Act Acting » Acting Agents » Wheres The OUTRAGE: Clinton Gives Away The Store

Wheres The OUTRAGE: Clinton Gives Away The Store

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – which is a totally stupid assertion.  If it is your "opinion" then please cite something other than a "belief" that something is true. Beliefs don’t require evidence but opinions and allegations do. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. You do not require evidence to have an opinion, though you should have some to make an allegation. Using conjecture, hearsay, innuendo, theory, rumor, story and lies serves little use in making your opinions credible. It is just as good as ignoring the facts and completely changing the subject to something else totally that really can’t be argued because it makes no sence.  An example follows: Because it’s bad fallacy argument, everything from non sequitur to post hoc fallacy.   More than likely you’re regurgitating some talking head’s assessment that presupposes you don’t know the first thing about fallacy argument (a rush limbaugh trademark) and rattles off crap like you just cited. See what I mean?

  Please remove my name next time if the quote is not mine (which the above is not).  I don’t belong in this argument!  :) TA

Response:

Then you think there is basically NO evidence Lee spied? No, only an idiot would come to that conclusion.

You can twist perception, but reality won’t budge. You can sit and refuse to acknowledge the facts, and refuse to draw a rational conclusion.  That will not change what’s going to happen.  How can anyone expect to hold an intelligent conversation with you when you cling to this moronic blindness?  I know I don’t anymore.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Then you think there is basically NO evidence Lee spied? No, only an idiot would come to that conclusion. You can twist perception, but reality won’t budge.

We are trying to find out what is real. Spying involves giving secret information to other countries. I have yet to see any evidence of that. You have not mentioned any. You seemed to say that erasing files improperly put on your desk computer, after the FBI asked you about that, implied spying. It seems to me it implies only that you improperly put files on your desk computer and then tried to erase them. In addition, the person PASSED a lie detector test in which he was asked if he spied. He failed a question about whether he put the data on his desk computer. Putting data on your desk computer is not spying. It also seems a very odd way to spy. He put data there over a fifteen year period – a spy would do it in one night. He kept the data there for fifteen years. A spy would never leave proof of his crime so easy to find. Unless you have some other facts, you have not made a persuasive factual case. You can sit and refuse to acknowledge the facts, and refuse to draw a rational conclusion.  That will not change what’s going to happen.  How can anyone expect to hold an intelligent conversation with you when you cling to this moronic blindness?  I know I don’t anymore.

Explain the flaws in my facts and/or logic, please. I do not understand what you are talking about. If you have a good point, you will be able to state it in a clear, simple way. Please do so. George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Committee Chairman Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). "It’s hard to swallow." "Somebody has not done the job," Shelby said, "Is it the FBI, is it the Justice Department, is it both? On both sides of the aisle that was raised." "From the 1980s all the way through today, the right hand did not know  what the left hand was doing," said Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), vice   chairman of the panel.      So there was spying going on for the last 15 years, and our law enforcement agencies didn’t take it very seriously. This is a problem.   However, it isn’t a _partisan_ problem. People that think that this is somehow a Democratic problem, or a Klinton problem are ignoring at least half of the facts if not more. This isn’t in dispute. What appears to be in dispute is the fact that television media has buried it. The thefts from those old administrations? I guess you are right – lotta people think the damned things were stolen in THIS administration. Perfectly understandable, given Clinton’s reputation.

i.e., the lesson is that non stop smears work. Sad, but true. George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You mean the transfer of the secrets of neutron bombs, and small bombs – during the previous administrations? Yes.  And this one. This one? What are you talking about? We have reports of the Chinese stealing the technology of the neutron bomb and the small bomb in those earlier administrations, and reports of an additional theft of something to fix a problem with the neutron bomb in the CLinton administration. Those are the only reports that the CHinese have stolen secrets, to my knowledge. So when you say – "this one" you are referring to a theft I have not seen reported. What are you talking about?

