The trouble with nailing President Clinton on anything is that as
soon as you start closing in on him for one example of high treason or
criminal insanity, he is embarking on a dozen head-spinning new ones.

The latest scandalous illustration is his Pentagon’s plan to have
U.S. Special Forces soldiers train China’s People’s Liberation Army
troops. I’m not kidding. Defense Department spokesman Kenneth Bacon
confirmed for the South China Morning Post the possibility that the
Green Berets and Navy SEALS would share their famed fighting secrets
with America’s most likely military adversary for the foreseeable

In fact, the U.S. and China have already begun observing each other’s
military drills. To show you the extent of the politicization of the
U.S. military under Clinton, General Peter Shoomaker, Special Operations
chief, says he’s in favor of the training program. He called it

“You need to engage so you develop rapport and understanding and have
another method of dialogue,” he explained. “What we would encourage is
low-level contact at the small-unit level that allows us to … develop
trust and confidence that then brings in higher level people to the
point where you establish the kind of relationship (where) you can have
different kinds of dialogue.”

Excuse me. Dialogue? Is that what the Special Forces are about? Then
let’s place them under the direction of Madeline Albright. I thought
they were elite fighting forces designed to kill people and break

Shoomaker said the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Joseph
Prueher, has been discussing the Special Forces training idea.

“In a broad sense we’re looking at future military exchanges with
China,” said Bacon. “I’m not aware of any specific look at Special
Forces operations, but that certainly would be a type of military
exchange we would consider.”

Now, is it any wonder that an administration that would consider
permitting its most skilled fighters to teach the tricks of their trade
to a potential enemy would also permit elite businesses to share
sensitive technology? It all becomes clear, doesn’t it? In fact, you
have to wonder why the administration is denying that it allowed missile
technology to find its way into the hands of the People’s Liberation
Army. I’m surprised they’re not boasting about it.

While we’re at it, we ought to make sure the Chinese have only the
most sophisticated weaponry at their disposal. If there’s anything they
need to achieve military parity with the U.S., we should hand it over
right now. If we don’t, the result will be distrust and mutual suspicion
— the kind that will inevitably lead to conflict.

If the Clinton administration had deliberately set out to do
everything it could to destabilize this world we live in, to strengthen
the military capability of the Chinese regime and to weaken America’s
ability to defend itself, it could not have done a better job at
achieving those dubious goals.

Once again, the question of motives arises. Stupidity could not
possibly explain such monumental treacheries. Money flows in to the
Clinton campaign and technology and vital national security secrets flow

How much can this administration get away with before Americans rise
up in anger and demand some accountability?

A few months ago, a nuclear physicist in Los Angeles was convicted of
providing national defense information to the Chinese and lying about it
to U.S. investigators. Peter Lee was sentenced to a $20,000 fine, one
year in a halfway house and 3,000 hours of community service.

U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter thought he was making an example
of Lee. In sentencing him, Hatter said a “message needs to be sent to
other scientists who take an oath, like you did, not to reveal our
nation’s secrets.”

Message? We used to hang Americans for such offenses. We used to
escort them to “Old Sparky.” Today it’s community service. Is it any
wonder the way we’re conducting foreign policy and protecting national
security at the top? In fact, I’m surprised Lee wasn’t appointed to a
top-security clearance post in the Clinton White House.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.