|
"We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we're not the biggest power on the block."--bill clinton
|
-
North Korea doesn't stop doing anything. Then comes 1993. Abruptly, with inspectors hot on their trail, the Kims pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The reactor at Yongbyon is up and running. The Clinton administration swings into action. By the end of 1994, the Clintonites announce with great fanfare a deal called "the Agreed Framework."
The "Agreed Framework" looks suspiciously like the 1985 deal with the Soviets. The U.S. agreed to build two reactors in North Korea. But wait, there was so much more. We also agreed to supply Dear Leader (by this time, Great Leader had died) with fuel oil and food aid. This bribe was, as they used to say on game shows, a package worth something like $4 billion.
Bill Clinton celebrated. "North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program," he announced in one of the innumerable statements for which history will deride him.
Then, in 1998, North Korea got scary all over again by launching an intercontinental missile directly over Japan. The United States demanded that the North Koreans allow international inspectors into the country to determine the extent of its nuclear program.
The North Koreans said: Fine; pay us $300 million and we'll let the inspectors in. The United States went one better. It didn't hand over the cash. Instead, it sent food aid in a package worth far more than $300 million.
Even after this debacle, the Clintonites kept on acting as if their 1994 deal was a good one. "We made a lot of progress with them," the president said on Dec. 28, 2000. "I think it will make the world a much safer place. I feel very good about what we've done."
Now here we are. We know North Korea has at least one nuclear weapon - and that, unchecked, it will be able to make 50 nuclear bombs a year by 2009. Yet influential voices continue to insist that all we need to do is continue to give Dear Leader money - the very money he uses to subsidize his nation's efforts to become a major nuclear power.
Hence, Tom Friedman in the New York Times: "When dealing with a heavily armed crazy state like North Korea. . . . All you can do is is shrink its nuclear programs in exchange for food, and expand trade and investment to alleviate some of its abject poverty - so when it does collapse, it does the least damage possible."
North Korea is the perfect object lesson in the failure of appeasement: Without appeasement, it would not be a nuclear power today. And yet the Friedmans of the world keep insisting that appeasement is the only workable strategy.
So who's really crazy here? Dear Leader - or the appeasers?
-
New York Post | 12/27/02 | JOHN PODHORETZ
- Rumor has it William Jefferson Clinton himself is to recite Honest Abe's lines in this New Year's Eve pageant. Whoever writes these scripts has a natural talent for irony. For some irrepressible reason, one cannot help but think of that costume party in "The Manchurian Candidate,'' complete with Red Queen and Abe Lincoln in stovepipe hat and fake beard.
Hey, what a party! New Year's at the White House
-
-
-
by Mia T
-
The Republicans' latest talking point is that the breach of national security enabled by clinton must be simple incompetence, that the concept that anyone in government would commit treason is too outrageous even to contemplate.
- If the Republicans believe what they are saying, then they are morons.
- If they don't believe what they are saying, then they, too, are traitors.
Outrageousness is an essential element of clinton corruption. The clinton crimes -- rape, murder -- and now treason -- are so outrageous that they allow clinton hacks to reasonably brand all clinton accusers clinton-hating neo-Nazi crazies (notwithstanding the plain fact that some of us are Northeast Jews of leftist origin)..
Yet privately few clintonites would deny that Bill Clinton facilitated China espionage. Their only question: "Why?"
Some call clinton a quisling, a Manchurian Candidate, bought off in Little Rock by Riady and company decades ago (and much too cheaply, according to his Chinese benefactors), trading our national security for his political power. This argument is persuasive but incomplete; clinton, a certifiable megalomaniac, is driven ultimately by his solipsistic, messianic world view and by that which ultimately quashes all else -- his toxic legacy.
William J. Broad suggests (Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes, The New York Times, May 30, 1999) that clinton had another reason to empower China and disembowel America. Broad argues that clinton sought to disseminate our atomic secrets proactively in order to implement his 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.
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. ["inadvertently" ???!!!!]
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 -- clinton's wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton's campaigns, clinton pushing the test ban treaty, clinton's concomitant sale of supercomputers, and clinton's 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 clinton from the gallows. Clinton can be both an absolute (albeit postmodern) moron and a traitor. 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 his position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone," (if he must say so himself) clinton believed that if he could get China to sign it, he would go down in history as the savior of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.
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 clinton would argue against the proposition that this legacy-obsessed megalomaniac would trade our legacy codes for his rehabilitated legacy in a Monica minute and to hell with "the children."
-