Clinton and nuclear material

[KingFlorez]

Where does this freeper tale about Clinton selling nuclear material to North Korea come from? I've been trying to find out what the truth is, but haven't had much luck.

[noahmijo]

1. tommorow I am going to school this freeper in my class ON THIS SUBJECT

It's China he is talking about and as it so happens the whole story is BULLSHIT, the discovery of nuke secrets being leaked actually happened in the 80's and was only discovered in 95.

Fuckin freepers they can't even get their own talking points right. This moron I am gonna shove this to tommorow got the country right at least, but his claim is that Clinton did it to take the focus off of Monica.

Here you go mah man this is what I am printing out for the moron to see tommorow.

(Gimmie a sec for the links)

Update: Got em, I sent these articles to myself with the subject line:

"Clinton Sold Nuclear Secrets to Jackie Chan!"

http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/09/china.spy.02/#1

http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/08/us.china.spying/

http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/06/us.china/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/02/china.espionage/index.html

[hughee99]

2. You might want to look a little deeper...

I'm not arguing the content, but if you show most people these 4 stories, they may not be all that convinced.

The first story's evidence is just the statements from Rubin and Gore that it happened in the 80's, though no facts are presented to back this up. It mentions hearings that were going to be held on this issue. China denies that any spying ever happened.

The second story refers to the (yet unnamed) Wen Ho Lee (who wasn't even tried on spying charges http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/08/02/ED128240.DTL), and also references "Officials" believe that spying began in the 1980's but the first evidence is from 1995. While there is some time delay between the time you steal secrets and the time you put them to use, this doesn't really set a specific time line.

The third story rehashes the same Times story as the earlier stories, so it repeats the same information and doesn't really add anything new, other than that one official said the unnamed suspect failed a lie detector.

The 4th story is better, as refers to an actual investigation that took place, but only says that over the last 2 decades they "found that national security harm did occur". This doesn't say that it only happened in the 80's, just that it happened over the last 2 decades.

Since these articles seem to reference the NYT article so much, and the article seems to have been off the mark about quite a few things, you might do better to see if you can dig up the results of the Cox hearings on this. Any freeper worth his salt is sure to bring up the control of certain "dual use" (has both commercial and military applications) technologies that were transfered from the Defense Department to the Commerce department and then sold by Loral Space to China. You might want to research this a little as well just to be prepared.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but personally I'm not a big fan of citing CNN as the basis for any of my arguments.

Good luck!

[noahmijo]

4. See that's the problem when arguing with freepers

You're right better sources exist, problem is they're impossible to find amongst the "usual" media outlets.

That article from the Gate you've got is good, but unlike CNN, that source will just get the moron to pull the church lady act with me.

My whole goal in this is to disprove his bullshit theory that Clinton made some sort of huge profit by PERSONALLY selling us out for Monica.

I think what I got does that job at least. Sure could I use more? yea ALOT more, but at the bare minimum this puts a huge dent in the whole It was Clinton ALL Clinton crap theory, and if he tries to pass CNN off as being liberal, blah blah I can simply say "Yea remember how 'liberal' they were during Whitewater?"

[hughee99]

3. He may have been referring to light-water reactors

that Clinton promised North Korea in 1994 in exchange for agreeing to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Light-water reactors can provide power but are more difficult to use for nuclear material production. Both sides signed the agreement, but they never got their reactor and never gave up on nukes.