what caused Kosovo?

Question:

Compliance with what? I already demonstrated that the Rambouillet document was drawn in BAD FAITH. There’s nothing you can do to dispute that. So bad faith of Clinton et al is established.

Well, you cited one interpretation of it, much of which I agree with. However, I really don’t think it was so much bad faith as over estimation of their own power and wanting to force a settlement on their own terms. In that sense it was bad faith, I guess, but I think they thought it would work. You read their motives in a worse light than I do, but even if I’m right and the motives weren’t as bad, that still doesn’t justify what’s been done. : But their goal was to stop it before it started, On the surface, your statement is absurd. "Their goal was to stop something that didn’t exist?" I simply cannot take seriously this sort of reasoning.

But it is accurate — they wanted to stop what they feared would be a repeat of Bosnia. That is certainly the logic used to convince the NATO allies. They argued that in Bosnia they waited too long, they wouldn’t make the same mistake again. Again, more incompetent than evil. : and I really think they believed they were going to do that. And I have trouble believing you’re serious in coming up with such absurd rationalizations.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. That is precisely the rationale used in Europe (I know people in German politics, and they privately are very upset with the US, but publically they feel a need to support NATO and they truly agreed to this because they felt they could stop another ethnic cleansing like what happened in Bosnia before it started. You may find the reasoning absurd, but it really was the reasoning). : They didn’t — they caused it, and now they can’t : bring themselves to backing down and admitting an error, which I consider : immoral. You’re asking me to believe that Clinton et al are total and complete morons. Sorry, I’m not persuaded. So bad faith is a more logical explanation.

Given how this has turned into a catastrophe for the Clinton administration and the foreign policy team is in dissarray as this has been nothing like what they expected, I still tend to see it as hubris and an over estimation of power. After all, in retrospect Reagan and North look like morons in Iran-Contra, Johnson and McNamara look like morons in Vietnam…history is littered with fiascos coming from groupthink, hubris, and over confidence. Just keep in mind that KLA insurgency in Kosovo was financed and encouraged by the West right from the beginning. As if any more proof of bad faith is needed…

I don’t think they really trust the KLA (though Clinton is more likely than the Europeans to consider arming the KLA an option; they won’t ultimately do it because the Europeans will veto that. The Germans were angry when some NATO weapons got captured in Italy en route to the KLA — many do suspect a US-Brit attempt to help the KLA). You seem uninformed. The German conservative politicians already criticised SDP for being too docile with NATO. They will not support ground war.

The right is mostly pro-NATO and pro-US, as I’ve been following it. I don’t think hardly anyone in Germany would support a ground war though! Only the Brits really seem to want that. Your statement does not reflect reality. Germany was the one who was ahead of everyone else trying to destabilize and break up Yugoslavia. You’re uninformed.

The more you say "you’re uninformed," the more it appears you want to win a debate by bluster rather than arguments. My dissertation looked at German policy in depth during the Serbo-Croatian conflict, focusing on the decision to recognize Slovenia and Croatia. I’m now beginning a major research project to look at German foreign policy towards Yugoslavia in the last ten years. I think the Germans were correct that Croatia and Slovenia could not remain part of Yugoslavia, and were recognizing the inevitable by late 1991. The Serb anti-German propaganda (fourth Reich and all that stuff) was just silly. Abject betrayal by the Greens of their fundamental principles is a separate subject. They simply hopped on the neofascist bandwagon that is already going full speed in Germany. This time the Serbs take the place of the Jews as the target group for hatred.

I see no sign of that at all, beware of anti-German racism. Indeed, the German Greens and SPD are split on the issue, and determined to exercise damage control with Russia after this is over. They are not happy with how the policy has unfolded. Obviously you missed a lot.

Again, such bluster seems an attempt to try to argue by insult rather than make points. It isn’t too impressive. : … the ability to "wag the dog" : is very meager. Many people will disagree with you.

Many people disagree with you too. Again, Clinton’s bad faith is clear — and this is the key to what’s going on. It really seems to me like he chose to sacrifice thousands of lives in Europe, to destroy the whole country, to destabilize the region, and to push the world to the brink of WWIII for the sake of his domestic political survival.

