Summary: An Investor’s Business Daily editorial suggested that Bernard Schwartz, then-head of Loral Space and Communications Corp., donated “$600,000 in campaign cash” to President Bill Clinton in 1996 in exchange for “the traitorous transfer of missile technology to Beijing.” However, while the editorial mentioned that the Justice Department “investigated Schwartz,” it did not note that the Justice Department exonerated him.
[ ]… The Justice Department investigation of the campaign finance allegations regarding Schwartz was headed by Charles La Bella, chief of the Campaign Finance Task Force from 1997 to 1998. La Bella delivered a memorandum on the inquiry to then-Attorney General Janet Reno in the summer of 1998. Documents related to the La Bella memo were first obtained by the Los Angeles Times, which, in the May 23, 2000, article reported that, according to one document, the “team of federal prosecutors turned up ‘not a scintilla of evidence — or information — that the president was corruptly influenced by Bernard Schwartz.’ ” Further, one former task force investigator told the Times that “[p]oor Bernie Schwartz got a bad deal. …There was never a whiff of a scent of a case against him.” After the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee made public the memo and an “addendum” from La Bella, The New York Times reported in a June 9, 2000, article, that the “documents … show that Mr. La Bella never believed there was any evidence against Mr. Schwartz and concluded that Mr. Schwartz had not broken the law.”
The Right is obsessed with all things Clinton. I’m not sure which is their favorite myth to spread, the Vince Foster conspiracy stories or the China technology stories. Let’s think about the Clinton years and technology. It was the era of Windows 95/98. Blazing fast 400Mz Pentium IIIs. Fast forward to 2007, the Bush administartion. Ten years of a Republican controlled Congress. Intel Pours $2.5B Into China Chip Plant 03/26/07 11:17 AM PT
Chipmaker Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) announced Monday it would build a US$2.5 billion wafer fabrication facility in northeast China, the company’s latest and largest investment to date in the booming country.
Though Intel has not built a fab in China yet, the investment is far from its first in the country. Intel has had a presence in China for more than 20 years, Otellini said.
No word from IBD about how Intel’s chips are far more adavanced now then during the Clinton presidency and guess what. Those new chips can still be used for everything from desktop computing to guiding a missile to it’s target. China, nuclear technology, and a US sale
China has its heart set on buying a cutting-edge US design for a nuclear-power reactor, and the Bush administration has said it is willing to sell because the transaction will mean jobs for Americans and pave the way for a “nuclear [power] renaissance in the US.”
But critics of the mammoth $5 billion-plus sale are raising concerns that China might not use the advanced technology strictly for peaceful purposes, perhaps intending to “reverse engineer” pieces of it for military purposes.
[ ]…”You’re building an infrastructure that can be used and retooled to help out in [China’s] naval reactor sector – and they do want this for nuclear subs,” says Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a think tank on nuclear-policy issues.
[ ]…”Our concern is more about whether the US should be supporting building a commercial nuclear infrastructure when there are serious questions about whether the Chinese regulatory system [for nuclear-waste disposal] can do this safely,” says Edwin Lyman, a nonproliferation expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group.
Why should anyone be concerned. China has told the Bush administration, just as they told the Clinton administration that they will only use any technology they get from as for peaceful purposes. Why the Right’s double standard. That magical “R”. Its like a little fairy that sits on the Right’s shoulder that allows them to do pretty much anything they want with impunity. Will there be any lingering hateful gossip mongering about Bush’s accommodating relationship with China. Of course not. Bush Jr has ignored his father’s example as president in many ways, but not when it comes to cozying up to China, Bush Renewing Trade Privileges For China, but Adds Missile Curbs – May 28, 1991
“We want to advance the cause of freedom, not just snub nations that aren’t yet wholly free,” he said. [ Excerpts, page A8. ]
Mr. Bush said he would inform Congress this week that China’s trading privileges — known as “most favored nation” status — are to be continued for another year. The move had been expected since the President said two weeks ago that he wanted to renew China’s favorable tariff treatment.
Many lawmakers have called for the privileges to be revoked to punish Beijing for its crackdown on political activity in 1989, an approach that Mr. Bush strongly rejected today in a move that is sure to lead to a confrontation with Congress.
Bush Sr was walking a thin line. Arguments can be made for and against his actions. A tough line would have been to revoke China’s favored trade status, but he didn’t. Over the course of Bush Sr and Clinton’s presidency various sanctions were imposed and lifted. If China is still America’s enemy then why is the current administration been so quick to pander to them on trade issues. Companies that range from Westinghouse to Wal-Mart to Intel and AMD all do business with China. Everyone knows that Wal-Mart gives the biggest part of its political donations to Republicans, as does chip maker Intel and Westinghouse ( a big winner in the sale of nuclear energy plants to China). Conservatives always portray themselves as the deeply serious experts on foreign policy. The media is all too happy to go ago with that spin. If a Republican president or Senator or Representaive makes less then stellar decision they do what they always do. Attack and distract. If President Clinton was still our Commander-in-Chief we’d here no end of whining about this story, but the Decider Guy is in charge, so excuses and rationales will be made by the usual crop of deeply serious right-wing pundits that dominate both TV and radio, Broken Supply Channel Sent Weapons for Iraq Astray
As the insurgency in Iraq escalated in the spring of 2004, American officials entrusted an Iraqi businessman with issuing weapons to Iraqi police cadets training to help quell the violence.
By all accounts, the businessman, Kassim al-Saffar, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, did well at distributing the Pentagon-supplied weapons from the Baghdad Police Academy armory he managed for a military contractor. But, co-workers say, he also turned the armory into his own private arms bazaar with the seeming approval of some American officials and executives, selling AK-47 assault rifles, Glock pistols and heavy machine guns to anyone with cash in hand — Iraqi militias, South African security guards and even American contractors.
“This was the craziest thing in the world,” said John Tisdale, a retired Air Force master sergeant who managed an adjacent warehouse. “They were taking weapons away by the truckload.”
Activities at that armory and other warehouses help explain how the American military lost track of some 190,000 pistols and automatic rifles supplied by the United States to Iraq’s security forces in 2004 and 2005, as auditors discovered in the past year.
These discoveries prompted criminal inquiries by the Pentagon and the Justice Department, and stoked fears that the arms could fall into enemy hands and be used against American troops. So far, no missing weapons have been linked to any American deaths, but investigators say that in a country awash with weapons, it may be impossible to trace where some ended up.
While the Pentagon has yet to offer its own accounting of how the weapons channel broke down, it is clear from interviews with two dozen military and civilian investigators, contracting officers, warehouse managers and others that military expediency sometimes ran amok, the lines between legal and illegal were blurred and billions of dollars in arms were handed over to shoestring commands without significant oversight.
WMD haven’t killed our troops in Iraq, IEDs and small arms have.