Chinagate - A Wrap
CHINAGATE—A WRAP (AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING)
by
Ken Eliasberg
Last week’s summary treatment of Chinagate was condensed and compressed in the interests of abbreviating the discussion; a more expansive approach to the situation would actually reveal that it was (and apparently remains) much worse than it sounds. For those of you sufficiently interested to find out just how corrupt the Clintons were (and continue to be), I recommend 2 primary sources (1) the condensed version of The Cox Report (the abbreviated findings of a Select Committee of the House) published by Regnery Publishing in 1999 and Betrayal—How The Clinton Administration Undermined American Security by Bill Gertz (Defense and National Security Reporter for the Washington Times) also published by Regnery in 1999. For those content with a less extensive evaluation of the Clinton’s orchestration of the matter I recommend 2 articles - How Chinagate Led to 9/11 by Jean Pearce in FrontPageMagazine.com on 5/25/04 and The Idiot’s Guide to Chinagate by Richard Poe, published in NewsMax.com on 5/27/03. Clinton’s ties to Red China go back to his Little Rock days and his old buddies Charlie Trie, the Riadys, Johnny Chuang and many others. For those really interested in this bit of treason—and all of you should be because it’s a sample of what we can expect from a Hillary Clinton presidency - just google Chinagate and you’ll come up with more than you ever wanted to know (and certainly more than you would like to know, if you entertain any thought re the integrity of the Clintons).
Regarding Bill Clinton’s being shocked over the Hsu episode, let me assure you that the Clintons are never shocked with respect to any immoral or criminal conduct in which they are implicated. How could they be—they were in on it from the beginning; after all, these are the world’s smartest people. No, what shocks the Clintons is when they get caught in one of their off-color schemes. Then they have to scurry around to come up with some explanation that provides either material for complete denial, or, at the very least, an explanation that provides some measure of plausible deniability.
No problem though because, thanks to the mainstream media (MSM), nothing sticks. And they call Ronald Reagan the Teflon President; compared to Clinton, Reagan looks like something between Velcro and rubber cement. Indeed, even if Reagan bore some measure of guilt for Iran Contra—and I emphasize “if” —he was doing it in an effort to protect the western hemisphere from communist aggression. Clinton, on the other hand, spent his entire 8 years trying to protect his own southern hemisphere from overexposure—that is, except to any woman who crossed his path; in that case, he was all too ready to expose himself. But here, I am not doing him justice; I forgot how much time Slick Willie spent looking for Osama under some woman’s skirts
Getting back to Chinagate, we find that Clinton’s foreign policy, like that of Carter, was consistent in that he managed to screw up both the Middle East and the Far East, the former by acts of omission, and the latter by acts of commission. In the Middle East he did nothing to capture Osama Bin Laden (whose whereabouts so concerns the left today); in the Far East, for the contemporary version of 30 pieces of silver, this Judas betrayed his country (and his wife has the audacity to question the loyalty of General Petraeus). And, oh yes, to compound these felonies of exposing the U.S. to greater danger from without, he was weakening our capacity from within to respond to these external threats by significantly diminishing our military capability—the Clintons antipathy to our military is fairly well established, but, then again, that’s consistent with Billie Boy’s real talent—he’s a lover, not a fighter. If you have any doubt re Clinton’s involvement, bear in mind that, as previously noted, over 100 people either took the 5th amendment or fled the country in connection with Chinagate. This is not exactly what you would expect from a group of innocent people. As also previously noted, the Clinton’s Chinese connection goes back many years to Little Rock and Charlie Trie and his Chinese commnunist friends.
A final word on the Clintons and fundraising practices from a pithy yet penetrating column by Richard H. Collins in Townhall.com on 9/17/07, entitled The Corruption of Clinton’s Campaign. After commenting on the obviously sloppy vetting procedures employed by Hillary’s people in checking into Mr. Hsu’s “bundling” efforts, Mr. Collins makes the following somewhat telling observations:
“If you get a bundle of very large donations from numerous members of the same family who all live in the same house and appear to have modest means shouldn’t that raise a flag for further follow up? Why is it that countless journalists and bloggers can unearth this information and yet Hillary Clinton claims this was all an honest mistake? Given her history doesn’t this seem sloppy and even reckless?
Buried in the middle of a recent New York Times article was the real answer—Hillary’s need for cash once again outweighed her judgments and competence. This is in fact how the Clintons operate: