Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LORAL -- Political Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dragonfly who wrote (621)	6/26/1998 10:03:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 880

Seems to everyone here that YOU are the hysterical one. You've been throwing that dickless term around for quite some time, obviously feeling the need to insult rather than talk issues. Now as history would show, YOU are the one who claimed they didn't donate. We all know they did. Now you want me (us) to do your research for you. You know you made it up. You are a sick woman. Pathetic.

To: Dragonfly who wrote (621)	6/26/1998 10:32:00 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 880

DragonFraud, how can even you defend this? June 25, 1998 Pentagon Aide Criticizes Policies ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) -- A longtime defense official said today the Pentagon office in charge of guarding U.S. technology from export to China grew lax under the Clinton administration and instructed staffers to gloss over national security concerns. Peter Leitner, a veteran adviser with the Pentagon agency charged with reviewing proposed exports, testified today before a Senate committee investigating whether the administration helped China gain military capability that should have been restricted. Speaking in a hoarse whisper due to illness, Leitner told the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee how senior defense officials glossed over concerns in the lower ranks that U.S. businesses were being allowed to sell China and other countries technology with military applications. Senior defense officials sometimes instructed subordinates to soften or reverse their recommendations that certain technology not be exported, he said. "That's happened on several occasions," Leitner said. "Sometimes it happens in your face and sometimes it happens when you're on vacation and somebody tampers with your database under your name." In 1996, Leitner said, he returned from a three-week vacation to find that his recommendation against the export of supercomputer technology to Russia had been rewritten to a neutral position. Although approval for the export eventually was denied, Russia later announced it had obtained the U.S.-built computers without an export license. The case, Leitner said, is under investigation. The hearing concerns the Defense Technology Security Administration, an obscure Pentagon agency that has become the focus of congressional investigations of aerospace exports to China. A key question is whether DTSA, where Leitner has been a senior strategic trade adviser for 12 years, has shirked its role as a guardian of U.S. technology. In Beijing today, Foreign Ministry spokesman Tang Guoqiang dismissed the growing controversy in the United States over technology sales to China as "a wave of noise." Asked specifically whether China stole a circuit board from a crashed American satellite, Tang replied, "No such case exists." Traditionally, the Pentagon-based office has adopted a strict attitude toward exports with military potential. Under the Clinton administration, Leitner contends, that philosophy quietly changed as the Commerce Department was given primary responsibility for reviewing commercial satellite exports. The Pentagon "abandoned its traditional role and instructed (Department of Defense) employees to side with the Commerce Department." The result, he said, was to "deceive both the Congress and the American people ... while shortsighted business interests line their pockets." Commerce, according to administration critics on Capitol Hill, has been much more prone to support exports to China and elsewhere despite potentially adverse national security consequences. Senior Commerce officials have vigorously denied that charge in recent congressional testimony. Republicans have suggested that campaign contributions may have swayed Clinton administration export policies. Veteran executive branch officials rarely criticize a sitting administration on policy matters, but Leitner has done so before, surprising a congressional hearing last year by questioning the administration's commitment to protecting sensitive technology. Thursday's testimony, however, comes amid much greater attention as President Clinton begins his nine-day trip in China and congressional inquiries continue. Air Force Lt. Col. Queenie Byars, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said Leitner was speaking "as a private citizen," not a Pentagon official. David Tarbell, director of the Defense Technology Security Administration, denied in recent testimony that he pressured subordinates to toe a pro-export line. He was asked specifically to discuss allegations reported previously by The Associated Press that DTSA staffers were instructed to support a proposed satellite export to China in February. Clinton approved the export of the Chinasat-8 satellite even though its builder, Loral Space & Communications, is under Justice Department investigation for allegedly providing China with missile-related information in an earlier deal. "All the recommendations that came in on Chinasat-8 recommended approval," Tarbell told a House hearing. But he added, "I don't know whether there might have been one employee in the Defense Department who thought this was a bad idea."

To: Dragonfly who wrote (621)	6/27/1998 8:42:00 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 880

Unfortunately I have put up many "things of substance". "Your type" chooses to ignore substance. I have said many times I'm content to await the outcome of the investigation but that matters as reported look very fishy as far as the Clinton administration is concerned. You made a statement (actually several) which you have never backed up (eg, the great Clinton electoral victories, wiretap statute, failure of Hughes et al. execs. to have contributed to Clinton or DNC etc.). Based upon the recent election results in NM, I believe you are right, the people are seeing things as they are. If you are "heartened" then you haven't been inhaling along with Clinton. JLA