Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clinton in the shadow of treason
Brooke's News (Australia) ^ | June 19, 2003 | Peter Zhang

Posted on 06/20/2003 8:51:34 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln

Peter Zhang
BrookesNews.Com
Thursday 19 June 2003

Seeing as Hillary Clinton's book has decided to mock history in an attempt to clear a path to the White House, I think it behoves us to once again draw attention to the enormous damage her husband wilfully did to America's national security.

Several years ago I put forward the view that Clinton's cooperation with Beijing's intelligence operations were so extensive that it could be decided in the interest of saving the presidential office to suppress evidence that might directly incriminate Clinton and some of his associates. I also stated that "the damage to American national security is very deep and longstanding".

The release of the Cox Report tends to support the first statement and most certainly confirms the second. In addition, FBI wire taps appear to have confirmed that Jiang Zemin approved the cover stories for the PLA's money conduits. Whatever Jiang did was done with the knowledge of Zhu Rongji and the rest of the leadership. It is now believed that FBI investigations also led to the conclusion that Clinton was fully aware of the details, including payments of what amounted to nothing less than bribes.

As I have said more than once: "The Americans gave Clinton the key to the candy store and he sold it to Beijing." And this, readers, is basically what the Cox Committee discovered. My old English teacher used to say that "the devil is in the details". I also said that "in accordance with my previous assessment, that it is these very details that will be withheld from the American public." This is exactly what has been done.

Despite the spin Clinton and his horde of media friends tried to put on this terrible situation, it still boils down to treason.

Observing the Clinton propaganda machine, even from this distance, I predicted that, using its media allies, it would launch a multi-pronged attack: 1. It would claim that most of the damage was done during previous administrations. 2. That most of spying occurred in nuclear facilities. 3. In any case, the loss of American military secrets to China represent only a marginal threat to national security. Again, I was right. What is more, none of these excuses can withstand an honest appraisal of the facts, which a quick examination will easily reveal.

Number one is simply not true. If it were, why was Chung given a top security clearance and access to the White House at the suggestion of Chinese officials? I made clear elsewhere that Beijing laid down conditions that gave it access to all of America's secrets. To fulfil this condition Clinton abolished Department of Energy internal controls that restricted access to sensitive facilities thus allowing Chinese intelligence operatives free reign.

In addition, and this is of critical importance, Clinton virtually abolished controls on exports to China of high-tech equipment that had important military applications. Moreover, to make it even easier to access this equipment and knowledge Clinton transferred responsibility for technology exports from defence to the Commerce Department. Why? Because this had the effect of removing these technologies classified status.

What is not classified cannot therefore be secret. This is the Clintons' devious legalistic logic at work. "How could I have sold secrets", he can now claim, "when they weren't secret?"

This allowed certain companies to sell formerly classified equipment to the People's Liberation Army in return for making heavy donations to the Democrats — especially one in particular. One would have to be incredibly naive, or fanatically partisan, to think all of this was due to administrative ineptitude. The important fact here is that previous presidents did not sell their country's secrets.

Defence number two that espionage of any significance only occurred in nuclear laboratories is made risible by a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Such a defence is the fruit of desperation. The third defence that any damage to US security is only marginal is worthless.

Marginal or not it would still have unnecessarily put at risk the lives of a great many Americans. Moreover, this too is a hollow defence. By selling this technology to the PLA Clinton strengthened the hand of China's crude nationalists at the expense of more liberal forces. The longer it took the PLA to develop these technologies the more time Chinese liberals would have had to consolidate their influence.

Clinton has also saved Beijing an enormous amount of time and resources, which can now be put to other military uses.

Even if the damage has been greatly over-stated, it should not be used to conceal the fact that treason is treason. An American who did far less by giving secrets to Israel is now serving a very long prison term. Clinton should do no less. Unfortunately this will never happen. I fear the American people could not live with the disgrace of knowing that a president had betrayed them, even though the networks apparently can.

Americans are now confronted with the spectacle of Hillary Clinton cynically trying lay down the foundations for a presidential bid. This woman is far worse than her husband ever was. God help America, not to mention the rest of us, should she manage to fulfill her overriding ambition.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: china; clinton; clintonlegacy; corruption; hillary; livinghistory; lyinghillbilly; siredmundhillary; treason; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

1 posted on 06/20/2003 8:51:34 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
VERY STRONGLY AGREE.

THANKS MUCH.

Wish this article could be tatooed on the forehead of every demoCRUD.
2 posted on 06/20/2003 8:55:05 PM PDT by Quix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix
bump
3 posted on 06/20/2003 9:11:29 PM PDT by Think free or die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Think free or die
Of course, it might be just as much fun to force them to memorize it and then eat the article without the services of a shredder.

Or perhaps plaster it on their bathroom mirrors, above their beds, engraved on their meal tables, scrolling across their TV and computer screens every minute such are turned on . . .

Ahhhh, what pleasant dreams . . . in a manner of speaking.

4 posted on 06/20/2003 9:15:38 PM PDT by Quix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
That man cared nothing for this country.
I can't put words to the disgust I feel for him and the people who shield him from his crimes. I hope I live to see the day when people say "enough is enough" and his secret service protection is limited to the small cell where he spends the rest of his days.
5 posted on 06/20/2003 9:15:47 PM PDT by The Brush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom; berserker
...Clinton's cooperation with Beijing's intelligence operations were so extensive that it could be decided in the interest of saving the presidential office to suppress evidence that might directly incriminate Clinton and some of his associates.

Libdem/Chicoms disagree? (You folks have been awfully silent lately...)

6 posted on 06/20/2003 9:19:46 PM PDT by Libloather (Proud member of the Vast Right Wing Fatwa...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
I don't want to sound like a tinfoiler, but I have often wondered why THIS SPEECH by Senator Inhofe on the senate floor was drowned out by the Lewinsky scandal????/

Here we have our nuclear secrets going off to China and the media is focused on zippergate. Was this by design?

7 posted on 06/20/2003 9:20:11 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Liberalism is the enemy of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Thanks for the great post.
I used to read Peter Zhang's articles when he wrote for THE NEW AUSTRALIAN. Tried to find him ... to no avail ... so THANKS! again.
8 posted on 06/20/2003 9:23:45 PM PDT by patricia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
You are wearing my tinfoil hat! That was the first thread I got a Freeper to post on here for me when I didn't know what I was doing!

I have had this sick feeling for a long time that the Lewinsky story was planted to take the heat off of the Sale of Nuclear Secrets to China and the Chinagate investigation in the Senate and the Cox Report. The whole deal with Linda Tripp and the phone calls with Monica never made sense to me -- something smelled about the whole set-up. But then I think Monica and Bill were more than they let on too!
9 posted on 06/20/2003 9:27:10 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (Bush Cheney '04 - VICTORY IN '04 -- $4 for '04 - www.GeorgeWBush.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
I don't really think Hillary stands a chance. The war on terror will not be over by 2008, although it will be well in hand. I don't think America will be ready to have a democrat in the WH for many years to come.
10 posted on 06/20/2003 9:30:37 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man; MeeknMing; Dog Gone; Miss Marple; Howlin; A Citizen Reporter; Mo1; deport; ken5050; ...
Take a look at this thread! Scarey!
11 posted on 06/20/2003 9:35:02 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (Bush Cheney '04 - VICTORY IN '04 -- $4 for '04 - www.GeorgeWBush.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Inhofe was making some pretty clear points and backing them up with facts. Now, I realize that Inhofe delivered this speech after the impeachment trial, but the investigation had been well underway before the lewinsky scandal surfaced and Clinto knew quite well that this was being investigated.

Many would say Clinton wasn't smart enough to divert the media's attention away from the real crimes of his presidency, but IMHO the gut has a history of deception that could only be compared to the Devil himself. Just the snow job he pulled over on his ROTC recruiters eyes should be proof enough. Deep down I feel the Lewinsky scandal was too tempting a bait for the media to resist.

IMHO Clinton sold us out to the Chinese for his re-election in 1996. I believe him and Al Gore were worried about how much money Bob Dole might raise and did what he had to win... "Win at all cost" in Clintonese means sell our nuclear treasures to the highest bidder

12 posted on 06/20/2003 9:39:38 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Liberalism is the enemy of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Great article, thanks for the post.

It is always wonderful to read someone who can see right through the clintons and is not afraid to tell it like it is.

13 posted on 06/20/2003 9:42:27 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Sounds like Bill "Julius Rosenberg" Clinton. Which one did more damage to the country? Ya gotta love the guy. Not.
14 posted on 06/20/2003 9:44:32 PM PDT by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
"and the media is focused on zippergate. Was this by design?"

What did Starr know, and when did he know it?

15 posted on 06/20/2003 9:50:10 PM PDT by Ready4Freddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
If you take a look at Monica's sworn testimony (200+ pages) it seems like she was a pawn and not a player, and the same might be said for Linda Tripp.

What has always bothered me about this whole deal is that some parts of the investigation into the loss of our W-88 warhead technoligy and the missile guidence technoligy has been sealed for 50 years. Usually when this happens is because if the truth came out, the public would demand action and the only option might be all out war and a scandal so bad that it might bring down the government.

As I have said many times on this forum, Bill Clinton's treasonous actions will be haunting us for many years to come. The disgrace and dishonor of the Lewinsky scandal is just the thin skin covering this cess pool of Bill Clinton's tenure as the POTUS

16 posted on 06/20/2003 9:54:15 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Liberalism is the enemy of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ready4Freddy
That is a good question, It's one of the things that keeps me from bringing this up very often. Was Starr sidetracked by all the Clinton unsavory liasons when looking into Hillary's crminal activity in White Water and the opportunity to get him to lie under oathe over his over office snarlings as tempting as Elliot Ness's Racketeering case against Al Capone? Who knows, but your question is a good one
17 posted on 06/20/2003 9:59:01 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Liberalism is the enemy of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Follow this for a minute! Linda Tripp was shipped out of the WH after the Kathleen Wiley deal to the Pentagon. Next thing you know, 1996 election is coming up and they want Monica sent out of the White House and she just happens to end up in the same area as Tripp and they become friends? That defies probability since the Pentagon is so large.

Without Monica talking to Tripp, none of this would have come out and the China Investigation would have been front page news instead of the girl in the beret. Another thing that has always bothered me was Wag the Dog and showing the firefly girl in the beret -- that was just too close to reality for my believeability factor.

Two and two did not add up with Starr and his investigations either.
18 posted on 06/20/2003 10:26:23 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (Bush Cheney '04 - VICTORY IN '04 -- $4 for '04 - www.GeorgeWBush.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
And why didn't Kenneth Starr expose this treason instead of focusing on the Lewinsky affair?! He had the goods on Clinton and let him escape...we could have finished Lucifer off!!!
19 posted on 06/20/2003 10:40:23 PM PDT by PatriotBill (REMOVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
I agree, It was Linda Tripp who questioned the way the White House gifts were being handled and she was shown the door shortly after being told that "Things have changed, George H.W. Bush is no longer the President". Then months after Bill sidelined his 19 year old mistress, she was sent over to work with someone Clinton already knew didn't like him.

The whole thing smells and considering the lengths Bill Clinton would go to decieve those he felt he had to, this is not tinfoil talk by any standard

20 posted on 06/20/2003 10:41:27 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Liberalism is the enemy of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

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

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson