DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: RECORD OF LIES AND DECEPTIONS:
SUBSECTION: PART 2
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 Census Bureau was required to prepare for the 2000 decennial census on a dual track while awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of sampling. In other words, the bureau was to plan for one census using traditional enumeration methods and another employing statistical adjustments. On Jan. 25 the Supreme Court did indeed find the use of statistical sampling for reapportionment of the House of Representatives illegal. This ruling upheld two unanimous federal court rulings. The Census Bureau didn't obey the law. To date, with less than 12 months remaining before census day, the bureau has not given Congress a plan or an estimated budget. On Jan. 27 the America Counts Today (ACT) Initiative was unveiled. It is a dramatic set of initiatives designed to increase local involvement and count everyone in the 2000 decennial census. It focuses on common-sense approaches that will ensure an accurate, reliable and honest head count in 2000..... Another measure, H.R. 928, would encourage an increased mail response by providing households a second chance to fill out their census form. The Census Bureau's own research indicates that the second questionnaire can increase mail response rates up to 6 percent. That is roughly 19 million people, or the population of the entire state of New York. H.R. 929, the "Language Barrier Removal Act" would provide census questionnaires in a myriad of languages to increase response levels. The short form questionnaire would be printed in 33 languages and English Braille, thereby allowing any household, upon request, to receive that requested version of the form..... H.R. 472, the "Local Census Quality Check Act of 1999," would reinstate the highly successful Post Census Local Review program used in 1990. This program affords local officials a last quality check of census numbers before they are made final.... Because the administration has chosen to waste valuable resources on an unproven statistical sampling scheme and not devote its full energy to an actual enumeration mandated by the Supreme Court, the Census Bureau is opposed to three of these common-sense proposals that would add real people to the count. The administration must stop putting politics over public policy. We challenge the White House, the Census Bureau and congressional Democrats to do the right thing and put partisanship aside in an effort to work together to save the 2000 census...."
New York Times 4/13/99 Richard Haass "...Increasingly it seems that the Clinton Administration's foreign policy is intended to minimize risks rather than maximize results. The result is bad politics and bad policy. Take the debate about ground troops in Kosovo. After weeks of ruling out their use, the Clinton Administration is now sending mixed messages. On Sunday, Administration officials, including Gen. Henry Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested that plans for ground troops exist and could be taken off the shelf at any time. Yesterday, Defense Secretary William Cohen said that the air attacks are increasingly effective, while reiterating General Shelton's comments about ground troops. What's going on here? It seems as if foreign policy is being driven by public opinion. News photos of suffering Albanian refugees have had an enormous impact on the American people; opinion polls indicate that about half of them now favor sending ground forces into Kosovo. But the Administration also seems to have no confidence that popular support would survive the first casualties. This is no way to make foreign policy -- or win a war. It is one thing to rule out ground troops because they are not needed. It is something else again to reject them out of fear that the American people will not back their use.... "
ABC NEWS 4/12/99 Freeper Rodger Schultz "...ABCNEWS has learned the Serbs may be benefiting from insider information. U.S. and NATO officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they suspect a spy deep inside NATO is informing Yugoslav authorities before some air raids...."
Associated Press 4/13/99 Tom Cohen "...Serb infantry troops crossed into Albania Tuesday, exchanged fire with Albanian border police and seized control of a border village, Albania's interior minister said. The seized village was Kremica, which has come under Serb shelling over the past several days. There were no immediate reports on destruction or casualties...."
Associated Press 4/13/99 Robert Burns "...Why hasn't NATO hit harder? "The politicians are absolutely scared to death they will lose the political support, which was thin to begin with, if body bags start coming home," said retired Adm. Leighton Smith, who oversaw NATO's brief and successful 1995 air campaign in Bosnia, which led to the Dayton peace accords. He wasn't talking about sending ground troops; he was referring to more use of air power. Smith says pilots are trained to take great risks in combat but that U.S. and allied politicians put a higher priority on avoiding NATO casualties and minimizing "collateral damage," the military euphemism for civilian death and destruction. "We let (fear of) collateral damage outweigh the desire to kick this guy in the butt and get his attention," Smith said. The Pentagon also sees benefits in limiting Serb troop casualties...."
TalkSpot News Special 4/13/98 James Golden interviews Matthew Glavin "...President Clinton's treatment of the Chinese spy case would be called "treason" at any other time in U.S. history, says Matthew Glavin, President of the Southeastern Legal Foundation. Glavin's organization is representing Notra Trulock, an Energy Department intelligence officer, who says a Clinton appointee kept him from reporting espionage. Trulock testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee Monday. The Clinton Administration's alleged cover-up of stolen technology by the Chinese in Los Alamos, New Mexico would be called treason "in any other time in this country's history." "I don't know why we're not calling it treason today," said Glavin, Tuesday on The James Golden Show on TalkSpot.com. Glavin also says Clinton made political hay in 1996, by telling campaign crowds that American children were safe from nuclear warheads for the first time in the nuclear age. "At the same time, the President knew that not only were there 18 Chinese ICBMs pointing at the U.S., but the Chinese now had the technology to put 10 warheads on the top of each of those missiles," said Glavin. "And this administration was covering that up." ..."
Washington Times 4/09/99 Editorial "...The White House's version simply does not add up. Mr. Berger, for example, conveniently does not recall that the neutron-bomb issue was mentioned in the April 13, 1996, briefing. But other officials present at the briefing have confirmed the issue was raised, noting that intelligence about the neutron bomb was "hot off the press" and was included to warn the White House that the espionage was ongoing. Conveniently as well, the White House says it has no records indicating what was said at the briefing. Imagine that: The White House received a briefing that had alarmed the CIA, but neglected to retain any notes. With no notes to verify his assertion, Mr. Berger has characterized the initial briefing as "very general and very preliminary." Another official at the briefing, however, told the Times it was "a pretty specific briefing." Moreover, Mr. Berger, who initially told the Cox Committee in a sworn statement that the president was not briefed about China's nuclear espionage until 1998, told Tim Russert March 14 on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he briefed the president in April 1996. The current White House line is that Mr. Berger initially briefed the president in July 1997. Mr. Berger further insists that the Department of Energy (DOE) "did not have a suspect" in the theft of another nuclear warhead. In fact, DOE counterintelligence officers had identified a particular suspect who had "stuck out like a sore thumb." ..."
New York Post 4/9/99 Freeper thewildthing "... the White House took great pains to stress that the actual spying happened in the Reagan/Bush years. Now it turns out that China's most successful espionage operation - the theft of U.S. secrets on the deadly neutron bomb - took place entirely on Bill Clinton's watch. The Clintonites, led by Vice President Al Gore, have been insisting that there is no evidence that Chinese nuclear espionage continued into this administration. But it now develops that National Secu-rity Adviser Sandy Berger was first told in April 1996 that neutron-bomb technology had been stolen the year before. Berger, says the White House, told the president about the theft in July 1997. But in sworn testimony to Congress last fall, Berger insisted Clinton wasn't told about the espionage until 1998...."
Capitol Hill Blue 4/9/99 "...The spy said Chinese officials claimed they were able to steal secrets in 1995. The spy was considered reliable, and taken together with earlier allegations of a neutron bomb technology theft from Livermore in 1988, the Department of Energy, the CIA and the FBI immediately began an intensive investigation to determine if security was breached. White House National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was first told of a possible new theft of neutron bomb data in 1996 although he has denied knowing about the spying. Sources at both the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency say Berger is lying when he claims he didn't know..... The administration had made a point of saying the Los Alamos spying occurred well before Clinton took office in January 1993. David Leavy, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said Berger was not told of the neutron bomb data until 1997 during a broader briefing on security at U.S. nuclear labs....."
New York Times 4/9/99 "...The problem is not merely the potential damage to American security. As troubling is evidence -- described by Jeff Gerth and James Risen in The Times yesterday -- that top White House officials, especially Samuel Berger, now the national security adviser, reacted lethargically when the first alarms were sounded about the suspected spying...Energy Department investigators first told Mr. Berger in April 1996 of suspicions that China had stolen designs for America's most advanced nuclear weapon in the 1980's from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. They also mentioned intelligence reports that China may have more recently stolen neutron bomb designs. Mr. Berger asserts that this 1996 briefing was cast only in general terms and that he did not learn the true extent of the problems until mid-1997. Others who attended the meeting dispute this. If they are right, Mr. Berger should have briefed Mr. Clinton and ordered immediate security improvements at the nuclear weapons labs in 1996. Yet Mr. Clinton was not alerted to the seriousness of the problem until July 1997, and lab security has been tightened only in the past few months. Mr. Clinton has asked the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to investigate the Chinese nuclear espionage issue, including the response of Administration officials. That inquiry, as well as parallel Congressional investigations, must closely study and report on the performance of Mr. Berger and other national security officials...."
Washington Times 4/8/99 Mona Charen Freeper Stand Watch Listen "...EXCERPTS "If a Republican president were preparing to make war, it is inconceivable a Democratic Congress would be as quiet as this one. Wars needn't be declared to be legal - a fact now enshrined in the War Powers Act - but they should be declared by Congress in order for the nation to adequately prepare itself for the attendant sacrifices. .....But the president has never thought more than two weeks ahead in his life. While his administration spokesmen calmly explain they knew all along that Slobodan Milosevic would step up his ethnic cleansing of Kosovo if we bombed Belgrade, this is pure tripe. One of the stated justifications for the bombing campaign was to "save" the Kosovars from Serb brutality. Remember the "suffering of innocents" argument? It may feel like ancient history, but that was only two weeks ago. And if the administration suspected Mr. Milosevic would move his terror troops into Kosovo in force after NATO's bombs began to fall, why did we do so little to prepare for the humanitarian crisis..."
The Washington Times 4/9/99 Wesley Pruden Freeper sunshine "...Bill Clinton has achieved his own purposes in Yugoslavia, but he can't quit yet. He successfully changed the subject from his personal disgrace and Chinese espionage, but war drums suddenly silent send a loud message. The disgrace of impeachment, and the greater scandal, the sellout of the nation's security interests to China's greedy and ambitious leadership for a few hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions, go almost unnoticed because the Republ icans in Congress are beginning to like being spayed. The prospect of growing soft in the head and wide in the beam is altogether pleasing. (You could ask your cat.) Soon nobody will expect them to object to anything......rails Don Imus: "A president whose policy center is at his penis...."
New York Times 4/9/99 A M Rosenthal "...Do Americans understand that while we have been bombing the Serbs, the following took place: Libya was exonerated from responsibility in the destruction of Pan Am 103. Saddam Hussein's closedown of the U.N. search for Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons went into its eighth month. Richard Butler, the chief arms inspector, was barred Wednesday by the Russians from even entering the U.N. Security Council chamber where his inspection commission was the agenda, marked for death..... So: Do Americans understand that while we fight one dictatorship, fumbling around trying to heighten the war and somehow end it at the same time, three other dictatorships more dangerous to American interests are walking away with America's pants? The Libya deal was possible because the Administration signed off on it. This sweetheart gift to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi ends the effective sanctions imposed on Libya for harboring two Libyans accused of murdering 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am 103 on Dec. 21, 1988.....Do Americans understand that the U.S. delegation to the U.N. did not stand up and holler at the barring of Mr. Butler? Let's hope it will when he tries again today. Do they understand that the President denounced U.S. critics of China on the very day that Jeff Gerth and James Risen of The Times were writing that even more Chinese nuclear espionage took place than the reporters had already disclosed? Another chapter in Chinese espionage was written in 1995, reported to Samuel Berger, now the national security adviser, in April 1996, who told the President in July 1997, who ordered tightened security -- in February 1998. And do Americans understand that the Administration disgraced itself in the war on Serbia? Slobodan Milosevic, not America, is responsible for driving cold, hungry, terrified Albanian Kosovars from their homes. But Washington's disgrace is that President Clinton and his top people did not know and did not expect that Mr. Milosevic would use the bombing as an opportunity to expel them by the hundreds of thousands. American leadership still does not seem able to plan more than a couple of days ahead. So we need no longer worry about America's credibility; we have none...."
WORLD Magazine 4/3/99 Cal Thomas "… In President Clinton’s news conference on March 19, he was asked, "What do you think your legacy will be about lying, and how important do you think it is to tell the truth, especially under oath?" After saying he believes that telling the truth is "very important," the president invoked a sports metaphor: "I also think there will be a box score, and there will be that one negative and then there will be hundreds and hundreds of times when the record will show that I did not abuse my authority as president, that I was truthful with the American people." In fact, chronicling Mr. Clinton’s lies would produce a thick book. Here is a tiny sample:…· In February 1996 Mr. Clinton said, "Since I was a little boy, I’ve heard about the Iowa caucuses." There were no Iowa caucuses when Clinton was a boy. They began in 1972 when Clinton was at Oxford avoiding the draft, an incident that produced several more lies, not only to avoid service but about his motives for doing so…. "
Congressional Record: Testimony Deputy Secretary of Energy of Elizabeth A. Moler 10/6/98 "…am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with you our foreign visitors and assignments programs and policies at our three weapons laboratories….First, I would like to assure the Subcommittee that we at DOE are fully aware of our responsibilities as stewards of the nation's preeminent national security laboratories. More specifically, we are as committed to protecting classified and sensitive information as we are to maintaining the scientific excellence of the laboratories….Without wishing to steal their thunder, let me highlight the key elements of our improved program…."
Freeper Kieri on MTP 4/11/99 "...Surprise, surprise! Tim Russert (MTP) is going after the Los Alamos espionage issue...John Podesta says Clinton's answers were "accurate"...he REFUSED to answer the direct question "has there been espionage on Clinton's watch?"!..."
AP 4/12/99 "...A federal judge on Monday found President Clinton in contempt of court in a ruling stemming from his testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled the president in contempt for ``willful failure'' to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully. ``The court takes no pleasure whatsoever in holding this nation's president in contempt of court,'' the judge said in her order. The judge said, ``The record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the president responded to plaintiffs' questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.'' Wright said Mrs. Jones was entitled to information regarding any state or federal employee with whom the president had or proposed to have sexual relations...."
The Washington Post 4/12/99 Howard Kurtz "...Critics have long complained that the Clinton White House deals with scandal by parsing the truth, holding back critical information and engaging in selective leaking. Turns out they were right, according to a new book by former White House spinmeister Lanny Davis. He admits that administration officials often withheld damaging information from him so he wouldn't give it to the press. In "Truth to Tell," out next month, Davis argues for "good," factually based spin over "bad," deceptive spin -- but concedes that some of his spin was "so transparent that it is amazing that we thought we could get away with it." The "truth" in Davis's title was elusive. He recalls a previously undisclosed conversation he had with President Clinton on Jan. 21, 1998, the day the Monica Lewinsky story broke. Paraphrasing himself, Davis says he told Clinton: "Do what you do best. . . . Take your case to the American people, tell them everything, everything there is to tell." Davis added that Clinton was "presumed guilty" by the press. But the president just nodded and was noncommittal -- and the author never takes him to task. Davis coins the marvelously bureaucratic phrase "deep-background private placement" to describe negative stories about the White House that he leaked to put the least damaging version in play. Davis's favorite outlet was the Associated Press, not only because it is "notoriously fact-oriented and fair" but because once a story was on the wire, such newspapers as The Washington Post and New York Times "would not be inclined to give it front-page play." ...."
AP 4/12/99 Connie Cass "...A judge's decision Monday to hold President Clinton in contempt of court was met with little surprise, even among his Democratic supporters. ``There was a pretty good consensus he lied in the deposition,'' said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., one of the leading opponents of Clinton's impeachment in the House last December..... Former White House special counsel Lanny Davis played down the penalty imposed on his former boss. ``This is a relatively minor fine, minor amount of money,'' Davis said. ``And for the amount of effort here, for this judge to enter this motion on her own I think is rather questionable.'' Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson praised Wright's action as ``a long-overdue victory for the rule of law.'' ``No one, not even the president of the United States, is above the law,'' Nicholson said in a statement. ``Perjury should not be ignored or condoned in America's courts.'' ..."
AP 4/14/99 Terence Hunt Freeper Lou in Mass. "...President Clinton is likely to pay a financial penalty rather than challenge a contempt-of-court ruling that he gave ``intentionally false'' testimony about his relationship wi th Monica Lewinsky, according to a top adviser...."
AP 4/15/99 Pete Yost "... Keeping silent about when he plans to leave the investigation of President Clinton and the first lady, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr says he has the authority to prosecute Clinton after he's out of the White House in 2001. ... On another topic, though, Starr was clear. ``Do you have jurisdiction to prosecute the president criminally after his term of office expires?'' Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked Starr at a hearing of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. ``Yes,'' the independent counsel replied, going on to outline his court-authorized mandate to investigate possible lying and obstruction in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Asked whether he felt ``compassion'' for the president in the Lewinsky controversy, Starr said he did. But he also said Clinton shouldn't have given the untruthful testimony in the Paula Jones case for which he was cited for civil contempt of court this week..... And as for the first lady, had Starr ever contemplated indicting her? He couldn't comment, the prosecutor said on the King show.... Starr made clear there still was much work to do ...."
AP 4/15/99 Kevin Galvin "...``We cannot simply watch as hundreds of thousand of people are brutalized, murdered, raped, forced from their homes ... all in the name of ethnic pride,'' Clinton said...." V Rhwanda, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tibet, etc.
Charleston Daily Mail 4/13/99 "...ON Monday, Bill Clinton began paying for his lies. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found him in contempt of court for bearing false witness while under oath..... For more than a year, Clinton supporters said the Monica Lewinsky matter was just about sex. Nonsense. Clinton's affair became a public issue for two reasons. One, it suggested a pattern of Clinton's harassment of lowly paid office workers. Two, he lied under oath. Clinton paid $850,000 in an out-of-court payment to Paula Corbin Jones to make the sexual harassment allegations go away. Now a judge -- a former law student of his -- has imposed sanctions to make him pay for his lies under oath. "The record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the president responded to plaintiffs' questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process," Judge Wright wrote. This contempt citation does affect his job...An honorable man would have resigned and spared his family and his nation the embarrassment he caused. Clinton is not an honorable man. Lift his law license...."
Washington Post 4/17/99 Daniel Williams "...NATO dropped a veil of silence today over airstrikes that hit civilians in Kosovo. Spokesmen provided no fresh information but reaffirmed an account of the bombing that the Pentagon had already discarded as outdated and incomplete. For the second day in a row, the officials who brief reporters at NATO headquarters here said only one airstrike was made on one refugee tractor during aerial assaults Wednesday. The Pentagon said Thursday evening that alliance jets also attacked two convoys, possibly killing civilians, on a road well southeast of the site described by NATO. The result was that while NATO and the Pentagon have expressed regret over the airstrikes that Yugoslavia said killed 75 ethnic Albanian civilians, it remains unclear exactly how they were killed. The lack of new details fits the evolving character of NATO's handling of public information. For several hundred international journalists who crowd an auditorium for daily briefings, upbeat assessments of the war routinely overwhelm the sparse facts provided. Today, in response to horrific television images and printed accounts of devastated refugee convoys, a flood of good news was released. "We had one of the best nights in our campaign," said NATO spokesman Jamie Shea. "It's clear that life is increasingly unpleasant for Serbs in Kosovo." ..."
.S. News Online 4/26/99 Gloria Borger "...Consider Clinton's recent chat with Dan Rather, in which he told the CBS anchor, "I do not regard this impeachment vote as some great badge of shame." In fact, he said, he was "honored that something that was indefensible was pursued and that I had the opportunity to defend the Constitution." So that's the long playing field: Bill Clinton, constitutional defender. Judge Wright's ruling could dampen the presidential spin. Being held in contempt of court is hardly a badge of honor. Neither is the fact that the judge wrote that sanctions needed to be imposed against Clinton "to deter others who might . . . consider emulating the president." No role model here. In fact, says a Clinton ally, the judge-who flew to Washington to sit through the president's deposition in the Paula Jones case-has joined an exclusive club. "She now knows what it's like to be lied to, face to face," he says. "He made her look like a fool, just like the rest of us." ..."
The Federalist 4/16/99 "... The Federalist has obtained evidence that, as a matter of highly classified policy based on the now-flawed Cold War theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the Clinton administration deliberately left the back door open to our most sensitive nuclear technology facilities, so China could obtain offensive nuclear weapons and delivery technology which would eventually put them on an equal footing with the U.S. In our Cold War with the USSR, our nuclear secrets were also obtained by Soviet espionage, and the resulting MAD standoff was a centerpiece of U.S. policy. But the Soviets were an entirely different adversary than the Red Chinese, who analysts estimate could become far more ´´adventurous´´ under the MAD umbrella. Evidence of Mr. Clinton´s indifference to the weapon technology transfers, in deference to his MAD policy, is apparent in the rejection of an FBI request for a wiretap on We Ho Lee, who, though suspected of being a Chinese spy, was selected by senior Clinton personnel at the Department of Energy to run a sensitive new nuclear weapons program. From 1993 to 1997, federal agents requested 2,686 wiretaps to assist various investigations. The Justice Department rejected only one -- We Ho Lee. Though both the CIA and FBI directors informed Mr. Clinton that Chinese spying was ´´widespread´´ in nuclear facilities, he told the nation just prior to Zhu´s visit that there was ´´no evidence´´ of such spying. ´´That statement was not true and Mr. Clinton and his administration know it to be not true,´´ says a well-placed CIA analyst. The Clinton sellout to China is best summarized by Sen. James Inhofe´s comments on the Senate floor. (Mr. Inhofe is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.) ´´Of all the lies this president has told, this is the most egregious of all. ... This is a story...about a President and an administration that deliberately chose to put national security at risk, while telling the people everything was fine. The President withheld information and covered up the Chinese theft of our technology.´´ ..."
AP 4/16/99 JIM ABRAMS "... Energy Department officials say they kept a House Armed Services subcommittee in the dark last year about alleged Chinese espionage at a national weapons lab as part of a policy of limiting those being told of the case. Notra Trulock, the agency's special adviser for intelligence, told the military procurement subcommittee Thursday that he was under specific orders from Elizabeth Moler, then deputy energy secretary, not to talk about the alleged Chinese theft of nuclear warhead secrets from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1980s. ``I did not make full disclosure'' at a closed hearing of the subcommittee last October, Trulock said. ``I apologize.'' The panel's chairman, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said the lawmakers were ``very upset'' by the failure of Trulock and Moler, who were under oath at the time, to reply to questions about espionage at the national labs and asked, ``Why weren't we told the whole truth?'' ..... Trulock on Monday backed up their contentions, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee that Moler last July prevented him from talking to the House intelligence panel about the case. On Thursday he said Moler edited the testimony he had prepared for the October Armed Services Committee hearing to take out references to espionage at the national labs. Moler, who also appeared at both the Monday and Thursday hearings, took strong issue with Trulock's version of events, saying she never tried to stop him from testifying and did not edit his testimony. But she acknowledged that Federico Pena, then energy secretary, had decided the agency, because of the sensitive nature of the case, should limit its Capitol Hill briefings to the House and Senate intelligence committees. She said this was ``common practice.'' She said she told Trulock to limit his testimony to the subject of security issues involved in visits to the labs by foreign nationals...."
The Orlando Sentinel Online 4/18/99 Charley Reese "... Americans, exposed to hours of color images of refugees, now feel great compassion for the Albanians who have fled or been driven out of Kosovo. Indeed you would have to have a lead sinker for a heart not to feel compassion and sadness. But we have to remember that our emotions are being manipulated. There are, at this moment, several millions of refugees around the world, many of whom have rotted in squalid camps for decades. Yet, they don't exist in our consciousness, because no corporation chooses to focus the cameras on them and regale us day after day with the stories of their horrors. So sleazy politicians are able to get away with the big lie: This war is necessary because of the humanitarian disaster; because, they say, the president of a small country of 10 million people is a fiend. Listen, China invaded Tibet and has destroyed virtually 80 percent of its population as well as its culture and historical artifacts. Why did not, why has not, the United States responded to that humanitarian catastrophe with an ultimatum and bombs on Beijing? Simple: China is a nation of more than a billion people, with nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United States' leaders are both cynical and cowardly. They love to bully little countries. They are scared of crossing any country with the means to fight back. They have become that most disgusting of human beings -- the armchair warrior, the barstool blowhard ever eager for someone else to fight someone....."I support the troops," people now love to say. Oh, yeah? Did they support those troops when Congress reneged on its promises to them? Did they support those troops when the government began to degrade and demoralize them? Just what do they mean by support other than that they are willing to break wind with their mouths in the safety of their home or office. Bombing and attacking virtually de-fenseless, small countries (we've bombed four different sovereign states in the past 10 months) does nothing but earn Americans the enmity of most of the world's people. This reckless and illegal behavior by a group of corrupt and incompetent American politicians will come back and bite us one day...."
NewsMax 4/12/99 Edward Lowaneski "...On a visit to Moscow in the first days of April, I have heard many pro-western intellectuals expressing deep concern with the dangerous erosion of America's ideals and principles on which the country was built. Says, Gavriil Popov, first democratically elected Mayor of Moscow: "According to polls American people are reaching a point where they condone perjury and breaking international law and if such a belief becomes widely held, America will be rocked to its foundation which would have dire consequences for the entire world" For those of us who lived under the communist regime and fought it, America was always a symbol and guarantor of freedom and justice. America gave us the strength and courage. In times of despair, we would pass by the US Embassy in Moscow and the star-spangled banner would give us a tremendous boost of morale. Today, the embassy walls are covered by eggs, tomatoes and ink. The American flag is burned, and not only by communists or fascists. I saw a large group of young people who did not throw eggs or burn flags, but what they did was even more troubling. They displayed a poster saying "Goodbye, America, Ideal of Freedom". I asked them why they were there. It turned out that some of them had studied in America on US government grants. One young man said, "We feel betrayed because we thought America sincerely wants Russia to become a free, prosperous and democratic country, part of the West. Now wittingly or unwittingly America helps the red-brown coalition to win the Duma elections and enter the Kremlin. Each day of bombing brings this coalition closer to power". Because of this very fact he suggested that both Clinton and Albright should be nominated as Honorary Members of the Russian Communist Party...."
Omaha World-Herald 4/20/99 Editorial "....Trulock said two senior Energy Department officials tried to block him in 1997 from briefing the new energy secretary, Federico Pena, about evidence that China had stolen the design of America's most advanced nuclear warhead from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Trulock said he was told that if his claims became public, the lobbying effort for funding Los Alamos and other national laboratories might be damaged. Critics of President Clinton's China policy, he was also told, might exploit such a revelation. Trulock said that in August of 1997, he informed Gary Samore, the National Security Council's senior director for nonproliferation, about lax security at Los Alamos. Samore said the Clinton administration intended to use Los Alamos and other laboratories as "a tool to further its engagement policy with China," Trulock told the Armed Services Committee. Samore said he was not going to allow concerns about Los Alamos to mar the October 1997 visit of Chinese President Jiang Zemin, Trulock testified. According to The New York Times, Samore has said that any comments along those lines were meant as a joke. Some joke...."
Omaha World-Herald 4/20/99 Editorial "...Trulock said that in the summer of 1998, Acting Energy Secretary Elizabeth Moler prevented him from answering a request for a briefing on Los Alamos by members of the House Intelligence Committee. According to Trulock, Moler dismissed the importance of the request by saying that representatives would just make trouble for the president over China policy. Moler, now a lawyer in private practice, told the Armed Services Committee she did not recall such a request. She was asked about a memo to her from Trulock dated July 21, 1998, outlining the request for the briefing. The memo was retrieved from Moler's office safe when she left the Energy Department. "I don't have any rational explanation for this incident," she said. That may have been the most truthful thing she said to the committee...."
AP 4/20/99 Freeper Earl B "...Some Republicans, citing the initial Treasury opposition, say the delay raises questions about how seriously the Clinton administration is trying to implement the reform law. ``Ignoring this duty demonstrates to the American people that IRS abuses are not a major concern,'' House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said in a letter to Clinton. White House spokesman Barry Toiv, however, said Congress was unrealistic in setting a six-month deadline for appointments because FBI background checks on potential nominees must include exhaustive examinations of their past tax returns..."
U.S. News & World Report 4/26/99 Kenneth T. Walsh Freeper L. N. Smithee "....Truth may be the first casualty of war, but it has also taken a beating from President Clinton during peacetime. His contempt of court citation for lying under oath is proof enough of that. Yet Clinton's defenders also have transformed the Washington version of truth-telling into a subtle new art form and demonstrated, for any who might have forgotten, how easy it is to manipulate the press--and, ultimately, the public..."
Washington Post 4/18/99 Fred Hiatt Freeper Stand Watch Listen "...EXCERPTS "President Clinton's falsehoods landed him in trouble with a federal judge last week. Yet as he faced his gravest foreign policy crisis, in Kosovo, the contempt citation did not seem to have jarred him from his habit of rearranging the truth. Chief Judge Susan Webber Wright's order brought fresh common sense to a debate stale with obfuscation and inflated rhetoric. "No reasonable person would seriously dispute" that the president had testified falsely, the judge wrote. And reading through the testimony she excerpted ("Q: At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky together alone in the Oval Office? A: I don't recall."), the reaction could only be: What could be more obvious? What could his lawyers have been talking about, there in the well of the Senate, for hour after hour? "..."
