Chink-mobiles coming to america

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:17:12 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:26:03 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>David N. Goodman, Associated Press Writer
>>> >
>>> > DETROIT (AP) -- The man who brought the Yugo and Subaru to this country
>>> > has a new project -- becoming the first mass importer of low-cost
>>> > Chinese-made cars.
>>>
>>> Does anyone wonder if this article was slanted?
>>
>>Looks like a short statement of fact, to wit: Bricklin plans on importing
>>Chinese cars, the Chinese maker has been in business a few years now, the
>>top selling point will be low price, the quality will be very good they
>>hope, Bricklin's record is less than stellar. Now, how is this slanted?
>
>I see that subtle humor is completely lost on you.

Looks like it was lost on at least half the people who replied

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>,
wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> In article . com>,
> > wrote:
> >> >> I don't limit the scope to create a false impression as you are
> >> >> doing.
> >>
> >> > I'm not. I believe you are.
> >>
> >> How exactly is saying 'both parties are guilty' limiting the
scope?
> >
> > My reference was to "creating a false impression," not to "limiting
the
> > scope." You accused me of creating a false impression and I take
great
> > exception to that. The hysteria that was ginned up over this
episode,
> > IMO, was in no way backed up by the actual facts.
>
> You are presenting a one sided view that it's those republicans who
are
> are at fault. Same statement applies, how is showing both at fault a
> false impression?

I am not presenting a one-sided view. The facts speak for themselves.
This isn't some politically correct exercise where we have to spread
fault equally. We have to let facts guide us to what is. It's just a
fact that the investigations showed the PRC acquired the multiple
targeting technology in the 1980s during the Reagan administration; it
made headlines when it was uncovered during the Clinton administration.
The false impression enters when and if you try to engage in some
politically correct exercise that says we have to balance blame. The
original poster made a statement indicating that he thought it was
Clinton who had "sold all the nuyclear secrets to the Chinese," which
btw was what spurred my response.

I am not blaming Republicans or even Reagan, btw. As I clearly said
before, espionage is ongoing in all times and all administrations. Had
Clinton been president then instead of Reagan, it still would have
happened. The information that was declassified under Clinton was the
product of scientific, not political, review, and regardless, more
information was reclassified at higher levels than was lowered.

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>,
wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> In article . com>,
> > wrote:
> >> >> I don't limit the scope to create a false impression as you are
> >> >> doing.
> >>
> >> > I'm not. I believe you are.
> >>
> >> How exactly is saying 'both parties are guilty' limiting the
scope?
> >
> > My reference was to "creating a false impression," not to "limiting
the
> > scope." You accused me of creating a false impression and I take
great
> > exception to that. The hysteria that was ginned up over this
episode,
> > IMO, was in no way backed up by the actual facts.
>
> You are presenting a one sided view that it's those republicans who
are
> are at fault. Same statement applies, how is showing both at fault a
> false impression?

I am not presenting a one-sided view. The facts speak for themselves.
This isn't some politically correct exercise where we have to spread
fault equally. We have to let facts guide us to what is. It's just a
fact that the investigations showed the PRC acquired the multiple
targeting technology in the 1980s during the Reagan administration; it
made headlines when it was uncovered during the Clinton administration.
The false impression enters when and if you try to engage in some
politically correct exercise that says we have to balance blame. The
original poster made a statement indicating that he thought it was
Clinton who had "sold all the nuyclear secrets to the Chinese," which
btw was what spurred my response.

I am not blaming Republicans or even Reagan, btw. As I clearly said
before, espionage is ongoing in all times and all administrations. Had
Clinton been president then instead of Reagan, it still would have
happened. The information that was declassified under Clinton was the
product of scientific, not political, review, and regardless, more
information was reclassified at higher levels than was lowered.

In article .com>, wrote:

> I am not presenting a one-sided view. The facts speak for themselves.
> This isn't some politically correct exercise where we have to spread
> fault equally.

