Chinese Spies and the 2008 Election
February 12th, 2008 at 12:18pm Mark Noonan
The United States does have enemies in the world:
Gregg William Bergersen, 51, of Alexandria, was arrested at his home on espionage charges. Tai Shen Kuo, a Taiwan-born U.S. citizen, 58, and Yu Xin Kang, a Chinese national, 33, both of New Orleans, were arrested in New Orleans on charges of conspiracy to provide defense secrets to China.
Mr. Bergersen worked as a weapons system analyst for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, in Arlington, which is in charge of U.S. arms sales to foreign nations. He held a top-secret clearance.
One official said the case involved the transfer of command, control, communications and intelligence equipment originally sold to Taiwan that was diverted to China.
Court papers state that the three men conspired to transfer defense secrets during meetings with Chinese intelligence officials.
“Today’s prosecution demonstrates that foreign spying remains a serious threat,” said Kenneth L. Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national security.
Indeed it does, and one of the many things to consider in November is just which candidate is likely to keep on top of these threats. In Hillary Clinton, we’ve got a person who gets a lot of her money, illegally, from Chinese sources. In Barack Obama we have a man who doesn’t have the knowledge or experience to understand what sorts of threats we face. In John McCain, we have a man who has fought and suffered for our nation, who went to the mat to defend victory in Iraq, and who knows what a dangerous world we live in.
Who would make the better President?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Foreign Affairs, Republicans
23 Comments
1. James | February 12th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Obama is better equipped to deal with modern geopolitical tensions because of his multicultural background. He understands the modern reality of the increasing economic clout of the Eurozone and the BRIC nations. The road to future success is through increased cooperation and alliances, not Bushian “assertive isolationism.”
McCain is far too grounded in the old-fashioned U.S.-is-the-sole-superpower model that thinks we can get what we want through military action. The Romans and the USSR both learned what happens to a nation’s economy when an empire is overextended.
The key to winning against terrorism is through increased alliances and cooperation with Islamic nations and their non-radical majorities. The trick is to get the Islamic silent majority to turn against the minority radicals. Obama is far better equipped to lead such an effort than an old gunslinger like McCain.
2. Mark Noonan | February 12th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
James,
Obama is better suited because he’s got African and American blood in him?
Doesn’t that seem even a little bit absurd to you?
3. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 12th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
James,
what about the other 90% of presidential duties that Obama’s multicultural background will not be applicable?
Note: I am being very generous with 10%.
Uh, also, we had 8 years of Bill doing that very thing you describe and look where it got us.
4. Brett Michaels | February 12th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
In Barack Obama we have a man who doesn’t have the knowledge or experience to understand what sorts of threats we face.
The same was said about President Bush pre 9/11 correct?
I seem to remember the big national security push coming out of Washington wasnt about combating terrorism or Muslim extremists…it was a missile defense shield.
The job of any good leader is to surround themselves with great people.
Pesident Bush chose Donald Rumsfeld, a very incompetent SecDef, and paid dearly for it.
5. eric | February 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Deleted - post made on this topic.
6. Brett Michaels | February 12th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Ed. Note: Comment moved to appropriate thread.
7. eric | February 12th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Deleted? Deleted? I cannot believe it. I’m never going to post again.
8. sleepygene | February 12th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Obama does understand the world and the threats we live with so much so that he understood that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US in 2003 and that our main threat was in Afghanistan and N/W Pakistan. Judgment/Inetlligence over experience any day of the week. Obama has judgment/intelligence in spades.
9. Mark Noonan | February 12th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Gene,
Find me a statement from Obama in 2003 saying we need to get into NW Pakistan…and as for the fact of Iraq not being an imminent threat…if Obama believed that, then he was merely in agreement with President Bush, VP Cheney, SecDef Rumsfeld, SecState Powell, Nat’l Security Advisor Rice…we liberated not because the threat was imminent, but because it was growing and needed to be dealt with, and the sooner the better.