By this one, I am referring to the current administration.  Just follow the context of the discussion. I assume you think that this person is a spy. What evidence for that do you have? It seems to me that it is limited to his failing a lie detector test. We know one question he failed was about where he stored data – the desk computer thing, I guess. I am personally not aware of any other evidence that he spied – do you know of such evidence? If so tell me what it is. George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

OK. The following between quotes "" is directly from a newspaper article.  You will not hear much of this on TV.  The words that are not between quotes are my play-by-play. The article: NY Times, today, April 30th, 1999. Article by James Risen and Jeff Gerth "WASHINGTON — A scientist suspected of spying for China tried to hide evidence that he had transferred nuclear secrets out of a computer system at a Government nuclear weapons laboratory two days after he failed an F.B.I. polygraph examination in February, according to United States officials. The scientist, Wen Ho Lee, deleted more than 1,000 files containing millions of lines of classified computer codes related to nuclear weapons from the computer system at Los Alamos National Laboratory after the lie detector test in February. American officials say one of the questions on the test, on which he was shown to be deceptive, related to his computer use at Los Alamos, where he worked since 1978." This happened last month. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation discovered the deleted files in March, after Lee gave the bureau permission to search his office computer. The administrator of the computer systems at Los Alamos then helped the bureau to recreate the deleted files. Officials say that after the polygraph test, Lee, apparently aware that investigators were suspicious of his computer use, deleted between 1,000 and 2,000 files. Lee was fired from his job at Los Alamos on March 8 for security violations, but has not been charged with any crime. Lee has denied wrongdoing. His lawyer could not be reached Thursday. " Between 1000 and 2000 files?  Yes, I think he is a spy.  You don’t? "Experts from the F.B.I. and Los Alamos said they were horrified when they began to sift through the files that they say Lee transferred and then deleted. He had downloaded what amount to the keys to the American nuclear arsenal, officials said. The computer codes and data were, in effect, the distillation of more than a half-century of research on how to perfect nuclear weapons, they said. They included the so-called legacy codes that enable scientists to generate computer simulations of nuclear explosions. When coupled with data on the performance of specific warheads, they create a virtual blueprint of the nuclear explosive parts of a nuclear weapon. American officials contend that Lee transferred files out of the classified computer and into an unclassified computer network at Los Alamos between 1983 and 1995. Most of the reported transfers took place in 1994 and 1995. " Question: What dates does the article say most of the transfers took place between? Answer: 1994 and 1995 Question:  How many files would Lee have to delete before you consider it evidence that he is a spy? Your Answer? Perhaps you are also getting all of your information about this from the television?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Committee Chairman Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). "It’s hard to swallow." "Somebody has not done the job," Shelby said, "Is it the FBI, is it the Justice Department, is it both? On both sides of the aisle that was raised." "From the 1980s all the way through today, the right hand did not know  what the left hand was doing," said Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), vice   chairman of the panel.      So there was spying going on for the last 15 years, and our law enforcement agencies didn’t take it very seriously. This is a problem.   However, it isn’t a _partisan_ problem. People that think that this is somehow a Democratic problem, or a Klinton problem are ignoring at least half of the facts if not more. This isn’t in dispute. What appears to be in dispute is the fact that television media has buried it. The thefts from those old administrations? I guess you are right – lotta people think the damned things were stolen in THIS administration.

Perfectly understandable, given Clinton’s reputation.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – which is a totally stupid assertion.  If it is your "opinion" then please cite something other than a "belief" that something is true. Beliefs don’t require evidence but opinions and allegations do. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. You do not require evidence to have an opinion, though you should have some to make an allegation. Using conjecture, hearsay, innuendo, theory, rumor, story and lies serves little use in making your opinions credible. It is just as good as ignoring the facts and completely changing the subject to something else totally that really can’t be argued because it makes no sence.  An example follows: Because it’s bad fallacy argument, everything from non sequitur to post hoc fallacy.   More than likely you’re regurgitating some talking head’s assessment that presupposes you don’t know the first thing about fallacy argument (a rush limbaugh trademark) and rattles off crap like you just cited. See what I mean?

