posted February 02, 2007 03:10 PM            

Their words of retreat, surrender and withdrawal are music to terrorists ears. Not only music they love but music they use in their recruitment of more terrorists to attack our forces not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan as well.

Because these traitors are egging terrorists on, giving them the impression they can win in the Congress of the United States in a war they cannot possible win by engaging US military forces on the battlefield, giving them hope; these traitors are getting our military personnel and innocent Iraqi citizens killed as terrorists stage bombings, massacres and other atrocities in a propaganda campaign aimed straight at the American press and the rest of Congress.

The following article details another treason, treason carried out for money. Treason which gave Communist China the means to not only deliver nuclear missiles on the United States but also to shoot our defense satellites out of space.

Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and the rest of the treason crew who arranged the transfer of secret military technology to China need to pay the traitors price.

The press seems conveniently uninterested and was uninterested at the time these transfers of classified military technology secrets for campaign cash occurred.

The press is currently uninterested in the treason being committed by democrats and some republicans in Congress and in fact, the press is part of the treason, having printed details of top secret programs to identify, find, thwart and capture or kill terrorists who plan to attack the civilian population of the US...that's us, by the way.

Berger's China work makes archive heist look tame
Posted: February 2, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Jack Cashill

Two weeks back, the Chinese military shocked America by shooting one of China's aging satellites out of the sky with a ground-based missile. Old as the satellite may have been, it was still up 500 miles in space. This was a scarily impressive bit of saber rattling.

As it happens, no American played a greater role in the success of that shoot-down than the much-discussed chairman and founder of Stonebridge International, Samuel "Sandy" Berger.

I do not know whether the results pleased Berger, but I cannot imagine a better advertisement for his subsidiary, Stonebridge China. Its boast of being able to penetrate China's "central government" and "create circles of influence to champion specific business goals" was not an idle one.

Berger knows these circles well. During the Clinton years, according to the New York Times, he served as "the point man for the White House's China policy." That policy, unfortunately, had more to do with advancing Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996 than it did with advancing America's interests in the world.

By early 1996, with Dick Morris' dubious anti-Congress ads still running full tilt, President Clinton was polling 53 percent in a conceptual one-on-one against Bob Dole. A year earlier, before Morris' multi-million dollar ad campaign, Clinton was polling 33 percent in the same imagined race.

During that year, Clinton had done almost nothing presidential to merit the boost. His comeback was a tribute to the powers of unethical advertising, illicit fund-raising and a quiescent media. Observed Labor Secretary Robert Reich acidly, "The only process we have is Dick Morris."

Chief among those financing the "process" was Loral Aerospace honcho Bernard "Bernie" Schwartz, a dead-on, real-life incarnation of "Catch 22's" Milo Minderbinder.

"Maybe they did start the war," says the fictional war profiteer Minderbinder, "and maybe they are killing millions of people, but they are paying their bills a lot more promptly than some allies of ours I could name. Don't you understand that I have to respect the sanctity of my contract with Germany?"

One can hear Schwartz making an almost identical pitch to Bill Clinton. He had purchased the rights to do so. Before this election cycle was over, he would officially donate more than $630,000 in soft money to the DNC, fifty times what he had given in the last presidential election. No Democrat gave more.

In early 1996, Schwartz's money mattered. The Clintons were just beginning to smell victory. To secure it, they had to continue feeding the TV beast. They had fully ignored all FEC restrictions and were using soft money as though it were hard. Better still, the media had chosen not to see.

In February 1996, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was dispatched to New York to pick up checks from Schwartz in person. It was the president's way of signaling his obeisance. For all his failings, it disgusted Brown that Clinton had turned him into little more than a "bagman."

Schwartz did not make his donations in an informational vacuum. According to the New York Times, "February 1996" represented a moment of keen impasse between warring forces within the Clinton administration. With his generous support, Schwartz surely was hoping to breach the enemy's defenses.

The enemy in this case was his own Pentagon and intelligence community. Much to Schwartz's frustration, they were standing firm on the question of commercial satellites.