Washington Post 4/21/99 Michael Kelly "...Good news at last. In Brussels on Monday, the spokesman for NATO, Jamie P. Shea, announced that Slobodan Milosevic's corps of ethnic cleansers have added 8,000 fresh troops to their number in Kosovo. This would seem, as the New York Times delicately noted, "to undercut NATO's assertions that it is choking off the ability of Yugoslavia to resupply its forces in the field." Oh no, Shea declared, the arrival of half a division of Serb soldiers in Kosovo was a positive development: "It's a sign of how difficult Belgrade is finding it to bring the area under total control." Or perhaps it's a sign that Milosevic is, in fact, Little Bunny Foo-Foo, and that the Good Fairy will any minute now come down and turn him into a goon for scooping up excessive numbers of field mice and bopping them on the head. It is too much to ask that the initial plans of any war be met with swift success. But it is not too much to ask that the planners do not lie, to themselves and to the public, about how their plans are faring. And what is going on with the plan in Yugoslavia is that it is failing, catastrophically...."
The Washington Times 4/21/99 "...It was Secretary of Defense William Cohen's moment of truth, three weeks too late: The United States had waged a war it was not in any way prepared for. Worse than that, though, it had waged a war it knew it wasn't prepared for -- without telling the American people. In the Senate Armed Services Committee meeting hearing last week, senators made plain their unhappiness. "If the public knew our state of readiness or our lack of readiness, there would be an outrage out there; the fact that we are roughly at one-half the force strength that we were in 1991," Sen. James Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, told Mr. Cohen..... Sunday's Washington Post reported there are 7,000 more Yugoslav forces around Kosovo than before the bombing campaign; Yugoslav communications and radar systems have sustained only minor damages, and some downed communication lines only take 24 hours to repair; only five air defense targets have been destroyed; and thousands of shoulder-fired rockets are still intact. That's beside the blunders NATO has made jeopardizing human life such as it is: mistaking refugees for Serb aggressors and destroying a civilian train; our stunning lack of preparedness for caring for over half a million refugees. Or, perhaps even more frightening, is the detail that the administration has yet to define what its objectives are in this war, other than to: "persist until we prevail."..... "We must proceed with this campaign," he insisted. This, despite the fact that Mr. Cohen has known from the beginning that the bombings would increase the ethnic cleansing: "With respect to George Tenet testifying that the bombing could, in fact, accelerate Milosevic's plans, we also knew that," Mr. Cohen said. This also, while ignoring the fact that bombing might not ultimately stop Mr. Milosevic's murderous activity: "Another point on Wes Clark when he said he never thought we would stop the paramilitary activities of Milosevic. We all knew that," Mr. Cohen said. And yet the president sent the U.S. military into war with Mr. Cohen's blessing...."
4/20/99 U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe "…U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) made the following statement today in response to remarks by presidential spokesman Joe Lockhart at Monday’s White House press briefing. Lockhart defended the President’s record concerning military readiness and said that the state of U.S. military readiness was "top-notch" and "first-rate." "As with so many other things, the White House is not leveling with the American people about the state of U.S. military readiness. The President has submitted status quo defense budgets, increased overseas deployments, and strongly opposed the fielding of a national missile defense system. He has decimated the Reagan-Bush legacy of military preparedness. While his spokesmen can try to claim that everything is fine, this White House has zero credibility on the issue of military readiness. "The fact is that today’s military is facing the most serious readiness crisis since the ‘hollow force’ of the late 1970s. In a series of high profile readiness hearings before Congress since last September, and before the outbreak of war in Kosovo, leaders from the Joint Chiefs on down have revealed that readiness today is lower than it was six years ago and that growing readiness problems loom in the very near future. "The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that the risk associated with our ability to execute the National Military Strategy (winning two major theater wars (MTWs) almost simultaneously) was moderate to high. In laymen’s terms, this means we cannot meet the 2 MTW requirement without significant numbers of American lives being placed at risk. And this is before we consider any war in the Balkans, where there is no vital U.S. security interest at stake. The chairman specifically testified that readiness is lower today than it was six years ago, when this administration took office…."
4/20/99 U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe "… "The White House seeks to perpetuate the myth that our military today is the same as it was in 1991 when we won the Gulf War or that we already have some form of national missile defense capability. Millions of Americans believe these things. They are wrong. And the President does nothing to disabuse them of their erroneous beliefs. "In category after category, from Army and other force personnel, to Air Force fighter wings and airlift capacity, to Navy ships at sea, today’s military is almost down to half what it was before the Gulf War. Ammunition and spare parts supplies are seriously depleted. Engines and other vital equipment are being routinely cannibalized. Military housing and pay desperately need improvement. Thousands of personnel are on food stamps. Air Force and Navy pilots are leaving in droves. Recruiting is down. Morale is not near what it should be. "When it comes to the greatest emerging 21st century threat--proliferating weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles--we have no deployed capability to intercept even one single solitary long range missile aimed at America. These are facts the White House would like to conceal from the American people. "All of these deficiencies relate directly to policy decisions made by this President. Without the war in Kosovo, the next administration is being left with a readiness and modernization mountain to climb bigger than we had to address in the early 1980s. With this war, the problems are only that much greater…."
WorldNetDaily 4/22/99 Charles Smith "...There is no such thing as a good war. The war in Kosovo is being portrayed as a "good" war. The Clinton and Blair propaganda machine is spinning the killing in Kosovo as if it were some crusade to save lives. The only real images from the war in Europe were of U.S. planes killing innocent civilians, including Kosovar refugees. The TV set was filled with bodies blown to pieces by American airpower. The Clinton spin is that such things always happen in war, and that even if they were innocent women and children it was a "good thing" because we are there to save them. Where was the "good thing" spin when American viewers were treated to a naked and burned Vietnamese child, running away from a napalmed village? I don't recall the term "ethnic cleansing" being applied to the hill people of Vietnam, staunch U.S. allies in combat, who were erased by the genocide of the North Vietnamese Army. I do recall the wife of Ted Turner playing games with a communist anti-aircraft gun and NVA soldiers for the cameras. CNN missed that photo in their review of the Vietnam War history. CNN is leading the hysteria brigade to put ground troops in Kosovo, so where are you now, Jane Fonda? Clinton has no plan for victory, no plan for the refugees, no plan for peace and no plan for war. There were several logical alternative solutions. Clinton chose to ignore them all. The ultimate "come as you are" combat with the impulsive child-like "just do it" leader...."
Statement by the President 4/21/99 "...The findings of the damage assessment underscore the need to implement fully the Presidential Decision Directive I issued in February 1998 to strengthen security and protections at the U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories.... I commend Secretary Richardson for his efforts in this regard and look forward to the review of lab security I requested by the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, chaired by Senator Warren Rudman...."
Freeper weston 4/21/99 "Children must be taught to settle their conflicts with words and not weapons." Bill Clinton as he ordered more bombs for Yugoslavia.
John. M. Olin Foundation Conference Series and Accuracy in Academia at the University of Chicago4/22/99 aruanan reports "...John Lott spoke at University of Chicago (he teaches here) last week along with Joseph Sobran and David Horowitz as part of the John. M. Olin Foundation conference series. Lott was GREAT!! In response to a question about the tactics of anti-gun groups, he said that before presenting his paper in 1996 at the Cato Institute, he had called various academics asking for critical comments. Most turned him down. He turned to the anti-gun groups next. In June he asked Susan Glick from Violence Policy Center if she could look over the paper and give her thoughts on it. She said they weren't interested. He replied that it was likely to be carried on C-SPAN. She said that they could get good media any time they wanted and they didn't want to draw attention to the paper. He asked if he could send her the paper and just have her own personal comments about it. She told him not to bother because she'd just throw it away. In August when it became a national story, she was one of many leaving phone messages asking for a copy of the paper. She said she needed the paper to be able to criticize it. Later that day Barry Serafin from ABC, which was doing a story on the paper, called him to get his response to criticisms that had been leveled against it. The reporter said that Susan Glick, among others, had mentioned several problems with the study, even naming page numbers. One of her 'problems' was that Lott had failed to take the Brady Law into account. Lott told Serafin that it was a strange criticism considering that his data only went up (at the time the paper was published) through 1992 and the passage of the Brady Law was still about two years in the future (He has since included another two years of data). Lott asked Serafin if he should have taken into account the effect on behavior involving guns of a law that had yet to be passed. He also mentioned that Glick had just left a message that morning asking for him to fax her a copy of the paper, though she had told him earlier she would throw it away if he sent it to her. Well, Serafin said, he didn't think she would deliberately lie. So, bidding the reporter adieu, Lott called Glick. Oh good, she said when she realized who it was. She really needed him to fax her a copy of his paper because of all the questions she was getting about it. Well, he said, funny she should mention that because he had just gotten off the phone with Barry Serafin who said she had already given a detailed criticism of the paper. How could she have done that if she hadn't read it, he asked her. She responded by hanging up on him...."
Fox Newswire 4/23/99 "...The U.N. Commission on Human Rights Friday denounced "war crimes'' by Serb forces in Kosovo, but shelved a U.S. resolution criticizing China...."
WorldNetDaily 4/23/99 Joseph Farah Freeper laz "...There he was, Bill Clinton -- the man for all seasons -- johnny-on-the-spot ready to seize any political advantage he could wangle in exploiting the emotional reaction of a nation to the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado. This guy makes me sick. He told the people of Littleton that a federal "crisis response team is ready now to travel to Colorado, and I strongly believe that we should do whatever we can to get enough counselors to the families and the children as quickly as possible." The date of this tragedy made me wonder where such a "crisis response team" was for an even bigger, federally sponsored slaughter a few years earlier at Waco, Texas...."
The Washington Post Charles Krauthammer 4/23/99 "..."[NATO] strikes continue to cause serious damage to the FRY [Serb] military and will further degrade their capability to commit atrocities against the Kosovo Albanian population." -- NATO military spokesman Giuseppe Marani, April 17. "We are also seeing increased evidence of ethnic cleansing. . . . " -- Same spokesman, same briefing, same day, one minute later.... If it were not so tragic, the standard Clinton/NATO line on Kosovo would be farcical. Every day they report how we are "degrading" Slobodan Milosevic's ability to carry out war crimes. Within minutes, they then report a fresh new set of war crimes...."
NewsMax 4/23/99 Carl Limbacher "...Vice President Al Gore announced on Wednesday that the U.S. would welcome up to 20,000 Kosovar refugees to the American mainland, scuttling an earlier plan for emergency resettlement at Guantanamo Bay. The administration claimed that the Guantanamo option was ditched after the displaced Kosovars rejected the idea of being relocated so far from their homeland. Yet neither Gore nor anyone else explained why the equally distant American mainland was geographically more acceptable.
The American Spectator 4/23/99 R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. Freeper newsman "...The Democrats who alibied for their impeached leader, ignored the evidence waiting for them in the Ford Building, and acquitted him, also turned their backs on the very grounds for impeachment written up by fellow Democrats in their 1974 proceedings against President Richard Nixon.... Had the Democrats remained true to the principles of that brief and admitted to the facts adduced in Clinton's impeachment, President Clinton would have been convicted. Moreover, we might not now be entoiled in this foreign policy botch in the Balkans...."
Associated Press 4/23/99 David Crary Freeper Brian Mosely "...The NATO attack on Serb television headquarters posed a dilemma for the international journalism community: Were its employees deserving of freedom-of-the-press protection, or were they legitimate targets as part of an oppressive government's propaganda machine? ..."
Chicago Tribune 4/26/99 NOW Tricia Lewis, Jennifer Koehler "...The irony of the situation is, of course, that while the president publicly cultivated a woman-friendly political image, behind the scenes he simultaneously demonstrated exceedingly bad judgment in his personal contacts with women. The result of his admittedly poor judgment is serious erosion of his credibility with both women in general and feminists in particular. Although some women reserved judgment on some of the earlier allegations against the president, there comes a time when enough is enough. President Clinton has proven himself to be a liar, a manipulator and, ultimately, a leader we cannot trust. When the chief executive of the most powerful country in the world sets such a poor example, it sends a horrible message to corporate CEOs and other members of the work force. At the same time, most people probably realize that if the president were a CEO, he would probably have been fired long ago...."
Washington Weekly 4/26/99 J Peter Mulhern "...As soon as news of the Littleton horror broke, the airwaves were thick with explanations for what happened....The gun control lobby won in a walkover....Like vultures swooping down on a particularly juicy bit of roadkill, gun control advocates seized on the Colorado shootings as proof positive that they are fighting the good fight. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, our latest school catastrophe should teach us that gun controls are typically both futile and irrelevant. The law already prohibited the two known perpetrators from possessing any of the weapons they used in their assault on Columbine High. They had no difficulty getting around the existing gun controls. This should give the advocates of new controls pause, but it doesn't..... Grotesque exploitation of Littleton's troubles has not been confined to the gun control crowd..... People differ widely in their diagnoses of the disease. On the left, the disease is identified as some sort of widespread psychological maladjustment. Americans are too angry, too filled with hate, and too suspicious of difference. On the right, one hears about America's flight from faith, moral certainty and personal responsibility. At all points on the political spectrum, people tend to blame the entertainment industry for coarsening our community and promoting violence. Some of these diagnoses contain a grain of truth, but they are all self-serving oversimplifications..... America has plenty of room for improvement, but what happened in Littleton tells us nothing about ourselves that we couldn't have learned in Genesis. The deaths in Littleton should not prompt policy initiatives or inspire any sort of crusade. They are tragedies to be mourned. ..."
Capitol Hill Blue 4/29/99 "...President Bill Clinton, not wanting to anger Hollywood moguls who contribute millions to Democratic political campaigns, won't used a White House youth summit to target violence in films or on TV. ``It would be a mistake for the people who don't want to offend the NRA to blame Hollywood and the people that don't want to offend Hollywood to blame the NRA,'' Clinton said.....White House sources say aides have urged Clinton to "treat lightly" on Hollywood, which contributed more than $20 million to Democratic candidates in 1998...."
Augusta Chronicle 4/30/99 Editorial Freeper newsman "... The Columbine High School killers broke more than a dozen gun laws before going on their murderous rampage. Do we really need more such laws? Does any sane person honestly believe that, if Clinton's laundry list of gun curbs had been in place, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would have been stopped? Of course not...."
"We did not ignore evidence" of the Chinese theft of nuclear warhead secrets, the President said. "Quite the contrary - we acted on it." William Jefferson Clinton, March 12, 1999
"We have investigated it, we continue to investigate it. We have dramatically increased our intelligence. I believe we have taken all appropriate steps." William Jefferson Clinton, March 12, 1999
"We moved swiftly and we continue to impose on China the strictest controls," Sandy Berger, March 12, 1999
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" ... he said the information he was told three years ago was "very general and very preliminary." In addition, he said, "we did not have a suspect" in the theft of the W-88 technology. Sandy Berger, March 12, 1999
"To the best of my knowledge, no one has said anything to me about any espionage which occurred by the Chinese against the labs, during my Presidency," William Jefferson Clinton, April 8, 1999
"Let me say, first of all, in response to the question you raise, I read The New York Times article today, and while I can't comment on specific intelligence reports as a matter of policy, I noted that even the article acknowledged that the alleged espionage might not have been connected to the national labs, which is the question I was asked in the press conference." William Jefferson Clinton, April 8, 1999
The American Spectator 5/99 Linda Killian "...As soon as the Cox report was completed, the White House began the job of spinning its results by leaking the most damaging portions and stressing that the problems occurred during previous administrations, a move that angered Cox and other Republicans on the committee. "This is the way the Clinton administration does things, this is their M.O.," said Porter Goss, another member of the Cox committee. "He's instinctively lying about what happened during his administration," said Cox of Clinton, but instructively added: "If we look at this problem as Bill Clinton we miss the point. The problem is China and its espionage efforts targeted at the United States.".... In addition to outlining the problems, the Cox report contains 38 recommendations for improving U.S. security. In early February, the White House leaked 19 of those recommendations which were declassified as well as the administration's responses. ...The administration objected to a proposal for surprise inspections of Chinese facilities that use high-performance U.S. computers, and the refusal of export licenses for such computers if China failed to comply. "Requiring any foreign country to accept visits without notice would be viewed as an infringement of its sovereignty," argued the White House, suggesting that "if China does not permit end-use visits, the administration will continue to implement appropriate measures, including the denial of licenses on a case by case basis." The Clinton administration had relaxed the rule for the sale of supercomputers to China and reversed a 1993 State Department decision that banned satellite exports to China for two years. What's more, decision-making about sensitive exports was moved to the Commerce Department, an agency more receptive to the pleas of large American companies eager to make multi- million-dollar sales. Pentagon workers were directed not to voice opposition, and memos written in opposition to the exports were surpressed or destroyed. In the wake of the Cox Committee's investigation, authority for sensitive sattelite sales has been transferred back to the State and Defense Departments...... "This has become a criminal matter,"says Sen. Thompson, who has been pushing Attorney General Janet Reno for years to appoint a special prosecutor to look into Chinagate. Thompson says he plans to renew that call. "If ever there was a case for an Independent Counsel, this is it. I'm going to continue to ride herd on the Justice Department to the extent that Ican," he says, adding, "We need to get to the bottom of this." ..."
The American Spectator 5/99 Jeremy Rabkin Freeper Wallaby "...Bill Clinton has his own rules. In his understanding, he did not perjure himself when he denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky: She had had sex with him. In launching air strikes against Serbia, he operated again on Clinton rules: Just because Serbian President Milosevic got a sustained slamming from American bombers did not mean that the United States was entering into a war...."
Washington Times 4/28/99 Inside Cover "...Will President Clinton's new gun law legislation, offered in response to last week's massacre at Columbine High, apply to his foreign supporters doing business in America? Previously, certain well-heeled Chinese benefactors seemed to have gotten a pass under Clinton's own 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Tuesday the president said teens have too much access to the kinds of artillery used by Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris to mow down 13 of their classmates. But three years ago Clinton was playing footsie with a Chinese arms executive who was busy trying to smuggle AK-47's into the hands of American teenagers. .... But there's an even more chilling aspect to the Wang-Clinton meeting; one which the national media has ignored ever since the news first broke. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette was one of the few newspapers to report the bombshell development, running the story on its March 14, 1997 front page under the headline, "Arms OK preceded U.S. visit": "Washington -- A massive shipment of Chinese guns and ammunition, which had been banned by order of President Clinton, was approved for delivery into the United States four days before the head of a major Chinese gun company met Clinton in the White House. On Feb. 2, 1996, the federal government issued importation permits for a multimillion dollar shipment of more than 100,000 semi-automatic weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition."...The report noted that the Chinese were granted the waivers at the same time other arms importers from around the world were begging for the same privilege. Only Wang Jun got the green light. Even lawyers lobbying for the Chinese deal were stunned by their good fortune. "Suddenly there was a breakthrough," said one. "I can't account for it." ...."
Reuters 5/9/99 "...Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said Sunday the Chinese government had obtained nuclear secrets during the Clinton presidency - something the administration had previously denied. Speaking on NBC television's "Meet the Press'' show, Richardson admitted security breaches had occurred during the Clinton presidency, despite denials by the president. "There have been damaging security leaks,'' Richardson said. "The Chinese have obtained damaging information ... during past administrations and (the) present administration.'' In a March news conference, President Clinton denied the Chinese had secured nuclear secrets during his presidency....."
"Committee members grilled FBI Director Louis J. Freeh about why the 1982 call was not investigated further" v "After the FBI confronted Lee about the call, he cooperated with the agency and later passed a polygraph examination in which he denied involvement in any espionage activity, the official said." - Washington Post 5/2/99 Vernon Loeb "....
Baltimore Sun 5/2/99 Colman McCarthy Freeper starlu "...Clinton tells the nation to adopt the ways of peacemaking -- the ways of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Dorothy Day, St. Francis, Jan Addams -- while he pushes on with the killing of Serbs in Yugoslavia. Are Clinton and his warrior advisers so obtuse as to think that citizens in this country and abroad can't see that he talks peace while practicing killing?...Indeed. Let's not upset the kiddies with the gore of war. Keep it sanitized. Show only U.S. warplanes taking off -- a nightly staple on television these past 40 days, a staple in 1991 -- and never show the human beings who lay dead at the other end of the bombing runs..."
AP 5/1/99 John Diamond "...As concerns deepen that China may have stolen prized U.S. nuclear secrets, some Republicans are trying to link the espionage case to President Clinton and the controversy over his Asian-American fund raising. But so far Republicans keep turning up evidence of security flaws dating to the days when they controlled the White House. In fact, the bulk of the suspicious activity at the labs that is now the focus of intense FBI scrutiny started in the early to mid 1980s, long before Clinton emerged on the national scene. That's not to say some serious security breaches haven't occurred during the Clinton presidency. Just in the last week, evidence has emerged publicly that highly classified nuclear weapons computer files were transferred to an unsecured computer as late as 1995. But if FBI suspicions prove correct, the nuclear scientist at the center of the controversy began to spy early during the Reagan administration....."
The Weekly Standard 5/10/99 William Kristol Freeper JeanS "..."I don't know why human beings do evil." Thus Vice President Al Gore, at last Sunday's memorial service in Littleton, Colorado. Of course, as Andrew Ferguson reports below, politicians of both parties soon abandoned such unusual honesty and humility. But as they stumped on behalf of their favorite "solutions," the speeches rang even hollower than usual...."
Washington Times 5/4/99 Frank J. Gaffney Jr, "...So much for Mr. Clinton's disclaimers that no Chinese penetration of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex occurred on his watch.... According to the latest article by the Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning team of Jeff Gerth and James Risen, "A secret report to top Clinton administration officials last November warned that China posed an 'acute intelligence threat' to the government's nuclear weapons laboratories and that computer systems at the labs were constantly penetrated by outsiders." This revelation comes on the heels of the penultimate Gerth-Risen contribution, which disclosed that Mr. Lee had apparently put the mother lode of U.S. nuclear secrets - the so-called "legacy codes" and specific weapons design "input data" - onto an unclassified, and easily accessed, computer system at Los Alamos....
USA Today 5/6/99 "...Five months ago, a special congressional committee investigating security problems with China questioned whether the Department of Energy had adequate safeguards to protect nuclear secrets. Its report won't be out until next week. But on Feb. 1, President Clinton responded, saying safeguards were "adequate" and getting better. That wasn't true then, and is doubtful now, as senators are learning this week. Fresh disclosures reveal a laxity at government's highest levels that defies easy explanation....Between the time the Justice Department refused the FBI's request for a court order and Lee's firing, there were more than 300 break-ins involving the computer network on which Lee kept his purloined nuclear secrets. A classified report last November alerted the heads of defense, energy, the intelligence agencies and the national security counsel to those vulnerabilities. Yet it took Energy Secretary Bill Richardson until April to upgrade computer security at the weapons labs. All of this mocks White House claims of taking security seriously and that it was previous administrations that were to blame. Now, the administration is ominously indicating those found culpable will be let go...."
NY Times 5/5/99 AP "...Lab officials also were dissuaded from even checking the scientist's office computer, although employees had been warned in a formal policy that their computers were subject to search ``without notice'' as a security precaution. Again, lab managers were told such a search might taint evidence and ruin a potential criminal case. ``This points out the dilemma of balancing the requirements of national security against the constraints guiding law enforcement efforts,'' John Browne, the Los Alamos director, told a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing. Paul Robinson, director of Sandia National Laboratory, also located in New Mexico, told senators that in the past he had ``pulled a person's clearance'' even when an FBI investigation was under way. He gave no further details.... Browne, a 20-year employee at Los Alamos who became the research lab's director 18 months ago, said Lee would have been transferred out of the secure areas, if given the word from the FBI. When Energy Secretary Bill Richardson directed that Lee be transferred last December ``we had him out within hours, we put him in an office outside the classified fence,'' said Browne. But FBI Director Louis Freeh had told senior Energy Department officials in August 1997, before Richardson was on the job, that the investigation would not be hindered if Lee's security clearance were lifted. The problem, said Browne, is that lab managers never got the word. ``This is one of the real breakdowns in communications'' that has marred the Lee case, said Browne...."
The Political Review @ www.FReeper.com 5/6/99 D. K. Zimmerman "...One of the loudest laments of key GOP players during the impeachment hearings in the House and the farcical non-trial in the Senate, was why doesn't the public condemn the president? Some claimed voters were too engrossed with their stock portfolios. Others suggested it was another sociological indication that deviancy is being defined down by our increasingly secular, modern society. Neither was a satisfactory answer. John Zogby, a pollster, forecast the 1996 election almost to the last decimal point. His most recent poll shows Clinton's favorable rating has slipped to only 53%. The question before us is, what is keeping it that high? If this administration has demonstrated anything, it is a shameful willingness to spin, prevaricate, and lie on any and every subject of substance. Beginning with the president's adultery, his illegal draft dodging, and Hillary's miraculous commodity trades, it swung into high gear over Filegate, Travelgate, and Whitewater.
The White House's War Room process is practically patented. Late Friday evening, a leak is made to appropriately friendly ears. Next, White House spokesfolks hit the Sunday talk shows to parrot the position that it is old news and insignificant. They cover every major show, because it is so beneath notice. The voters were oblivious to the "personal" crossing over into public policy in both elections, but most especially during the 1996 election...."
The Political Review @ www.FReeper.com 5/6/99 D. K. Zimmerman "....Chinagate has returned with a vengeance, too. Fearing the contents of the Cox report, White House spin control effort focused on delaying its release while attempting to discredit it. The White House leaked a fabrication, that the only serious security breaches Cox found occurred during the Reagan and Bush administrations. This was duly recited on all the best Sunday morning shows. President Clinton publicly announced he had never been informed of any suspected espionage. Apparently Clinton doesn't consider national security as the "people's business." Last November, even as he mouthed that excuse to duck impeachment charges, certain agencies were intently investigating and briefing his National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger. Meanwhile, the Departments of Energy and Justice were just as intently blocking and frustrating the investigators. No one told him? Berger may take the fall, but the evidence is plain. After Reagan and Bush made great strides in improving security at DOE labs, security was dismantled on Clinton's watch. Numerous foreign governments, to include China, were given pretty much free access to classified material as part of a concerted effort supported by the White House, the Department of Commerce, and the State Department. The "I guess someone screwed up" and "bureaucratic SNAFU" defenses offered for Travelgate and Filegate just won't hold water anymore. Chinagate and the sham war on terrorism clearly demonstrate that how Clinton behaves in private life is all too representative of how he behaves publicly. He cannot be trusted to do the right thing and will lie about it when caught. Can voters still feel character doesn't matter knowing it isn't about sex this time, but national security? ..."
Salon Magazine 4/26/99 David Horowitz "...At Bates, the topic of my lecture was "The intellectual tradition of the left is bankrupt and its hegemony at Bates is an abuse of academic freedom." In a rare departure from the norm, I had been invited to Bates by the dean of the college, even though, as he informed me shortly after we were introduced, he was a "leftist." ....Later, after I returned to California, I received a somewhat testy letter from him because of a full-page ad I had run in the school paper on the day of my lecture, which he had not seen at the time. The ad announced that the dean was inviting students to attend my evening talk. It then continued with the following headline: "Marxism is a resurgent doctrine in the former Soviet empire and apparently on American campuses too." Below this headline was a reminder to students that the false doctrines of Marxism had led to the deaths of 100 million people. Below that was a selection of book titles by authors like Thomas Sowell, David Gress and me offered as "antidotes" to what students were being taught by their professors at Bates. In all fairness, the dean had a point. I had undoubtedly made his life more difficult. Still, his anguish was just another indication of the pressure he was under from his left-wing faculty because of my visit.... Since I had a whole day available, I decided to sit in on one of Bates' political science courses to check my impressions about the state of the contemporary university. I asked students for directions to the building in which political science courses were taught, and went to the office on the ground floor. None of the administrators seemed to have a problem with my auditing a class, so I approached a professor as she was entering her classroom and asked permission to attend..... A political science course devoted to modern industrial societies, as this one was, might have had texts by Weber, Marx, Durkheim, Tonnies and Hayek, for example. In this course, however, there was a single 600-page text called "Modernity," edited by the well-known English new leftist Stuart Hall. Like Hall, every contributor to the text was a Marxist. There was no lecture, and no real contribution from the teacher, who merely guided students page by page and paragraph by paragraph through the text at hand. It resembled a science course, based on an accepted body of knowledge, where a single class text is the norm. ..."
Washington Times 5/7/99 Helle Bering "....Two weeks after the Chinese nuclear espionage scandal erupted in early March, President Clinton held a news conference to blame previous administrations and to absolve his own. "I am confident that we in the White House have done what we could to be aggressive about this," he said. In fact, the record shows that senior administration officials have, time and again, delayed, obstructed or ignored the investigation. Moreover, White House and other administration officials have repeatedly underestimated the depth and the consequences of China's nuclear espionage. And the news keeps getting worse. It now turns out that in November 1998, a secret report distributed to senior Clinton administration officials --including National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Attorney General Janet Reno and Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Bill Richardson -- informed them that between October 1997 and June 1998 there were more than 300 foreign attacks on DOE's unclassified computer systems. Noting that "China represents an acute intelligence threat to DOE," the secret report stated that instances in which foreign countries successfully penetrated DOE's unclassified computer system resulted in "complete access and total control to create, view, modify or execute any and all information stored on the system," the New York Times reported last Sunday..... even after this secret report was widely distributed throughout the administration last November, investigators in the Clinton administration still did not check Mr. Lee's office computer until March 1999, after the Times reported the espionage scandal. By then, Mr. Lee had been under investigation for espionage for three years. He spent the previous month attempting to destroy the evidence of his unauthorized downloading of the nation's nuclear secrets. It was not until April 1999, nearly a half year after the secret report was issued in November, that Mr. Richardson shut down the DOE's classified computer system in order to improve its security...."
Washington Times 5/7/99 Helle Bering "....Unfortunately, this is only the latest in a string of intelligence disasters. The administration first learned in early 1995 that China may have stolen the United States' most sensitive nuclear secrets..... In late 1995, DOE investigators informed the FBI. By February 1996, DOE counterintelligence officers and the FBI identified Mr. Lee...DOE briefed the CIA in early 1996.... Meanwhile, it is now quite clear, while China was stealing U.S. nuclear secrets, the White House and the Commerce Department were aggressively transferring dual-use technology to China, including supercomputers capable of testing stolen nuclear-weapon design information. In March 1996 President Clinton himself overruled then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher's decision to retain control within the State Department of satellite exports to China. Against the advice of the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies, the president transferred that authority to Commerce. Two months after that decision, the Loral space-launch firm was involved in the unauthorized transfer of missile guidance-and-control technology to China. Loral's chairman, Bernard Schwartz, had actively lobbied the administration to switch satellite-export licensing from State to Commerce while he was pouring money into the Democratic Party...."
Washington Times 5/7/99 Helle Bering "....In effect, while China was actively engaged in nuclear espionage, Bill Clinton's political sugar daddy was engaging in the unauthorized transfer of the technology to launch from the same missile several of the smaller, improved warheads at different targets. A few months later, the chief of Chinese military intelligence personally directed $300,000 from Beijing to Democratic fat cat Johnny Chung's Hong Kong bank account for the sole purpose of helping to finance Mr. Clinton's 1996 re-election, telling Chung, "We like your president."..."
Washington Times 5/7/99 Helle Bering "....Then-Deputy National Security Adviser Berger was briefed about China's nuclear espionage in April 1996. Having reversed Mr. Christopher on satellite-export licensing only a month earlier, the White House downplayed the consequences of the espionage, refusing to permit it to interfere with the budding "strategic partnership" with China...."
5/7/99 US NEWSWIRE White House "...We agree with the Committee that the United States should not assist China's ballistic missile program in connection with Chinese launches of U.S. commercial communications satellites. This has been U.S. policy since 1988, when President Reagan first authorized the use of Chinese launch services. This Administration, like previous Administrations, has not authorized the transfer of any technology to assist China's ballistic missile program..... "
New York Post 5/10/99 Unsigned Editorial "...Energy Secretary Bill Richardson wants America to be magnanimous when it comes to investigating the growing Chinese nuclear-spy scandal. Criticism is ''starting to become a blame game,'' he warns. ''There's plenty of blame to share.'' It shouldn't surprise that Richardson is begging for a restrained, evenhanded approach. After years of turning a blind eye to reports of Chinese thefts of U.S. nuclear technology, and several years more of stonewalling congressional attempts to investigate those thefts, the Clinton administration has been forced to acknowledge that our national security has been harmed. When those reports first surfaced, however, the Clintonites were quick to play the blame game - and to point the fingers at Republicans, under whose watch Beijing's espionage began. Vice President Al Gore in particular claimed that no serious security breaches took place on President Clinton's watch. Now we know better - but the White House has decided that this isn't the time to place any blame. After all, says Richardson, making this a political issue is ''only going to hurt the labs and the country.'' Wrong, Mr. Secretary. The blame game is exactly what we should be playing about what may well turn out to be the country's most damaging case of nuclear espionage in half a century...."
New Republic 5/24/99 Jacob Heilbrunn "...It appears also that the Cox committee report contains new information about China's exploitation of the Clinton administration's willingness to allow American companies to sell the Chinese dual-use technology. Starting in 1993, with the support of then-Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, American firms began to promote the sale of computers and other high technology to China. The question is whether these firms were, in the process, also giving the Chinese dual-use technology--technology that arguably should be kept from the Chinese since, although it can be used for relatively benign purposes, it can also be used to achieve military ends. In particular, the Cox committee report apparently takes a close look at the sale of high-performance computers to China and whether these computers were used by the Chinese in modeling the miniaturized W-88 warhead..... On April 12, Notra Trulock, a senior Energy Department intelligence official, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that in July 1997--on the eve of Clinton's summit with Chinese President Jiang Zemin--he had alerted Sandy Berger to his suspicions of ongoing Chinese espionage in American labs. Trulock has said that he didn't get much of a response. Indeed, about the only thing Berger appeared to do "swiftly" in response to Trulock's allegations was to have his deputy, Gary Samore, commission an alternative study from the CIA about other ways--apart from stealing from the United States--the Chinese might have developed certain technologies. Not surprisingly, the CIA study was later used to cast doubt on Trulock's concerns..... But Trulock, in his congressional testimony, complained that Energy Department officials "strenuously resisted" implementing PDD-61. Then-Deputy Secretary of Energy Elizabeth Moler has maintained that Trulock's allegations are "absolutely false" and that the department did implement changes. Unfortunately, given the secrecy still surrounding the underlying events, this amounts to a high-level he-said-she-said dispute, and, at least until the Cox committee report is declassified--and maybe not even then--it's impossible to know exactly what occurred. .....Specifically, Kennedy points to an April 8 Times article by Gerth and James Risen that alleged Berger had learned about the theft of neutron bomb data as early as April 1996. "Four people at the meeting don't recall Berger being told," says Kennedy. But Gerth stands by the story. When I explained to Gerth that the White House was now targeting him by name, he read to me portions of an April 20 letter he had sent to National Security Council spokesman David Leavy in response to White House complaints about the April 8 story. Gerth wrote: "[N]o one knows precisely what transpired because the meeting was apparently not transcribed. Our reporting relied on officials who were present or had used materials present at the briefing. Moreover, one of our sources spoke to us with the knowledge and approval of the White House. We did not include this in the story ... because we did not want to point a finger at the White House as disclosing a highly classified briefing." ....."
New York Times 5/10/99 JEFF GERTH and JAMES RISEN "...The submarine technology in the Peter Lee case was developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a weapons lab in California. The Peter Lee case is also significant because it clearly demonstrates that the American government believed that China was successfully engaged in espionage -- obtaining American defense secrets -- during President Clinton's second term. While the Los Alamos disclosures earlier this year prompted an array of investigations, Clinton, two months ago, said no one had brought suspicions of Chinese espionage to him and administration officials initially portrayed the problem as one confined to earlier administrations....The breach involved in the Peter Lee case -- code-named Royal Tourist by the FBI -- occurred in 1997, a point made in a classified November 1998 counterintelligence report ordered by and then sent to the White House.....The November 1998 counterintelligence report citing the Peter Lee case was part of a comprehensive review ordered by President Clinton as part of his effort to improve security at U.S. weapons laboratories, which are run by the Department of Energy. That report states that as late as 1997, Lee had "provided China with classified information." ....Sandy RosenBerger, Clinton's national security adviser, was briefed about the Peter Lee case by Energy Department intelligence officials in July 1997. Berger's spokesman, David Leavy, declined to say when Clinton first learned about Lee's activities....Twogood told the FBI that the information Peter Lee provided the Chinese in 1997 was "classified and sensitive," court records show. The radar program seeks to detect the physical traces, briefly left as signatures on water surfaces, of the undersea motions of submarines. Remote sensing devices located, for example, on an airplane pick up the traces. "The Navy has invested a lot in this area for 20 years and so by definition that implies it's important," said Twogood, currently the deputy associate director for electronic engineering at Lawrence Livermore. The Soviet Union worked hard to develop this technology during the Cold War. Recent American advances suggested that Soviet assertions of success in anti-submarine measures should be taken more seriously, Twogood told Congress in 1994......
New York Times 5/19/98 William Saffire "...Clinton's explanation, which used to slyly suggest that China policy was not changed "solely" by contributors, has now switched to total ignorange: Shucks, we didn't know the source of the money. But this president's DNC did not know because it wanted NOT to know; procedures long in place to prevent the unlawful inflow of foreign funds were uprooted by the money hungry Clintonites. Today, two years after this sale of our security (Article date: May 1998) comes the unforseen chain reaction: As China strengthens its satellite and missile technology, a new Indian government reacts to the growing threat from its longtime Asian rival and joins the nuclear club. In turn, China feels pressed to supply its threatened ally, Pakistan, with weaponry Beijing promised us no to transfer. This makes Clinton The Proliferation President...."
The Washington Times 5/11/99 "....Nothing less than "the president's word" was "at stake," Mr. Russert declared, momentarily forgetting that the president's word long ago became worthless. And Mr. Richardson's word was in trouble too. As a transcript of the interview shows, he attempted all manner of dissembling to protect the president until, finally, he could dissemble no more and acknowledged: "The Chinese have obtained damaging information." And the president knew it last November...."
The Washington Times 5/11/99 "....Mr. Will noted that Rep. Chris Cox, who chaired a 1998 bipartisan select committee investigating China's acquisition of U.S. technology for nuclear warheads and missiles, had asserted that China's nuclear espionage was "ongoing." Mr. Richardson replied, "I disagree," noting the "dramatic steps" he had taken as energy secretary were "sufficient steps." Three days later, Mr. Richardson announced new policies involving e-mail, apparently abandoning his peculiar concern for "free expression" involving the potential distribution of the nation's most sensitive nuclear secrets...."
The Washington Times 5/11/99 "...."Sufficient steps," Mr. Richardson? In fact, even during Mr. Richardson's tenure, the Energy Department was extremely lax in implementing many steps to improve security. Mr. Richardson waited more than four months after receiving the November secret report before shutting down the department's classified computer system to improve the security of its data. Mark it down as another of this administration's "insufficient steps." ..."
NewsMax.com 5/12/99 "...For the last year Steele has publicly claimed that it was the Office of Independent Counsel that had investigated her son's adoption to pressure her to lie. But in sworn testimony during the April trial of Susan McDougal on contempt and obstruction charges, Steele admitted that the OIC had done no such thing. ..."
Wall Street Journal 5/12/99 JOHN J. FIALKA "... Treasury Department employees in January destroyed 162 boxes of old records that may have included files subject to a court order in a suit accusing the government of mishandling Indian trust funds. The Justice Department's lead lawyer in the case, Phillip A. Brooks, admitted the destruction in a letter to Judge Royce C. Lamberth of federal District Court here. The court had ordered the Clinton administration to produce trust-fund documents, and earlier this year Judge Lamberth held both Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt in civil contempt for repeatedly failing to locate and provide all the documents. The case, scheduled for trial in June, has been pending for more than two years.....The destruction was stopped, Mr. Brooks said, and a check of the remaining 245 boxes showed that at least two boxes were from the Interior Department. "We cannot at this time rule out the possibility" that some of the destroyed documents were subject to the court order, he stated in his letter. Dennis Gingold, a lawyer for the Indians, reacted angrily: "I think Mr. Rubin should go to jail for this. This is criminal contempt.".... Mr. Brooks said the boxes of destroyed records covered payments made by various federal agencies during the first half of this century. Another box from the collection "was apparently mislaid" during a transfer operation in 1996, he wrote. "We have opted to err on the side of caution and bring these matters to your attention immediately," Mr. Brooks said in his letter to Judge Lamberth. There was no immediate reaction from the judge, who has been critical of the government's handling of the case. In two separate rulings Tuesday, Alan L. Balaran, a special master appointed by the judge to enforce his orders for documents, ordered the government to provide e-mail as well as other documents that the Justice Department had argued should be withheld under attorney-client privilege.
NY Times 5/13/99 JAMES RISEN and JEFF GERTH "...For the first time, China is close to deploying a nuclear missile with a warhead whose design draws on stolen American secrets, according to United States intelligence officials. A long-range Chinese missile, known as the Dong Feng-31, is being equipped with a small nuclear warhead whose design uses secret American technology, according to the American intelligence assessments. The technology is believed to have been stolen from a Government weapons laboratory, although there is some debate over precisely what technical information officials believe is being used. The missile is expected to be deployed within three or four years, according to the estimates.....Since suspicions of Chinese nuclear espionage became public, the Clinton Administration has said that there is no evidence that Beijing has actually deployed nuclear weapons that rely on stolen American secrets....."
Roll Call 5/13/99 Morton M. Kondracke "...It took six and a half months and a stained blue dress for President Clinton to retract his finger-wagging denial of sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. How long will it take him to correct for his China spying denial of March 19? "To the best of my knowledge," Clinton said that day, "no one has said anything to me about any espionage that occurred by the Chinese against the labs during my presidency." Well, Clinton left himself more wiggle room on March 19 than he did in his January 26, 1998, Monica denial. "To the best of my knowledge" gives him the out of faulty memory. But published facts, even if they are not quite as reliable as DNA on a dress, rebut the basic accuracy of the denial: Chinese espionage did occur during his presidency and Clinton almost certainly was informed about it. In July 1997, Department of Energy intelligence chief Notra Trulock briefed White House National Security Adviser Sandy Berger about it. White House aides acknowledge that Berger briefed Clinton "within a day or two." Energy Secretary Bill Richardson confirmed last Sunday on NBC News' "Meet the Press" that China engaged in unspecified espionage activities during the Clinton years. ...."
Houston Chronicle 5/14/99 "...Bill Clinton and Al Gore have chosen spin over straight talk concerning their share of the responsibility for the success of China's spies in stealing secret weapons technology. So far the only public statements Clinton and Gore have made about China's espionage activities against the United States are that the spying took place during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush. They would have us believe that it was the Clinton/Gore administration that discovered the spying, rooted it out and took the necessary security measures to make sure it can never happen again. Such statements are false, of course. Incredibly false...."
http://www.senate.gov 5/14/99 U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) "...U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said today that he believes the Clinton Administration deliberately withheld vital information about China's theft of nuclear secrets from members of Congress for political reasons. "The compromise of secrets about U.S. nuclear-related technology is perhaps the biggest breach of national security in American history," Inhofe said. "The fact that the Clinton Administration, for political reasons, deliberately kept vital information about it from Congress for more than three years is a scandal of gigantic proportions." Inhofe said he reached this conclusion in part as a result of the conflicting responses of two former Energy Department officials who Inhofe asked to voluntarily take polygraph tests concerning their recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee..... Both officials agreed under oath at the April 12 hearing to take a polygraph test to assist in the effort to get to the truth. On April 26, Inhofe wrote to each requesting that they fulfill their commitment to take the test. Trulock responded by agreeing to voluntarily take the test. Moler responded without agreeing to voluntarily take the test. "Absent any credible countervailing evidence, I draw the obvious common sense conclusion," Inhofe said. "I believe Mr. Trulock is telling the truth and Ms. Moler is lying. I believe Ms. Moler was not being truthful when she denied instructing Mr. Trulock not to brief Congress because of political considerations. I believe she had a motive to lie and that she likely acted in accord with the proven tactics of a President and an administration that has so often employed deceit as a means to achieve what they believe are higher ends." Inhofe said he would not try to compel either official to take a polygraph test even if he had any power to do so, which he does not. He also said he will not ask one official to take the test when the other declines. He pointed out that both officials agreed on April 12 to voluntarily take such a test and that he has given both the opportunity to fulfill that..."
AP 5/14/99 "...While much of China's gains of U.S. nuclear secrets were in the 1980s when Republicans controlled the White House, the [Cox] report cites evidence that Beijing gained U.S. neutron bomb technology as early as the 1970s and continued aggressive spying throughout the 1990s.....[China] Obtained some sensitive nuclear weapons information in 1995, according to an intelligence report that could not determine the source of the leak. The official declined to further describe this breach because of ongoing investigation...."
The Washington Times 5/14/99 Wesley Pruden "...Hollywood trashes the ethics, morals and manners of the young. Everybody, even Bill Clinton and Jack Valenti, knows that. It gets worse. Hollywood trashes history, too. Oliver Stone, with his fanciful version of a conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy, is only the best known of the worst. A generation of young people, who have forgotten how to pry a book open and rely instead on the movies for an entertaining version of the past, saw Stone's invented "newsreel" footage and are certain now that the movie is exactly the way it happened. (Even Oliver Stone knows better.) ....[story continues on Saving Private Ryan...]"
Reuters 5/16/99 "..."There is no question that what the People's Republic of China is now doing is a direct result of what they have stolen from the United States,'' Cox said on ABC's "This Week'' news program..... Cox, however, pointed to his findings that China only had two long-range missiles at the start of the decade but now has approximately 20, with some of them aimed at the United States...... Cox blamed the Clinton administration for leaking parts of the study, saying that the news reports have been "heavily spun.'' "The leaks are coming rather obviously, I think, from the administration,'' he said. "There is no reason in the world that we should treat this national security information as if it were some political football.''.... "
Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/stage08.sml) 5/14/99 Carl Cameron "...Fox News has learned that sources within the intelligence community believe that the Chinese military could by 2002 integrate secrets stolen from U.S. weapons labs into its arsenal, including the information required to construct a W-88 miniaturized nuclear warhead. The latest information contradicts CIA assurances last month that the Chinese were 10 years away from employing any of the stolen technologies. That CIA timetable had allowed politicians on capitol hill to play down the growing scandal which centers around allegations that classified military secrets have been leaking from the United States for more than 15 years. U.S. military intelligence sources say China's long range Dong Feng-31 missile is currently being armed with miniaturized nuclear warheads alarmingly similar to the American W-88. The Dong Feng has a range of 5,000 miles, meaning it could hit targets in the United States. Secrets for the W-88 were stolen from U.S. weapons labs like Los Alamos between 1984 and 1997. The W-88 is used by the U.S. on the Trident missile which is mostly launched from submarines. Up to eight warheads can be deployed and aimed at separate targets from a single missile. Reports suggest the Chinese plan to launch their Dong Feng-31 missiles from trucks, a dramatic improvement in their missile mobility made possible by the miniaturization of warheads. Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Richard Shelby blasted Attorney General Janet Reno Wednesday for turning down an FBI request to search the home and computer of Wen Ho Lee, a suspected Chinese spy. The Republican senator from Alabama only smiled when asked if she should be fired. "The nation was not well-served," Shelby said. "It's indefensible on the part of the attorney general. She's accountable for what happens."
New York Times News Service 5/14/99 "...For the first time, China is close to deploying a nuclear missile with a warhead whose design draws on stolen American secrets, according to U.S. intelligence officials. A long-range Chinese missile, known as the Dong Feng-31, is being equipped with a small nuclear warhead whose design uses secret U.S. technology, according to the American intelligence assessments. The technology is believed to have been stolen from a government weapons laboratory, according to the intelligence information, although there is some debate over precisely what data officials believe are being used. The missile is expected to be deployed within three or four years, according to the estimates. Since suspicions of Chinese nuclear espionage became public, the Clinton administration has said that there is no evidence that Beijing actually has deployed nuclear weapons that rely on stolen American secrets. Officials have said, for example, that China stole design information about America's most advanced warhead, the W-88, between 1984 and 1988. Yet they stress that, while China has developed a test version with a similar design, it has not actually produced such a weapon...."
UPI 5/18/99 Freeper Brian Mosely "...Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said (Tuesday) security at DOE labs has improved dramatically in the wake of a Chinese spying scandal at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Computer security has been improved and background checks are taking place, Richardson said. "Now we need to move on. Leave the labs alone," he told reporters at an exhibit on Energy Department efforts to counter terrorism...."
USA Today 5/19/99 Peter Eisler "... In 1997, for example, site managers helped bury a report by the department's Office of Safeguards and Security, which cited vulnerabilities at several key facilities. Los Alamos and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory outside San Francisco took hits, as did the Rocky Flats site, an idled weapons plant near Denver. The report decried a steep decline in security spending at DOE facilities. It noted that guard forces had dwindled 42% from 1992 through 1996, alarm systems needed replacement, employee background check programs were backlogged and computers were increasingly susceptible to outside penetration. Heavy complaints from site managers spurred DOE officials to commission a follow-up assessment with heavy participation by site managers, who painted a far brighter picture of the agency's security...."
USA Today 5/19/99 Peter Eisler "...In April 1997, as the agency readied its Annual Report to the President on the Status of Safeguards and Security, officials opted to "eliminate some of the unsupported conclusions" reached by the security office, according to an internal memo by then-Assistant Energy Secretary Tara O'Toole. Those conclusions, she added, did not present "an accurate and balanced picture." The report to the president did include toned-down comments reflecting some of the security office's chief concerns. But like previous reports, which also questioned computer security and physical protections , the legally required assessment was held back from the White House.
The Washington Monthly 5/99 Lanny Davis "...There were two major techniques that we used to implement McCurry's strategy of getting all the bad news out early and helping reporters write bad stories. The first was overt and fully approved within the White House chain of command, at least in the first few months of 1997: Documents would be released to the press at the same time as they were handed over to the Congress. Over time the press came to call these episodes "document dumps." The second method was covert, both to the outside world and within the "official" channels of the White House - the selective placement of certain stories and hot documents with a particular news organization, on "deep background," in a manner designed to minimize damage....We did this rarely; this method was almost always limited to a potentially very damaging story that was complicated, and therefore, which needed a baseline or "predicate" story to frame the issue. I never did a deep-background private placement without at least someone at a high level of the White House chain of command at least generally aware of what I was doing...."
Investor's Business Daily 5/19/99 "...There's no good reason for a child to own an AK-47,'' President Clinton said last week while pushing his kiddie gun control bill. Just as there's no good reason for a U.S. president to entertain the head of a communist entity that sells AK-47s to kids, right? Don't expect an answer from Clinton. He did just that on Feb. 6, 1996. ..... In May 1996, agents of Wang's dealership and another Chinese arms company, Norinco, were arrested for trying to smuggle AK- 47s into the U.S. for sale to drug gangs..... Wang was escorted by one of Clinton's old Arkansas pals. Among other things, Trie was the top donor to the Clintons' legal defense fund - that is, until trustees deemed his cash too dirty to keep. But here's what makes the idea that Wang was just a random guest really hard to swallow. Shortly after the White House meeting with Clinton, Trie escorted Wang across 14th Street to the Commerce Department. There, he met with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown - and John Huang, as we now know from court-ordered depositions.....Clinton's never been pressed on his ties to Wang. Of the 103 so-called coffees, Clinton told the press they were just ''respectful hearings'' for citizens. First off, Wang's not a citizen. Second, what could the president possibly hear and respect from the chief dealer for the world's No. 1 arms proliferator? Unless it's the sound of money dropping into his campaign coffers..... Last week, he held a White House summit called ''Youth, Violence and Responsibility,'' which capped Clinton's multi-city campaign in the wake of the Colorado school shootings to raise our consciousness about the perils of youth violence and guns. Oh, now he cares...."
Reuters 5/19/99 "...Documents allegedly destroyed by a former Democratic fund raiser would have been valuable to a congressional inquiry into President Clinton's 1996 campaign financing, an FBI agent testified on Wednesday. Agent Jerome Campane testified on the third day of the trial of Yah Lin "Charlie'' Trie on federal charges of obstructing a U.S. Senate investigation into alleged campaign spending abuses during Clinton's reelection race...."
Investor's Business Daily 5/20/99 Editorial "... Asked if Hillary was a client, Lenzner refused to answer in a May 1998 deposition by Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group suing the Clinton administration on several fronts, including campaign finance irregularities and FBI files on Republicans. He cited attorney-client privilege...."
Investor's Business Daily 5/20/99 Editorial "... Cody Shearer worked as a subcontractor for IGI on at least one case, Milton says. In 1992, he was charged with digging up dirt on President Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle. (Shearer is reportedly close to Vice President Al Gore's fund-raiser pal, Peter Knight.) On CNBC's ''Rivera Live'' last week, Lenzner denied Shearer ever worked for him. But under oath during his May 1998 Judicial Watch deposition, Lenzner admitted Shearer ''was a subcontractor on one job for us.'' ..."
Borque 5/19/99 "...For the first time since the bombing began, Greek judges have taken a stand and, citing legal arguments, point out that the NATO offensive against Yugoslavia has inaugurated a period of lawlessness in international relations, bringing us back to the eras of the Holy Alliance and the Axis. In fact, they pointed out that this attack is accompanied by the revival of black propaganda that attempts to exploit the misfortunes of the refugees to draw public attention away from the violation of international law..."
New York Post 5/20/99 Steve Dunleavy Freeper starlu "...Now we hear that Clinton would consider sending in ground troops to the Balkans debacle. "I and everyone else has said ... that we have not and will not take any option off the table." he said Monday. What? Has he got galloping Alzheimer's disease? Exactly 57 days ago he said: "I do not intend to put our ground troops into Kosovo." Sounds like George Bush when he told us to "Watch my lips" - there will be no tax increase. Well, whether it be war or wenching we realize that with Clinton the first casualty is the truth..."
New York Post 5/20/99 Editorial Freeper starlu "...For two full months, NATO has bombed the bejabbers out of the former Yugoslavia while President Clinton assured anyone within earshot - which is to say, the entire planet - that the introduction of infantry into the war was ''off the table.'' Tuesday, the President unambiguously contradicted himself: ''We have not and will not take any option off the table.'' But if it was never on the table, how could it be taken off the table? The answer is that the table in question is Bill Clinton's table. You've heard of the ''bodyguard of lies''? This is the table of lies. Nothing he has to say on this or any other subject is ever to be believed. Nothing...."
National Review 5/31/99 Peter Collier Freeper Stand Watch Listen "... His aides have bristled at the notion that Kosovo is "Clinton's war." Yet it is exactly that, manifesting the president's many anxieties as commander in chief. It is a war waged with squeamishness about U.S. military might and vigilance for any evidence of the arrogance of American power. In rhetoric it is a war about a climactic struggle between good and evil; in implementation it is a "conflict" that requires resolution, not victory, and whose high point is the release of three soldiers abducted while not fighting. .....The ultimate irony of Kosovo is that Clinton went there expecting the clarity of World War II, but found instead the murkiness of Vietnam...."
Drudge Exclusive 5/20/99 "...Members of a House committee now believe that President Clinton's national security adviser Sandy Berger was deliberately misleading during testimony on just when the president was told of suspected China spying and theft of U.S. military technology..... According to the soon-to-be-released Cox Report, Berger was briefed on the China activity in 1996. Berger testified that he did not brief President Clinton until early 1998, more 18 months later. But the committee obtained evidence, via testimony and documents, according to sources, that Berger's testimony had major timeline problems. "We have learned that Sandy Berger told the president in July 1997, not in early 1998," one committee member said. Vice President Al Gore was alerted to China's spying in March 1998 by his national security adviser Leon Fuerth, according to testimony. But Fuerth was fully briefed in April 1996, the Cox Report determined. "Administration officials would have us believe that Mr. Fuerth waited to tell the vice president about the China situation until after it appeared in the NEW YORK TIMES?" a committee member questioned.....'
MSNBC 5/21/99 Brokaw and Cox "... Brokaw: "What did President Clinton know and when did he know it?" Cox: "Our select committee asked that question. We asked specifically, when was the president briefed about nuclear espionage at our national laboratories? And the answer that we got back in writing and response to our interrogatories was early 1998. Subsequently, after much public discussion of that very topic, the National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, wrote to our select committee and amended that response. And said the real date was 1997, although they missed it because there was no written record of that meeting. But he now recalls that it took place." Brokaw: "The president has said that there were no violations of these laboratories during his administration." Cox: "Both I and the ranking Democrat on the select committee, Norm Dicks, met with the president on April 22, and gave him a full brief on the major acts of espionage that had been committed recently. And we didn't have any factual disagreement with the president or the other administration attendees at that White House meeting, which lasted 90 minutes." ..."
Washington Post 5/21/99 Walter Pincus Page A21 "...The Energy Department's intelligence chief said yesterday he warned the White House and others in 1997 that China might be trying to acquire nuclear weapons simulations codes similar to those discovered this year in the unclassified computer of a former Los Alamos National Laboratory physicist suspected of spying. Notra Trulock, the department's controversial whistleblower in allegations of Chinese spying, said for the first time at a Senate hearing that concern the Chinese were seeking the so-called legacy codes from Los Alamos led him to recommend that employee computer files should be searched. "I could only recommend to my supervisors that such a search be conducted," Trulock told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, "but to no avail." Administration officials confirmed that Trulock identified computer codes as one of several potential targets for Chinese espionage in a July 1997 briefing at the White House. The previous year, Beijing had signed the comprehensive test ban treaty and Trulock, according to one senior administration official, correctly estimated that Chinese intelligence would turn its focus on gaining information on techniques that would allow them to maintain their stockpile without testing. ..."
MSNBC 5/24/99 Mike Brunker and Craig Staats "...THE SOURCES, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the eight-member House select committee that investigated the alleged spying concluded that the stolen technology - including classified information on the Trident, Peacekeeper and Minuteman III warheads - will be incorporated into a new generation of Chinese ICBMs as early as 2002....."The report says the United States first detected the theft of vast amounts of weapons design information in 1995, but notes that National Security Adviser Sandy Berger testified that President Bill Clinton was not briefed on the matter until 1998."..."
The New Australian 5/24/99 Peter Zhang No 120 ".... The regime has a dossier on every American Senator and Congressman. Everyone of them has been politically profiled. Beijing knows which ones will spring to Clinton's defence, even in the present climate. One such man is Democrat Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California. He claimed that there is no evidence that the DNC or Clinton knew certain funds were illegal and originated with Chinese intelligence. Readers will no doubt note that he did not say no one knew, only that no one can prove, at least at this stage, that anyone knew. He has obviously been taking linguistic lessons from your president. I raised Waxman because his political profile predicted his response. He is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who are committed to implementing the kind of policies that killed millions of Chinese and Russians. To these people capitalism is evil and America is the leading capitalist state. It follows that anything that weakens America is to be welcomed if not actually defended. Beijing's profiles are rarely wrong and that is why they are perfectly happy with the likes of Waxman and Reno. But where does that leave the American people?..."
Yahoo News / Reuters 5/25/99 Steve Holland "...-``I strongly believe that our continuing engagement with China has produced benefits for our national security,'' Clinton said in a speech in this Texan town on the border with Mexico..... ``I want to assure you and all the American people that I will work very hard with the Congress to protect our national security, to implement the recommendations, and to continue our policy of engagement, because both of them are in the national interest,'' said Clinton, who was in south Texas attending a White House conference on bringing economic development to rural and urban areas...."
5/25/99 UPI "...Texas Gov. George W. Bush says (Tuesday) a congressional report that shows China has been stealing U.S. nuclear weapons secrets for 20 years is evidence of the Clinton administration's "failed policies toward China." Bush, the unannounced front-runner for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, says the administration did not react properly when presented with detailed information about China's spying, and that "it is still trying to minimize the scope and extent of the damage done."..."
White House Statement on Release of Cox Report 5/25/99 "...The President received the classified version of the Select Committee's report on January 4, 1999, and the President provided his response to the recommendations of the Select Committee on February 1, 1999. While we do not agree with all of the report's analysis, the Administration and the Select Committee share a common objective: ensuring that U.S. national secrets are protected and that our civilian technology is not diverted for military purposes. We found most of the recommendations constructive and we are in the process of implementing them. In many cases, the Administration had already been implementing the substance of the recommendations as a matter of policy, practice and as required by law. We look forward to working with Congress on any necessary additional measures to strengthen protections and export controls...."
Houston Chronicle 5/25/99 David Reinhard "...Reporters asked President Clinton if he was reconsidering using ground troops in Kosovo. With the air war in its 56th day and Great Britain pushing this option, the question took on special importance. The whole world was watching. The American commander in chief replied, "We have not and will not take any option off the table." Sometimes it seems Clinton won't tell the truth for fear of setting a precedent. This whopper wasn't about sex, however he defines it, but about profound matters of state -- war and peace, U.S. international credibility. The reporters knew he had taken troops off the table from the war's start; that's why they asked the question. The British knew it; that's why they were pressuring Clinton. The Senate knew it; that's why it debated Arizona Republican John McCain's resolution endorsing all force necessary in Kosovo. And that's why Gen. Colin Powell, for one, has criticized Clinton's strategic blunder in signaling the limits of any allied military action. But Clinton treated the question as if he were addressing Paula Jones' lawyers or the public on the Lewinsky matter. He lied, and in this case everybody knew it. It wasn't a he-said, she-said deal. It was he-said, he-said...."
Capitol Hill Blue 5/25/99 Doug Thompson ".....Unlike a still-classified investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency, the public Cox report does not connect the dots between Democratic campaign contributions laundered by the Chinese government and White House actions to approve transfer of sensitive technology. The CIA report established a clear pattern of political contributions from Chinese sources and the Loral Corp. with the White House approval of transfer of sensitive technology from Loral to China. The CIA report also found US Department of Energy officials tried to cover up discovery of the China spying. The public Cox report, however, does not specifically implicate key US Department of Energy officials. Those who have read the full, classified, version say there is information that suggests criminal activity on part of some Energy department officials. That information, they say, has been turned over to the Justice Department. Some Congressional sources say Cox agreed to the deletions in exchange for also cutting some report sections that could prove embarrassing for past Presidents Reagan and Bush. "Quid pro quo, pure and simple," says one aide. Others, however, say Cox allowed the cuts because he is not personally convinced the administration knowingly sold out the country....."
Associated Press 5/25/99 Peter Yost "...Claiming a need for national secrecy, law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the Clinton administration initially sought to censor almost all of the first seven pages of a congressional report on Chinese espionage. Republicans on Capitol Hill blamed the proposal to obliterate pages of material on the Clinton White House. They circulated page after blacked-out page and a cover sheet titled: ``What the White House would let America know.'' The Republicans said a draft of the report's overview was sent two months ago to the White House, which sent it back with the blackouts..... Among the few points that remained in the draft after the proposed deletions: --''A counterintelligence and security plan subsequently devised'' by the Energy Department ``in response to'' a presidential directive signed by Clinton ``is a step toward establishing sound counterintelligence practices.'' --''The Select Committee is concerned that the appropriate committees of the Congress were not adequately briefed on the extent of'' China's ``espionage program.''.... If the censored draft of the report had been allowed to stand, there would have been no language stating that China ``has stolen design information on the United States' most advanced thermonuclear weapons.'' Among the other language that would have been excised from the report: --''The stolen information includes classified information on seven U.S. thermonuclear warheads, including every currently deployed thermonuclear warhead in the U.S. ballistic missile arsenal.'' --''The stolen information also includes classified design information for an enhanced radiation weapon commonly known as the `neutron bomb' which neither the United States, nor any other nation, has yet deployed.''...."
Truth in Media 5/25/99 Bob Djurdjevic "...Remember the ill-fated Apache helicopter which crashed in Albania on May 5, killing two American pilots, and casting a pall on Bill Clinton's and Madeleine Albright's visit to the NATO headquarters in Brussels? The U.S. military spokesperson in Germany told Reuters at the time that the aircraft was on a training mission when it crashed. He speculated the Apache may have hit a power line...... Later on, the official line from the "lie and deny" Washington-Brussels crowd was that the Apache helicopter crashed due to either mechanical or human errors. It didn't. It was probably shot down by the Yugoslav anti-aircraft defenses, according to a May 23 report in Germany's "Welt am Sonntag" ("World on Sunday") alleged. Citing a "secret report" issued by NATO experts, the German paper said the Apache exploded in the air and went down in a ball of fire. Which is the main reason the NATO experts had eliminated the mechanical or human errors as the cause...."
Washington Post 5/26/99 Michael Kelly "....On March 19, in the wake of press reports disclosing an ongoing campaign by the People's Republic of China to steal America's nuclear secrets, the president held a news conference. He carefully characterized China's espionage as occurring "in the mid-'80s, not in the 1990s" -- not, in other words, during the years in which China was funneling cash into Clinton's campaign coffers and Clinton was hailing China as America's "strategic partner." ABC's Sam Donaldson asked the obvious question: "Can you assure the American people that, under your watch, no valuable nuclear secrets were lost?" Clinton was unequivocal in his answer. "You asked me [a] question, which is: Can I tell you that there has been no espionage at the labs since I have been president?" Clinton said. "I can tell you that no one has reported to me that they suspect such a thing has occurred." Later another reporter returned to the subject. This time, Clinton prefaced his denial with a bit of his patented weasel talk: "To the best of my knowledge no one has said anything to me about any espionage, which occurred by the Chinese against the labs, during my presidency." At this time, Clinton had already been briefed by his national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, about Department of Energy and FBI investigations into ongoing Chinese espionage at the laboratories. The Cox Report, released yesterday, states that Berger informed the committee that he had briefed Clinton "about the theft of U.S. nuclear information in early 1998." A last-minute footnote reports that Berger changed his story in recent weeks, and "advised the Select Committee that the president was briefed in July 1997, although no written record of this meeting exists." What is more, Clinton had received, in January 1999, a written executive summary of the classified version of the Cox Report, prepared by the president's national security staff. ..."
FoxNews/Carl Cameron 5/26/99 Freeper Truthkeeper "...Carl Cameron (fast becoming one of my heroes) has done it again. In his morning update, he said the Cox Committee had questioned Sandy Berger and others about the Dr. Peter Lee matter and criminal investigation. He said Cox and his committee were told by the State, Defense, and Justice Departments that Dr. Lee's file was SEALED by the court and therefore not accessible...so they proceeding with their investigation (on OUR tax dollar) without this information. Cameron said Fox News was told the same thing (that the file was sealed) when they made inquiries, but they did an amazing thing. They actually CHECKED THE PUBLIC RECORD THEMSELVES, and, low and behold, the file WAS NOT sealed after all. So guess what Cameron got his hands on? Voila! The Dr. Peter Lee documents. Fox then informed the Committee of their little find, and apparently they were quite annoyed. So much so that they now may be making additional inquiries of Sandy Berger et al to determine why they were lied to in the first place. If you don't have Fox News, get a dish. FOX NEWS ROCKS!..."
Hotline 5/25/99 Fox - Carl Cameron Special Report 5/24/99 "....FNC's Carl Cameron: "Johnny Chung, the man who funneled campaign money from the Chinese government to Democratic campaigns, including the presidents, told Congress last week that he was under orders from the Chinese to keep the whole thing quiet. His orders, he said, came from a suspected Chinese intelligence operative named Robert Luu who worked [for a] Los Angeles law firm. In a telephone conversation tapped by the FBI, Chung was told by Luu to say the campaign money came from the so-called princelings, relatives living in the West of top Chinese leaders." More Cameron: "A transcript of the wire tap obtained by Fox News contains the following: Luu: 'Shove the blame on the shoulders of the princelings.' Chung: 'So blame it on the princelings, do not implicate the Chinese government?' Luu: 'Yes, Chairman Jiang agreed to handle it like this. The president over here also agreed.'" Cameron continues: "Since both men were in the U.S. when the call occurred, those words, 'the president over here also agreed,' indicate that President Clinton and China's President Jiang Zemin, had agreed on how to spin the story if it got out. The White House strongly denies that any such thing occurred."..."
5/25/99 Bill Gertz Washington Times "...The report states that despite the 1998 announcement at the summit meeting in Beijing that China and the United States would no longer target each other with nuclear weapons, Chinese missiles remain targeted at U.S. cities. China improved the reliability of those missiles and space boosters as the result of illegal technology sharing by two U.S. satellite companies, Loral Space and Hughes Electronics, whose chairmen lobbied President Clinton into relaxing export controls on militarily useful technology, the report says.....Hughes deliberately acted without seeking to obtain legal export licenses. The report also said Loral and Hughes helped the Chinese without first obtaining U.S. licenses even though both corporations knew that the licenses for sensitive, militarily useful technology transfers were required, the report says...."
5/27/99 Curt Weldon (R-PA) "...That the Clinton-Gore Administration certified China in January 1998 to receive nuclear technology for being in compliance with non-proliferation regimes, even though there was strong evidence that the Chinese government was continuing its proliferation activities with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, and Libya. Such proliferation activities, which were contrary to U.S.-Chinese understandings, continue unabated to this day.
Wall Street Journal 5/27/99 ".... Clearly the long negotiations over release of the Cox report gave the Democrats plenty of time to prepare a counterattack, immediately evident on many fronts with release of the report. Having persuaded Mr. Cox in the name of bipartisanship to lay aside the campaign finance material rehearsed in these columns yesterday, the Democrats are now spreading the suggestion that nothing much happened, or if it did, it was in previous administrations...."
5/27/99 AP "...A declassified memo shows US military intelligence knew as early as Ronald Reagan's first term as president that China was stealing US nuclear secrets. An analyst said on Wednesday he doubted that the 1984 memo ever reached Mr Reagan's National Security Council inside the White House, but that the information it contained ''certainly'' would have been known to key officials inside the government. ''Increased access to this technology and continued Chinese efforts will in the 1980s and early 1990s show up as qualitative warhead improvements,'' the Defence Intelligence Agency said in the document, known as an estimative brief.....''There is evidence that the Chinese have been successful in assimilating into their nuclear weapons program United States technology,'' states the April 24, 1984, assessment. ''In some areas, the gap between United States and Chinese nuclear warhead technology may begin to narrow.'' ....Documents such as the DIA estimate are supplying ammunition to Democrats eager to move the blame for China's theft of US nuclear secrets away from President Bill Clinton's administration and onto the Reagan and George Bush administrations.....In the aftermath of the release of the Cox report, Democrats on Capitol Hill circulated a document entitled What President Bush knew, a five-page summary of dire warnings about Chinese espionage and security lapses at US nuclear laboratories going back to 1980. ..."
MSNBC http://www.msnbc.com/ 5/26/99 John Fund Freeper A Whitewater Researcher "...EXCERPTS: "...is it any surprise that the "Everybody Does It" defense has resurfaced with the Cox Report on China?...Leaving aside that it isn't so, this excuse also ignores the loss of the electromagnetic pulse weapon, submarine-detecting radar technology and the inexcusable decision by the Commerce Department to allow the aerospace companies Hughes and Loral to tell the Chinese how they could send up their missiles without them crashing to earth....when Clinton officials learned of the Chinese espionage in 1995 and 1996 they did two things:...They ignored it as long as possible, perhaps to the extent of not briefing the president himself....They tried to squelch dissenters in their midst who wanted to sound the alarm....The Clinton administration was not so much the victim of scandal as it was a prescription for scandal....MSNBC LIVE VOTE:...Did the Clinton administration adequately respond to reports of spying?...* 6985 responses...Yes, it is not to blame here. 12%...No, it responded too slowly. Someone ought to be fired. 88% ..."
Investor's Business Daily 5/27/99 "...On China's espionage, the conventional wisdom from the Clintonites is hardening like quick-dry concrete. From Democrats in Congress to apologists in the media, the word is that this is no big deal. Huh? Here are the main points made by Clinton administration defenders: Chinese espionage occurred under Republican presidents too..... The report from the committee headed by Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., showed only the ''worst-case scenarios'' in detailing China's theft of U.S. nuclear secrets...... There's little evidence that China has used any of the data it stole to upgrade its nuclear arsenal.....The Clinton administration has taken long-needed steps to safeguard our national security....... Taken together, these are the sounds of Democrats tap-dancing around a serious breach of national security -one that the Clinton administration failed to stem. For exampe, of 11 instances described in the Cox report of China's theft of secrets, eight occurred in 1993 or later. In other words, on President Clinton's watch. Also, the two that occurred in the 1980s were only discovered under Clinton, the first in 1995. Yet it took a full year before Clinton was briefed on the matter. And it was another 17 months before the president issued an order beefing up security rules at the national labs. Even now, the Cox report says, there are other instances of recent Chinese espionage. But the Clinton administration won't reveal any information on them, saying national security would be jeopardized....And Clinton's defenders should stop trying to explain away China's threat. In the long run, their alibis for Clinton do them and the country no good...."
The Washington Times 5/27/99 Mark Levin "...At a March 19, 1999, press conference, Bill Clinton was asked by ABC's Sam Donaldson if he could "assure the American people that, under your watch, no valuable nuclear secrets were lost?" Mr. Clinton's answer: "You asked me a question which is, can I tell you that there has been no espionage at the labs since I have been president? I can tell you that no one has reported to me that they suspect such a thing has occurred." But on May 25, 1999, in Mr. Clinton's formal response to the Cox report, which outlines mind-boggling Chinese espionage successes, he claims, in part, the following: "Security at the labs has been a long-term concern, stretching back more than two decades. In 1997, the administration recognized the need to respond to this threat with a systematic effort to strengthen counterintelligence and security at the U.S. National Laboratories. In response, I issued a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-61) in February 1998." If we are to believe Mr. Clinton, he issued his anti-espionage directive before knowing about the existence of Chinese espionage right under his nose. Maybe he should consider a post-presidential career with the Psychic Friends Network. Better yet, maybe he should stop lying, just this one time. The unadulterated fact is that when Mr. Clinton denied knowing about Chinese spying during his administration, he had already been briefed about it in early 1998 by Sandy Berger, his national security chief. Mr. Berger now recollects that he briefed Mr. Clinton as early as July 1997...."
W TIMES 5/27/99 Sean Scully "...House Democrats yesterday rallied to President Clinton's defense over the release of the bipartisan Cox report, saying he has made vigorous efforts to combat Chinese espionage and sharply attacking his Republican critics. GOP criticism of the president is a "cheap and vulgar partisan attack which has been used opportunistically and cynically by individuals in this town, some in this body," said Rep. Tom Lantos, California Democrat.. "I'm not sure whether I should be more concerned with the threat from without or the raging threat from within that's starting to take place," said Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, New York Democrat...... In many instances, Mr. Cox and Mr. Dicks were unable to discuss specifics of the security violations. At White House insistence, almost a third of the report is secret. During months of negotiation, the White House steadfastly refused to declassify much of the more recent information. As a result, the report gives an incomplete picture of spying during the Clinton administration.. "Just like Watergate, it's the cover-up that counts," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, during yesterday's hearing....."
CBN News Interview 5/26/99 "... LEE WEBB: Joining us live from Capitol Hill is Representative Curt Weldon. Representative Weldon, welcome. Thank you for being with us. CURT WELDON (R-PA): I am happy to be here. WEBB: Our reporter tells us you were the angriest person on the panel at Tuesday's news conference. What has you more upset than other members? WELDON: Well, the way the White House has tried to spin this whole effort, it is not unusual for the White House to do that. But in cases of national security, to me, it is absolutely unacceptable and it is a travesty. The example I can give you, just that comes to mind, is that we finished our work the first week of January of this year and had a total bipartisan vote 9-0 in favor of our findings. We wanted to get this information out to the American public as soon as possible, but the administration kept stonewalling our efforts. In fact, it took us five months to get it out. On February 1st, Sandy Berger, the top security adviser to the president of the United States, took a public document responding to our 38 classified recommendations and gave it to selected media in this city. Two days later, the head of the CIA, in a sworn statement before the House National Security Committee, said he hadn't even read the report yet, which meant the White House was already spinning its report and spinning its response two days before the head of the CIA publicly acknowledged they hadn't even had time to read the report yet. This White House just doesn't get it. I mean, in every type of situation they get themselves involved in, it becomes a spin effort to work their way out. Now they are trying to say that this whole thing is focused on our laboratories. And Bill Richardson is saying he has done everything necessary. Well, that is only one small part of what the Cox committee was about. Bill Richardson is not the secretary of defense; Bill Richardson is not the director of central intelligence. Bill Richardson ought to focus on what his responsibilities are, because, goodness knows, he is overseeing one of the worst debacles in the country's history and for him to trivialize this is absolutely irresponsible; it is irrational and it is wrong...."
The Washington Times 5/27/99 Mark Levin "...None of this concerns Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Having spent nearly two years trying to scuttle the Thompson committee's investigation of China's efforts to influence illegally the outcome of the 1996 presidential election, Mr. Daschle reacted to the Cox report's revelations as follows: "This administration knew what the Reagan administration and the Bush administration knew, but, in contrast, chose to do something about it." Unlike his predecessors, Democrat or Republican, Mr. Clinton transferred primary legal authority for approving export licenses for advanced U.S. technology from the security-conscious State Department to the politically conscious Commerce Department for the purpose of making such exports easier. Mr. Clinton is also the first and only president to approve an export waiver authorizing two companies - Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronics - to transfer technological secrets in the face of a criminal investigation involving their prior alleged export violations. Mr. Clinton approved personally the export of their data relating to satellite- and missile-launch technology to China over the objections of his secretary of state, the Pentagon and others. And Mr. Clinton's political appointees at the Justice Department rejected repeated requests by the FBI to wiretap Wen Ho Lee, the Los Alamos lab scientist suspected of spying for China. Attorney General Janet Reno's defense of this blunder goes something like this: Even alleged spies have constitutional rights. The Justice Department refused even to bring the matter before a federal judge. Then there's the little problem of Notra Trulock, acting deputy director of the Energy Department's Office of Intelligence..... At the same time, the Chinese military was funneling money into the Democratic National Committee and the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. Gee, I don't remember the commies' contributing to the Reagan or Bush campaigns. One hundred twenty-one people connected with the fundraising scandal have either pleaded the Fifth Amendment or fled the country to evade law enforcement. And Mr. Clinton's attorney general has refused to trigger the appointment of an independent counsel to get to the bottom of all of this, despite the urging of the FBI director and the former head of the campaign-finance investigation. ..."
Rush Limbaugh / EIB Network 5/27/99 Freeper newsman "...Today, on his talk show, Rush Limbaugh said he was amazed, maybe even astounded, that Senator Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who charged former Presidents Reagan and Bush with treason Tuesday, has not demanded the convening of an emergency select committee to look into the matter. ...Today Limbaugh responded: "They [Reagan and Bush] knew and they chose not to take any action - that's Tom Daschle's bombshell! But three days have gone by and he hasn't pursued the matter further. Why? Why drop this? I'm serious about this. This has to do with nuclear secrets. The minority leader has accused the Reagan and Bush administrations of knowingly allowing espionage to occur and did nothing about it, while the Clinton administration was the first to do something about it. "This cries out for answers," said Limbaugh, the tone of his voice changing to signal that he was about revealed the discrepancies. "Now again I wish to point out to you that, according to the 'Tom Daschle Bombshell,' Reagan and Bush knew, and did nothing. In other words, there was information about substantial Chinese espionage for 20 years, and Reagan and Bush didn't stop it. However, Janet Reno says that she didn't have enough information three years ago to authorize a wiretap on Wen Ho Lee, the suspect." Also, continued Rush, "according to Senator Daschle, the president of the United States, was the first to understand the implications of the theft, the first man in America to understand the severity of what had been purloined. And yet - while Reagan and Bush knew 20 years ago and did nothing - Bill Clinton, according to his own statement, knew nothing about it prior to March 19 [of this year], even though members of his administration did." So Daschle is caught red-headed conning the accommodating media with two glaring discrepancies. "And all the while," Limbaugh then charged, "Senator Daschle accuses the Republicans of playing politics with this, of being extreme and partisan. If you ask me, ladies and gentlemen, we need fast action on the part of the U.S. Senate now" to investigate Daschle's charges, and he challenged the minority leader to get it moving. "I would think that Daschle would be demanding that [Senate Majority Leader] Trent Lott appoint a select committee to look into this," he declared. After reminding his vast audience that this was the biggest treason story in U.S. history, Rush added: "This treason outdoes Julius and Ethel Rosenburgs'. But three days have gone by now, and the minority leader has not moved." Why is there no movement? "Look at the difference, ladies and gentlemen. After the Columbine and Conyers school shootings, the Senate wasted no time in passing irrelevant gun control laws that had nothing to do with stopping such tragedies in the future. But, boy, did the Senate move fast [after the school shootings], with Tom Daschle right there to see to it. "And now three days have gone by [since Daschle leveled his most serious charges against Reagan and Bush] and there has not been one shred of movement on the 'Tom Daschle Bombshell!' Why not?" ..."
The Drudge Report 5/25/99 Deb Weiss ".... The night before the Cox Committee's report on Chinese espionage was due to be released, I watched MSNBC's Chip Reid and Brian Williams talking it over. An MSNBC preemptive strike -- smirky, smug, smarmy. The Cold War redux, framed in ironic anomie. A deja vu moment, its haunting nuance like an old tune heard and half-remembered. Why so familiar? Ah yes. They were glossing over the report itself. They weren't talking policy or praxis. No substance. No facts. No conclusions, no reality. No hard-nosed analysis of all those numbers and dates and documents. Nope. They were talkin' dish. They were talkin' spin. As if nukes, or a new Cold War, were inconsequential -- mere fripperies that paled beside the possibility of political harm coming to Mr. Clinton. Clinton's front-line cable boys, spinning for The Man before that toxic Cox report could see the light of day. Spin in the act of being etched in stone. They quoted presidential press secretary Joe Lockhart on the sin of 'fingerpointing' (a caution the press only notes when Republican fingers are doing the pointing). They acclaimed Lockhart's coy soundbite that this 'bipartisan problem' requires a 'bipartisan solution' (another cliche trotted out only when there's DNA evidence against Democrats). They spouted the White House formulation, eliding China's decades-old pattern of garden-variety espionage with the curious and still-murky 'special' circumstances that seem to have obtained since 1992. They even floated Team Clinton's most audacious China-spin (so far, at least) -- that because the espionage was intercepted on Mr. Clinton's watch, he gets the credit. He saved us from the Reds. Bill Clinton, Commie-catcher. Yes!! (Distant sound of Lanny Davis, cackling in the ether.) ..."
The Political Review 5/27/99 D. K. Zimmerman "...From USA Today, we know that upon examination, most of the files illegally transferred from Los Alamos' highly secure computer system were moved in 1994 and 95, although evidence was found that as early as 1983, some authorized transfers were made. Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson prefers to describe the same facts as "a massive amount of information was transferred, from classified to unclassified, during the period of 1983 to 1995." As obvious as this spin is the fact that there is nothing this administration won't do to protect itself...."
The Political Review 5/27/99 D. K. Zimmerman "..."In light of the fact that the heads of Executive departments and agencies of the intelligence community failed adequately to comply with congressional notification requirements with respect to the theft of secrets from the National Laboratories, the Select Committee urges Congress to insist again on strict adherence to such legal obligations." - Cox Report. This translates roughly as, well, we've been lied to and conspired against, but let's ask the White House "pretty-please, don't break the law, again!" ..."
Associated Press 5/30/99 Jim Abrams "...The Energy Department's counterintelligence chief said Congress responded slowly to FBI warnings China was stealing U.S. nuclear secrets from the federal labs. The Senate intelligence committee chairman, Sen. Richard Shelby, called the remarks "out of bounds'' and said Congress acted appropriately. A Democratic colleague said "a game of blame'' accomplished little.....Shelby, appearing later on the same show, said Curran was "out of bounds in some areas.'' Shelby said that in 1996, the Senate intelligence committee, then under Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., did respond to counterintelligence problems at the labs and provided additional money. Shelby, R-Ala., said the Energy Department ignored the committee's advice. Sen. Robert Torricelli, a Democrat from New Jersey who has been strongly critical of the administration's handling of the spy case, said Curran's comments were "entirely inappropriate.'' It was not proper, he said, for Curran "to engage in a game of blame between the Congress and the executive branch.''...."
Reuters 5/30/99 ".... Edward Curran, director of counterintelligence at the Energy Department, said on ABC's "This Week'' Congress had failed to allocate money to plug security holes and that a top Republican never bothered to attend classified briefings about the problem..... Curran said he ran into a brick wall when he tried to get needed funds from Senate appropriators, after he provided information to a subcommittee chaired by Sen. Frank Murkowski, an Alaska Republican....' Said Curran: "That was rejected. I did not get that money,'' and that he still needs security funds. But Curran said he did not know if his report on the matter went to the White House, or what it had done on the matter. Curran said the administration also held briefings for members of Congress. "I have never had Mr. Shelby at our briefings,'' Curran said of Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who heads the Select Committee on Intelligence. "His staff would not even sit down and listen to us,'' Curran said, recalling a time when the CIA was briefing on ''sensitive cases.'' ...Shelby, also appearing on "This Week,'' said Curran was ''out of bounds in some areas.'' "I certainly have not been at all the briefings but I've been to all the hearings,'' he said. "I've chaired all the hearings.'' Shelby said Congress "wrote basically a directive to the labs to do something'' about its problems "and put additional money in'' for the problem......Trulock's sometimes-controversial conclusions were long resisted by administration officials, who sought out alternative explanations for Chinese actions. In fact, Trulock was demoted from chief of intelligence at Energy to acting deputy chief of intelligence, before Bill Richardson became secretary. Richardson said on NBC's "Meet the Press'' that Trulock was now a "key member of my team.'' Asked if that meant Trulock will now become a permanent employee instead of being merely an ''acting'' deputy chief, Richardson replied: "If he wants to.'' ..."
Chinatimes 5/31/99 AFP "...US Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said Sunday that there is no significant ongoing Chinese spying at classified US facilities, contradicting a congressional report released earlier this week. "Because of the counterintelligence measures that we have initiated with the help of the Congress ... there are no potential serious espionage at our (nuclear) labs," Richardson asserted on Fox television. "We corrected the problem," he said...."
Augusta Chronicle 5/30/99 Editorial "...A third of the report remains classified -- so listen to what Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., grimly says: Americans would really be up in arms against the Clinton-Gore administration if it read even a few pages of what the White House insists on being kept from the people. Shelby wants to declassify more pages that don't directly impact on our security. He also rightly calls for firing the most incompetent attorney general the U.S. has ever had: Janet Reno. She repeatedly blocked routine FBI requests for wiretaps on suspected spies. The Cox Report makes clear the large majority of this laxity, cover-up and, yes, treason took place under President Clinton: ``In the late 1990s, the PRC stole or illegally obtained U.S. developmental and research technology that, if taken to a successful conclusion, could be used to attack U.S. satellites and (heretofore invulnerable) submarines.'' ...'