Posted on 12/14/2001 9:26:40 PM PST by Hopalong
I then went to NA back issues for it, and the title wasn't listed for that issue.
I then did a net search and found the title, but it was not online.
I did not doubt the article exists. If you read closely my question is whether you mean to say that George Bush Senior was (and thus presumably is) personally, knowingly, and deliberately a traitor to the United States.
Thanks your for posting the article.
What Cohen says there does not bear out the charge against Bush Senior:
Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb, speculates that the Chinese got the weapon through a clandestine technology transfer by the Reagan-Bush Administration designed to help China — then considered our "ally" — bolster its ground defenses against a possible ground attack by Russia. "I don't have access to any top-secret information that proves this, but based both on my knowledge of the [neutron bomb] technology, my years of experience in the Pentagon and defense industry, and the facts I know of the case, I think this explanation makes the most sense.
I think only a handful of people — in the National Security Council and the CIA — would know about an operation of this kind," Cohen told The New American. "Most likely the man in charge was George Bush, who not only was formerly head of CIA, but before that was U.S. Ambassador to China. President Reagan probably wouldn't even have known about it....
I do not intend getting into the position of having to defend Bush Senior. His "No New Taxes" pledge was no small part of his first campaign, and one of the reasons I voted for him. Breaking one's word, whether to one person or a hundred million, is serious. This was the single most important reason, in my opinion, he lost in his bid for reelection, and why we got Clinton for the next for years.
He was obviously sand-bagged by the Democrats and others, who planned on exactly this scenario.
Many have also fallen for the charades of the Communist Chinese, including, from my personal knowledge, Nationalist Chinese who have spent their whole lives fighting against them.
On the other hand, even Bush Senior can't be blamed for how we got Clinton for a second term.
Moreover, Bush Senior is no longer President. The Chinese Communists think he has huge influence over Bush Junior in regard to China policy. So too the uncle. They share this belief with many on FR who call themselves "conservatives".
Strange how the Chinese Communists, of all the folks on the planet, are actively encouraging filial piety as a weapon of foreign policy.
As I said a long while ago, I expect they'll be quoting the Ten Commandments next.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
1963 Restricted Data Declassification Decisions - Enhanced Radiation Weapons (ERW) - The mere fact that the U.S. is interested in pursuing a program to determine the characteristics of an "enhanced radiation" weapon (neutron bomb). (63-5) DOE Document on FAS
1977 Jimmy Carter
1978 (April) US cancels development of the neutron bomb which reputedly would destroy life but leave buildings intact. Idaho State University - Physics
1978 Restricted Data Declassification Decisions - Enhanced Radiation Weapons (ERW) - The fact that the W-79 is an enhanced radiation weapon. (78-1) DOE Document on FAS
1981 Ronald Reagan
1988 US intelligence detected a Chinese test of a neutron bomb. The 1999 Cox report held that the technology was believed to have been stolen from the US. In July, 1999, China announced that it had developed the design technology to make neutron bombs in 1988 and could make miniaturized nuclear weapons. (SFC, 5/15/99, p.A3)(SFC, 7/15/99, p.A9)(WSJ, 7/16/99, p.A1) Timelines of History
1989 George H. W. Bush
Regards to all. S&W R.I.P.
"What Cohen says there does not bear out the charge against Bush Senior"
I completely disagree with your analysis and characterization. And you have to take the entire articles in their full context which you are not doing IMHO.
And as I wrote, but you have not yet taken into account, Jasper(interviewed Cohen) and Breshnahan agree with me as well as flamefront and rightwing2. But since you have not had time to contact them yet you would not know. I guarantee that Jasper has told me that Cohen stongly believed Bush transferred the neutron bomb tech to China-a treasonous act( I believe Bush may have done it behind Reagan's back, but that is just a theory, not fact).
Be sure you read and quote from all the articles I posted in #32 about Cohen, Bush and China and the neutron bomb including the WorldNetDaily article by Breshnahan
To me, even if you are not satisifed that Bush did it, there is something very wrong when you do not express more concern in your replies about what Cohen wrote . I did present the evidence of what Cohen wrote at great effort and there is a very strong basis to be concerned about what Cohen wrote.
Neither tone nor crying over spilt milk has ever been a big part of my personality, OKCSubmariner.
You are not the first to be troubled by my "tone."
Or by my not expressing "concern" or some other reaction at the designated place in the functor.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
I am not as erudite or have as quite a good command of languages as you do. But I am smart and experienced enough to see things in your replies that many others do not see and would not understand even if they were explained to them.
But egos and cleverness aside, you will make a mistake if you do not take seriously what I have written even if you do not agree or work with a different agenda.
I have been honest and open with you and honesty does count when conveying and analyzing info even if there is disagreement.
US Missile Defense Tech Already Lost , Stolen , and/or Given to Russians and Chinese
White House (Pentagon & Commerce) Lets Tech Firms Hire Chinese (Classified Defense Contractor Jobs)
Bush In Bed With Clinton And China
U.S. Is Said to Have Known of China Spy Link in 1995
GEORGE BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT (Soft on Clinton and China) - Transcript - Posted by "Jim Robinson"
Timperlake & Triplett - 'Something wicked this way comes'
Is Pentagon muzzling its export watchdogs?
Burying the Last of the Technology Transfer Controls
Lucent Scientists Arrested in Technology Theft for Chinese Firm
CLINTON TREASON-BY-COMPUTER IS "OLD NEWS"
Clinton chided for easing computer export controls
Clinton Holdover Deep-sixed Chinagate Evidence
Alberquerque Journal by Ian Hoffman
Curious Case of Clinton, Bush, Chubb Insurance and a Chinese Arms Merchant
| Address to the Nation on Reducing United States and Soviet Nuclear Weapons September 27, 1991 Good evening. Tonight I'd like to speak with you about our future and the future of the generations to come. The world has changed at a fantastic pace, with each day writing a fresh page of history before yesterday's ink has even dried. And most recently, we've seen the peoples of the Soviet Union turn to democracy and freedom, and discard a system of government based on oppression and fear. Like the East Europeans before them, they face the daunting challenge of building fresh political structures, based on human rights, democratic principles, and market economies. Their task is far from easy and far from over. They will need our help, and they will get it. But these dramatic changes challenge our Nation as well. Our country has always stood for freedom and democracy. And when the newly elected leaders of Eastern Europe grappled with forming their new governments, they looked to the United States. They looked to American democratic principles in building their own free societies. Even the leaders of the U.S.S.R. Republics are reading The Federalist Papers, written by America's founders, to find new ideas and inspiration. Today, America must lead again, as it always has, as only it can. And we will. We must also provide the inspiration for lasting peace. And we will do that, too. We can now take steps in response to these dramatic developments, steps that can help the Soviet peoples in their quest for peace and prosperity. More importantly, we can now take steps to make the world a less dangerous place than ever before in the nuclear age. A year ago, I described a new strategy for American defenses, reflecting the world's changing security environment. That strategy shifted our focus away from the fear that preoccupied us for 40 years, the prospect of a global confrontation. Instead, it concentrated more on regional conflicts, such as the one we just faced in the Persian Gulf. I spelled out a strategic concept, guided by the need to maintain the forces required to exercise forward presence in key areas, to respond effectively in crises, to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent, and to retain the national capacity to rebuild our forces should that be needed. We are now moving to reshape the U.S. military to reflect that concept. The new base force will be smaller by half a million than today's military, with fewer Army divisions, Air Force wings, Navy ships, and strategic nuclear forces. This new force will be versatile, able to respond around the world to challenges, old and new. As I just mentioned, the changes that allowed us to adjust our security strategy a year ago have greatly accelerated. The prospect of a Soviet invasion into Western Europe, launched with little or no warning, is no longer a realistic threat. The Warsaw Pact has crumbled. In the Soviet Union, the advocates of democracy triumphed over a coup that would have restored the old system of repression. The reformers are now starting to fashion their own futures, moving even faster toward democracy's horizon. New leaders in the Kremlin and the Republics are now questioning the need for their huge nuclear arsenal. The Soviet nuclear stockpile now seems less an instrument of national security, and more of a burden. As a result, we now have an unparalleled opportunity to change the nuclear posture of both the United States and the Soviet Union. If we and the Soviet leaders take the right steps -- some on our own, some on their own, some together -- we can dramatically shrink the arsenal of the world's nuclear weapons. We can more effectively discourage the spread of nuclear weapons. We can rely more on defensive measures in our strategic relationship. We can enhance stability and actually reduce the risk of nuclear war. Now is the time to seize this opportunity. After careful study and consultations with my senior advisers and after considering valuable counsel from Prime Minister Major, President Mitterrand, Chancellor Kohl, and other allied leaders, I am announcing today a series of sweeping initiatives affecting every aspect of our nuclear forces on land, on ships, and on aircraft. I met again today with our Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I can tell you they wholeheartedly endorse each of these steps. I will begin with the category in which we will make the most fundamental change in nuclear forces in over 40 years, nonstrategic or theater weapons. Last year, I cancelled U.S. plans to modernize our ground-launched theater nuclear weapons. Later, our NATO allies joined us in announcing that the alliance would propose the mutual elimination of all nuclear artillery shells from Europe, as soon as short-range nuclear force negotiations began with the Soviets. But starting these talks now would only perpetuate these systems, while we engage in lengthy negotiations. Last month's events not only permit, but indeed demand swifter, bolder action. I am therefore directing that the United States eliminate its entire worldwide inventory of ground-launched short-range, that is, theater nuclear weapons. We will bring home and destroy all of our nuclear artillery shells and short-range ballistic missile warheads. We will, of course, ensure that we preserve an effective air-delivered nuclear capability in Europe. That is essential to NATO's security. In turn, I have asked the Soviets to go down this road with us, to destroy their entire inventory of ground-launched theater nuclear weapons: not only their nuclear artillery, and nuclear warheads for short-range ballistic missiles, but also the theater systems the U.S. no longer has, systems like nuclear warheads for air-defense missiles, and nuclear land mines. Recognizing further the major changes in the international military landscape, the United States will withdraw all tactical nuclear weapons from its surface ships and attack submarines, as well as those nuclear weapons associated with our land-based naval aircraft. This means removing all nuclear Tomahawk cruise missiles from U.S. ships and submarines, as well as nuclear bombs aboard aircraft carriers. The bottom line is that under normal circumstances, our ships will not carry tactical nuclear weapons. Many of these land and sea-based warheads will be dismantled and destroyed. Those remaining will be secured in central areas where they would be available if necessary in a future crisis. Again, there is every reason for the Soviet Union to match our actions: by removing all tactical nuclear weapons from its ships and attack submarines; by withdrawing nuclear weapons for land-based naval aircraft; and by destroying many of them and consolidating what remains at central locations. I urge them to do so. No category of nuclear weapons has received more attention than those in our strategic arsenals. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START, which President Gorbachev and I signed last July was the culmination of almost a decade's work. It calls for substantial stabilizing reductions and effective verification. Prompt ratification by both parties is essential. But I also believe the time is right to use START as a springboard to achieve additional stabilizing changes. First, to further reduce tensions, I am directing that all United States strategic bombers immediately standdown from their alert posture. As a comparable gesture, I call upon the Soviet Union to confine its mobile missiles to their garrisons, where they will be safer and more secure. Second, the United States will immediately standdown from alert all intercontinental ballistic missiles scheduled for deactivation under START. Rather than waiting for the treaty's reduction plan to run its full 7 year course, we will accelerate elimination of these systems, once START is ratified. I call upon the Soviet Union to do the same. Third, I am terminating the development of the mobile Peacekeeper ICBM as well as the mobile portions of the small ICBM program. The small single-warhead ICBM will be our only remaining ICBM modernization program. And I call upon the Soviets to terminate any and all programs for future ICBM's with more than one warhead, and to limit ICBM modernization to one type of single warhead missile, just as we have done. Fourth, I am cancelling the current program to build a replacement for the nuclear short-range attack missile for our strategic bombers. Fifth, as a result of the strategic nuclear weapons adjustments that I've just outlined, the United States will streamline its command and control procedures, allowing us to more effectively manage our strategic nuclear forces. As the system works now, the Navy commands the submarine part of our strategic deterrent, while the Air Force commands the bomber and land-based elements. But as we reduce our strategic forces, the operational command structure must be as direct as possible. And I have therefore approved the recommendation of Secretary Cheney and the Joint Chiefs to consolidate operational command of these forces into a U.S. strategic command under one commander with participation from both services. Since the 1970's, the most vulnerable and unstable part of the U.S. and Soviet nuclear forces has been intercontinental missiles with more than one warhead. Both sides have these ICBM's in fixed silos in the ground where they are more vulnerable than missiles on submarines. I propose that the U.S. and the Soviet Union seek early agreement to eliminate from their inventories all ICBM's with multiple warheads. After developing a timetable acceptable to both sides, we could rapidly move to modify or eliminate these systems under procedures already established in the START agreement. In short, such an action would take away the single most unstable part of our nuclear arsenals. But there is more to do. The United States and the Soviet Union are not the only nations with ballistic missiles. Some 15 nations have them now, and in less than a decade that number could grow to 20. The recent conflict in the Persian Gulf demonstrates in no uncertain terms that the time has come for strong action on this growing threat to world peace. Accordingly, I am calling on the Soviet leadership to join us in taking immediate concrete steps to permit the limited deployment of nonnuclear defenses to protect against limited ballistic missile strikes, whatever their source, without undermining the credibility of existing deterrent forces. And we will intensify our effort to curb nuclear and missile proliferation. These two efforts will be mutually reinforcing. To foster cooperation, the United States soon will propose additional initiatives in the area of ballistic missile early warning. Finally, let me discuss yet another opportunity for cooperation that can make our world safer. During last month's attempted coup in Moscow, many Americans asked me if I thought Soviet nuclear weapons were under adequate control. I do not believe that America was at increased risk of nuclear attack during those tense days. But I do believe more can be done to ensure the safe handling and dismantling of Soviet nuclear weapons. Therefore, I propose that we begin discussions with the Soviet Union to explore cooperation in three areas: First, we should explore joint technical cooperation on the safe and environmentally responsible storage, transportation, dismantling, and destruction of nuclear warheads. Second, we should discuss existing arrangements for the physical security and safety of nuclear weapons and how these might be enhanced. And third, we should discuss nuclear command and control arrangements, and how these might be improved to provide more protection against the unauthorized or accidental use of nuclear weapons. My friend, French President Mitterrand, offered a similar idea a short while ago. After further consultations with the alliance and when the leadership in the U.S.S.R. is ready, we will begin this effort. The initiatives that I'm announcing build on the new defense strategy that I set out a year ago, one that shifted our focus away from the prospect of global confrontation. We're consulting with our allies on the implementation of many of these steps which fit well with the new post cold war strategy and force posture that we've developed in NATO. As we implement these initiatives we will closely watch how the new Soviet leadership responds. We expect our bold initiatives to meet with equally bold steps on the Soviet side. If this happens, further cooperation is inevitable. If it does not, then an historic opportunity will have been lost. Regardless, let no one doubt we will still retain the necessary strength to protect our security and that of our allies and to respond as necessary. In addition, regional instabilities, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and as we saw during the conflict in the Gulf, territorial ambitions of power-hungry tyrants, still require us to maintain a strong military to protect our national interests and to honor commitments to our allies. Therefore, we must implement a coherent plan for a significantly smaller but fully capable military, one that enhances stability but is still sufficient to convince any potential adversary that the cost of aggression would exceed any possible gain. We can safely afford to take the steps I've announced today, steps that are designed to reduce the dangers of miscalculation in a crisis. But to do so, we must also pursue vigorously those elements of our strategic modernization program that serve the same purpose. We must fully fund the B - 2 and SDI program. We can make radical changes in the nuclear postures of both sides to make them smaller, safer, and more stable. But the United States must maintain modern nuclear forces including the strategic triad and thus ensure the credibility of our deterrent. Some will say that these initiatives call for a budget windfall for domestic programs. But the peace dividend I seek is not measured in dollars but in greater security. In the near term, some of these steps may even cost money. Given the ambitious plan I have already proposed to reduce U.S. defense spending by 25 percent, we cannot afforded to make any unwise or unwarranted cuts in the defense budget that I have submitted to Congress. I am counting on congressional support to ensure we have the funds necessary to restructure our forces prudently and implement the decisions that I have outlined tonight. Twenty years ago when I had the opportunity to serve this country as Ambassador to the United Nations. I once talked about the vision that was in the minds of the U.N.'s founders, how they dreamed of a new age when the great powers of the world would cooperate in peace as they had as allies in war. Today I consulted with President Gorbachev. And while he hasn't had time to absorb the details, I believe the Soviet response will clearly be positive. I also spoke with President Yeltsin, and he had a similar reaction, positive, hopeful. Now, the Soviet people and their leaders can shed the heavy burden of a dangerous and costly nuclear arsenal which has threatened world peace for the past five decades. They can join us in these dramatic moves toward a new world of peace and security. Tonight, as I see the drama of democracy unfolding around the globe, perhaps we are closer to that new world then every before. The future is ours to influence, to shape, to mold. While we must not gamble that future, neither can we forfeit the historic opportunity now before us. It has been said, ``Destiny is not a matter of chance. It is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for. It's a thing to be achieved.'' The United States has always stood where duty required us to stand. Now let them say that we led where destiny required us to lead, to a more peaceful, hopeful future. We cannot give a more precious gift to the children of the world. Thank you, good night, and God bless the United States of America. Note: The President spoke at 8:02 p.m. in the Oval Office at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Prime Minister John Major of the United Kingdom; President Francois Mitterrand of France; Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany; Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney; President Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union; and President Boris Yeltsin of the Republic of Russia.
|
Not for commercial use. Solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.
| COMMENTARY COLUMN RIGHT
Yet the Clinton administration has repeatedly chosen to turn a blind eye to this proliferation of missile, chemical-biological and nuclear technology, consistently refusing to impose sanctions on violators. And in those handful of instances where sanctions were imposed, they usually were either quickly waived by the administration or allowed to expire. Rather than condemn India for current tensions, the blame for the political powder keg that has emerged in Asia should be laid squarely at the feet of President Clinton. It is his administration's inaction and refusal to enforce arms control agreements that have allowed the fuse to grow so short. In November 1992, the United States learned that China had transferred M-11 missiles to Pakistan. The Bush administration imposed sanctions for this violation but Clinton waived them a little more than 14 months later. Clearly, the sanctions did not have the desired effect: Reports during the first half of 1995 indicated that M-11 missiles, additional M-11 missile parts, as well as 5,000 ring magnets for Pakistani nuclear enrichment programs were transferred from China. Despite these clear violations, no sanctions were imposed. And it gets worse. Not to be outdone by its sworn foe, India aggressively pursued similar technologies and obtained them, illicitly, from Russia. From 1991 to 1995, Russian entities transferred cryogenic liquid oxygen-hydrogen rocket engines and technology to India. While sanctions were imposed by President Bush in May 1992, the Clinton administration allowed them to expire after only two years. And in June 1993, evidence surfaced that additional Russian enterprises were involved in missile technology transfers to India. The administration imposed sanctions in June 1993, and then promptly waived them for a month, never following up on the issue. |
Meanwhile, Pakistan continued to aggressively pursue technology transfers from China. In August 1996, the capability to manufacture M-11 missile or missile components was transferred from China to Pakistan. No sanctions. In November 1996, a special industrial furnace and high-tech diagnostic equipment
Finally, in recent months we have learned that China may have been responsible for the transfer of technology for Pakistan's Ghauri medium-range ballistic missile. Flight tested on April 6, 1998, the Ghauri missile has been widely blamed as the impetus for India's decision to detonate five nuclear weapons in tests earlier this month. Again, no sanctions were imposed on China. Retracing the history of these instances of proliferation, it is obvious that Pakistan and India have been locked in an arms race since the beginning of the decade. And the race has been given repeated jump-starts by China and Russia, a clear violation of a number of arms control agreements. Yet rather than enforce these arms control agreements, the Clinton administration has repeatedly acquiesced, fearing that the imposition of sanctions could either strain relations with China and Russia or potentially hurt U.S. commercial interests in those countries. Now the Clinton administration has announced a get-tough policy, threatening to impose sanctions on India for testing its nuclear weapons. But what about Russia and China, the two nations that violated international arms agreements? Shouldn't they also be subject to U.S. sanctions for their role in this crisis? Sadly, the Clinton administration is likely to ignore the proliferators and impose sanctions solely on India. In the meantime, China and Russia will continue their proliferation of missile and nuclear technology to other nations, including rogue states such as Iran, Iraq and Syria.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Penn.) is chairman of the House National, Security Committee's Military Research and Development Subcommittee
|
Freepers and I and our countrymen owe you a tremendous debt of gratitude for your service and God given wisdom.
"The greatest among you is the servant of all."
Oops, I put #49 instead of #50 in my reply #52 to you.
Of course, Uncle Bill deserves great praise and credit also for his reply #49.
I agree with rubbertramp's very cogent statement in reply #50.
I pray that GW Bush is only paying for the sins of his father. What would be worse is if GW Bush is following in the footsteps of his father or being led in his footsteps by his father and by his father's advisors.
However, my timeline work has brought to fruition what may be the reasoning behind the notion that the neutron bomb information was lost to China under the Carter Administration:
1963 Restricted Data Declassification Decisions - Enhanced Radiation Weapons (ERW) - The mere fact that the U.S. is interested in pursuing a program to determine the characteristics of an "enhanced radiation" weapon (neutron bomb). (63-5)
DOE Document on FAS1977 Jimmy Carter – during the Carter administration Dr William Perry was a high ranking DoD official instrumental in the development of advanced technology. Probably during these years, he met PLA General Ding Henggao, head of COSTIND until 1997. COSTIND was responsible for scientific research and testing of all weapons. – Year of the Rat p 144
1978 (April) US cancels development of the neutron bomb which reputedly would destroy life but leave buildings intact.