Yet his approval ratings have decreased dramatically because of this, and in terms of domestic policy this is a loser for him. ciao, scott

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (Scott D. Erb) made the following submissions: 28 Democrats today sent a letter to the President calling for a 72 hour bombing pause, making the sensible argument that this will show whether the Serbs are saying the truth when they say its the bombing that makes a negotiated settlement hard to find. Having followed this thread for a while – such a pleasure to read proper discussion amongst all the huff and puff that this war is creating – what is your view of the suggestion that NATO does not *want* a negotiated settlement of this affair? It does appear odd to me that, just when the prospects of such a settlement have appeared to be highest, something has happened to muddy the water, and cause that prospect to recede. For example, the bombing of the Chinese embassy (based on "out of date maps" – maps which would (it has been said) have showed parkland at that spot before the embassy was built) ended talks of the Security Council agreeing a peacekeeping force for Kosovo. Likewise, the reluctance to pause bombing even for one day,so as to "call his bluff", when Milosovec claims to be ready to pull his troops out. Likewise, just as the Russians manage to get an agreement approved "in principle", along comes an indictment against Yugoslavia’s leaders for war crimes: which *may* prevent negotiations between NATO and Yugoslavia. It is possible that NATO has taken the view that, having become embroiled in this mess, their credibility would not be restored by anything other than an unconditional surrender to the "non-negotiable demands of the international community" (Jamie Shea’s words at today’s conference.)

I think you’ve put your finger on it, Marc. There was also the US bombing of the convoy which put paid to the German peace proposal early in the war. In both WW1 and WW2 Britain and America demanded ‘unconditional surrender’, which led to hundreds of thousands more deaths. — Terry – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Or, the other word he used, Gotterdamerung. —

Response:

Who are the true war criminals in Kosovo? They are those member countries of NATO that armed and encouraged bloody KLA insurgency from the very beginning. Primarily Germany and the US. They created a war where there was none. KLA committed many crimes not only against the Serb civilians, but also against those Kosovo Albanians who were opposed to violence.

Utter crap. NATO never encouraged the KLA at all – and no wonder: the KLA is a classic Maoist guerrilla organisation which aims at a one party state and is thus exactly what the West doesn’t want for the region. If Milosevic hadn’t sent in the psychopaths they would never have had much support among the ethnic Albanians and would have had no more chance of taking control than, e.g. the IRA had of controlling Northern Ireland. — Every journey starts with an argument about directions -red dwarf

Response:

Here’s my reply to your earlier post, Scott. : : Compliance with what? I already demonstrated that the Rambouillet document : was drawn in BAD FAITH. There’s nothing you can do to dispute that. So bad : faith of Clinton et al is established. : : Well, you cited one interpretation of it, much of which I agree with. : However, I really don’t think it was so much bad faith as over estimation of : their own power and wanting to force a settlement on their own terms. Well, this is a matter of opinion. : In that : sense it was bad faith, I guess, but I think they thought it would work. You : read their motives in a worse light than I do, but even if I’m right and the : motives weren’t as bad, that still doesn’t justify what’s been done. In my books, choosing war over dimplomacy is the very essence of bad faith. … : Just keep in mind that KLA insurgency in Kosovo was financed and : encouraged by the West right from the beginning. As if any more proof of : bad faith is needed… : : I don’t think they really trust the KLA (though Clinton is more likely than : the Europeans to consider arming the KLA an option; You’re uninformed. There’s plenty of evidence that Germany is arming KLA. : they won’t ultimately do : it because the Europeans will veto that. You’re uninformed. : The Germans were angry when some : NATO weapons got captured in Italy en route to the KLA This is pretty dumb… Those weapons were seized by Italy, because Italy doesn’t want this war. But the weapons were shipped under the cover of a German Catholic charity! You got it all backwards, Scott. : Your statement does not reflect reality. Germany was the one who was ahead : of everyone else trying to destabilize and break up Yugoslavia. You’re : uninformed. : : The more you say "you’re uninformed," the more it appears you want to win a : debate by bluster rather than arguments. The more uninformed statements you make, the more you appear uninformed. : My dissertation looked at German : policy in depth during the Serbo-Croatian conflict, focusing on the decision : to recognize Slovenia and Croatia. I’m now beginning a major research project : to look at German foreign policy towards Yugoslavia in the last ten years. Well, in such a case, I’m really surprised by the things you’re saying. : I think the : Germans were correct that Croatia and Slovenia could not remain part : of Yugoslavia, and were recognizing the inevitable by late 1991. I disagree. I think there was absolutely no need to break up Yugoslavia. The responsibility for all the slaughter in Yugoslavia should rest mainly on Germany. German neofascism did it again. : Abject betrayal by the Greens of their fundamental principles is a : separate subject. They simply hopped on the neofascist bandwagon that is : already going full speed in Germany. This time the Serbs take the place of : the Jews as the target group for hatred. : : I see no sign of that at all, Obviously you missed a lot. : beware of anti-German racism. Yes, I am. But at the same time, I see new German fascism emerging in the way Serbs are demonized by German press. : Indeed, the : German Greens and SPD are split on the issue, and determined to exercise : damage control with Russia after this is over. They are not happy with how : the policy has unfolded. This is just a way for the Germans to pass off their historical guilt to someone else. Germany is again being the villan in the Balkans, in my view. … : Again, Clinton’s bad faith is clear — and this is the key to what’s going : on. It really seems to me like he chose to sacrifice thousands of lives in : Europe, to destroy the whole country, to destabilize the region, and to : push the world to the brink of WWIII for the sake of his domestic : political survival. : : Yet his approval ratings have decreased dramatically because of this, and in : terms of domestic policy this is a loser for him. : ciao, scott Regards, Yuri. "One can traverse Africa, from the Red Sea in the northeast to the southwestern Atlantic coast, and never step on peaceful territory. … Although formidable commitments are being made in the Balkans, where white Europeans are involved, no such concerted efforts are being made by leaders outside of Africa to resolve the disputes. This gives the strong impression of racism."–JIMMY CARTER in The New York Times. May 27, 1999. http://www.antiwar.com http://www.iacenter.org http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/kosovo.htm http://www.prorev.com/ http://www.motherjones.com/total_coverage/kosovo/ http://www.transnational.org/ About earlier Yugoslavian conflicts — were American intentions in this area always humanitarian? Also, a prophecy from Cato Institute came true, http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/tragedy.htm http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/wk2balkans.html http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-db031099.html Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku Oh, what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to believe

Response:

: : : : The Serb : : anti-German propaganda (fourth Reich and all that stuff) was just silly. : : I think you’re being silly, Scott. What about this? : : (Hint: this was not written by a Serb.) : : "The current campaign to demonize the Serbs began in July 1991 with a : virulent barrage of articles in the German media, led by the influential : conservative newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). : : The thing is, the German analysis was right. ??? Assertion is not an argument, Scott. : I was living in Germany at the : time, comparing German analysis of the events with that of other European and : American sources. And so? : If people had listened to Germany sooner, perhaps a better : policy could have been devised. ??? : I’m completely opposed to the NATO action, but I’m taking a simplistic "if one : side is good the other side is bad" and vice-versa approach. Well, at least you’re honest in admitting your silliness! Balkan quaqmire can never be understood in such simplistic terms, of course. : There’s blame to go around. You’re now waking up from your slumber, it seems… : And, of course, the Serb propaganda was pretty ridiculous at time, Genscher : with a Hitler moustache and all of that. Serb propaganda may well be ridiculous, but this is NOT an argument for accepting NATO propaganda lock stock and barrel. : Milosevic is an asshole. Possible. : Tudjman is too. Ditto. Who are the true war criminals in Kosovo? They are those member countries of NATO that armed and encouraged bloody KLA insurgency from the very beginning. Primarily Germany and the US. They created a war where there was none. KLA committed many crimes not only against the Serb civilians, but also against those Kosovo Albanians who were opposed to violence. http://www.antiwar.com http://www.iacenter.org http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/kosovo.htm http://www.prorev.com/ http://www.motherjones.com/total_coverage/kosovo/ http://www.transnational.org/ About earlier Yugoslavian conflicts — were American intentions in this area always humanitarian? Also, a prophecy from Cato Institute came true, http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/tragedy.htm http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/wk2balkans.html http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-db031099.html Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku Oh, what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to believe

Response:

(kjc) made the following submissions: It appears the longer the conflict goes on and the more Yugo is weakened, Nato is taking an increasingly tougher line.