Truly authentic Usenet gibberish, wasn’t it?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Did you know he passed two previous lie detector tests? Odd the NY Times left that out. No, I didn’t.  Passing or failing do not hold a very large value to me. Then you think there is basically NO evidence Lee spied? I don;t know. But I know that there is no particular evidence of that in the story. You don’t call deleting thousands of files evidence?  You asked for evidence, not proof. Don’t change your requirements to suit your argument. No, I do not. Spying is taking info and giving it to another country. Deleting files is not that. Explain how it bears on "spying."

Oh Porgy for crying out loud, doesn’t it even bother you a little that you pretend to be this stupid? What am I saying…he’s a "liberal". Nevermind, Porgy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – He works with these files all the time I guess. Do not guess when it comes to the theft of our most classified nuclear secrets. What theft? If you allege it, shouldn’t you have SOME proof of it? You have – he erased files on his desktop computer. How is that spying? We know he put them on a computer on his desk beginning in 1983. Does that mean he is a spy? Not really. It may mean he just wanted the damn stuff on his more convenient desk computer – since he worked with them all the time. It is much more likely that he was a spy. Why? Let me repeat – spying is taking info and giving it to another country. It is not – putting info you routinely use in your job on your own desktop computer. The "secure" computer is a supercomputer which is probably a pain to work with. Far more convenient to just have the stuff right here. That is NOT any sort of evidence of spying. He had secrets, but then his job was to WORK with secrets. Day in day out. SO having them on his desk strikes me as sort of understandable.  But that is a crime. So when the feds asked him about it – he tried to hide it. But that it not the same as spying, you know? You do not get to be a nuclear scientist without knowing that you can’t have the Legacy Codes on your desktop computer.  You don’t think that, do you? I bet a large number of people at the lab do similar things, to tell you the truth. People do things which are convenient. Rather than have to use a supercomputer, with its hassles, I can easily imagine he just put the damn stuff on his desk. That is completely understandable and is not spying. And, of course, we know he put different files there over time. Would a spy take fifteen years to steal the info? And leave evidence of his crime on his desk – for fifteen years? Not likely. It seems to me if he were a spy he would have ERASED the stuff, instead of leaving it on his computer for FIFTEEN YEARS! Deleting the files is an attempt to erase them.  A poor one, but an attempt nonetheless. Only after the FBI asked him about it and he knew he could get in trouble for it. A REAL spy would be careful. He would NOT leave the stuff where it could be found for FIFTEEN years. Just not plausible. But a person who worked with this computer data, day in and day out, who found it sort of a pain to deal with the firm Supercomputer, all the sharing and crap – might very plausibly just put it on his own computer where it could conveniently be worked with. And according to my calculator, it hasn’t been 15 years since 1995. So what? The reports are that such files were first put on his desk computer in 1983. And that files were added over the time. I bet you the pattern of downloading tracks his need to WORK with the specific files. It surely does not match any pattern of needing to STEAL it. So spies normally leave proof of their spying around easily found for FIFTEEN YEARS? Or take fifteen years to slowly get it ready for release to the commies? I do not pretend to be able to get into the mind of a spy.  But it is possible that he wasn’t very worried about it, since he knew our President was already bought. Only smart people work at such a place – not people who think Presidents are commie spies. So such a mindset is implausible. In addition, you are talking about three Presidents. Imagine the PATIENCE of his spy masters – waiting, waiting, waiting, as he takes his INCREDIBLE damned time to get the stuff there on his computer, in full – fifteen years! Wow. Were I his handler I would have hopped him up and said – hey man – eight years is enough already – FINISH! But I don;t know. I don’;t think you do either. This I do know.  Their nuclear development has been accelerated greatly.  15 years is 1/3 of the time the United States took to develop the same technology.  Sounds like a bargain to me. I do not deny they stole. As we learn more it seems clear it is easy to steal. We read that nuclear secrets are in a great many books, for instance, spread all over the govt. I imagine that the pain of using a supercomputer induced many lab workers to simply put data on their own less secure computers, quite possibly hackable. But the fact that they stole surely does not mean that this particular person gave them secrets. The only direct evidence is something you say does not matter – failure on a lie detector. And on others, I hear, he passed. That he had data on his desk I find not compelling. I once worked in what was then the second most secure building in the US, and behind the glass entrance doors, where only those who could deal with secrets dwelled, who could all rat out secrets if they chose to, who was around to steal info you had on your desk? THe others generally had such data anyway. SO convenience – appeals to me. Remember Richard Feynman and his proof that all the safes could easily be gotten to by visitors to labs? (He found them routinely open or easily able to be hacked). China has many routes to secrets. Question: What dates does the article say most of the transfers took place between? Answer: 1994 and 1995 So what? Did his JOB require him to need that data, to work on, in those years? I bet this tracks that requirement. ANd he downloaded over fifteen years. A spy would do it in a night and be done with it – and immediately erase it – not drag it out over fifteen years. Just implausible story. Oh. LONG AFTER we know China got the info on the neutron bomb and on the small bomb. So he CAN:T be the source – is that your point? He’s been at it for 20 years. Try to be factual. THe only evidence of spying you have is that he put secret data which he needs to work with, all the time, on his own desk computer, a move which would make doing his job far more convenient. And that after the FBI asked him about whether he had done that, he erased from his desk computer files which should not be on it, according to the security rules. Right? Do you think others in the lab also improperly kept secret materials at their desk, for convenience? IF they did – if this was in fact rather routine – would the ALL be spies? He was discovered only recently.  What do you mean he can’t be the source? You said most of the files got to his computer only recently. Yet we know that the secrets for the neutron bomb and the small bomb got to CHina in Reagan/Bush – long before the stuff was put on his computer. So are you arguing that he gave away the data long before he put it on his desk? If so – how does putting it on his desk indicate that he is a spy? Since that act has nothing to do with the spy work?  Why bother attempting to bury the facts in a bunch of nonsense? Question:  How many files would Lee have to delete before you consider it evidence that he is a spy? Your Answer? It has no bearing on whether he is a spy. A real spy would have deleted every one fifteen years ago, after he got them out, got them to China and then got them off his computer before he got caught and shot. It is easier, I guess, to ignore the facts in this case than to face them. The fact is that he put files on his desk, where work would be more convenient, over fifteen years. He was asked about putting the files on his desk – which violates rules – and he erased them. How is that proof of spying? If many others in the lab, for convenience, also broke this rule and kept the stuff they worked with at their desk, would you argue that they are all spies as well? Since the evidence would be just as great for them? (you do not buy the lie detector stuff you say). Have you ever worked with a Super Computer, the only computer I guess which was the proper repository for this data? Is it inconvenient to do that – sharing it and all – relative to simply having the data on the computer on your own desk? Do people, over years, find ways to do their job in a convenient way? Is that a highly plausible alternative explanation for the facts in this case? I think that it is. If this is the only evidence, and per reports it is, then it will not warrant indictment of Mr. Lee. Our judicial system requires more than mere suspicion from rather ambiguous evidence. Mr. Lee will likely be prosecuted for putting data on his desk however, but if that law requires that some bad intent be shown, then he will likely be acquitted. IMO. Again, ambiguous facts are not sufficient. ……. He has broken a law, maybe – putting stuff on his desk computer. That is not spying. He tried to cover up that crime. That does not prove spying. It is worthy of reporting.  Some, like I, find it safer to

… read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This isn’t in dispute. What appears to be in dispute is the fact that television media has buried it. It’s "buried" simply because republicans are using it as another "gate" America, including the press just can’t handle another "non-scandal" used by conservatives as political weapons. IF and when, republicans stop pointing fingers ala whitewater, filegate, travelgate, etc, and approach the Problem in a bipartisan manner without trying to blame a political opponent, THAT would be the story of the last year of the century.