Given the vital technology contained therein, much of it secret, they had convinced Secretary of State Warren Christopher in October 1995 to keep the satellites on the so-called ''munitions list,'' an inventory of the nation's most sensitive military and intelligence-gathering equipment.

Almost immediately, Sandy Berger, then deputy national security adviser, had begun plotting to undermine Christopher. In November 1995, Berger sent a memo to Christopher's deputy and long time Clinton buddy, Strobe Talbott.

Berger claimed that Ron Brown, who "was far more sympathetic to the satellite makers," would appeal Christopher's ruling to Clinton. Clearly, Berger was setting up a paper trail that led directly to the hapless commerce secretary. He then added, as if Talbott needed to be told, ''I, too, have real questions about the wisdom'' of Christopher's decision.

Berger, a trade lawyer by profession, had no real foreign policy experience before becoming the No. 2 man on the National Security Council. Like Talbott at State and Jamie Gorelick at Justice, Berger functioned more or less as the "political officer" within his department.

Still, despite Berger's machinations, and the president's obvious support, the serious professionals within the National Security Council, State, and Defense were resisting the wholesale transfer of licensing authority for these satellites to the Commerce Department. Once moved to Commerce, the military feared it would lose veto power over exports.

The president also faced strong resistance from the genuine liberals within the administration. In the margin of a December 1995 document, for example, senior adviser George Stephanopoulos scrawled a vulgar note strongly criticizing the president's China policy.

Soon after he returned from his New York rendezvous with Schwartz, Brown learned he would be meeting – by order of the White House – with a character by the name of Wang Jun. The sheer bravado of Wang Jun's petition and the brazenness of the Clintons in welcoming him leave one awestruck.

Wang Jun chaired Poly Technologies, a company controlled by the People's Liberation Army. According to a Rand Corporation report forced from the U.S. Department of Commerce by a federal lawsuit, one of Poly Technologies' profit centers was the "importation and distribution of semi-automatic rifles for the U.S. domestic market."

Between 1987 and 1993, the company and its affiliates sold more than $200 million worth of these guns in the United States. When Clinton piously signed into law the banning of certain semi-automatic weapons in 1994, Poly Technologies only profited. They exploited export loopholes to circumvent the ban and ultimately resorted to old-fashioned smuggling.

On the day of the Wang meeting, Feb. 6, 1996, Brown did not know about Wang Jun's arms trade. Brown only knew the meeting was to be about satellite export controls.

This makes sense as Wang also owned a huge stake in a Hong Kong satellite company. Brown's task was to assure the Chinese that America intended to be a most friendly trading partner, and if Wang ever had any problems dealing with the United States, he could call Brown directly at anytime.

Brown had little choice in the matter. Later that afternoon, the White House also insisted that he join Wang at an intimate "coffee" with President Clinton. It was an only-in-America kind of moment. Wang Jun, who had cut arms deals with Chinese allies in places like Libya, Iran, Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, now found himself at a cordial private coffee with – of all people – the president of the United States.

This friendly meeting occurred less than four years after Clinton had excoriated the first President Bush for "coddling tyrants" in Beijing and conducting "business as usual with those who murdered freedom at Tiananmen Square." No matter.

Clinton pal Charlie Trie had greased the Wang Jun meeting with a $50,000 payment. To the president's humble credit, as the Thompson Committee would later report, he did admit that the meeting with the PLA arms dealer, Wang, was "clearly inappropriate."

The president did not apologize, however, for signing waivers for four more satellite launches by Chinese rockets on that same February day. The president approved these waivers despite reports the month before that China continued to export nuclear technology to Pakistan and missiles to Iran, the latter deal Wang was suspected of brokering.

Just a week or so after Wang Jun's excellent Washington adventure, a Chinese Long March 3B rocket carrying the Loral-built Intelsat 708 satellite crashed just after liftoff and killed or injured at least 60 people in a nearby village. This was the third Long March failure in the last three years involving U.S.-built satellite payloads.

The Pentagon welcomed the news of the Chinese failure. With the collapse of the Soviets, the People's Republic had emerged as America's most serious potential enemy, and its leaders weren't afraid to say so.

Just a few months earlier, in fact, a Chinese Military officer had warned American Ambassador Chas Freeman, "If you hit us now, we can hit back. So you will not make those threats [about Taiwan]." The officer then proffered the following not so cryptic caveat: "In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei."

American technical advice was making these Chinese boasts more than an empty threat. And yet in their relentless drive to raise money, the Clintons were fully prepared to broker that advice. In March 1996, Berger pressed on and managed to finesse a compromise that sent satellite control to Brown at Commerce and cost the Pentagon its veto power.

According to the Times, which reviewed thousands of pages of unclassified documents, the deal was closed in a series of telephone calls involving Berger, Talbott, Brown and John White, the deputy defense secretary. Tellingly, the Times' review "found no indication that Mr. Christopher was personally involved in the president's decision."

On March 12, 1996, the president signed off on a "decision memorandum" that reversed Christopher's decision and awarded authority over satellite-export licensing to Commerce. Said an attached memo, ''Industry should like the fact that they will deal with the more 'user friendly' Commerce system.''

Feeling confident about his relationship with the president, Schwartz up and dispatched a Loral-led review team to China to assess the February 1996 failure of the Long March 3B rocket and suggest refinements.

The Cox Committee would later describe Schwartz's actions as "an unlicensed defense service for the PRC that resulted in the improvement of the reliability of the PRC's military rockets and ballistic missiles."

So serious was the offense that in 1998 the Criminal Division of the Justice Department launched an investigation. Incredibly, while the investigation was in process, Berger, now national security adviser, sent a memo to the president urging him to "waive the legislative restriction on the export to China of the communications satellites and related equipment for the Space Systems/Loral (SS/L) Chinasat 8 project."

This waiver would present a huge problem for the prosecution. Berger admitted as much: "Justice believes that a jury would not convict once it learned that the president had found SS/L's Chinasat 8 project to be in the national interest."

But Berger was not about to let that stop him: "We will take the firm position that this waiver does not exonerate or in any way prejudge SS/L with respect to its prior unauthorized transfers to China." Berger was blowing smoke, and he knew it. A waiver would make prosecution all but impossible.

The president could only issue a waiver, however, if it served America's "national interest." Berger made an almost comically specious case that it did, arguing satellite technology would give remote Chinese villagers access "to people and ideas in democratic societies." During these misbegotten years, one trembles at what the villagers might have learned about American democracy.

For its part, Loral had no greater cause than its own bottom line. "If a decision is not forthcoming in the next day or so, we stand to lose the contract," Loral lobbyist Thomas Ross wrote Berger. "In fact, even if the decision is favorable, we will lose substantial amounts of money with each passing day."

So much for the national interest. Ross then added the kicker, sure to win the president's heart. "Bernard Schwartz had intended to raise this issue with you at the Blair dinner, but missed you in the crowd." Schwartz knew he had a friend in the White House. The president approved the waiver, and the prosecution came to naught.

This story merits its own book, but what deserves immediate comment is the willingness of Berger and the Clintons to risk everything to keep the cash pipeline open. In his purloining of the National Archives, Berger risked everything once again. He and the Clintons have apparently come to take the major media's complicity for granted.

As for Schwartz, he kept the cash pipeline open and full. Before he was through, Schwartz and Loral would donate roughly $2 million to the Clinton cause. Whether Schwartz gave additional money or favors off the books is a question that deserves asking. Before his untimely death in April 1996, Brown was reporting that he had.

Wang Jun ran into problems of his own when on May 23, 1996, CNN breathlessly reported "the largest seizure of smuggled automatic weapons in U.S. history." The San Francisco Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms had infiltrated a smuggling ring and confiscated 2,000 fully automatic AK-47 rifles imported from China.

The weapons were found on board a COSCO ship, the enterprise that had been trying to secure the Long Beach Naval Station. CNN traced the rifles to Wang's Poly Technologies.

Wang, however, had not wasted his investment. Someone in the know did the arms merchant a large favor by leaking the news of the BATF gun-smuggling investigation well before it was wrapped up. The Bay-area bust was premature. The BATF was not able to nail the operation's ringleaders. Like Sandy Berger himself, Wang Jun was freed up for further mischief.

We may never know what Berger stole from the National Archives or how much damage he did to the nation's battle against Islamic terrorists.

posted February 02, 2007 03:25 PM              

at any cost, greed

posted February 02, 2007 05:35 PM            

The CSPAN study named Clinton the most corrupt President in American history.

On the other hand, not everyone is corrupt. Most people are not. Some politicians are not but they're becomming more rare every election cycle.

posted February 03, 2007 01:25 AM            

Oh, and that CSPAN study was conducted by historians. It wasn't a call in poll. Further, they took a year to complete the study.

posted February 03, 2007 03:10 AM              

t's no secret democrats in Congress and some republicans are and have been giving aid and comfort to our enemies who are attempting to overthrow the duly elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Their words of retreat, surrender and withdrawal are music to terrorists ears. Not only music they love but music they use in their recruitment of more terrorists to attack our forces not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan as well.

jwhop- seriously- i read your posts, because its interesting the way you present your points...

but this sounds like FOX News. Do you really talk like this? It reads like a propaganda movie from the 1950s....

posted February 03, 2007 06:04 AM              

jwhop, didn't we settle that Commander Coruption nonsense a while back?

posted February 03, 2007 10:57 PM              

and the headline was, Hillary Clinton
promises to end the war in Iraq, IF,
she is elected. ...

posted February 04, 2007 08:52 AM              

quote:

---

The CSPAN study named Clinton the most corrupt President in American history.

---

posted February 05, 2007 01:04 AM            

TINK, refresh my memory. I don't remember any controversy over the CSPAN study or anything I said about it.

Corrupt:
Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.

not straight; dishonest or immoral or evasive

corrupt morally or by intemperance or sensuality

quote:

---

MK personally, I secretly believe jwhop to be a reincarnated Soviet propaganda minister.

---

BTW, that's pretty insulting.

Here's the links to the study.

posted February 09, 2007 03:39 PM            

The Democrats in the Congress have decided to allow access to the intelligence in which your identity is either made explicit or from which it could be deduced.

We are sorry that the Democrats have no grasp of the danger in which they are putting you, or if they do have that grasp, no concern for you, your family members, or the continuing effort to bring stability to Iraq.

We can predict with great certainty that some of the 435 Members will read the report and intend to say nothing, but that they will bleat out something or other at some point.

We are also certain that some will return from the secure office with the ink still fresh on their secrecy pledge, and dial up any reporter they can find if they figure out that there's a way to damage the Adminstration in the process.

If you are, for example, somewhere in the Mahdi Army and you have expressed to us certainty of Sadr's willingness to pretend to cooperate with the government for the time being, that will spill out quickly, and possibly the sort of clues that the Iranian intelligence services will use to put the finger on you.

If you are close to the al Qaeda fanatics and have given us a tip from time to time, well, let's hope that level of detail didn't make it into the NIE. Of course we have always assumed the classified versions of the NIE would be well protected, so in the past we have been expansive in the discussions to assure we wouldn't get blamed for cherry-picking again.

Hard luck, I know. I can't tell you what's in there, but someone in Congress almost certainly will. Keep in mind some of these folks were never a threat to win the spelling bee.

If you had thought of coming over our way, we'd still like to have you on our side, which is the side that remains opposed to blowing up innocents with car bombs. But we have to retract our pledges to you of secrecy and concern for your life and the lives of your families.

posted February 09, 2007 04:37 PM            

They get angry with wiretapping (which is conducted only after there is ample evidence of ties to a potential terrorist organization) BUT.. hey, no worries about spilling the beans.

posted February 09, 2007 05:10 PM            

democrats do however have a real problem with the NSA listening in on conversations between terrorists plotting to attack the United States and kill American citizens.

So, if democrats don't care about the lives of Americans, it stands to reason they would have less regard for the lives of those who help our military operations in Iraq.

Either way, they give actual aid to our enemies....just as they have beginning with the Vietnam War.

These are some really sick puppies. A very reasonable and logical question to ask democrats would be..."who are you really protecting"?

posted February 10, 2007 11:33 AM              

I'm quite certain we engaged in a lively debate over the "Commander Coruption" label. I think Petron might have been involved as well. I'll see if I can't track it down. I was under the impression Petron and I won the battle. How silly of me.

quote:

---

These are some really sick puppies. A very reasonable and logical question to ask democrats would be..."who are you really protecting"?

---

Good question. The Constitution? The Republic? Balance of Power?

Sic semper tyrannis!

posted February 11, 2007 11:37 PM            

That the United States is an oppressor whom God has doomed.

Not one democrat stood up and denounced this terrorist supporting jerk who insulted their nation.

democrats continue to prove they are unfit to serve in any capacity in the government of the United States. They are utterly contemptible.

Democrats and the Company They Keep
David Limbaugh
Friday, Feb. 9, 2007

Memo to the national Democratic Party: Having a reputedly Hezbollah-supporting imam lead you in a Muslim-based spiritual and political prayer does not support your contentions that your values better reflect true Christianity than those of Republicans and that you support the troops.

Democrats invited Imam Husham Al-Husainy of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn, Mich., to pray at their annual winter meeting in Washington. Columnist Debbie Schlussel has reported that last summer this same imam led "almost-daily protests of thousands of Hezbollah supporters on the streets of Dearborn and Detroit, swarming with swastikas and anti-Semitic, anti-American signs."

Though other commentators have also addressed this, I am surprised it hasn't drawn more attention, and, frankly, more outrage.

It is beyond belief that one of the two major parties in the United States would embrace a person who has openly rooted for terrorists and condemned Jews and America.

To the untrained ear, or the Democrat apologist, Al-Husainy's prayer might have sounded inclusive and innocuous. Husainy's prayer included these words, "We thank you, God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammad. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us, God, to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Amen."

Democratic commentator Geraldine Ferraro and Fox News' Alan Colmes seemed determined to characterize these words as completely inoffensive and the type that might have been delivered at any Catholic Church on Sunday morning. But according to some with a bit more background in these matters, like author Robert Spencer, the words were hardly inclusive or tolerant.

As Spencer, and Cal Thomas have noted, Al-Husainy was surely expressing the Muslim belief that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad were all Muslim prophets "and that the followers of Moses and Jesus corrupted their teachings to create Judaism and Christianity."

I am certainly not offended by a Muslim imam promoting the exclusive truth claims of the religion he practices. I would expect him to believe in the superiority of the creeds of his religion. Contrary to the commonly accepted nostrums of political correctness, almost all religions — and several non-religious worldviews — have exclusive truth claims. But I do believe it is noteworthy that many secular liberal Democrats selectively decry the Christians' exclusive truth claims as intolerant and exclusive, while giving the proponents of other religions and worldviews a pass. And they wonder why they have difficulty attracting "values voters."

How about the political implications of the imam's prayer? Ferraro copped the intellectually indefensible position that the imam could have been referring to any war or any oppression. "He may have been talking about Darfur. He might about talking about [unintelligible]. He might have been talking about what's going on in Afghanistan . . . Talk about oppression? He may have been talking about China and Korea."

Since many Democrats have referred to Americans as "occupiers" in Iraq or the Israelis as occupiers of Palestine, perhaps they were not uncomfortable with the imam's words. But one thing is for sure: The former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro knows that in referring to "the war" the imam was not talking about Darfur.

In referring to "oppression and occupation" he was either talking about America, Israel, or both.

The upshot of this is that Democrats were joined in prayer with a Muslim spiritual leader who at the very least sympathizes with the terrorist group "Hezbollah," who was characterizing the United States or its ally, Israel, or both, as an oppressor and occupier, and who, evidently, was affirming the Muslims' exclusive truth claims. Was the imam not — right in front of the Democrats' noses — rooting for our enemies?

Were Democrats not bothered upon realizing they had given this imam a platform to seek guidance from Allah to follow "the path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom?" Any guesses as to which groups are blessed and which are doomed under this formulation?

Is this the type of spiritual message with which Democrats want to identify?

Can you imagine what kind of hell there would be to pay if a Christian pastor were invited to a Republican meeting and delivered a similarly pointed spiritual and political prayer?

posted February 12, 2007 09:13 AM            

******

Those articles were really disturbing, btw, jwhop.

posted February 12, 2007 01:26 PM            

They are contemptible back stabbing traitors who are pulling out all the stops to insure an American defeat in Iraq.

