UNDERNEWS 2/23/99 Sam Smith "...HOW THE CLINTON MACHINE HANDLES RAPE: In 1985 a relative of Bill Clinton was raped. Wayne Dumond was arrested and imprisoned in the case. While awaiting sentencing, Dumond himself was sexually assaulted and castrated by two masked men. A local sheriff, later sentenced to 160 years for extortion and drug dealing, displayed Dumond's testicles in a jar on his desk under a sign that read, "That's what happens to people who fool around in my county." A parole board, upon receiving new evidence of Dumond's innocence, voted to release him after 4 1/2 years in prison. Governor Clinton -- according to the managing editor of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette -- staged a "romping, stomping fit" and blocked the release...."

Boston Herald 2/23/99 Margery Eagan "...It remains to be seen what history makes of Bill Clinton. But one thing is clear: he has made fools of those of us who call ourselves feminists. Oh poor, poor Juanita, disparaged and disbelieved. Impeachment was January. Now it's February, and we don't care if he raped you, beat you, chopped you up in a million pieces and stuffed you in the White House freezer. It is over. Don't you get it? But silly, naive me - I expected more of a reaction to Juanita's plight, or at least some reaction, from organized feminism. After all, organized feminism, in the image of National Organization for Women President Patricia Ireland, has been on TV almost nightly for two years now arguing that whatever The First Flasher's sins, they weren't that bad. Then there was Gloria Steinem's famous pro-Clinton, pro-Monica, What's-A-Little-Consensual-Sex-Between-Interns-and-the-Boss essay a year ago in the New York Times....For Steinem, Ireland and most thinking women understand, I hope, what many others do not: that the vast majority of victims (85 percent) do not report rape; that false rape accusations are extremely rare; that rape convictions are a 50-50 proposition at best and that only 2 percent of rapists who are convicted go to prison.... What a proud, clever deal we've made, girls. Here's what Bill Clinton's done for us in return: buttressed the case for liars in civil rights sexual harassment suits, as well as for exhibitionist CEOs who troll the intern pool for sex. Now, just maybe, he's sweetened the prospects for serial sexual offenders because, you know, after the first two or three offenses, we are, frankly, bored...."

Capitol Hill Blue 2/24/99 "…The White House unleashed its smear campaign against Juanita Broaddrick Tuesday night, sending schlockmeister Lanny Davis to MSNBC to rant and rave about how "unclean" everyone should feel after discussing Mrs. Broaddrick's claims of rape at the hands of William Jefferson Clinton. "The President has denied this! It's untrue! You all should feel dirty just discussing this," Davis practically screamed. Davis said the earlier affidavit that Mrs. Broaddrick filed denying anything happened was proof that Clinton was innocent. Those words may come back to haunt Lanny. We seem to remember Clinton denying a few other things: Sex with Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, et al. And both Monica and Gennifer filed affidavits claiming nothing happened, only to later come forward and tell the truth…. Davis threw a public fit because House Impeachment Counsel David Schippers, interviewed earlier by MSNBC's John Hockenberry, referred to what happened to Mrs. Broaddrick as "rape" instead of "alleged rape."…There's no reason to believe Bill Clinton's denials. He is a pathological liar who has been caught, time and time again, in lie after lie…"

Judicial Watch Press Release 2/24/99 "…As usual, with the imminent airing of Lisa Myers' Juanita Broaddrick interview this evening on NBC, The White House and their allies are out in "full form" today destroying her character. Among their various complaints about the woman who would dare accuse the President of rape, is that she allegedly was not threatened to keep her mouth quiet. Somehow, this is an exoneration of Bill Clinton…. Judicial Watch stands ready to assist Mrs. Broaddrick and all other abused Clinton women…."

Center for Public Affairs-Ashland University 2/99 Mackubin T. Owens "…It was a defining moment in the history of the Democratic Party, illuminating with stark clarity the depths to which a once great political party has descended. Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press" had as his guest Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a passionate defender of Bill Clinton. Several years ago, Sen. Kerry had voted to convict and remove a federal judge who, like Bill Clinton, had been impeached on charges of perjury. If Bill Clinton were a federal judge, asked Mr. Russert, would you vote to convict him and remove him from the bench? Sen. Kerry squirmed, but there was no way to avoid answering the question. "Those are the kinds of hypothetical questions that get you in a bad place, " he replied. "And I'm not trying to avoid the question. It's not a question of having a lower standard [for a president]. It is a question of having a different standard. " …"

U.S. Newswire 2/24/99 "…Following is a statement in response to the rape charge alleged by Juanita Broaddrick against President Bill Clinton, released today by the Independent Women's Forum: Juanita Broaddrick's allegations move beyond sex between consenting adults, beyond criminal conduct, and into sickening and predatory behavior. Last March, responding to Kathleen Willey's assault allegations, Gloria Steinem suggested that the President be forgiven his one free grope, because, after all, he took no for an answer. In view of the emerging evidence that this President may not always have taken no for an answer, perhaps Steinem would like to upgrade her "one free grope" theory to "one free rape" -- as long as the accused is a Democrat and married to Hillary Clinton…. Meanwhile, the women who have been victimized by Bill Clinton are victimized again by public indifference. They live with their pain after the Senate, the press, the feminists and the public judged this President to be above the law, above political reproach, and inured to moral consequence. The Independent Women's Forum challenges leftist feminist spokeswomen to explain how they can ignore Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Elizabeth Gracen, Dolly Kyle Browning, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, and others. Their silence, inaction and hypocrisy proves the hollowness of leftist concern for sexual harassment, sexual violence, and the well-being of women. …"

5/16/96 "...Women Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by U.S. Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-WA), held a press conference today calling on President Clinton to immediately dismiss Dick Morris, a top Clinton advisor. Morris has been conducting polling for accused rapist... Alex Kelly, who fled the country 8 years ago to escape charges of brutally raping two teenage girls...The letter stated, "It is not enough for your White House to sweep this matter under the rug or issue weak statements such as the one by White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry our White House has touted an 800-number for battered women Yet, at the same time, you are employing a man who is assisting in the defense of an accused rapist by conducting polls on his behalf." At the press conference, the women expressed outrage at the hypocrisy of our president who, according to Tillie Fowler, "talks the talk with American women but does not walk the walk." ..."

Syndication 2/18/99 Tony Snow "…Remember when sexual harrassment, which caused scores of women to march on Washington in 1991, consisted of lewd references to an African American actor's (in adult entertainment entertainment)anatomy and to pubic hairs on Coca Cola cans? Well, either we've become highly evolved as a society, or leftist revisionist have simply rewritten history. Today we have a serial rapist as the chief occupant of the white house. Tomorrow, what will his legacy be?…."

WORLD MAGAZINE 2/27/99 Joel Belz Freeper Stand Watch Listen "...Well, yes, I too would like to see us put this whole process "behind us." I too would like to "move on" and get at the nation's business. The problem is that none of us knows exactly anymore what the words "behind us" mean, or exactly what is in mind when we say it's time to "move on." I don't say that to be clever or facetious. The most costly fallout of the failed Clinton impeachment process is not that Bill Clinton is still in office. That will end in 23 months, no matter what, and the republic might well survive his personal and presidential deviousness. The really costly result, and the big bill for our nation, is the long-term societal demeaning of truth...."

Hockenberry - MSNBC 2/26/99 Broadcast Transcript Freeper Ol' Dan Tucker "...Pat Ireland - 'Or she says she believes that. As I said, I thought she was fairly credible, but we can't say that the president who was elected, should be... You know again, we should go on some crusade or have a crusade launched to hound him out of the White House, because we don't know the truth of this. I mean, you can say we're not in a court a law, it's politics and that's true, but we have never maintained that a charge made is a charge proven. And with Juanita Broaddrick's understandable decision not to file charges, this can really go nowhere and no good can come of, you know a mud-slinging back and forth about it, we just will not ever know the truth and we all have our opinions.' ..."

The Boston Herald 2/26/99 Don Feder "...Is it hard to believe that a degenerate who would: 1) flash a lady he'd just met, who was escorted into his presence by a state trooper; 2) grope a desperate woman who came to him for a job (Kathleen Willey is lucky there wasn't a mattress handy); and 3) commence an affair with a White House intern minutes after she snapped her thong underwear at him, would have committed a sexual assault at some point in time? How proud Senate Democrats and Hollywood donors must be for helping this president cling to office in the face of clearly impeachable offenses (perjury and obstruction of justice). Are they now shocked, truly shocked, to discover that their hero, described by Vice President Al Gore as ``one of our greatest presidents,'' may be a rapist? ....When it comes to values, the American people are in a stupor. They've been told for so long that there's no relationship between private conduct and public performance that they're probably prepared to tolerate a rapist who presides over a record stock market. In fact, Clinton's behavior (in office and in hotel rooms) is disgracefully consistent. He lies, cheats, betrays and exploits without qualms. Whether it's Kosovo and taxes, or testimony under oath, he can be trusted only to be untrustworthy..."

LA Times Syndicate 2/26/99 Cal Thomas "...Following Broaddrick's rape charge against Bill Clinton, there is a deafening silence from the National Organization for Women crowd. Feminists have submitted to this president and allowed him to abuse them for the cause of abortion and gay rights. How anti-woman. How pathetic....Clinton supporters are raising the usual defenses. "What took her so long to come forward?" is the one heard most often. But feminists told us, as Broaddrick did on NBC, that many women feel shame after being raped and go into periods of denial. She also said she feared for her safety. Alleged remarks by Clarence Thomas to Anita Hill outraged feminists and brought us "The Year of the Woman." Angry female members of Congress marched up the steps of the Senate and demanded that Thomas not be confirmed to the Supreme Court. But when Bill Clinton is accused of rape, there is silence. Thomas issued a categorical denial eight years ago. Bill Clinton refers us to his attorney. Then, we were told that women don't lie about rape. We're waiting to hear what excuse feminists will make for Clinton this time...."

Capitol Hill Blue 2/26/99 Doug Thompson "...Total silence. Deafening silence. The silence that comes from guilt. That's what's coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania since Juanita Broaddrick went public with her story about rape at the hands of William Jefferson Clinton. Clinton won't answer the charges. He refers people to his lawyer. White House spokesman Joe Lockhart won't discuss it. He refers reporters to Clinton's lawyer. And Clinton's lawyer? David Kendall won't discuss it. He will only hand over a short statement that says the "allegations" that the President "assaulted" Mrs. Broaddrick are false Notice he didn't say the President didn't rape the woman who was then Juanita Hickey. He didn't claim Clinton wasn't in her hotel room. He didn't even claim there wasn't sex. He just claimed Clinton didn't assault her (and notice he didn't deny "sexual assault," just your plain, everyday, garden-variety assault). We guess it all depends on what your definition of "assault" is...."

Augusta Chronicle 2/26/99 Editorial "...Where's the outrage from the feminist Left over charges leveled at President Clinton by Juanita Broaddrick on NBC? They brushed aside sexual harassment allegations made against the president by Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey on grounds that when the women said ``stop'' he stopped. There was no stopping against Broaddrick, however. To be sure, Clinton's apologists are saying don't believe the Broaddrick charges because they're 21 years old and can't be proved. But this wasn't the song most feminists were singing in 1991 when Anita Hill's decade-old unproven charges almost derailed Clarence Thomas' confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. ..."

San Francisco Chronicle 2/26/99 Debra Saunders "...I DIDN'T believe Gennifer Flowers when she said she had an affair with Bill Clinton. I felt the burden of proof was on the accuser. Then I didn't even listen to her whole story because her accusation -- that they had an adulterous affair to which she had consented -- seemed so, well, cheesy. Then I read Clinton's own testimony and learned that he lied to the American people when he denied the affair. Now I believe Gennifer Flowers. (I still don't believe Clinton when he testified under oath that he only had sex with Gennifer Flowers ``once.'') I didn't believe Paula Jones' claim that Clinton dropped his drawers in front of her. I believed Clinton had a trooper invite Jones to a hotel suite, because there were corroborating witnesses. I could figure out what he wanted Jones for, but I didn't think he would be that crude. Then, her case was thrown out of court, and Clinton still paid her $850,000. Now I believe Paula Jones. I didn't know what to believe when Kathleen Willey came forward. She seemed credible. Her story fit with the Jones accusation and what we knew about Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. So I believed that what Willey said could be true. I didn't believe President Clinton when he told me he ``did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.'' I do believe he never would have rescinded that months-long lie if Lewinsky hadn't kept her dress. I believe Juanita Broaddrick's charge that Clinton sexually assaulted her in 1978. I don't believe Clinton's attorney's denial. I believe that this White House -- or Clinton's outside operatives -- will do everything possible to smear the reputations of women who tell the truth about Clinton. They'll sneer about book deals, they'll whisper about the women's twisted motives, they'll bash them for being poor...."

PROGRESSIVE REVIEW 2/25/99 Sam Smith "...Then there was Gloria Steinem's famous pro-Clinton, pro-Monica, What's-A-Little-Consensual-Sex-Between- Interns-and-the-Boss essay a year ago in the New York Times. "Like most feminists," she wrote, "most Americans become concerned about sexual behavior when someone's will has been violated; that is, when `no' hasn't been accepted as an answer." I thought perhaps this weekend she'd become concerned herself about the possibility, at least, that her guy's not always keen on the ``no'' end of the deal. For Steinem, Ireland and most thinking women understand, I hope, what many others do not: that the vast majority of victims (85 percent) do not report rape; that false rape accusations are extremely rare; that rape convictions are a 50-50 proposition at best and that only 2 percent of rapists who are convicted go to prison. These figures come via Wendy Murphy, who's represented dozens of sexual assault victims, and from statistics in the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. Clinton, by the way, supported that act and signed it and, no doubt, was heartened by it ...."

Drudge banner 2/27/99 "...Harkin Says He Might Have Changed His Vote ..." Freeper midmich adds "...Transcript of Fox News Sunday, September 27, 1998: SNOW: Are you saying Senator Harkin, you think there are any other women in the president's background? HARKIN: Well I don't know about that, as for 20 years ago, or 30 years ago I don't know about that. SNOW: Well, there are broadcast reports that one woman may in fact have told the F.B.I. that the president forced himself upon her, and she filed a false affidavit, while Bill Clinton was president. Would that if it we're true, be something of concern to you? HARKIN: As I understand, this happened in 1977? SNOW: The affidavit... HARKIN: 21 years ago. SNOW: The affidavit happened in 1997. SNOW: So you think a pattern of behavior matters? HARKIN: No. This -- well no what we're talking about here is this incident with Monica Lewinsky, and what's happened here. Now as I've said many times before, let's come to closure on this. And I believe the closure could happen this year. The people in this country want to move beyond it. And there's a clear choice, here. I think the elections this year is a clear choice. The Republicans are already making this a partisan issue. It should be, it should not be a partisan issue...."

MSNBC LYNXCry 2/27/99 reports "...Lawrence O'donnell on Equal Time actually said it was absolutely shameless for Gore, Reno and Shalala to hold that press briefing yesterday to announce money for "Violence Against Women"....he said at least Reno had the decency to look at the floor. He said "we dont' know if their boss is a rapist, but we don't know he isn't either". He agreed with Bay Buchanan that Clinton needs to either come forward and make a statement that he is innocent ( not that we would believe him ) or he needs to resign. Bay went on to say that the Democrats need to tell him to resign, the Whitehouse staff and cabinet need to quit, and the feminists need to tell him to resign. She said if he does not resign, then the Democrats will be held responsible. I think Lawrence may be seeing Clinton for what he is. He is a staunch Democrat and he sees it, so maybe there is hope after all...."

Freeper report 2/28/99 Willie Pete "...This absolute hypocracy needs to be highlighted. What we have here are political crimes. If you are a certain party or of a certain opinion, then it doesn't matter if witnesses are present. He said, she said crimes are all okay. If this individual was a lowly soilder or police officer she would be the first to scream "nail the Bastard!" It is getting all too obvious that certain crimes are on the books for specific classes and for people of specific ideology. The Main-stream Press outlets are wringing their hands over this story. Believe me they wouldn't be wringing their hands if this was Mr. Bob Barr or Mr Henry Hyde. I am absolutely appalled the links the major media will go to protect a Democrat. With Clinton they then have the gall to say "we may have been too tough", My God! R. Reagan would have been ran out of office if he committed a crime like "filegate". And if Reagan would have been accused of half of the sexual affairs/crimes Clinton has, Nancy, would have been considered a very, very sick woman if she would have stuck with him as Hillary has with Bill. This is an absolute demontration how depraved Hillary is...."

The New York Times 10/28/97 A.M. ROSENTHAL "…Craftily, ever so craftily, President Clinton is deceiving the American public about a critical danger to world security: China's international sales of the matériel and technology of nuclear warfare…In 1992, after selling nuclear-war matériel to Iran, Iraq and Algeria among other countries, China signed the worldwide Nonproliferation Treaty against spreading knowledge about nuclear weapons to states that did not possess them. Three years later, U.S. intelligence discovered that the China National Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation, a Beijing-controlled operation, had sold 5,000 ring magnets to Pakistan, which is trying to match India's nuclear-weapon potential…. Violating the treaty should have brought sanctions. Washington complained but imposed no penalty. China denied the sale. Then on May 11, 1996, it promised not to do it again. Mr. Clinton's speech said nothing about China's nuclear deals and treaty-breaking -- or what the C.I.A. told Congress in June 1997. The C.I.A. reported that during the second half of 1996, after the pledge to the U.S., China was still the "primary source of nuclear related equipment and technology" to Pakistan. Also, said the report, China is the world's "most significant supplier of weapons of mass destruction-related goods and technology" -- which means nuclear, chemical or bacteriological. The President did not mention China's breaking its pledge to America after breaking its treaty pledge to the world. Nor did he say that he was planning to reward China by giving it clearance to shop nuclear in America. But he will, unless Congress can block him …."

The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/ 3/8/99 Joyce Price Freeper A Whitewater Researcher "…EXCERPTS: "Monica Lewinsky's claims that she was mistreated by federal prosecutors and FBI agents when they confronted her at a Pentagon City hotel in Arlington, Va., early last year are "completely false," her former friend Linda R. Tripp said yesterday...."I was there. I was there until about 4 o'clock, when I made it clear to the FBI agents that I had to leave" to be deposed by attorneys for Paula Jones, Mrs. Tripp said yesterday in an interview on ABC's "This Week."..."At all times, they acted professional. There was no 'G-men' sort of attitude, handcuffs, weapons, this sort of thing. Never. They treated her with the utmost professionalism, given the circumstances ... they were gracious. They were polite at all times," said Mrs. Tripp, who exposed...Clinton's affair with Miss Lewinsky by giving independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr tapes of her phone conversations with Miss Lewinsky....Mrs. Tripp said she felt compelled to come to the defense of Mr. Starr's investigators, given the "horrifying" way they were portrayed in Andrew Morton's new book, "Monica's Story."..."

Reuters 3/6/99 "… The officials, commenting on a story in The New York Times, denied one aspect of the report — that the Clinton White House tried to downplay the espionage because it clashed with efforts to improve relations with Beijing. One official said the theft of nuclear secrets apparently took place in the 1980s, but was only brought to Clinton's attention in 1997. "Once he learned of it he increased security at the labs. It was something that happened a long time before,'' the official said. "He acted quickly, but you don't draw attention to something like that.''… At the request of the committee, headed by California Republican Rep. Christopher Cox, the CIA and other agencies are conducting a thorough damage assessment, the paper said…." [Please compare WH statement to Timeline 1997 around October…]

Original Sources 3/9/99 Mary Mostert "… In 1996 Bill Clinton told reporters he was "not told about the June 1996 FBI warnings of Communist Chinese involvement in the 1996 presidential election." However, it was later learned that president Clinton not only KNEW about it, but that he subsequently made a thwarted attempt to obtain the counterintelligence information about what the FBI had learned of the Communist Chinese influence on the presidential election in November of 1996. Charles Ruff, Clinton legal counsel who most recently defended him in the Senate Impeachment trial, made the FBI contact. Ruff contacted Janet Reno's deputy Jamie Gorelick and wanted to know what federal investigators knew or suspected about Chinese illegal contributions to the presidential campaign. However, when FBI director Freeh learned of the White House probe by Gorelick, he ordered the information not be provided to Clinton, federal law enforcement officials told the Daily Republican in 1997. In a New York Times story Ruff was quoted as telling Gorelick he was seeking the information on behalf of the National Security Council…. However, law enforcement officials pointed out that Ruff's request was received only after FBI director Freeh had left Washington on a trip to the Middle East. In his absence, attorney general Janet Reno and Gorelick quickly moved to obtain the secret FBI files. Before the Justice Department turned over the FBI files to Clinton's legal counsel, Robert Bryant, then head of the FBI national security division, picked up the telephone and informed Freeh of Clinton's probe for the secret files on the Chinese investigation. Freeh ordered the files withheld. And people wonder how come the Senate of the United States was never able to get Janet Reno to obey the law of the land and appoint an independent counsel to investigate the Chinese money that helped get Clinton and Gore elected…."

Daily Republican 3/9/99 William Heartstone "…But, the Clinton White House insists that it should be the Ronald Wilson Reagan administration who is to blame for the loss of the advanced nuclear warhead technology, according to Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger. Mr. Berger told reporters over the weekend, "...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." However, the Mr. Clinton had not begun to tighten security until after the news hit the streets on Saturday, nearly seven years into the Clinton administration. According to information pieced together in the past three days, the Clinton White House has known the details of the security breach for over two years and has failed to take any corrective action until news accounts were made public on Saturday…."

Reuters 3/9/99 "…Referring to allegations China had stolen secrets used to make small nuclear warheads from the United States during the 1980s, Gore said, "This happened in the previous administration, and the law enforcement agencies have pressed it, and pursued it aggressively with our full support.'' He said during the course of the investigation Clinton had issued a "brand new presidential directive that fixed problems we had inherited and changed and vastly improved the security procedures.'' …"

Drudge 3/9/99 "…The White House is resisting a House panel's efforts to make public information about how the Clinton administration has handled China's campaign to acquire sensitive American military technology. NEW YORK TIMES hotshot reporter Jeff Gerth is building a Tuesday, Page One story, according to publishing sources, on the development. A special bipartisan committee and the administration have been quietly negotiating how much of the report could be publicly released, reports Gerth, but in recent weeks the discussions have entered a sensitive stage. The special committee goes out of business at the end of the month…. Elsewhere, KNIGHT RIDDER is planning an exclusive story by reporter Michael Dorgan on how China has created a vast espionage network in the United States that has penetrated not only the nation's nuclear weapons labs but also many corporations whose technology China covets for commercial as well as military purposes…."

CNN Business Day Transcript 3/10/99 "…DEBORAH MARCHINI, CNN ANCHOR: Mr. Secretary, Hughes Electronics just canceled a $450 million satellite sale to a Chinese-led consortium because the Clinton administration withdrew its previous approval of that sale. Is that related at all to this espionage case? DALEY: No, it's not, it's a totally separate situation. The licensing process that Hughes had gone through, they came back for an amendment and, after reviewing it, the interagency process made the decision that it was not an appropriate sale, that's all. MARCHINI: The timing's not great though is it? DALEY: No, it wasn't, but the fact of the matter is, that license application had been before the agencies for a little while. It's unfortunate, obviously, Hughes is a fine company as are many other U.S. companies who have sold there satellites around the world and they have helped our industry and have helped the world move closer together in telecommunications. We are at the cutting edge and we are the best providers of these communications systems for the world. And so it's unfortunate to see a U.S. company lose an opportunity that would mean jobs here, but the inter-agency process worked, and I believe Hughes will have plenty of other opportunities to sell their satellites. DEFTERIOS: Well, that raises an interesting point, Mr. Secretary. I'm looking at your list of CEOs accompanying you to China at the end of the month here. I see Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Westinghouse. They all produce sensitive defense electronic products. Do you think some safeguards need to be put in place now? DALEY: Well, there are safeguards in place and they have been in place. The fact is, all those companies you mentioned are involved in military, but are also involved in the commercial side of technologies. That's what drives it is the private sector that develops these technologies, not only for the private sector but also for the militaries and for our military. They must stay on the cutting edge. They must do well in order to be able to produce the sort of technologies that our military needs but at the same time produce the technologies that the private sector takes advantage of and therefore improves our overall economy. It's important to have these companies who both produce military but also produce the vast majority of our high-tech, private sector technologies that have made our world so advanced in the last 25 years…."

Investor's Business Daily 3/10/99 Editorial "… Democrats have named their agenda for the 106th Congress. They're calling it ''Family First.'' And with shameless chutzpah, it's being touted by that model of family values, the top Democrat, President Clinton. But it appears Democrats are dead serious. And that would make them dead wrong about who's being put first. The only family they're trying to put first is the family of Democrats. Family First looks much like the president's State of the Union wish list: reserve a large part of the Social Security surplus to prop up Social Security; shore up Medicare; spread more education lucre; hike the minimum wage; favor constituent groups with tax cuts; and throw together a patients' bill of rights. When Democrats rallied behind their agenda last week, Clinton focused on another of his party's goals: to kill the GOP's across-the-board tax cut proposal. He called it ''irresponsible.'' By now it's clear the president thinks the American taxpayer simply hasn't the sense to properly handle his money. Only our omnipotent federal government, he keeps saying, is smart enough to spend it in the right places…."

HardBall 3/10/99 Freeper williams "…[Richardson] Asked if they [China] can be trusted with involvement in the Panama Canal or at naval facilities in California, he stated they could be trusted. He also said he does not believe China is a communist country any longer, because it is moving to a "free market" system…."

Jewish World Review 3/10/99 David Corn Freeper Maracellus "…The...landscape is covered by a snowfall of Clinton prevarications...related to matters much less frivolous than a one-sided sexual romp....Deputy State Department spokesman James Foley declared that charges of U.S. espionage within UNSCOM were "unfathomable except as elements which can only serve Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine." This was the diplomatic equivalent of "I did not have sex with that woman" finger-wagging....The official Pentagon line is that U.S. pilots are merely replying to Iraqi efforts to shoot down U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zone....A U.S. official told the Post that allied aircraft were flying into certain areas to provoke the Iraqis to turn on their radar, which then could be bombed by the U.S. and British jets....In his State of the Union speech...Clinton...boasted, "We're restoring the Florida Everglades." You can guess the rest. Last week, a front-page story in The New York Times revealed that credible experts -- far more credible than the President -- say Clinton's project will do little to revive the Everglades....The lies pour forth...on the important stuff: national security, environmental policy....Bill Bennett and his amen chorus on the right whine about declining standards of truth and morality. The problem with the political culture is not the absence of outrage; it is the widespread presence of selective outrage. …"

The Patrick Henry Center, Fairfax, Virginia 3/10/99 Gary Aldrich Freeper A Whitewater Researcher "…...former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to stand trial...Cisneros had tried to argue that it was not a crime to lie to FBI agents...Statement of Gary Aldrich...: "When I wrote my book in 1995, I reported the many people associated with this Clinton Administration who lied straight-faced to career FBI agents and other national security officers during official interviews. Each time they lied to a FBI agent they violated Federal law! Most of these Clintonites were allowed to continue working in the White House, and...throughout the Executive Branch, even though their outrageous lies were exposed....the real possibility that the liars in the Clinton Administration have set our nation on a collision course with Communist China by allowing China to obtain critical data related to missile technology. While taking campaign cash to ensure reelection, it appears they ignored evidence that China has stolen secrets related to the construction of nuclear warheads…"

Washington Times 3/11/99 Freeper Trailer Trash "…As might have been expected, in response to the burgeoning Chinese espionage scandal, the Clinton administration wasted little time unveiling its "Blame Ronald Reagan First" strategy. Vice President Al Gore will be the man to deal with any electoral repercussions, and so the White House dispatched him to CNN on Tuesday to spread whatever disinformation he could. In no mood to accept responsibility, Mr. Gore put on a very disingenuous show. Coming from the man who coined the phrase "no controlling legal authority" to absolve himself of any guilt for shaking down Buddhist monks and nuns …"

AP 3/10/99 "…Briefed in 1996 about possible espionage at the Los Alamos laboratory, top White House national security officials did not determine until almost a year later there were ``serious problems'' requiring changes at the nuclear weapons labs, officials acknowledge. It was not until early 1998 that the concerns led to a presidential directive to raise security and hire more counterintelligence experts at the federal labs holding America's top nuclear secrets. Sandy Berger, the president's national security adviser, said in an interview that he received first word in 1996 that China may have obtained critical nuclear warhead information from Los Alamos. But only after a more detailed briefing in July 1997 from the Energy Department were security problems involving China and the labs brought into sharp focus. ``I heard enough in the July '97 briefing to believe we had a serious problem,'' said Berger, now traveling with President Clinton in Latin America…. One GOP presidential aspirant, Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire, said Berger should be fired if reports about the security lapses and delay in investigating are true…. White House spokesman Joe Lockhart, decrying ``Republican attack politics,'' dismissed such suggestions…. Berger said that after the 1997 DOE briefing, he asked an NSC official, Gary Samore, senior director for nonproliferation issues, to have the CIA evaluate what security damage might have occurred. Also, an interagency task force review ways to improve lab security. In February 1998, Clinton imposed new safeguards, including tighter security checks on foreign visitors to labs and the hiring of more counterintelligence personnel. The Energy Department brought in a former FBI agent, Edward J. Curran, to head a new counterintelligence office…." [Alamo-Girl: still looking for a Berger/WH response as to why Congress was not notified in 96 or 97]…"

Reuters 3/10/99 Steve Holland "…President Clinton said Wednesday he would enforce U.S. polices against illegal immigration despite an outcry in Central America. ``Most illegal immigrants are not by nature lawbreakers. Most are looking for the chance to live in dignity,'' Clinton said in a speech to the El Salvador Legislative Assembly. ``Nevertheless we must continue to discourage illegal immigration for it undermines control of our borders ... and even more punishes hard-working people who play by the rules and who wait for their turn to come to the United States. ``Therefore we must enforce our laws, but we will do so with justice and fairness,'' he said…."

Scripps Howard News Service 3/12/99 Lance Gay "…For two decades, the FBI has warned that China is trying to steal American technology in an effort to make another ``great leap forward.'' ….. ``There has been a multi-decade effort that continues today targeting America's most sensitive military technology by the People's Republic of China,'' Cox said. ….Republicans who recall that Bill Clinton once pilloried George Bush for ``coddling dictators'' with his open-door policy toward China, contend Clinton is now responsible for the loss of technological secrets that not only allow China to build more advanced missiles, but equip them with nuclear bombs designed in the USA. ``This is a nightmare. It is almost beyond comprehension,'' said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., a longtime critic of allowing U.S. manufacturers to use Chinese missiles to put their satellites into space. Rohrabacher contends the practice allows the Chinese to perfect their rockets and obtain secrets from American satellite manufacturers -- a charge the manufacturers deny. Clinton said his administration has been aware of Chinese intelligence activities involving America's nuclear secrets, and took steps to increase security at weapons laboratories ``We did not ignore evidence,'' Clinton said. He said congressional committees have had 16 briefings on the matter. Clinton and some moderate Republicans cautioned against straining U.S. relations with China by criticizing Beijing for spying. ….. "

Seattle Times 3/11/99 Editorial Freeper Stand Watch Listen "…the only two credible sources are Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., and Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., the chair and ranking member on the select committee. Cox describes the case as a "multi-decade effort that continues today targeting America's most sensitive military technology." Cox and Dicks are both pushing hard to declassify their report in its entirety. A partial, sanitized version, with responses from the White House, is circulating among members of Congress…."

AP 3/12/99 Michelle Mittelstadt "…Congressional Republicans pounced gleefully on Vice President Al Gore's claim that he was the impetus behind the Internet, accusing the Democrat of rewriting history. Even under the time-honored tradition of politicians taking credit for everything, Gore's statement is an ``outrageous claim,'' House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said Thursday…. ``During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet,'' he said when asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey. The Internet, originally called ARPANET, dates to 1969, when the Defense Department began funding the project. Gore, then 21, was still eight years away from joining Congress. Said Armey: ``If the vice president created the Internet, then I created the interstate highway system.'' He wasn't alone in tweaking Gore…."

Washington Times 3/12/99 Bill Gertz "…

Newsmax.com 3/12/99 "… Is the Clinton marriage really on the rocks? Or did the White House carefully leak news of domestic discord to FOX News and Matt Drudge to change the focus from charges of rape and nuclear espionage? It's difficult to know, given the Clintons' long history of skillfull media manipulation. Who can forget the way White House spinmeisters played the press like a violin, when, at the height of Monicagate, cameramen were allowed to film the first couple in a "candid" beachfront embrace. To make sure the clip got wide exposure, Clinton mouthpiece Mike McCurry loudly complained about the "invasion of privacy," thus guaranteeing maximum public interest in the corny Kodak moment. The torrent of tawdry revelations has been unusually fast paced of late, even by Clinton standards. And so it's hard to tell a real White House marital rift without a scorecard. [see Timeline 2/19/99 – 3/11/99]…"

Washington Times 3/99 Editorial "…It was Oct. 2, 1995, the day of the deliberations in the O.J. Simpson trial. The jury took only four hours to reach its decision; the court scheduled the reading of the verdict for the next day. In the White House, Mr. Clinton and his advisers tried to prepare -- would there be riots if he were found guilty? If he were declared not guilty? The president's aides prognosticated about the jury's decision. Mr. Stephanopoulos predicted "guilty." So too then-chief of staff Leon Panetta. But not Mr. Clinton's alter-ego, Dick Morris, who cited polls: "Eighty percent of the blacks in the country think O.J.'s been framed or that there was police misconduct. He's innocent." Mr. Clinton chose not to venture a guess about the outcome, but he did express surprise that the verdict came so fast. According to Mr. Stephanopoulos, Mr. Morris responded, "That kind of impetuousness is characteristic of blacks." Was Mr. Clinton shocked that his key adviser would say something with such unpleasant racial overtones? This is, after all, the president who has made racial healing the official centerpiece of his second term. The Stephanopoulos excerpt includes nothing to suggest that Mr. Clinton was at all uncomfortable with expression of color-coded stereotypes -- indeed, he allowed their use in the Oval Office by his top strategist. Not only is the man a sexual opportunist (and perhaps even a predator), President Clinton is a phony…."

"President Clinton claiming credit for increasing trust is like Vice President Gore claiming to be the father of the Internet." Rep Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich) 3/13/99 in response to Clinton’s weekly radio address.

Daily Oklahoman 3/14/99 Editorial "… Worse, The Times says Bill Clinton's national security advisor, Sandy Berger, and his staff downplayed reports from Energy Department investigators assessing damage from the thefts. It seems top officials did not want anything to surface that might have hurt Clinton's 1996 re-election bid. The Times also says the administration kept Congress in the dark, with a top official ordering one of Energy's intelligence officers not to divulge what he knew about the breach to a House committee…. Clinton relaxed export controls so U.S. firms could sell supercomputers to China, which intelligence experts believe are now being used at the Chinese equivalent of Los Alamos. The administration reacted with lethargy to reports of spying -- preferring, as Vice President Al Gore did this week, to blame the Reagan administration, on whose watch the original thefts apparently occurred…."