Please tell me then, who's responsible for the technologies transfered
from 1992 to 2000? Richard Nixon?

> We have to let facts guide us to what is. It's just a
> fact that the investigations showed the PRC acquired the multiple
> targeting technology in the 1980s during the Reagan administration;

Throughout the 1990s too! And the 2000s!

And China re-sells it. To countries like Pakistan, North Korea, Iran....
etc

In article .com>, wrote:

> I am not presenting a one-sided view. The facts speak for themselves.
> This isn't some politically correct exercise where we have to spread
> fault equally.

Please tell me then, who's responsible for the technologies transfered
from 1992 to 2000? Richard Nixon?

> We have to let facts guide us to what is. It's just a
> fact that the investigations showed the PRC acquired the multiple
> targeting technology in the 1980s during the Reagan administration;

Throughout the 1990s too! And the 2000s!

And China re-sells it. To countries like Pakistan, North Korea, Iran....
etc

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>,
wrote:
>
> > I am not presenting a one-sided view. The facts speak for
themselves.
> > This isn't some politically correct exercise where we have to
spread
> > fault equally.
>
> Please tell me then, who's responsible for the technologies
transfered
> from 1992 to 2000? Richard Nixon?

Puh-leeze. The companies that engaged in it. Show me some evidence that
CLinton "sold" US secrets to China. He increased security levels on
more classified info than was released.

> > We have to let facts guide us to what is. It's just a
> > fact that the investigations showed the PRC acquired the multiple
> > targeting technology in the 1980s during the Reagan administration;
>
> Throughout the 1990s too! And the 2000s!

Different nature than what the OP was describing. The multiple
targeting technology transfer issue was discovered in 1995 as having
occurred during the Reagan admin. Again, I am not blaming Reagan, but
I'm saying it's ridiculous to blame it on the guy on whose watch a
10-year-ago crime might have occurred.

> And China re-sells it. To countries like Pakistan, North Korea,
Iran....
> etc

Their bad.

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>,
wrote:
>
> > I am not presenting a one-sided view. The facts speak for
themselves.
> > This isn't some politically correct exercise where we have to
spread
> > fault equally.
>
> Please tell me then, who's responsible for the technologies
transfered
> from 1992 to 2000? Richard Nixon?

Puh-leeze. The companies that engaged in it. Show me some evidence that
CLinton "sold" US secrets to China. He increased security levels on
more classified info than was released.

> > We have to let facts guide us to what is. It's just a
> > fact that the investigations showed the PRC acquired the multiple
> > targeting technology in the 1980s during the Reagan administration;
>
> Throughout the 1990s too! And the 2000s!

Different nature than what the OP was describing. The multiple
targeting technology transfer issue was discovered in 1995 as having
occurred during the Reagan admin. Again, I am not blaming Reagan, but
I'm saying it's ridiculous to blame it on the guy on whose watch a
10-year-ago crime might have occurred.

> And China re-sells it. To countries like Pakistan, North Korea,
Iran....
> etc

Their bad.

In article .com>, wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article .com>,
> wrote:
>>
>> > I am not presenting a one-sided view. The facts speak for
> themselves.
>> > This isn't some politically correct exercise where we have to
> spread
>> > fault equally.
>>
>> Please tell me then, who's responsible for the technologies
> transfered
>> from 1992 to 2000? Richard Nixon?
>
> Puh-leeze. The companies that engaged in it. Show me some evidence that
> CLinton "sold" US secrets to China. He increased security levels on
> more classified info than was released.

Under his watch the rules regarding what can be sold were changed to
allow much of it. Some was illegal, the vast majority was legal and/or
approved.

First match of a google search. 5 axis milling machines approved for sale
to china for civilian use were of course used by the chinese military
instead.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti.../6/93304.shtml
"U.S. spy satellite photos confirmed the machines sold to China for
"civilian" use were diverted to the Nanchang facility for making jet
fighters and missiles. A giant, 5 axis, stretch press for aircraft
manufacture, was sold in 1994 to CATIC, a Chinese state owned
corporation, controlled by Generals of the People's Liberation Army.

