Subscribe to BrookesNews’ Bulletin
Why congressional Democrats and their fellow-travellers sabotage US intelligence programs
Gerard Jackson
Current attempts by congressional Democrats to sabotage FISA is just another example of their treachery and lust for power. If their corrupt shenanigans resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans, does anyone think they would assume responsibility or the corrupt mainstream media would hold them to account? One merely has to recall that when Congress released its report on the 9/11 atrocity not a single member of that august body was
condemned for contributing to this mass terrorist attack. Not even those who had assiduously worked to paralyse USA intelligence agencies.
The same politicians, reporters and columnists who expressed shock and surprise at 9/11 are the same ones who expressed similar surprise at India's nuclear bomb test back in 1998. Then Congress and the Clinton White House demanded to know why the CIA was unable to give advance warning of the test, as if they didn't know. (I am prepared to concede that there are some in Congress who would literally be too stupid to reach the correct answer).
Now those very Democrats who were the loudest in calling for curbs on the CIA then condemned it for ignored warnings from India and Jane's about an impending nuclear test. Jane had been warning as early as 1996 that India was on the nuclear weapons path and that it was only a matter of time before she tested a nuke. Furthermore, India's nuclear weapons program had been an open secret for years. In addition, the BJP made it abundantly clear that it was going to turn India into a nuclear power.
Of course, to the 1960s dregs who were busy desecrating the White House at the time the actual thought of reading anything from a publication as reactionary as Jane's was sheer anathema, and the same goes for their congressional and media lackeys. They preferred, and still do, to get their reading material from Marxist 'think tanks' like the infamous Institute of Policy Studies or politically bigoted media commentators. Nevertheless, this still did not explain the CIA's failure to give the time and location of the test, along with the bomb's serial number.
The kind of information that the draft-dodging Clinton and his swinging supporters later demanded could only come from field operatives. And that's the problem. No one trusted the CIA anymore, especially while the corrupt Clinton administration was in power. It is not that the CIA would betray its informants but because too many Democrats have demonstrated that they are anti-intelligence gathering.
(Just think of the damage Leahy, Hayden, Rockefeller, Durbin, Wyden — and God knows how many others — deliberately did to US intelligence gathering ability. And let us not forget their media mates who did everything possible to destroy any effective intelligence programs).
In the 1970s a Democrat controlled Congress carried out a purge against the CIA. A pro-Soviet onslaught spearheaded by the publicity-hungry Church and Pike Committees and supported by a left-wing media emasculated the CIA, exposed its operations and endangered its sources and agents in the process. Now Congress is demanding to know why the CIA cannot supply the kind of information that can only come from the type of operations the Church and Pike Committees deliberately and with premeditated malice destroyed.
In May 1998 it was revealed that FBI agents withheld information from politicians (guess which ones?) in order to protect the lives of their sources. The situation in the CIA was no different. I doubt if any agents from these organisations would have put their lives in the hands of the Clinton White House. The situation was so bad that veteran FBI agent Jack Wickman — an honourable man — retired before he would accede to an unprecedented demand by the Clinton controlled DOJ that he name a Chinese source on illegal donations to the Clintons' election campaign.
But what can one expect when one considers that Clinton not only ignored intelligence advice on Chinese agents acting as fund raisers he also gave one, John Huang, access to highly classified intelligence data which is known to have been passed on to Beijing. (The FBI also monitored communications between the Chinese embassy, Beijing and its US contacts). The question is: Did Beijing pass on any of this intelligence to Saddam?
Moreover, intelligence discovered that the Chinese People's Liberation Army had organised a gun running operation in California involving 2000 AK-47s and other little goodies for use on the streets of LA. The operation was carried out through the Chinese state-run Norinco and Poly Technologies arms companies which is also known to be shipping missiles to Pakistan and Iran.
Though the gun-carrying ship was apprehended by customs and the weapons impounded, a timely call from somewhere within the White House alerted Chinese residents involved in the operation. Before they could be arrested some of them were able to flee to Beijing and Shanghai where they continued their fund raising activities. However, Linda Huang (also involved in drug smuggling) was arrested along with seven Chinese-Americans.
Bernard Schwarze scandal was another that the media buried. Schwarze was CEO of Loral. In exchange for a fat donation to the party, Clinton approved the export of hi-tech know-how to China by Loral — even though it had been classified as top secret. No problem. With the stroke of his pen Clinton declassified it. The recent Clinton-Hsu is just another grubby example of the Democrats' corruption and that of the media who quickly flushed it down their Orwellian memory hole.
What is particularly interesting is that shortly before the customs and the FBI moved in, Wang Jun, the boss of Norinco and Poly Technologies, met with Clinton in the White House. The notorious Charlie Trie had apparently arranged the meeting. Why did Clinton agree to a meeting with a Chinese agent in charge of a company smuggling AK-47s into California as well as busting US sanctions against Iran? After all, intelligence had already warned Clinton of Wang's activities.
Isn't it strange that those Democrats who screamed for an investigation of Bush, the CIA, FBI and the Tooth Fairy never thought to even criticise what went on under Clinton's watch. The intelligence situation is now worse than ever because Clinton took the opportunity to place committed Democrats in the CIA. In turn, these Dems then hired more Dems. I guess the mass of Americans just cannot grasp that to these Democrats party loyalty trumps patriotism.
For those who doubt that for some Democrats there is no country only the party, I suggest you read George Orwell who not only explained why patriotism is not nationalism (Notes on Nationalism in Decline of the English Murder, Penguin Books, 1953) but that a key element of nationalism is group loyalty. Hence Stalinists, Trotskyists, fascists, etc, were loyal to the group and not their country.
Whatever advances the interests of the group is therefore moral, regardless of the consequences for the country. This is why Ted Kennedy offered his services to the KGB. (For details on the treachery of the Democrats and their media pals read Kenneth R. Timmerman's Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender, Crown Forum, 2007).
Anne Coulter's book Treason was attacked for being over the top. But doesn't the current activities of leftwing Democrats, their media lackeys and their fellow-travellers in the CIA and the FBA confirm her and Orwell's thesis?
Did the KGB help plan America’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?
Why did Ted Kennedy sabotage national security
Gerard Jackson is Brookesnews' economics editor
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 4 February 2008