ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

The concurrent circumstances of Clinton's transfer of missile technology to the ChiCom is irrefutable. For example: after the State Dept. had balked, the transfer of the authority for such a transfer by Clinton to Ron Brown's Commerce Dept; Clinton's personnel approval of the Loral/Hughes/Lockheed ChiCom technical interface; the resulting SIGNIFICANT improvement in launch reliability, MIRVing, extended range, and targeting accuracy; etc. Accuracy & multiple warhead delivery capability far in excess of China's previous limited range City Buster single re-entry vehicle capability. A capability that two Chinese Defense officials promptly used to publically threaten the destruction of American targets. When you have more than two billion people & are intently concerned with population control, losing a few hundred million is of secondary concern to fatalistic societies such as the Chinese Communists. In lieu of here reciting extensive evidence on Clinton's transgression, I would suggest a perusal of information available at "Chinagate.info" to further illuminate the subject. You might recall that when confronted with Clinton's transgression, Madeline Albright responded that "The United States should not be the ONLY superpower in the world". The American public simply has to come to grips with the severe damage that the Clinton's inflicted on American security interests. It should not be easily dismissed by Neville Chamberlain type naivete'; e.g. 9/11 was a direct result of the Clinton Administration???s feckless responses to the numerous Al-Qaida provocations and terrorist assaults against our national interests; as well as, Clinton???s inexplicable temerity in refusing to take Osama bin Laden into captivity when offered several times by the Sudanese. Clinton then exercised little more than his jawbone as bin Laden trained literally thousands of terrorists in his Afghan camps. All of which, convinced bin Laden that he could strike our homeland with relative impunity. The potential for success in bin Laden???s planned assault on our homeland was significantly enhanced by the infamous Gorelick memo which the Clinton Administration promulgated to prohibit any terrorist information exchange between our FBI and CIA intelligence operatives. Greg Neubeck

gneubeck | 02/15/08

I beg your pardon, but the Clinton administration did NOT "refuse to take Osama bin Laden into captivity" as you assert. No such offer was made. The source for that story, a private individual who claims to have brokered such a deal between Sudan and the U.S., only to be refused, may be a darling of the far right, but in fact is about as reliable as Curveball, living out his Walter Mitty fantasy - every credible witness to the state of the State Department at the time says that no such offer was ever made, and the story is a complete fabrication. And, I beg your pardon again... but in case you haven't noticed, China is actually a burgeoning capitalist power these days. I suggest you go to any Wal-Mart and count the number of products made in China. China's prosperity depends on OUR prosperity. They need us, and we need them, and the simple truth is, there will never, ever be a war between us.

Old New Dealer | 02/16/08

Some of us of course recall the loss of 53,000 American lives when 10s of thousands of ChiCom streamed across the frozen Yalu into Korea. But as for Clinton's refusal to take Bin Laden when offered, Clinton himself, perhaps inadvertently, confirmed that fact when giving a speech on 9/11. Further, the Sudanese have also confirmed the fact on multiple occasions; and, Sandy Burgler's Clinton assigned mission to the National Archives was to sterilize related Administration records. When the chief of the Chinese Army's General staff "publically" threatened to anniliate Los Angeles and Miami should the U.S. interfere with their potential invasion of Taiwan, should we simply dismiss that as Communist rhetoric? The U.S. supplied technological advancement in ChiCom missile performance was dramatically demonstrated in their hit-to-kill of an orbiting satellite. An act that should have been a wakeup call to all Americans. We all hope that Free-Enterprise will transform the Chinese society and quell their oft-vocalized belligerency; but, that most certainly WILL NOT occur until the Chinese people themselves remove the yoke of a Communist Dictatorship. As for a combat veteran who witnessed first hand the indescribable Communist brutality in S.E.A., I can assure you that the sacrifice of human life is of little consequence in the Communist dictum. It is truly sad that so many of our citizens cannot accept the world as it is; but rather, prefer to fantasize a world in the image of their preferences: I.e. a world where the sheer momentum of good will always triumph over evil; a world where if we simply show respect and goodwill towards our opponents, they will be compelled to respond in kind; a world where we should not defend our legitimate national interests for fear of antagonizing our declared adversaries. History is replete with the Hitlers and their enabling Chamberlains who have repeatedly illustrated the folly of such naivet??; but yet, some still profess that the only legitimate response to the severing of an extended hand-of-friendship is to offer the other hand. By contrast, some of us believe that history has convincibly and repeatedly validated the theory that in this less-than-perfect world, that Peace can only be achieved Thru Strength. Not a strength that imposes its will on others who represent no threat to our chosen way of life; but rather, a strength sufficient to deter, and if necessary, to destroy any overt aggression that arises in opposition to our freely chosen culture. We might well remember that: The absence of Freedom in the absence of War is not Peace; but rather, a submissive forfeiture of our heritage. Greg Neubeck

gneubeck | 02/16/08

As for the Bin Laden issue, the Clinton administration's response to Al Qaida's transgressions were, admittedly, impotent at best. But hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. To suggest that more severe action vs. Bin Laden and his crew could have prevented 911 is to take an American tragedy and play it as a political card.

Jonah | 02/16/08

(Still another example of the Clintons' Foreign Policy Disasters) In accessing the pre-invasion situation in Iraq, one must recognize the existence of world class scientific institutes, proliferated throughout Iraq, conducting research in nuclear, chemical and biological disciplines with the capacity to quickly reconstitute full scale WMD programs once unfettered by UN inspectors, inspectors who had been allowed re-entry to Iraq only because Coalition Forces were massed on Iraq???s Southern border- and - as admitted by Saddam, would have been summarily evicted once those forces had been re-deployed. Sobering facts given our shock at finding after the 1st Gulf War how perilously close Saddam had progressed in his determined quest to develop nuclear weapons. Bill Clinton, in 1998, summarized the Iraqi threat to the world community as follows: ???Iraq???s refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors presents a threat to the entire world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. While other countries also have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. Without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years. Hussein is a threat to his people and to the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government.??? But as history has recorded, Clinton was exceedingly long on platitudes and woefully short on substance; and, left the burden of the heavy lifting to a thankfully more principled successor. Unfortunately, with the constant drumbeat of defeatist criticism from the ???cut and run??? crowd from the left, criticism that has been dramatically amplified by sycophants of a compliant news media, the President???s job approval poll numbers in our war against terrorism have been dramatically depressed. Despicable commentary that is destructive to the morale of our troops engaged in deadly combat with a determined enemy. It???s incredible how quick the left is to hoist the ???white flag??? when confronted with adversity. Sound familiar? How far are they willing to retreat from those who have a visceral hatred for our Western culture before we???re finally cornered? How many more 9/11s is the Left prepared to endure before they would be willing to stand and fight? The neurosis of the liberal mindset defies rational explanation. Surely members of ???The Greatest Generation??? who demanded total victory over the Fascists of WW II, must hang their heads in shame when they witness the American Left of today cowering before the modern day threat of Islamofacism! Greg Neubeck

gneubeck | 02/16/08

Sir, you hail from the realms of black helicopters and conspiracy theories. I just lose you right from the start when you mention CLINTON'S foreign policy disasters AND assessing the pre-invasion situation in Iraq in the same breath. Wasn't that Bush's foreign policy disaster? Really? I mean REALLY??? Are you this far out or are you an undercover liberal trying to make consersatives look more bugged out and freakish than they generally/typically are? Can we get some rational or half-moderate conservatives to weigh in on some of this fellow's ideas? Let's let Clinton go for a second...More than three trillion dollars later, you still want to stay in Iraq? We have ousted Hussein, verified that we are all secure now on the WMD's, we've sent a pretty powerful message to Islamic extremists that we can and will go after them (sometimes reasonably and sometimes not) if we are provoked, and they pretty well know that we can kick their butts in a stand up kind of fight. In concrete terms, what more do you want before we can start to think about shutting down the money and blood sucking vortex of ongoing military presence in Iraq?

Jonah | 02/16/08

Listen, Clinton was more interested in Polls and getting his pole smoked than he was in Polar Trajectory. The first job of the US Prez is to make sure we are safe. If "depends on what is is" has any meaing then safe to him probably meant using a propho when sitting at his desk. When someone (Prez), does take it seriously then we criticize them because we are not popular w/ the French. What does being popular w/ the French have to do w/ anything or the UN for that matter. In case some of you don't know...the UN, orginally the League of Nations was created by our Prez at that time for one reason and one reeason alone: listen slowly.... to enable us to monitor on our own soil the goings on of our friends and enemies ..that's right, a real "domestic spying program"..not so that all countries could hold hands and sing "koom by ya" Ask any other country what their foreign policy is and you know what..it's intelligence and counter-intelligence, an oxymoron if ever there was one. Understand that the closer the world gets w/ technology the more likely you'll have more than Uncle on the phone listening. Don't be foolish. As the line goes in the movie, "Badges ...we don't need no stinking badges...".

Gemma | 02/16/08

I fully comprehend the futility of attempting to penetrate the neurosis of the liberal mindset; but, your comment; "The Chinese will throw off the yoke of Communism if and when the quality of life gets bad enough for the average citizen and then evolve, as they have for centuries." prompts me to respond in the interest of OTHER readers. When I was going thru F-86 gunnery training, I had two very dedicated/professional Chinese classmates from then Formosa. One evening while discussing the conditions on the Chinese mainland, I asked: "If the conditions in your homeland are that bad, why don't the people rebell and throw off the communist yoke.?" The look of disgust that I received was startling, and they responded: "You really DON'T understand do you.?" I replied that I did not, but wanted to learn. In the ensueing discussions, I was appraised of the exceedingly brutal methods that the communists employed to subjugate and indoctrinate the population. To dissent meant public execution; not only for the individual; but, also for his whole family. To sacrifice your own life is one thing, to sacrifice those of your family quite another. Without a wholesale recounting of history, simply recall the wanton slaughter of the student protestors at Tinnamen Square who sought their freedoms. Overthrowing an entrenched Communist Dictatorship is not a trivial task. We are so abundantly blessed to live in this Sacred Land that we so proudly call "America". May the Good Lord give us not only the courage; but, also the wisdom to sustain that sacred heritage. Greg Neubeck

gneubeck | 02/17/08