The Clinton administration approved the sale of the press to CATIC
through the Commerce Department then under Ron Brown. The approval came
just before Mr. Brown left on his whirlwind tour of China in August 1994.
Federal investigators charged the Chinese company never had any intention
of purchasing the equipment for civilian use because the facility
constructed to house the giant machine was put inside the Nanchang
military aircraft plant.

The Nanchang Aircraft Corp. military site was being built even as Chinese
officials told U.S. Commerce officials that the press was bound for a
civilian airliner plant just outside of Beijing. In addition, Nanchang
officials inspected some of the equipment just before McDonnell Douglas
shipped it in late 1993.

Nanchang is China's main producer of advanced warplanes and missiles
capable of nuclear or chemical attack. For example, Nanchang has produced
over 1,000 advanced Q-5/A-5 jet fighter bombers. "

And just in case one would attack the source, here's CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1...hina.missiles/

"Peter Leitner, an adviser to the Defense Technology Security
Administration for the past 12 years, has told Senate investigators that
the administration has allowed "shortsighted business interests" to
override national security concerns, according to material obtained by
the Associated Press."
<...>
"The Pentagon-based DTSA is charged with reviewing proposed exports to
China and other countries. Leitner told investigators that the agency's
traditionally strict scrutiny of exports with possible military uses
quietly changed under the Clinton administration, as primary
responsibility for reviewing commercial satellite exports was shifted
from the Pentagon to the Commerce Department."


>> > We have to let facts guide us to what is. It's just a
>> > fact that the investigations showed the PRC acquired the multiple
>> > targeting technology in the 1980s during the Reagan administration;

>> Throughout the 1990s too! And the 2000s!

> Different nature than what the OP was describing. The multiple
> targeting technology transfer issue was discovered in 1995 as having
> occurred during the Reagan admin. Again, I am not blaming Reagan, but
> I'm saying it's ridiculous to blame it on the guy on whose watch a
> 10-year-ago crime might have occurred.

Here you go again, keep in narrowly focused and anti-republican only.
The nuke part is only HALF of it. The other half is getting the nuke to
the target.

>> And China re-sells it. To countries like Pakistan, North Korea, Iran....
>> etc

> Their bad.

No, bad on the USA to sell to china in the first place.

In article .com>, wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article .com>,
> wrote:
>>
>> > I am not presenting a one-sided view. The facts speak for
> themselves.
>> > This isn't some politically correct exercise where we have to
> spread
>> > fault equally.
>>
>> Please tell me then, who's responsible for the technologies
> transfered
>> from 1992 to 2000? Richard Nixon?
>
> Puh-leeze. The companies that engaged in it. Show me some evidence that
> CLinton "sold" US secrets to China. He increased security levels on
> more classified info than was released.

Under his watch the rules regarding what can be sold were changed to
allow much of it. Some was illegal, the vast majority was legal and/or
approved.

First match of a google search. 5 axis milling machines approved for sale
to china for civilian use were of course used by the chinese military
instead.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti.../6/93304.shtml
"U.S. spy satellite photos confirmed the machines sold to China for
"civilian" use were diverted to the Nanchang facility for making jet
fighters and missiles. A giant, 5 axis, stretch press for aircraft
manufacture, was sold in 1994 to CATIC, a Chinese state owned
corporation, controlled by Generals of the People's Liberation Army.

The Clinton administration approved the sale of the press to CATIC
through the Commerce Department then under Ron Brown. The approval came
just before Mr. Brown left on his whirlwind tour of China in August 1994.
Federal investigators charged the Chinese company never had any intention
of purchasing the equipment for civilian use because the facility
constructed to house the giant machine was put inside the Nanchang
military aircraft plant.

The Nanchang Aircraft Corp. military site was being built even as Chinese
officials told U.S. Commerce officials that the press was bound for a
civilian airliner plant just outside of Beijing. In addition, Nanchang
officials inspected some of the equipment just before McDonnell Douglas
shipped it in late 1993.

Nanchang is China's main producer of advanced warplanes and missiles
capable of nuclear or chemical attack. For example, Nanchang has produced
over 1,000 advanced Q-5/A-5 jet fighter bombers. "

And just in case one would attack the source, here's CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1...hina.missiles/

"Peter Leitner, an adviser to the Defense Technology Security
Administration for the past 12 years, has told Senate investigators that
the administration has allowed "shortsighted business interests" to
override national security concerns, according to material obtained by
the Associated Press."
<...>
"The Pentagon-based DTSA is charged with reviewing proposed exports to
China and other countries. Leitner told investigators that the agency's
traditionally strict scrutiny of exports with possible military uses
quietly changed under the Clinton administration, as primary
responsibility for reviewing commercial satellite exports was shifted
from the Pentagon to the Commerce Department."


>> > We have to let facts guide us to what is. It's just a
>> > fact that the investigations showed the PRC acquired the multiple
>> > targeting technology in the 1980s during the Reagan administration;

>> Throughout the 1990s too! And the 2000s!

> Different nature than what the OP was describing. The multiple
> targeting technology transfer issue was discovered in 1995 as having
> occurred during the Reagan admin. Again, I am not blaming Reagan, but
> I'm saying it's ridiculous to blame it on the guy on whose watch a
> 10-year-ago crime might have occurred.

Here you go again, keep in narrowly focused and anti-republican only.
The nuke part is only HALF of it. The other half is getting the nuke to
the target.

>> And China re-sells it. To countries like Pakistan, North Korea, Iran....
>> etc

> Their bad.

No, bad on the USA to sell to china in the first place.

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>,
wrote:
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> In article
.com>,
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > I am not presenting a one-sided view. The facts speak for
> > themselves.
> >> > This isn't some politically correct exercise where we have to
> > spread
> >> > fault equally.
> >>
> >> Please tell me then, who's responsible for the technologies
> > transfered
> >> from 1992 to 2000? Richard Nixon?
> >
> > Puh-leeze. The companies that engaged in it. Show me some evidence
that
> > CLinton "sold" US secrets to China. He increased security levels on
> > more classified info than was released.
>
> Under his watch the rules regarding what can be sold were changed to
> allow much of it. Some was illegal, the vast majority was legal
and/or
> approved.

And that which was illegal was prosecuted. But again, this is unrelated
to the original post and my reply, which you criticized.

> First match of a google search. 5 axis milling machines approved for
sale
> to china for civilian use were of course used by the chinese military

> instead.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti.../6/93304.shtml...

You're correct; I would not highly value Newsmax as a source.

> And just in case one would attack the source, here's CNN:
> http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1...hina.missiles/
>
> "Peter Leitner, an adviser to the Defense Technology Security
> Administration for the past 12 years, has told Senate investigators
that
> the administration has allowed "shortsighted business interests" to
> override national security concerns, according to material obtained
by
> the Associated Press."

One man's opinion.

> >> > We have to let facts guide us to what is. It's just a
> >> > fact that the investigations showed the PRC acquired the
multiple
> >> > targeting technology in the 1980s during the Reagan
administration;
>
> >> Throughout the 1990s too! And the 2000s!
>
> > Different nature than what the OP was describing. The multiple
> > targeting technology transfer issue was discovered in 1995 as
having
> > occurred during the Reagan admin. Again, I am not blaming Reagan,
but
> > I'm saying it's ridiculous to blame it on the guy on whose watch a
> > 10-year-ago crime might have occurred.
>
> Here you go again, keep in narrowly focused and anti-republican only.

> The nuke part is only HALF of it. The other half is getting the nuke
to
> the target.

I am keeping it focused on what the OP and I were discussing, and it
isn't anti-Republican. You're broadening it to include other things,
then criticizing that, which is straw man. The original post claimed
Clinton sold "nuclear secrets" to the Chinese. Even your own cites show
this isn't the case.