- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

The nuclear threat and Clinton lies

Feb. 11, 1996: “If you look at the role America has played in the
world, we should be rejoicing. … There are no more nuclear missiles
>pointed at any children in the United States. I’m proud of that. …”

Feb. 15, 1996: “I asked you to give me a chance to try to give America
a more secure future and a more peaceful, more democratic world. And the
fact that there are no nuclear missiles pointed at any American children
for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age is evidence of that
commitment kept.”

October 1996: “There is not a single, solitary nuclear missile pointed
at an American child tonight. Not one. Not one. Not a single one.”

Over and over during his re-election campaign in 1996, President Clinton
bragged about having ended the threat of nuclear arms to American soil —
and, of course, to America’s children. Those who bothered to inform
themselves on such security issues understood that his boasts rang hollow
— that Russian nuclear weapons could be retargeted on American cities in a
matter of minutes. Nevertheless, few challenged the “technical” accuracy of
Clinton’s unambiguous claims.

It is impossible to know how critical to Clinton’s re-election effort
such phony claims were. But they were phony. They were bogus. There was
nothing accurate about them at all. Not one thing. Not one. Not a single

A new CIA report says that 13 of China’s 18 long-range strategic
missiles are aimed at U.S. cities. U.S. intelligence operatives conclude
only one thing from this: China views America as its No. 1 strategic

Yet, the Clinton administration’s major foreign policy initiative has
been to work toward closer partnership with this regime in Beijing. So much
for “constructive engagement.”

The White House has gone so far as to draw up a space cooperation
agreement with China that would permit the transfer of technology that
could enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of its nuclear missiles. But,
as we have seen in the case of Hughes Electronics and Loral Space and
Communications, long before the formal agreement was advanced, the Clinton
administration was winking at improper efforts by U.S. businesses to share
missile data with China. The abuses are so flagrant, so egregious, so
treacherous, that Clinton’s own Justice Department is now investigating
those companies and the apparent conflicts of interest the incidents raise.

Remember, President Clinton also initiated the plan to base the Chinese
Overseas Shipping Co. in the strategic naval port in Long Beach, Calif.
COSCO is a direct subsidiary of the People’s Liberation Army.

Clinton also pushed hard for “Most Favored Nation” status for China. He
refused to sign a United Nations report condemning China’s flagrant human
rights abuses. Then there was the decision by the Department of Commerce to
reclassify formerly restricted military technology for supercomputers,
radiation-resistant computer chips, satellite geo-positioners, submarine
and stealth technology, high-tech missile engine tools and more. U.S.
companies have been selling all of these items to the Chinese ever since.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA, is also investigating reports that several
U.S. companies, including Motorola, helped improve Chinese missiles by
supplying “stage-separation” technology.

“I am very sad to say (the Chinese) now have the capability of landing
nuclear weapons in the United States and we are the ones who perfected
their rockets,” said Rohrabacher.

Not quite accurate, congressman. “We” didn’t perfect the rockets. The
blame lies squarely with President Clinton, who took campaign money from
Chinese sources, accepted cash from multinational corporations more
interested in their big contracts with China than in American security, and
sold out America’s vital national interests to Beijing at every turn.

Clinton did it all while lying audaciously and straightfaced to the
American people about having ended the nuclear threat to our country’s
“children.” Some day those children, God willing, will grow up and write
the history that will judge this man and his administration.

If that history is written in English, rather than Chinese, it will not
be kind to President Clinton.