How Clinton's Beijing deal endangered America

Seeing as so many democrats and their allies in the media have been screaming about intelligence failures and the President Bush's foreign policy, I think it's time to once again turn to the Clinton administration and its dangerous dealings with Beijing.

I completely confess to being fascinated by Clinton's Chinese spying scandal. It's like a form of mental super glue — I just don't seem to be able to let go. That he was able to get away with it is still a source of amazement to me, and others acquainted with his Chinese dealings.

So what did Beijing get from the Clintons? I think the answer is obvious. Clinton gave Beijing a free reign and a guarantee that its activities would not be interrupted during, what he quaintly calls, his "watch" so that China could clear out America's military and high-tech secrets. Simple.

Questions regarding Clinton, particularly on this matter, only lead to more questions. How could Beijing be certain that Clinton, even as president of the United States, could make good such a guarantee? One, I think, should start with his governorship of Arkansas. There seems little doubt that Clinton ran it as his personal fiefdom, replacing or shoving aside those who could prove troublesome.

Some would argue that this is the norm. That is probably true in American politics, but not to the corrupt and ruthless extent that Clinton practised it. His approach to power and people is truly Machiavellian. Given this fact, and his support in the media, it is not surprising that reports made out to Chinese intelligence suggested that Clinton would be favourably disposed to dealing with Chinese representatives — for a price.

Intelligence assessments were supported by Clinton's action, shortly after entering (or is it soiling?) the Oval Office, in asking all US Attorneys General to resign. This unprecedented and dictatorial move gave the Clinton administration control over the prosecutorial machinery of the federal government in every judicial district in the US. No need to tell you who was impressed by this breathtakingly brazen move.

Why Clinton even tried to appoint Webster Hubbel to the post of Attorney General. Imagine where that would have led. But what struck a particular chord was the way the American media acquiesced to the Clintons' manoeuvres. Beijing does not underrate the power of the Western media, especially in America. That the media, with the exception of a few lone voices, was prepared to collaborate with the Clintons gave further assurance to Beijing that Clinton was able to deliver.

But what of the CIA and the FBI, asked some readers? I have no wish to be patronising, but the naiveté of the American public is almost touching at times. It didn't even notice that William Sessions, FBI Director, a man noted for his integrity and opposition to political interference in the Bureau's affairs, was removed as quickly as Clinton moved into the Oval office.

There is no doubt that Clinton deliberately acted to chain the CIA and the National Security Agency as well as the FBI. One method was to have Clinton supporters in sensitive positions so that they could delay, if not derail, any budding investigations into Clinton's China operations. Many of these supporters are still in place and owe their loyalty to the Clinton political machine.

With these bodies virtually rendered ineffective by the Democrats Chinese intelligence had a field day. Now being ineffective does not mean uninformed. These agencies new very well what Chinese intelligence was up to but were largely powerless to do anything about it. After all, what could they do when the commander in chief, the president himself, had, by his actions, made it clear that investigations into China's spying activities would not be welcomed.

One of the reasons that Janet Reno was appointed to head the Justice Department was that the Clintons believed she could be relied on to sabotage any investigations into Chinese intelligence operations.

I should point out at this stage that several Chinese officials let it drop that they believed Clinton was blackmailing Reno over certain activities concerning her personal life. Whatever the truth of the matter, Reno's role as the last of Clinton's gatekeepers, so to speak, more than satisfied Beijing's expectations by thoroughly corrupting the Justice Department and blocking FBI requests.

No wonder Beijing was so satisfied with its part of the deal that if felt sufficiently in command to 'request' that Clinton see to it that John Huang be given top security clearance and placed in a favourable position, favourable to Chinese intelligence, that is.

Thus we find Huang being given a position in the Commerce Department, at the insistence of Clinton, where he was able to use his security clearance to directly obtain information from the CIA.

I was told that CIA officials were in no doubt about Huang's activities but were held in check by Clinton, despite CIA complaints. Does any reader honestly believe that Clinton is so innocent that he had no idea why Beijing wanted a security clearance for Huang?

So did Beijing really think it was going to get away with spying activities? Of course it did. And it has. Chinese intelligence expected eventual exposure but calculated that by the time it occurred the damage would be done. It was right. Clinton, not China, emptied the Candy store with devastating results for American security. The consequences will be felt for many years to come.

It's time Americans woke up to what the Clintons and the majority of congressional Democrats did to American security

The media seems to have had an embargo on this for a long time

Yes, they have. Remember how the media tried to link Ken Lay to President Bush? Remember how this was supposed to paint Bush with whatever wrongs Lay may have committed? That relationship was never the close one they falsely tried to portray, but the idea that associating with a person involved in any skullduggery was accepted.