Idaho State University - Physics1978 Restricted Data Declassification Decisions - Enhanced Radiation Weapons (ERW) - The fact that the W-79 is an enhanced radiation weapon. (78-1)
DOE Document on FAS1979 …a Taiwanese American scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was suspected of giving secrets about America's W-70 neutron warhead to China in the late 1970s. In the climax of that case, codenamed Tiger Trap, FBI agents caught the scientist at an airport carrying hand-written notes answering questions allegedly posed by the Chinese. The scientist was fired but never prosecuted because a decade-long investigation failed to turn up enough evidence to go to court, and the case is still considered open by the FBI, officials said. - Other Spy Probes Run More Quietly Than Lee's By Walter Pincus and Vernon Loeb Washington Post Staff Writers Monday , November 6, 2000 ; Page A03 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20039-2000Nov5?language=printer
…investigators became suspicious about an American scientist at the Livermore weapons lab in California who in 1979 had talked with Chinese scientists. The suspect, born in Taiwan, never confessed. But some Federal investigators, in an investigation code-named Tiger Trap, feared the scientist had compromised not only the design of the W-70, a neutron bomb, but the secret to making small atomic triggers. - SPECIAL REPORT Spies Versus Sweat: The Debate Over China's Nuclear Advance By WILLIAM J. BROAD, September 7, 1999 http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/090799china-nuke.html
1980 Perry led a delegation to China to begin discussions on military technology cooperation. His host was General Liu Huaqing, Lietenant Colonel Liu Chaoying’s father.- Year of the Rat p 154 In the same year, the administration allowed the PLA’s leading rocket scientist into the US for two years of graduate study. – Year of the Rate p 163
1981 Ronald Reagan - Dr. Perry was a consultant to a number of defense contractors – Year of the Rat p 144
1980s – early The case against Win (Tiger Trap) suspected of giving China information about the neutron bomb grew cold - San Jose Mercury News 4/13/00 Dan Stober
1985 Peter H. Lee gave neutron bomb information to China – The Washington Times 3/9/00 Bill Gertz
1988 US intelligence detected a Chinese test of a neutron bomb. The 1999 Cox report held that the technology was believed to have been stolen from the US. In July, 1999, China announced that it had developed the design technology to make neutron bombs in 1988 and could make miniaturized nuclear weapons. (SFC, 5/15/99, p.A3)(SFC, 7/15/99, p.A9)(WSJ, 7/16/99, p.A1)
Timelines of History1989 George H. W. Bush – His policy toward the PRC was that they are there and we have to deal with it but not sugarcoat it. COCOM and full export controls were in place. The US military was forbidden contact with high-ranking PLA officers. He never went to China after Tiananmen. He also sold Taiwan 150 F-16’s. – Year of the Rat p 223
1993 Bill Clinton
I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, but I'm wondering if it has to be an either/or kind of situation. Isn't it possible that Carter and Bush the elder had a hand in "sharing" the technology where it shouldn't have been? As I reread this thread, that possibility seems more and more likely to me.
And I strongly disagree with Hopalong's downplaying of the meaning of what Cohen wrote. Hopalong is flat mistaken IMHO.
And do not forget about Bresnahan's article about the neutron bomb and the French getting it form the US.
I am sorry but I think you Alamo-girl and Hopalong have done history a diservice by not incluidng COhen's writings in your time line. Why? Why? Why would you protect both Bush's reputations by leaving out what Cohen and others assert they have done??
As Uncle Bill has written lately, the signs of the fall of the Republic are all around us. Ignoring facts in historical time lines that include what Cohen writes is another sure sign of the fall of the Republic. Where is the love of the truth? Without it, there will be disception , delusion and revisionism. Bush Senior has made the world a more dangerous place. He is an evil world government traitor to the US,IMHO
But I know this. The truth is immutable in God's mind even though others try to change the perception of truth in men's minds.
From your time line:
1985 Peter H. Lee gave neutron bomb information to China – The Washington Times 3/9/00 Bill Gertz
This is the time 1984-1985 that I believe Bush helped the CHinese acquire the Neutron bomb and that Lee was the fall guy conduit.. Peter Lee was given a suspended sentence when it was learned by the judge he had worked with national security information and with the CIA.
BTW Peter Lee had held phone converstations with Win Ho Lee also!! And Win Ho Lee wife worked directly for the FBI!!
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.