10. sleepygene | February 12th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Mark-
You are being dishonest, Iraq was sold as an imminent threat, yellow cake, aluminum tubes, mushroom cloud being a smoking gun, mobile weapons labs, little viles before the UN etc. They were wrong it was not an imminent threat and in fact it was no threat at all, (per Hussein it was all bluster and the fact of no WMD), Bush et al. was wrong and Obama was right. Again judgment over experience. You are right Obama didn’t say we should go into N/W Pakistan in 2003, I overstepped.
11. Mark Noonan | February 12th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Gene,
At this late in the game no mountain of facts I could bring forth will convince you - you’ve got the story and you’re just going to believe it because it allows you to keep believing you are right…but once passions have cooled, you really should go back and read the speeches and transcripts of the Executive Branch in the run up to the liberation of Iraq and finally learn how very wrong you’ve been.
12. Joe | February 12th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Mark — …and as for the fact of Iraq not being an imminent threat…if Obama believed that, then he was merely in agreement with President Bush, VP Cheney, SecDef Rumsfeld, SecState Powell, Nat’l Security Advisor Rice…we liberated not because the threat was imminent…
Do you not remember 2002 and 2003???
Sorry for the long block, but here are just a few to refresh your memory.
13. James | February 12th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Mark: ‘Obama is better suited because he?s got African and American blood in him?’
No, that’s not what multiculturalism is. His Mom was an anthropologist and as a child Obama lived in Indonesia and Hawaii; his step-sister likes to say “Barack walks between worlds.” There aren’t very many leaders out there whose upbringing is rooted in both the 1st and 3rd worlds.
Look, we’ve got the whole damn 3rd world pissed off at us. Like or not the economies of Brazil, India, China and Russia are growing like weeds and we need to start treating them more like equals and partners. We need to rebuild our alliances, it’s the only way the U.S. can remain competitive in the global economy, and we need alliances to make security a shared interest.
14. Tractatus | February 12th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
At this late in the game no mountain of facts I could bring forth will convince you - you’ve got the story and you’re just going to believe it because it allows you to keep believing you are right
Funny, that’s what the rest of the world says about people like you. You still with a straight face claim that the Iraq war was not sold on the basis of “imminent threat.” Hell, you even claim that WMDs were not the main justification when George Bush himself said that they were.
I wonder what it was like for your teachers. It must have been immensely frustrating trying to teach someone who was so dead-set against learning.
15. James | February 12th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
TiredofLibBullsh** — “what about the other 90% of presidential duties that Obama’s multicultural background will not be applicable?”
No President can be an expert in every domestic or foreign policy issue. I will say that Obama’s background as a Harvard graduate and teacher of the U.S. Constitution certainly is an improvement over the current White House occupant.
Experience is the least important attribute in a President. Integrity, vision, leadership and character are far more important. In 1860 a very inexperienced man, who only served one term in the House, ran for President. Despite his inexperience he did a pretty fair job of it. That man was Abraham Lincoln.
16. sleepygene | February 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
amen james
17. FmrMarine | February 12th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Hmmmm joe;
Go here and watch….then GO away with your BS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE
18. FmrMarine | February 12th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
or this joe;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVqYBqME&feature=related
or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyhTI7ZpnlE&feature=related
19. FmrMarine | February 12th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Here are more of the lefts “heroes”
do you really really want these people in charge of this country facing the threat from radical islam?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUkSSdSzIDo&feature=related
20. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 12th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
“No President can be an expert in every domestic or foreign policy issue.”
Said those of the left……..
Why isn’t the same applicable to a Republican? Even when that Republican is more qualified, yes Executive experience trumps multicultural experience, anyday.
21. congressive | February 12th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Deleted - mindless insults
22. Joe | February 12th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
FmrMarine,
Thanks for missing the point.
Mark said “we liberated not because the threat was imminent…”
I was proved that theory wrong proving that Bush and his administration did, in fact, claim Iraq to be an imminent threat where he said they didn’t say that.
You should read the full post and not just the highlights.
23. majoriot | February 12th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I see you haven’t run out of pigeon holes…yet.