Newsmax.com 3/14/99 "…Why did Bill Clinton wait three years to remove Nukegate spy Wen Ho Lee -- when the White House reacted instantly in Travelgate, firing Billy Dale and his co-workers six years back based on totally trumped up charges? That's what commentator-turned-presidential-candidate Pat Buchanan wants to know. Appearing on Sunday's "Meet the Press" Buchanan put the Nukegate-Travelgate comparison to moderator Tim Russert: "Look, this administration preaches responsibility and accountability. And they tell us they can't clean out a nest of spies in America's atomic laboratories, who have stolen the most vital secrets since the Rosenbergs went to the electric chair. And they can't get it done in three years when it took an afternoon to fire the White House Travel Office, the enitre Travel Office, over a false allegation of alleged pilferage in the petty cash drawer. I don't think that's acceptable." …"

[Compare this statement to the Timelines and Export Reg 742] Washington Post 3/15/99 Page A17 Bill Richardson "… In 1995 U.S. officials became concerned that China might have acquired sensitive information from one of our nuclear weapons laboratories in the mid-1980s. Although the compromise of information, if it did occur, came more than a decade ago and its extent is uncertain, the Clinton administration has treated and will continue to treat this matter with the utmost seriousness…. the administration has reinforced its effort to ensure strong controls on technology transfer to China. The United States does not sell any military equipment to China or export dual-use items for military use. We also limit the export to China of dual-use items for civilian use to minimize the risk of unauthorized diversion. When we have detected possible diversion, the United States has acted quickly to address the problem…. Our consistent objective has been to establish policies that allow for legitimate commerce and interaction with China while protecting classified information and sensitive technology…. Through our efforts to improve cooperation, China has cut off assistance to unsafeguarded nuclear facilities in Pakistan, terminated nuclear cooperation and export of anti-ship missiles to Iran, strengthened controls over chemical weapons-related materials and cooperated with the United States on international arms control issues and regional proliferation concerns in South Asia and the Korean peninsula…."

New York Post http://www.nypost.com/ 3/15/99 Steve Dunleavy by Freeper A Whitewater Researcher "…EXCERPTS: "PRESIDENTIAL hopeful Pat Buchanan summed up the crisis of the nukes-and-spooks scandal with the beautiful simplicity of sunlight...."It took just an afternoon to fire the entire travel office of the White House over a false charge," he said...."But it took three years to remove someone who allegedly transferred the most vital secrets since the Rosenbergs."...Russian nuke spies Julius and Ethel Rosenbergs today are a memory of an electro nic vapor since they bought it in the chair in 1953....Richard Miller, a turncoat FBI agent, will never see the light of free day since he was convicted in 1986 of spying for the Russians and was convicted to two life terms....Jonathan Pollard, convicted in 1987, will be very old and ugly when he smells fresh air outside of a prison for his treachery....Aldridge Ames, another rat bastard, got life in 1994 for his spying.... Earl Edwin Pitts will be wearing false teeth before he is freed for spying for the Soviets inside the FBI, after he was sentenced in 1997..."

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. 3/11/99 Thomas Sowell "…The next time someone says that Bill Clinton is "doing a good job" as president, despite whatever personal failings he may have, ask just what specifically has Clinton done well. The usual answer is that the economy is booming and we have peace. By this standard, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have to be ranked as the worst president of all time, since we had both the worst war and the worst depression on his watch. Do the Clinton supporters believe that? Once we move beyond the political superstition that good times are a result of good presidents, there are very few specific things done by the Clinton administration that have turned out well and a number that have turned out badly. The most fundamental duty of government -- to protect this country militarily -- has been very irresponsibly neglected and has created the potential for future tragedy…."

Freeper ohmlaw98 reports 3/15/99 "…I also found this interesting....(From The NY Times Gerth piece tonight): Lee was allowed to retain his access to U.S. nuclear secrets and remain in a highly sensitive job at Los Alamos for more than a year after the bureau urged the Energy Department to cut off his access to classified material and move him to a less sensitive position. Now read what Berger said on Nightline...."SAMUEL BERGER 1996, excuse me, a briefing from the Energy Department that they had evidence that somehow the Chinese had acquired technology with respect to a nuclear weapon. They did not know who. They believed they knew when. In ’97, I got a second briefing…"

Office of U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) http://www.senate.gov/~inhofe/ 3/15/99 "…Apparently a spy at the Energy Dept’s Los Alamos weapons lab succeeded in transferring data on this highly classified W-88 warhead technology to China in the mid-1980s. But our government did not find out about it until April 1995. (This is a critical date. We did not know about the theft until April 1995.) Detection came when experts analyzed data from then-recent Chinese underground nuclear tests and saw remarkable similarities to the W-88 U.S. warhead. Later in 1995, secret Chinese government documents confirmed that there had been a security breach at Los Alamos. 1995. Deputy National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was first briefed about it in 1996. President Clinton did not respond then because he was obviously a little preoccupied with what he considered more important matters at that time. After all, there were White House fundraisers to host, foreign campaign contributions, satellite transfers to approve, high technology trade with China to promote, and–of course-- an election to be won...at all costs. Mr. Berger was well aware of all this. We know he sat in on all the key campaign strategy meetings in 1996. This was also the time when President Clinton was running around the country telling audiences that "for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there is not a single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight. Not one. Not a single one." Of course, everyone cheered, believing it to be true. Of all the lies this president has told, this is the most egregious of all. He repeated this misleading, deceptive lie over 130 times between 1995 and 1997, right at the very time he and his national security advisors knew that this horrible breach of nuclear security had occurred and was under investigation. It was also at that very time that he knew that up to 18 American cities were being targeted by Chinese long range missiles–missiles that had and have the potential of killing millions of Americans. And during this time he said it 130 times: "For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there is not a single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight. Not one. Not a single one." …"

Reuters 3/21/99 Gareth Jones Freeper LPH2 "…Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov heads to Washington this week for talks with U.S. leaders and international creditors which are widely expected to either make or break his government's efforts to rescue Russia's economy. ---- Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said today the International Monetary Fund made the right decision last summer in providing emergency loans to Russia even if part of the money ended up in foreign bank accounts held by rich Russians .... Rubin sought to clarify remarks he made to Congress on Thursday in which he seemed to indicate that much of the $4.8 billion in loans ``may have been siphoned off improperly.'' …"

Universal Press Syndicate 3/17/99 Joseph Sobran "…"Induction never ends," philosophers say. In strict logic, you can't infer a universal truth from any number of individual cases…. This lesson has been taken to heart by defenders of President Clinton. No matter how many women accuse him of making gross sexual advances, most feminists refuse to draw conclusions about him. They prefer to draw the conclusion that a lot of women make baseless charges, except Anita Hill. Besides, what does it matter whether Bill Clinton assaulted a woman 20 years ago? It's time to abandon the sexual witch-hunt and move on to the issues the American people really care about, such as whether Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' son…. And the same Senate Democrats who deemed Robert Bork unfit to be a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court have deemed Clinton fit to be president. Such apparent inconsistencies may actually mask a consistent principle the Democrats and feminists don't want to acknowledge…."

Capitol Hill Blue : The Rant 3/17/99 Doug Thompson "… Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson says he's going to "get to the truth" of just why the Chinese were able to poke their noses into this nation's nuclear labs and gain access to sensitive nuclear secrets. That's a laugh. Bill Richardson wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on his lard ass. He's a known liar, just like his boss and mentor, Bill Clinton. Before Richardson started serving as a Clinton buttboy in the cabinet, he was a New Mexico Congressman who began his political career 19 years ago by lying in his campaign brochures. To discover Richardson's true character, go back to Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 1980 when Bill was trying to unseat longtime Republican Congressman Manuel Lujan. Richardson ran a spirited campaign, spending more than $300,000 (an unheard of sum in New Mexico Congressional elections in those days) and almost beat Lujan, who won by just 50.1 percent. During that campaign, Richardson's brochures claimed he had served as a "foreign policy advisor" for Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota. But when reporters checked with Humphrey's office, the good Senator from Minnesota said Bill has been an unpaid intern in his office, a far cry from being old Hubert's "foreign policy advisor." Richardson tried to explain the lie away by saying he was interning on "foreign policy matters" and wrote advisory papers for the Senator, but the explanation didn't wash. Humphrey staffers said Richardson, like most Capitol Hill interns, was an office "gopher" and didn't have a damn thing to do with policy matters, foreign or otherwise…. Clinton considers Richardson a close friend. When he was trying to find somewhere to hide Monica Lewinsky last year, he sent her to New York to get a job with his old buddy who was serving as U.N. Ambassador. Richardson, ever the good soldier, offered Lewinsky a job on his staff. She turned it down. Richardson apparently wasn't as good a prospect for office sex as Clinton. But still the ultimate Clinton team player, Richardson lied through his teeth when questioned about his role, saying Clinton's problems had nothing to do with his desire to help the poor little former White House intern. As a member of the Clinton cabinet, Richardson has found the perfect place for a politician with questionable ethics…."

Investors Business Daily 3/18/99 Freeper Mulder "…While criticizing the GOP for neglecting the poor, Democrats are proposing increasing taxes on cigarettes, which are borne mostly by lower income citizens…."

Wall Street Journal 3/17/99 James Lilley Freeper Rodger Schultz "…Indeed, the administration seems to view this case more in terms of its political fallout than its significance to national security. Vice President Al Gore, for instance, noted that the main security breach at Los Alamos took place during the Reagan years, as if the former president were somehow to blame for spying of which he was not aware. Mr. Clinton's supporters are now trying desperately to gut the 700-page congressional report on illegal technology transfers and Chinese espionage in much the same way they bottled up the report on Chinese illegal campaign funding…."

USA Today 3/17/99 Peter Eisler "…The Department of Energy requested at least 19 FBI investigations last year after internal reviews indicated classified or sensitive information was leaked, stolen or compromised at U.S. nuclear weapons plants and laboratories. The referrals were among a host of "critical" security concerns noted in internal DOE briefing material prepared last summer for incoming Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. The ongoing investigations suggest that questions about the agency's safeguards go far beyond those raised by recent revelations that a scientist at Los Alamos (N.M.) National Laboratory may have passed nuclear weapons secrets to China in the mid-1980s. "There has been an alarming increase of instances where nuclear weapons design, intelligence and other national defense information has been either compromised or placed at risk," said the June 1998 memorandum prepared by DOE security officials. Other problems noted in the briefing material and other internal reports obtained by USA TODAY include a backlog of 4,000 "reinvestigations" that need to be done on DOE personnel whose security clearances are beyond their five-year re-examination date. Deficiencies in security forces, alarm systems and other safeguards at several sites also were cited as "critical issues." FBI officials declined comment on the status or direction of any investigations based on DOE referrals. Internal DOE memos say some of the cases involve "disclosures of classified and/or sensitive unclassified information, including potential nuclear computer codes, to foreign nationals," though there's no indication of what countries may be involved. Others focus on unspecified compromises of records by telephone, e-mail and fax machines as well as through the media….Despite the rise in referrals, DOE officials say nuclear weapons material and information is well-protected…."

WorldNetDaily 2/16/99 Charlton Heston at Harvard "…. If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe. Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism. But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation? The answer's been here all along. I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people. You simply ... disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely. But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom. I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King ... who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau and Jesus and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might…."

Capitol Hill Blue 3/18/99 Doug Thompson "…"Mr. Blumenthal told the President the presence of such protesters could affect his job approval numbers," one White House source said. "It was his idea to concoct the 'security threat' issue so the Secret Service could be instructed to keep the protesters out of sight."…"

New York Times 3/18/99 John Broder "… The Clinton White House seldom lets a popular parade pass by without leaping to the front, or at least latching onto the last carriage. In years past, President Clinton was a late but fervent convert to Republican crusades on the balanced budget, IRS abuses and a federal law discouraging same-sex marriages. Clinton has once again joined a popular cause, this time national missile defense, the latest version of the much-derided "Star Wars" anti-missile program of the Reagan era. Clinton added $6.6 billion for missile defense to his Pentagon budget request in January and this week dropped his opposition to a bill he had threatened to veto. Clinton on Tuesday abruptly withdrew his objections to a Republican-sponsored Senate bill calling for the development of a limited missile defense system. He did so after Democrats drafted two face-saving amendments that allowed the White House to assert that the bill would not jeopardize arms deals with Russia or commit the United States to building an untested system…."

CNN 3/18/99 Ann Curley "…Flanked by a group of senior citizens, House and Senate Democrats held a rally slamming the GOP budget proposal, saying it sacrifices the ailing Medicare program for tax cuts. At the heart of the matter is a Republican budget proposal calling for the use of projected budget surpluses to fund billions of dollars in unspecified tax cuts, along with $1.8 trillion over 10 years to save the ailing Social Security program…."

Creators.com 3/9/99 Linda Bowles "…One of the defenses of Bill Clinton spun out by his apologists is that the people of America have always known what they were getting when they voted for him. Everything about him was in full view from the beginning. I challenge these defenders to produce one politician or one ordinary citizen who knew before voting for him that Clinton was a cheat, a sexual predator, a chronic liar and believably a rapist. But now, there is no longer the excuse of ignorance or reasonable doubt. When Democrats honor and applaud Clinton, they do it knowing what he is and what he has done…."

Jewish World Review 3/23/99 Cal Thomas Freeper Marcellus "…..chronicling Clinton's lies would produce a very thick book. Here is a tiny sample: ... In 1993 Clinton pledged never to deploy American troops overseas unless U.S. strategic interests were threatened and there was a clear military goal with a firm exit strategy. In 1995 Clinton said he would deploy troops to Bosnia for 18 months and they would then come home. In 1998 Clinton sent thousands of additional troops to Bosnia with no exit strategy and an open-ended commitment. He's now proposing to do the same in Kosovo.... Clinton promised in 1992 not to raise taxes, saying he would actually cut them. In 1993 he authored ... the largest single tax increase in U.S. history.... June 1992: ‘‘I will support a balanced-budget amendment. February 1995: ‘‘Obviously I don't support it.'' …"

New York Daily News 3/22/99 Charles Krauthammer Freeper starlu "…Mike McCurry, asked by the BBC about Clinton's fitness to be President, said, "I have enormous doubts." Former press secretary Dee Dee Myers, former chief of staff Leon Panetta, former senior guru David Gergen — all agonize publicly over the same question. Even old friend Robert Reich has said, "Mr. Clinton has no presidency to defend." When his former aides feel a mixture of embarrassment and even guilt at having helped this man ascend to power, how can the rest of the country salute him with any conviction ...it was more than just the power of Juanita Broaddrick's charges that altered the post-impeachment mood. It was the shame visited upon Democratic leaders who were required, by party loyalty and the stock they had already invested in Bill Clinton's innocence, to dismiss her charge as just a "he said, she said" rape story, so "let's move on."…"

Capitol Hill Blue 3/22/99 Doug Thompson "…President Bill Clinton lied repeatedly during his Friday press conference, avoiding the truth when discussing the China spying scandal, his relationship with his wife and charges that he raped Juanita Broaddrick, an analysis by two experts shows…."

Jewish World Review 3/22/1999 Mona Charen Freeper Marcellus "…According to ... Bill Clinton, unequal pay continues to beset American women. Columnist Ellen Goodman argues that ... earn 74 cents on the dollar compared with men. President Clinton cites the same figure and hopes for passage of legislation that would permit the Department of Labor to evaluate jobs and tell employers what to pay each employee.... The wage gap ... is a crude comparison of the wages of all men compared with the wages of all women. It does not take into account education, training, time on the job, or full or part-time work.... the most important factor in the wage gap ... children.... the more children a woman has, the more her income is likely to suffer. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth finds that among workers ages 27 to 33 who have no children, women's earnings are 98 percent of men's…."

NY POST 3/22/99 Marilyn Rauber "…Chinese spies were "deep" into top secrets at U.S. nuclear-weapons labs, it was reported yesterday - two days after President Clinton said it was unclear if any spying ever took place. Although Clinton insisted on Friday that the spying allegations have "not been fully resolved," an official close to the probe told Newsweek magazine: "The Chinese penetration is total. "They are deep, deep into the labs' black programs," the official was quoted as saying. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson also seemed to contradict Clinton, confirming on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the Chinese did steal nuclear secrets…. Sen. Bob Kerrey (Neb.), the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, told CNN he was "a bit troubled" by Clinton's didn't-know-about-it denial. Kerrey said his panel was told about the spying concerns in July 1996 and responded in 1997 and 1998 "with increased money for counterintelligence."…"

Judicial Watch Press Release 3/24/99 "…George Stephanopoulos, a key figure in the Filegate scandal, gave sworn testimony that materially contradicts information he revealed in his recently published book. The facts about this are revealed in a Judicial Watch court pleading from its Filegate suit seeking to have the Court hold Stephanopoulos in contempt of court for, among other things, walking out of a Court-ordered deposition …on February 20, 1999. Judicial Watch also asks the Court to fine Stephanopoulos until he fully complies with the Court’s orders. In his March 9, 1998 Filegate deposition, Stephanopoulos denied under oath keeping notes on official matters at the White House, saying only he kept "some personal notes" which were "all about my private life..." Yet in his book Stephanopoulos admits that, contrary to his sworn testimony, he kept or used detailed notes, chronologies of official events at the White House. He kept these notes at the suggestion of William Safire. At his deposition, Stephanopoulos also denied having and using materials such as tape recordings for his book, but he now incredibly admits in his book that he made tape recorded notes with the help of left-wing writer Eric Alterman. Stephanopoulos’ newly revealed White House recordations cover subjects ranging from Bosnia, to gays in the military, to campaign finance…"

WORLD Magazine 3/27/99 Cal Thomas Freeper Stand Watch Listen "…Just once it would be refreshing to hear a word of truth from the Clinton White House. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson wants the public to believe the administration has been on top of the leaks that have allowed the Communist Chinese to get their hands on who knows how many of our secrets. ....Why have Chinese arms and drug dealers and members of the People's Liberation Army enjoyed regular access to the White House, the Pentagon, and top research facilities (which they continue to have) unless a deal was struck between desperate politicians eager to hold on to power and desperate Chinese Communists eager to know how to build more efficient weapons of mass destruction and acquire the missile technology and guidance systems to deliver them? ....Mr. Richardson fired the Los Alamos scientist suspected of being a major conduit for U.S. secrets. His explanation for waiting so long lacks credibility and ranks up there with Al Gore's claim to Internet paternity…."

WORLD Magazine 3/27/99 "…On March 6, the paper broke the story of the Los Alamos leak. Two days later a humiliated Mr. Richardson finally fired Mr. Lee. The timing was too convenient, even for the Washington press corps. "Mr. Secretary," said an incredulous Cokie Roberts on ABC's This Week program, "there was a story in The New York Times on Saturday, you fired the guy on Monday. That does appear to be a direct response to breaking the story." Mr. Richardson, however, insisted that he had delayed taking action in hopes that Mr. Lee, while under surveillance, would provide incontrovertible proof of his guilt. He claimed he finally fired Mr. Lee only when "the FBI gave the green light to me that by firing him we would not compromise any investigation that they were doing." What he failed to say was that the alleged spy could hardly have been unaware that he was a prime suspect. Mr. Lee had been confronted by the FBI as early as Dec. 23, had already failed two lie-detector tests, and had refused to cooperate any further. Investigators by that time had questioned him about an unauthorized trip he took to the Chinese mainland in 1988. Although he reportedly acknowledged that Chinese agents had approached him during his visit, he insisted that he had rebuffed their advances. By mid-March, the feds had still not charged Mr. Lee in the spy scandal. He was fired, according to the Energy Department, because he violated departmental guidelines by failing to disclose his Chinese trip, as required by his security clearance…."

Washington Times 3/25/99 Jerry Seper "...Interior Department officials who told a federal judge they could not find records describing the department's oversight of American Indian trust funds have been accused in sworn affidavits of destroying the documents to conceal them from the court. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who held Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt in contempt last month for not turning over the records in a lawsuit, ordered hearings on the accusations yesterday after being told Tuesday the documents had been deliberately destroyed. The suspected destruction was outlined in the affidavits given to the judge during a status hearing in a lawsuit brought by the Native American Rights Fund....."

Judicial Watch Press Release 3/25/99 "...Today, Larry Klayman, Chairman and General Counsel of Judicial Watch, who, prior to founding the public interest group in 1994, was an international lawyer, expert in European government, and fluent in French and Italian, issued the following statement: "The genocide in Kosovo is appalling. But why have the American people only just been informed of this, and the need to take action to prevent another Holocaust? Was it that Bill and Hillary Clinton did not want to broach the subject during the volatile events of the Lewinsky scandal, when loss of American life in defending Kosovo could have cost them The White House? Is this one of the 'hundreds of times' the President boasted about during his recent press conference that he did not lie to the American people? Where were Clintons' foreign policy advisers during this period? In addition to suppressing evidence of Chinese espionage for the same reasons, were they also playing political games with the people of Kosovo..."

Helen Chenoweth "...In the run-up to our war with Yugoslavia, Congress was permitted by its leaders to carry out an impotent charade of debate. On March 11th, the House approved a non-binding resolution endorsing the use of American troops to enforce a peace agreement between the Yugoslav regime of Slobodan Milosevic and secessionist leaders in Yugoslavia's Kosovo province. On March 23rd, just hours before Solana issued the order to begin the bombing, the Senate approved a resolution supporting the military campaign. But Clinton Administration officials, including the President, had by that time made it clear that while they sought approval of the military action from Congress, they did not consider it necessary for Congress to authorize the military strike on Yugoslavia.....In order to appreciate the depth of the Administration's deception regarding the war over Kosovo, it is necessary to understand that the war was "authorized" by NATO long before the bombing began on March 24th. The day after the war began, the London Telegraph reported that General Clark, NATO's supreme military commander, "received his activation order for hostilities last October. The order was the official moment when authority over the forces to be used was transferred to him from the top brass of the member countries supplying them. The supreme commander does not need new permission from politicians or diplomats whenever he wishes to change tactics, or increase or scale back operations." At 1:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time on March 24th, with American bombers en route to Yugoslavia and just minutes before the first explosions were reported on the ground in Kosovo, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart explicitly admitted that the power to take our nation into war had been surrendered to a foreign official - namely, the NATO Secretary-General. Lockhart was asked by correspondent Helen Thomas, "Who gives the green light on this now? Is it the President himself, or the Supreme Commander of NATO...?" Lockhart replied, "The Supreme Commander of NATO acts on the authority of the political leaders of the NATO countries, and he has that authority." In brief, the power to declare war in Kosovo was exercised by NATO Secretary-General Solana; the power to make war was given to NATO's Supreme Commander; the President of the United States played the role of "selling" the war to the public, and Congress was tacitly told that its duty was to rubber-stamp the decision to take our nation into war, and to authorize payment of the resulting expenses...."

AP Wire 4/1/99 "...President Clinton says he does not see his impeachment as ``some great badge of shame'' and believes historians will judge there were political motives behind Congress' action. In an interview Wednesday with CBS News, Clinton said he felt ``honored'' that the impeachment gave him a chance to defend the Constitution. He said the American people saw the impeachment as an attempt by Republicans to undermine his presidency. ``Those that did not agree with what I had done and were furious that it had worked and that the country was doing well, and attempted to use what should have been a constitutional and legal process for political ends, did not prevail,'' Clinton said. ``That's the way I saw it.... ``But I do not regard this impeachment vote as some great badge of shame. I do not,'' Clinton said. ``I do not believe it was warranted and I don't think it was right.''..."

Washington Post 4/2/99 William Claiborne "...An Interior Department lawyer who says he refused an order to get rid of Indian trust records involved in a class action lawsuit against the government has testified that more than half the documents are now missing. The lawyer, Ralph Williams, who had the job of reconciling discrepancies in the trust accounts, said in a deposition that he refused to dispose of the material because he believed that doing so would be illegal. But when the documents--which he said he returned to the department when he left the project in January 1998--were shown to him Wednesday as part of the deposition, Williams said, "That's not even half of it," according to a transcript made public yesterday.....The allegation by Williams, who is under a court order protecting him as a whistleblower from retaliation by the Interior Department, came just six weeks after Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt was cited for contempt by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth for failing to produce documents sought by Indian trust account holders as evidence in their lawsuit against the government..... Williams, who still works in the department solicitor's office, said in the deposition and in an affidavit released by Lamberth last week that Interior Deputy Solicitor Edward Cohen told him that once he had reconciled payments to and disbursements from the trust accounts, "any other information which was inconsistent from my findings could be purged from the files." Williams said he believed that complying with Cohen's directive "could have resulted in the destruction or removal of information relating to payments" to Indians and pertinent to the lawsuit. At another point in his testimony, Williams said Cohen "did not want anything I produced . . . [that] would not support the numbers that I was supposed to pull together after spending five weeks on this project. Everything else, he said, we could get rid of it if it doesn't support this."..."

The Pioneer 4/3/99 K.P.S. Gill "... The tragedy that is being played out in Yugoslavia has critical lessons for India, especially when it is viewed, not in isolation and within the context of the hysteria that naturally attends a war, but in a perspective that accommodates the larger patterns of emerging geopolitics. The most obvious of these lessons regards the utter irrelevance of the United Nations in general, and of the Security Council in particular, once the US and its "allies" ("subject states" would be more accurate in at least some cases) -- who now unilaterally express the "will of the international community" -- have made up their mind on a particular course of action. It is, consequently, high time that India discarded its pitiful hankering for a permanent seat in the Security Council -- the position is quite worthless. A second and more important lesson arises out of the elaborate and relentless campaign that created the opportunity for NATO's intervention. There is now increasing evidence that claims of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Kosovo were grossly exaggerated, ignoring entirely the atrocities committed by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), in a process of the demonisation of Serbs orchestrated through the Western media. This is not to say that Mr Slobodan Milosevic is free of sin, but only that there is another side to the picture, and it has been substantially suppressed. Indeed, so great is the distortion that when Mr Clinton chose to describe what was happening in Kosovo as "genocide", the United Nations saw fit to clarify that "there was not enough firm evidence" to term the events in the province a "genocide"...."

WORLD Magazine 4/10/99 Joel Belz Freeper Stand Watch Listen "...Crunch time is near at hand in Yugoslavia and Kosovo. Time is running out on a man who likes to be thought of as a leader. But the issue isn't nearly so much a fellow named Milosevic as it is a man named Clinton. You can pretend you're in charge of things for only so long-but sooner or later, your moral skinniness shows through....we've heard the refrain from the liberal skeptics: "It's just a civil war. Why should we get involved?" Sometimes, perhaps, we should have listened to such restraint when we didn't. But certainly such caution is called for in Yugoslavia, where the Kosovo province has been part of that country's boundaries since 1918. How can 42 Democratic Senators who wouldn't support military response to Iraq's 1990 attack on Kuwait now with any consistency put our country's weight behind either side in Yugoslavia's internal conflict?..."

4/4/99 Freeper Tobias observes "...If you check out the other threads on today's LA times article linking Chung money to Chinese intelligence, you might notice the denial of knowledge on the White House's part regarding how savory they thought Chung was at the time. [Quote from article]On Friday, White House spokesman Jim Kennedy said the administration had no knowledge about the source of Chung's donations during the 1996 campaign and declined to comment on "allegations regarding intelligence matters." Really? From your timeline.... March, 1995 - Richard Sullivan voiced suspicions to Fowler, DNC, that Chung was acting as a conduit for illegal contributions from the Chinese. April 7, 1995 In an e-mail message, NSC official Robert Suettinger opined that Johnny Chung was "a hustler" trying "to show one and all he is a big shot, thereby enhancing his business." Also in '95, although no specific date is given..."In a special briefing, Intelligence warned about Chinese plans to influence elections." But then, Chung is bringing groups of Chinese to trhe White House, and forking over money directly afterward.... March 9, 1995 Johnny Chung and his delegation arrived at Evan Ryan's office around 11:30 a.m. Ryan then escorted them to the White House Mess for lunch, after which they were given a private tour of the White House. After the tour, Chung and his delegation returned at approximately 2:00 p.m. that afternoon and were escorted to the Map Room by Ryan for their photo opportunity with the First Lady arranged by her assistant Margaret Williams. After the photograph, Ryan returned with the group to her office, where Chung told her that "he wanted to give his contribution to Maggie and wanted to have her get it to the DNC." According to Ryan, when she stepped into Williams' office to inform Williams of Chung's desire to do this, Williams asked Ryan to bring Chung into the office. As Ryan stood at the door of Williams' office, Chung handed Williams an envelope containing a check for $50,000 made out tothe DNC. But the White House, after the warnings and intelligence briefings, still had no clue. Right. And yet.... You can read this from the Burton comittee report... Chung and the delegation did attend the radio address on March 11, 1995. At the conclusion of the address, Chung introduced the President to his Chinese associates. Pictures were taken with the President and each delegation member. In addition, the delegation presented the President with a large heart-shaped piece of jade. All of this was captured on videotape by the White House photographer's office. According to Nancy Hernreich's Senate deposition, the President became concerned about the delegation after having had his picture taken with them: A: As I recall it, the President said to me, "You shouldn't have done that, or we shouldn't have done that." Q: Done what? Help me. A: Well, the Chinese, have the Chinese at that radio address. Q: Why not? A: I don't know. He didn't say. Q: Did you have any understanding of what he was talking about? A: Yes, generally. Q: What was your understanding? A: Well, that these were foreign, either officials or, you know, inappropriate foreign people. This was my understanding of that. If the White House thought Chung was clean in the '96 election cycle, why was the president nervous about having his picture taken with Chung's Chinese pals he brought to the White House? Nancy Hernreich wouldn't make this up, would she?...."

Freeper katze observes 4/4/99 "..."Rick Hess, a spokesman for the DNC, said that the party "was unaware of any supposed relationship" between Chung and the Chinese government at the time of the contributions. In 1997, the Democrats returned a total of $366,000 donated by Chung over a three-year period." The above para from the article, is incorrect, OR the FEC is not updating returned contributions. As of 5 minutes ago, $23K has been refunded in the 97-98 cycle, and $15K during the 95-96 cycle. I've been watching this for 2 years. Funny thing, tho, the $250K contributed by Cheong Am (Johnny Y.K. Lee) entry has been removed recently. I've also been watching this entry, and as recently as 2 months ago, the contribution was shown, but no reversal entry. Now nothing appears for the 95-96 cycle. No recent word on what happened to the $600K+, plus interest, collected by Charlie Trie for Clinton's Defense Fund. The last I heard, since many (probably most) signatures were "illegible", and addresses were not known........... you know the rest...."

NYT Op-Ed 4/03/99 Anthony Lewis "...U.S. policy toward the terrorism of Slobodan Milosevic has been constrained in the past by our public's wariness of military involvement abroad. We remember Vietnam and Somalia. But that political-psychological calculus may have changed, I believe, under the impact of the Serbian atrocities in Kosovo. Most Americans do not want to temporize with Milosevic. We want to finish the job. President Clinton, in his CBS interview with Dan Rather the other night, said he "would urge the American people ... to have a little more resolve here." But the people are looking to the president for resolve. Those terrified women and children stumbling out of Kosovo are on our conscience now. When Rather observed in the interview that Milosevic was winning in Kosovo, Clinton replied, "We knew that that would happen in the first few days." If he knew, why weren't he and NATO prepared to act much more decisively? ..."

Washington Times 4/5/99 Barbara J Saffir "...Campaigning around the country in 1992, Arkansas Gov. Clinton repeatedly attacked President Bush for selling satellites to China in the wake of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. The Democratic nominee labeled Mr. Bush's trade policy "yet another sad chapter in this administration's history of putting America on the wrong side of human rights and democracy."

But the candidate who promised voters "an America that will never coddle tyrants, from Baghdad to Beijing," quickly embraced his own policy of "constructive engagement" in China and now finds himself on the defensive amid reports the Chinese stole sensitive U.S. nuclear secrets. The Clinton administration's policy on China took a "violent pendulum swing," said James Lilley, a former ambassador to China who is now a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "They have moved from a sort of endless emotional confrontation during his first term where they insulted the Chinese on human rights" to starting "military exchanges way beyond anything that made any sense," Mr. Lilley said...."

The Times of India 4/3/99 K. Subrahmanyam "....IN India we have been witness to the world's worst ethnic cleansing exercises. The 1947 partition saw six million non- Muslims cleansed out of Pakistan. Roughly the same number of Muslims went over from India to Pakistan though that was not in the nature of ethnic cleansing; the majority of Indian Muslims stayed on and have since fully participated in building a secular, federal democratic state. Now there is enough evidence to prove that the viceroy, Lord Wavell, the British defence establishment and the Commonwealth Office engineered the partition from 1946 onwards. In 1971, the subcontinent witnessed the largest ever ethnic cleansing in all history when a million Bangladeshis were slaughtered and another ten million were driven out into India. At that stage the Nixon Administration in the US supported General Yahya Khan, and according to the recently published Kissinger transcripts, had attempted to coax the Chinese into taking military action against India. Ethnic Cleansing When the Vietnamese evicted the genocidal Pol Pot regime from Phnom Penh in December, 1978, the Western powers led by the US supported Prince Sihanouk's coalition whose mainstay was the Khmer rouge. That ensured that Pol Pot's appointee represented Kampuchea in the UN General Assembly. The allegations as regards the recent large-scale ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and Burundi are that arms for those who perpetrated the geneocide came from a Western European country. The racist white minority regime in South Africa received full support from Mrs Margaret Thatcher. In fact, it was with technological help from Western Europe that the apartheid regime was able to manufacture nuclear weapons. The Kurds in Turkey have been fighting for, not secession, but autonomy for well over 70 years and yet the West backs the Turkish government's military action against the Kurds. This is the background against which we in India have to assess the crocodile tears shed in sympathy for Kosavars by the British, the Americans, and others who have today joined the campaign for refugee rehabilitation through bombing of water supply, bridges and other targets in Yugoslavia. Would they own up in public their past sins and make restitution to Bangladeshis, Cambodians, Vietnamese, South Africans, Rwandans and Burundians and Kurds before they lecture sanctimoniously on Milosevic's crimes? ..."

The Cincinnati Enquirer 2/1/98 Peter Bronson "...A guy who lies about his appetite for fast food wouldn't hesitate to lie about his appetite for sex. Hamburgergate is typical of the serial lying that has turned the White House into the Home of the Whopper. A partial list: his dishonest letter to evade the draft, ''I never broke the laws of my country'' (because he ''didn't inhale'' in England), ''the worst economy in 50 years,'' ''the first 100 days,'' ''I never said the first 100 days,'' shady Whitewater deals, cattle futures, ''I can't recall,'' Travelgate firings, ''missing'' documents, ''only a few FBI files,'' Waco, ''no vacancy'' in the Lincoln bedroom, ''no controlling legal authority'' (oops, Al Gore), Asian campaign donations, ''everybody knows that I have tougher ethics rules than any previous president,'' and so on, right up to the extravagant boast during his speech Tuesday night: ''We now have the smallest government in 35 years.'' (And somehow, also the most expensive.) After all that bushwa, folderol and shameless hooey, we are supposed to believe his petulant denial of a sexual affair with a young White House intern? No way. The only thing harder to believe than Bill Clinton is the people who still believe Bill Clinton...."

Associated Press 3/25/99 Karen Gullo "…Stepping from behind the grand jury's wall of secrecy, the forewoman in the Monica Lewinsky inquiry said she sympathized with President Clinton but would have voted to indict him for perjury if prosecutors had asked her to. In an interview with The Associated Press, Freda Alexander described her 18 months on the grand jury as emotionally intense. She defended Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr but said she sometimes felt sorry for Ms. Lewinsky and presidential secretary Betty Currie as they were pressed to testify about the president. She portrayed Linda Tripp, the co-worker who turned Ms. Lewinsky in to prosecutors, as determined to damage Clinton…."

American Spectator 3/25/99 The On-Line Prowler "…The Clinton administration, and the Energy Department in particular, have painted Rep. Christopher Cox and his staff on the special oversight committee on Chinese spying and trade into a difficult corner. Cox and his committee worked for almost a year without allowing a single leak of the sensitive material they were uncovering. Cox promised his Democratic colleagues no leaks would occur and the report would not be used for political purposes. But now that the White House has a copy of the report, leaks about some of the report's most damaging allegations are hitting newspapers. This includes the information that the administration knew about Chinese spying at Los Alamos for more than two years and did nothing about it. "Cox promised not to leak anything, and he wants to keep that promise," says a Cox aide. "But the White House is screwing up big time." Cox is currently negotiating with the White House on what in the report can and can't be declassified for public consumption. "The White House looks at a section where we charge spying directly, and present 15 or 20 solid pieces of evidence to prove it, and [Energy Secretary] Bill Richardson's people come back and say, 'We need you to say "spying could have occurred," and redact all those pieces of evidence.' They claim it's all because of national security concerns. It's all B.S. Then we see parts of the report leaked to the New York Times." If Cox can't get further cooperation from the White House, he intends to ask the House to declassify the report, and bypass the White House altogether…."

