North Korea Nukes Clinton Legacy

Neville Chamberlain: "My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."

Regarding his impression of the Western Allies, Hitler would later say: "Our enemies are little worms. I saw them at Munich."

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."--George Santayana

U.S. intelligence has reported that China has targeted 13 of its 18 CSS-4 long-range missiles against U.S. cities. The CIA says that China's targeting was made more accurate by Loral's unauthorized help. The Justice Department started a criminal investigation of Loral, and the State Department warned that Loral's actions were "criminal, likely to be indicted, knowing and unlawful."

In March 1996, despite the objections of Secretary of State Warren Christopher, the Defense Department and our intelligence agencies, Clinton personally transferred jurisdiction over satellite-export licensing from the State Department to his pal, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Meanwhile, Bernard Schwartz stepped up his contributions to the Democratic Party and became the largest single contributor in the 1996 election cycle. Clinton signed another waiver this year to allow Loral Space to export a satellite that is scheduled to be launched by the Chinese in November.

Congress is finally starting to realize that American national security is at stake. On May 20, the House voted 364 to 54 to ban the export of all satellites to China. And, by 417 to 4, the House passed a resolution warning Clinton not to enter into any new agreements with China involving space or missile technology during his forthcoming trip to Beijing. The resolution also rebuked Clinton by declaring that his decision to issue the waiver to Loral Space and Communications earlier this year was "not in the national interest of the United States," and instructed the President to indefinitely suspend all U.S. satellite exports to China, including a pending Loral deal.

The fact that Clinton personally issued the waivers to allow shipments of U.S. technology that greatly improved the accuracy and reliability of Communist China's missiles is grounds for impeachment, regardless of whether or not there was any quid pro quo for those decisions. U.S. space technology was just what China needs to make intercontinental ballistic missiles and point them more accurately at U.S. cities. And he did it despite the objections of the U.S. State Department, Defense Department, Justice Department, and intelligence agencies.

Because China shared U.S. technology and equipment with Pakistan, Clinton is also responsible for India starting the nuclear race in Asia. India has fought three wars with its neighbor, Pakistan, since the end of World War II and looks upon Pakistan's new military capabilities as a direct threat.

Clinton's policy decisions were, on their face, damaging and dangerous to U.S. national security. And the calendar provides an ominous frame of reference. When Clinton's policy decisions that dramatically benefited China's military capability and Loral's profits, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign donations from the Chinese government and from Loral, are all placed on the calendar, the sequence shows a pattern of corruption that cannot be ignored. That's the real campaign finance scandal.

BTTT

Great post, Mia. Everyone needs to be reminded of the 1994 Agreement with North Korea that Slick left us with.

We need a separate thread citing what Slick gave North Korea (nuke reactors, oil, cash)--in exchange for a 'promise' to not make nukes.

Slick needs to answer for the 1994 'promise'.

I'm having a 'Neville Chamberlain' moment here!

And in deep irony if the left is ever, God forbid, proven wrong we'll loose the entire left coast.

The party of the Clintons cannot be trusted on national security issues. The Democrats are childish fools. They know nothing of history, so they can't learn it's lessons. They've learned nothing from the events of 9/11/01. They are telling the electorate to vote for them so they can turn back the clock to the Clinton years. I don't know who the greater fool is. The Democrat leadership or their mindless voter base.

HILLARY GOES NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION IN THE AGE OF CLINTON

by Mia T, 5.30.06

For more than a half decade, the Clinton administration was shoveling atomic secrets out the door as fast as it could, literally by the ton. Millions of previously classified ideas and documents relating to nuclear arms were released to all comers, including China's bomb makers.

William J. Broad
Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes
The New York Times
May 30, 1999

Nuclear is now very much in the news as a potential power source because of its lack of contribution to global warming. If you look at nuclear energy, which currently provides 20 percent of our energy with virtually no emission of greenhouse gases, we do have to take a serious look, but there remain very serious questions about nuclear power... in a world with suicidal terrorists.

So I have real concerns, specifically about a plant in my state near where I live, Indian Point....

So we need to resolve... questions of... proliferation... before we go forward with nuclear power.

hillary clinton
Remarks at The National Press Club
May 23, 2006

illful nuclear proliferation, the product of clinton naiveté, corruption and obsession with legacy,¹ was the predominant clinton policy for eight long years.²

Missus clinton's sudden concern about proliferation, therefore, is a decade too late and a dollar too cheap. ³

The clintons turned the dilemma of the nuclear age--how to exploit nuclear energy's peaceful and productive potential while preventing the spread of nuclear weapons-- on its head: They exploited nuclear proliferation for their own gain even as they prevented the realization of nuclear energy's peaceful and productive potential.

Moreover, by ignoring terrorism for those eight years,⁴ the clintons caused the nuclear dilemma to become even more acute, complex and deadly with the concomitant rapid rise in non-state actors' involvement in the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Contrary to the clintons' quaint theories,⁵rogue states routinely violated their Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons nonproliferation obligations, setting up a perfect symbiosis for non-state actors--particularly terrorists--seeking to acquire and use nuclear or other WMD. The non-state actor is the rogue state's perfect WMD delivery-system: there is no return address.

"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'
I thought that my virtual obsession ² with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."

bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live
THE (oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON

The clintons, almost singlehandedly, therefore, made proliferation of WMD today's preeminent threat to international peace and security.