Indeed. — A freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault, but after the manner of the fault, and for a great fault after the greatness thereof.

Response:

(Scott Erb) made the following submissions: Pride goes before destruction, and NATO (and especially US) hubris on this issue is going to have profound, long term, implications. I still think they’ve blundered into something that they can’t control, and they are reacting by trying to fight to maintain credibility rather than deal with reality and act morally or legally.

I couldn’t have put it any better myself. — A freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault, but after the manner of the fault, and for a great fault after the greatness thereof.

Response:

(Scott D. Erb) made the following submissions: Having followed this thread for a while – such a pleasure to read proper discussion amongst all the huff and puff that this war is creating – what is your view of the suggestion that NATO does not *want* a negotiated settlement of this affair?

Quite likely. It appears the longer the conflict goes on and the more Yugo is weakened, Nato is taking an increasingly tougher line. kjc

Response:

The thing is, the German analysis was right. I was living in Germany at the time, comparing German analysis of the events with that of other European and American sources. If people had listened to Germany sooner, perhaps a better policy could have been devised. I’m completely opposed to the NATO action, but I’m taking a simplistic "if one side is good the other side is bad" and vice-versa approach. There’s blame to go around. And, of course, the Serb propaganda was pretty ridiculous at time, Genscher with a Hitler moustache and all of that. Milosevic is an asshole. Tudjman is too. The Serb attacks on Kosovars are human rights violations, so are NATO attacks on Yugoslavia.

Response:

Yes, i would have to agree with you. I view this Nato attitude as a rather outdated almost childish stance. kjc

Response:

Sense and truth at last. Thank you both so much. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Having followed this thread for a while – such a pleasure to read proper discussion amongst all the huff and puff that this war is creating – what is your view of the suggestion that NATO does not *want* a negotiated settlement of this affair? NATO is, in my opinion, less concerned with the plight of the Kosovars than with NATO credibility and the idea that if the war isn’t seen as a true victory, it will damage American credibility, the future of NATO, and Clinton’s legacy. That’s why I think NATO has no moral highground here. They are acting in terms of power games and abstract goals, rather than with true humanitarian ideals in mind. Thus they are simply issuing ultimatums, and refusing to negotiate. I disagree with Yuri’s claims about NATO intentions and the suggestion this was all an anti-Serb plot, but agree that at this point NATO is acting immorally and should stop the war. It does appear odd to me that, just when the prospects of such a settlement have appeared to be highest, something has happened to muddy the water, and cause that prospect to recede. Yes — though I suppose that if they did want to agree to a settlement they could do this first to say, in essence, OK, we may settle but you personally have been branded and we’ll get you sooner or later. I doubt that though — I suspect that this is a way to try to make it hard for the Germans, Italians and others to force NATO to back down. For example, the bombing of the Chinese embassy (based on "out of date maps" – maps which would (it has been said) have showed parkland at that spot before the embassy was built) ended talks of the Security Council agreeing a peacekeeping force for Kosovo. Likewise, the reluctance to pause bombing even for one day,so as to "call his bluff", when Milosovec claims to be ready to pull his troops out. I don’t think bombing the Chinese embassy was intentional, I do think NATO had a part in getting the indictment handed down when it did. Likewise, just as the Russians manage to get an agreement approved "in principle", along comes an indictment against Yugoslavia’s leaders for war crimes: which *may* prevent negotiations between NATO and Yugoslavia. The Russians are playing the game well, I think. They are going to come out of this on top, and probably be able to forge better links with the Germans and Europeans. US policy is destroying American credibility and any moral high ground the US might claim. I don’t think they realize this yet, this is going to make the US a much weaker power. It is possible that NATO has taken the view that, having become embroiled in this mess, their credibility would not be restored by anything other than an unconditional surrender to the "non-negotiable demands of the international community" (Jamie Shea’s words at today’s conference.) Yeah, smilin’ Jamie always pisses me off. I don’t even watch any more, its propaganda. Or, the other word he used, Gotterdamerung. Pride goes before destruction, and NATO (and especially US) hubris on this issue is going to have profound, long term, implications. I still think they’ve blundered into something that they can’t control, and they are reacting by trying to fight to maintain credibility rather than deal with reality and act morally or legally. ciao, scott

Response:

: The Serb : anti-German propaganda (fourth Reich and all that stuff) was just silly. I think you’re being silly, Scott. What about this? (Hint: this was not written by a Serb.) "The current campaign to demonize the Serbs began in July 1991 with a virulent barrage of articles in the German media, led by the influential conservative newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). In almost daily columns, FAZ editor Johann Georg Reism|ller justified the freshly, and illegally, declared "independence" of Slovenia and Croatia by describing "the Yugo-Serbs" as essentially Oriental "militarist Bolsheviks" who have "no place in the European Community". Nineteen months after German reunification, and for the first time since Hitler’s defeat in 1945, German media resounded with condemnation of an entire ethnic group reminiscent of the pre-war propaganda against the Jews [8]". http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/grattan_healy/johnston.htm I’ll deal with some of the other points you’ve raised later. Ciao, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices -=O=- William James

Response:

NATO is, in my opinion, less concerned with the plight of the Kosovars than with NATO credibility and the idea that if the war isn’t seen as a true victory, it will damage American credibility, the future of NATO, and Clinton’s legacy. That’s why I think NATO has no moral highground here. They are acting in terms of power games and abstract goals, rather than with true humanitarian ideals in mind. Thus they are simply issuing ultimatums, and refusing to negotiate. I disagree with Yuri’s claims about NATO intentions and the suggestion this was all an anti-Serb plot, but agree that at this point NATO is acting immorally and should stop the war. It does appear odd to me that, just when the prospects of such a settlement have appeared to be highest, something has happened to muddy the water, and cause that prospect to recede.

Yes — though I suppose that if they did want to agree to a settlement they could do this first to say, in essence, OK, we may settle but you personally have been branded and we’ll get you sooner or later. I doubt that though — I suspect that this is a way to try to make it hard for the Germans, Italians and others to force NATO to back down. For example, the bombing of the Chinese embassy (based on "out of date maps" – maps which would (it has been said) have showed parkland at that spot before the embassy was built) ended talks of the Security Council agreeing a peacekeeping force for Kosovo. Likewise, the reluctance to pause bombing even for one day,so as to "call his bluff", when Milosovec claims to be ready to pull his troops out.

I don’t think bombing the Chinese embassy was intentional, I do think NATO had a part in getting the indictment handed down when it did. Likewise, just as the Russians manage to get an agreement approved "in principle", along comes an indictment against Yugoslavia’s leaders for war crimes: which *may* prevent negotiations between NATO and Yugoslavia.

The Russians are playing the game well, I think. They are going to come out of this on top, and probably be able to forge better links with the Germans and Europeans. US policy is destroying American credibility and any moral high ground the US might claim. I don’t think they realize this yet, this is going to make the US a much weaker power. It is possible that NATO has taken the view that, having become embroiled in this mess, their credibility would not be restored by anything other than an unconditional surrender to the "non-negotiable demands of the international community" (Jamie Shea’s words at today’s conference.)

Yeah, smilin’ Jamie always pisses me off. I don’t even watch any more, its propaganda. Or, the other word he used, Gotterdamerung.

Pride goes before destruction, and NATO (and especially US) hubris on this issue is going to have profound, long term, implications. I still think they’ve blundered into something that they can’t control, and they are reacting by trying to fight to maintain credibility rather than deal with reality and act morally or legally. ciao, scott

Response:

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was sharply critical of the US bombing of Yugoslavia. It is rare when a former President criticizes a current President involving military action; rarer still is the former President from the same party. Presdient Carter is above partisan politics, however, he speaks on principles. 28 Democrats today sent a letter to the President calling for a 72 hour bombing pause, making the sensible argument that this will show whether the Serbs are saying the truth when they say its the bombing that makes a negotiated settlement hard to find. After all, the current policy is a fiasco.

Response:

(Scott D. Erb) made the following submissions: 28 Democrats today sent a letter to the President calling for a 72 hour bombing pause, making the sensible argument that this will show whether the Serbs are saying the truth when they say its the bombing that makes a negotiated settlement hard to find.

Having followed this thread for a while – such a pleasure to read proper discussion amongst all the huff and puff that this war is creating – what is your view of the suggestion that NATO does not *want* a negotiated settlement of this affair? It does appear odd to me that, just when the prospects of such a settlement have appeared to be highest, something has happened to muddy the water, and cause that prospect to recede. For example, the bombing of the Chinese embassy (based on "out of date maps" – maps which would (it has been said) have showed parkland at that spot before the embassy was built) ended talks of the Security Council agreeing a peacekeeping force for Kosovo. Likewise, the reluctance to pause bombing even for one day,so as to "call his bluff", when Milosovec claims to be ready to pull his troops out. Likewise, just as the Russians manage to get an agreement approved "in principle", along comes an indictment against Yugoslavia’s leaders for war crimes: which *may* prevent negotiations between NATO and Yugoslavia. It is possible that NATO has taken the view that, having become embroiled in this mess, their credibility would not be restored by anything other than an unconditional surrender to the "non-negotiable demands of the international community" (Jamie Shea’s words at today’s conference.) Or, the other word he used, Gotterdamerung. — A freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault, but after the manner of the fault, and for a great fault after the greatness thereof.

Response:

Greetings, Could it be really be? Can a case be really made that this obscene Balkan war represents yet another WAG THE DOG situation? Let’s see what sort of a connection can be made between the decision to start bombing on March 24, 1999 (could it be that future historians will see this as the day the WWIII started?), with the espionage crisis in Washington. And for this, a brief perusal of the NEW YORK TIMES, the flagship newspaper of the American ruling class should suffice. Those people who don’t follow key national media outlets such as this may think such speculations are far-fetched. I don’t blame them, really. Indeed, there was a strange gap in the last few months between what NYT and WASHINGTON POST reported, and what all the rest of the media, especially the TV networks, chose to focus upon. It is not the time now to speculate why there was such a gap, but a gap there surely was. So let’s look at what NYT said. In fact, this is the article that appeared on that very same day, March 24, in NYT. Very curious information was divulged. March 24, 1999 Suspect Scientist Led Key Los Alamos Program By JAMES RISEN WASHINGTON — In spring 1997, Los Alamos National Laboratory chose a scientist who was already under investigation as a suspected spy for China to run a sensitive new nuclear weapons program, several senior Government officials say. The scientist, Wen Ho Lee asked that he be allowed to hire a research assistant, the officials said. Once in the new position, in charge of updating computer software for nuclear weapons, Lee hired a post-doctoral researcher who was a citizen of China, intelligence and law-enforcement officials said. Although the Federal Bureau of Investigation had said that a wiretap on Lee, a computer expert born in Taiwan who is an American citizen, would allow the bureau to keep close tabs on him in the new position, the bureau never won approval for the monitoring, the officials said. Now, two years later, Lee has been fired for security breaches at Los Alamos and senior Government officials say he remains a suspect in the F.B.I.’s continuing investigation of allegations that China stole nuclear secrets from America’s weapons laboratories. He is under suspicion of having stolen the data for one of America’s most advanced nuclear warheads. … And the research assistant has disappeared. Even as the bureau tries to find him to question him, Government officials say they are wondering whether he played a role in a Chinese intelligence operation at the heart of America’s nuclear weapons program. [end quote] Well, well.. Quite a scoop, wouldn’t you agree? And previously, on Mary 12, the following appeared, March 12, 1999 President Denies Ignoring Evidence of Nuclear Spying By JOHN M. BRODER ANTIGUA, Guatemala — President Clinton vigorously denied Thursday that the Administration had minimized evidence of nuclear spying by China.. "We did not ignore evidence," the President said at a news conference at the conclusion of a summit meeting with Central American leaders. … Clinton’s comments Thursday were his first public statements since reports emerged over the weekend that a Taiwan-born American scientist at Los Alamos might have been responsible for providing information in the 1980’s that enabled China to develop a miniaturized nuclear warhead similar to the most sophisticated weapons in the American arsenal. Congress has opened an investigation of the case, including allegations that the Administration sought to play down the severity of the suspected espionage and delay the investigation so as not to jeopardize its policy of reconciliation with Beijing. [end quote] I’d say most people would conclude that such sorts of news could not cement confidence in the Administration’s National Security policies? And what did NYT report previous to March 24? Here, for your perusal, is a collection of _nearly daily_ stories on the subject, one more alarming than the other. CHINA’S MILITARY TECHNOLOGY: Previous Coverage In NYT,

Filed under: Human Rights

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism