn't a President entitled to such information before proposing a "strategic partnership"? Or did Clinton really know? But to pose these questions is outrageous. …"


New York Times 3/15/99 William Safire "…Absolutely no truth to it -- it's an outrageous statement," fumed Samuel Berger, the first national security adviser to regularly attend political campaign meetings in the White House. "It's wrong . . . not based on any facts whatsoever." He was responding to Tim Russert's quotation on NBC's "Meet the Press" of my assertion of connections among: (a) the Clinton-Gore fund-raising from admittedly illegal Asian sources, followed by our stunning turnabout in trade policy; (b) the uncleared access to the White House by a high Chinese military intelligence official; (c) the Clinton decision, accompanied by huge campaign contributions by a satellite manufacturer, to switch regulation of technology transfer to his anything-goes Commerce Department, and (d) the years of foot-dragging by the Clinton National Security Council when confronted by evidence that China had stolen nuclear secrets from Los Alamos. Mr. Berger would have us believe that these are not facts, and if they are, they are wholly unrelated. It would be outrageous indeed to suggest that American officials were consciously betraying our national interest. But the confluence of these facts in election year 1996 -- combined with the urge to disregard or derogate any intelligence that would stop the political blessings of a "strategic partnership" with China -- led to Clinton's denial of a dangerous penetration. …"

New York Times 3/15/99 William Safire "…Why has Berger & Co. repeatedly stressed that "other countries, including friendly countries," spied on us? Is this the spin machine's not-so-sly way to get supporters of Israel in the Congress and the media to shut up and back off? The former chief of Department of Energy intelligence, Notra Trulock, says he was ordered not to inform Congress of his suspicions, but his boss, Elizabeth Moler, disputes this. Whose story will change under oath? Why, if Secretary Bill Richardson were so "seized of" this secret issue last August when he was named, did he demote the expert, Trulock, and put in charge a C.I.A. man from his U.N. embassy staff -- Larry Sanchez -- who knew nothing about the agency's worst problem? …"


The Union Leader 3/16/99 Richard Lessner "…It is hardly surprising that the Clinton administration, informed in April 1996 that a Red Chinese agent had penetrated our super-secret Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory, did nothing. Consider that was going on in 1996: In the spring of that year, the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee -- the two by then were nearly indistinguishable -- were smack in the middle of a huge international fundraising effort facilitated by a cast of shady Asian businessmen, organized crime figures and agents of the People's Republic of China. Millions of dollars were being raised from these foreign sources to pay for Dick Morris' stealth media campaign that buried the hapless Bob Dole and turned Bill Clinton's re-election into a walkover. So in the middle of all this, is it any wonder that Deputy National Security Adviser Sandy Berger did nothing when investigators told him in April 1996 of the Red Chinese penetration at Los Alamos? Is it mere coincidence that Mr. Berger learned our nuclear security had been compromised the same month (on the 29th) that Al Gore was holding a gala fund-raiser at a Buddhist temple in California, at which hundreds of thousands of dollars were illegally funneled into the Clinton-Gore campaign from Asian sources with connections to Beijing? Then there is Mr. Berger himself. It now is known from White House documents obtained by congressional investigators that as deputy national security advisor it was Mr. Berger who led the fight inside the administration in 1995 to shift responsibility for export controls on satellite technology from the State to the Commerce Department. This transfer of control to the late Ron Brown's more "user friendly" Commerce -- a change opposed by the Pentagon and Secretary of State Warren Christopher -- was rewarded by millions in campaign contributions from the Loral and Hughes Aerospace corporations. And it was Mr. Berger who pressed Bill Clinton to provide Loral and Hughes with export-control waivers that allowed the companies to transfer sensitive satellite technology to the Red Chinese, this despite an on-going Justice Department and FBI investigation into their activities. So much for Sandy Berger's interest, his title notwithstanding, in national security…."


MSNBC Website 3/16/99 Robert Windrem, AP, & Reuters "…REP. DUNCAN HUNTER, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, also faulted the administration for failing to ensure that supercomputers sent to China were not destined for military programs and for leaving a suspected spy in a sensitive job for 15 months after the FBI indicated he could be reassigned…. The probe remained secret because federal agents were trying to determine the source of the nuclear technology thefts, Berger said, adding that members of Congress were briefed on the matter in the same time frame as the president….But at a Capitol press conference, Hunter took issue with statements by Berger and administration officials that Congress was kept fully informed through a series of 16 briefings and disputed their argument that suspected spy Wen Ho Lee was left in his sensitive job because of fears that the investigation would have been endangered if he was reassigned. <B>He said that at a closed hearing in October 1998, he asked deputy Energy Secretary Elizabeth Moller and the department’s intelligence chief Notra Trulock about any security breaches at the National Laboratories. The alleged theft of data on the secret W-88 multiple warhead from Los Alamos National Laboratory was never mentioned in their responses, he said.</B> He also questioned why Lee was left in his computer science job for 15 months after FBI Director Louis Freeh told Energy Department officials in 1997 that there was no investigative need to keep him in a sensitive position. "The president allowed this spy to remain in a sensitive position and possibly harvest more information about America’s nuclear weapons systems," Hunter said. Finally, he contended that of the 191 supercomputers sent to China in 1998, only one underwent the "end-use verification" that the Commerce Department is required to conduct to ensure that the computers are not intended for military uses. He said the lack of proper checks occurred because China has not given the United States access…."


The New Republic 3/29/99 Editors "….the crisis for the administration's policy of "engagement" with China has only just begun. Two questions cry out for rigorous investigation and forthright answers. Should the White House have acted more swiftly when it first heard warnings from an Energy Department official that China was conducting nuclear espionage in this country--and did it drag its feet in order to prevent the espionage case from upsetting its China-friendly policy? And even more fundamentally: Why did this administration ever imagine that a genuine "partnership" with China was possible in the first place? On both counts, the man with the most explaining to do is national security adviser Sandy Berger, the de facto architect of America's foreign policy. Berger's view of the world tells him that the way to get powerful but contrary countries such as China to respect American interests is to enmesh them in a web of international law and multilateral organizations. His summum bonum is Chinese membership in the World Trade Organization. Yet China is not the state Berger imagines it to be. China is problematic for American interests and repugnant to American values. Morally, a "partnership" with the regime in Beijing must be unacceptable. (Judge them by their allies in Asia: the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, and Burma's brutal regime.) But it must also be viewed skeptically on strategic grounds. China is not a potential force for stability, but rather a proven force for disruption. It is a rising regional power with irredentist claims on Taiwan, the Spratley Islands, and border areas abutting both Vietnam and India…."

The Hill 3/17/99 Dick Morris "…Sandy Berger is about as qualified to be White House national security advisor as I am. He’s a political operative who had virtually no foreign policy experience before he became Tony Lake’s deputy. He was put into the National Security Council (NSC) under Lake so that Tony, who didn’t have a clue about politics, wouldn’t get cut apart in the congressional swamp. His job was to know politics. Tony’s was to know foreign policy…. When Lake and Christopher left, Berger got the top NSC job, the first professional politician ever to be named national security advisor. It was a major mistake….Clinton’s choice of Berger was, however, just right for his concept of foreign policy, that it is subordinate to domestic political and economic considerations. Where the president can intervene abroad and do well at home with domestic constituencies — as in Israel, Ireland and Haiti — foreign policy is important. But where global strategy is concerned, the prime motive is economic — to create jobs in America — and not diplomatic, military or strategic. He runs foreign policy like a governor promoting his state…"

U.S. Politics..The Mining Company, 9/12/97 Freeper Sakida "…In a shortened, half-day meeting, the Committee's only witness, Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor for the Clinton Administration, tried to justify why he attended strategy and political meetings within the White House during the '95/'96 Campaign. His reasoning was that he should be there in case some political type decided to misquote some foreign policy statistics. He claimed that the ease of access to Clinton and Gore had been corrected this year and that in the future it would not be so easy for the likes of Charlie Trie, John Huang and others to get in. However, that didn't explain the times they got in at Clinton's behest. He surely wouldn't block their entrance in that event, one would assume. He also claimed to be unaware of the activities of Roger Tamaraz, Pauline Kanchanalak, Wan Jun, John Chung and others. Berger admitted that he or his staff were seldom consulted about the likes of the Chinese Arms Merchant, the Russian business man with alleged mob ties, and other unsavory type characters who paraded through the White House, glad handing it with Clinton and family for a hefty price. Several Republican Senators questioned Berger about his having his picture taken with various big spenders during the 1996 campaign when he was still Assistant NSA Chief. Senator Don Nickles seemed most concerned about the easy access of Roger Tamaraz, an oilman who was soliciting support from the U. S. Government for his pipeline. His background is quite shady, and in fact a warrant is out for him in Lebanon. Nickles said, "You had an arms dealer, you had a drug dealer, you had a person with an international arrest warrant. You didn't block anybody except Mr. Tamraz and that blockage was overruled evidently." Berger claimed there was a lack of communication on that matter. Nickles followed up by saying, "Tamraz got what he wanted. He got access to the president, he got action by the president, he got action by the president's chief of staff." …"

Freeper Sakida reports 3/17/99 "…
The president announced the appointment Dec. 5.[1996] It does not require Senate approval. Clinton befriended Berger more than 20 years ago, not long after Berger received his law degree from Harvard University, when both worked on Sen. George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign. In recent years Berger has been a close ally and adviser on foreign policy matters to the president, having served as Clinton's senior foreign policy adviser during the 1992 campaign and as deputy national security adviser to the president throughout his first term. In his new position Berger will succeed Anthony Lake, whom Clinton has picked to direct the Central Intelligence Agency…."

Freeper Sakida reports 11/25/97 The Detroit News "…Berger's orchestration of U.S. policy in the row with Iraq was not unblemished. The administration seemed to be sending mixed signals early in the crisis when an aide on Albright's plane spoke of offering Iraqi President a "little carrot" to permit a resumption of arms inspections, contradicting the official line that there would be no concessions to Saddam Hussein. And days before the crisis erupted, Berger was forced to pay the government $23,043 for failing to get rid of stock in the Amoco oil corporation until 15 months after government attorneys advised him to do so.
In legal papers settling a civil conflict-of-interest suit brought against him by the Justice Department, Berger said he had forgotten about instructions to sell 1,300 Amoco shares held in four trusts for his wife and three children. He also said he did not knowingly participate in decisions that could have had a bearing

Freeper Sakida reports 1/31/97 Jewish Telegraphic Agency "…The Washington Post reported that Berger was advised by White House lawyers in 1994 to sell a longtime family stock in the Amoco oil company. After initially questioning the advice, Berger agreed to sell the stock, but forgot to do so until reminded by White House lawyers to do so more than one year later, the Post said. Still, then-White House counsel Abner Mikva said he had no choice but to refer the case to the Justice Department's public integrity division. But White House counsel Jack Quinn said that Clinton was aware of the Justice Department probe of Berger, and believed Berger had committed a harmless oversight that should not interfere with his promotion, the Post said…."

The Washington Times 3/17/99 "…Mr. Berger asserted Sunday that the initial briefing about Chinese espionage which he received at the White House in April 1996 was "very general" and "very preliminary." According to Mr. Berger, that briefing, which was conducted by a group of senior Energy Department officials, including its chief counterintelligence officer, Notra Trulock, merely "indicated" that there was "some evidence" that China "may have" obtained "in some fashion" sensitive nuclear weapons information. "At that stage," Mr. Berger told NBC's Tim Russert, "we did not know who, we did really not know how, and we really did not know what." Later, Mr. Berger told Mr. Russert, "The FBI hadn't even begun its investigation. We did not have a suspect. We did not know at this point what they had gotten." In fact, however, Mr. Trulock had begun his counterintelligence investigation of China's theft of one of America's most advanced warheads 12 months before briefing the White House. In late 1995, moreover, the FBI had already begun its own investigation, poring over travel and work records of lab scientists and building a list of five suspects. By February 1996, two months before briefing the White House, Energy Department counterintelligence officers had identified one particular suspect, a scientist, who "stuck out like a sore thumb," as one official told the New York Times. Before visiting the White House in April, Mr. Trulock briefed Paul Redmond, the CIA's chief spy hunter who had unmasked Aldrich Ames. Mr. Redmond considered Mr. Trulock's briefing, which was replete with charts and graphs, to be anything but "very general," as Mr. Berger characterized Mr. Trulock's subsequent White House briefing. It is instructive to compare Mr. Redmond's anguished reaction -- "This is going to be just as bad as the Rosenbergs," who gave the Soviets the secrets to the atomic bomb, he recalled saying at the time --with Mr. Berger's laid back reaction to what he perceived to be a "very general" and "very preliminary" briefing…."

The Washington Times 3/17/99 "…Mr. Berger also asserted that the FBI began "a thorough formal investigation" within a month and "the CIA was [also] investigating this." In fact, however, by the end of 1996, so little progress had been made by the FBI that Energy Department officials were convinced the FBI had assigned too few resources to the case. And, according to Mr. Redmond, the FBI had not been updating the CIA's counterintelligence office…."

The Washington Times 3/17/99 "… Mr. Berger also asserted on Sunday that, upon learning of China's nuclear espionage, the administration "imposed and forced the strictest controls on China of any country except those for which we have embargoes, such as Libya." In fact, the administration did the opposite. In February 1998, the same month President Clinton belatedly ordered greater security measures at the nation's weapons labs, he ignored strenuous objections from the Justice Department, which was investigating Loral Corp. for an unauthorized technology transfer to China. Overruling the Justice Department, the president granted Loral a waiver for official transfers of essentially the same missile expertise to China that the company was being criminally investigated for giving to China without authorization in 1996. This expertise would help China build rockets that could carry multiple, independently targetable warheads -- the very type of warhead whose design China had stolen and about which Mr. Berger had been briefed nearly two years earlier…."

The Washington Times 3/17/99 "…Mr. Berger also claimed that the order signed by President Clinton in February 1998, which mandated increased security measures at the labs, "made the changes I believe are necessary." But many of these changes, including recommendations made by the FBI long before Mr. Clinton's February 1998 directive, were not instituted until October 1998, after Bill Richardson became Secretary of Energy. Moreover, there is a serious question even today whether security at the labs has been sufficiently strengthened. "Security at the Department of Energy [which runs the labs] has not improved," a recently retired U.S. counterintelligence official told Bill Gertz of The Washington Times this week. "Counterintelligence is poor." Rep. Christopher Cox, who chaired the select committee investigating China's acquisition of U.S. military technology, told Mr. Gertz that there is a "lack of adequate counterintelligence at out national laboratories, and, frankly, throughout the government." Indeed, it was Hazel O'Leary, Mr. Clinton's first secretary of energy, who slashed the department's security and counterintelligence budgets. "Hazel O'Leary hated intelligence and security [efforts]," the recently retired counterintelligence official told Mr. Gertz. "She had this naive view there were no threats." …"

The Washington Times 3/17/99 "…Mr. Berger also rejected the claim by Congress that the administration failed to inform it in an adequate and timely fashion of China's espionage at the labs. "Congress was informed, I believe, before I was in '96," Mr. Berger told Mr. Russert. "And I believe [Congress] has been briefed more than 16 times since then." That's the White House version. Here is what Rep. Norman Dicks, the ranking Democrat on both the House intelligence panel and the Cox select committee, told the New York Times: "Porter Goss," the former CIA official who chairs the House intelligence committee, "and I were not properly briefed about the dimensions of the problem. It was compartmentalized and disseminated over the years in dribs and drabs so that the full extent of the problem was not known until the Cox committee." Indeed, it was Mr. Dicks who, having become so impatient at the administration's inadequate response to the Los Alamos laboratory spy scandal, approached Mr. Richardson and told him action needed to be taken immediately. Finally, the suspect who "stuck out like a sore thumb" three years earlier was given a polygraph test and found to be deceptive in February. On March 6, the New York Times reported the details of the scandal, and the suspect was fired two days later…."

The Washington Times 3/17/99 "…Earlier, the Energy Department had for more than a year disregarded an FBI recommendation that the suspect's access to classified information be restricted. Here is Mr. Berger's disingenuous take on this: "[T]he secretary of Energy made a decision based on various factors relating to this employee that he should be terminated," he told Mr. Russert on Sunday.

The Hill 3/17/99 Dick Morris "…Sandy Berger is about as qualified to be White House national security advisor as I am. He’s a political operative who had virtually no foreign policy experience before he became Tony Lake’s deputy. He was put into the National Security Council (NSC) under Lake so that Tony, who didn’t have a clue about politics, wouldn’t get cut apart in the congressional swamp. His job was to know politics. Tony’s was to know foreign policy…. When Lake and Christopher left, Berger got the top NSC job, the first professional politician ever to be named national security advisor. It was a major mistake….Clinton’s choice of Berger was, however, just right for his concept of foreign policy, that it is subordinate to domestic political and economic considerations. Where the president can intervene abroad and do well at home with domestic constituencies — as in Israel, Ireland and Haiti — foreign policy is important. But where global strategy is concerned, the prime motive is economic — to create jobs in America — and not diplomatic, military or strategic. He runs foreign policy like a governor promoting his state…"

Washington Times 3/22/99 Edward Timperlake and William Triplett authors of Year of the Rat "…We believe that, for the national interest, President Clinton's National Security Adviser Samuel Sandy Berger should resign immediately…. Right out of the starting gate, Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice for a national security position with the government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese government trade office. Having once had a personal financial stake in the promotion of pro-Beijing policies raises an immediate question of his present judgment and decision-making. If only for appearances, let alone personal ethics, he should have recused himself from anything connected to Beijing and its military ambitions…. We now know, for example, it was Mr. Berger who led the charge to repeal export controls on military useful satellites to China. According to White House Documents released to Congress in 1995, as soon as Secretary of State Warren Christopher made his decision to keep controls, Mr. Berger began campaigning from the White House to reverse the decision…. We also now know it was Mr. Berger who was deeply involved in saving Bernard Schwartz's Loral Space systems from the bloodhounds at Justice. Even though Mr. Berger's own staff was informed by the State Department that Loral's offenses were serious and knowing and that Loral was likely to be indicted for secret help it gave China's missile program, he recommended going ahead with a presidential waiver. As a result, the leading donor to President Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign is very likely to escape prosecution. And we now know Mr. Berger was directly involved in the administration's decision to ignore a successful Chinese penetration of our nuclear weapons labs….

On Mr. Berger's watch, Chinese intelligence carried out a massive and successful penetration of the White House itself. A number of persons identified by the CIA as associates of Chinese intelligence poured millions of dollars in illegal campaign funds into the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election effort. The Riady family of Indonesia, criminal syndicate figure Ng Lapsing, convicted entrepreneur Johnny Chung, fugitive businessman Ted Sieong and indicted Democratic fund-raiser Maria Hsia all had such connections, all were major donors and collectively, they had hundreds of contacts with the White House, President Clinton or Vice President Al Gore. On Mr. Berger's watch, American anti-proliferation laws have not been applied to Chinese military companies when illegal campaign contributions to Clinton-Gore were part of the mix. High-ranking Chinese military spy and arms dealer Liu Chaoying laundered hundreds of thousands of dollars into the 1996 campaign, all the while secretly selling cruise missiles to Iran…. On Mr. Berger's watch, the Clinton administration inaugurated a program of rehabilitation for Chinese generals who have the blood of Chinese young people on their hands. As near as we can determine, at least six People's Liberation Army general officers with personal command and control responsibility for the 1989 Tiananmem Square massacre have received the royal treatment in Washington. Nearly all this occurred in secret.

On Mr. Berger's watch, Chinese military elements have occupied strategic islands hundreds of miles off the China coast. These military outposts sit astride shipping lanes in which all of Japan's energy needs are transported…. Finally, in a preview of the infamous definition of what is is, Mr. Berger told the Congress in 1997 there is no credible evidence COSCO (the China Ocean Shipping Co.) is engaged in a host of illegal activities, including arms smuggling. This misleading and dishonest statement completely ignores COSCO's pivotal role as the delivery boys for China's arms merchants. COSCO is on the record having delivered missiles to trouble spots and 2,000 fully automatic machine guns destined for drug gangs in the United States….."

Washington Post 3/21/99 Freeper the Raven "…National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's propensity for deflecting blame upon his predecessors is becoming legendary. Asked about the Clinton administration's unconscionable failure to address alarming reports about Chinese espionage at the nation's nuclear-weapons laboratories, Mr. Berger changes the subject and reflexively responds that the theft of the design of America's most advanced nuclear warhead did not occur on his watch…."


Sacramento Bee 3/28/99 Nando Media/Reuters "…The New Yorker magazine reported on Sunday that Western intelligence officials believe Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov took a payoff from Iraq in exchange for strategic materials from Moscow to build up its nuclear weapons stockpile. Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh quoted high-level American intelligence sources as saying Primakov received $800,000 in a wire transfer in November 1997. The New Yorker said a spokesman at the Russian embassy in Washington denied all charges of corruption against Primakov. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, asked about the report during an appearance on ABC's "This Week," said that while he had not read the whole article and had just seen it, "I have no evidence to support that, no. I don't know whether Mr. Hersh has." In the report, Hersh quoted one unidentified source as saying, "A payment was made." "This is rock solid - like (now-jailed Mafia boss) John Gotti ordering a whack on the telephone. Ironclad." The weekly magazine, which goes on sale on Monday, said a British signals-intelligence unit intercept produced evidence of the transfer. It quoted a second unidentified U.S. official as saying, "There was a wire transfer to an account of $800,000." …"Russia is hopeless now," Rolf Ekeus, the first head of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in charge of dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, was quoted in the New Yorker as saying. "It is clear that Russia is making a serious effort to control events. Saddam will get a bomb, because these materials are floating in. Every day, they are more advanced." …."

Rep J D Hayworth (R-Az) 3/29/99 Washington Weekly "…

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to bring you news from home… From the pages of the Holbrook Tribune-News, indeed from the editorial page of March 19, the headline reads, 'This Story Needs More Attention.' Paul Barger, the publisher of the Holbrook Tribune-News, writes, and I quote, 'For some time there have been reports circulating regarding the possible theft of highly classified missile secrets from Los Alamos since the 1980s. The thefts were apparently discovered in 1995, and the person allegedly involved was allowed to resign recently. The matter has been kept quiet for what seem to be political reasons.' …From yesterday's Washington Times on the op-ed page, Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett, II, who coauthored the book the 'Year of the Rat,' setting forth the ample evidence of Chinese involvement in the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in 1996, I read from their op-ed piece, headlined 'Leaks on Berger's Watch,' quoting now: 'We believe that, for the national interest, President Clinton's national security advisor Samuel Sandy Berger should resign immediately….. 'Right out of the starting gate, Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice for a national security position with the government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese Government's trade office.' Let me repeat that. 'Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice for a national security position with the government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese Government's trade office. 'Having once had a personal financial stake in the promotion of pro-Beijing policies raises an immediate question of his present judgment and decision-making. If only for appearances, let alone personal ethics, he should have recused himself from anything connected to Beijing and its military ambitions. 'Instead, Mr. Berger seems to be around whenever, in our opinion, Clinton administration decisions are made that favor People's Republic of China trade ties over American national security interests.'…"

Reuters 3/17/99 "… The Clinton administration on Wednesday stoutly defended its engagement with Beijing despite a furore over spying allegations, saying one aim was to ensure China did not expand its very limited nuclear arsenal. Gary Samore, President Bill Clinton's top adviser on weapons proliferation, said China had the capacity to expand its ageing nuclear force, now less than two dozen single-warhead missiles, but had decided for strategic reasons not to. ``I think an engagement strategy toward China which emphasises areas of cooperation and tries to resolve areas of tension and dispute, decreases the chances that the Chinese will feel compelled to pursue ... nuclear expansion,'' he said. …."

Washington Times National Weekly Edition 3/22-28/99 "…It's time for National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to go. Not only has his knee-jerk reaction to the Chinese espionage scandal — "We're talking about breaches of security that happened in the mid 1980s" when Ronald Reagan was president — been tired and old. But his explanation for what happened on his watch after the security breach became known is as disingenuous as any explanation ever offered by the Clinton White House. Which is saying something. If Mr. Berger's performance March 14 on NBC's Meet the Press is any guide, is it any wonder why the White House is fighting so desperately to keep classified as much of the Cox committee's report on Chinese espionage as possible? That report, endorsed unanimously by Democratic and Republican committee members alike, catalogued China's successful efforts during the last 20 years to acquire — by legal and illegal means — the most sensitive U.S. military technology, damaging U.S. national security interests in the process. Mr. Berger asserted that the initial briefing about Chinese espionage which he received at the White House in April 1996 was "very general" and "very preliminary" According to Mr. Berger, that briefing, which was conducted by a group of senior Energy Department officials, including its chief counterintelligence officer, Notra Trulock, merely "indicated" that there was "some evidence" that China "may have" obtained "in some fashion" sensitive nuclear weapons information. "At that stage," Mr. Berger told NBC's Tim Russert, "we did not know who, we did really not know how, and we really did not know what" Later, Mr. Berger told Mr. Russert, "The FBI hadn't even begun its investigation. We did not have a suspect. We did not know at this point what they had gotten."…. "

Washington Times National Weekly Edition 3/22-28/99 "…Mr. Berger also asserted on March 14 that, upon learning of China's nuclear espionage, the administration "imposed and forced the strictest controls on China of any country except those for which we have embargoes, such as Libya" In fact, the administration did the opposite. In February 1998, the same month President Clinton belatedly ordered greater security measures at the nation's weapons labs, he ignored strenuous objections from the Justice Department, which was investigating Loral Corp. for an unauthorized technology transfer to China. Overruling the Justice Department, the president granted Loral a waiver for official transfers of essentially the same missile expertise to China that the company was being criminally investigated for giving to China without authorization in 1996. This expertise would help China build rockets that could carry multiple, independently targetable warheads — the very type of warhead whose design China had stolen and about which Mr. Berger had been briefed nearly two years earlier…."

Washington Times 3/29/99 "…. Last year, when Congress finally grasped the severity of China's nuclear espionage during a House select committee's investigation of China's acquisition of sensitive U.S. military technology, the White House told the Cox Committee, which was chaired by Rep. Chris Cox, that Mr. Clinton was first briefed in 1998. In recent weeks, as the New York Times was investigating the espionage scandal, the White House told reporters that National Security Adviser Sandy Berger initially briefed Mr. Clinton in July 1997. During his recent press conference, the president claimed that he first learned in 1997 that China had stolen nuclear secrets……. For several reasons, the convenient explanation of refreshed recollections makes little sense. First, the July 1997 briefing would have occurred as the administration was preparing for the Sino-American summit that took place in October, when Chinese President Jiang Zemin visited Washington. Secondly, the July 1997 briefing would have occurred during the same month that Sen. Fred Thompson, chairman of the committee investigating campaign-finance abuses, made the blockbuster charge - later confirmed in spades - that China had made illegal campaign contributions during the 1996 election in an attempt to influence the American electoral process. Under either of these extraordinary circumstances, it simply is not believable that the White House would have forgotten about a briefing involving nuclear espionage. Third, the White House now acknowledges that not only did Mr. Berger brief the president in July 1997, but the national security adviser kept the president updated over the next several months, as the summit was approaching…. Such a questionable chronology - the briefing of Congress before the briefing of the president -would not be true, however, if the president actually learned of the Chinese espionage before July 1997, the date both Mr. Berger and the president have now embraced. In fact, it appears the president learned of the espionage long before he is even now willing to acknowledge. Indeed, Mr. Berger himself has admitted briefing the president in April 1996. In a March 14 appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," ….. NBC's Tim Russert asked him, "Did you brief the president?" Mr. Berger replied, "I did brief the president. At that point," in April 1996, "it was a very preliminary matter." Thus, Mr. Berger admitted to Mr. Russert that the president was "brief ed " 15 months before he and the president now acknowledge….. During Mr. Berger's subsequent briefing from Mr. Trulock in July 1997 - the one he recalled this year after refreshing his recollection - Mr. Trulock told him there was evidence that the Chinese were currently pursuing several espionage operations inside the U.S. weapons labs….. In spite of these revelations, at his Friday press conference Mr. Clinton nonetheless maintained, "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." In the context of what is known, there are three possible explanations. Either Mr. Berger unconscionably failed to tell the president what he was told on several occasions by Mr. Trulock and others, a lapse that is inconceivable for even a world-class bungler like Mr. Berger. Or Mr. Clinton is playing rhetorical games by adding to his statement the typically Clintonesque qualifier, "to the best of my knowledge." Or the president is not telling the truth about what he knew and when he knew it. Why the president would not want to admit the truth about what he knew and when he knew it is clear. The consequences of such admissions are startling. Knowing that China had stolen some of the nation's most sensitive nuclear secrets, including the designs for miniaturizing powerful nuclear warheads, the president continued to aggressively pursue his policy of authorizing the transfer of advanced rocket-launch technology. This included Mr. Clinton's February 1998 authorization to transfer to China missile-guidance-and-control technology that will permit China to deploy multiple numbers of its miniature warheads on ballistic missiles aimed at U.S. targets. Until the New York Times began investigating, is there any wonder why the White House ever so conveniently forgot when Mr. Clinton was first briefed? …" 3/29/99 Freeper Newskeeper "…0100 GMT 990329 - The New Yorker Magazine has published an article by Sy Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winning writer, which claims that Saddam Hussein paid Russian Prime Minister Yvgeny Primakov $800,000 to obtain strategic material from Russia. Primakov is known to have extremely close ties to the Middle East since his days in the KGB and he knows Saddam well. What is interesting about the report is not whether or not it is true, since we have no doubt that Primakov is working closely with the Iraqis. What is interesting is that the administration has now decided to leak this information in an attempt to damage Primakov’s reputation. From the article it appears that the source of the story was Sandy Berger, or that he at least authorized the leak. If so, this will deepen tensions between the U.S. and Primakov. If he doesn’t fall, and corruption by itself does not destroy careers in today’s Russia, Clinton and Berger have now made a mortal enemy of Primakov. On a night where Russian negotiators are trying to broker a peace in Belgrade, this complicates matters substantially….."


New York Times 4/8/99 Jeff Gerth James Risen "…China first built and tested a neutron warhead in the 1980s, using what American officials have said publicly was secret data stolen from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, one of America's key nuclear weapons laboratories. But the design did not work properly. American officials say that China's 1988 test of the neutron bomb, which kills people with enhanced radiation while leaving buildings intact, was not successful. [Early 1996], the spy was suggesting, Chinese agents had solved the problem by coming back to the United States in 1995 to steal more secrets. The spy even provided details of how the information was transferred from the United States to China, officials said. The report prompted a federal criminal investigation, but American officials say they have found no evidence that China has produced an improved neutron bomb. Sandy Berger, who is now the National Security Adviser, was first told of a possible new theft of neutron bomb data in 1996, according to officials who took part in the meeting or read the highly classified materials used to prepare for it. The briefing, these officials said, came weeks after the FBI gave the Energy Department a report about the spy's information. David Leavy, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said that Berger and another NSC official who attended the 1996 briefing do not believe the neutron bomb issue was mentioned. Leavy said that Berger did not learn of the suspicions until a more detailed briefing in July 1997…. According to the officials, the April 1996 briefing of Berger included evidence of the theft of the W-88 design, the need to increase security at the weapons laboratories and the report about the loss of neutron bomb data. The White House said Berger did not tell the President or take any further action until more than a year later, in July 1997, when he received a more detailed briefing about the W-88 theft, the neutron bomb and the ongoing Chinese espionage. Soon after, Leavy said, Berger told the President about the security weaknesses at the laboratories and China's spying. Asked whether he mentioned the neutron bomb case, Leavy would reply only that "he did not detail each and every allegation." ….."


New York Times 4/8/99 Jeff Gerth James Risen "…The April 1996 briefing came at a critical moment in U.S.-China relations. The Clinton administration's continuing effort to expand commercial and diplomatic ties with China had been upset by Beijing's test in March of missiles off the coast of Taiwan. Berger has said the April 1996 briefing was not sufficiently detailed to prompt action. Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" last month, he said the information he was told three years ago was "very general and very preliminary." In addition, he said, "we did not have a suspect" in the theft of the W-88 technology. But other officials offered a different account of Berger's briefing. The White House said it believes the briefing occurred on April 13, 1996, but was not sure of the exact date and has no records of what was said that day. The officials said the briefing was more detailed than Berger has described and was the culmination of a five-month inter-agency study of the W-88 theft and related issues. "It was a pretty specific briefing," one American official who was present said. Charles Curtis, the deputy secretary of Energy, led the Energy Department's delegation at the White House briefing. The main briefer was Notra Trulock, then the Energy Department's chief of intelligence. Trulock's briefing, officials said, specifically covered the theft of the W-88 technology and concluded that China had likely obtained data about the miniaturized warhead, officials said. The officials said Berger was also told that investigators had identified a prime suspect in the theft and would shortly turn their information over to the FBI for a formal criminal inquiry. Berger and Curtis agreed that the Congressional intelligence committees would be briefed on the W-88 matter following the referal to the FBI (Congress was informed that summer.) According to the officials, the 1996 White House briefing also discussed how the stolen technology could fit into Beijing's nuclear strategy. Trulock suggested that China could use the W-88 technology as part of a plan to rely on the mobility of truck-launched missiles with small warheads to better survive nuclear attacks, officials said. At the end of the April briefing, officials said, Trulock said there was new information that China may recently have stolen neutron bomb data. He was referring to the spy's report, which had been received by the Energy Department from the FBI on March 27, 1996, the officials said. The neutron bomb intelligence was "hot off the press," and it was included to warn the White House of the possibility of continuing Chinese espionage, one official said. Curtis told Trulock at the meeting to follow up the neutron bomb information with a broader inquiry into Chinese espionage efforts at the weapons labs, one official said.

The Energy Department completed an analysis of the neutron bomb case in July 1996, and it unearthed some intriguing connections. The study, officials said, raised the possibility that the chief suspect in the W-88, a computer scientist in Los Alamos, had also been involved in the transfer to China of neutron bomb secrets…."

New York Times 4/8/99 Jeff Gerth James Risen "…In July 1997 Trulock returned to the White House to present his wider findings to Berger, who had become Clinton's National Security Adviser. Berger, in turn, now says that that briefing prompted him to inform Clinton about China's nuclear espionage and concerns about lab security. But late last year, in a sworn reply to the select House committee chaired by Christopher Cox, a Republican from California, Berger said the President was not told about the espionage until 1998. Asked to explain the discrepancy, Leavy said "after the Cox Committee process we've remembered more." Clinton says he is unaware of any Chinese espionage taking place during his administration. ….Leavy declined to say whether Clinton has been briefed on the intelligence about the possible theft of neutron bomb data during his Presidency…."


NY Post On Line 4/13/99 Dick Morris "...Berger was a lawyer-lobbyist in the years before Clinton tapped him to be deputy national security adviser. In a Jan. 26, 1997, Washington Post article by Nat Hentoff, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) revealed that Berger was the ''point person at the Hogan and Hartson law firm for the trade office of the Chinese government.'' This suggestion raises key conflict-of-interest issues. Pelosi's comment, which Berger never denied, aroused little interest when it was first reported because Berger's key role in the administration's China dealings was not yet widely known. But investigative reporter Jeff Gerth revealed last week that intelligence officials alerted Berger to Chinese spying in April 1996 - but he chose not to tell the president about it until July 1997. Specifically, Gerth reports that Berger learned of China's theft of the W-88 nuclear-warhead design, neutron-bomb designs and other ongoing Chinese espionage in the 1996 meeting. While Berger denies learning about the neutron-bomb espionage at the 1996 meeting, he admits that he was told about the intelligence failures at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory, where information about the W-88 warhead design was stolen. Why Berger waited 15 months to tell Clinton about the Los Alamos situation remains a mystery...."

NY Post On Line 4/13/99 Dick Morris "...Also last week, Berger was reported to be the one administration official who labored ceaselessly to complete a trade deal with China during the recent negotiations with Premier Zhu Rongji. This is not the first time that Berger advocated a position that ultimately helped China at American expense. He has been identified as the person whose urgent memos to the president triggered the administration's decision to grant a waiver to Loral Space Systems to launch its satellite on Chinese rockets. National Security Adviser Berger's memos cited Loral's critical financial situation in urging prompt approval of the waiver - even though Berger knew that the Justice Department was likely to indict Loral on ''serious'' charges of sharing classified information with the Chinese without government approval...."

NY Post On Line 4/13/99 Dick Morris "...Here's an interesting bit of background: In 1995, the administration was considering a ban on contacts by Executive Branch officials with lobbyists for foreign governments. Disturbed at the number of Republican former trade and foreign policy officials in the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Administrations who had farmed out as lobbyists for foreign governments, the Clinton administration was considering closing them down by denying them access to their buddies in government. Although the president was interested in the proposal and it was discussed at several strategy meetings, Sandy Berger, then serving as deputy national security adviser, fought hard against the proposal. He defended those who lobbied for foreign governments as legitimate advocates. Could Berger be planning to return to a lucrative role in representing the Chinese government after he leaves public service? After a period of a year, he would be allowed to do so...."

Washington Times 4/09/99 Editorial "...The White House's version simply does not add up. Mr. Berger, for example, conveniently does not recall that the neutron-bomb issue was mentioned in the April 13, 1996, briefing. But other officials present at the briefing have confirmed the issue was raised, noting that intelligence about the neutron bomb was "hot off the press" and was included to warn the White House that the espionage was ongoing. Conveniently as well, the White House says it has no records indicating what was said at the briefing. Imagine that: The White House received a briefing that had alarmed the CIA, but neglected to retain any notes. With no notes to verify his assertion, Mr. Berger has characterized the initial briefing as "very general and very preliminary." Another official at the briefing, however, told the Times it was "a pretty specific briefing." Moreover, Mr. Berger, who initially told the Cox Committee in a sworn statement that the president was not briefed about China's nuclear espionage until 1998, told Tim Russert March 14 on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he briefed the president in April 1996. The current White House line is that Mr. Berger initially briefed the president in July 1997. Mr. Berger further insists that the Department of Energy (DOE) "did not have a suspect" in the theft of another nuclear warhead. In fact, DOE counterintelligence officers had identified a particular suspect who had "stuck out like a sore thumb." ..."

New York Post 4/9/99 Freeper thewildthing "... the White House took great pains to stress that the actual spying happened in the Reagan/Bush years. Now it turns out that China's most successful espionage operation - the theft of U.S. secrets on the deadly neutron bomb - took place entirely on Bill Clinton's watch. The Clintonites, led by Vice President Al Gore, have been insisting that there is no evidence that Chinese nuclear espionage continued into this administration. But it now develops that National Secu-rity Adviser Sandy Berger was first told in April 1996 that neutron-bomb technology had been stolen the year before. Berger, says the White House, told the president about the theft in July 1997. But in sworn testimony to Congress last fall, Berger insisted Clinton wasn't told about the espionage until 1998...."

Capitol Hill Blue 4/9/99 "...The spy said Chinese officials claimed they were able to steal secrets in 1995. The spy was considered reliable, and taken together with earlier allegations of a neutron bomb technology theft from Livermore in 1988, the Department of Energy, the CIA and the FBI immediately began an intensive investigation to determine if security was breached. White House National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was first told of a possible new theft of neutron bomb data in 1996 although he has denied knowing about the spying. Sources at both the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency say Berger is lying when he claims he didn't know..... The administration had made a point of saying the Los Alamos spying occurred well before Clinton took office in January 1993. David Leavy, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said Berger was not told of the neutron bomb data until 1997 during a broader briefing on security at U.S. nuclear labs....."

New York Times 4/9/99 "...The problem is not merely the potential damage to American security. As troubling is evidence -- described by Jeff Gerth and James Risen in The Times yesterday -- that top White House officials, especially Samuel Berger, now the national security adviser, reacted lethargically when the first alarms were sounded about the suspected spying...Energy Department investigators first told Mr. Berger in April 1996 of suspicions that China had stolen designs for America's most advanced nuclear weapon in the 1980's from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. They also mentioned intelligence reports that China may have more recently stolen neutron bomb designs. Mr. Berger asserts that this 1996 briefing was cast only in general terms and that he did not learn the true extent of the problems until mid-1997. Others who attended the meeting dispute this. If they are right, Mr. Berger should have briefed Mr. Clinton and ordered immediate security improvements at the nuclear weapons labs in 1996. Yet Mr. Clinton was not alerted to the seriousness of the problem until July 1997, and lab security has been tightened only in the past few months. Mr. Clinton has asked the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to investigate the Chinese nuclear espionage issue, including the response of Administration officials. That inquiry, as well as parallel Congressional investigations, must closely study and report on the performance of Mr. Berger and other national security officials...." 4/15/99 Brian Mitchell "...Security analysts also worry about National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Before joining the White House, Berger was with the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, which handled trade issues for China. In the White House, Berger has been the chief architect of Clinton's policy seeking a ''strategic partnership'' with China. Critics also blame him for keeping quiet about Chinese espionage at Los Alamos National Laboratory. In recent years, China has come to rely more and more on its American business partners to represent its interests in Washington. ''They got very badly burned in 1996, when they went into this thing directly (with campaign contributions), and I think they've pulled back from that,'' said James Lilley, former U.S. ambassador to China. ..."

Mike McCurry 4/3/97 "... Q On the big question of -- the big questions around Don Fowler, Tamraz, and the CIA, is the White House investigating in any way what happened there? Is there an official investigation underway? MR. MCCURRY: Not to my knowledge. There is one thing that is happening here, which is Sandy Berger is looking at procedures for making sure that information that needs to be briefed up the chain of command at the NSC absolutely for certain gets briefed up, and you've probably seen some coverage of that. Separately, at the CIA, as you probably know, they have said publicly that the Inspector General there has got a review underway...."

New York Times 4/21/99 JAMES RISEN and JEFF GERTH "...Energy Department intelligence analysts initially detected the theft in 1995, and senior White House officials, including Samuel Berger, now the national security adviser, were first briefed on the matter in April 1996. But the White House did not move to increase security at national laboratories until nearly two years later. After receiving more detailed evidence of Chinese spying in the summer of 1997, the National Security Council sought a quick, narrowly focused analysis from the CIA and used it to cast doubt on the troubling conclusions reached by Energy Department analysts, officials said. Gary Samore, a senior NSC official, relied on that CIA analysis in September 1997 as the basis for his report to Berger that the evidence of Chinese espionage was less conclusive than the Energy Department had said, a White House official said. At the time, Samore and Berger were deeply involved in planning the agenda of a U.S.-Chinese summit meeting. Clinton and Chinese President Jiang Zemin used the meeting to elevate the relations between the two nations. In recent weeks, the White House itself has examined whether Samore accurately portrayed for Berger the findings of the 1997 reports from the CIA and Energy Department, officials said. Berger has been told that Samore overstated the degree to which the CIA 1997 analysis cast doubt on the Energy Department findings, according to an administration official...."

St Louis Post-Dispatch 4/22/99 Dena Bunis "...President Clinton for the first time Thursday acknowledged that Chinese government espionage occurred during his watch, a pair of congressmen said after an hour-long meeting with the president at the White House. Republican Rep. Christopher Cox, chairman of the House select committee on China and Rep. Norman Dicks, the senior Democrat on that panel, said Clinton did not dispute that China has stolen U.S. military and nuclear secrets for the past two decades, including during his administration. As recently as March 19, Clinton said he knew of no instances of the Chinese stealing weapons and nuclear secrets since 1993, when he took office.....Leavy said Clinton has received ``fuller briefings'' since that press conference.....About 10 people were at the White House meeting, including National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. As more details of China's spying have been revealed, critics have questioned whether Berger -- first briefed about Chinese atomic espionage in April 1996 -- acted quickly enough to counsel the administration to intensify security at the national labs....."

4/21/99 Gretchen Glass - "...National Security Advisor: Samuel R. Berger, a paid lobbyist for the Chinese while he was a partner in the international law firm of Hogan and Hartson where he headed the firm's international trade group. Mr. Berger is still listed as an attorney with Hogan and Hartson, therefore, as a partner, he is still receiving benefits, directly or indirectly, from dealings with China and Russia...."

4/21/99 Gretchen Glass - "...Chairman of the IOB [Intelligence Oversight Board]: Anthony S. Harrington, is a senior partner of the international law firm of Hogan and Hartson (with Berger) and, as a senior partner, receives benefits, either directly or indirectly, from dealings with China and Russia. Mr. Harrington is still listed as an attorney with Hogan and Hartson...."

4/21/99 Gretchen Glass - "...Chairman of the PFIAB [President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board]: Warren B. Rudman, is a partner in the international law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison with offices in Communist China and who, as a partner, receives benefits, either directly or indirectly, from dealings with Communist China...."

4/21/99 Gretchen Glass - "...Inspector General of the DOJ: Michael R. Bromwich who is/was a partner in the Washington D.C. office of Mayer, Brown & Platt. The firm has offices in Moscow and Beijing, with emphasis on Communist China. If he is still a partner, on leave of absence or not, he is benefiting from the firm's dealings with China and Russia..."

WorldNetDaily,sm 4/23/99 John Doggett in 1992 "...Strobe Talbot, who is now Clinton's No. 2 National Security Advisor, said the idea of a nation-state didn't make sense anymore..."


The American Spectator 5/99 Kenneth R. Timmerman "...For several weeks in October and November, the PLA will participate in a workshop at the Sandia National Nuclear Laboratory on "cooperative monitoring," where the secrets of U.S. weapons-monitoring efforts, such as those arrayed against Iraq, will be shared. Both Secretary of Energy Richardson and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger have said the lab visits will not be canceled in the wake of the W-88 spy scandal, because there is "no evidence" that spying has occurred during foreign visits to U.S. nuclear labs or that any nuclear weapons information has been compromised. But in fact, the Department of Energy itself, in a 1983 report, acknowledged that "a significant amount of important technology may have been lost to potential adversaries through visits" to the labs, a conclusion buttressed by a 1988 General Accounting Office review. On March 15 of this year, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby called on the administration to suspend Chinese visits to U.S. nuclear labs, since "the counterintelligence measures initiated by Secretary Bill Richardson will require several years to be fully implemented." ..."


United States House of Representatives 4/29/99 The Honorable Dan Burton (R. In) "....At the end of the briefing that Mr. Berger, the head of the National Security Council, received, Trulock referred to a recent intelligence report. In the report a Chinese source, a Chinese spy that spies for us, a Chinese source said that officials inside, inside, China's intelligence service, were boasting about how they had just stolen U.S. nuclear secrets, and how those secrets allowed them to improve their neutron bomb technology. Now, Mr. Speaker, again in July of 1997, a year before his meeting with President Jiang of Communist China and 21 months before his meeting with Prime Minister Shu of China, Sandy Berger received a second detailed briefing about China's spying, and soon after told the President about the weaknesses at the laboratories at Los Alamos and Livermore, and about the Chinese spying. This was in 1997. Now, remember, the President just a few weeks ago said that no one had informed him. Yet Sandy Berger, the head of the NSC, did tell him for sure 2 years ago in 1997. Why would the President misspeak? Why would he mislead the American people? I do not know...."

United States House of Representatives 4/29/99 The Honorable Dan Burton (R. In) "....Trulock's April 1996 briefing to Sandy Berger could not have been more detailed and it could not have been more alarming. So the head of the NSC, the man who reports to the President about security issues, was completely informed about this in 1996, in April. When Paul Redmund, the CIA's chief spy hunter was given a similar briefing from Trulock a few months earlier, he said that China spying, now, get this, China spying was far more damaging to the U.S. national security than Aldrich Ames, who is now serving a prison term for spying, and it would turn out to be as bad as the Rosenbergs, who were put to death because they gave Communist Russia, the Soviet Union, secrets back after World War II. Mr. Speaker, is it really, really likely that Sandy Berger, the head of the NSC, after hearing such a detailed and alarming picture of Chinese espionage, would not tell the President about it? Yet the President just a few weeks ago said no one brought it to his attention, and this was 3 years ago. If you were the President or if I was the President and our head of National Security did not tell us this, you would fire him. You would have him hung out to dry, because this a national tragedy, a national security issue. Yet the President said he did not know about it just a few weeks ago.

United States House of Representatives 4/29/99 The Honorable Dan Burton (R. In) "....According to the White House, Berger first briefed the President about Chinese spying in July of 1997. So why did the President say he had not been informed about it? He did so after he received a second briefing from Notra Trulock, which, according to Berger, was much more specific than the first. In addition, according to NSC spokesman David Levy, Berger `did not detail each and every allegation.' Why would he not detail each and every allegation? We are talking about spying at one of our foremost nuclear research laboratories and about technology that could endanger every man, woman and child in the country. Mr. Levy gave this explanation, after being asked if Berger had told the President about the neutron bomb data that was stolen in 1995. Apparently the White House wants us to believe that Berger only told the President about the W-88 design theft which happened before 1992, which was done under his watch, and left out the theft of the neutron bomb data and China's recent spying at Los Alamos. Are we to believe that 3 years after the President's national security adviser received his first briefing about this wave of espionage that happened under the President's watch, that he would not have told the President about it? And, after that, how can you believe anything the administration says?..."

FOX News 4/28/99 The O'Reilly Factor Freeper summary "...If you are a Regular viewer of 'The Factor', you know that one of our themes has been that Mr. Clinton damaged the country greatly by his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The president's defenders never tired saying the episode was just about sex ... but as history unfolds, any clear thinking individual knows that's not true. And that's the subject of this evening's talking points memo... The New York Times is reporting that for almost three years beginning in 1996 a scientist named Wen Ho Lee downloaded millions of lines of computer code that concerned America's atomic war heads. That data was widely accessible to China and other nations. Federal investigators, apparently just discovered this fact a few months ago... but Mr. lee has been under investigation by the FBI since 1996. So... what is going on here? Attorney general Janet Reno apparently blocked wire taps on lee and president Clinton's national security advisor Sandy Berger know about the lee investigation, but did little to bring it to the public's attention. And... where was president Clinton during all of this? Apparently he was preoccupied with ms. Lewinsky and the subsequent investigation. By any measure, the lee investigation was botched and America's security put in jeopardy. The buck stops in the oval office. The President hired Reno and Berger. Yet he's done nothing to explain this incredible incompetence to the American people..."

Washington Times 4/27/99 Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II "...We now know the Berger National Security Council demoted the security officer who told them Chinese military spies had totally infiltrated our nuclear weapons labs. The Cox Report probably will have shocking information on the transfer of American military technology to PLA-related end-users in China, leading to speculation on more campaign contributions...."

The American Spectator 5/99 Linda Killian "...Halfway through its investigation of these transfers, the Cox committee began investigating security problems at U.S. nuclear weapons labs. Although some in the Clinton administration had been aware of them for several years, Congress had not been fully informed. Many legislators, including Cox, believe that, had his committee not begun its work, the public might still be unaware of the problems.... To say the Clinton administration handled the situation badly would be an understatement. Congressional sources say an official who suspected there were problems at the lab was ordered not to tell Congress what he knew because critics would attack the White House's "engagement" policy toward China. Undoubtedly, there was concern within the administration over how this would look at a time when revelations about Chinese infusions of cash into Democratic campaign coffers were coming to light. The suspected spy remained in place and the technology transfers continued so that the White House could spare itself embarrassment.... Senator Thompson thinks the White House "probably misled Congress" in failing to adequately inform it. After National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was told about the Chinese security problems, the information fell into a " deep trough" for more than a year, says Thompson. "He's got a lot to answer for. This was a massive bureaucratic mishandling. They were not allowing things to surface that would generate opposition to their China policy." ...."

New York Times 5/2/99 Jeff Gerth James Risen "...A secret report [11/98 prepared by U. S. counterintelligence officials throughout the government] to top Clinton administration officials last November warned that China posed an "acute intelligence threat" to the government's nuclear weapons laboratories and that computer systems at the labs were being constantly penetrated by outsiders. Yet investigators waited until March to search the computer of a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory who had been under investigation for nearly three years, suspected of spying for China. And it was not until April that the Energy Department shut down its classified computer systems to impose tighter security over their data. Meanwhile, in February, the scientist, Wen Ho Lee, tried to delete evidence that he had improperly transferred more than 1,000 files containing nuclear secrets, officials said. The classified report contains numerous warnings and specific examples showing that outsiders had gained access to the computer systems at U. S. weapons labs as recently as June 1998....The report was distributed to the highest levels of the government, including Bill Richardson, the secretary of energy; William Cohen, the secretary of defense; Janet Reno, the attorney general; President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, and three dozen other senior officials at law enforcement, defense and intelligence agencies. A government official gave a copy of the report to The New York Times. ... According to the report, the Energy Department recorded 324 attacks on its unclassified computer systems from outside the United States between October 1997 and June 1998, including instances when outsiders successfully gained "complete access and total control to create, view, modify or execute any and all information stored on the system." The document does not say where the computer attacks originated...."

New York Times 5/2/99 Jeff Gerth James Risen "...The 25-page counterintelligence report contains many examples of lax security and serious intelligence breaches at the labs that have not been previously disclosed, involving more than a dozen foreign countries. Foreign spies "rightly view DOE as an inviting, diverse and soft target that is easy to access and that employs many who are willing to share information," the report states.....The report also singles out Russia and India as immediate threats. "China represents an acute intelligence threat to DOE," the report said, referring to the Department of Energy. "It conducts 'a full court press' consisting of massive numbers of collectors of all kinds, in the United States, in China, and elsewhere abroad. "China is an advanced nuclear power yet its nuclear stockpile is deteriorating," it continued. "As such, China has specifically targeted DOE for the collection of technical intelligence related to the design of nuclear weapons." The report concludes, "This effort has been very successful and Beijing's exploitation of U.S. national laboratories has substantially aided its nuclear weapons program." The report states that the maintenance of nuclear weapons, so-called "stockpile stewardship," is the area of most intense interest to China. Lee was at the center of Los Alamos' stockpile stewardship program for years...."

New York Times 5/2/99 Jeff Gerth James Risen "...The report also includes detailed information about a number of incidents in which China could have obtained sensitive weapons information, as well as some of the ways the espionage could have taken place, including these: A Chinese scientist working at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, on Long Island, was able to send dozens of long, technical faxes to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, enabling the Chinese research center to duplicate Brookhaven experiments as they were being conducted. China might be using its exchanges with American scientists for espionage. Chinese intelligence officials have also arranged the visits of American scientists to China to "enable Chinese experts to assess and develop these contacts," according to the report. Thirty-seven Chinese intelligence officers have visited or been assigned to the labs and other Energy Department facilities over the last five years...."

New York Times 5/2/99 Jeff Gerth James Risen "...The report also focuses on security breaches at the labs involving other countries, citing numerous incidents. For example, Russian intelligence has intercepted communications from Los Alamos concerning nuclear power plants used for military purposes. In addition, the report says that an unknown individual sent 38 faxes to India from inside a sensitive area of the Oak Ridge Laboratory, in Tennessee, during a 30-day period in 1995 and 1996. The report grew out of a comprehensive counterintelligence review prompted by an espionage investigation that came to focus on Lee in 1996...."

New York Times 5/2/99 Jeff Gerth James Risen "...A select congressional committee sent the president additional warnings about the security of the weapons laboratories in a separate report that was also secretly delivered in January of this year. ..."

New York Times 5/2/99 Jeff Gerth James Risen "...The search of Lee's computer "should have happened earlier," Richardson said. But he defended waiting until April 2 to shut down the computer systems at the laboratory, saying: "It wouldn't have made much of a difference to have gone earlier." "The shutdown was the most extreme of measures," he said. After learning on March 30 that Lee had improperly moved vast amounts of nuclear secrets, Richardson said he decided to "speed up" plans adopted months earlier to improve computer security...."

New York Times 5/2/99 Jeff Gerth James Risen "...In April 1996, Energy Department officials briefed Berger, then the deputy national security adviser, on the case and how it related to China's nuclear strategy. Berger took no action and did not inform the president of the matter, White House officials have said. The FBI meanwhile began a criminal inquiry. But little investigative work was done by FBI agents throughout the rest of 1996. In 1997, the Justice Department declined an FBI request to ask a court for authority to monitor Lee's phone and to gain access to Lee's office computer. Justice Department officials argued there was insufficient evidence to convince a judge to approve the surveillance. The FBI had asked the Energy Department not to move Lee from his job at Los Alamos, fearing this might alert him that he was a suspect. But the inquiry appeared to be stalled. In April 1997, the bureau's agents in Albuquerque, N.M., told Energy Department officials they could transfer Lee to a less sensitive job. But that message apparently never reached Energy Department officials in Washington, officials said. The job Lee was shifted to that month was one in which he was responsible for updating a computerized archive of nuclear secrets...."

New York Times 5/2/99 Jeff Gerth James Risen "...In July 1997, Berger was briefed again. This time, the briefing included evidence that the Chinese were focusing on computer systems at Los Alamos, in particular computer simulations and codes for nuclear weapons, according to one U.S. official. At about the same time, officials at the Energy Department, the lab and the FBI were all also warned that the Chinese were attempting to gain access to computer systems at Los Alamos. The July discussion was also broader, including other security problems, the W-88 theft and other espionage cases, including one involving a scientist who had worked for weapons labs and their contractors, officials said....That scientist, Peter Lee (who is not related to Wen Ho Lee) later pleaded guilty to attempting to pass classified information in 1985 and making false statements about a trip to China in 1997. The November 1998 report cited his case as "a good example of China's use of cultural ties to collect successfully." After Berger's 1997 briefing, he discussed the matter with the president, and White House officials began to draft a presidential directive ordering better security at the laboratories, White House officials said. Meanwhile, the FBI's investigation of Wen Ho Lee continued without success...."

New York Times 5/2/99 Jeff Gerth James Risen "...In the summer of 1998, Chinese-American FBI agents, posing as Chinese spies, tried to establish a covert relationship with Lee, officials said. In their sting, what the FBI calls a "false flag" operation, the FBI agents called him, pretending to be Chinese spies checking up on Lee in the wake of Peter Lee's conviction earlier that year, officials said. Wen Ho Lee listened, and then called the agents back to refuse their offer to get together. ..."

New York Times 5/2/99 Jeff Gerth James Risen "...In November, the secret counterintelligence report was completed. Richardson, prodded both by Congress and by the mounting evidence of security problems, took action to screen foreign visitors to the labs, proposals that had lain dormant for years at the Energy Department. In December, Lee was subjected to a polygraph for the first time. During that first examination, for reasons that officials could not explain, investigators did not ask Lee to consent to a search of his office computer. Government attorneys had concluded that the earlier Justice Department denial for an FBI surreptitious search required Lee's permission to examine his office computer. In February, Lee took a second polygraph. This time, officials said, he was asked about his computer use and some of his answers were seen as deceptive. Two days later, apparently aware that investigators were now suspicious about his computer use, Lee deleted between 1,000 and 2,000 files, officials said. Lee's deletions involved millions of lines of computer codes he had downloaded, mostly in 1994 and 1995, from his classified computer system to an unclassified system. Such unclassified systems at the labs have been successfully attacked by outsiders, according to the 1998 intelligence report. In early March, Lee was interviewed by the FBI. During the interviews he gave permission for his computer to be searched. On March 8, he was fired from Los Alamos for security violations. Over the next few weeks, investigators pored through his computer records, recreated the deleted files and learned that Lee had downloaded computer data and codes that, in effect, were the distillation of more than a half-century of research on how to perfect nuclear weapons, officials said...."

Gaffney's Web Site 4/99 "...Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton on April 17, 1995. E.O. 12958 calls for the automatic declassification by April 17, 2000 of all documents containing historical information that are 25 years or older. While the order allows a few exceptions in the name of protecting national security (notably, an injunction that "nothing in this order shall supersede the [classification requirements of] the Atomic Energy Act of 1954"), the practical effect of the order has been greatly to abbreviate the time and necessarily to diminish the care with which documents are scrutinized prior to their release to the public. What amounted to "pressure [to] release sensitive nuclear weapons information" (to coin a phrase) came not only from then-Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary but from declassification-devotées in the White House like then-NSC staffer Morton Halperin and the current Chief of Staff, John Podesta. Under such pressure, the Administration wound up engaging in the wholesale declassification of papers, including some containing Restricted Data (RD) or Formerly Restricted Data (FRD)....The Senators' [Kyl, Shelby, Smith] concerns prompted them to amend the FY1999 defense authorization act to tighten up procedures for reviewing this material and to require a presidential certification that it is "highly unlikely" RD or FRD material is being released pursuant to E.O. 12958. It is worth noting that Mr. Podesta and the Administration strenuously opposed this amendment and have generally tried to thwart its implementation as intended. Among the senior officials who are said to have contributed to this effort is Rose Gottemoeller, whose controversial nomination to become Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nonproliferation and National Security was recently sneaked through the Senate without any effort being made to examine her role in the unfolding China scandal and other DoE security problems.

Gaffney's Web Site 4/99 "...Last summer, several leading Members of Congress became alarmed about the Department of Energy's inattention to the need to safeguard "sensitive nuclear information" -- i.e., information that can, irrespective of its age, be of use to nascent nuclear weapons programs abroad. Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Bob Smith (R-NH) wrote National Security Advisor Sandy Berger to express their concern that "in a frenzied attempt to meet the deadline mandated by E.O. 12958, officials are not taking proper care to ensure that Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data that may be commingled with other classified information is not being improperly released or scheduled for automatic declassification." The magnitude of the problem was described by the Washington Times on 31 July 1998. The paper disclosed that the Department of Energy had inadvertently declassified extremely sensitive information concerning: locations of overseas U.S. nuclear weapons storage facilities; data about U.S. nuclear weapons yields; Navy blueprints showing the exact firing sequence of a nuclear weapon; a Navy document showing the design of nuclear weapons fuel capsules; an Army paper detailing a gun-assembled nuclear weapon; data on British yield-to-weight ratios for nuclear weapons; an Air Force document containing nuclear weapon design information and another one concerning intelligence about Soviet nuclear weapons.

The Daily Republican 5/3/99 "...Counter-Intelligence Report on Chinese Spying Date: November 1998 To: Bill Richardson, Secretary of Energy; William S.Cohen, Secretary of Defense; Janet Reno, Attorney General, Samuel R. Berger, National Security Adviser Re: Number of Pages in Report=25. Acute Intelligence Threat, to the Government's nuclear weapons laboratories; computer systems at labs penetrated. Executive Summmary: The Energy Department recorded 324 attacks on its unclassified computer systems from outside the United States between October 1997 and June 1998,including instances when outsiders successfully gained complete access and total control to create, view modify or execute any and all information stored on the system.....Foreign spies view D.O.E. as an inviting, diverse and soft target that is easy to access and that employs many who are willing to share information. hina represents an acute intelligence threat to D.O.E. It conducts 'a full court press' consisting of massive numbers of collectors of all kinds, in the United States, in China, and elsewhere abroad. China is an advanced nuclear power yet its nuclear stockpile is deteriorating. As such, China has specifically targeted D.O.E. for the collection of technical intelligence related to the design of nuclear weapons. his effort has been very successful and Beijing's exploitation of U.S. national laboratories has substantially aided its nuclear weapons program. The maintenance of nuclear weapons, so-called "stockpile stewardship," is the area of most intense interest to China. Lee was at the center of Los Alamos' stewardship program for years...."

Washington Times 5/7/99 Helle Bering "....Two weeks after the Chinese nuclear espionage scandal erupted in early March, President Clinton held a news conference to blame previous administrations and to absolve his own. "I am confident that we in the White House have done what we could to be aggressive about this," he said. In fact, the record shows that senior administration officials have, time and again, delayed, obstructed or ignored the investigation. Moreover, White House and other administration officials have repeatedly underestimated the depth and the consequences of China's nuclear espionage. And the news keeps getting worse. It now turns out that in November 1998, a secret report distributed to senior Clinton administration officials --including National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Attorney General Janet Reno and Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Bill Richardson -- informed them that between October 1997 and June 1998 there were more than 300 foreign attacks on DOE's unclassified computer systems. Noting that "China represents an acute intelligence threat to DOE," the secret report stated that instances in which foreign countries successfully penetrated DOE's unclassified computer system resulted in "complete access and total control to create, view, modify or execute any and all information stored on the system," the New York Times reported last Sunday..... even after this secret report was widely distributed throughout the administration last November, investigators in the Clinton administration still did not check Mr. Lee's office computer until March 1999, after the Times reported the espionage scandal. By then, Mr. Lee had been under investigation for espionage for three years. He spent the previous month attempting to destroy the evidence of his unauthorized downloading of the nation's nuclear secrets. It was not until April 1999, nearly a half year after the secret report was issued in November, that Mr. Richardson shut down the DOE's classified computer system in order to improve its security...."

Washington Times 5/7/99 Helle Bering "....Unfortunately, this is only the latest in a string of intelligence disasters. The administration first learned in early 1995 that China may have stolen the United States' most sensitive nuclear secrets..... In late 1995, DOE investigators informed the FBI. By February 1996, DOE counterintelligence officers and the FBI identified Mr. Lee...DOE briefed the CIA in early 1996.... Meanwhile, it is now quite clear, while China was stealing U.S. nuclear secrets, the White House and the Commerce Department were aggressively transferring dual-use technology to China, including supercomputers capable of testing stolen nuclear-weapon design information. In March 1996 President Clinton himself overruled then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher's decision to retain control within the State Department of satellite exports to China. Against the advice of the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies, the president transferred that authority to Commerce. Two months after that decision, the Loral space-launch firm was involved in the unauthorized transfer of missile guidance-and-control technology to China. Loral's chairman, Bernard Schwartz, had actively lobbied the administration to switch satellite-export licensing from State to Commerce while he was pouring money into the Democratic Party...."

Washington Times 5/7/99 Helle Bering "....In effect, while China was actively engaged in nuclear espionage, Bill Clinton's political sugar daddy was engaging in the unauthorized transfer of the technology to launch from the same missile several of the smaller, improved warheads at different targets. A few months later, the chief of Chinese military intelligence personally directed $300,000 from Beijing to Democratic fat cat Johnny Chung's Hong Kong bank account for the sole purpose of helping to finance Mr. Clinton's 1996 re-election, telling Chung, "We like your president."..."

Washington Times 5/7/99 Helle Bering "....Then-Deputy National Security Adviser Berger was briefed about China's nuclear espionage in April 1996. Having reversed Mr. Christopher on satellite-export licensing only a month earlier, the White House downplayed the consequences of the espionage, refusing to permit it to interfere with the budding "strategic partnership" with China...."

 New Republic 5/24/99 Jacob Heilbrunn "...It appears also that the Cox committee report contains new information about China's exploitation of the Clinton administration's willingness to allow American companies to sell the Chinese dual-use technology. Starting in 1993, with the support of then-Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, American firms began to promote the sale of computers and other high technology to China. The question is whether these firms were, in the process, also giving the Chinese dual-use technology--technology that arguably should be kept from the Chinese since, although it can be used for relatively benign purposes, it can also be used to achieve military ends. In particular, the Cox committee report apparently takes a close look at the sale of high-performance computers to China and whether these computers were used by the Chinese in modeling the miniaturized W-88 warhead..... On April 12, Notra Trulock, a senior Energy Department intelligence official, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that in July 1997--on the eve of Clinton's summit with Chinese President Jiang Zemin--he had alerted Sandy Berger to his suspicions of ongoing Chinese espionage in American labs. Trulock has said that he didn't get much of a response. Indeed, about the only thing Berger appeared to do "swiftly" in response to Trulock's allegations was to have his deputy, Gary Samore, commission an alternative study from the CIA about other ways--apart from stealing from the United States--the Chinese might have developed certain technologies. Not surprisingly, the CIA study was later used to cast doubt on Trulock's concerns..... But Trulock, in his congressional testimony, complained that Energy Department officials "strenuously resisted" implementing PDD-61. Then-Deputy Secretary of Energy Elizabeth Moler has maintained that Trulock's allegations are "absolutely false" and that the department did implement changes. Unfortunately, given the secrecy still surrounding the underlying events, this amounts to a high-level he-said-she-said dispute, and, at least until the Cox committee report is declassified--and maybe not even then--it's impossible to know exactly what occurred. .....Specifically, Kennedy points to an April 8 Times article by Gerth and James Risen that alleged Berger had learned about the theft of neutron bomb data as early as April 1996. "Four people at the meeting don't recall Berger being told," says Kennedy. But Gerth stands by the story. When I explained to Gerth that the White House was now targeting him by name, he read to me portions of an April 20 letter he had sent to National Security Council spokesman David Leavy in response to White House complaints about the April 8 story. Gerth wrote: "[N]o one knows precisely what transpired because the meeting was apparently not transcribed. Our reporting relied on officials who were present or had used materials present at the briefing. Moreover, one of our sources spoke to us with the knowledge and approval of the White House. We did not include this in the story ... because we did not want to point a finger at the White House as disclosing a highly classified briefing." ....."

New York Times 5/10/99 JEFF GERTH and JAMES RISEN "...The submarine technology in the Peter Lee case was developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a weapons lab in California. The Peter Lee case is also significant because it clearly demonstrates that the American government believed that China was successfully engaged in espionage -- obtaining American defense secrets -- during President Clinton's second term. While the Los Alamos disclosures earlier this year prompted an array of investigations, Clinton, two months ago, said no one had brought suspicions of Chinese espionage to him and administration officials initially portrayed the problem as one confined to earlier administrations....The breach involved in the Peter Lee case -- code-named Royal Tourist by the FBI -- occurred in 1997, a point made in a classified November 1998 counterintelligence report ordered by and then sent to the White House.....The November 1998 counterintelligence report citing the Peter Lee case was part of a comprehensive review ordered by President Clinton as part of his effort to improve security at U.S. weapons laboratories, which are run by the Department of Energy. That report states that as late as 1997, Lee had "provided China with classified information." ....Sandy RosenBerger, Clinton's national security adviser, was briefed about the Peter Lee case by Energy Department intelligence officials in July 1997. Berger's spokesman, David Leavy, declined to say when Clinton first learned about Lee's activities....Twogood told the FBI that the information Peter Lee provided the Chinese in 1997 was "classified and sensitive," court records show. The radar program seeks to detect the physical traces, briefly left as signatures on water surfaces, of the undersea motions of submarines. Remote sensing devices located, for example, on an airplane pick up the traces. "The Navy has invested a lot in this area for 20 years and so by definition that implies it's important," said Twogood, currently the deputy associate director for electronic engineering at Lawrence Livermore. The Soviet Union worked hard to develop this technology during the Cold War. Recent American advances suggested that Soviet assertions of success in anti-submarine measures should be taken more seriously, Twogood told Congress in 1994......


Washington Post 5/16/99 John Harris Page A01 "... A year ago, when the top councils of the Clinton administration began debating the merits of a military strike in the Balkans, White House national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger cast an anxious eye on the home front. He had his doubts about a war and especially over a place few Americans had ever heard of. "I remember him saying once, 'Are we going to bomb on Kosovo? Can I explain that to Congress? They'll kill us,' " recalled one senior administration official, a colleague of Berger's in setting national security policy..... Yet colleagues say Berger's apprehensive remark in 1998 illustrates two important characteristics of the man widely regarded as President Clinton's most important foreign policy adviser -- a man who shaped in decisive ways the strategy NATO is pursuing in the U.S.-led air campaign in Yugoslavia. One is an instinctive caution about military action. The other is a concern with political costs that has led to the elevation of consensus, both at home and among allies, as a supreme strategic goal..... If the military campaign works, as Berger insists it will, he and other aides say it will be Clinton's finest hour, a historic demonstration that ethnic cleansing in Europe is not tolerable on the brink of the 21st century. If it fails, NATO's existence could be imperiled. Yet even faced with these momentous consequences, Berger has been a pivotal voice against moving toward the use of ground troops that many military experts say is needed to assure success, so as not to risk antagonizing Congress, NATO allies or Russia. ...... "The NSC is, by far, the most dominant entity in foreign policy making in this administration," said one senior official at an outside agency, who sometimes bridles at White House attempts to be "too controlling." .... Aides say Clinton uses his aides for different purposes: Berger, an affable though occasionally short-tempered man who is closest to the president personally, reflects the side of Clinton that wants full discussion of risks; Albright, whose relationship with Clinton is more recent and formal, plays to the side that wants issues framed in large and moralistic terms. ....Together, Berger and Albright have moved U.S. foreign policy to a new set of premises. Until recently, the "Powell Doctrine," named after former Joint Chiefs chairman Colin L. Powell, dominated nearly all deliberations about the use of force. Shaped by the U.S. failure in Vietnam, Powell held that forces should be used in overwhelming fashion and with a clear "exit strategy" for leaving with a tangible victory. But Clinton's second-term team adheres to something that Berger last week called "Powell-plus." He said he believes in the use of force strong enough to dominate an opponent, but rejects what has become a kind of practical corollary: that U.S. forces stay out of all conflicts short of total war. "Where [the Powell doctrine] needs to be updated is on the question of whether or not military force can be used for more limited purposes than the decimation of the enemy," Berger said. "It cannot mean that we have no choices between nothing and everything." ..."

NY Times 5/17/99 WILLIAM SAFIRE "...Though Clinton is softer than ever on China, he's taken a hard line in resisting Congress's investigations into Beijing's penetration of our nuclear labs and our political process. His latest trick: the improper use of documents submitted for intelligence declassification to prepare advance refutations of evidence of security lapses. The White House has delayed for four months the three-volume report on security laxity by the House select committee headed by Representative Chris Cox. Clinton spinners are already distributing a packet of reprints of derogations by offended scientists, China-defenders and favorite journalists. Cox has used the "clearance" delay to rewrite the turgid prose and to enliven the report with photographs and diagrams showing what missiles and satellites were stolen; that might even awaken television interest. The Senate Intelligence Committee, headed by Richard Shelby and Robert Kerrey, is not about to hold still for the abuse of clearance. After it submitted one of its reports on nuclear lab laxity for review to protect intelligence sources, it learned of a refutation of that bipartisan report in work by the National Security Council response machine. The White House was told that the submission of documents was for security clearance only. It was not to be used for (a) advance policy review so that "rapid response" would occur in the same news cycle as the reports' release, or for (b) leakage of portions to the press for "inoculation" to later reduce its impact as "old news." The intelligence business is not the publicity business. National security reports are not to be equated with the Starr report about hanky-panky. The Shelby committee made plain to the Berger Rapid-Apology Center that if this undermining of inter-branch comity did not stop forthwith, "we're going to zero out the N.S.C. staff budget."..... (In both House and Senate, bipartisan committees are discovering serious intelligence weaknesses: too little analysis of too much collection. "If there's a flare-up in Iraq, North Korea or the Andes," worries an investigator, "we could not handle it and Kosovo, too." The most troubling breakdown is in counterespionage. The F.B.I. and C.I.A., which are not blameless, are telling Congress the weakest link is the Department of Justice. What began as corrupt political protection became dangerous national security laxity. Who will apologize for that? ..."

Investor's Business Daily 5/21/99 Daniel J. Murphy "....Berger - President Clinton's current national security adviser - has been a political operative who's spent most of his professional life working in politics and lobbying. As one foreign policy fiasco after another hounds the White House, critics keep pointing to Berger...... In their 1998 book ''Year of the Rat'' (Regnery Publishing), national security specialists Edward Timperlake and William Triplett state, ''Berger seems to be around whenever Clinton administration decisions are made that, in our opinion, favor (China) trade ties over American national security interests. ...... Even before Clinton decided to run for president in 1992, Berger helped set up a national security briefing in Washington for the then-governor of Arkansas...... Upon entering the White House, Clinton tapped Berger to serve as deputy to National Security Adviser Anthony Lake. The Connecticut native was picked to head the National Security Council at the start of Clinton's second term. Prior to the McGovern campaign, Berger worked in a couple of congressional offices and then spent a short stint with New York City Mayor John Lindsay. From 1977 to 1980, Berger served on the State Department's policy planning staff for President Carter. Berger has spent much of his private-sector life as a partner in the powerful lawyer-lobbyist firm Hogan & Hartson. While there, Berger was the firm's key contact on international trade matters. Caterpillar Inc., a well-known backer of increased ties with China, was one of Berger's longtime clients...."

Investor's Business Daily 5/21/99 Daniel J. Murphy "....Berger's influence on foreign policy and intelligence issues shows on several levels. Some of the appointments to positions that would typically be vetted by Berger's NSC have raised some eyebrows. Take Anthony Harrington, a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the panel Clinton assigned in mid-March to assess the damage from national security compromises involving China. Harrington, like Berger, isn't a foreign policy veteran. Harrington was a partner at Hogan & Hartson, Berger's old firm. He was also outside general counsel to the Democratic National Committee in the 1980s and general counsel to the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign. ..... The White House is reportedly also considering former Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., for the intelligence board. During the mid-1980s, Harman was registered and active as a foreign agent for the Chinese government. That background led to a mild dust-up with some Republicans when, as a lawmaker, she was picked for both the national security and intelligence committees.

. ..."

Investor's Business Daily 5/21/99 Daniel J. Murphy "....Timperlake and Triplett lay out several cases where Berger intervened to affect decisions with a connection to China. ....Export controls.... Berger lobbied to transfer authority to the Commerce Department..... Waivers of trade rules. Berger failed to object to presidential waivers for Hughes Electronics Corp. and Loral Corp. - aerospace firms that illegally transferred technology related to Chinese rocket tests. The requests for waivers came as Justice Department investigators were closing in on the companies. ....Chinese missile sales to Iran. When this touchy subject arose during a visit Berger had with Triplett and his boss, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, Triplett says Berger claimed ignorance and left in a huff. The State Department had reported evidence of such sales, which could have triggered sanctions against Chinese companies...Weapons labs lapses. Gerth and Risen reported that Berger learned that top-secret neutron-bomb technology had landed in the hands of Chinese officials in April 1996. Still, he waited more than a year to inform Clinton....Sudan pharmaceutical plant bombing. When the administration launched bombing strikes against terrorist Osama bin Laden in August, Berger said the White House had ''very, very little doubt'' that the Sudanese drug factory leveled by the blasts made chemical weapons or components used in them...."

Drudge Exclusive 5/20/99 "...Members of a House committee now believe that President Clinton's national security adviser Sandy Berger was deliberately misleading during testimony on just when the president was told of suspected China spying and theft of U.S. military technology..... According to the soon-to-be-released Cox Report, Berger was briefed on the China activity in 1996. Berger testified that he did not brief President Clinton until early 1998, more 18 months later. But the committee obtained evidence, via testimony and documents, according to sources, that Berger's testimony had major timeline problems. "We have learned that Sandy Berger told the president in July 1997, not in early 1998," one committee member said. Vice President Al Gore was alerted to China's spying in March 1998 by his national security adviser Leon Fuerth, according to testimony. But Fuerth was fully briefed in April 1996, the Cox Report determined. "Administration officials would have us believe that Mr. Fuerth waited to tell the vice president about the China situation until after it appeared in the NEW YORK TIMES?" a committee member questioned.....'


New York Post 5/24/99 STEVE DUNLEAVY "...On March 19 of this year, Clinton told a press conference, "There has been no espionage at [nuclear] labs since I have been president and nobody has reported to me that such a thing occurred." Either that statement was the mother of all whoppers or Clinton has been sniffing glue...."....Notra Trulock, the then-director of intelligence at the Department of Energy, three years ago raised a red flag big enough to send the entire population of bulls in Spain into a frenzy. In September of 1995, Trulock's investigations convinced him that nuclear secrets at Los Alamos laboratories in New Mexico had been seriously compromised. In April 1996, after confirming his worst suspicions, he briefed Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, on just how China had learned to make a bigger and better firecracker by stealing our nuclear secrets. If Sandy Berger forgot about it or didn't tell Clinton about this, he should be hung by his ankles like a bat. "I was explicit and to the point," Trulock said. Then in June of 1997, Trulock made the same trek. Berger must have been sharing the same pot of glue as Clinton. Nothing was done. Again, in early 1998, Trulock was wearing out his shoes going to the White House telling anyone who wanted to listen that Chinese espionage inside our Los Alamos lab was taking us like Grant took Richmond. In fact, he had briefed 60 officials. Even a draft of the Cox Report, which would make any 007 agent nervous, was sent to the White House on Jan. 3 of this year. And yet, Clinton says on March 19 that there was no espionage and nobody told him a thing about anything. When will this guy stop believing that we all have an IQ as low as the minimum wage in the South Pole? ...After the Cox Report, in this season, Bill Clinton is going to have to give a heavyweight reason why someone, somehow, somewhere did not commit treason.

5/21/99 Judicial Watch "...Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, is "hopelessly conflicted" on the Chinagate scandal, which indeed may explain his failure to protect American national security interests. Berger, who expertise is as a trade lawyer, worked for the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, which represents John Huang. Huang was close to the President, First Lady, and Vice President, with easy access to the White House and top secrets in the Commerce Department on Berger's watch as deputy national security adviser. Huang was recently deposed by Judicial Watch. He asserted the Fifth Amendment over 1,000 times, including on questions about whether he passed classified information to the Chinese. (See transcripts at addition to representing Huang, Hogan & Hartson reportedly worked for the People's Republic of China. And according to published reports, Berger, prior to joining the Clinton Administration, was "point person at the Hogan and Hartson law firm for the trade office of the Chinese government." Berger's ex-law firm also represented the Democratic National Committee, a reported recipient of funds laundered by Johnny Chung, Huang and others from the Chinese government. One of Huang's lawyers is also related to the former head of the Criminal Division for Janet Reno's Justice Department. ith these conflicts of interest, why then was Sandy Berger entrusted with the position of National Security Adviser? It is clear he did little with the information that the Chinese government was engaged in a massive effort to steal our nation's secrets and subvert our democracy by buying the presidency...."

NY Times 5/21/99 Jeff Gerth "...Thursday, at a Senate hearing, Energy Department documents were released showing that Gore's office was told by Energy Department officials early on, at least in 1996 and possibly in 1995, about the first indications of Chinese espionage at United States weapons laboratories. Gore's national security adviser, Leon S. Fuerth, was briefed in April 1996, according to testimony by Notra Trulock, an Energy Department intelligence official, before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This came about the same time the President's deputy national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, was first told about China's spying. Tom Rosshirt, a foreign affairs spokesman for Gore, said Thursday that Fuerth had no recollection or record of a 1995 briefing. He confirmed the 1996 briefing but said that Fuerth waited until last March, shortly after news accounts of the spying appeared, to tell the Vice President about the alleged espionage. Berger told the Cox committee that he did not speak with the President about Chinese spying for at least a year, saying that it was in early 1998. Berger's aides now say he remembers informing Clinton in July 1997..... In 1996, Clinton relaxed controls on sales of advanced computers to countries like China. The next year his Administration resisted Congressional efforts to retighten those controls. The Cox committee concluded that some of the American computers sold to China went to organizations involved in military activities and that ineffective verification requirements meant that American computers might have been used for military purposes like upgrading nuclear weapons or developing more accurate missiles, officials said. In 1996, China pledged to stop physically testing nuclear weapons, increasing its reliance on advanced computers for simulations. Also in 1996, the American intelligence community reported that China had stolen secret design information about the neutron bomb. That same year President Clinton shifted licensing responsibility for some commercial satellite sales from the security-oriented State Department to the business-friendly Commerce Department. The Cox committee, officials said, concluded that the shift was a mistake. The technology used to launch a satellite into space is similar to the technology used to deliver a missile armed with nuclear warheads.....

5/25/99 Laurence McQuillan Reuters "..."I think Sandy Berger should resign," said powerful Texas Republican Rep. Dick Armey of the White House national security adviser faulted for failing to act when the allegations first reached him in 1996. "I just think Sandy Berger needs to stand up and accept his responsibility," said Armey. U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno also drew the ire of critics outraged that she rejected FBI requests to wiretap one of the prime suspects in the spy case. "Janet Reno has always said that she's accountable, and she certainly is," said Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "She's accountable to the people ... for her actions or inactions, and there are a lot of inactions there," he told CNN. "And I believe it's time for her to go, and now." White House officials said Clinton has "full confidence" in both Berger and Reno..... Republican critics have accused the Clinton White House of trying to downplay the significance of the spying because it interfered with its policy of engagement with Beijing. "The report shows the total lack of coordination with the administration and a complete failure to effectively bring these breaches of security to a halt," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a contender for the Republican presidential nomination next year. Another Republican White House aspirant, Texas Gov. George Bush, complained that "this administration apparently did not take seriously, did not react properly and it is still trying to minimize the scope and extent of the damage." ...."

Washington Times 5/26/99 Nancy E. Roman ".... House Majority Leader Dick Armey called for the resignation of National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger, who was informed of Chinese espionage in April of 1996 and failed to brief President Clinton until July 1997. "I don't go about calling for people's resignation willy-nilly, but I believe there is a clearly documented track of irresponsibility," said Mr. Armey, of Texas. "Sandy Berger needs to stand up and accept responsibility for the fact that he failed in his duty to . . . the American people.".....But Mr. Cox said the case is irrefutable. "This report is not inferences," he told a news conference yesterday. "It's not suspicions or things that we cannot prove. It is, rather, the facts, and I think it's vitally important for us today to emphasize that this is a fact-based report." ....Sen. Don Nickles, Oklahoma Republican and No. 2 Republican in the Senate, accused the Clinton administration of "gross negligence" and said he may also call for Mr. Berger's resignation. He noted that while espionage occurred throughout several administrations, it was only discovered in 1995, on Mr. Clinton's watch......Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he is disturbed by the gap between April 1996, when Mr. Berger learned of the security lapses, and when he opted to brief the president -- more than a year later..... The committee recommends that the Department of Defense take over the responsibility for securing commercial satellite launches where technology could be stolen and diverted for military use. They also proposed to tighten export controls -- specifically those surrounding the high performance computers used in military technology. The United States has allowed 600 such computers to be exported to China for commercial use. But their technology can easily be diverted for military purposes.....Mr. Spratt said the most devastating of all the security lapses occurred in 1988, when the Bush administration allowed U.S. satellites to be launched on Chinese rockets. "In taking this step, we effectively decided to underwrite the development of Chinese rockets," he said. Mr. Spratt said that the intelligence community estimates that the PRC obtained design information on the W-70 in the late 1970s; design information on the W-88 warhead in the mid-'80s; and classified information on re-entry vehicles and weight-to-yield ratios of the W-62, W-78 and W-87 in the 1990s...."

Wall Street Journal 5/26/99 "...We know too that the Energy Department, which has authority over U.S. nuclear laboratories, briefed then deputy national security adviser Sandy Berger about the problem in 1996. Which is to say, in the midst of the President's re-election campaign, not to mention in the wake of the Senate Banking Committee hearings on Whitewater. We're told that President Clinton himself was not let in on the secret until 1998. If true, this is itself reason enough for Mr. Berger to be sacked.....From his National Security Council post, Mr. Berger, a former China trade lobbyist, sat in on the weekly campaign strategy meetings where fund-raising was discussed. These appearances already show an aura of carelessness. ..."

Reuters 5/26/99 "...A former trade lawyer and Democratic political activist, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is now the lightning rod for ire over Chinese spying case and his response to it. Amid angry calls demanding his ouster, White House officials insist that President Clinton is unwavering in his loyalty to Berger - the primary driving force behind the administration's policy of expanding relations with Beijing. In April 1996 Berger was presented with suspicions that Beijing conducted massive espionage operations at U.S. nuclear laboratories for at least two decades, but did not pass the information to Clinton until July 1997. "I believe we are going to have to have some hard answers from the National Security Adviser Sandy Berger,'' said Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Others feel they already know enough. "I think Sandy Berger should resign,'' said House Republican leader Dick Armey of Texas, adding Berger "needs to stand up and accept responsibility for the fact that he failed in his duty to ... the American people.''..... The questions about Berger, however, can not be easily dismissed as mere political posturing by administration critics. White House aides insist Berger acted responsibly, but are evasive in explaining the delay in notifying Clinton about the extent of the problem. "Republican calls for Mr. Berger's resignation feel premature, but his fitness is in question and must be carefully weighed in the days ahead,'' a New York Times editorial noted Wednesday. Berger, who frequently gives television interviews to promote the administration's foreign policy positions, has avoided direct comment on the House report issued Tuesday by a select committee headed by California Rep. Christopher Cox, a Republican. .... Berger shares a close, comfortable bond with Clinton, according to those who know both men. They first met back in 1972 working for George McGovern's disastrous presidential campaign against the Republican incumbent, Richard Nixon. As early as 1987 Berger began encouraging Clinton to run for the presidency, and was the then-governor of Arkansas' senior foreign policy adviser during the 1992 presidential campaign. Berger, who served a stint as a speechwriter at the State Department during President Jimmy Carter's administration, spent several years heading up the international trade division of a high-powered Washington law firm. He was particularly involved in trade issues in Asia, an interest that has remained during his tenure at the Clinton White House - first as deputy national security adviser and, since 1996, as the senior foreign policy official at the White House. He has been a strong advocate for expanding trade ties to China, and lobbied vigorously behind the scenes to convince Clinton that expanding economic ventures in China should not be linked to progress in human rights. Critics question whether his interest in trade with Beijing had a role in downplaying China's espionage efforts - something Berger denied...."

FoxNews/Carl Cameron 5/26/99 Freeper Truthkeeper "...Carl Cameron (fast becoming one of my heroes) has done it again. In his morning update, he said the Cox Committee had questioned Sandy Berger and others about the Dr. Peter Lee matter and criminal investigation. He said Cox and his committee were told by the State, Defense, and Justice Departments that Dr. Lee's file was SEALED by the court and therefore not they proceeding with their investigation (on OUR tax dollar) without this information. Cameron said Fox News was told the same thing (that the file was sealed) when they made inquiries, but they did an amazing thing. They actually CHECKED THE PUBLIC RECORD THEMSELVES, and, low and behold, the file WAS NOT sealed after all. So guess what Cameron got his hands on? Voila! The Dr. Peter Lee documents. Fox then informed the Committee of their little find, and apparently they were quite annoyed. So much so that they now may be making additional inquiries of Sandy Berger et al to determine why they were lied to in the first place. If you don't have Fox News, get a dish. FOX NEWS ROCKS!..."

Augusta Chronicle 5/26/99 Editorial "...Now that the bipartisan Cox report over massive Communist Chinese contributions and espionage has exploded like a bombshell on Capitol Hill, we are already hearing the ``T'' word uttered: Treason. How the Clinton administration allowed China to acquire, in the words of the report, ``super-computers to simulate nuclear tests (and) satellite technology that might help aim ballistic missiles more accurately ... against the United States and its allies'' is the story of an incredible betrayal of our national security! While it's true thefts started in the late '80s during the Reagan-Bush administrations, the stepped-up stealing of secrets regarding our seven major warheads, as well as the neutron bomb, occurred on Clinton's watch. Alarmingly, the Cox report concludes the new Chinese weapons are likely to be ``on a par with our own.'' Maybe the only positive fallout is that Clinton's misguided policy of treating the Red butchers of Beijing as a ``strategic partner'' is in shambles. Even some longtime Democratic Clinton defenders are now appalled at the greed and treachery of some leading American corporations/ Democratic donors. Perhaps another good thing to come will be the removal of White House National Security Adviser Sandy Berger (once a registered agent of China) and Attorney General Janet Reno, who actually blocked FBI investigations and wire-taps of Chinese spies at our national laboratories. Just as the old Roman senator ended his every speech with ``Carthage Must Be Destroyed'' so, too, should the speeches of our senators end with ``Berger and Reno Must Be Fired.'' ...."

Philadelphia Daily News 5/27/99 "...Reno is not the only member of the Clinton administration who looks incredibly stupid: national security adviser Sandy Berger was told three years ago about suspicions, but did nothing. And President Clinton did what he often does best: When questioned in March, he lied...."

Fox News 5/26/99 "...In April 1996 Berger was presented with suspicions that Beijing conducted massive espionage operations at U.S. nuclear laboratories for at least two decades, but did not discuss the matter with Clinton until July 1997. "I believe we are going to have to have some hard answers from the National Security Adviser Sandy Berger,'' said Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Others feel they already know enough. "I think Sandy Berger should resign,'' said House Republican leader Dick Armey of Texas, adding Berger "needs to stand up and accept responsibility for the fact that he failed in his duty to ... the American people.''.... The questions about Berger, however, can not be easily dismissed as mere political posturing by administration critics. White House aides insist Berger acted responsibly, but are evasive in explaining the delay in notifying Clinton about the extent of the problem. ...... "

5/27/99 AP Michael Sniffen "...National Security Adviser Samuel Berger also defended himself against accusations he wasn't aggressive enough when Energy Department officials briefed him in 1996 about security lapses at a weapons laboratory. Berger did not brief President Clinton on the matter until a year later. Berger said that when he was told about two cases in 1996, he saw to it that the Energy Department expanded its probe and the FBI launched its own investigation. ``I did take it seriously. I did act. I believe I acted in national interest,'' Berger said on PBS' ``NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.'' When investigators returned in 1997 with more detailed information about broader and more systematic problems, Berger said he then briefed Clinton. ``We swiftly acted to implement the most sweeping reforms of counterintelligence in the labs in history,'' he said...."

Fox Newswire/Reuter's 5/27/99 "...More than 80 members of Congress sent a strongly worded letter to President Clinton demanding that he get rid of National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and hold him responsible for the security breach. "Mr. Berger has failed in his responsibility as this nation's national security advisor by not properly informing you of the most serious espionage ever committed against the United States,'' the lawmakers said in the letter. ..."

6/7/99 David Horowitz "....The architect of America's China policy over the course of the current disaster has been Clinton's national security advisor, Sandy Berger. Berger began his political life as a Vietnam War protestor and member of the radical "Peace Now" movement, which regards Israel as the aggressor in the Middle East. Berger first met Clinton as an activist in the McGovern for president camp, the most left-wing Democratic presidential campaign in American history. Berger's law practice, prior to his appointment, was lobbying for the business arm of China's communist dictatorship. (The other root cause of the present security crisis is, of course, greed -- a major factor in all its aspects, and on both sides of the political aisle.) It is hardly surprising that a political leftist and business lobbyist for China's rulers should take steps to lift the security controls that previously protected U.S. military technology. Or that, under his tenure, invitations to the White House should be extended to agents of Chinese intelligence and China's military. Or, for that matter, that appointments like that of John Huang to posts with top security clearance should be considered perfectly reasonable. Nor is it surprising, given the politics of the Clinton managers, that the administration should place its faith in arms control agreements that depend on trustworthy partners, while strenuously opposing measures to develop anti-ballistic missile defenses that do not. (Even now, after the revelations of China's thefts, Berger and the Clinton administration continue to oppose the implementation of anti-ballistic missile defense programs, while pressing to keep China's most-favored-nation trading status secure.) ...."

AP 6/8/99 Jim Abrams "...Eighty House Republicans and one Democrat have sent a letter to President Clinton calling for Berger to resign on grounds he misled Congress and the nation as to when he was told of the espionage. Berger has said he was given a general briefing about security problems at the lab in 1996 but only received a specific account of possible espionage in mid-1997. He said he advised Clinton at that time, leading to a presidential directive in February 1998 to tighten security at the labs. Shelby said Berger was in a pivotal position to know the chronology of events, and "I would be really disappointed'' if he asserts executive privilege and declines to testify. Berger "is a key person,'' said Sen. Tim Hutchinson, R-Ark. "It's not enough to have some lower-level individuals pay a price in this. We need to know how high up those decisions were being made.'' ..."

AP 6/8/99 Jim Abrams "...National Security Council spokesman David Leavy said Berger had consulted closely with the Intelligence Committee on the issue and would continue to do so. But he added that it was a "longstanding constitutional practice followed by this administration and previous administrations that the president's national security adviser doesn't testify before congressional committees.''..."

Curt Weldon Website 6/8/99 "... CHINESE ESPIONAGE AND NATIONAL SECURITY (from the Congressional Record, Proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives) Monday, June 7, 1999 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Green of Wisconsin)..... Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that when the administration got a preliminary view of the Cox Committee report in early January, in fact we gave it to the administration sometime around January 2nd or 3rd, they got a chance to see a document that nine of us, Democrats and Republicans, had worked on together for 7 months in a very nonpartisan way.... We gave it to the White House the first week of January and we asked for a very quick response to assist us in making that report available in a declassified version so the American people and our colleagues could read it and talk about it. As we all know, that took 5 months. But what gave me the first indication that this report was going to be spun politically was about a month later, in February. In fact it was February the 1st. Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser to the White House, issued a statement that I have a copy of to selective members of the Washington media, responding to the 38 recommendations that we made in our Cox Committee report that were still classified. Without asking any member of the Cox Commission, Sandy Berger released the White House's spin in response to those recommendations. Two days after he released that spin, I had the occasion of asking the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, in a closed National Security Committee hearing in front of 40 Members from both parties if he agreed as the head of the CIA with our findings that our security had been harmed. Now, Mr. Speaker, this was 2 days after Sandy Berger released public information about our still classified report. George Tenet said, `Congressman, we at the CIA haven't finished reading the document yet.' Which meant, Mr. Speaker, that the White House, before the CIA had even completed reading our report, was spinning it publicly to try to deflect attention away from the White House and any responsibility of this administration. That is not what the nine members of the Cox Committee did and that is not the approach we used. We did not spin anything....."

The Hill 6/9/99 Phillippe Shepnick "...Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has withdrawn a letter addressed to President Clinton demanding the dismissal of National Security Council (NSC) chief Sandy Berger, after finding that only 17 other Republican senators signed it. A spokesman for Lott insisted that the letter was a draft and a vehicle for discussion within the GOP. "It's a discussion via paper," said John Czwartacki, Lott's press secretary. "Just because a letter is being circulated doesn't mean that it will get to the White House." Czwartacki added that the letter was circulated during the recess when most senators weren't around. "We stopped gathering signatures when the prevailing thought was we want more answers from him [Berger]," he said. But the letter did not gain the support of several key Republicans, including the top two Republicans on the Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Sen. John Chafee (R.I.). A spokeswoman for Shelby said the senator believes it would be "premature" to call for Berger's resignation until Berger had a chance to testify before the committee. Chafee told The Hill, "You can't find him [Berger] guilty until you try him."...."

Fox News 6/9/99 Reuters "...The White House Wednesday rejected Republican calls for National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to testify to Congress on the investigation into allegations China stole U.S. nuclear weapons secrets. "As far as I know, there are no plans now for any formal testimony,'' White House spokesman Joe Lockhart told reporters. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, a Republican of Alabama, has said he intends to ask Berger to testify on his awareness of the investigation and what he told Clinton about it. Tuesday, Shelby said, "I believe it's important for Mr. Berger to come before the intelligence committee. I hope he will not assert executive privilege because these questions are too important...I would be really disappointed if he refused.''...But he cited issues of executive privilege in saying cabinet-agency executives should testify rather than members of Clinton's executive staff such as Berger. "There is a traditional and constitutional argument that many administrations have taken about White House staff testifying versus other members of the administration that are confirmable (by the Senate),'' Lockhart said. ...."

Providence Journal 6/15/99 "...And the stunning fact is that nothing was done by the Clinton administration until nearly two years after evidence of espionage was revealed. National Security Adviser Samuel Berger was fully aware of the information contained in the Cox Report for months before he bothered to inform President Clinton, or Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, whose department manages the nuclear laboratories where the spying took place, about what he knew. And Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, similarly informed, refused to take appropriate measures (urged on her by the FBI) to get the facts about Chinese espionage, or gather evidence about suspected spies. Even Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., a reliable Clinton point man in Congress, finds the conduct of Berger and Reno "inexplicable." "Inexplicable" is scarcely the word; "outrageous" might be better suited to the circumstances. Not only did Mr. Berger withhold important information from the President -- who has pursued a policy of "strategic engagement" with Beijing -- but Miss Reno deliberately made it more difficult for federal law enforcement agencies to take action against people who stole American nuclear secrets for the Chinese. It is impossible to explain why Mr. Berger and Miss Reno might have acted to jeopardize national security, but the Cox Report reveals the grave consequences of their action. Mr. Berger, a trade lawyer who succeeded his patron, Anthony Lake, at the National Security Council, is visibly out of his depth. And Janet Reno's tenure at the Justice Department has been marked by weak enforcement of the law, an excessive sense of public relations, and a solid determination to provide political cover for the Clinton White House. In this episode, however, it is not Bill Clinton's political viability that has been damaged, but the national security. Integrity is not a word always associated with the Clinton administration, but if Janet Reno and Samuel Berger understood its meaning, they would resign...."

The Washington Times 6/20/99 James Inhofe "...The breach of the design of the W-88 miniaturized nuclear warhead--which happened in the 1980s and was discovered in 1995--is enormously significant to America's national security. According to Paul Redmond, the CIA's former counterintelligence chief who caught Soviet spy Aldrich Ames, it is "far more damaging to the national security than Aldrich Ames," and "as bad as the Rosenbergs." The Rosenbergs were executed for compromising atomic bomb secrets to the Soviets. The idea Sandy Berger of the White House National Security Council--who was fully briefed about the W-88 technology breach in April 1996--did not immediately communicate this information to the president is preposterous. Mr. Berger now claims he did not tell the president until early 1998, or perhaps July 1997, depending on which of his two stories you want to believe. I don't believe either one because neither makes sense. Mr. Berger is a political operative, a longtime Clinton friend and confidant--not to mention, a pretty smart guy. He attended all the major 1996 Clinton campaign strategy meetings. When he learned China had stolen the W-88--the crown jewel of the U.S. nuclear arsenal--is it plausible he did not immediately tell the president ? No, not unless you want to assume a level of incompetence at the White House that even this administration's harshest critics do not believe for a minute...."

The Washington Times 6/20/99 James Inhofe "...The president had to have known about the W-88 breach no later than April 1996, well before the 1996 election. The president deliberately withheld this vital national security information from key members of Congress for obvious political reasons. He withheld it for almost three years--a coverup that is nothing less than a scandal of gigantic proportions. If it were not for the Cox committee--formed by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, not by Mr. Clinton--Congress and the American people would still be in the dark..."

THE WASHINGTON TIMES 6/22/99 Bill Gertz "...The Clinton administration is heading for a confrontation with Congress over legislation that would make it U.S. policy to deploy a nationwide defense against missile attack. President Clinton is expected to sign the legislation as early as next week. Congressional backers say the measure will require missile defense deployment, but administration officials contend they are not required to do so. Mr. Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed in Cologne, Germany, on Sunday to continue talks this fall on possible changes to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The pact prohibits deploying missile defenses that protect either side's entire national territory. White House National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger told reporters in Cologne that a U.S. national missile-defense deployment decision will not be made before June 2000. Mr. Berger also said the administration softened its position on first requiring Russia's parliament to ratify the START II nuclear arms treaty before moving ahead with a START III pact. Negotiators will report to Mr. Clinton and Mr. Yeltsin by July 30 on a new arms pact. As for Mr. Clinton and Mr. Yeltsin's ABM talks: "What they have agreed to is to consider possible changes in the strategic situation that have a bearing on the ABM Treaty," Mr. Berger told reporters. Mr. Berger said that verbal formulation means, "in English," that U.S. and Russian officials will talk about a new strategic arms reduction treaty, or START III, and "modifications to the ABM treaty that may be occasioned by a national missile defense system, if we were to deploy one."....Senior White House officials have said the missile defense bill does not require deployment because it lacks language about funding, and because of several minor amendments added by Democrats. Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican and the key House sponsor of the missile defense bill, said Mr. Berger should not be interpreting the will of Congress as stated in the legislation. "Until he runs for Congress, he's not the guy who interprets our legislation," Mr. Weldon said. "The interpretation is that it means deployment now. Our position is that it's the policy of this government to deploy a national missile defense now, when the president signs that bill." As for Mr. Berger's view that the administration will not be bound to the deployment legislation, "he is wrong and we're not going to stand for it," Mr. Weldon said..... Also, the missile defense bill passed both the House and Senate by large majorities, stating that it will be U.S. policy to deploy a national defense "as soon as the technology to do so is ready," the aide said. "The question of whether to deploy NMD is resolved, not withstanding Mr. Berger's statement," he said...."

New York Times 6/27/99 James Risen Jeff Gerth "...The White House was told about China's apparent theft of American nuclear weapons technology in July 1995, soon after it was detected by the Energy Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, several officials said. Until now, the Administration has left the impression that the White House first learned about the matter in April 1996, when Samuel R. Berger, then President Clinton's deputy national security adviser, was briefed on the case by Energy Department officials. But interviews with current and former officials show that warnings about possible Chinese nuclear espionage received high-level attention within the Clinton Administration early in the Government's investigation of the matter...."

New York Times 6/27/99 James Risen Jeff Gerth "...Deutch finally briefed the national security adviser, Anthony Lake, on the case in November 1995. Lake said he did not recall the briefing, but he and White House officials said there was a record of it. Before meeting with Lake, Deutch received a full briefing from the C.I.A. analysts, who convinced him that design information on the nuclear weapon -- known as the W-88 -- had been stolen by Beijing, officials said. President Clinton was not told of the evidence in 1995 by Panetta, Lake, or any of the other officials who had been briefed, according to the National Security Council spokesman, David C. Leavy. Berger also did not tell President Clinton about the case following his briefing in 1996...."

New York Times 6/27/99 James Risen Jeff Gerth "...Berger, now the national security adviser, has said that it was not until after he received a second, more specific briefing in July 1997 that he told Clinton about security problems at the nuclear weapons laboratories. Berger did take some action after his 1996 briefing, Leavy said, including directing that Congress be secretly informed. In that meeting, he also agreed with Energy Department officials on the need to strengthen security at the weapons laboratories. Working along two separate tracks initially unknown to each other, C.I.A. and Energy Department officials first began to unravel the case in the spring of 1995, when weapons designers from the Los Alamos laboratory told Energy Department intelligence officials that they were convinced China had stolen design information on the W-88, based on their analysis of a series of Chinese nuclear tests. At about the same time, American officials received a package filled with Chinese government documents, which arrived by DHL express service, officials say. Officials refused to say where the package was received or how they determined the identity of the sender...."

New York Times 6/27/99 James Risen Jeff Gerth "...C.I.A. officials analyzing the documents quickly focused on one that included what appeared to be classified design information about American nuclear weapons, including the W-88. Dated 1988, the document also included a hand drawing of a United States nuclear warhead re-entry vehicle. But initially, the C.I.A. did not tell the Energy Department -- or anyone else in the Government -- that it had obtained the W-88 document, officials say. A former senior C.I.A. official said that soon after the agency realized the significance of the W-88 document, Deutch ordered him not to disseminate it to other United States intelligence agencies. But other current United States officials familiar with the matter said that Deutch did not try to suppress the document. Instead, they said the document was not distributed immediately because it took time for the C.I.A. to translate and analyze it. Deutch refused to comment on the matter. Nevertheless, by August 1995 Energy Department's analysts had obtained a copy, even though it would not be officially distributed throughout American intelligence agencies until that December. By then, analysts had concluded that the document indeed included American nuclear secrets, officials say..."

New York Times 6/27/99 James Risen Jeff Gerth "...After the analysts reported to Deutch in November, a broader review, dominated by the Energy Department, reported similar conclusions in April 1996. Berger was then briefed that same month, and the F.B.I. opened its criminal investigation on May 30, 1996. But in late June or July 1996, the F.B.I. dropped its investigation, a senior United States official said. The C.I.A. had just re-issued the W-88 document with a warning that the agency now believed that the source of the document was a double agent. The C.I.A.'s new assessment, coming a year after it had first received the document, led the F.B.I. to "stand down," or suspend, its investigation, the senior American official said. The suspension of the investigation lasted for about six weeks in the summer of 1996, according to the official. It resumed after the Energy Department assured the F.B.I. that even if the source was a double agent, the document nonetheless contained accurate, classified data about the W-88 warhead, and so represented a security breach.

New York Times 6/27/99 James Risen Jeff Gerth "...The C.I.A. agreed that the information in the document was accurate, and also continued its own analysis. But while the F.B.I. re-started its investigation, it remained a low priority, F.B.I. officials now concede. Only one or two agents were assigned to the investigation in 1996, officials say. By 1997, when the Justice Department denied the F.B.I.'s request to seek court authorization to wiretap and electronically monitor Lee, a move that has since become the subject of congressional inquiry, the F.B.I. still had only three or four agents on the case...."

Reuters 6/27/99 "...Republican and Democratic senators criticized Sunday the Clinton administration's handling of allegations of Chinese nuclear spying. Reacting to a New York Sunday Times report that the White House was told of the technology loss in 1995, an angry Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah, told Fox News Sunday, ''That's the kind of crap that really shouldn't go on. I'm sick of it and that's one reason I'm running (for president).'' ....``The scandal is there -- the revelations of Chinese spying -- and then starts the cover-up, the obfuscation and that makes it 10 times worse. Clearly the White House has not been forthcoming about what the president knew, when he knew it, when (National Security Adviser) Sandy Berger knew it,'' said McCain. ....Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut, said he thought that the White House handling of the allegations had been inadequate. ``From everything that I know the administration ... either knew about it or should have known about it. The 'should have' is because some of the experts at our labs in the Department of Energy reached a conclusion based on what they saw from Chinese nuclear testing that the Chinese must have obtained, probably obtained, information on our W-88 warhead,'' he said on Fox News Sunday..... ``Looking back at it, this is critical enough. The president should have been told then, there's no question about it,'' he said...."

Fox News 6/29/99 Carl Cameron "...After weeks of wrangling with Congress, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger has agreed to an informal meeting with the Senate Intelligence Committee Wednesday afternoon. Berger consented to appear when Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott agreed that no stenographer would be present to record the discussion. The classified meeting will take place in a secure briefing room in the Capitol building. Berger had been resisting lawmakers' requests to appear before congressional committees. He will face questions from lawmakers on what he told the president about Chinese espionage and when. Berger was briefed in 1996 on the allegations of Chinese spying at U.S. nuclear weapons labs, but he says he did not report on them to the president until July 1997. New revelations surfaced last week that the White House was briefed in 1995 on the espionage allegations, but Anthony Lake, who was National Security Adviser at the time, did not tell President Clinton. It was not known whether Berger learned of the briefing when took over the post...."

Charleston Post and Courier 7/2/99 "... The New York Times reported last weekend that senior administration officials first learned of possible Chinese spying at the Energy Department's nuclear-weapons labs in Los Alamos, N.M., in July 1995, when then-Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary told then-White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta about it. That's eight months sooner than the White House previously dated the initial briefing. The Times also reported that then-CIA Director John Deutch, after concluding that the Chinese had stolen design information on the W-88 (the most advanced U.S. nuclear warhead), informed then-National Security Adviser Anthony Lake of his conclusions - in November 1995. Samuel Berger, then Mr. Lake's deputy and now national security adviser, repeatedly said he first learned of the "problem" in April 1996. He said he finally told President Clinton in the summer of 1997 - or early in 1998 (he's not sure). .... Why did high-level administration officials wait two years to inform the president of this threat? Particularly, why did Mr. Berger, who sat in on several early 1996 meetings with Asian fund-raisers and knew that Chinese aerospace officials were making large contributions to the Clinton re-election campaign, not tell the president of the Los Alamos "problem"? ...Why did Attorney General Janet Reno reject an FBI request to wiretap a suspected spy at Los Alamos in 1997? Why did administration officials wait until after that suspected spy's name surfaced in news reports to remove him from his position - and from his access to highly classified nuclear data? ...How could White House special counsel Jim Kennedy keep a straight face last weekend while dismissing this latest revelation - the 1995 O'Leary-Panetta meeting - as "simply an informal heads-up to the White House"? Who in the White House kept his or her head up when informed that the Chinese were stealing nuclear-weapons secrets? ...."

Washington Post 7/1/99 Walter Pincus "...National security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger made an unusual two-hour, closed-door appearance before members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence yesterday to answer questions about his handling of allegations of Chinese espionage at the nation's nuclear weapons laboratory. .... Berger told the senators he stands by Richardson's efforts to reach a compromise. Meanwhile, administration and congressional sources said a new FBI investigation was underway into possible economic espionage by a contractor at one of the Energy Department's civilian laboratories. Although the sources would not identify the lab, the report illustrates the need for a department-wide counterintelligence effort rather than one primarily within the nuclear weapons complex, according to Energy officials. The case, initially uncovered by an Energy Department internal audit, stemmed from questionable "irregular" expenditures by a contractor that led to suspicions that proprietary government information was being used for the contractor's private business, according to sources...."

Washington Times 7/5/99 "…(1) After learning in April of 1995 from their monitoring of Chinese nuclear test explosions that China had apparently acquired classified design information about the United States' most sophisticated nuclear warhead, the W-88, why did Department of Energy (DOE) weapons scientists and counterintelligence officials delay for an entire year -- until April 1996 -- reporting this alarming information to the White House? (2) Given that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials learned of the same development in 1995 as well, why would that agency not advise the White House? Those questions have now been answered. In fact, DOE counterintelligence officials did not wait nearly so long. Nor did their CIA counterparts. As early as July 1995, DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary conveyed her department's suspicions to no less a senior White House official than Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, according to an article in the New York Times. Within days, CIA Director John Deutch, a former deputy secretary of defense, told Mr. Panetta that the CIA had independently gathered intelligence confirming the suspicions of DOE officials; namely, that China had stolen secret information about the W-88….. In November of 1995, a convinced Mr. Deutch personally briefed White House National Security Adviser Anthony Lake -- who implausibly asserts that he cannot recall the briefing, although the White House acknowledges there is a record of it. In any event, Mr. Lake claims to have failed to brief the president. Moreover, Mr. Panetta, the government official who probably spent more time with Mr. Clinton than anybody else at the time, admitted to the Times that he failed to mention to the president what Mrs. O'Leary and Mr. Deutch told him in July 1995…..Imagine that. CIA Director Deutch informs the the White House Chief of Staff in July 1995 that his agency suspects Chinese nuclear espionage involving America's most advanced nuclear warhead. After the sober-minded Mr. Deutch becomes convinced of the nuclear espionage, he personally briefs the president's national security adviser. Five months later, DOE counterintelligence officers gave then-Deputy National Security Adviser Sandy Berger what they termed an "explicit" and "detailed" briefing. And none of these three --neither Mr. Panetta, nor Mr. Lake nor Mr. Berger -- ever considered the information sufficiently alarming to brief the president. (At one point, within days after the scandal exploded in early March this year, Mr. Berger, who became national security adviser in early 1996, claimed to have briefed the president in April 1996, but the White House now insists the president was not briefed until July 1997, after DOE officials briefed Mr. Berger a second time.) Either these three senior White House officials are among the most incompetent aides ever to serve a U.S. president, a prospect that, admittedly, is difficult to believe in Mr. Panetta's case. Or they are lying…."

Associated Press 7/26/99 Barry Schweid "...The United States is prepared to use force to protect civilians against genocide in Africa and elsewhere under certain specified conditions, President Clinton's national security adviser said Monday. Sandy Berger, an architect of the air war against Yugoslavia over Serb mistreatment of Kosovo civilians, set out three conditions for similar American intervention in strife-torn Rwanda or any other nation where a government undertakes a "systematic effort to eliminate a people.''.... However, Berger said, the United States would be prepared to step in if three conditions were met: There was a systematic effort to eliminate an ethnic group; the United States had a national security stake; and the U.S. military had the capacity to act...."Had the United States done nothing,'' Berger said, "an entire people would have been erased.'' ..."

THE WASHINGTON TIMES Ben Barber 7/30/99 "...According to a former government official, who insisted on anonymity, the White House created a Strategic Planning Directorate, which used the State Department and USIA to pressure American reporters into favorable coverage of the U.S. troop deployment in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It came into being just prior to the 1996 presidential election. "I heard them talk about it in conference telephone calls --how they had to control the media out there, the bureau chiefs, because if the Republicans picked this up [the Clinton administration] would be exposed as having no foreign policy," said the former government official. Shortly after President Clinton won re-election in 1996, the administration announced that U.S. troops would not be home by Christmas, as promised. Today, nearly three years later, some 7,000 U.S. troops remain in Bosnia....The source said that USIA officials and National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger tried to convince American editors not to publish accounts by their reporters who wrote that Bosnia was unsafe for Americans, that Muslim extremists were a threat, and that the warring sides would never be pacified. Ivo Daalder, who was a staffer on the National Security Council at the time, said discussions had no ulterior motives. .... " 7/29/99 Susan Jones "...New legal trouble for the Clinton White House: The government-watchdog group Judicial Watch is suing Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Adviser, in connection with the alleged Chinagate scheme. The amended racketeering/civil conspiracy lawsuit was filed in federal court on behalf of Loral shareholders - and it also names Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Huang, the Democratic National Committee and others as defendants. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Berger and the other defendants participated in a scheme "to unlawfully provide taxpayer financed government services and/or favorable treatment"[i.e., trade mission seats and export licenses] to Loral in exchange for campaign contributions...."

Judicial Watch 7/29/99 "...Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Adviser, was named as a defendant in a RICO/civil conspiracy lawsuit filed in federal court last week on behalf of shareholders of Loral. Mr. Berger, who the complaint alleges was instrumental in helping Loral obtain export waivers to China, was served with the amended complaint on Saturday evening. The newly amended complaint also names Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Bernard Schwartz, Loral, John Huang, the DNC, and others in the alleged Chinagate scheme. Schwartz and Loral were served Wednesday with the amended complaint. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Berger and the other defendants participated in a "scheme to unlawfully provide taxpayer-financed government services and/or favorable treatment [i.e., trade mission seats and export licenses] to...Loral from the Clinton Administration in exchange for campaign contributions..." The lawsuit also contends that the Clintons, Gore, Berger, and the other defendants worked with Schwartz to operate Loral as a RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) enterprise. The complaint alleges Berger previously worked as an international trade lawyer for the Washington, D.C. law firm of Hogan and Hartson, which represents the Chinese government in numerous international trade matters with respect to the U.S. Government. Berger had also allegedly been the "point person" at Hogan and Hartson for the trade office of the Chinese government. The same law firm represents John Huang, another defendant in the suit...."

The Washington Weekly ( 8/9/99 Rep Hayword, House of Representatives "...The lead story, Mr. Speaker, in today's Washington Times reads as follows: 'China Tests New Long Range Missile.' Bill Gertz, the byline, he writes and I quote, 'China successfully test-fired its newest long-range missile yesterday amid heightened tensions with Taiwan over pro-independence remarks by the island's President. The CIA believes the DF-31 test launched from a base in central China will be the first new Chinese intercontinental ballistic missile to incorporate stolen U.S. warhead design and missile technology, according to U.S. officials.' Mr. Speaker, when I read those words this morning, I could not help but reflect on the revelations that have rocked our Nation's capital and our entire country in the past several months. The fund-raising scandals, the apparent absence of concern at our Nation's nuclear laboratories, the wholesale theft of our nuclear secrets and the apparent cooperation of some in the private sector, and some in alleged government service to make it so. Mr. Speaker, what perverse pride can anyone derive from these revelations? Is there actually pride on the part of the Clinton- Gore gang and their fund-raisers this morning? Is there actually pride in the heart of Bernard Schwartz, the leading giver to the Democratic National Committee, whose firm, Loral, gave technology to the Communist Chinese? C. Michael Armstrong, the one-time CEO of Hughes, another company that gave technology to the Communist Chinese, can he feel pride at these revelations this morning? Is our national security advisor, Sandy Berger, who sat on this information and apparently withheld it from the highest levels of government, does he feel pride this morning that our Nation is at risk? How proud former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary must be this morning, with her socialist utopian vision of sharing our nuclear technology with those who oppose us in the world. And finally and sadly, how proud the President and Vice President of the United States must be. Mr. Speaker, our constitutional republic has survived scores of scoundrels and scalawags, but to have those at the highest level of government speak of a strategic partnership with Communist China and then have it revealed in the fullness of time just what that strategic partnership meant, crass partisan, political advantage through scandalous fund-raising that has led us to this sorry state of affairs...."

Washington Post 8/27/99 Ceci Connolly "…A criminal investigation into charges that Russian mobsters and politicians may have laundered money -- including diverted international aid funds -- through accounts at the Bank of New York has revived a long-standing debate in Washington over whether the Clinton administration has given too much support to a Russian government known to be plagued by corruption. As the chairman of a joint commission on bilateral ties with former Russian prime minister Viktor Chernomyrdin -- a role Gore once proudly embraced -- the vice president has been one of the targets of past attacks….. The Gore team has responded to the emerging issue with uncharacteristic speed, offering one of the most detailed accounts to date of the vice president's conversations with Russian leaders about the country's crime problems. At the same time, aides have stressed that Gore, although touted as the "most involved vice president in history," had no idea federal investigators were looking into allegations that the Bank of New York laundered billions for Russian criminals, including some with close connections to the government of President Boris Yeltsin…. Among those caught by surprise, officials said, was White House national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger. A senior administration official said Clinton aides are pressing to learn more about the investigation, and hope to be briefed soon…."

Washington Post 8/21/99 Vernon Loeb "…One month before the United States bombed the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, CIA analysts said more testing would be needed before they could firmly conclude that the plant was producing a key component of deadly VX nerve gas, as the Clinton administration maintained on the night of the strike…. "Nothing that we've learned subsequent to the attacks has led anybody to [conclude], if they had to do it over again, that they would make a different decision," one senior administration official said this week. However, in a three-page analytical paper written late last July, well before the embassy bombings or the retaliatory targeting of El Shifa, CIA analysts raised questions about what conclusions could safely be drawn from the soil sample. ….Intelligence officials also said in interviews this week that even if El Shifa did make nerve gas, they cannot explain why a high concentration of EMPTA would have been present in the soil outside the plant. EMPTA is a viscous substance that is not volatile enough to vaporize, and the plant's drainage system is unlikely to have deposited effluent in surface soil on its periphery. That uncertainty, the officials said, is another reason why CIA analysts recommended additional soil sampling at the site last July….But even in defending the attack, one administration official said that national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Defense Secretary William S. Cohen made "inaccurate" statements on the night of the attack when they said they were certain that El Shifa produced EMPTA. "We never had any evidence of that," the official said. "The correct statement, and it has been corrected, was that EMPTA was present at the plant." …"

Radio America's Blanquita Cullum 8/21/99 "…Burton said that for two years National Security Advisor Sandy Berger lied to the American People and to the Cox Committee, saying that he didn't know about it ... And then he said he did know about it, and then said he didn't tell the President about it, and then said later that he did tell the President about it ... Sandy Berger should be removed, Burton said ... He's lied to the American People, and he's lied to the Congress ... ... Burton said that at the same time the espionage was taking place, President Clinton knew he was receiving illegal campaign contributions from the Communist Chinese ... Burton said his committee has done an extensive investigation into this, leading him to believe that the President knew about the espionage and at the same time he knew he was receiving campaign contributions from Communist China ... Everybody can draw their own conclusions ... "

NY Times 8/25/99 R W Apple, Jr "…It was Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, known as Sandy, who wrote the initial offending sentence. [about putting troops in Kosovo] Both he and his boss saw fairly quickly that it was a mistake, because they realized that having plunged into the conflict with President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia, there was no acceptable alternative to a NATO victory….Berger's place at the nexus of Kosovo strategy was no surprise, nor was his concentration on the political aspects of the matter. Widely regarded as the President's closest foreign-policy aide, perhaps the most influential national security adviser since Henry A. Kissinger, he is at bottom a political rather than strategic figure….."

NY Times 8/25/99 R W Apple, Jr "…He has a closer relationship to the President than Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, who is better at formulating policies than in selling them to Clinton, or Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, a Republican who spent the first Clinton term in the Senate….. But Berger gets very mixed reviews as a security adviser from those outside his immediate circle. A European ambassador said he lacked "the indispensable ability to see around corners, to anticipate events and to see how one problem relates to another." A friend and sometime Administration colleague said Berger lacked strategic vision but "wants to be accepted as a kind of Sandy Kissinger." Kissinger himself commented rather condescendingly, "you can't expect a trade lawyer to be a global strategist."

NY Times 8/25/99 R W Apple, Jr "…Also at Cornell, where he met his wife, Susan, with whom he has lived in the same unpretentious house for 26 years, Berger encountered an important intellectual mentor, George McT. Kahin, a historian of Southeast Asia. He took the course on Vietnam taught by Professor Kahin, whose books became the testaments of the anti-war movement. His opposition to the war derived from that course, he says today, as does his habit of "questioning everything that I read." But he never marched against the war, preferring, as he put it, to work within the system, first as a summer intern in Washington for Representative Joseph Resnick, a millionaire television-antenna manufacturer from the Catskills.

NY Times 8/25/99 R W Apple, Jr "… The dovish theme continued at Hogan & Hartson, one of Washington's premier law firms, where Berger, who represented Japanese and other clients, talked often with the firm's most eminent figure, former Senator J. William Fulbright, the godfather of the anti-war movement. When he went into the State Department in the Carter Administration, he fought in the trenches alongside the dovish Secretary, Cyrus Vance, against the more hawkish national security adviser, Brzezinski, and resolved to do all he could to avoid such fights if he ever found himself in a position of real power. However much he may have hated the Vietnam War, along with most of his peers, Berger is in essence a consensus-seeker and a deal-cutter, and work as a trade lawyer strengthened those tendencies. His contacts with Asia gave him a profound belief in free trade as a means of knitting the world together a view that would color his subsequent attitudes toward China, the issue on which he has probably spent more time than any other in the White House.

NY Times 8/25/99 R W Apple, Jr "…But during Clinton's first term, says a person who held a senior position during that period, "everyone with a problem in the security area went to Sandy -- honest, helpful Sandy, who never lied -- and he built up a tremendous amount of credibility that helped him enormously once he took over." He has worked hard to maintain his network, talking by telephone as many as a dozen times a day with Ms. Albright, meeting once a week for breakfast with her and other security "principals" like George J. Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, and visiting Capitol Hill often. Senior officials in the State Department and the Defense Department praise Berger's trustworthiness and his ability to run meetings, though some of the generals and admirals are not entirely comfortable with him or any of the old anti-war crowd and their brand of cautious interventionism. The bonds of friendship between Clinton and Berger -- one of the few who has served the entire two terms at the White House under four chiefs of staff -- have held, even in bad times, such as the town meeting on Iraq in Columbus, Ohio, in May of last year, conceived in Berger's office, which ended with Cohen and Ms. Albright being shouted down.

NY Times 8/25/99 R W Apple, Jr "…Berger himself describes the event as "a complete fiasco." Nor is there any sign that Berger's standing with the President has slipped because of the Administration's difficulties with China, the country with which he is most closely identified. It is the country whose development, he once said, "will have the biggest impact on our children." To shape that development, Berger has championed a policy of engagement, in which the United States has tried to bind China to the United States through economic and security arrangements. But a lot of things have gone wrong lately, from illicit Chinese campaign contributions to the Democrats to the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Berger's biggest setback on the China front came when he was unable to persuade President Clinton in April to sign a trade deal during Prime Minister Zhu Rongji's visit to the White House. Despite his clout with Clinton, he was outflanked on this occasion by John S. Podesta, the White House chief of staff. Podesta had the foresight to win the backing of a man even more influential than Berger, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and they persuaded the President to hold out for more concessions to placate Congress. Despite efforts to regroup, no treaty has been signed yet. Even worse for Berger personally were charges that he reacted too passively when told about the suspected Chinese theft of nuclear secrets. He insists that he acted properly when told of the charges, even though he briefed Clinton only very tardily, after March of this year, on detailed charges that Berger had learned of in July, 1997. Asked if he felt that he had dropped the ball in any way, either in terms of substance or in terms of appearances, he replied, cold-eyed, "No." Berger's cherished reputation on the Hill has nonetheless taken a hit, with several influential members of Congress calling for his resignation. These calls have subsided, but he remains "very exposed and very vulnerable on this," according to a government China specialist who admires him. "He is the best link we have with China," the specialist said. "But he is viewed by our critics as someone who cares more about China than the United States, and that limits his ability to take initiatives with China. You need to explain the bombing, but you can't send Sandy to Beijing." There is also an inescapable sense that the Administration makes policy on the fly. Michael McCurry, a former White House press secretary, concedes that "we don't have a new definition of the U. S. role in the world yet." In some moods, Berger sounds as if that's fine with him. In 1991, he said during a panel discussion that most "grand strategies" were after-the-fact rationales developed to explain successful ad hoc decisions. He said in a recent conversation that he prefers to "worry about today today and tomorrow tomorrow."

8/25/99 Freeper ohmlaw98 reporting on FoxNews with Trulock "….Sandy Berger was discussed briefly...Sat in both open and closed testimony by Cox Committee....He briefed Reno in August of 1997....Reno took a very hands off approach to the case... Berger culpable! ...clearly within his authority to mandate action....Deputy secretary [Moehler] culpable...(No follow up question regarding false statements by Berger about the content and nature of Trulock's briefing...)…."

Judicial Watch 8/26/99 Larry Klayman "….Confirming most American’s fears, Notra Trulock confirmed yesterday on Fox News’ "Hannity and Colmes" that the Clinton Energy Department has covered up the espionage investigation at Los Alamos to protect high level Clinton Administration appointees, including National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. He also confirmed that the so-called Rudman Report, chaired by Republican Warren Rudman, is a "whitewash." Judicial Watch is suing Berger for alleged involvement in the illegal transfer of missile and satellite technology to the Chinese and has filed an ethics complaint against Congressman Henry Waxman for having obstructed congressional investigations of Chinagate. Judicial Watch tested Chairman Dan Burton’s commitment to ending this kind of obstruction by asking him to personally certify the ethics complaint against Waxman and other Democrats, as required under House Rules. Burton has thus far failed to act, indicating that he and many of the leaders of the Republican party continue to use Chinagate solely for political purposes, instead of working to obtain justice for the treasonous acts which have been committed. Even Congressman Christopher Cox, author of the bi-partisan Cox Report, has boasted how the Chinagate scandal will be used to influence the 2000 elections. "It is time for the Republicans to stop playing political games. Conservatives and others concerned about the wholesale breach of national security will not be fooled. There is truly a bipartisan coverup underway, and the country's interests are being sold out by both political parties," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "What we have here is a national disgrace that is doing grave damage to the country," added Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman…."

Reuters 9/5/99 "…White House National Security Advisor Samuel Berger said Sunday that U.S. and International Monetary Fund (IMF) support for Russia had yielded tangible benefits and should continue. Berger, writing in The Washington Post, said IMF assistance has helped create the beginnings of a market economy in Russia after decades of communism. ``Tens of thousands private businesses have been created. Russia's first modern middle class has emerged. With IMF help, Russia has beat hyperinflation,'' Berger wrote….."

CNN 9/16/99 Wolf Blizter AP "...President Bill Clinton may announce as early as Friday that he's easing long-standing economic sanctions against communist North Korea. Administration officials tell CNN the decision follows a commitment from North Korea over the weekend in Berlin to halt testing of long-range missiles while talks with the U.S. continue. The president's national security adviser, Samuel Berger, has recommended that the United States ease the sanctions as a gesture to encourage further progress in the nuclear talks with North Korea. A similar recommendation came from former Defense Secretary William Perry who has been the U.S. special envoy to North Korea...... An administration official said Wednesday that Perry had urged the pursuit of normal relations with North Korea at a "markedly faster pace" so long as Pyongyang forgoes long-range missile and nuclear weapons development programs. The official disclosed Perry's recommendations as Perry briefed a House panel on a report he delivered recently to Clinton on North Korea policy. If North Korea cooperates on U.S. security concerns, Perry recommended that the United States ease "appropriate sanctions" against North Korea and establish diplomatic relations. He also urged that Japan and South Korea take similar steps. Word of Perry's recommendations came just days after North Korea agreed to impose a conditional freeze on testing a long-range missile that analysts believe could be capable of reaching Alaska or Hawaii. North Korean officials said the freeze will remain in effect so long as negotiations with the United States continued....." 9/9/99 Mary Mostert "....Q "You're saying that you can engage in preventive wars to avoid ethnic cleansing, to avoid any sort of genocide?" BERGER: "I think every situation has to be taken on its own merits. And I think the President has said many times that it depends upon whether America's national interests are involved, as well as our values. I think in this case, both our values and our interests are involved. Our values are involved in preventing what I believe would be a humanitarian catastrophe. Our interests are involved in avoiding a wider conflict in Southeastern Europe, which I think would most likely involve us at some later point with far greater cost and with far greater risk. Thank you". Of course, both Croatia and Bosnia were provinces of Yugoslavia which were in the process of seceding. East Timor, on the other hand has NEVER been a province of Indonesia, having been a colony of Portugal for over 400 years. ..... After 2000 people were killed in all of 1998, 300 of whom were Serb police, postmen, farmers, etc., Clinton decided to spend billions of your hard-earned tax dollars to bomb them back to the stone age, with no concern for either Yugoslav sovereignty or its civilian population. Now we have a situation where the U.S. government not only encouraged the vote, but appropriated money to make sure it took place, but after the voting resulted in an overwhelming vote for independence we are going to just pull out the UN observers and let the Indonesian army and militia ethnically cleanse East Timor? Is our foreign policy reduced to the support of anarchy, drug dealers and murderers? ...."

Washington Post 9/10/99 "....EARLIER THIS year, after NATO's bombing campaign persuaded Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his marauding troops from Kosovo, President Clinton informed "the people of the world" that a new era had dawned. "Whether you live in Africa, or Central Europe, or any other place, if somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion, and it's within our power to stop it, we will stop it," the president declared. Now just such a scenario is unfolding. The horror in East Timor is strikingly reminiscent of Serbia's despoliation of Kosovo. Innocent civilians are being rounded up, expelled and killed by soldiers and paramilitaries who do not want East Timor to leave their country of Indonesia. As in Kosovo, whole towns apparently are being leveled, stores and homes are being sacked and burned. Catholic priests, independence leaders and their relatives are reportedly being singled out for assassination. But the administration's expansive view of its global responsibilities appears to have constricted considerably in the face of this first post-Kosovo challenge.....Mr. Berger contrasted the "humanitarian problem" of East Timor with the "strong security and strategic consequences" he said were at stake in Kosovo. He also pointed out that Kosovo is "in the middle of Europe," while "I think we have to recognize that Indonesia is in Asia." But surely a theme of the Clinton presidency has been the significance of Asia to America's future. Even more important, East Timor can no longer be viewed as only a human tragedy to be balanced against considerations of sea lanes and bank loans. If the world powers, having staked their prestige on self-determination for East Timor, can so easily allow their will to be flouted, the "security and strategic consequences" will be immense, and they will resonate far beyond Indonesia...."

Washington Post 9/13/99 Al Kamen "...."I will never use metaphors again," national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger pledged Friday--two days after bringing up his daughter's "very messy" college apartment to try to explain to reporters why the administration was not intervening to stop the bloodshed in East Timor. To make distinctions between the violence in Bosnia and Kosovo and recent events in East Timor, Berger had said: "You know, my daughter has a very messy apartment up in college. Maybe I shouldn't intervene to have that cleaned up. I don't think anybody ever articulated a doctrine which said we ought to intervene wherever there's a humanitarian problem." ...."

Chicago Tribune 9/20/99 Reuters "....The Clinton administration has traded little more than access to Coca-Cola in return for a break on what it terms a serious missile threat from North Korea, President Clinton's national security adviser said Sunday. Responding to Republican-led criticism, Samuel "Sandy" Berger defended the lifting Friday of key parts of a nearly 50-year-old trade embargo against North Korea, the world's only remaining Stalinist state. The administration acted after what U.S. officials called a pledge from the North to refrain from test-firing long-range missiles it has developed. This cleared the way for trade in consumer goods and raw materials. "So, in effect, they get Coca-Cola, and we get a temporary ban on their missile program" while talks continue on a long-term ban, Berger said in a wide-ranging television interview. ....."

The Center For Security Policy / 9/23/99 "….. Twice in as many weeks, Samuel Berger -- the China trade lawyer-cum-Democratic political operative turned President Clinton's National Security Advisor -- has prevaricated publicly about his direct, personal involvement in decision-making that led to the early release of sixteen convicted Puerto Rican terrorists. For his mendacity in this matter, if not for the content of his flawed security policy advice, Sandy Berger should at last be relieved of his duties On 8 September, Berger held a press conference in Aukland, New Zealand…… Q. Sandy, did the National Security Council, was it involved in the granting of clemency to the Puerto Ricans? Did the President discuss with you and the National Security Council? …….. Mr. Berger: Let me say this, I'm aware of no such contacts…..Then, during his appearance on the NBC Sunday morning program "Meet the Press" on 19 September, Berger repeated this line in an interview with host Tim Russert. Mr. Russert: Why did the president release the Puerto Rican terrorists from prison? Mr. Berger:….. So, again, although I was not part of that decision, I find the president's explanation perfectly reasonable... Mr. Russert: The president did not seek your advice on this? Mr. Berger: This is not -- again, I do foreign policy. Puerto Rico is not an issue that comes within the jurisdiction of the NSC. …..

The Center For Security Policy / 9/23/99 "….. This proof surfaced at a hearing called yesterday by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee's Readiness Subcommittee. The subject of the hearing was the closely related issue of the future status of the live-fire training range on the island of Vieques near Puerto Rico. Just how closely related the two questions are was evident in a note made public by Sen. Inhofe.(1) Written in the President's hand, dated 26 July and addressed to "Sandy," it refers to a 21 July letter Mr. Clinton had received from Ruben Berrios Martinez, the president of the separatist Partido Independentista Puertorriqueña. Martinez made clear that his letter was being sent from the beach of the Vieques live-fire range -- which he was then occupying, together with other nationalist trespassers:…. [I also want to] bring to your attention once more the plight of Puerto Ricans who have languished in U.S. prisons during almost two decades, for activities related to their struggle for Puerto Rico's independence....The international community views them as political prisoners, not common criminals, who deserve the exercise of your constitutional powers of executive clemency without delay." …..In response, the President sent the following tasking note to Berger (underscoring in the original): Sandy 1) I agree with this -- this is wrong. I think they don't want us there. That's the main point. The Navy can find a way to work around it -- 2) What about the prisoners[?] Need Reply…"

The Center For Security Policy / 9/23/99 "…..It is not publicly known at this time what was the nature of the Sandy Berger's "reply" to the President's tasker concerning making the Navy find a work-around (indisputably a matter within the purview of the National Security Council) and the "prisoners" (which Berger insists was not). Clearly, however, Mr. Clinton did contact his National Security Advisor about the latter subject almost two months ago. Berger's repeated misrepresentations on that score are all too reminiscent of his lack of candor with respect to other matters of high policy. Recent examples include: what he knew about Chinese spying at the U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories and when he knew it(2); his suggestions that nobody at the White House was aware until late August about reports of Russian money-laundering operations that have been going on for years; his claim on last weekend's "Meet the Press" that "China has substantially decreased its at least nuclear cooperation with Pakistan as a result of an agreement that we reached when the president went to China"(3); and his failure to keep President Clinton from making dangerously erroneous and misleading claims (e.g., to the effect that there are "no missiles pointed at our children," the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will curb nuclear proliferation, Yasser Arafat is a man of peace and the readiness of our armed forces has not suffered from their over-commitment in peace-keeping operations from Kosovo to East Timor). …."

The Center For Security Policy / 9/23/99 "….. No less importantly, Mr. Clinton needs to be told that the Navy simply cannot "work around" the permanent loss of the Vieques live-fire range. To their credit, senior military officers -- from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton(4) to Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni,(5) the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command to the two witness before Sen. Inhofe's subcommittee, Vice Admiral William Fallon (USN) and Lieutenant General Peter Pace (USMC),(6) the Commander, U.S. Second Fleet and Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Atlantic, respectively -- have been trying to tell the truth about Vieques. The question is: Will Congress listen to them, see to it that the laws against trespassing on federal property(7) are enforced against Martinez and his cohorts and act to return this vital national asset to appropriate and necessary use by the U.S. military? Or will it allow President Clinton, as with the FALN clemency decision, once again to ride roughshod over the advice of the responsible authorities, further emboldening the anti-American aspirations of Puerto Rican separatists at grave risk to national security? …"


Fox News Wire 10/21/99 Barry Schweid AP "....National security adviser Sandy Berger says the "isolationist right'' in Congress risks squandering America's global leadership by opposing treaties and foreign aid and casting China as the new enemy No. 1..... Speaking Thursday to the Council on Foreign Relations, a private group that usually supports an activist U.S. foreign policy, Berger said congressional isolationists were consumed with an impulse "to withdraw from the world in a way that would squander our advantages, alienate our friends, diminish our credibility, betray our values and discredit our example.'' ..... And, if it chose, China could pour much more of its wealth into military might and try to dominate its region - a decision it has not made. ...."

AP 10/22/99 Chris Tomlinson "....The United States will not have the authority to remain the world's leader if isolationists continue to control Congress, national security adviser Sandy Berger told a foreign policy group in a scathing criticism of Republican lawmakers. Following two major foreign policy defeats in Congress for the Clinton administration, Berger called for a national debate on foreign policy and said the administration would fight "isolationist right" lawmakers during President Clinton's last 15 months in office. "The new isolationism of 1999 fails to understand precisely what the old isolationism of 60 years ago failed to understand - that local conflicts can have global consequences," he said. "In effect, they believe in a survivalist foreign policy - build a fortified fence around America and retreat behind it. And if other nations complain ... let them, because we are stronger and richer than they are." House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas dismissed the speech as "random name-calling by a frustrated administration." Armey, in a statement, said "today's world of peace and prosperity was built on the Republican policies of free trade, a strong military, a larger NATO and support for Democratic allies like Taiwan." Former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush were not isolationists "and neither are we," Armey said....."

New York Post 10/23/99 "...The president first sounded this theme after the Senate defeated ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Now his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, is pressing it home: In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Berger charged that the "new isolationists" want to build "a fortified fence around America." Lines like that certainly make for good sound bites on the network news, but they fly in the face of reality. Yes, there is a small GOP minority whose notion of foreign policy is to stick America's head in the sand. Yet their most vociferous opponents aren't the Clintonites, but the internationalists on the Right (like this editorial page) who have been waging an open battle against conservative isolationism. Bill Clinton knows that. ........ The test-ban treaty went down to defeat because the administration - from Clinton to Sandy Berger on down - failed to present a convincing argument in its favor. That led dedicated and influential GOP internationalists like Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana to oppose ratification. In the cases of Kosovo, Iraq, Bosnia and NAFTA, Republican internationalists provided the political support necessary for Clinton to achieve his aims. For the president to now assail those Republicans as isolationists for purely partisan advantage would be like Ronald Reagan denouncing those Democrats who supported him on aid to the Nicaraguan contras back in the '80s. But Reagan - unlike Clinton - would never have done something so crass....."

New York Times 10/27/99 James Risen "....In the 14 months since President Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, his aides have steadfastly defended the decision.... But an examination of the decision, based on interviews by The New York Times with key participants, shows that it was far more difficult than the Administration has acknowledged and that the voices of dissent were numerous. Officials throughout the Government raised doubts up to the eve of the attack about whether the United States had sufficient information linking the factory to either chemical weapons or to bin Laden, according to participants in the discussions. They said senior diplomatic and intelligence officials argued strenuously over whether any target in Sudan should be attacked. Aides passed on their doubts to the Secretary of State, officials said. But the national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, who played a pivotal role in approving the strike, said in an interview that he was not aware of any questions about the strength of the evidence before the attack. ...."

New York Times 10/27/99 James Risen "....For example, at the pivotal meeting reviewing the targets, the Director of Central Intelligence, George J. Tenet, was said to have cautioned Clinton's top advisers that while he believed the evidence connecting bin Laden to the factory was strong, it was less than iron clad. He warned that the link between bin Laden and the factory could be "drawn only indirectly and by inference," according to notes taken by a participant. The plant's involvement with chemical weapons, Tenet told his colleagues, was more certain, confirmed by a soil sample from near the site that contained an ingredient of nerve gas. Berger said he does not recall that Tenet raised any such doubts at the meeting. "I would say the director was very clear in his judgment that the plant was associated with chemical weapons," Berger said. "No one in the discussion questioned whether Al Shifa was an appropriate target." ...."

Wall Street Journal 10/26/99 George Melloan "….According to Mr. Berger and like-minded theorists over at the U.N., Americans should be worried about the "bad image" projected when Congress challenges the collective wisdom of what is so frequently described as the "international community." …..A proper reply from Congress would be that its job is to weigh benefits against costs to American citizens, either in terms of money or national security. If you want nothing more than images, the world's leading expert sits in the White House. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that failed to make the grade in Congress--touching off the Berger counterattack--was long on imagery, but short on substance when subjected to rigorous analysis. It would do nothing to stop any country bent on becoming a nuclear power from doing so, or, more to the point, nothing to control the expansion of nuclear arsenals by countries, such as China, that already have them……"

Eagle Forum 11/17/99 Phyllis Schlafly "….Those who think the Bilderbergers are just a phantom of conspiracy theorists need to face the fact that Clinton's top foreign policy adviser was driven in a White House limousine on November 4 to address the Bilderbergers dining at the Library of Congress. The Library's magnificent Great Hall was an appropriate venue for a meeting of this 45-year-old elite group of Atlantic community movers and shakers. Berger's speech was entitled "Strengthening the Bipartisan Center: An Internationalist Agenda for America." Clinton's goal is an "internationalist agenda," "bipartisanism" is the road to take us there, and "isolationism" is the dragon to be slayed en route……Asserting that "global leadership is not divisible," Berger said that treaties must be used to "establish standards of international conduct," and America must respond to local conflicts. Not all of them, of course, just the ones that the internationalists choose…… Berger called opponents of Clinton's agenda a "dominant minority," a strange oxymoron. He ruefully recognized that these opponents have a "coherent philosophy" which sees "international spending as inherently disconnected to America's interests, views most multilateral enterprises with suspicion and considers most difficult international endeavors . . . as likely to fail and therefore not worth trying." Berger urged his internationalist audience "to recognize when our beliefs are being threatened" and to "defend them together."…."

New York Times 12/14/99 Jane Perlez "…. The end of the war in Kosovo was supposed to be a moment of glory for Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, who had argued passionately for the fight. Instead, in the six months since, Dr. Albright has been effectively eclipsed in foreign affairs by Samuel R. Berger, the national security adviser, who has brought his physical proximity to the Oval Office and his personal relationship with President Clinton to bear on every foreign policy issue, according to administration officials and foreign policy experts. From forging China's entry into the World Trade Organization, to the unsuccessful battle to win the Senate's approval of the nuclear test ban treaty, to shaping American policy toward Russia's war in Chechnya, to running President Clinton's 11-day trip to Europe, Berger's presence has been unrelenting. Nobody would argue that Dr. Albright has been locked out. The secretary was at center stage in the Middle East last week when the Syrian president, Hafez al-Assad, told her during their meeting in Damascus that he was prepared to resume negotiations with Israel. Her assistants were quick to note that Assad had told a visitor the week before that "nothing can happen until the lady comes." ….."


US Newswire 1/6/00 "….Text of Sandy Berger Remarks to the National Press Club ….. But I am pleased with the progress we have made, and satisfied that an active year in foreign policy has sparked a constructive discussion about America's role in the world. One reason we are where we are today is that we -- the Congress and the Administration, led by the President and Secretary Albright -- generally have maintained a bipartisan consensus about the need for American leadership, though for five of the last seven years we have had divided government. Without that consensus, we could not have opened NATO to new democracies, or approved aid to dismantle former Soviet weapons, or approved NAFTA, or created the WTO, or ratified START II, or given our armed forces the backing they needed from the Balkans to the Persian Gulf. I think one reason the protests in Seattle seemed so unusual is that we have gotten used to having more consensus about our role in the world in this decade, or at least less contention, than we had over the last three decades of the Cold War……. The duty of internationalists in both parties is not to agree on every matter of policy, but to come together around the basic principle that Americans benefit when nations coalesce to deter aggression, to resolve conflicts, to open markets, to raise living standards, to prevent the spread of dangerous weapons, and to meet other dangers that no nation can meet alone....and that a key to forging such coalitions is American leadership. That's what the bipartisan, internationalist center believes, and I am gratified that as 1999 ended, it reclaimed center stage. The Administration and the Congress agreed on a budget that restored funding for our global priorities. We agreed to pay our U.N. dues and arrears, bolstering America's credibility as a global leader…….As for China, a sense of realism cautions us to be prepared for the possibility that this emerging power emerges as a threat. But we should not presuppose that outcome, or make it more likely by acting as if it has already happened….. There is a growing recognition that war crimes and massive violations of human rights are the world's concern, even if they happen within sovereign borders. The central phenomenon of our time, globalization, plays to America's greatest strengths -- to our creative and entrepreneurial spirit -- and spreads our most cherished ideals of openness and freedom. ….."

World Tribune Online 1/10/00 ".... The United States has embarked on the largest counterterrorism effort ever, foiling terrorist cells in eight countries, a senior official says. National Security Adviser Samuel Berger said that over the last few weeks Washington worked with its allies to foil millennium attacks being planned against U.S. targets around the world. He cited an intensive effort by intelligence and law enforcement agencies. "The last weeks of 1999 saw the largest US counter-terrorism operation in history," Berger told the National Press Club last week. "Terrorist cells were disrupted in eight countries and attacks were almost certainly prevented thanks to the good work of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies." ......The national security adviser said a key challenge for the United States is to stop terrorists from acquiring biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. He said this would require continued U.S. support to nations of the former Soviet Union as well as restraining the missile and nuclear program of North Korea and Iran....."

White House 1/27/2000 Sandy Berger "……PRESS BRIEFING BY CHIEF OF STAFF JOHN PODESTA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF MARIA ECHAVESTE, NATIONAL ECONOMIC ADVISOR GENE SPERLING, NATIONAL DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISOR BRUCE REED, AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SANDY BERGER ON THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS…….Q Is he going to talk anymore about the Clinton Doctrine, the notion of intervening in sovereign countries to prevent genocide or other chaos? MR. BERGER: Well, I wouldn't describe it exactly that way. I mean, what has been called a doctrine is -- I think the President has said that where our interest and our values are threatened -- as they were in Kosovo, as they were in Bosnia, as they were Haiti, as they were in Iraq -- and where we have the capacity to act, particularly with others, we should be prepared to do so. But that doesn't mean that we can -- the United States can intervene everyplace in the world where there are wars or conflicts or turmoil. ......:

New York Times 2/6/00 David Sanger "…..President Clinton's top foreign policy adviser says Washington's decision this week to impose diplomatic sanctions against Austria is driven partly by a desire to send a message that the United States will not stand by idly if other anti-immigrant, far-right parties try to join other coalition governments in Europe. "There is a concern about whether the extreme hateful right could emerge in Europe," Samuel R. Berger, the national security adviser, said in an interview on Friday evening. "There are extreme small parties that exist in some countries," he added, clearly referring to Germany and France though carefully not mentioning them by name. The United States, he said, had to make it clear that "democracy is about more than elections, it is also about shared values." ….."

Wall Street Journal 2/8/00 George Melloan "….Sandy Berger offered a puzzling explanation Saturday of why President Clinton had imposed diplomatic sanctions on Austria for behaving like a democracy. "Democracy is about more than elections," said the president's national security adviser. "It is also about shared values." Really? Aside from raising the question of why the formation of a government in Vienna is a national-security matter for the U.S., Mr. Berger seems to have plunged rather deeply into political philosophy, quite possibly by accident. Assuming that political ideals derive from personal sets of values, it would be remarkable indeed if everyone in a democracy shared the same values. Such a happy and harmonious place would have little need for elections, or even government. Some might think though that the true function of democracy is precisely to adjust differences in points of view. Giving each individual a shot at the ballot box, with strong legal protection for minority rights, seems to do that quite well. Suppressing the expressions of values by some individuals with the purpose of establishing a polity with "shared values" has a name. It's called totalitarianism….."

US 3/31/00 "…..In meetings last week with National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Chinese President Jiang Zemin stressed the need for stable relations between the two countries and said the U.S. must shoulder "some responsibility" for the unresolved issue of Taiwan. The Chinese leader also told Berger that US-Sino relations were currently facing both opportunities and challenges. "For the fundamental interests of the Chinese and American people and everyone else, we should build healthy Sino-US. relations and make concerted efforts to achieve this goal in the new century," he said. On the Taiwan issue, Jiang said that the "one China" principle is the basis and prerequisite for a peaceful solution of the Taiwan issue and that any form of "Taiwan independence" will not be tolerated. He added that the change in leadership in Taipei does not negate the fact that Taiwan "is still part of China," according to Chinese press accounts. "We will not compromise or make any concessions on the fundamental issue concerning China's sovereignty and territorial integrity," Jiang said, stressing that issues concerning sovereignty cannot be negotiated. …… Berger told Jiang and other Chinese officials during last week's talks that the U.S. adheres to the "one China" principle. But US foreign policy makers have been forced to consider that U.S. law forbids abandoning Taiwan altogether, as it provides for American military and strategic assistance in Taiwan's defense. ……"

Townhall 5/9/00 Don Feder "……The Clinton administration, which has perfected the art of Orwellian newspeak -- a la Elian, home invasion is "the rule of law" -- can never exceed last week's performance on granting China what's now called permanent normal trade relations (PNTR). The president and his national security stooge declared that building the arsenal of our most likely adversary in the coming century is vital to our national security……… When I first saw the quote, I assumed it was from the president's comedy video. But, no, Bill Clinton was serious when he said that "from a national security point of view, it would be a very unwise and precarious move" not to end the annual review of China's trade status…….National Security Advisor Sandy Berger said rejecting PNTR would start a "downward spiral" in our relations with Beijing, which could lead to another Cold War……"

Moscow Times and REUTERS 5/19/00 Elizabeth Piper "…..President Vladimir Putin gave U.S. National Security Adviser Samuel Berger a warm welcome to the Kremlin on Thursday and the two managed to steer their round of talks away from thorny issues. Putin told Berger he remembered the "warm, friendly, personal and business relations" the two established when he was still secretary of the Kremlin's Security Council. "[Then] we quickly established a good working relationship and gave a good impetus to cooperation between Russia and the United States," Putin told Berger as they sat around a large oval table in an ornately decorated, gold and pale green room. Berger, who passed on U.S. President Bill Clinton's best wishes, joked that Putin had provided "a model for all national security advisers." ……"

Washington Times 5/16/00 Frank J. Gaffney Jr. "………For some reason, Clinton-Gore administration spokesmen and other champions of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with Communist China recently have started to recast their sales pitch. Suddenly, we are being told that eliminating annual congressional reviews of China's behavior and admitting China into the World Trade Organization (WTO) is not simply desirable from an economic point of view. For example, President Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, recently declared PNTR "essential" to U.S. national security…….. Whatever the reason, the pro-PNTR crowd's bid to offer a new and more coercive justification has the ring of desperation to it. After all, it strains credulity - given what a relatively poor China is currently doing to threaten U.S. national security and other vital interests - that a richer China will prove to be other than an even more serious, and emboldened, adversary. Consider a sampler of China's present, worrisome behavior:

• As novelist Mark Helprin recently noted in an incisive essay in National Review, China is steadily pursuing a long-term strategy aimed not only at dominating Asia, but at becoming a global superpower. Even the Clinton Pentagon has acknowledged that China sees the United States - which its military and political elite routinely refer to as "the main enemy" - as the only real impediment to realization of this goal.

• Mr. Helprin observes that it is, of course, essential for China to build up its economic power if China is to have any hope of displacing the United States in its region and countering American influence elsewhere. This principle was laid down in 1978 by the prime mover behind China's ambitious modernization program, then-"paramount Leader" Deng Xiao-ping, in his ubiquitously cited "16 Character Policy: Combine the military and civil; combine peace and war; give priority to military products; let the civil support the military."

Toward this end, China is not merely exploiting unfair trade practices - which are expected to produce a trade surplus in excess of $60 billion with the United States this year. Beijing has recently launched a concerted effort to secure tens of billions of dollars worth of undisciplined and largely non-transparent funds from U.S. investors by having People's Liberation Army and other Chinese government-affiliated entities penetrate and tap into the U.S. capital markets……"

The Wall Street Journal 5/15/00 "……Sometimes even we are amazed by the insularity of Washington. A case in point is the rush by Senate Republicans to confirm Bruce Lindsey's attorney to a critical appeals court seat only months before an election they might even win. Mr. Lindsey is President Clinton's Arkansas-friend-turned-White House counsel, the keeper of all Whitewater secrets, the man whose silence may have saved his pal's Presidency. His lawyer is Allen Snyder, whose reward for counseling the consigliere is a nomination to the prestigious D.C. Circuit court of appeals. This is the nation's second most important court, ruling on such things as White House requests for executive privilege. It's also the court that may ultimately have to rule on District Court Judge Norma Holloway Johnson's habit of assigning cases involving Clinton allies to Clinton-appointed judges……. Mr. Clinton nominated Mr. Snyder last September 22, the same day he appointed James Lyons to the 10th Circuit. Mr. Lyons is the Denver lawyer whose famous "Lyons report" helped the Clintons sweep Whitewater under the rug during the 1992 campaign. Numerous convictions later, Mr. Clinton is using these nominations as a way to both reward his enablers and revise the history of his Presidency. . …"


AP Military Writer 9/6/00 Robert Burns "……In a highly unusual exchange, senior U.S. government officials responded to Russian requests for technical data on the Aug. 12 sinking of the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk, officials said Wednesday. A State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity said President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, provided some information Wednesday to his Russian counterpart, Security Council Secretary Sergei Ivanov, during a meeting in New York. Also, the U.S. Navy's top officer, Adm. Vernon Clark, sent a note to his Russian counterpart providing some detailed information based on acoustical data collected by U.S. ships on the day of the incident. Details of Berger's exchange with Ivanov were not made public. ….."