The Daily Republican 3/28/99 Milosh Milenkovich "…President Bill Clinton's address to the nation about the Kosovo crisis on Friday was filled with inaccuracies and falsehoods. Sadly, the President's address contained so many serious errors of fact that any truth he may have intended, was lost. Truth must not be the first casualty of this war. As a direct consequence, our nation faces disaster. Take Kosovo autonomy, for example. The decision to change Kosovo's autonomous status in 1989 was not taken by Slobodan Milosevic alone. It was a consensual act signed by all the constituent republics of then Yugoslavia, including Kosovo. Its purpose was to amend the 1974 Yugoslav constitution and to avoid paralysis of federal business caused by the veto of a single province. The use of Albanian Language is another example. Kosovo's Albanian population has never been denied use of their own language or access to Albanian language schools. The Albanian-language university in Pristina and the many Albanian language newspapers published in Kosovo attest to this fact. Take the dissolution of Yugoslavia, for another. Serbia did not start the wars with Croatia and Bosnia. These were precipitated by the actions these republics and by Slovenia in declaring illegal and unilateral independence in violation of the then federal Yugoslav constitution. Premature recognition of these illegal acts by the European Union and the wider international including the United States, negated the negotiation process and made war inevitable. Then, there is that "Moral Imperative". The claim to a "moral imperative" is false. The U.S. took no action in 1995 when over 250,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Croatia. In the present situation no such moral authority has been conferred upon the NATO action. Pope John Paul has described this as a "defeat for humanity." NATO is acting without UN authority and in direct violation of international law as framed in the UN Charter, the NATO Treaty, and the Helsinki Accords. …"

Chicago Sun-Times 3/28/99 Robert Novak "…At President Clinton's White House meeting Tuesday with important members of Congress, Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas interrupted his argument for using force against Serbia by saying: ``That's not true, Mr. President!'' During the briefing, Clinton repeatedly contended that NATO-U.S. bombing had ended the war in Bosnia and would achieve the same result in Kosovo. When the senior Republican senators present (Majority Leader Trent Lott and Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner) said nothing, Hutchison felt she had to object. A Senate defense appropriations subcommittee member who has visited Bosnia often, Hutchison pointed out that the Bosnian Serbs agreed to peace terms not because of U.S. air strikes but because they were losing the ground war to Croats and Muslims. After her interjection, Clinton did not repeat his claim…."

HoustonChronicle.com (editorial) 3/28/99 Dr. Ronald L Hatchett "…THE primary justification for our military strikes against Yugoslavia is its refusal to sign the Kosovo peace agreement put forward by the United States. and its allies at Rambouillet, France. The president told us that the Albanians chose peace by signing the agreement even though "they did not get everything they wanted." The Serbs, he said, refused to negotiate, even though the agreement left Kosovo as part of Yugoslavia. However, as in several other instances over the past months, the president is telling us only part of the story…Under the agreement, "Kosovo will have a president, prime minister and government, an assembly, its own Supreme Court, constitutional court and other courts and prosecutors." "Kosovo will have the authority to make laws not subject to revision by Serbia or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including levying taxes, instituting programs of economic, scientific, technological, regional and social development, conducting foreign relations within its area of responsibility in the same manner as a Republic." "Yugoslav army forces will withdraw completely from Kosovo, except for a limited border guard force (active only within a 5 kilometers border zone) "Serb security forces "police" will withdraw completely from Kosovo except for a limited number of border police (active only within a 5 kilometers border zone)." The parties invite NATO to deploy a military force (KFOR), which will be authorized to use necessary force to ensure compliance with the accords." "The international community will play a role in ensuring that these provisions are carried out through a Civilian Implementation Mission "appointed by NATO"." …"Three years after the implementation of the Accords, an international meeting will be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo on the basis of the will of the people." …."

Albion Recorder 3/20/99 Meghan Murphy "…Thursday night in Albion College's Olin Hall, David Schippers, chief investigator in the U.S. House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry of President Clinton, spoke on the process that he and his staff went through during the investigation….. The auditorium fell into a mass gasp as Schippers gave a shocking example of a conversation that proved just that. Less than half an hour after senators had taken their oath to uphold justice in our country while conducting the impeachment trial, he witnessed the following conversation between Committee Chair Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), and a Senator Schippers declined to identify. "Henry, you know no matter what ya' got, you'll never get 67 votes," the Senator said. Hyde retorted by saying that the evidence they had is very strong. "I don't care if the president raped a woman and then stood up and shot her dead," said the Senator. "You will not get 67 votes."…"

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. 3/28/99 Paul Greenberg Freeper eleven "…In his first post-Moronica press conference, Bill Clinton explained that he'd told only one lie, and it should be balanced against all the times he'd told the truth. Hmmm. Down that crooked line of reasoning lie all kinds of questions. For example: Does this mean the president now admits he lied about Monica, and didn't just "mislead" the country for eight months? Does it mean he lied under oath in both civil and criminal proceedings, too? Or is that a question he's still leaving to his lawyers, like any inquiries about Juanita Broaddrick? Is he still compartmentalizing his lies and truths, and how can he tell the difference?…"

CNN 3/27/99 Jill Dougherty AP Reuters "…In Russia, another traditional Serbian ally, protesters staged a third day of rallies outside the American and British diplomatic missions in Moscow. About 5,000 protesters, many of them elderly, gathered near the U.S. Embassy, where Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov and other speakers assailed the airstrikes. The demonstration started peacefully but turned violent as younger people joined in. In the Duma, the lower house of parliament, Russian lawmakers held an emergency session to condemn the bombing of Yugoslavia. …."

Wall Street Journal 3/29/99 Herbert Stein "…The centerpiece of President Clinton's fiscal policy is his intention to use the budget surplus to save Social Security…… The riddle starts with the first table in the budget on page 2, titled "Receipts, Outlays, and Surplus." The first two lines are receipts and outlays, from 1998 to 2009, in which the receipts exceed the outlays in every year. You might naively think that the excess of receipts over outlays would be the surplus. But no, the excess is called "Reserve Pending Social Security Reform." The "Surplus" in the next line is exactly zero in each of the 12 years…."

Associated Press 3/29/99 Peggy Harris "…Kenneth Starr's prosecutors today rolled a videotape of Susan McDougal discussing Whitewater with a TV network less than a week before refusing to testify to a federal grand jury about it. With Mrs. McDougal's criminal contempt trial in federal court entering its fourth week, prosecutors are trying to show that she had no basis for refusing to answer their questions as they investigated President and Mrs. Clinton's actions in Whitewater….. At the time of the TV taping, Mrs. McDougal knew she would be appearing before a grand jury in Starr's probe. She had been subpoenaed the same day she was sentenced. She declined to answer the grand jury's questions just five days after doing the ABC interview…..Mrs. McDougal's lawyer at the time, Bobby McDaniel, was furious that she had done the TV interview, saying ABC producer Chris Vlasto had gone behind McDaniel's back to get it. Vlasto says it was Mrs. McDougal who contacted him to say she was prepared to "tell all.'' In a Wall Street Journal article that has come up repeatedly in Mrs. McDougal's trial, Vlasto wrote that Mrs. McDougal's brother, Bill, and her fianc De, Pat Harris, stopped her from answering questions during the TV taping about whether Clinton knew of the fraudulent $300,000 loan. Vlasto also quotes Mrs. McDougal as having told him "I know where all the bodies are buried.'' Last week on the witness stand, Mrs. McDougal denied that she'd ever said she knew where bodies were buried, but that she had seen her dead ex-husband, James McDougal, quoted as making such statements…."

AP Peggy Harris Freeper Trailer Trash 3/29/99 "…Kenneth Starr's prosecutors showed a TV interview Monday of Susan McDougal from 1996 in which she failed to tell a dramatic story about how she'd been pressured to say she had an affair with Bill Clinton. As Mrs. McDougal's criminal contempt trial entered its fourth week, prosecutors rolled a videotape for a jury in federal court, with the Clintons' former Whitewater partner describing the hatred she felt for Starr's office…."

Washington Post 3/27/99 Helen Dewar "…With some reluctance, Congress voted to authorize military operations in Yugoslavia, with large majorities of Republicans in both chambers voting no. But it was the rancor and intensity of feeling throughout the debate that was far more telling. The GOP distrust, anger and frustration that fueled the Senate's impeachment trial are further eroding already strained relations between Clinton and Congress on foreign policy as well as domestic concerns….. "His [Clinton's] believability level is virtually nil among Republicans on Capitol Hill," said Marshall Wittmann, director of congressional relations for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "They don't believe him even when he tells the truth." ….But lawmakers express fear that the cumulative effect of the sour feelings will make it especially difficult to resolve their biggest problems, such as overhaul of Social Security and Medicare. It could also complicate the handling of new international crises, they say. ….Even though Clinton won votes to authorize military operations in Kosovo over the past two weeks, the margins were less than overwhelming: 219 to 191 in the House to support U.S. participation in a peacekeeping mission and, after peace talks failed, 58 to 41 in the Senate to authorize airstrikes against Serbian forces. ….As an example, McCain said Congress went along with deployment of troops in Bosnia after Clinton said he planned to bring them home within a year. The fact that they were still there four years later as Congress debated another Balkan engagement did not inspire trust, McCain added….. House intelligence committee Chairman Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), who also supported the airstrikes, offered another example of why Republicans feel burned by Clinton. Last August, Goss came back from vacation early to go on news broadcasts to defend Clinton against "Wag the Dog" charges that he ordered anti-terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan to deflect attention from his grand jury testimony in the Lewinsky scandal. "Then they cut us out from consultations," he claimed. "We've been used and misled time and time again," he said. Even Clinton's personal behavior became a factor in the debate. A furious Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) took the floor as the Senate's Kosovo debate was starting a week ago to complain that Clinton was preparing jokes for the radio and television correspondents' dinner the previous night, just as war plans were being laid…. "

Washington Times 3/30/99 Greg Pierce Freeper Rodger Schultz "…However one chooses to interpret it, "the president's budget seems to have been written with a purpose to obscure. That is not good government," Mr. Stein said…."

USA Today 3/30/99 Michael Medved Freeper Stand Watch Listen "…EXCERPTS "The emphasis on feelings and imagery characterizes not only our military strikes against Yugoslavia but all aspects of the Clinton administration's TV-driven diplomacy. If disturbing images make us feel bad, then we need to create reassuring images to make us feel better. Incoming cruise missiles and flaming wreckage make for great visuals on CNN; never mind that no one can explain what all the impressive fireworks ultimately will achieve. Televised portrayals of human suffering infect countless kind-hearted Americans with the dreaded "Do Something!" disease, leading them to demand some dramatic and immediate action, no matter how dubious or ineffective, to show that the problem has been addressed by "caring" leaders. "…"

Washington Post 3/31/99 Michael Kelly "…The most revealing glimpse of the Clinton administration's thinking, such as it is, about Kosovo occurred earlier this month in a private meeting between the Italian prime minister and the president. As reported by The Post, Massimo D'Alema asked Bill Clinton a simple question about the contemplated NATO bombing of Serbia: What would the United States do if Slobodan Milosevic did not back down under bombing, and instead increased his assaults on the Kosovar Albanians? The president was stumped by the question. He did not answer, but turned inquiringly to his national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger. Berger hesitated, and then replied: "We will continue the bombing." The Post does not report whether the Italian prime minister at this point ran shrieking from the room, but it would have been understandable if he had. It must have been disconcerting to discover that the leader of the world's sole superpower was about to launch a war without a plan that extended beyond next Sunday's talk shows, or without a thought to one of bombing's most likely consequences…..Administration officials now are doing what comes naturally to them in these moments of embarrassment. They are dissembling. Asked on Monday about news reports of a wave of executions of Albanian Kosovars, White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said: "We knew he was going to do this." We knew he was going to do this? We knew that, if we bombed Serbia, Milosevic would respond with a massive killing and cleansing campaign against the very population we were going to war to protect? If so, then the president and his advisers are guilty of criminal irresponsibility. For the United States made no serious efforts to prepare for what Lockhart says we knew was coming, a wave of killing and "cleansing" U.S. officials now compare to genocide. The president ordered up the bombing without any strategy to protect the Albanian Kosovars from resultant attack, without sufficient ground strength in the region to even think about countering the Serb ground offensive, without even an adequate refugee-aid plan in place…"

Capitol Hill Blue 3/31/99 Doug Thompson "…As military strategists concede the war in Kosovo may be unwinnable, the Pentagon is running low on its supply of cruise missiles. Retired Gen. Colin Powell joined the chorus of those who said the war can't be won in the air, telling a audience at Virginia Tech Tuesday the U.S. and NATO will have to use ground troops if they want to win. And the Pentagon is reluctantly admitting that things haven't gone as expected. "I think right now, it is difficult to say that we have prevented one act of brutality at this stage," Defense Department spokesman Kenneth Bacon told reporters Tuesday. In fact, military planners say that after six days of strikes, the bombing has, at best, inflicted only "minimal damage" on Yugoslavian military sites. And the US is running out of its primary weapon -- cruise missiles…."The US and NATO entered this conflict without a sound strategy and now they're paying for it," says retired Air Force General Matthew Higgins. "When you fight a war for political reasons, without a sound military plan, you end up with a conflict you can't win." At the Pentagon, military strategists admit privately they were pushed into the Kosovo campaign by a President eager to prove his manhood and divert attention away from the many scandals that have plagued his administration. "This is President Clinton's war," one high ranking officer says, "and we all know how much military experience the President has." …."

Capitol Hill Blue 4/6/99 Doug Thompson "…Within the White House press corps, reporters are expressing open anger at the flagrant "parsing" of words by Clinton and administration spokesman. Lockhart is openly referred to as a "weasel" and "a lying son-of-a-bitch." "Look, the animosity between reporters and Presidential press spokesmen is always a tenuous one," says one White House reporter, "but this one is turning into open animosity. Nobody likes this guy. Nobody trusts him." That animosity surfaced most recently in Monday's press briefing: …. Q: Are you telling us that the Joint Chiefs never suggested to the President or to his team here in the White House that bombing alone would be unable to achieve -- LOCKHART: I'm suggesting that we fully went through all of the available options, talked about how best to move forward, and everyone that I know of in the President's national security and military team agreed that this was the best option. Q: That's not my question. Q: That wasn't the question. Q: My question was, are you telling us the Joint Chiefs never advised the President that bombing alone might not achieve his objectives? LOCKHART: Listen, I can only tell you that when I had put this question of was there support for pursuing this military option, the answer is yes. Q: I'm not asking about support once a decision is made. Q: That's the wrong question. LOCKHART: Well, I'm answering -- I'm answering the question the best way I know how. Q: You're answering a question that's not been asked…."

Capitol Hill Blue 4/6/99 Doug Thompson "…Reporters also point to the President's evasive answers Monday to direct questions over military support of his actions. Q: Mr. President, do your military share your goals in the operation on Kosovo? We've got there are many, many stories that CLINTON: I know that. Q: Well, are the military with you? CLINTON: My impression is -- and, again, I think I owe it to the Secretary of Defense and General Shelton, to give them a chance to answer, because they're here -- that everyone agreed that while there were problems with the air campaign, including the weather, which all of you saw last week, that this was the best available option for us to maximize the possibility of achieving our mission of standing up against ethnic cleansing, fulfilling NATO's commitment, getting the refugees to be able to go back home, live in peace and security and have some autonomy. So that's what I believe. But I want to -- Secretary Cohen? Q: Will you come back after they answer, Mr. President? CLINTON: No…."

Capitol Hill Blue 4/6/99 Doug Thompson "…Presidential spokesman Joe Lockhart lied to reporters Monday when he said the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon unanimously supported President Clinton in his war against Kosovo, senior Pentagon officials said. "He lied. There's no other way to say it," said one Pentagon official. "They caught him in an outright lie. The Joint Chiefs did not agree with the President on his decision to pursue an limited air campaign in Kosovo. They counseled against it and they continue to counsel against it." President Clinton, pressed by reporters, downplayed the disagreements between himself and his top military advisors, but did not deny reports that his decision to go ahead with air strikes against Yugoslavia ran counter to the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs. "First, let me say that one of the jobs that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have is to report to me faithfully the view of the Chiefs, the Service Chiefs, the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And they have performed that faithfully, so that when there is a difference of opinion, when there is even a nuance, they have let me know that, as far as I know, in every important matter. Ultimately, after all, I am responsible for all these decisions, and must bear the burden of them, regardless," Clinton said. However, when reporters asked Lockhart "So you're saying that there was unanimous support within not just the national security team, but within the Joint Chiefs?", Lockhart answered "yes," then went on to claim the "unanimous support" was "for the option that we are pursuing." "A flat out lie," said one Senior Pentagon officer Monday night. "The opposition against the President's program is real and it is continuing."…Intelligence analysts Sander Owen says anger among career military officers is growing. "The military has never liked this President," Owen said. "Now the dislike is turning into outright hatred. They see him as a genuine threat to the national security." …"

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…."

NewsMax 4/7/99 "…The Clinton Administration, for all its foibles, may have actually accomplished something in the field of "re-inventing government", according to a new book by Paul C. Light of the Brookings Institute entitled The True Size of Government. The Clinton/Gore team promised to downsize government in the inimitable style of Corporate America, and they seem to have done a grand job. While cutting a record 350,000 civil service jobs, they further "streamlined" government by adding 16 new administrative layers; as many as were created by the previous seven administrations combined…."

Washington Times 4/7/99 Barbara J. Saffir "Candidate Bill Clinton would have been one of the harshest critics of President Clinton's China policy. …Campaigning around the country in 1992, Arkansas Gov. Clinton repeatedly attacked President Bush for selling satellites to China in the wake of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. The Democratic nominee labeled Mr. Bush's trade policy "yet another sad chapter in this administration's history of putting America on the wrong side of human rights and democracy." But the candidate who promised voters "an America that will never coddle tyrants, from Baghdad to Beijing," quickly embraced his own policy of "constructive engagement" in China and now finds himself on the defensive amid reports the Chinese stole sensitive U.S. nuclear secrets…."

Statement of John C. Browne Director Los Alamos National Laboratory Testimony to the House Select Committee on US National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China 10/14/98 Freeper ohmlaw98 "…There are significant benefits to U.S. national security from the lab-to-lab exchanges with the PRC. First, these exchanges allowed the PRC to gain acceptance to the international non-proliferation community in the area of nuclear safeguards, and in the area of export controls, particularly the nuclear supplier's group. This gave them motivation to sign the CTBT. Second, our visits there provide us with an awareness of the state of international technology that is valuable for assessing the need for enhanced export controls. Third, it gives the U.S. some transparency into their nuclear weapons program that allows us to determine our level of confidence in relevant treaties…."

4/7/99 Bill Clinton Office of the Press Secretary Mayflower Hotel "…That is what we and our NATO allies are doing in Kosovo -- trying to end the horrible war there…Therefore, I would argue that we should not make it more likely that China will choose this path [building their military machine] by acting as if that decision has already been made….Now, we have known since the early 1980s that China has nuclear armed missiles capable of reaching the United States. Our defense posture has and will continue to take account of that reality…… We are determined to prevent the diversion of technology and sensitive information to China. The restrictions we place on our exports to China are tougher than those applied to any other major exporting country in the world…..When we first learned, in 1995, that a compromise had occurred at our weapons labs, our first priority was to find the leak, to stop it, and to prevent further damage. When the Energy Department and the FBI discovered wider vulnerabilities, we launched a comprehensive effort to address them….."

Associated Press 4/7/99 George Gedda "…His China policy under attack, President Clinton warned Wednesday that a souring of relations resulting from a "campaign-driven cold war'' with China could erase the gains that he claimed for his policy of engagement with Beijing…."As the next presidential election approaches, we cannot allow a healthy argument to lead us toward a campaign-driven cold war with China, for that would have tragic consequences,'' Clinton said. Among them, he said, would be "an end to diplomatic contacts that have produced tangible gains for our people, a climate of mistrust that hurts Chinese-Americans and undermines the exchanges that are opening China to the world.'' …"

Chicago Tribune 41/5/99 Naftali Bendavid "...President Clinton faces a real possibility of being disbarred or suspended from practicing law in Arkansas, legal ethics experts say, adding further humiliation to a president who has been impeached by the House and found in contempt of court. "If I were Clinton's lawyers, I would throw in the towel because I think he will be disbarred," said Mark Foster, a Washington attorney who has represented numerous lawyers in disciplinary proceedings. "In the jurisdictions I have practiced in, he would lose his license. It's a lay-down hand. I'm a big fan of President Clinton, but he is dead in the water." Foster, a former chairman of the Washington, D.C., bar association's disciplinary board, has handled cases in many states, though not Arkansas. His bleak assessment of Clinton's position was not unique...."

Washington Post 4/13/99 Roberto Suro Joan Biskupic "...A federal judge yesterday held President Clinton in contempt of court for giving "intentionally false" testimony about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in the Paula Jones lawsuit, marking the first time that a sitting president has been sanctioned for disobeying a court order. In a biting, 32-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas said Clinton gave "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process" in Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit. She specifically cited Clinton's assertions that he was never alone with Lewinsky and that he did not have a sexual relationship with the former White House intern. Wright, who personally presided over Clinton's January 1998 deposition in the Jones case, acknowledged that no court had ever taken such action against a president but said it was important to act to "protect the integrity" of the judicial process. "Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the president's misconduct, but to deter others who might themselves consider emulating the president of the United States by engaging in misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system," she wrote...."

NewsMax 4/13/99 "...The fox was in the henhouse. That is to say, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji paid a visit to the White House. He reviewed an honor guard, and later feasted on roasted salmon, mango pudding and kumquat tarts at a black-tie dinner in his honor. It is not clear what is the prevailing philosophy that guides us in dealing with other nations. We bomb a Serbian tyrant while honoring a Chinese tyrant whose inhumanities and repressions are equally repugnant and on a larger scale. Our solution to humanitarian problems in China is "constructive engagement" and trade; our solution to Yugoslavia is war. W send money to North Korea and Russia and seek to starve a less dangerous Cuba. We are repulsed by "ethnic cleansing" in Yugoslavia but relatively indifferent when half a million Rwandans are hacked to death with machetes...."

Fox News 4/13/99 Chris Kensler "...Clinton may have been found innocent of high crimes and misdemeanors, but Monday he was cited for contempt of court by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright, and most seem to think Wright was right. Rep. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Online Tuesday that he agreed with Wright's verdict, and added that President Bill Clinton's law licence in Arkansas might be in jeopardy following Wright's contempt of court finding. I think ... Arkansas should look at whether or not he should keep his law license," Graham said following the president's address to the nation on the crisis in Kosovo. Judge Wright has already set in motion a process that could strip the president of his law license, referring his testimony to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct..... Graham said Judge Wright's decision vindicated the House Managers, who failed to secure a conviction against the sitting president. "[The court's finding refutes the president's argument that] it wasn't about the law," Graham said. Another House manager, Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., said a "nonpartisan and nonpolitical judge" found the president had willfully disobeyed court orders to be truthful and "I have to underline the 'willful' part of her ruling." Former presidential advisor Dick Morris also weighed in with his opinion of Judge Wright's decision. "History will regard this as the definitive statement on this matter," he told Fox News. Indeed, historians believe Clinton is the first chief executive to be held in contempt of court. "I have never heard of any case where a president has been found in contempt in a civil case," said Mark Rozell, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania...."

Washington Post 4/13/99 Dan Burton and Dan Miller "...The March 24 op-ed piece by Commerce Secretary William M. Daley made clear the administration's policy on conducting the census: Make excuses, delay the details and ignore the facts. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are working to abide by the law and push for an accurate and legal count. Here are some pesky facts the administration would like to ignore: In accordance with a fiscal year 1998 appropriations agreement, the