PDA

View Full Version : We're Living In A New World



9 Ball Girl
07-13-2005, 11:25 AM
This is from an incident here where I work. They're becoming more frequent now since 9-11-01:

On Wednesday, 06/29/05, while conducting a routine security screening before admitting a visitor to 26 Federal Plaza, a contract security guard observed a suspicious packet tucked into the visitor's sock. Federal Protective Service (FPS) Officers responded immediately. The individual stated that the white powdery substance contained in the tissue was baking soda that he planned to consume for his stomach problems.

The FPS determined that this man was acting in a suspicious manner and that precautions should be taken to safeguard the health and welfare of the building occupants. At about 9:00 a.m., the FPS closed the Lafayette Street side of the building and some elevator banks so the NYPD Hazmat Team could respond and evaluate the substance. At approximately 9:30 a.m., all perimeter entrances were closed per NYPD's Emergency Services Unit (ESU) request. The substance was field tested by the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). A preliminary result from the DEP was that the substance was, in fact, baking soda. We learned that a final report would take about seven days and would be issued by the NYC Department of Health.

The building Fire and Life Safety Director made periodic announcements advising that an investigation was in progress in the lobby of the building and that:
1) individuals would be allowed to leave the building using the Broadway exit, and

2) arriving employees and visitors would not be allowed to enter the building.

Entrances to 26 Federal Plaza remained closed to all visitors until about 11:00 a.m. when the ESU issued a preliminary all clear. Employees were then allowed to enter first, followed by visitors to the building.

A final report from the NYC Department of Public Health has now been issued and the FPS has confirmed that the suspicious powder was in fact baking soda.

Yesterday morning on my ride up to the 40th floor (where I work), scrawled on the inside portion of the elevator doors were the words Bush is Evil. The cleaning guys were easily wiping the words off and one of them says to me, "Look at what someone wrote," to which I replied, "Too bad it wasn't permanent marker." The cleaning guy then said, "Somebody don't like him", and I said, "A lot of somebodies don't like him!"

nAz
07-13-2005, 11:30 AM
What?? who don't like Bush? bush si good, Bush is great!!!










wait what kinda bush are we talking about???

9 Ball Girl
07-13-2005, 11:38 AM
You're such an ass! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Wendy<---the only Bush I trust is mine...

pooltchr
07-14-2005, 07:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 9 Ball Girl:</font><hr> Wendy&lt;---the only Bush I trust is mine... <hr /></blockquote>

I'm not going to get a bit of work done today thinking about that comment! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve

LARRY_BOY
07-14-2005, 08:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 9 Ball Girl:</font><hr> You're such an ass! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Wendy&lt;---the only Bush I trust is mine... <hr /></blockquote>

Bush isn't perfect but compared to 8 long years of suffering thru Slick Willie's term he is a perfect "10"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Chopstick
07-14-2005, 08:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LARRY_BOY:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 9 Ball Girl:</font><hr> You're such an ass! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Wendy&lt;---the only Bush I trust is mine... <hr /></blockquote>

Bush isn't perfect but compared to 8 long years of suffering thru Slick Willie's term he is a perfect "10"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

The quest for the perfect Bush. Now there's a party I would vote for. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
07-15-2005, 06:51 AM
BWA HA HA HA HA...Wendy, I love it! I can always count on you to give me a good laugh...

The Reupblicans have Alshiemers Bush, they can't remember any lies Bush tells.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
07-15-2005, 06:54 AM
Yeah, things were just awful during Clinton's administration. Great economy, balanced budget, no extended wars, and a surplus! I don't know how we got through it, LMAO.

Gayle in Md.

9 Ball Girl
07-15-2005, 06:55 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I actually had a tank top made with those very same words. Maybe I'll wear it when I go down to Virginia in September. I didn't want to wear it when I visited my friends in Texas. I got a button made for my friend that reads, "Where The Hell is Lee Harvey Oswald Now That We Need Him?!"

ceebee
07-15-2005, 09:22 AM
"Where The Hell is Lee Harvey Oswald Now That We Need Him?!"

That is a very good question.

However, if the public &amp; the media would just let Dubya be Dubya, Dubya would lynch himself. He is a lying S.O.B &amp; his direction for America is destruction. He, of course, has an entire Congress there to help him succeed. They too are liars in the first degree. Ask any or all of them, "why are things really, really, worse today? You members of the Congress have been promising to make things better, for over 200 years".

Nightstalker
07-15-2005, 06:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Yeah, things were just awful during Clinton's administration. Great economy, balanced budget, no extended wars, and a surplus! I don't know how we got through it, LMAO.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

If you're crediting the economic conditions during the Clinton administration to Slick Willie himself, the credit is grossly misplaced. Major economic changes take years to take effect. The credit would be more accurately given to Reagan and Bush Sr. Of course, being a staunch liberal I am sure you'll steadfastly deny this. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Also, the economy toward the end of the Clinton administration was declining rapidly but that may be a minor detail that slipped.

poolturtle
07-16-2005, 12:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, things were just awful during Clinton's administration. Great economy, balanced budget, no extended wars, and a surplus! I don't know how we got through it, LMAO.

Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>

"Accept certain inalienable truths: Prices will rise. Politicians will philander. You too will get old. And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble, and children respected their elders."

Baz Luhrman

Gayle in MD
07-19-2005, 01:12 PM
"President Clinton was very intelligent, and would make his economic decisions according to what was best for the country, rather than for political reasons."

Alan Greenspan....

Gayle in MD
07-19-2005, 01:21 PM
Minor detail? Oh, you mean like 8.8 billion dollars that the Bush administration has, ah hem, "Misplaced" ??????

I'm not a staunch liberal. Anyway, liberal is just a label that all the righties use to describe everyone who didn't drink the Kool Aid.

Where is the 8.8 billion dollars?

"I don't know where he is, he's hiding. I don't think about him."

George W. Bush... talking about the man who led the attack on the United States Of America on September 11, 2001.

Nightstalker
07-19-2005, 05:19 PM
So out of my entire post all you reply to was my assumption about your views, then you change the subject. That is exactly what I expected, thanks. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

SnakebyteXX
07-19-2005, 08:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If you're crediting the economic conditions during the Clinton administration to Slick Willie himself, the credit is grossly misplaced. Major economic changes take years to take effect. The credit would be more accurately given to Reagan and Bush Sr <hr /></blockquote>

When Reagan took office the National Debt could be measured graphically as a stack of $100 bills twenty-eight miles high. When he left office that stack was well over one hundred miles high and the US had become the number one debtor nation on the planet. He wasn't the first 'borrow and spend' Republican President we ever had but he left a debt behind that will take generations to repay. Not the one I'd credit for improving economic conditions unless you count spending money we could ill afford to create the appearance of a healthy economy during his term(s) in office.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/332/nationaldebtgdp1yl.gif

Gayle in MD
07-20-2005, 05:38 AM
Hey Wendy, you got to get me one of those...got to.

Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
07-20-2005, 05:44 AM
NO problem. Anytime!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
If you would read your statement, I think you could possibly hear the voice of a staunch rightie. So you give eight years of a good economy to republicans, and then you designate a little dip in the economy at the very end of the Clinton years to poor ol Bill. It's a wonder he could get anything done with the right wing idiots and all their wasted money they spend on stupid investigations, billions, and what did they come up with? A BLOW JOB, OMG!

LMAO
Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
07-20-2005, 07:38 AM
AMEN!

Qtec
07-20-2005, 08:34 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
-George W. Bush, Jan. 2001

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
-George W. Bush

"Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment."
-George W. Bush, Jan. 2001

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."
-George W. Bush

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
07-20-2005, 08:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"President Clinton was very intelligent, and would make his economic decisions according to what was best for the country, rather than for political reasons."

Alan Greenspan.... <hr /></blockquote> There you go folks, the law of the land. We have a single quote from Greenspan (sure hope he never said anything else, ever, and no one else for that matter) and nothing else could be closer to the truth. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

Nightstalker
07-20-2005, 05:38 PM
Clinton lied to a Federal Grand Jury. He was such a great president though.

heater451
07-20-2005, 08:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr> Clinton lied to a Federal Grand Jury. He was such a great president though. <hr /></blockquote>Is that worse than lying to a nation?



=============================

Gayle in MD
07-21-2005, 04:02 AM
Tap Tap Tap! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Gayle

Nightstalker
07-21-2005, 04:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr> Clinton lied to a Federal Grand Jury. He was such a great president though. <hr /></blockquote>Is that worse than lying to a nation?



============================= <hr /></blockquote>

Is Bush being impeached? I find it very interesting how the democrats and others want to believe that the only even slightly negative thing Clinton did during his eight years in office was get a bj in the White House... /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

If you're naive enough to think that Bush is the first and only pres to "lie to a nation" then we're in a sad state of affairs.

Gayle in MD
07-21-2005, 04:16 AM
Clinton lied about his sex life. I would venture to say, that if you could give sodiumpentothol to every American man in this country, and ask them if they ever lied about their sex life in any way, you'd be hard pressed to scrape together one tenth of one percent who never lied about sex! LMAO.

Bush's lies are costing us a billion dollars a day! Have cost us over 1700 of our young men and women who have lost their lives. Thousands more who are maimed for life. Reublicans cut funding for Veterans, while they lie about what is going on in Iraq. Meanwhile, the insurgents, who are growing their resources, have become much more sophisticated in their use of bombing techniques, and are now able to blow apart armoured HumV's....

I am sick of this administrations lies, and seeing our young people die while Iraqi's are now asking us to get out NOW!

We will look back at GW and wish he had gotten a few BJ's and lied about them instead of the lies he told us that got us into this mess.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
07-21-2005, 05:01 AM
When it comes to lying, it seems to me that Ms Clinton set an all time standard that no president could ever reach, but that's not really the subject here. Gayle, you live very near DC and probably are exposed to more of the political bs that goes on there. I know, I used to live there as well. It's sad that you seem to take what you choose to read at face value and have allowed the political machines to taint your views. If you could step back from your bias against Bush and try to look clearly at the issues, I think you would find that neither party is what you would call "squeaky clean". I have often tried to point out that there is entirely too much government control in this country. The bigger the government gets, the more room for corruption. The solution isn't whether you vote for a Republican or a Democrat. Whoever is in charge is controlling all the corruption at the time. There will be no improvement until we the people demand that governments start downsizing.

Example. Our local government announced a 10% increase in taxes because revenues have dropped off. Now, if you had a decrease in your household income, you can't just go out and take money from others so you can keep spending. You would have to make cuts in your budget. (stop spending so much) The government has the ability to take our money without our approval by force if they so choose. If anyone else did this to you, it would be considered a crime.

A news story in our paper this week is covering the death of a young father and teacher in an automobile accident. The drunk driver who murdered him had 3 previous convictions for DWI. He also happened to be in the US illegally. The government never questioned this individual about his immigration status. The courts just keep letting him go until he finally killed someone. In essence, the government failed in it's primary duty, which is to protect the interests of the citizens of this country.
The liberal types in Washington (and in our case, Raleigh) don't want to deal with this issue. They want to increase our taxes so we can pay for ILLEGAL residents to get health care and education. We even let ILLEGAL residents vote in our elections.

No one wants to be at war, and I would love to see our troops return home, but only after they have done the job that needs to be done. I would much rather see our troops at work right here taking care of our own interests.
I wish you could redirect your passion and energy toward fixing the real problems in this country, rather than getting into petty arguements over which president told the worse lies. Lies are lies...little ones, big ones...they are still lies.
Try getting away from the "symptoms" and start looking at the "cause".
Steve

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I just think your passion is somewhat misplaced.

Gayle in MD
07-21-2005, 05:46 AM
Look, I don't know you any more than you know me. I am not for giving anyone here in this country a free ride. I am also not for big government. I am for tight control of our borders, which this administration has failed miserably at doing. Bush is the one who wants to give illegal aliens drivers permits isn't he? Bush is the one who wants to give them all amnesty, automatically making criminals, US citizens.

You make a lot of assumptions about me, and you dont know me. You also make a lot of assumptions about what the so called liberals want, IMO. It isn't the fault of liberals that Illegals can vote here. Bush has been the softest President for the illegals at a time when illegals are a real threat to this country.

That's right, I live near Washington, am a member of the Press Club, a frequent visitor to Walter Reed Hospital, and an avid reader. I don't and won't discuss whatever humanitarrian activities I am involved in as I find that to be in poor taste, however, my view of Bush, and what the Republicans are doing in Washington, is not a view from the left or the right, it is simply my opinion.

You people who are for bush see only two kinds of people, those who are like you, and in total denial regarding the massive mistakes that this idiot has made, and liberals. That is not reality. The majority of the people in this country do not trust this president. The majority think he lied to us. 126 of the Iraqi democratically elected parliament signed a statement calling for the United States to get out of Iraq NOW. That's nearly half, there are 275 in total.

As for my passions, you are also ignorant as to what they may be, since you dont know me, or how I spend my time. I think you are presumptous, to say the least, to attempt to instruct me as to where I might direct my passion, or how I research the events of the day, and form my opinions.

If anyone is misguided in this country, it is the blind followers of the Bush political machine, IMO., namely, you.

gayle in Md.

pooltchr
07-21-2005, 06:56 AM
You are absolutely correct. You don't know me...yet you make the assumption that I am a "blind follower of the Bush political machine".
You are doing the exact thing you are accusing me of doing.
Steve

Wally_in_Cincy
07-21-2005, 07:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

...As for my passions, you are also ignorant as to what they may be,<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle you never talk about anything but how bad bush is what are we supposed to glean from that?

Wally_in_Cincy
07-21-2005, 07:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

..a freguent visitor to Walter Reid Hospital, <hr /></blockquote>

if you go there so frequently you would think you would learn to spell it correctly

Sid_Vicious
07-21-2005, 07:58 AM
The more things change, the more they stay the same. This president has bobbled his powers in such magnitude that it'll probably NEVER be fixable in any of our lifetimes, and with very obvious factoids which, in any open-minded human beings minds, nail Bush as a chronic liar with an agenda which is anti-American, YES you heard that right! You are right Gayle, the Bushites have two kinds of people they see, and are self blindered as to what this country has incurred in traditional and economical, and lets not forget security ways. We call ourselves a nation of educated people and yet those with the so-called most formal education appears to be the dimmest ones of all. Of course we know why that is don't we...Bill C. caused it all. What a joke, get with the current program folks, today's world is NOW, not 8 years ago. Y'all have a third world mentality in what you decide to see and hear. I am neither right or left, but I am definitely far from this admin's policies, so I guess that pushes me in the other direction. Every one should be concerned what their children will inherit after Bush's tenure, cuz it ain't gonna be any replica of what most of us have had in our years of living in this country. Your children to say the least should be something to bring people to pondering, unbiased and objectively, where we've been taken with this Republican dominated admin. It is simply careless and dangerous for our way of life today, and a dismal future looms for the children whom we should make our prime concern.

Again, the more things change, the more they stay the same....sid

Wally_in_Cincy
07-21-2005, 08:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> The more things change, the more they stay the same....


...Again, the more things change, the more they stay the same....sid <hr /></blockquote>

so you're saying bush is just as bad as clinton?

Qtec
07-21-2005, 08:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The bigger the government gets, the more room for corruption. The solution isn't whether you vote for a Republican or a Democrat. Whoever is in charge is controlling all the corruption at the time. There will be no improvement until we the people demand that governments start downsizing.
<hr /></blockquote>

If I may be so bold Steve, I think the biggest problem with corruption is that it has become the norm, not the exception. In the public eye it is seen as almost inevitable and therefore acceptable.

Niether party is sqeaky clean but you have to have some standards and IMO, this Admin has made so many mistakes, misleading statements and outright lies its impossible to believe a single word they say!

[ QUOTE ]
McClellan said Tuesday he had questioned White House political adviser Karl Rove, National Security Council aide Elliot Abrams and Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff about the leak and was told "they were not involved." <hr /></blockquote>


Q

DickLeonard
07-21-2005, 09:54 AM
Wally you're supposed to glean how bad Bush is plain and simple. You cannot have concrete blocking your brain waves. Nice to see you posting again even if it is faulty. ####

pooltchr
07-21-2005, 10:19 AM
Q....this is Really Really hard for me to say....but I agree with you! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif The sooner people in this country wake up to what is going on around them and get off their fat duffs to try and improve it, the better off we will be. Unfortunately, there are too many who think the government is the ultimate savior of everyone, and blindly allow it to grow bigger and worse every day.
I think too many people who think they are informed are just regurgitating the crap they get fed by their favorite media source rather than looking deeper to find out what is really happening.
Our so called intelligent population is frightningly ignorant.
Steve

Gayle in MD
07-21-2005, 10:35 AM
Hey, why not try walking through Walter Reed Hospital to survey the results of George Bush's lies, then see if Monika will show you the black dress, then you tell me which was worse. Our kids are dieing because of George Bush and his lies, Cheney's lies, Rice's lies, Rumsfeld's lies. It's a sad state of affairs when Americans don't care that the President sent our kids to die on lies, that's pretty damn sad.

I guess if George Bush during his first campaign, had told you righties that he was going to send our young people over there so that the Iraqis could vote, you would have all said, "Oh yes!, that's just what we've been thinking about. Just what we think is important.

There is no connection between making us safe here in this country, and Iraq becomming a democracy. Just like there was no connection between bin Laden, and S. H. and Iraq. I'd like to see us go after the one who attacked us on 9/11 2001` instead of growing a whole new breed of terrorists.

Mushroom clouds my ass, S. H. was no where near sending mushroom clouds. It was all a lie.

When Clinton lied, nobody died.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
07-21-2005, 10:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You are doing the exact thing you are accusing me of doing. <hr /></blockquote> This is nothing new.

eg8r

eg8r
07-21-2005, 10:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, why not try walking through Walter Reid Hospital to survey the results of George Bush's lies, then see if Monika will show you the black dress, then you tell me which was worse. <hr /></blockquote> As Wally pointed out in another post, as often as you visit the hospital and as avid a reader you claim to be, why have you not read the sign out in front of the hospital? Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is "R<font color="red"> ee </font color>d" (I digress, correct spelling is not the subject). Anyways, quit playing this game, Clinton's sexual affairs are not the only lie he ever told. I hope this never happens, but if China decides to use one of their ICBMs, with a nuclear warhead, on the US because we defended Taiwan, I will have to remind you to visit the hospitals to check out the damage the Clinton presidency has brought us.

Because Bush is in the White House you only speak of the here and now, however Clinton's policy, and any other President for that matter, have lasting effects long after they are out of office. If China drops a nuclear bomb in California's lap, we will have none other to thank than Bill Clinton himself.

eg8r

SnakebyteXX
07-21-2005, 11:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
If China drops a nuclear bomb in California's lap, we will have none other to thank than Bill Clinton himself.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

If China drops a nuclear weapon on California I'm guessing that it wouldn't be the only one dropped by either side. As far as who we might want to 'thank' in the aftermath of such a cataclysm? Nobody.

Geeze... here I am worrying about the California real estate bubble bursting and you have to throw out the prospect of nuclear weapon(s) being dropped on us. Now that would definitely have a negative impact on local real estate values. No two ways about it.

Snake

pooltchr
07-21-2005, 01:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> see if Monika will show you the black dress,<hr /></blockquote>

I believe it was blue, but who around here cares about facts?

heater451
07-21-2005, 03:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr> Is Bush being impeached?<hr /></blockquote>No, but that has no relation to the question of lying. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr>I find it very interesting how the democrats and others want to believe that the only even slightly negative thing Clinton did during his eight years in office was get a bj in the White House... /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif<hr /></blockquote>Is that an invitation to open another discussion, or just more distraction from the point about lying?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr>If you're naive enough to think that Bush is the first and only pres to "lie to a nation" then we're in a sad state of affairs.<hr /></blockquote>Ah, an assumption. . . .Is that intended to cause a defensive reaction on my part, or are you simply unable to answer the direct question about whether lying to a federal jury is worse than lying to a nation?

Of course, then we might as well be opening a discussion on the "weight" of a lie, and we'd need criteria to measure by, and then a committee to judge whether said criteria was fair and balanced, and wasn't racially, sexually, or economically slanted for or against any group of people. Or, we could simply equate a lie to a lie.

Lastly, I do not labor under a belief that former presidents have never lied, I am naive enough to think that we would one day have a president that doesn't. However, once again, this still has nothing to do with whether lying "to a federal grand jury" is worse than lying to a nation.



============================

Nightstalker
07-21-2005, 05:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr> Is Bush being impeached?<hr /></blockquote>No, but that has no relation to the question of lying. <hr /></blockquote>

Oh right, you must subscribe to "Slick Willie's" school of "that depends on what your definition of is is" lying.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr>I find it very interesting how the democrats and others want to believe that the only even slightly negative thing Clinton did during his eight years in office was get a bj in the White House... /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif<hr /></blockquote>Is that an invitation to open another discussion, or just more distraction from the point about lying?<hr /></blockquote>

What are you talking about? I never once denied that Bush lied. If I did, show me where.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr>If you're naive enough to think that Bush is the first and only pres to "lie to a nation" then we're in a sad state of affairs.<hr /></blockquote>Ah, an assumption. . . .Is that intended to cause a defensive reaction on my part, or are you simply unable to answer the direct question about whether lying to a federal jury is worse than lying to a nation?<hr /></blockquote>

Ok, while we're on the subject...how is lying to a federal grand jury any different than lying to a nation? How is that quantified, since it seems like you believe that lying to a nation is worse?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr>Of course, then we might as well be opening a discussion on the "weight" of a lie, and we'd need criteria to measure by, and then a committee to judge whether said criteria was fair and balanced, and wasn't racially, sexually, or economically slanted for or against any group of people. Or, we could simply equate a lie to a lie.

Lastly, I do not labor under a belief that former presidents have never lied, I am naive enough to think that we would one day have a president that doesn't. However, once again, this still has nothing to do with whether lying "to a federal grand jury" is worse than lying to a nation.<hr /></blockquote>

Lying is lying then, it is settled. For we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

eg8r
07-22-2005, 05:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, an assumption. . . .Is that intended to cause a defensive reaction on my part, or are you simply unable to answer the direct question about whether lying to a federal jury is worse than lying to a nation? <hr /></blockquote> In defense of NS, no it was not an assumption, it would only be foolish on your part to not believe this could be the first time a President lied to the Nation.

However, there is no difference to me whether someone lied to the Nation or to a grand jury. A lie is a lie. This game of "who is worse" is ridiculous.

eg8r

eg8r
07-22-2005, 05:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If China drops a nuclear weapon on California I'm guessing that it wouldn't be the only one dropped by either side. <hr /></blockquote> Your thoughts on how many drop one is not relevant. The subject of my post was Clinton giving away top secret information that would allow this to happen.

[ QUOTE ]
Geeze... here I am worrying about the California real estate bubble bursting and you have to throw out the prospect of nuclear weapon(s) being dropped on us. <hr /></blockquote>I am not throwing this out. My goodness with all the news you copy and paste here, surely you would have read about the Chinese General (or whatever his rank was) who mentioned this. As far as the bubble in California, I would not beleive a word of it. Prices in that forsaken state have continued to rise for a long time. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-22-2005, 06:10 AM
Bush is bad.

Gayle in MD
07-22-2005, 06:13 AM
Anyone who can ignore the numerous and massive lies told by this administration, has got to be a blind follower, IMO. Those who want to focus on the Clinton's past, rather than the present critical circumstances which Bush decieves us about daily, has got to be a blind follower, IMO.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
07-22-2005, 06:17 AM
Hey, aren't you the guy who just confused Cheney and Rumsfled regarding their war service, right on this page? don't be such a nit-picker, Walley. You're not perfect either.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
07-22-2005, 06:27 AM
Hey, it's no surprise to me that you folks from the right would rather focus on things like Clinton, and spelling, and old wars. The usual right-wing tactics. How bout catching up to some current affairs, instead of trying to muddy up the water with nit picking, and the past.

Gayle in Md. petty petty petty.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
07-22-2005, 06:35 AM
Not you for sure. You can't support Bush, and claim to be focussed on facts!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
07-22-2005, 06:43 AM
Well now, if that isn't typical right wing BS I don't know what is. Clinton lies about his personal life, Bush lies about going into an extended war where already 1786 of our young men and woman have lost their lives, and thousands more are maimed for life, and you don't see the difference.

The subject is Bush's lies, will you please try to stay on the subject or I will have to call in the post police, oh, wait a minute, you ARE the post police.....



Gayle in Md.

heater451
07-22-2005, 07:01 AM
Hey Ed, how's tricks?

It makes me laugh---I didn't make the distinction that one lie was worse than the other, I just **asked** if it was.

The implication was by NS, and yourself, that I'm the one applying weights to any difference. That was why I said that, if he wanted to do so, then they would have to be quantified, which, although I believe some lies are "heavier" than others, it's more of lies lying (pardon the pun) in different bands, or strata. That is, lying by a president--for pretty much anything--is much different than lying by a child who has taken a cookie before dinner. Unfortunately, the classification in this example could be seen as a division between the persons, president/adult vs. child, or by the impact of the lie, which would seem to be the better criteria by which to judge, but that would back up the point in which a lie about a cookie falls into a different zone of weight than a lie about, say, "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

NS has already made a fatal flaw in his logic, in assuming that anyone (me) who happens to have a point, is to be treated as an enemy--whether the point in question counters his, or is simply tangental, as mine was. See, now THAT seems more of an attack, although it's not intended that way.

*******

Aside from the individual details, about what or who is right or wrong, regarding politics, I just wish that people didn't treat a political party like their favorite sports team--backing them "no matter what".

What's incredibly funny is that, no matter how more educated we (supposedly) become, and how much more technology advances, wisdom has declined. We're pretty much still the monkeys in the opening of 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the ones with the sticks beat the crap out of those without them. (Incidentally, I also find it funny that this is the 2nd 2001 reference of late--perhaps this one is brought on by the other one.