And if the Democrats "approach the Problem in a bipartisan manner without trying to blame a political opponent, THAT would be the story of the last year of the century" too.

Response:

Deleting the files is an attempt to erase them.  A poor one, but an attempt nonetheless. Only after the FBI asked him about it and he knew he could get in trouble for it.

I think it likely that someone who worked in a SCIF would be briefed about what a Bad Idea it would be to take top secret/secure compartmentalized information out of a secure environment. More than likely, in fact. A REAL spy would be careful. He would NOT leave the stuff where it could be found for FIFTEEN years. Just not plausible.

On the other hand, Ames had plenty of incriminating evidence around his house, and he was allegedly a professional. But a person who worked with this computer data, day in and day out, who found it sort of a pain to deal with the firm Supercomputer, all the sharing and crap – might very plausibly just put it on his own computer where it could conveniently be worked with.

And, according to you, not access it? — Don McGregor     | There is no spoon.

Response:

You mean the transfer of the secrets of neutron bombs, and small bombs – during the previous administrations?

Yes.  And this one. Or the downloading of secrets from a classified computer, begun in 1983?

And the fact that he remained in a position to compromise the security of the United States until last month. He might be trying to point out that while the Colmbine shootings are a tragedy, a great tragedy, they in no way compare to the importance of this issue.  There is virtually no television coverage of this tremendously important story. That countries spy is actually old news.

That our country can be so lax in its security in not, on the other hand. What would they report, exactly? That in the 19080’s China got nuclear bomb secrets, and may have gotten minor additional info since?

And that is continued through the 90’s. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   The only way to find information about it is to read some of the major newspapers.  As I type this, on TV right now Soledad O’Brien, cutie that she is, has announced for the fiftieth time that Eric Harris was rejected by the Marines only days before the shooting.  Everybody knows that now.  He may be thinking that some of the hundred or so news correspondents in Colorado may want to get their ass to DC and report on real issues. Maybe he is hoping that a little discussion on the subject may help someone come to the conclusion that the "Free Press" is dropping the ball.  That ball being its responsibility to act as a safeguard for the people of this country. From the eighties? Should they report on spying in WWI as well?

If spying in WWI was relevant to our security today, I would encourage it. What has been happening since the 80’s is very relevant. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We criticize many countries for not allowing a free press, while we have one here.  Unfortunately, it would appear that our "Free Press" voluntarily squelches information about their government because it agrees with its agenda. A large portion of the people in this country get all of their information from their TV.  To not expose them to all the facts is to keep them in ignorance, which is what this administration needs to do if it wants to hold its power.  The "Free Press" is doing just that.  He just may find that a little scary. don;t hyperventilate on this one, would be my suggestion George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

Thanks.  Having briefly considered that, I will go on watching the watchdog, and keep my paper bag handy.

Response:

Oh bullshit! If people don’t seek out readily available sources of news (the papers) that’s their own damn fault!

Agreed. There is no censorship in this country — people need to take responsibility for their own ignorance instead of whining about the "liberal media" or making the absolutely ridiculous claim that Clinton somehow controls what goes on TV.

I stated pretty clearly that the media in the US does voluntarily what the media in more oppressive countries is forced to do. By the way, the real reason Columbine is a big story on TV is because there’s video to look at and it’s more exciting.

That’s the first time I’ve heard the Columbine story called exciting.  Of course, that would explain the rash of copy-cat threats across the country now, I guess. TV watchers WANT that story. The networks give people what they want.