Now, here we have the Clintons who really and truly did associate most closely with very questionable types, both foreign and domestic. Associates like Hubbel and the McDougals going to prison, (and lists too long to go into now of many weird characters and shady deals--including brothers on both sides), and still the media refused to investigate that the Clintons had full knowledge and participation in whatever was going on.

Now, here's an example of eyebrow raising (at the very least) events and the media outright ignoring it. Note: James Riady was wanted for questioning when Clinton met with him briefly outside this country. How long would a message take to be passed between them?

CyberAlert October 29, 1999

After the release Wednesday of some incriminating statements John Huang made to the FBI which implicated a former top Clinton aide now working for Hillary Clinton, on Thursday the House Government Reform Committee granted Huang immunity to testify in December. The Thursday, October 28 Washington Post ran a story on page two, which was plugged on the front page, outlining Huang's disclosures, but the ABC, CNN, MSNBC and NBC evening shows all skipped the latest in the Clinton fundraising scandal. The three morning shows also ignored the story Thursday morning.

To refresh your memory, John Huang is the man who worked at the Commerce Department where he had access to secret trade documents, and then went to the DNC as a fundraiser for the 1996 campaign. James Riady runs the Lippo Group and with Huang donated hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal foreign contributions, some of which may have come from communist China.

Thursday's CBS Evening News found two minutes to look at Marilyn Monroe property being auctioned off, but just 26 seconds for Rather to announce:

"House Republicans today revived their investigation into former Democratic fundraiser John Huang. They voted to compel testimony from him about alleged illegal donations to the 1992 Clinton campaign by an Indonesian businessman. They also want to ask Huang about allegations that Harold Ickes, a longtime Clinton family friend and effective aide, asked Huang to carry out what the Republicans say were questionable fundraising efforts."

Actually, it isn't just what "Republicans say were questionable fundraising tactics." So does the U.S. code. Washington Post reporters Lorraine Adams and David A. Vise wrote in their October 28 story:

"Former White House aide Harold Ickes pressed former Commerce Department official John Huang to gather donations for the congressional campaign of Jesse Jackson Jr. in 1995, sources close to a congressional campaign finance inquiry said yesterday.

"During more than 23 days of interrogation earlier this year, Huang told FBI agents that after being solicited by Ickes, he contributed $1,000 to Jackson's campaign and raised several thousand dollars more, according to sources close to the investigation. Last week, the Justice Department provided reports of Huang's debriefing to the House Government Reform Committee, which is expected to vote today on granting Huang immunity for testimony he might give to the panel.

"Federal law bars government officials from requesting campaign donations from subordinates. Ickes, now a key strategist for first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate race, did not respond to requests for comment, nor did his attorneys."

On FNC's Fox Report and Special Report with Brit Hume reporter David Shuster outlined Huang's testimony and the House committee's action. Shuster detailed what Rather only alluded to, explaining that Huang told the FBI that he began his illegal fundraising after Indonesian business operative James Riady told him that during a 1992 limo ride he, Riady that is, had told Clinton he'd raise $1 million for the Clinton-Gore effort.

Shuster then showed an under-reported event. Over video of the two men shaking hands back on September 12, Shuster explained the video: "Riady and Clinton were photographed last month in New Zealand."

Turning to the House committee hearing to grant immunity, Shuster observed: "Even Democrats seemed startled by Huang's allegations, but they denied his testimony would generate headlines." Shuster pointed out the possible illegality without resorting to a partisan dismissal as did Rather: "There is no evidence, said lawmakers, that the Jacksons knew about Ickes' request. Still, John Huang was working at the Commerce Department at the time and any attempt to enlist him to do fundraising would have been illegal."

After running a soundbite of Attorney General Janet Reno maintaining there was not enough evidence to justify an outside investigation of Huang and 1996 fundraising, Shuster concluded: "Republicans are convinced though that friends of the President get a free pass."

Instead of covering these developments Thursday night, ABC's World News Tonight ran three stories about Internet marketing and online buying, NBC Nightly News devoted a whole story to an underutilized parking garage in Rutland, Vermont, and MSNBC's The News with Brian Williams ran a full story on how Coca Cola plans to deploy vending machines which raise the price in hot weather as well as a panel discussion, featuring the discredited Mike Barnicle, reviewing the baseball season.

+++ See Riady and Clinton together in New Zealand just last month. Friday morning MRC Webmaster Sean Henry will place by this item, in the posted edition of this CyberAlert, a still shot of the video shown by FNC.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.