(Sorry, but I get to be a bit verbose today--I took the day off from work.)

*******

I forgot something, that's supposed to be said, when "discussions" degenerate into arguments: "Tastes Great!". . . .



===================================

Nightstalker
07-22-2005, 08:41 AM
heater451, you SEEM to need to work on your reading comprehension. When someone uses the word SEEMS they mean that it looks like it is such a way, though it MAY NOT be, you see? I used the words seems, and you interpreted me to be implying that something was such a way. I must correct you on this because I do not wish to be misquoted or misunderstood.

Let me educate you some more now. When you said this, "NS has already made a fatal flaw in his logic, in assuming that anyone (me) who happens to have a point, is to be treated as an enemy--whether the point in question counters his, or is simply tangental, as mine was. See, now THAT seems more of an attack, although it's not intended that way." you were in fact assuming that I see anyone who has a point as an enemy. You did not say it seemed that way, or that it may be the case. You stated that it was so, but it is not. Ed has made points in this thread, have I treated him as an enemy? Have I attacked Gayle or snake? The answer is no. I will present my points, and if they are taken the wrong way then I am sorry but in these types of discussions sometimes words typed on the screen do not come accross as intended. Such is the case when you thought I said you felt there was a difference between the lies when I only said that it seemed that way. Do you follow me? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
07-22-2005, 09:43 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

eg8r
07-22-2005, 09:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Ed, how's tricks? <hr /></blockquote> Tricks?

[ QUOTE ]
I just wish that people didn't treat a political party like their favorite sports team--backing them "no matter what".
<hr /></blockquote> Go Gators! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
07-22-2005, 10:01 AM
Gayle, I believe you are losing it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> In defense of NS, no it was not an assumption, it would only be foolish on your part to not believe this could be the first time a President lied to the Nation.

However, there is no difference to me whether someone lied to the Nation or to a grand jury. A lie is a lie. This game of "who is worse" is ridiculous.
[ QUOTE ]
Well now, if that isn't typical right wing BS I don't know what is. Clinton lies about his personal life, Bush lies about going into an extended war where already 1786 of our young men and woman have lost their lives, and thousands more are maimed for life, and you don't see the difference.
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> My statement that this is not the first time a President has lied is typical right wing BS? A lie is a lie. The sad part is that you are forcing yourself to ignore the "REAL" lies of Clinton's presidency and purposefully continuing to direct conversation to his pants. I am sorry, but unlike yourself, I recognize Clinton did more harm to this country than cheat on his wife and daughter. You are not able to comprehend this because your mind is constantly causing you to look back at his crotch and believe that was the only problem. If you could get your mind away from his zipper (that is as dangerously close as Monica) and look at everything that is typed maybe we could have a meaningful discussion, but until then, you can just keep visualizing your hero being impeached over a little bad judgement.
[ QUOTE ]
The subject is Bush's lies, will you please try to stay on the subject or I will have to call in the post police, oh, wait a minute, you ARE the post police.....
<hr /></blockquote> You have never bothered yourself with the "subject" before, so don't bother yourself with checking the facts to see if I was following the subject. My post was in response to heater about NS and it was right on with the subject they were discussing. Thank you, but you are not equipped to properly join the ranks of post police. Please, stick with changing the subject and accusing other people of doing what you do and leave the policing to those who are able to accurately identify the "subject". /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

eg8r
07-22-2005, 10:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
and old wars. <hr /></blockquote> I am ashamed the lives lost in those wars do not have the same significant value you have placed on those being lost in "current" wars.

[ QUOTE ]
How bout catching up to some current affairs, <hr /></blockquote> Like I have said about the Chinese general, should his threats become true, I am sure you will find some book in which blame will be cast on Bush for not stopping the proliferation of nuclear warheads in China. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
07-22-2005, 10:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
My statement that this is not the first time a President has lied is typical right wing BS? A lie is a lie. <hr /></blockquote>

Whats worse , robbing a bank or taking the whole country to war under false pretences.??
Q

eg8r
07-22-2005, 10:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Whats worse , robbing a bank or taking the whole country to war under false pretences.?? <hr /></blockquote> Which President are you referring to that robbed a bank? Alright then, quiet down until you have a point. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Just kidding.

eg8r

theinel
07-22-2005, 07:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>When Clinton lied, nobody died.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
I have that bumper sticker on my truck. I take a lot of flack for it but I take comfort in it because the people giving me grief are the same people who believe that we are in Iraq fighting the 911 terrorists. Soooo many people are completely blind to the facts. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove are pure evil. They do whatever they want and wrap it in bs to blind people to what they are doing. I'm counting the days until the current Bush term is over.

theinel
07-22-2005, 07:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>A lie is a lie. This game of "who is worse" is ridiculous.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
You can't really believe that can you?

Clinton's lie stained a dress and his reputation.

Bush's lies have killed 1770+ American soldiers and at least 10k+ Iraqis (exact numbers not known but it's likely in the 15 to 20k range). I wont report the dollar costs out of respect for the dead but they are staggering as well. And don't forget the strain that this has put on the military which would now have much greater difficulty in dealing with a real threat (i.e. Iran or North Korea).

This is not a game.

Nightstalker
07-22-2005, 08:14 PM
Politicians lie? I'll alert the media.

Sid_Vicious
07-23-2005, 08:19 AM
The first death before all the rest after Bush's war made the difference between his and Bill C's lies. Plain and simple. I can't see how anyone can argue this by saying a lie is a lie, not even Ed...sid

heater451
07-24-2005, 07:54 AM
NS I fully understand the inadequacies of the written word, in its ability to convey emotion.

And yes, I understand the use of the word "seem". In fact, I use it a lot, and it does not necessarily convey belief, but allows for a possibility.

I am however, beginning to think that you have the same reading-comprehension affiction that you **seem** to be ascribing to me. In any case, I suppose we can let it go, since neither of us will be convinced that the other understands what we **mean**, as opposed to what we **think** they mean. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

We could also trace the route of assumed implication of meaning, back through these few posts, but I'm sure it won't make any difference.

Let me just point out that my first post was a "YES/NO" question. . . .

Later.

DiddleESquat
07-24-2005, 09:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote theinel:</font><hr>

Clinton's lie stained a dress and his reputation.

Bush's lies have killed 1770+ American soldiers and at least 10k+ Iraqis (exact numbers not known but it's likely in the 15 to 20k range). I wont report the dollar costs out of respect for the dead but they are staggering as well. And don't forget the strain that this has put on the military which would now have much greater difficulty in dealing with a real threat (i.e. Iran or North Korea).

This is not a game. <hr /></blockquote>

Clinton was a total dirtbag who knowingly transfered high tech defense technology to the Chinese communists in exchange for campaign contributions.

USA Today 5/19/99 "...In 1996, the Administration transferred the licensing authority for exporting satellite technology from the State Department, which had opposed giving new technology to China, to the Commerce Department, which immediately approved the transfer. Given the green light by the Commerce Department, Loral Corporation provided China with missile technology to improve its satellite launch and guidance systems. This same technology can be used to improve the performance of missiles aimed at the United States. Loral is headed by Bernard Schwartz, one of the largest Democratic donors in the '96 election cycle...."

World Net Daily 7/21/98 Charles Smith ".President Clinton signed a SECOND part to the waiver for Loral's Globalstar system in July of 1996. The second part of the Clinton waiver was not for satellites to Russia but allowed Loral to sell an encrypted telemetry control ground station to China for the Loral Globalstar satellites. The station has already been built and has opened just outside of Beijing.."In March 1996," wrote Reinsch in his recent letter to Spence. "The export of a ground station which contained encryption would have been under the jurisdiction of the State Department." In 1996, encrypted telemetry was a separate item -- not controlled by the Commerce Department. The only way to dodge the State Department sanctions on the export of satellite encryption to China was by obtaining Bill Clinton's signature. On July 9, 1996, Bill Clinton signed the waiver for Loral."

Capitol Hill Blue 4/22/99 Doug Thompson "...In 1996, the Clinton administration, over the objection of the CIA and the Defense Department, approved the sale of sensitive satellite technology to China by Loral, a company headed by Clinton campaign contributor Bernard Schwartz. That technology, intelligence analyst Owen says, was a key component in developing the missile technology that China is using to developing a delivery system for its new nuclear weapons. "Countries spy on each other, that's a fact of life," Owen says. "But usually the country that is being spied on doesn't give the one doing the spying this much help." ..."

Wall Street Journal 4/14/98 Editorial "…President Clinton approved the transfer of missile guidance technology to China at the behest of the largest personal contributor to the Democratic Party. He granted the needed waiver despite an ongoing Department of Justice criminal investigation of the same company's earlier transfer of similar technology: a Pentagon study concluding that in the earlier episode "United States national security has been harmed." That is the essence of a report yesterday by Jeff Gerth of the New York Times (who also reported the original Whitewater story in 1992) concerning satellite launch technology provided by Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronics, a subsidiary of General Motors. Loral Chairman Bernard L. Schwartz topped the personal contributions list in 1997; his 1994 trip to China with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was quickly followed by a memo to the President from Harold Ickes saying Mr. Schwartz "is prepared to do anything he can for the Administration." Lobbying jointly with Hughes Chairman C. Michael Armstrong, who has gone on to head AT&amp;T, Mr. Schwartz succeeded in softening licensing requirements for export of guidance technology to China…."

Newsmax.com 3/11/99 Chris Ruddy "…Another oft cited example of the administration's method of reclassifying military secrets surfaced in a 1998 New York Times report by Jeff Gerth. Gerth revealed that in 1996, Loral, an American aerospace company, had, without a license, provided China with ballistic missile technology that enabled China to improve its rocket guidance systems. When the Justice Department began a grand jury probe of this apparent illegal transfer, President Clinton quickly reclassified the technology and approved its transfer, effectively undermining the Justice Department's case against Loral…."

Wall Street Journal 3/11/99 Editorial "…On their own the security lapses would be serious enough….. But the story's context invites an even more chilling conclusion. The Clinton Administration's inaction, after all, did not occur in a vacuum. It came in the thick of a 1996 re-election effort we now know included campaign contributions from those with ties to the Chinese government, its military and even its intelligence organizations In other words, at the same time the FBI and CIA were investigating the source of the Los Alamos leak, Vice President Al Gore was passing the hat among inexplicably wealthy Buddhist nuns, Mr. Clinton was serving coffee at the White House to PLA arms dealer Wang Jun and the Administration responded favorably to a request from a man who would be the Democratic Party's largest donor in 1996--Loral Chairman Bernard L. Schwartz--to transfer authority over licensing of satellite technology from the State to Commerce Department. Two years later Loral would be granted a Presidential waiver to export its technology to China, even though it was under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for previous technology transfers….More to the point here, neither of Mr. Clinton's predecessors involved their foreign policy people in campaign politics the way this Administration has. What makes Sandy Berger's lack of action on the espionage front so scandalous is that as deputy National Security Adviser in 1996 he sat in on the weekly White House meetings about the re-election campaign. And he wasn't alone. The President himself chaired a September 13, 1995, meeting after which Johnny Huang--Lippo's man at the Commerce Department--was transferred to the Democratic National Committee. The result was that a man suspected of having compromised national security continued at his post, and foreign scientists were allowed to visit lab facilities without background checks. Indeed, the White House began to tighten things at Los Alamos only late last year, after the arrival of Bill Richardson at Energy and after a bipartisan committee convened by Rep. Chris Cox looked into issues of Chinese espionage and technology transfer. Over at Justice, meanwhile, the Attorney General resolutely refused to follow the recommendations of either FBI director Louis Freeh or her handpicked prosecutor, Charles La Bella, to appoint an independent counsel to look into any Chinese connection to the 1996 campaign…."

Softwar 3/10/99 Charles Smith "…COSTIND Lt. General Shen met with Ron Brown and CEO of Loral Bernard Schwartz in 1994. General Shen's son, Shen Jun, was also the lead engineer for satellite software at Hughes. …"

Omaha World Herald 3/10/99 Editorial Board "…Bereuter has said before that two American companies, Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronics Corp., have broken the law in the 1990s by giving China access to unauthorized technological materials. Both companies contract with China to launch satellites. China uses the same type of missile for commercial and military launches, Bereuter said, so Loral and Hughes are subject to restrictions on how much they can help China improve its missile technology. He said the companies are required to keep satellite technology to themselves. Bereuter suspects that Loral and Hughes shared prohibited missile and satellite technology. He said he believes Loral was especially brazen in violating national security laws in order to curry better business relations with China. When congressional investigators tried to pursue the matter, Bereuter said, the Justice Department told them to back off, that Justice was conducting its own criminal investigation. That, Bereuter said, does not inspire confidence. He said Justice may be shielding Loral rather investigating it. He noted that Bernard Schwartz, Loral's chairman, was the largest individual donor to the Democratic Party last year and has given the party more than $1 million in recent years…."

Capitol Hill Blue 3/17/99 Doug Thompson "… The Clinton administration, busy approving the sale of sensitive technology to China, ignored warnings in 1996 from a senior Energy Department Official who said security at the nation's nuclear weapons labs were lax and needed to be tightened immediately, department sources tell Capitol Hill Blue. The official, Deputy Secretary of Energy Charles Curtis, ordered a tightening of security at the national labs, but his orders were never implemented and were also ignored by incoming Secretary of Energy Fredrico Pena when he took office in March, 1997. The White House was also aware of Curtis's order, but chose to ignore it, DOE sources say. At the time, President Clinton was approving the sale of sensitive nuclear technology to China by Loral, a company headed by one of his largest campaign contributors. The revelations directly contradict earlier claims by administration officials that they first learned of the lapses in security in the summer of 1997, more than eight months after Curtis tried to take action. Pena claims he was unaware of the order by Curtis, who left the agency shortly after he became Secretary of Energy, but other Energy Department sources say the new Secretary was fully briefed on the concerns about security at the national labs. "If Pena says he didn't know about this, he's a goddamned liar," an angry DOE official said Tuesday. "There is no way an incoming secretary of energy wouldn't be briefed on something as important as this. I know for a fact that this information was part of his initial briefing materials." …"

FoxNews 3/17/99 Crier report interviews Timperlake author of Year of the Rat – Freeper Jobim reports "…Why did Clinton sell out? For the money. A quest for power. Then you need to cover your tracks. Riadys had John Huang working with them for a long time. Riady $ was to get Huang in the government. Hubbell was at ground zero in the entire conspiracy. Huang got clearance 5 &amp;1/2 months before he showed up for work. Huang received documents that were stamped: COULD LEAD TO HANDLERS DEATH. 1996 - Clinton needed money. Loral sends committee over to help the Chinese. Berger gave Loral a get-out-of-jail-free card. 20 missiles have ready capability to go to 200 with miniature nuke tips…." "…Bob McMillan: "unorthodox procedures" allowed China to take control of both Panama Canal ports. Chinese investments are continuing to grow in Panama. 12/31 are troops are gone and 80% of Panamanians want us there. Why?…"
FoxNews 3/17/99 Crier report interviews Timperlake author of Year of the Rat – Freeper ohmlaw98 reports "..Hubbell at center...Enter Riady hush money Huang ....no record of actual birth date.....39 cia biefings.....109 meetings with CI...."Release to unauthorized source could result in death" Huang...$5.00 charged to US taxpayer from residence in PRC Pass secrets to Lippo through Stevens &amp; co. after briefings with CI Loral..donations total 2.2 million severe opposition for justice... "get out of jail free " W-88 space launch vehicle 200 thermnuclear devices in near future... severe deterrence problems and proliferation problems with China in near future.....Timperlake served on Rules Committee investigation team with Solomon..Johnny Chung....Background identification? [B R E A K] Robert McMillan..Panama Canal control by China/PLA via Riady....Johnny Chung brought individuals from China..Liu Chioying....Marswell...300,000...been to spy schools....Triplett co-author....Have 2 ports at each end due to unorthodox procedures by Ambassador ?....Liu involved in Panama deal for $22,000,000...McMillan...Clinton "absolutely asleep" negotiating the continuation of troops in panama 80% of citizens in Panama wanted US Troops to remain.....Timperlake.....Arms running.....Administration has not invoked any proliferation laws....N Korea &amp; China sharing "overheads" with missle tech. Chinese military curve accelerating upward on Clinton's watch..He took the money and said I don't care...."

Washington Weekly Carl Limbacher 6/1/98 "… According to a Scripps Howard report by Michael Hedges, which ran on the front page of the March 14, 1997 edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the Clinton administration granted Wang Jun's Poly Technologies importation permits to flood America with over 100,000 semi-automatic weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition -- despite the president's own cherished gun ban. That was on Feb. 2, 1996 -- just days before Clinton issued the first satellite waivers for Loral Corp…. …"

Insight 4/19/99 Timothy Maier "… But Clinton and Gore have much explaining to do. Both knew about the Los Alamos espionage in 1995, yet they continued to entertain Chinese generals by allowing them to tour nuclear facilities and gladly received financial donations from Beijing and its friends. A year after the theft of nuclear secrets was discovered, instead of exposing the spies, Clinton made it easier for Beijing agents. He transferred licensing requirements from the State to the sales-oriented Commerce Department. This accelerated the pace at which Beijing obtained dual-use technology to build nuclear weapons and missiles.. . Next came the most significant damage to U.S. security since the days of the Rosenbergs. Dr. Wah Lim, then a Loral Space and Communications scientist, headed a team of scientists studying Beijing's rocket failures when he called his assistant to fax to China a sensitive accident-analysis report that intelligence agents say greatly enhanced the accuracy of Beijing's missiles. Lim's attorney calls it a "technical violation." But Lim, now with Hughes Electronics, is the target of a U.S. Justice probe…."I've heard from people who have seen the Cox report," says Henry Sokolski, a former Pentagon nonproliferation official who now heads the Washington-based Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, "and the damage goes far beyond the W-88 issue. It's pretty bad." Some have jumped the gun by claiming this espionage is comparable to the Rosenberg case, but it is not yet at that level, Sokolski says. "The Rosenbergs helped confirm our worst fears and validated the hard line towards Russia. The jury is still out as to whether this is as important as the Rosenbergs because we haven't seen any change in policy toward China. Not yet."….."For the longest time U.S. analysts on China have emphasized how small China's nuclear forces have been and how they have remained that way," says Sokolski. "The significance of this latest incident shows that it is much more sophisticated and significantly larger.". Indeed, the whole South China Sea region, including the Republic of China on Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia and Japan, is at risk of nuclear bullying or even attack. Many of these countries have been in a serious dispute with China concerning the Spratley Islands, believed to be rich in oil reserves. A 27-page Pentagon report obtained by Insight anticipates an attack by China against Taiwan in 2005. The report, requested by Sen. Frank H. Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, describes the current relationship between China and Taiwan as "calm" in the wake of Beijing's test launch of missiles in March 1996 but projects a very serious situation within six years….."

Creators Syndicate 3/2/99 Linda Bowles "…Why did this administration obfuscate, stonewall, and cover up this devastating breach of national security? Let's set the stage. The 1996 election campaign was in full swing. Despite warnings from the FBI that the Chinese were planning to buy influence in the elections, "For Sale" signs had been hung up on the White House, and various Chinese hustlers, gun runners and communist officials were rubbing shoulders with the president of the United States. Millions of dollars from various Asian sources were being funneled to Democrats. Some of the money came directly from the Chinese People's Liberation Army…. The same year, hundreds of Chinese "visitors" without security clearances toured Los Alamos, some of them, no doubt, on their way to White House receptions. Background checks for visitors at Los Alamos were not required until early in 1999, a full 17 months after a recommendation by the FBI. In 1996, against the advice of then Secretary of State Warren Christopher and experts in the Defense Department, Bill Clinton lifted a long-standing policy of severe restrictions on the export of American satellites to China for launch on Chinese rockets. He moved control over such decisions from the security-oriented State Department to the let's-make-a-deal Commerce Department run by the late Ron Brown….. But when the dust cleared, the Democrats got money from satellite companies and from Chinese communists; China got supercomputors, advanced production equipment and missile technology; Loral got its satellites launched at bargain basement prices; and the American people got shafted. The theft from Los Alamos gave the Chinese the capability to produce highly sophisticated nuclear bombs. And on Clinton's watch, the transfer of sensitive missile technology gave them the capability of depositing the bombs on American cities…."

Investors Business Daily 3/30/99 Paul Sperry "…In auditing former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary's bloated travel budget in June 1996, House Commerce Committee investigators didn't really focus on her China trip any more than her other three overseas ''trade missions.'' ….Fast forward to 1999. Committee investigators now know that: Chinese spies stole the U.S.' latest nuclear missile secrets from Los Alamos and possibly other labs that Energy owns, thanks in part to the security cuts O'Leary made in February 1995 - the same month she went to China….. Beijing bagmen -including John Huang, Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung - beat a path to the White House during the 1996 campaign, raising millions in illegal cash. Chung claims to have bribed O'Leary into meeting with a Chinese petrochemical industry official in October 1995. Former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown allegedly ''sold'' tax-paid seats on his own China trip to big Democratic Party donors like Loral Corp. CEO Bernard Schwartz, who cut a controversial satellite export deal with Beijing officials.….. Schwartz, for one, joined Brown's key China mission just two months after writing a check to the DNC for $100,000 …….. Some experts fear there might be a link between recent Chinese espionage and the administration's trade trips to China. Computer encryption, satellite and energy secrets would be the three most likely things compromised on the trips, they say. Officials with both Commerce and Energy assert that business delegates got ''counterintelligence briefings'' at the airport before takeoff. But according to Layton's report, the China group wasn't briefed until ''the secretary met (them) in Shanghai,'' their first stop, on Feb. 19, 1995. …."

WorldNetDaily 3/30/99 Charles Smith "…People's Republic of China Premier Zhu Rongji and President Bill Clinton are scheduled to meet in the White House on April 8, 1999….Zhu is so well known in the White House that this author had to use a lawsuit in federal court to obtain information on the Chinese leader. The material on Zhu was provided directly to Bernard Schwartz by President Clinton in 1994 just prior to the now infamous August 1994 trade trip to Beijing with Ron Brown. ….in 1994, Zhu was also the Communist inner party backer of General Ding Henggao, commander of COSTIND (the Chinese Commission of Science Technology and Industry for National Defense). In 1994, Schwartz, then the CEO of Loral Aerospace and a million-dollar donor to the DNC, requested to meet with Lt. General Shen Roujun, vice minister of COSTIND, and various other members of the Communist government. Vice Minister Shen (a.k.a. Lt. General Shen) was then working for the mastermind of Chinese espionage, General Ding Henggao, the commander of COSTIND. Schwartz also met with the prime political backer of COSTIND General Ding inside the all-important Communist Central Committee (CCC), Zhu Rongji. The PLA obtained various advanced technologies from Schwartz and his Loral Corporation with the blessing of Ron Brown. General Shen, General Ding, and Schwartz all made themselves rich on western technology, while passing advanced military technology to the Chinese Army. Schwartz, of course, passed some of that money back to Bill Clinton in the form of political donations…."

WorldNetDaily 3/30/99 Charles Smith "…General Ding and the PLA also passed money directly to Clinton through various agents such as Johnny Chung and Charlie Trie. In exchange, the PRC warlords got access to U.S. secrets other than W88 nuclear bombs. For example, Lt. General Shen's son, Shen Jun, was the lead software engineer for Hughes on all Chinese satellites. Loral provided the PLA with radiation-hardened encrypted telemetry control systems such as the missing board of chips from the 1996 Intelsat crash. In fact, according to the State Department, Loral satellite CDMA communications technology was preferred by the PLA. According to a 1996 Department of State cable to President Clinton by Beijing Ambassador Sasser, the PLA was using money from Chinese billionaire Li Ka-Shing to finance Chinese army communications systems….."

WorldNetDaily 3/30/99 Charles Smith "…Loral's Schwartz also decided to purchase a low-cost Russian rocket to put the CDMA Globalstar system into orbit. Schwartz had to get Clinton to personally sign a waiver in July of 1996 that Commerce official William Reinsch worked on in 1995, prior to Commerce oversight of the Loral satellites. The 1996 presidential waiver for the Loral export included two fully operational, encrypted, telemetry control stations to be built inside China. Loral even requested the presidential waiver be held back and then modified during the FBI investigation of the missing encryption chips from the Loral satellites. The modified waiver included the new telemetry stations for Beijing….. Both Clinton and Zhu would like you to forget about the August 1994 meeting with million-dollar DNC donor Bernard Schwartz and Lt. General Shen. Both Clinton and Zhu would rather carry out their plans in secret, behind closed door, negotiations. ….."

The Union Leader 4/23/99 Richard Lessner "...The link between the Clinton-Gore campaign and Red China's military intelligence chief, however, may only be the tip of the illegal contribution iceberg. Millions in Asian money flowed into the Clinton-Gore campaign and the Democratic Party from sources connected to Beijing. The money trail suggests that the Communists used various corporations and business figures as cut-outs to conceal the real source of the contributions. It is this fund-raising nexus between Red China and the Clinton-Gore campaign that elevates Beijing's nuclear spying above the level of a garden variety espionage affair. Was the Clinton administration's inattention to security, and failure to act when informed of Red China's spying at our top secret nuclear weapons labs, related to the campaign funds that were flowing in from Asia? Already one Energy Department official has testified under oath that, when he tried to blow the whistle on lax security at the Los Alamos lab, he was warned off by a Clinton appointee, who ordered the man to withhold from Congress what he knew about possible espionage. The man was told that those investigating possible espionage were interested only in damaging President Clinton and his policy toward China. It also is highly suspicious that the President personally waived export restrictions on the transfer of missile guidance technology to China for two U.S. aerospace firms - Loral and Hughes - whose executives were among the largest contributors to the Clinton-Gore campaign....No, it's not espionage that is troubling; the Clinton administration's lackadaisical attitude toward security is the concern. That and the possibility our secrets were compromised for political motives and campaign contributions. So far, however, this scandal has yet to spark much public outrage. One reason for this, we suspect, is that the affair has been almost totally neglected by the major TV networks. Contrast this with the Iran-Contra scandal, which led the network evening news shows night after night, the Chinagate affair has been conspicuous in its absence. And imagine for a moment the media firestorm had Ronald Reagan or George Bush taken an illegal campaign contribution from the military intelligence chief of a right-wing dictatorship that was simultaneously stealing our nuclear weapons secrets! ..."

Commentmax.com 4/29/99 Tony Snow "... The trouble began when Clinton effectively abolished export controls on China in 1994. The decision invited American businesses to get rich by trading away our security….. Satellite and rocket companies also jumped on the gravy train. Hughes sold rockets to China -- and solved a gyroscopic problem that had reduced the accuracy of Beijing's long-range nuclear weapons. Now, thanks to Yankee know-how, China can aim its city-buster bombs directly at U.S. population centers. The Loral Corp. made hay, as well. The company's chairman, Bernard Schwartz, evidently bought his way onto a 1995 trade mission to China and sealed a deal that enabled him to sell sophisticated communications satellites to our former Cold War foe. Loral satellites now guide the Chinese air force, and China reportedly has acquired a Loral computer chip that holds the key to decoding communications between U.S. satellites. ...."

Washington Times 5/7/99 Helle Bering ".... 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 Post 5/16/99 Walter Pincus and Vernon Loeb "...The long-awaited document, which could be released this week, concludes that U.S. national security has been damaged by China's theft or acquisition of nuclear warhead secrets, satellite and missile technology, supercomputers, telecommunications equipment, jet engines and sophisticated machine tools..... The investigation initially focused on two leading U.S. satellite makers, Hughes Electronics Corp. and Loral Space &amp; Communications, under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for allegedly sharing unauthorized information with China about the failure of two Chinese Long March rockets in 1995 and 1996 carrying U.S.-built satellites. Loral's chief executive officer, Bernard Schwartz, was the Democratic Party's largest single donor in the 1996 campaigns. Both companies have denied wrongdoing. But the Cox committee, with a staff of 45 and a $2 million budget, soon broadened its investigation to include the transfer of all sensitive technology to China, from satellites to supercomputers. Last fall, staff investigators learned of an FBI criminal investigation into suspected Chinese espionage at Los Alamos National Laboratory and soon came to focus on China's theft of nuclear secrets....."

Koenig's International News 5/18/99 Charles Smith "...Another Commerce Dept. document shows that in 1996, Loral Defense Systems (then an arm of Loral Aerospace) actively solicited Commerce Secretary Brown to intervene in getting approval from the White House to sell advanced radar technology to China. Loral wanted very badly to sell Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) to China. SAR is a sophisticated ground-looking radar essential to the newly deployed Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) used by the U.S. military to track ground-based vehicular movement on the battlefield. SAR radars also equip the USAF F-15 Strike Eagle and the Predator unmanned aerial reconnaissance vehicle. A letter discovered in the previously unreleased files of Ron Brown shows that Loral Defense Systems President, Jerald A. Lindfelt, wrote Brown in March of 1996. Lindfelt sought Brown's help in the export of SAR technology to the Beijing Institute of Remote Sensing. According to the Defense Department, the Chinese "Institute of Remote Sensing" is actually a front for the Chinese Army missile guidance design laboratories. The Institute of Remote Sensing is "a developer of precision guidance systems for surface-to-air missiles." Loral's 1996 appeal also included a direct request for Ron Brown to over rule the Department of Defense, the State Department and even Brown's own Commerce Department, which had all previously denied SAR radar exports to China. "We've worked hard trying to resolve these problems with the Department of State, the Department of Commerce and the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA)," Loral's Lindfelt wrote to Brown. "But someone in these organizations always manages to block our participation... Over the years we have found that this type of obstacle often comes from lower levels of management rather than by people willing to look at the bigger picture. Could you help us by identifying someone in the Commerce Department high enough in the organization to help us resolve these issues and open this marketplace..."

Washington Times 5/18/99 Bill Gertz "...The United States had imposed sanctions against China in 1993 for selling M-11 missile components but lifted them the next year at the urging of Mr. Brown and C. Michael Armstrong, chairman of Los Angeles-based satellite maker Hughes Electronics. Mr. Armstrong had written a terse letter to President Clinton on Oct. 29, 1993, first highlighting how he had done what the president requested by supporting his economic and trade policies and calls for looser export controls. "I am respectfully requesting your involvement to resolve the China sanctions," Mr. Armstrong wrote, noting that he had spoken to a Chinese official who informed him Beijing was "positive" about the idea. But when then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher told the Chinese that the United States needed to see "some sign of movement" by China on curbing weapons proliferation, a National Security Council memorandum reported, "The Chinese were not forthcoming." The memo said Mr. Armstrong and Hughes Electronics "lobbied aggressively" to be allowed to sell satellites to China. In 1995, the president named Mr. Armstrong to the influential Export Council, where he worked hard against trade controls designed to protect national security. The council produced a lengthy paper arguing against imposing sanctions on foreign trading partners that engaged in illicit weapons sales. Bernard L. Schwartz, chairman of Loral Space &amp; Communications Ltd., also lobbied hard to ease restrictions on satellite sales to China. Mr. Schwartz denied that his large donations to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were meant to influence Mr. Clinton's policies on satellite exports...."

Investor's Business Daily 5/21/99 Daniel J. Murphy "....Timperlake and Triplett lay out several cases where Berger intervened to affect decisions with a connection to China. ....Export controls.... Berger lobbied to transfer authority to the Commerce Department..... Waivers of trade rules. Berger failed to object to presidential waivers for Hughes Electronics Corp. and Loral Corp. - aerospace firms that illegally transferred technology related to Chinese rocket tests. The requests for waivers came as Justice Department investigators were closing in on the companies. ....."

FoxNews Carl Cameron 5/24/99 "...Documents obtained by Fox News show for the first time a connection between China's illegal contributions to President Clinton's re-election campaign and Beijing's attempts to acquire U.S. military technology. The evidence also indicates that China had an elaborate effort to obstruct investigations into both.....At the center of the investigations is Johnny Chung, a former Democratic fund-raiser who recently told Congress he felt pressured to keep silent about taking money from Chinese spies to be used for the Clinton campaign. ....When Chung was eventually charged, he was contacted by Robert Luu - who according to documents obtained by Fox News was operating on behalf of Chinese intelligence. Luu gave Chung orders: Above all protect Loral Space and Hughes Electronics, U.S. satellite firms whose business deals with China were arranged by Liu Chaoying, who also heads China Aerospace, the state-owned firm that lofts satellites into orbit. Loral and Hughes, which regularly launch their satellites on Chinese rockets via China Aerospace, are under federal investigation for - and accused in a forthcoming congressional report of - helping China improve its missile technology. While Chung thought receiving money from Chinese intelligence would be the biggest problem, FBI surveillance tapes show Luu was more interested in concealing something else. "All those things are not important," Luu told Chung in a wiretap transcript obtained by Fox News. "The important part is not to touch Hughes and Loral. ... Matters about Hughes and Loral ... they (Chinese superiors) don't want to see any information that is disadvantageous to them." Chung agreed to wear a body wire and cooperate with investigators, who grilled Luu for spying. An FBI agent says in the transcript: "You only want to meet him (Chung) in places where the CIA cannot enter, you're giving codes." Luu: "Oh yeah, that's right." FBI: "That sounds like spy work to me." Luu: "Yeah, that's, uh, you know." FBI "It's very, very, typical of what a spy, spy-like activities." Luu: "Yeah sounds like spy, spies, yeah." Hundreds of pages of transcripts of wiretaps and interrogation show that Chinese intelligence tried repeatedly to derail the Justice Department investigation. Chinese intelligence even came up with a cover story: The illegal contributions were to be blamed on so-called Chinese princelings...."

Washington Post 5/25/99 Juliet Eilperin and Vernon Loeb Page A01 "...As for stolen U.S. military technology, the committee reports that China has stolen guidance technology now being used in U.S. missiles and fighter aircraft, including the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-117 fighter jets. The committee concludes that this guidance technology is of enormous value to China in its development of intercontinental ballistic missiles and short-range CSS-6 missiles, which China test-fired over Taiwan's main ports in 1996. The committee, which began its probe last July by focusing on missile and satellite technology transfers, concludes that U.S. satellite manufacturers gave China missile design information without obtaining required U.S. government licenses that enabled Chinese engineers to improve the reliability of Chinese rockets used for commercial and military purposes. The committee concludes that Hughes Electronics Corp. and Loral Space &amp; Communications passed sensitive technical information to China as part of a 1996 investigation into the failure of a Chinese Long March rocket carrying a Loral-built commercial satellite without an export license, even though both companies knew they needed a license.... Loral's chief executive officer, Bernard Schwartz, was the Democratic Party's largest single donor in 1996. C. Michael Armstrong, Hughes's chief executive from 1994 to 1997, strongly lobbied for the Clinton administration's March 1996 transfer of licensing authority over commercial satellites from the State Department, known for its focus on national security concerns, to the Commerce Department, with its emphasis on promoting U.S. exports. ...."

AP 5/24/99 "...."Loral and Hughes showed the PRC how to improve the design and reliability of the guidance system used in the PRC's newest Long March rocket,'' the report said. The report singled out Hughes for transfers of information in 1993 and 1995 that the committee alleged might assist China's MIRV missile "if the PRC decides to develop them'' and said the company acted without getting proper U.S. clearance. "Hughes deliberately acted without seeking to obtain the legally required licenses,'' the report charged...."

NewsMax 4/7/99 Debra Saunders "... A bipartisan House committee headed by Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., reportedly determined that Hughes Electronics Corp. and Loral Space &amp; Communications Ltd. shared sensitive U.S. technologies with Chinese entities. Cox doesn't believe that Chinese biggies funneled money through Chung because they wanted to assure Clinton's re- election. No matter how much they like him. Cox sees a wilier motive. "General Ji runs the People's Liberation Army's military intelligence department, which is responsible for collecting science and technology info with military applications. Colonel Liu is quite evidently in the same business," Cox said yesterday. "There is reason to conclude that the PLA was more interested in using their U.S. political connections for technology acquisition than they were in influencing the outcome of an election with campaign contributions." Put another way: It's the military secrets, stupid. And stupidly, greedily, Team Clinton got cozy with the bad guys...."

Hotline 5/25/99 Fox - Carl Cameron Special Report 5/24/99 "....Cameron continues: "Chung's network with Chinese intelligence was well known to Luu. Chung's contact was Lieutenant Colonel Liu Chao-Yang of the Chinese military, she answered to General Ji Shengde, China's military intelligent chief, who provided Chung with $300,000. Robert Luu told Chung never to tell investigators about two U.S. satellite firms, Loral Space and Hughes Electronics, or their relationship with Liu Chao-Yang, who had negotiated their Chinese contracts. Loral and Hughes launch U.S. made satellites on Chinese rockets. They are under federal investigation for illegally helping China improve its missile technology. Sources say China wanted to keep the companies out of the scandal, to protect its business arrangements and its ability to acquire U.S. technology." ..."

Hotline 5/25/99 Fox - Carl Cameron Special Report 5/24/99 "....Cameron again: "Another former Clinton fundraiser, Charlie Trie, has now also pleaded guilty and has agreed to cooperate with Justice Department investigators. Sources say they have reason to suspect that Trie also may have been involved with Loral and Hughes and their export relationship with China. The Pentagon concluded more than two years ago that Loral and Hughes had quote, 'harmed national security,' by helping China with its missile technology. Despite that, the president went ahead and has continued to allow Loral and Hughes to launch its satellites in China. That is what prompted a congressional investigation that on Tuesday will release its long awaited report, including revelations of nuclear espionage. And Fox News has learned that the investigators had no idea that Johnny Chung was told, above all else, to keep silent about Loral and Hughes" ("Special Report," FNC, 5/24)...."

Capitol Hill Blue 5/25/99 "... Hughes Electronics and Loral Space illegally transferred technology that helped China improve its military rockets and operations, including the design and reliability of its ballistic missiles and nose cones...China has obtained "exploding bolts" from the U.S., which burst and help multistage rockets jettison stages. China also has obtained U.S. "kick motor" technology, which positions satellites in their proper orbits and can be used to deploy multiple warheads from a single missile. These are called Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs). The technology allows multiple warheads to be mounted on one missile and fired at several cities in one launch. China knows how to miniaturize warheads and deploy several at a time from a single missile. It is technically "on par" with the United States, but China has not built or tested these weapons yet. That begins this fall...."

Fox News 5/26/99 Carl Cameron and Matt Gross "...A government ethics investigation has been launched into allegations that a Defense Department weapons expert faced reprisals from superiors for offering key testimony to the Cox Committee's investigation of Chinese espionage, Fox News has learned. Dr. Peter Leitner, a Pentagon technology analyst, testified in secret last August that Loral Space and Hughes Electronics had harmed national security by helping China improve its missile techonology. Within the DOD, Leitner had complained about the damage to national security for some time, and even before his Cox Committee appearance he told Fox News he'd been pressured to keep quiet and had been passed over for promotions. "I was castigated and told I was untrustworthy," Leitner said. Leitner's outspoken criticism of national security policy is nothing new. Last fall, he openly criticized a plan to merge the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA) into the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)...Much of Leitner's criticisms of export-control policy have been borne out by the recently released Cox Report, which makes some of Leitner's points and provides recommendations for enhancing national security, including beefing up export controls. Discussions and arguments over how to implement those recommendations are already under way in the Capitol...."

WorldNetDaily 6/1/99 Charles Smith The JL-2 explains why the Chinese were so interested in American space contractor, Hughes, upgrading PLA rockets with "nose-cone" or "shroud" technology. The Cox report details Chinese Lt. Gen. Shen Rougjun and his penetration of Hughes through his son, Shen Jun. In May 1994, Shen, was second in command at COSTIND -- the Chinese Commission for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense. Shen served underneath the PLA spy-master, Gen. Ding Henggao. In 1994, COSTIND Gen. Shen attended several business meetings with Hughes. During a 1994 visit, Shen's son, Shen Jun, attended a business lunch with his father and Frank Taormina of Hughes. Taormina later assisted Shen Jun in obtaining a job at Hughes. The Cox report details "son" Shen played a significant role in the interaction between his PLA general-father and the highest of Hughes executives, including CEO Michael Armstrong. In 1994, Hughes executives were scrambling to avoid a major expense. Hughes helped PLA engineers after the failure of a PLA Long March rocket carrying a Hughes-built satellite. Hughes, anxious not to see a hike in their satellite insurance rates, eagerly pinned the failure on the PLA nose-cone "shroud" design and not on their satellite. The help included Hughes proprietary software for nose-cone design and analysis derived from years of ballistic missile tests in America. Although, Shen Jun was hired at Hughes in August of 1994, according to the Cox report, "a division of Space Systems/Loral was also considering hiring Shen for a position that would have allowed him access to classified information." In August 1994, Lt. Gen. Shen also met and consummated a series of satellite deals with Bernard Schwartz, the CEO of Loral. The Beijing meeting was arranged by President Clinton and included Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. The technology obtained from Loral is also detailed by the Cox report, including rocket guidance and encrypted satellite telemetry systems...."

Jewish World Review 6/1/99 Mona Charen "...It was also Clinton's decision to transfer authority over technology transfers from the somewhat vigilant Department of State to the anything-goes Department of Commerce. Bernard Schwartz, chairman of Loral Corporation, donated $100,000 to the DNC and was then provided with a technology-transfer waiver, according to the Cox report. The Loral technology has helped China dramatically improve the accuracy of its missiles. And as the Cox report documents, the Chinese government has been able to steal pretty much all of our nuclear secrets, thanks to docility of the Clinton administration...."

JimRob Received via email 5/31/99 Garland "...Those familiar with the Burton and Thompson Committee evidence, know that the Cox Committee basically confirmed in more detail what was already known from their investigations. This evidence was also defined by the Senate investigators in a book entitled Year of the Rat. The real question that now begs to be answered is "How complicit were organizations and individuals within our government in giving them the information?". About 100 pages that answer this question in the classified Cox report were left out of the declassified version for reasons of 'national security'. A disturbing, but good start at answering this question can be found in the declassified report appendices, which may be the most intriguing chapter in the entire report. Here, the report mentions how Loral employees were instructed by their lawyers not to answer questions and how three Loral lawyers claimed attorney certain client privileges, after Loral waived the privileges for voluntary disclosure. The report then goes on to describe three top government agencies that similarly hampered the investigation. First, the CIA impeded the investigation by tipping off Hughes with a 'courtesy' notice that the Cox Committee might interview Hughes employees. The CIA even detailed to Hughes the potential lines of questioning. The Cox Committee did not agree to the 'courtesy' notification and was concerned that the CIA had given Hughes the opportunity to destroy evidence and pressure employees to be less candid. Second, Chairman Cox testified that the Justice Department attempted to insert itself as an intermediary for information requests between the committee and all government agencies because an investigation was in progress...."

Reuters [OL] 3/9/99 Tabassum Zakaria "…Our report focused in substantial part on PRC (People's Republic of China) espionage across a wide variety of fronts,'' Cox said. The panel, the House Select Committee on U.S. National Security/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China, was set up after allegations that Hughes Electronics Corp. and Loral Space &amp; Communications Ltd. had transferred technology to China after satellites belonging to Hughes and Loral were destroyed in Chinese rocket explosions. The two companies had been using Chinese missiles to launch commercial satellites into space. The committee's five Republicans and four Democrats unanimously approved the report in December. …For example, the Commerce Department and State Department ''have often been left out of the loop when it comes to our own intelligence information about PRC espionage,'' Cox said…"

WorldnetDaily 3/2/99 Charles Smith "…Defense experts are already tracing the vast array of advanced U.S. military technology sold to China in the missile arsenals of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. In Feb. 1999, the repercussions of the Chinagate scandal shot-down $500 million worth of satellites for communist China. The cancellation of the HUGHES sale to Asia Pacific Mobile Telephone (APMT) is a victory for western national security. APMT, the buyer of the Hughes satellites, is reported to be half owned by COSTIND, the same Chinese Army unit that penetrated the White House. According to the Defense Dept., the Hughes satellites were equipped with a sophisticated 40 foot antenna that could intercept U.S. military communications. The APMT satellites sales also included secure, encrypted, voice and data communications…."

NBC NEWS Mike Viqueira Robert Windrem "…One congressional source says that the two committees that investigated the campaign contributions missed the point if they concluded the contributions were an attempt to influence the election. "It wasn’t even a thumb on the scale," the source said….The sources said Liu was working in conjunction with her father, who was then the Chinese equivalent of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a man with enormous influence in China. Sources said the two wanted to set up phony companies and register them in the United States, so they could circumvent the need for some export licenses. This would have allowed stolen technology to be shipped to China with no questions asked….When asked if Hughes and Loral violated the law intentionally, one key congressional source would only refer to Cox’s comments that the companies "have harmed national security." ….While the Chinese were unable to glean sensitive material from the Loral Corp.’s analysis of a Chinese rocket failure, the hotel rooms where the Loral employees stayed were bugged and the Chinese were privy to their conversations, sources told NBC…. He said that Hughes gave the Chinese information that helped the accuracy and reliability of their rockets, while Loral helped with guidance. Hughes also helped with the design and shape of the Chinese rocket nose cone and atmospheric problems, the sources said. They said Hughes gave the Chinese information on how to build a "shroud" to cover satellites during launch, while knowing full well that the shroud is essentially the same thing as a "faring," used to cover nuclear warheads during flight…. "

WorldNetDaily 3/23/99 Charles Smith "…Li Ka-Shing owns the vast shipping enterprise, Hutchison Whampoa, Ltd. Li works closely with the official PRC shipping carrier, COSCO. Li and COSCO own both ends of the Panama Canal. Li and COSCO tried to buy the former Navy port at Long Beach. Li financed several satellite deals between Hughes and China Hong Kong Satellite (CHINASAT), a company half owned by the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA). Li Ka-Shing and the Chinese navy nearly obtained four huge roll-on/roll-off container ships, financed by loans backed by U.S. Treasury notes…… The reason for the resistance becomes all too clear when Li Ka-Shing's bio is compared to the accompanying materials forced from the grips of the White House. Li was the only so-called "civilian." Li's bio was included by the White House along with the entire leadership of Communist China from Jiang Zemin to the mayor of Shanghai. The Long Beach affair demonstrated that Li Ka-Shing is an agent of Beijing. The White House material clearly shows that Mr. Li Ka-Shing is a member of the Communist government. The Long Beach deal led by Li Ka-Shing was clearly a national security threat. It was canceled after U.S. intelligence sources revealed that Li Ka-Shing's empire is used for PRC espionage. Li Ka-Shing provides fronts for Chinese military operations and "civilian" covers for PLA soldiers to enter the U.S. under "commercial" camouflage…."

WorldNetDaily 3/30/99 Charles Smith "…General Ding and the PLA also passed money directly to Clinton through various agents such as Johnny Chung and Charlie Trie. In exchange, the PRC warlords got access to U.S. secrets other than W88 nuclear bombs. For example, Lt. General Shen's son, Shen Jun, was the lead software engineer for Hughes on all Chinese satellites. Loral provided the PLA with radiation-hardened encrypted telemetry control systems such as the missing board of chips from the 1996 Intelsat crash. In fact, according to the State Department, Loral satellite CDMA communications technology was preferred by the PLA. According to a 1996 Department of State cable to President Clinton by Beijing Ambassador Sasser, the PLA was using money from Chinese billionaire Li Ka-Shing to finance Chinese army communications systems….."

World Net Daily 4/2/99 Jon Dougherty "...A former stockholder in a now--defunct commercial space company said, "there is every indication" that the current crisis involving the transfers of U.S. military technology to China had its roots in the late 1980s. The source, who requested anonymity, told WorldNetDaily that the company -- Space Commerce -- tried unsuccessfully "back during the Reagan and Bush years" to get contracts to launch U.S. satellites in the former Soviet Union. The source said Space Commerce had a partnership arrangement with a Soviet space counterpart called Glavkosmos, which he said was "akin to our version of NASA." Though there were "a number of organizations in the Soviet Union that were related to their space program," Glavkosmos "had the ability to sell satellite sights on Soviet Proton rockets -- in other words, to sell launches," explained the source.....Sometime in the late 1980s, the source said, Hughes Electronics -- now implicated in the Clinton administration "Chinagate" scandal -- approached Space Commerce with a proposal to launch two commercial satellites. Hughes made a "substantial down payment to buy these two launches," and the source said company executives informed shareholders that the Hughes satellites only "contained technology that was already readily available." "They told us you could go down to the local library and get the technology," the source said The deal between Space Commerce and Hughes specified that the launches would take place aboard Proton rockets in the Soviet Union, so the space company applied for the necessary permits from the U.S. government. However, the Bush administration would not allow Hughes to export the satellites to the USSR for launching because of a possible compromise of technology. For years afterward," the source continued, "because of a concern about a transfer of technology, the company could not get an export license to export the satellites to Russia." As a result, "Space Commerce spent a great deal of time, effort and all our money trying to lobby to get those permits." The source said, "I believe that Hughes also tried to lobby the government to get them as well," but neither company was successful. When it was over, the satellites could not be launched and "the company went belly-up," the source said, having spent all of its money lobbying for permission to launch. Shortly after Space Commerce went defunct "in the early 1990s," Hughes was finally granted permission to launch those satellites instead "on the Chinese Long March rocket" in mainland China...."

WorldNetDaily 5/4/99 Charles Smith "... Iridium is not the only venture that Great Wall shares with Motorola. Great Wall has joined with Chinese billionaire Li Ka-Shing and Motorola to provide CDMA mobile phone networks to China. American CDMA technology, according to several documents from the Commerce Dept. and the State Dept., is the preferred cell phone of the Chinese Army signals branch. "CDMA or Code Division Multiple Access, is an advanced technology that permits high-volume communications in a small area, with limited interference from other traffic. It was originally designed for military communications applications in rear areas. Motorola will deploy 30 of its SC2450 base stations and an EMX 2500 E large capacity switch for the CDMA network". In Feb. 1999, the Clinton China-Gate scandal shot-down $500 million worth of satellites for the Chinese Army. APMT, the reported buyer of the Hughes satellites, is half owned by COSTIND, the same Chinese Army led by General Ding in 1995......"



Washington Weekly 6/20/99 ROBERT STOWE ENGLAND "...The Cox Report concluded that two U.S. satellite manufacturers -- Hughes Space and Communications International Inc. and Loral Space and Communications, Ltd. -- transferred sensitive missile design information and know-how to the People's Republic of China in the aftermath of three failed commercial satellite launches on Chinese rockets in 1992, 1995 and 1996. This led to subsequent successful launches of China's Long March rockets, immediately improving China's military satellite programs. The report's bipartisan analysis, incorporating some of the findings of earlier Pentagon and State Department reviews, found that the transfer posed the danger of future harm if the technology is adapted to deliver nuclear weapons through land-based mobile missiles, submarine-launched missiles and multiple warhead missiles...... "I think that the Cox Report on Hughes and Loral, which is the part people paid the least attention to, is in many ways the most scary part of all," says Michael Ledeen, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a former Reagan Administration technology control official. "Espionage is after all foreigners stealing from us," says Ledeen, "but Hughes and Loral is the story of American corporations enthusiastically arming what may turn out to be our most dangerous enemy," he says. Congress's most vocal and persistent critic of Hughes and Loral -- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) -- offers similarly pointed criticisms. "There was massive deadly weapons technology that was transferred to one of the most ruthless dictatorships in the world, and it was done intentionally," he says...... "

Washington Weekly 6/20/99 ROBERT STOWE ENGLAND "...The Cox Report, however, found that both Hughes and Loral failed to obtain legally required State Department licenses in all three rocket failure investigations and for the subsequent exchange of information and expertise that led to a resolution of the problems that caused China's Long March 2E and Long March 3B rockets to explode, crash or miss orbit. In the case of Hughes, the Cox Report reveals that the company failed to obtain State Department licenses for its rocket failure analyses conducted in 1993 and 1995. In the second instance, Hughes improperly sought, and the Commerce Department improperly granted, permission for Hughes to provide China with sensitive information about design deficiencies in the nose cone of its missile, it concludes. This finding came from its failure analysis of the rocket.By law Hughes should have cleared the information transfer with the State Department. During its rocket failure analysis, Hughes also helped correct deficiencies in China's coupled loads analysis, a critical rocket design technology, the Cox Report claims...."

Washington Weekly 6/20/99 ROBERT STOWE ENGLAND "...The Cox Report found that the improvements Hughes helped the Chinese achieve for the missile nose cone -- also known as the fairing or shroud -- could be adapted for use in future multiple warhead missiles developed by China, including the MRV (multiple re-entry vehicles) and the MIRV (multiple independent re-entry vehicles). It can also be used in future submarine-launched missiles. Current Chinese single-payload missiles do not use a shroud. In the case of Loral, the Cox Report found that a sensitive report on a Loral-led investigation of a failed 1996 rocket launch of an Intelsat satellite was forwarded by a Loral official to Chinese authorities without the required license from the State Department. The Loral-led investigation, in which Hughes also participated, found flaws in the Chinese rocket's inertial navigation systems as the source of the rocket failure. The Cox Report concluded that both Hughes and Loral helped China improve its rocket guidance system. The improved guidance system can be adapted for use in future Chinese road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles, the Cox Report states...."

Washington Weekly 6/20/99 ROBERT STOWE ENGLAND "...The divergence between the conclusions of the Cox Report and the denials made by both Loral and Hughes breathtaking -- and appear to be impossible to reconcile. "The Cox committee has their views and we have ours," explains Tom Ross, a spokesman for Loral. Virtually the same words were stated by Richard Dore, a spokesman for Hughes. Congressman Rohrabacher, who recently visited Hughes facilities in his district, sees the Loral ad and insistence by Hughes executives that they are "patriots" as an indication that top corporate executives at the two companies are "in denial" about what they have done. "It's very difficult for some one to say, to admit to themselves that they've transferred technology that can incinerate everyone in their family and their neighbors, to a group of people that hate the United States and that represent everything we despise as Americans, this vicious dictatorship there. They may find themselves just like alcoholics and everyone else who have trouble admitting they're doing bad things to themselves and everyone they love," says Rohrabacher..."

Washington Weekly 6/20/99 ROBERT STOWE ENGLAND "... There's little doubt Hughes and Loral violated laws against technology, Goure says. "I would argue that it's hard not to read the laws, have the expertise of experienced people [in these matters] and not know this was not in excess of what was permitted," he says. For Hughes the violations are more serious than those for Loral, Goure says. In particular, Hughes' explanations for why they went to Commerce instead of State, as the law requires, are unconvincing, Goure says. Other national security experts have also found the explanation wanting.... The tale of Hughes' licensing end-run began on March 3, 1995, with a meeting between five Hughes officials and two Commerce officials -- Jerry Beiter, the Chief Technology Officer at the department, and licensing officer Gene Christiansen. The two ranking Hughes' officials were Peter Herron, co-leader of the Hughes' failure investigation team, and Donald Leedle, Hughes' Technology Export Control Coordinator.....Leedle told the Cox committee that both Hughes and Commerce officials agreed at the March 3 meeting that any data that could improve the Chinese missile would require a State Department license. A subsequent memo by Leedle on March 9 makes no mention that Hughes officials had advised Christiansen about the actual cause of the rocket's failure. On April 28 Herron, Leedle and a third Hughes employee met at the Commerce Department to update Christiansen on the failure investigation. Notwithstanding the fact that Commerce and Hughes officials claim they had recognized that missile design required a State Department license a month earlier, the Hughes officials presented Christiansen with charts outlining the inadequacies of China's Long March 2E rocket's fairing design -- clearly a rocket issue. Leedle told the Cox committee that he was aware at the time that improvements in the Chinese rocket would require a State Department license. He stated, however, that he and Herron decided to rely on Christiansen's determination of Commerce's jurisdiction in the matter. After reviewing the charts, Christiansen advised the Hughes officials that the fairing-related charts could be passed to China, according to the Cox Report...."

Washington Weekly 6/20/99 ROBERT STOWE ENGLAND "...Loral participated in an independent review team that the Cox Report claims ultimately helped China upgrade its rocket guidance systems. That committee also include representatives from Hughes, British Aerospace Space Systems Group, General Dynamics, Intelsat, and DASA Daimler-Benz Aerospace. There were five Loral officials and two Hughes officials on the review committee. On May 10, at Wah Lim's instruction, Nick Yen, Loral employee and secretary of the review committee, faxed the draft preliminary report of the findings of the review committee to China Great Wall Industry Corporation, the Beijing-based consignee for the satellite being launched for Asia Pacific Tel Sat. No State Department license had been sought for the activity of the independent review committee or for sharing the draft report with China. Yen told the Cox committee investigators that Lim asked him later in the day of May 10 if he had faxed the draft report as he requested. When Yen replied he had done so, Lim told him that Loral might have to apply for a license for the activity of the independent review committee. The draft report contained the review team's conclusion that the most probable cause of the failure was the inner frame of the inertial measurement unit. The report also id

Deeman2
07-24-2005, 11:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DiddleESquat:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote theinel:</font><hr>

Clinton's lie stained a dress and his reputation.

Bush's lies have killed 1770+ American soldiers and at least 10k+ Iraqis (exact numbers not known but it's likely in the 15 to 20k range). I wont report the dollar costs out of respect for the dead but they are staggering as well. And don't forget the strain that this has put on the military which would now have much greater difficulty in dealing with a real threat (i.e. Iran or North Korea).

This is not a game. <hr /></blockquote>

Clinton was a total dirtbag who knowingly transfered high tech defense technology to the Chinese communists in exchange for campaign contributions.

<font color="blue"> Most would have to agree that Bill and Hillary are as evil as they come. However, you will notice that they always mention the 1700+ soldiers that we have lost and never the 3,000 that died on September 11th. I also can't believe no one objects to the "where is Oswald when we need him" call. That is disgraceful. Glad I don't have as much time to join these discussions anymore. </font color>

DiddleESquat
07-24-2005, 12:43 PM
And now for the icing on Clinton's Chi-Com Cake:

Chinese general sees U.S. as nuclear target
By Joseph Kahn The New York Times

SATURDAY, JULY 16, 2005


BEIJING China should use nuclear weapons against the United States if the American military intervenes in any conflict over Taiwan, a senior Chinese military official has said.

"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," the official, Major General Zhu Chenghu, said at an official briefing Thursday.

Zhu, considered a hawk, stressed that his comments reflected his personal views and not official policy. Beijing has long insisted that it will not initiate the use of nuclear weapons in any conflict.

But in extensive comments to visiting correspondents based in Hong Kong, Zhu said he believed that the Chinese government was under internal pressure to change its "no first use" policy and to make clear that it would employ the most powerful weapons at its disposal to defend its claim over Taiwan.

"War logic" dictates that a weaker power needs to use maximum efforts to defeat a stronger rival, he said, speaking in fluent English. "We have no capability to fight a conventional war against the United States," Zhu said. "We can't win this kind of war."

General Zhu said in a brief telephone conversation Friday that he feared that his remarks had been taken out of context. He said he mainly meant to emphasize that both the United States and China were prone to "misjudging each other's intentions" and that he did not expect that tensions between the two countries would lead to war.

Whether or not the comments signal a shift in Chinese policy, they come at a sensitive time in relations between China and the United States.

The Pentagon is preparing the release of a long-delayed report on the Chinese military that some experts say will warn that China could emerge as a strategic rival to the United States. National security concerns have also been a major issue in the $18.5 billion bid by Cnooc, a major Chinese oil and gas company, to purchase Unocal, the American energy concern.

China has had atomic bombs since 1964 and has a small arsenal of land- and sea-based nuclear-tipped missiles that can reach the United States, according to most Western intelligence estimates.

Some Pentagon officials have argued that China has been expanding the size and sophistication of its nuclear bombs and delivery systems, while others argue that Beijing has done little more than maintain a minimal, but credible deterrent against a nuclear attack.

Beijing has said repeatedly that it would use military force if Taiwan declares its independence. President George W. Bush has made clear that the United States would defend Taiwan.

Many military analysts have assumed that any battle over Taiwan would be localized, with both China and the United States taking care to ensure that it would not expand into a general war between the two powers.

But the comments by Zhu suggest that at least some elements of the military are prepared to widen the conflict, perhaps to persuade the United States that it could no more successfully fight a limited war against China than it could against the former Soviet Union.

"If the Americans are determined to interfere, then we will be determined to respond," he said. "We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese ."

Zhu's threat is not the first of its kind from a senior Chinese military official. In 1995, Xiong Guangkai, who is now the deputy chief of the general staff of the People's Liberation Army, told Chas Freeman, a former Pentagon official, that China would consider using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan conflict. Freeman quoted Xiong as saying that Americans should worry more about Los Angeles than Taipei.

Foreign Ministry officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment about Zhu's remarks.

Zhu said he had recently expressed his views to former American officials, including Freeman and Admiral Dennis Blair, the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Command.

David Lague of the International Herald Tribune contributed reporting for this article.

heater451
07-24-2005, 03:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr> [. . .However, you will notice that they always mention the 1700+ soldiers that we have lost and never the 3,000 that died on September 11th. <hr /></blockquote>
Althought ties between Hussein and the Sept 11th crashes have been alleged, I don't know of any concrete evidence that this is so. In that case, the deaths of those in/around the Trade Center towers does not relate to the war in Iraq, and you might as well be quoting body count statistics from Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

On the other hand, if anyone can provide evidence as to Hussein's involvement with the Sept 11th attacks, I could see that the numbers may bear relevance.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr>I also can't believe no one objects to the "where is Oswald when we need him" call. That is disgraceful. Glad I don't have as much time to join these discussions anymore.<hr /></blockquote>The Oswald comment struck me as odd, too, but more out of paranoid conditioning, that one should never even joke about a presidential attack. This is one of those, "Things Not Covered by the First Amendment", like yelling "fire" in a movie theater (when there isn't one).




===========================

Gayle in MD
07-24-2005, 06:35 PM
Tap Tap Tap...I am counting too! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Gayle in Md.

theinel
07-25-2005, 12:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DiddleESquat:</font><hr> And now for the icing on Clinton's Chi-Com Cake<hr /></blockquote>
PLONK! Post as yourself you wanker. There's no need for pseudonyms to do your dirty work.

theinel
07-25-2005, 01:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr><font color="blue"> Most would have to agree that Bill and Hillary are as evil as they come. However, you will notice that they always mention the 1700+ soldiers that we have lost and never the 3,000 that died on September 11th. I also can't believe no one objects to the "where is Oswald when we need him" call. That is disgraceful. Glad I don't have as much time to join these discussions anymore. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>
Shame on you Deeman.

The 3000+ 911 victims are not mentioned for a reason.

Make no mistake. Saddam was evil. His departure is welcome.

That aside, there is ZERO link between Saddam and 911. The only link between them is a great big W and the fools who voted for him. You do a great disservice to your country and those who serve it when you link the two. There is NO relation. The war against the Taliban / Al Qaeda / Afghanistan was 100% justified (though only 50% fulfilled). The US and the world rose for that war, as they did in the Gulf War, and supported it because it was just and necessary.

The American Soldiers who have given and continue to give their lives in Iraq (1776 US, and 194 allied forces, with all number growing daily (Source) (http://icasualties.org/oif/)) are not "mentioned" for your amusement or anyones political positions. They were and are human beings, American citizens, volunteers, who gave their lives for our country. They will never be replaced. They will never be forgotten. Their sacrifice was not wasted, it is a lesson to us all to chose our leaders more wisely.

I hope you keep posting here but if you are going to join the brainwashed and blinded masses linking Iraq and 911 like the corrupt adimistration wants you to then I hope you fade away to some other haunt until you regain your free will or come to your senses.

DiddleESquat
07-25-2005, 08:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote theinel:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote DiddleESquat:</font><hr> And now for the icing on Clinton's Chi-Com Cake<hr /></blockquote>
PLONK! Post as yourself you wanker. There's no need for pseudonyms to do your dirty work. <hr /></blockquote>

Well since you dont know DiddleESquat how could you presume to know who I am? BTW I've got something you could wank.

Why not restrict your response to the subject of my posts? Oh I know why! Silly me, your a liberal and incapable of confronting facts head on, so instead you launch into personal attacks. You and your ilk just crack me up.

BTW where is the liberal training camp where you moonbats go to get the requisite Pavlovian conditioning?

DiddleESquat

Gayle in MD
07-26-2005, 06:13 AM
Hey Ed,
When it comes to staying on the subject, You and many of the other righties on here are the last ones who should be complaining about that. Here we are with the worst trade deficit in the history of this country, our jobs being exported daily, Corporations selling us down the river, Bush totally screwing up our education system, a raging deficit, bin Laden on the loose and still plotting with his followers, corruption and abuse of power of the worst kind going on in the White House, and all you want to focuss on is what mistakes you think Bill Clinton made eight years ago! BE HERE NOW!

JEEZE!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
07-26-2005, 06:35 AM
Be Here Now....Clinton is no longer in office. The right doesn't want to address the mess Bush has made, so all they can do is focuss on the past. Our present circumstances have been created by none other than George W. Bush, in case you didn't know.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
07-26-2005, 06:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Be Here Now....Clinton is no longer in office. The right doesn't want to address the mess Bush has made, so all they can do is focuss on the past. Our present circumstances have been created by none other than George W. Bush, in case you didn't know.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

The reasons we are in Iraq are quite valid. Both Reps and Dems at the time, based on information available, agreed that Saddam had to go. Even the previous administration believed he had WMD and the situation was of concern. Damn, even Ms Clinton supported the invasion at the time. (How quickly we seem to forget some things)
Now, has the situation been well managed? Absolutely not! We started with "shock and awe", and then let things degenerate to the point where we are fighting a war we are not willing to win quickly. We are now fighting a politically correct war, which is the same problem we had in Viet Nam. And we are not going to win it using these tactics. OK, are these the words of a "blind follower" of anyone. You want to deamonize Bush as the root of all evil. He's certainly not perfect, but everything he has done has not been wrong, as you seem to want us to believe. I even think the previous administration did some things right. I believe the majority of "questionable" decisions came from the first witch, and her weenie husband went along with it.
Honestly, there are only 3 presidents in my lifetime that I think did a good job overall while in office. Eisenhour, Kennedy, and Reagan. Yes, there is a Dem in the group. I also don't believe any president has been totally "bad" in office either.
But as a "blind follower" of the party line, I suppose I shouldn't say things like that.

Gayle in MD
07-27-2005, 12:56 AM
The reason we are in Iraq is because this administration fixed intelligence to their agenda. The reason why we are in Iraq is because Bush Jr. wanted to get Saddam for trying to assasinate his father. The reason we are in this war, is because of the Bush's long involved relationship with the Saudi's, where BTW, almost all the highjackers came from. The reason we are in this war is because Bush lied to the Congress and the Senate, and used fear tactics to scare wimpy little conservatives who are afraid of the boogie man.

When Democrats realized the lies and misinformation that Bush used to get them behind this war, they were called flip floppers for withdrawing their support. They all know now what a mess we are in, and who's to blame. Not Bill and Hilary, George W. Bush, aka Little Bushy, and Dick Cheney, aka Uncle Festor, and Condoleeza Rice, aka Howdy Doody in Drag.

I, too, think that Reagen was, generally apeaking, a good president. I voted for him.

As for Bush, I have not seen him make a single good decision since he got in office. He's destroying our country. I am glad I didn't vote for him.

Hilary Clinton was probably the hardest working first lady since Elenor Roosevelt, which is a lot more than I can say for Laura, smile, nod, travel, Smile, nod, travel, Bush.

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
07-27-2005, 05:18 AM
If you took a poll of people around the world with absolutely no bias for either dems or repubs, asked them to mediate this answer about the whys of this war, it would be overwhelmingly against this administration. Did SH need top go? Long time ago, but so did even worse monsters literally cleansing factions of people by the hundreds of thousands by slaughter. Iraq has oil, and Bush a vendetta plus an agenda, of which has very little to do with Americans safety, it's money driven. Like I said, unbiased non Americans around the world would agree, we went to war because Bush wanted to go to war, not for protection. All this war has done here in this country is bring out the red neck in some of us, and clouded our educated reasoning. BL is smiling ever since we started this war, we played into his hands better than even he expected. Who underestmated who and who is winning this war of terror? BL will simply bleed us to death and the terror camps are lined up with new generations of young terrorists, ALL due to this dim wit we call President. It is sad to see this country in it's perpetual demise over bad judgements. Gayle is right on all counts, soldiers are getting mamed and killed as I type, destroying family lives, wasting our resources, all because of obvious deceit and fear tactics, driven by money and oil power. It is a crime far exceeding all of the womanizers this country has ever had, all put together. Pathetic as pathetic gets...sid

eg8r
07-27-2005, 06:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Be Here Now....Clinton is no longer in office. The right doesn't want to address the mess Bush has made, so all they can do is focuss on the past. Our present circumstances have been created by none other than George W. Bush, in case you didn't know.
<hr /></blockquote> It is obvious you do not know. What was not done in the past, came back to haunt us on 9/11. Which as you obviously do not remember, is why we are where we are at now.

eg8r

eg8r
07-27-2005, 06:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you took a poll of people around the world with absolutely no bias for either dems or repubs, asked them to mediate this answer about the whys of this war, it would be overwhelmingly against this administration. <hr /></blockquote> Nice comment. What would be your guidelines as to judge whether these people had no bias. How would you go about setting up the questions as to make sure you did not instill any bias in their replies? This is the type of blanket statement you could never back up and it is nothing more than a loose guess based on your own bias.

eg8r

pooltchr
07-27-2005, 10:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> The reason we are in Iraq is because this administration fixed intelligence to their agenda. The reason why we are in Iraq is because Bush Jr. wanted to get Saddam for trying to assasinate his father. The reason we are in this war, is because of the Bush's long involved relationship with the Saudi's, where BTW, almost all the highjackers came from. The reason we are in this war is because Bush lied to the Congress and the Senate, and used fear tactics to scare wimpy little conservatives who are afraid of the boogie man. <font color="red"> The reason we are in this war now is because Clinton failed to do what needed to be done when he was in office. </font color>

When Democrats realized the lies and misinformation that Bush used to get them behind this war, they were called flip floppers for withdrawing their support. They all know now what a mess we are in, and who's to blame. Not Bill and Hilary, George W. Bush, aka Little Bushy, and Dick Cheney, aka Uncle Festor, and Condoleeza Rice, aka Howdy Doody in Drag. <font color="red"> You REALLY do seem to enjoy name calling. </font color>

I, too, think that Reagen was, generally apeaking, a good president. I voted for him.

As for Bush, I have not seen him make a single good decision since he got in office. He's destroying our country. I am glad I didn't vote for him. <font color="red"> Not a single good decision???? He has gone after and got a large majority of the terrorist group responsible for 9/11...but I guess we forgot that, didn't we? </font color>

Hilary Clinton was probably the hardest working first lady since Elenor Roosevelt, which is a lot more than I can say for Laura, smile, nod, travel, Smile, nod, travel, Bush. <font color="red"> I would much prefer Hilary to smile, nod, and travel (the farther away the better) than to be doing the things she is doing. Do you not find it odd that she had to move to a liberal state like New York to get elected. I wonder why she didn't run as senator from her home??? </font color>

Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

onepocketfanatic
07-27-2005, 10:44 PM
I find it quite amusing that everyone that defends Bush always blames someone else for his problems. Never mind the fact that we went into Iraq for WMD, uhhh no it was because he was "a bad man" uhhhh no it was because.....so on and so on.
There is a good reason for Bushies rating going into the shitter, and that is because he is a liar, and a bully.
We were ill prepared for this war (that is obvious when you send kids over there with no body armor, no armor on their vehicles, and so on). He thought Iraq would be a push over, as made obvious by his stunt on the air craft carrier. Hmmmm I thought he declared and end to the combat on that day.
The fact is his administration was not even in the ball park with regard to what it would take to occupy this country. It was a FUBAR of an operation from the beginning, and continues to be such as of this writing.
So you Bushites continue to blame this total cluster F**ck on everyone but the guy in charge, and I will continue to ROFLMAO.

Sid_Vicious
07-28-2005, 04:42 AM
"So you Bushites continue to blame this total cluster F**ck on everyone but the guy in charge"

In a nutshell...sid

Gayle in MD
07-28-2005, 05:17 AM
No Ed, it is you who do not know. We are not fighting a war in Iraq because of Bill Clinton. Stop twisting and spinning.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
07-28-2005, 05:40 AM
Oh, Clinton failed to invade Iraq?

Name Calling is the only way I can add some humour to deal with the atrocities committed by this inept corrupt administration.

No WE didn't forget it, WE just know that they were replaced by thousands more. Powell, Clarke, General Shenscheki, (sp) and many others warned Brickhead that he would only be giving alqaeda a boost in numbers and financialo support by invading Iraq. Brickhead wouldn't listen. Do WE remember Powells fateful words? "You break it, you own it" BUSH owns this war, not Clinton.

Hilary's approval ratings in NY are far above Bush's....Guess Hilary listens to her constituary.

BILL CLINTON DID NOT INVADE IRAQ....

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
07-28-2005, 09:06 AM
You didn't answer my question about Hilary. Why did she find it necessary to move to liberal New York to get elected? Is it because she is so far out there that the people in her home state would never have elected her? Of course she has high approval ratings in New York. It's a very liberal state, and she is a very liberal person.

Fran Crimi
07-28-2005, 09:26 AM
I'd like to see Rudy against Hillary for President. Then let's see which way liberal NY votes. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran ~~~ stuck in lib-world

Gayle in MD
07-28-2005, 09:51 AM
I am really not interested in hashing out your difficulties with Hiliary Clinton, or your biased views of liberals. There is no question our country is divided and that the right is adept at degrading what they percieve a liberal to be all about.

Fortunately, you can't blame the liberals for this collosal mess that Bush has us in regarding the deficit, the war in Iraq, the downfall of our school system, the vast numbers of people who now hate us around the world, our unsafe borders, trains, nuclear power plants,
the state of our trade deficit, the worst in the history of this country, yet you want to focuss on why the hell Hiliary moved to New York, typical right winger....You answered your own question anyway, LOL.

Next.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
07-28-2005, 09:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
We are not fighting a war in Iraq because of Bill Clinton. Stop twisting and spinning.
<hr /></blockquote> I don't think some much needed clarification is really twisting and spinning unless you are not desirous of the truth. No problem though, I am on vacation in 1 day. Woohoo. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
07-28-2005, 10:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
the downfall of our school system, <hr /></blockquote> Once again, you allowed yourself to get carried away and say some more things that are not necessarily true. The education system in America has been in a free fall for a long time and to be quite honest, I don't think one President can fix or hurt it all on his own.

[ QUOTE ]
the vast numbers of people who now hate us around the world <hr /></blockquote> Here is an interesting read... Favorable impressions of the U.S. are being detected around the world, including inside Muslim countries. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot27jul27,0,1437541.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)

[ QUOTE ]
our unsafe borders <hr /></blockquote> Whatever. These have been the same long before Bush. Why hasn't he sealed them? Why didn't any of the past Presidents seal them?

[ QUOTE ]
nuclear power plants <hr /></blockquote> What are you talking about? You are blaming Bush for the power plants? I think the issue is the LACK of nuclear power plants, but considering your liberal view, that is probably not the problem you are chewing.

[ QUOTE ]
yet you want to focuss on why the hell Hiliary moved to New York, typical right winger<hr /></blockquote> I don't think he is focusing on it, he is just trying to get you to answer the question. It is like pulling teeth to ever get to you to address exactly what is asked without getting a 15 paragraph run around on a completely different issue, typical lib reply.

eg8r

Qtec
07-28-2005, 10:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Published on Friday, June 24, 2005 by Inter Press Service
U.S. Image Abroad Still Sinking
by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Washington's image in Europe, Canada and much of the Islamic world remains broadly negative, according to the latest in a series of surveys of public opinion in 16 countries sponsored by the Pew Global Attitudes Project (PGAP).

While some of the hostility, particularly in Muslim countries immediately after the 2003 invasion, has abated somewhat, the overall opinion of the U.S. public voiced by the citizens of Washington's traditional allies and in the Islamic world has continued to fall over the past two years, according to the survey and accompanying analysis.

Consistent with pre-U.S. election surveys of foreign countries last fall, the re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush is seen almost universally as tarnishing the country's image abroad

<hr /></blockquote>

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.....?????????? Your claim is very misleading.

Q

eg8r
07-28-2005, 10:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.....?????????? Your claim is very misleading. <hr /></blockquote> My only CLAIM was that the article was an interesting read. How is your quote relevant to my claim of the article being interesting? Quit twisting what I said.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
08-08-2005, 06:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hey, aren't you the guy who just confused Cheney and Rumsfled regarding their war service, right on this page? don't be such a nit-picker, Walley. You're not perfect either.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

pretty darn close though /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Hey Gayle. I met the ever elusive and mysterious "vagabond" this weekend. He said if you and I ever get together to discuss politics in person he will buy the drinks LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

take care now