That is certainly a financial concern of the networks.  That does not relinquish the responsibility of them to give the people what they need though. The idea that they withold things for an agenda is ridiculous.

To you. Take one look at Jerry Springer and you’ll see what I mean.

Jerry Springer should be taken as entertainment.  News should have some information value. But you know what?  Even the "exciting" Columbine massacre will become "boring", and eventually NATO will run out of bombs, and still, China will have our most important nuclear secrets.  And the fact will still remain that what they weren’t able to steal, our President, this President,  sold to them.

Response:

You mean the transfer of the secrets of neutron bombs, and small bombs – during the previous administrations? Or the downloading of secrets from a classified computer, begun in 1983? And the fact that he remained in a position to compromise the security of the United States until last month.

[snip]   From today’s Washington Post at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-04/30/174l-043099-id… Committee Chairman Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). "It’s hard to swallow." "Somebody has not done the job," Shelby said, "Is it the FBI, is it the Justice Department, is it both? On both sides of the aisle that was raised." "From the 1980s all the way through today, the right hand did not know  what the left hand was doing," said Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), vice   chairman of the panel.      So there was spying going on for the last 15 years, and our law enforcement agencies didn’t take it very seriously. This is a problem.   However, it isn’t a _partisan_ problem. People that think that this is somehow a Democratic problem, or a Klinton problem are ignoring at least half of the facts if not more.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Committee Chairman Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). "It’s hard to swallow." "Somebody has not done the job," Shelby said, "Is it the FBI, is it the Justice Department, is it both? On both sides of the aisle that was raised." "From the 1980s all the way through today, the right hand did not know  what the left hand was doing," said Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), vice   chairman of the panel.      So there was spying going on for the last 15 years, and our law enforcement agencies didn’t take it very seriously. This is a problem.   However, it isn’t a _partisan_ problem. People that think that this is somehow a Democratic problem, or a Klinton problem are ignoring at least half of the facts if not more.

This isn’t in dispute. What appears to be in dispute is the fact that television media has buried it. The Press must honor their their responsibility to report the truth or lose it.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – . Well, Archie has finally slipped off into the realm of crackpottery. The Columbine shootings were "wag the dog".  Isn’t that what Archie is trying to say? He might be saying that the liberal media is purposefully avoiding dealing with the Chinese espionage which apparently occurred with the duplicity of the current administration. He might be trying to point out that while the Colmbine shootings are a tragedy, a great tragedy, they in no way compare to the importance of this issue.  There is virtually no television coverage of this tremendously important story.  The only way to find information about it is to read some of the major newspapers.  As I type this, on TV right now Soledad O’Brien, cutie that she is, has announced for the fiftieth time that Eric Harris was rejected by the Marines only days before the shooting.  Everybody knows that now.  He may be thinking that some of the hundred or so news correspondents in Colorado may want to get their ass to DC and report on real issues. Maybe he is hoping that a little discussion on the subject may help someone come to the conclusion that the "Free Press" is dropping the ball.  That ball being its responsibility to act as a safeguard for the people of this country.  We criticize many countries for not allowing a free press, while we have one here.  Unfortunately, it would appear that our "Free Press" voluntarily squelches information about their government because it agrees with its agenda. A large portion of the people in this country get all of their information from their TV.  To not expose them to all the facts is to keep them in ignorance,

Oh bullshit! If people don’t seek out readily available sources of news (the papers) that’s their own damn fault! There is no censorship in this country — people need to take responsibility for their own ignorance instead of whining about the "liberal media" or making the absolutely ridiculous claim that Clinton somehow controls what goes on TV. By the way, the real reason Columbine is a big story on TV is because there’s video to look at and it’s more exciting. TV watchers WANT that story. The networks give people what they want. The idea that they withold things for an agenda is ridiculous. Take one look at Jerry Springer and you’ll see what I mean. Mr. H – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – which is what this administration needs to do if it wants to hold its power.  The "Free Press" is doing just that.  He just may find that a little scary.

Response:

You mean the transfer of the secrets of neutron bombs, and small bombs – during the previous administrations? Yes.  And this one.

This one? What are you talking about? We have reports of the Chinese stealing the technology of the neutron bomb and the small bomb in those earlier administrations, and reports of an additional theft of something to fix a problem with the neutron bomb in the CLinton administration. Those are the only reports that the CHinese have stolen secrets, to my knowledge. So when you say – "this one" you are referring to a theft I have not seen reported. What are you talking about? Or the downloading of secrets from a classified computer, begun in 1983? And the fact that he remained in a position to compromise the security of the United States until last month.

You mean you are mad at Reagan and Bush for not finding out in 1983 and the subsequent years that he had put info into his desk computer? I assume you think that this person is a spy. What evidence for that do you have? It seems to me that it is limited to his failing a lie detector test. We know one question he failed was about where he stored data – the desk computer thing, I guess. I am personally not aware of any other evidence that he spied – do you know of such evidence? If so tell me what it is. George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

Response:

. Well, Archie has finally slipped off into the realm of crackpottery. The Columbine shootings were "wag the dog".  Isn’t that what Archie is trying to say?

He might be saying that the liberal media is purposefully avoiding dealing with the Chinese espionage which apparently occurred with the duplicity of the current administration. He might be trying to point out that while the Colmbine shootings are a tragedy, a great tragedy, they in no way compare to the importance of this issue.  There is virtually no television coverage of this tremendously important story.  The only way to find information about it is to read some of the major newspapers.  As I type this, on TV right now Soledad O’Brien, cutie that she is, has announced for the fiftieth time that Eric Harris was rejected by the Marines only days before the shooting.  Everybody knows that now.  He may be thinking that some of the hundred or so news correspondents in Colorado may want to get their ass to DC and report on real issues. Maybe he is hoping that a little discussion on the subject may help someone come to the conclusion that the "Free Press" is dropping the ball.  That ball being its responsibility to act as a safeguard for the people of this country.  We criticize many countries for not allowing a free press, while we have one here.  Unfortunately, it would appear that our "Free Press" voluntarily squelches information about their government because it agrees with its agenda. A large portion of the people in this country get all of their information from their TV.  To not expose them to all the facts is to keep them in ignorance, which is what this administration needs to do if it wants to hold its power.  The "Free Press" is doing just that.  He just may find that a little scary.

Response:

You’re both wrong. Clinton exploits any event in order to  mount the soapbox, his lackeys call it looking "presidential," and say whatever it takes to get on the 6:00 PM news. He doesn’t care about anyone except Bill Clinton Cajun

I guess that’s why he sent troops to Bosnia, a year before his reelection, when the public opposed it three to one? George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

Response:

It is a fundamentally dishonest column. Mr. Safire surely knows that the information transferred to another computer was not likely "spilled" to anywhere. Read the actual news report in the Wash Post today. The smaller computer tracks all transfers, and the amount which even COULD have been diverted is small. And there is no reason to think it was transferred other than to those using the computer for their legitimate work at the lab. Yet Mr. Safire tricks the gullible, such as Mr. Ridemfi, with the clever use of purposefully misleading prose. Mr. Safire continues, as always, to be a cheap Republican hack, determined to score partisan points by exploiting the stupidity of some of his readers.

Is this the article you are referring to? A note for those who do not want to read the whole thing:  There is nothing in this article about the smaller computer tracking transfers or the amount of diverted information being small. It does not paint a pretty picture, either. 50 Years of Nuclear Know-How Compromised Los Alamos ‘Legacy Codes’ May Be More Valuable Than Blueprints, Experts Say By Vernon Loeb Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, April 30, 1999; Page A16 Secret computer programs transferred by an espionage suspect at Los Alamos National Laboratory from a classified computer network to a vulnerable desktop machine are mathematical models, known aptly as "legacy codes," embodying 50 years of American nuclear know-how. Their discovery last month during a search of Wen Ho Lee’s office computer, shortly after the physicist was fired for other security violations, has sent shock waves through the weapons laboratory and the Department of Energy because the codes are in some ways even more valuable than blueprints, nuclear weapons experts say. With the FBI investigating Lee for possibly leaking nuclear secrets to China and a storm gathering in Congress over the Clinton administration’s handling of the case, knowledge that the codes were copied and transferred from their secure storage computers raises the possibility that Chinese espionage may have scored a major coup. "The legacy codes themselves embody generations of work by the most knowledgeable experts in the nuclear weapons community," said Matthew G. McKinzie, a physicist and nuclear weapons expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "The codes represent the best physics and the best computational techniques, along with the best tried-and-true understanding of these weapons. The Chinese, in getting these codes, would be able to assimilate all that — and that’s what makes this so serious." A nuclear weapons code is a set of equations, up to a million lines long, that describe the physical processes that occur in a nuclear explosion. A code, thus, becomes the principal tool for nuclear weapons designers as they seek to meet the specifications for each new weapon ordered by the military. Codes exist for all weapons in the nation’s nuclear arsenal. They have evolved over the years as weapons scientists refined their expertise through dozens of new warhead designs and more than 1,000 nuclear tests. The Chinese, by contrast, have only their 45 tests to go on. U.S. officials have not specified how many legacy codes Lee transferred, other than to say that not all the codes were involved. But they have revealed that Lee also transferred input data, relating to the design parameters of individual warheads — data plugged into the codes to calculate things like a warhead’s explosive yield. Even taken together, the codes and the input data would not provide a foreign adversary with an actual blueprint of a warhead, in all its engineering detail. But by using a code and the input data, McKinzie said, it would be possible to reverse engineer a weapon and go even further by manipulating the design parameters fed into the code. This, in some senses, makes having the code and the input data even more valuable than a blueprint, McKinzie said, since it gives scientists the ability to both replicate a design and understand theoretically how various warheads actually work. D.B. Henderson, a weapons designer at Los Alamos, has called computer computation "the center of the [nuclear weapons] program, the nexus where everything is joined." While scientists working on the Manhattan Project developed the atom bomb without computer codes — computers did not exist in 1945 — calculations necessary to produce the hydrogen bomb in 1952 could not have been performed without an early computer, McKinzie said. Indeed, the development of increasingly sophisticated thermonuclear weapons necessitated increasingly sophisticated computers. "They’re intertwined to this day," said Robert S. Norris, another NRDC nuclear weapons expert. Los Alamos has developed the world’s most powerful computer, Blue Mountain, capable of 1.6 trillion calculations per second, as a tool to enable scientists to develop a whole new generation of computer codes that will produce three-dimensional simulations of warheads as they explode. Those three-dimensional simulations are critical to what is now the laboratory’s main mission: Stockpile Stewardship, an annual process of certifying that the nation’s nuclear warheads remain functional and safe. Since actual tests of the weapons are now banned under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the only way to check them is through computer simulations. The legacy codes Lee transferred from Los Alamos’s classified network to its unclassified system are an older generation of programs — still highly valuable for Stockpile Stewardship — that produce two-dimensional models of a nuclear detonation. Lee worked in Los Alamos’s X-Division, where warhead design takes place, specializing in hydrodynamics — the way metals behave when they are reduced to liquids as a warhead detonates. Henderson, the Los Alamos weapons designer, has described legacy codes as "a compendium of lots of stuff, mostly physics." "I look at it as books on a shelf: textbooks on chemical kinetics, detonations, fluid mechanics, equations of state, radiation processes," he has written. "We collect all these things together with numerical analysis and some ad hoc rules — and that makes a code. It is a big collection, this whole library of stuff . . . ."

Related Posts

Leave a Reply