Nothing Short of Defeat
Posted: February 12, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

This past week in our nation's capitol holds the record for the lowest form of politics ever played out in our 231-year history. If I hear one more time, ''We support the troops, we don't support the mission,'' I am going to scream and strangle something or someone. I can't take it anymore!

Think of the misguided logic to even make such a statement, no less expect anyone above a third grader to believe it. This would be akin to a coach telling his team in the locker room, ''I believe in you guys but I don't believe you have the ability to win the game ... now go out there and get 'em!'' I can only imagine how well that team would do. Thankfully the troops serving this nation heroically know better. They realize the tripe coming out of the mouths of the left is putrid politics in its worst form.

Self-esteem is an obsession with the left. So much so the left has no problem graduating high school students who can't read, write or even speak English as long as they have ''self-esteem.'' I only wish the war critics on the left were as concerned with the self-esteem and morale of the troops. Instead, the message from the left over and over again is that our troops are unable to win. Now don't get the left wrong – they support the troops, but they can't win. What absolute hogwash.

Be clear on one point about this war. The left will be satisfied with nothing short of defeat. But remember, they support the troops. The left demanded Rumsfeld's head on a platter, they got it. The called for a change in plan, they got it. They have been calling for an increase in troops, they got it. Yet even when they get exactly what they demand, we see zero support from the left. They confirmed General Petraeus unanimously for a mission they think will fail? That is sick. Talk about Bush sending troops to a no-win situation. What about the cowards masquerading as senators sending Petraeus into a theater that ''we can't win?''

It is time the senators of this nation stand up and be counted. If there are senators who truly believe we cannot win this war, than they should put their vote where their mouth is. On both sides of the aisle. Chuck Hagel and company need to stop talking and start voting. If this isn't just politics, then vote to cut off funds to the war. The president will then be given no choice but to bring the troops home in defeat. Otherwise, give the president and the troops the support to do all they can to make this new plan with new leaders and more troops a success. Isn't that what critics asked for? New secretary of defense – check. New plan – check. New leaders in the field – check. Sufficient troops to secure Baghdad – check. They got it all.

The left has learned from the November elections that ownership of the White House depends on the outcome of the war. If America is successful in Iraq the political landscape shifts dramatically. Democrats control both the House and the Senate and will not stop politicking until they have the White House. They appear drunk with the prospect as the media drools over Grandma Speaker Pelosi, Mother Gaia herself, redeemer of the Earth, Hillary Rodham Clinton and the new JFK – Barak Obama. Candidates like Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich or even the dog catcher are better than Bush in the minds of George Soros and the radical left. They are willing to spend the cash to prove it.

The Democratic left is now joined with certain voices from the Republican right saying the troops can't win. They support them, but they can't win. Really? I would like to see one of these spineless politicians go to Bagram Airbase or the Green Zone and tell the troops to their faces – ''You can't win.'' They would be booed off the stage so fast it would make even these shameless wimps blush. Our troops can win and they want to win. They live, die and have shed blood, to secure the peace and bring freedom to people who have lived under the oppression of a dictator. Our troops put their money where their mouths are every day of the week. So why not demand the same from the senators? The only solid, unchanging voice of support they ever get is from the head coach, George W. Bush. We have never heard him say we can't win. He knows the capability of the American military. He supports his troops and has done so when many other politicians have succumbed to pressure. His is a leader. He could care less for airtime on NBC or column space at the L.A. Times. Can Hillary or Teddy say the same?

If we truly support the troops our leaders would allow and even encourage our military men and women to use the skills they have been taught and the equipment they have been supplied with to bring peace to Iraq. Our troops have to know we believe in them. We believe in the mission. We believe in the ability of the volunteer troops to serve the country. We believe in success. We know some mistakes will be made but we will assume the best of our troops and not the worst. The left assumes the worst every time. The troops never get the benefit of the doubt from the left. The left would rather assume the civil rights of a terrorist as more important than the troops. My Lord, do they really loathe the military that much?