Some call the clintons quislings, Manchurian Candidates, bought off in Little Rock by Riady and company ⁶ decades ago (and much too cheaply, according to their Chinese benefactors⁷), trading our national security for their political power. This argument is persuasive but incomplete; the clintons, certifiable megalomaniacs, are driven ultimately by their solipsistic, messianic world view and that by which ultimately quashes all else -- their toxic legacy.

William J. Broad suggests (Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes, The New York Times, May 30, 1999)⁸ that the clintons had another reason to empower China and disembowel America. Broad argues that they sought to disseminate our atomic secrets proactively in order to implement their postmodern, quite inane epistemological theory, namely, that, contrary to currently held dogma, knowledge is not power after all -- that, indeed, quite the contrary is the case. (One has only to look to Iran, North Korea or Pakistan to see the absurdity of the clintons' premise.)

Broad writes in part:

Since 1993, officials say, the Energy Department's "openness initiative" has released at least 178 categories of atom secrets. By contrast, the 1980s saw two such actions... Its overview of the disclosures, "Restricted Data Declassification Decisions," dated January 1999 and more than 140 pages long, lists such things as how atom bombs can be boosted in power, key steps in making hydrogen bombs, the minimum amount (8.8 pounds) of plutonium or uranium fuel needed for an atom bomb and the maximum time it takes an exploding atomic bomb to ignite an H-bomb's hydrogen fuel (100 millionths of a second). No grade-B physicist from any university could figure this stuff. It took decades of experience gained at a cost of more than $400 billion. The release of the secrets started as a high-stakes bet that openness would lessen, not increase, the world's vulnerability to nuclear arms and war. John Holum, who heads arms control at the State Department, told Congress last year that the test ban "essentially eliminates" the possibility of a renewed international race to develop new kinds of nuclear arms... "The United States must stand as leader," O'Leary told a packed news conference in December 1993 upon starting the process. "We are declassifying the largest amount of information in the history of the department." Critics, however, say the former secrets are extremely valuable to foreign powers intent on making nuclear headway. Gaffney, the former Reagan official, disparaged the giveaway as "dangling goodies in front of people to get them to sign up into our arms-control agenda." Thomas B. Cochran,:..."In terms of the phenomenology of nuclear weapons...the cat is out of the bag." ...[F]ormer Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the "extensive declassification" of secrets had inadvertently [?!] aided the global spread of deadly weapons.

Broad would have us believe we are watching "Being There" and not "The Manchurian Candidate." His argument is superficially appealing as most reasonable people would conclude that it requires the simplemindedness of a Chauncy Gardener (in "Being There") to reason that instructing China and a motley assortment of terrorist nations on how to beef up their atom bombs and how not to omit the "key steps" when building hydrogen bombs would somehow blunt and not stimulate their appetites for bigger and better bombs and a higher position in the power food chain.

But it is Broad's failure to fully connect the dots -- the clintons' wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton campaigns, the clintons pushing the test ban treaty, the clintons' concomitant sale of supercomputers, and the clintons' noxious legacy -- that blows his argument to smithereens and reduces his piece to just another clinton apologia by The New York Times.

But even a Times apologia cannot save the clintons from the gallows. The clintons can be both absolute (albeit postmodern) morons and traitors. The strict liability Gump-ism, "Treason is as treason does" applies.

The idea that an individual can be convicted of the crime of treason only if there is treasonous intent or *mens rea* runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.

Calling their position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone," (if they must say so themselves,) the clintons believed that if they could get China to sign it, they would go down in history as the saviors of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.

NOTE: There would be an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the Mideast: the clintons failed to shut down Muslim terrorism, then in its incipient stage and stoppable, because they reasoned that doing so would have wrecked their chances for the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, according to Richard Miniter, Madeleine Albright offered precisely the Nobel-Muslim factor as a primary reason for not treating the bombing of the USS Cole as an act of war.⁹

According to James Risen and Jeff Gerth of The New York Times, "the legacy codes and the warhead data that goes with them" -- apparently stolen from the Los Alamos weapons lab by scientist, Wen Ho Lee aided and abetted by bill clinton, hillary clinton, the late Ron Brown, Sandy Berger, Hazel O'Leary, Janet Reno, Eric Holder and others in the clinton administration (not to mention congressional clinton accomplices Glenn, Daschle, Bumpers, Harkin, Boxer, Feinstein, Lantos, Levin. Lautenberg, Torricelli et al.) -- "could (especially when combined with the supercomputers that clinton sold to China to help them finish the job) be particularly valuable for a country, like China, that has signed onto the nuclear test ban treaty and relies solely on computer simulations to upgrade and maintain its nuclear arsenal. The legacy codes are now used to maintain the American nuclear arsenal through computer simulation.

Most of Lee's transfers occurred in 1994 and 1995, just before China signed the test ban treaty in 1996, according to American officials."

Few who have observed the clintons would argue against the proposition that these legacy-obsessed megalomaniacs would trade our legacy codes for their rehabilitated legacy in a Monica minute and to hell with "the children."

READ MORE
footnotes

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

G. K. Chesterton

... While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.
These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.
Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."
It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."
Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)

IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY
by Mia T, 11.14.05

December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

Dear Concerned Americans,
Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive.
We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?
In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?
Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.
What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.
COMPLETE LETTER

December 7, 1941+64
Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

Thanks for the important info.