henry, I think you take these two clowns too seriously. What they say should be viewed as a Dennis The Menace's fart - there is no meaning in it other than obnoxious behavior designed to piss the target audience.
Just open the window, let the stench out, and forget the whole incidient.
wojtek
>Henry C.K. Liu
>
>May 17, 1999 New York Times
>
>
> ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE
>
> Cut the Apologies
>
>
> After a week of whipping up hatred of Americans by accusing
>us of deliberately murdering Chinese journalists in Belgrade, President
>Jiang Zemin deigned to accept a call from The Great Apologizer.
>
> For the fifth time, President Clinton apologized, expressed
> regrets, sent condolences, kowtowed and groveled, begging
> to be believed that we did not bomb China's embassy on
> purpose.
>
> But it is America that is owed an apology. After an accident
> of war, we have been falsely accused of killing Chinese with
> malice aforethought. That is a great insult, compounded by
> the calculated trashing of our embassy by a bused-in mob
> encouraged by police.
>
> The truth is that Beijing's leaders, worried about
> demonstrations on the 10th anniversary next month of their
> Tiananmen massacre, are milking this mistake for all it is
> worth.
>
> By lying about our intent and suppressing coverage of our
> prompt admission of error, the nervous rulers are diverting
> their people's anger toward us and away from themselves.
>
> By demanding we investigate the accident, they seek to
> water down the current Congressional investigations of their
> nuclear spying -- a series of penetrations of our laboratories
> and political campaigns that was no accident.
>
> By making Clinton beg forgiveness, they are able to cancel
> human rights talks while extracting new trade concessions.
> The deal: they will accept Clinton's apologies when he caves
> in on their application to the World Trade Organization.
>
> No wonder that no reputable diplomat would accept the
> President's pleas to replace our fed-up ambassador in
> Beijing. Clinton is now trying to appoint an admiral whose
> amiable association with the Chinese military and U.S. arms
> contractors will be closely examined by the Senate.
>
> Though Clinton is softer than ever on China, he's taken a
> hard line in resisting Congress's investigations into Beijing's
> penetration of our nuclear labs and our political process. His
> latest trick: the improper use of documents submitted for
> intelligence declassification to prepare advance refutations of
> evidence of security lapses.
>
> The White House has delayed for four months the
> three-volume report on security laxity by the House select
> committee headed by Representative Chris Cox. Clinton
> spinners are already distributing a packet of reprints of
> derogations by offended scientists, China-defenders and
> favorite journalists.
>
> Cox has used the "clearance" delay to rewrite the turgid
> prose and to enliven the report with photographs and
> diagrams showing what missiles and satellites were stolen;
> that might even awaken television interest.
>
> The Senate Intelligence Committee, headed by Richard
> Shelby and Robert Kerrey, is not about to hold still for the
> abuse of clearance.
>
> After it submitted one of its reports on nuclear lab laxity for
> review to protect intelligence sources, it learned of a
> refutation of that bipartisan report in work by the National
> Security Council response machine.
>
> The White House was told that the submission of documents
> was for security clearance only. It was not to be used for (a)
> advance policy review so that "rapid response" would occur
> in the same news cycle as the reports' release, or for (b)
> leakage of portions to the press for "inoculation" to later
> reduce its impact as "old news."
>
> The intelligence business is not the publicity business.
> National security reports are not to be equated with the Starr
> report about hanky-panky. The Shelby committee made
> plain to the Berger Rapid-Apology Center that if this
> undermining of inter-branch comity did not stop forthwith,
> "we're going to zero out the N.S.C. staff budget." (By
> withholding some $15 million, Congress could force the
> spinners onto the Department of Defense payroll or cause
> agonizing layoffs in the White House basement.)
>
> In both House and Senate, bipartisan committees are
> discovering serious intelligence weaknesses: too little analysis
>
> of too much collection. "If there's a flare-up in Iraq, North
> Korea or the Andes," worries an investigator, "we could not
> handle it and Kosovo, too."
>
> The most troubling breakdown is in counterespionage. The
> F.B.I. and C.I.A., which are not blameless, are telling
> Congress the weakest link is the Department of Justice.
>
> What began as corrupt political protection became dangerous
> national security laxity. Who will apologize for that?
>