Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Need help with something I posted at another forum before I get hit with a

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
mrcheerful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 12:55 AM
Original message
Need help with something I posted at another forum before I get hit with a
prove it come back. Someone said Clinton sold nuke tech to China. I said no GW had a chinese spy in the white house that was stealing tech stuff for china. I also pointed out that shrub has china building nuke components for our weapons system. Anyone have any information and/or links that show this stuff or am I wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
1. Don't know, but found this info
There seems to be a lot of spin out there about Bush playing a card re: Clinton that states Clinton DID give nuclear tech to China...but it all seems like so much WH anti-Clinton spin.

http://www.nti.org/db/china/engdocs/letter.htm

http://www.nti.org/db/china/ncaorg.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcctatas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. I think Clinton did give them some kind of computer tech that is involved
with the production of nuclear energy for peaceful means, but when I google Clinton China Nuclear I get a bunch of crap from Newsmax...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guruoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
3. This should shut them up...
Bush Eases Limits on Supercomputer Exports
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020103-export.htm
<snip>
Bush notified congressional leaders that his administration will more than double the amount of computing power allowed to be exported to "tier 3" nations, a group of more than three dozen countries that pose nuclear proliferation concerns, including Israel and India.

The decision marks the second time computer export restrictions have been eased since 1999 and comes amid heightened national security concerns after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. It also comes nearly a month after Bush vowed to "toughen export controls." The U.S. restricts the sale of the nation's most powerful computing technology in an effort to thwart the spread of nuclear weapons. - LA Times, January 3, 2002
<snip>


Chinese Army Buys U.S. Computers, Helping PLA Modernize Info-Warfare
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/28/102434.shtml

The Chinese Army has just completed a series of Information Warfare combat exercises and the results do not bode well for America.

The Info-warfare Group Army, attached to the Beijing Military Area Command, launched a series of "Red Force v. Blue Force" exercises during April that showed that China could indeed score a success against a superior western Army.
<snip>
President Bush and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans met with Chinese Vice Premier Madam Wu Yi last week on trade issues such as advanced U.S. computer technology. Commerce Secretary Evans promised to ease curbs on exporting computers and other technology that could be used in Chinese weapons development.

Madam Wu later spoke at a dinner sponsored by the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S.-China Business Council. Wu stated that Vice President Dick Cheney raised the possibility of helping China construct nuclear power stations, during his recent visit to Beijing.

According to Wu, America has very advanced nuclear technologies and China "absolutely welcomes" a U.S. role in helping with development in that sector so long as the United States sticks to its commitments.
<snip>
-NewsMax, Apr. 28, 2004

More here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=bush+china+export+supercomputer&btnG=Search
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. from the Daily Howler
Was technology transferred to the Chinese in the course of our missile-launching program? The specific questions that have been raised in the standard record seem to include these:

1) It has been alleged that Loral Corporation, in April 1996, provided inappropriate help to the Chinese after a missile explosion. Loral denies that inappropriate technology transfer occurred in this case. No one has argued that this consultation occurred with the government’s OK.

2) It has been argued that President Clinton should not have given Loral a waiver to launch a second missile in China (in 1998) while the Justice Department was still investigating Loral’s conduct in 1996. The argument here is that the waiver would make it harder for Justice to prosecute; it has notbeen argued that Loral has transferred technology in preparation for this second launch.

3) Some have argued that Clinton should not have transferred authority over waivers for launches from the State Department to the Commerce Department in March 1996. But there have been no specific allegations in the standard record of technology transfers that resulted from that decision.

For the record, it doesn’t seem at all clear that massive transfers took place in the Clinton-era launches. It is only in the aftermath of the failed Loral launch that there is an existing charge of technology transfer; and Lisa Hoffman, reporting in the Washington Times, reports this assessment by “experts on the Chinese military and economy, both within the U.S. government and in outside think tanks” of what happened in that Loral consultation:

HOFFMAN: While these experts said any improper technological tip off should be cause for concern, they also said it is unlikely that China might have learned much that would pose an imminent or even long-term major threat to U.S. national security...For instance, John Pike, director of space policy for the Federation of American Scientists, told a Senate committee last week that China would have picked up information of only marginal military benefit at best.

And that, remember, would have been from the aftermath of the first Loral launch, where Loral broke with established policy by consulting the Chinese--not from the missile launches in general.

Marginal technology transfer in the one case at worst; no specific allegation of transfer in the rest of the program? Doesn’t sound like things are all thatawful. But the notion that things aren’t all that awful is a notion one rarely hears voiced on Hardball;and it’s hardly the picture that Hardball viewers received in the course of the past week. And, as a tabloid talker rattled on with comic distortions of the factual record, major journalists sat mutely by, without offering correction or comment.

Let’s look at the picture Matthews painted about technology transfer to China.

Tuesday, May 19: In his second reference to a “state-of-the-art” technology transfer of the evening, Matthews posed the following question to former Labor secretary Robert Reich:

MATTHEWS: ...Moving state-of-the-art weapons technology overseas to people who might be a problem. What do you make of that--hearing that the President of the United States granted a waiver after being told not to engage in this transfer of technology by Warren Christopher, one of the most responsible members of your cabinet in those days?

Our review:Matthews seems to be saying that Clinton chose to allow the transfer of state-of-the-art weapons technology to China; and he seems to be saying that he granted a waiver for this weapons transfer after being told not to do so by Warren Christopher. For the record, Warren Christopher opposed transfer of authority over missile launches from State to Commerce; but no missile-launch waiver is ever granted without approval from Defense and State. Meanwhile, there is no allegation in the standard record that President Clinton ever signed a waiver to “move state-of-the-art weapons technology overseas to people who might be a problem.” Hardball viewers, however, get to think that he did. Howler extraordinaire.

Wednesday, May 20:After speaking about money that was allegedly moving from China into Democratic coffers, Matthews made the following statement about “what we now know:”

MATTHEWS: ...Now you know that, at this end, there was a decision made to give a waiver on technology at a very tricky, critical level of technology, state of the art, it could be used in warfare, in delivery of nuclear weapons, etc., could be used to unsettle the balance of the nuclear arms race in South Asia, in terms of India, all kinds of implications...

Our review:Viewers are being given the clear impression that a decision was made to transfer “a critical level of technology” to the Chinese. But there is no allegation on the standard record that any such technology transfer was ever given a waiver, or even occurred. The Clinton administration denies that any technology is transferred in the satellite launches.

Thursday, May 21:By now, Hardball viewers are being told that technology is simply being sold:

MATTHEWS: And now we know, of course, that Bernard Schwartz, one of, in fact the largest contributor to the Democratic Party soft money, was in fact successful in getting a waiver to allow him to sell technology, his Loral Corporation, his technology, high technology, to the Beijing government.

Our review:Obviously enough, there is no allegation on the record that Bernard Schwartz sought or received a waiver that allowed him to sellhis technology. Loral pays the Chinese to launch their missiles; but the procedures are designed to assure that no technology is transferred in the process--let alone “sold.”

And, after a refreshing and enlightening weekend of study:

Tuesday, May 26:Matthews continued painting a picture of President Clinton simply giving dangerous technology to the Chinese. He talked about “let(ting) them in to get this incredible technology to help them launch ICBM missiles in this direction,” and then asked this question of Democratic consultant Peter Fenn:

MATTHEWS: Peter--we haven’t heard this point of view, Peter, on this program. Your argument about why the president is giving this technology to the Beijing government--how does that stop its transfer, subsequent transfer, to Iran, to Pakistan, in a way that would ratchet up the escalation in South Asia?

Again--the existing allegation is that Loral, without permission, may have given inappropriate help at one timeto the Chinese. There is no allegation on the standard record that President Clinton is “giving” or “selling” technology to the Chinese. But viewers of Hardball,over and over again, have been hearing a very different story. And all the while, panel members representing major news magazines sit mutely by, understanding the basic rule of Hardball--you don’t correct representations, however counterfactual, that are made by the show’s het-up host.

As an example of the role played by news magazine reps, let’s go back to the May 21 show, and review the entire exchange that occurred between Matthews and Time’s Karen Tumulty:

MATTHEWS: And now we know of course that Bernard Schwartz, one of, in fact the largest contributor to the Democratic Party soft money, was in fact successful in getting a waiver to allow him to sell technology, his Loral Corporation, his technology, high technology, to the Beijing government to help them guide their missiles. In fact when they had a problem with it, one of the missile crashes, he even sent some paper over there to figure out how not to crash their missiles. So he’s not only giving them satellites to put on their warheads, or put at the top of their missiles, he’s helping to get their missiles into the air! This is an amazing bit of work, given that this all required a waiver and the waiver was given by the man who benefited most from all this money coming from Beijing and other sources, President Bill Clinton. It certainly has a lot of pieces to it, Karen. Can you put them together?

Maybe with some Crazy-Glue. Matthews here completely misstates various aspects of the China missile story. First, Matthews implies that Loral, in shipping its satellite to be launched, was “selling technology” to China “to help them guide their missiles.” There is no allegation on the standard record that any such transaction was involved in the original launch; and there is certainly no allegation that Loral got a waiver to do any such thing. Sheer invention.Next, he implies that when Loral helped China after the launch, this was done with a waiver from President Clinton. No one has ever asserted this is the case; Loral, of course, is being investigated because it acted withoutgovernment knowledge. The facts here are stood on their head.The closing implication--that this conduct was related to contributions from China--is the sheerest kind of speculation. There is no evidence on the record that Clinton ever knew he was receiving money from China--and the Johnny Chung contributions to which Matthews refers came two years after the 1996 launch to which the overheated host here alludes.

One would think a journalist would be all too eager to straighten out Matthews’ various howlers. But here’s the answer reporter Tumulty gave:

TUMULTY: Well, it does have a lot of pieces. And I don’t know that anyone is ever truly going to be able to put them all together. Certainly Chris Cox, who is the head of the new special committee in the House, and who I talked to today, said, “We’re not going to get to the bottom of this.” However, the appearances are all bad...

But, one of the reasons why we aren’t going to get to the bottom of this is because front-line journalists give answers like this when confronted with counterfactual expositions like Matthews’. (And of course, the fact that journalists won’t correct such flagrant howlers helps explain why “the appearances are all bad.”) Did Socrates ever think that a press corps like this could serve as guardians of the public discourse? Whatever thoughts of that kind he may have had--well, they were put to rout when he’d turn on TV, and see Hardballplayed in this manner.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h052898_1.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Clinton did not give Loral group a waiver, he renewed a waiver given by
Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roberta Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 02:56 AM
Response to Original message
5. Chinagate, Ron Brown, Cox Report, Loran Corp, Hughes, Martin
These are only a few topics that I found for your perusal.
Also, a book concerning death of Ron Brown and description of
Clinton smile when he heard the news of Brown's death. Seems
that most of it is still secret or not openly discussed.  I
also believed the information to be open for discussion. 
Found photos, drawings. Guess they are just for discussion. My
first post, hope I don't mess it up with too much information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Too much information...what information did you provide?
All you did was throw out some names(some of which weren't even correct, it was Loral Group not Loran Corp) which for right wingers would be raw meat but here you need more than just some names...You actually need proof of your accusations, not just innuendo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. welcome to DU
Most of the items you mention were put forward by entities known to be liars. Yes, there was a whole industry trying to make something negative stick against Bill Clinton. And it was garbage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrcheerful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Thanks guys I was able to debunk them of course after debunking that lie
they tryed using "well Clinton didn't kill Bin Laden" after the Cole bombing, which I was able to quickly debunk. Thats their real problem you know, bushbots are having a hard time remembering which lie was debunked because theres so much going on. Its a wonder they don't go insane trying to remember whats what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 05:37 AM
Response to Original message
6. The GOP have always said he did. I do not know
My feeling when I heard it was that it was some Corp. selling some information for a profit. I do not have very good thought about what any one will do for a profit any more. I get the feeling with the CEO's we have read about that he would push grandmother out of her wheel chair is he thought he could make a profit on it. The age of greed is in good health
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
11. Don't forget bush's brother, Neil, lobbying his brother on behalf of..
Edited on Mon Jun-26-06 10:45 AM by Kingshakabobo
.... red china to relax tech. restrictions.......not to mention bringing home venereal disease for his wife. He got the VD from underage Chinese prostitutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC