-Caveat Lector- >From http://www.security-policy.org/latest.html > Publications of the Center for Security Policy > No. 99-D 73 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > DECISION BRIEF > 24 June 1999 > > > New Democrats for the B-2: Influential Senator Lieberman > Recognizes Need for Upgrading the U.S. Manned Bomber Force > > (Washington, D.C.): What a difference a war makes! Thanks to its > highly successful baptism of fire in the conflict with Serbia, > the B-2 stealth bomber -- long derided by the Clinton > Administration and its supporters on Capitol Hill as an artifact > of the Cold War that is of no relevance to the Nation's future > security needs -- is suddenly undergoing a major political > make-over. > > Not surprisingly, a pathfinder in this long-overdue re-estimation > is one of the most enlightened and respected "New Democrats," > Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). In comments to defense reporters > earlier this week, the ranking member on the Senate Armed > Services Committee's Air-Land Subcommittee declared: "The B-2 > really did the job." > > According to a report in Defense Daily, Sen. Lieberman told > reporters this week that the performance of the stealth bomber > was "impressive": > > "'One thing the Air Force and all of us will want to be reviewing > is the bomber force and whether we ought to be investing more in > it,' Lieberman said. The review should consider 'whether we buy > some more B-2s or look at another alternative' for long-range > airpower, he said....'I can conceive of a lot of other conflict > situations in the future where we will want to rely on them,' he > said, referring to the B-2s." > > No less interesting is Sen. Lieberman's overall assessment of how > the armed forces and their equipment acquitted themselves in > combat: "My conclusion is the military performed extremely well > and the weapons systems we invested in over the last three > decades performed brilliantly." > > The Bottom Line > > It can only be hoped that other Democrats -- and so-called > Republican budget-hawks -- will follow Sen. Lieberman's lead. It > is past time for those who have wrongly claimed that the B-2 > would not be able to perform its mission in the rain or avoid > mountains,(1) who insisted that there would be no need for > aircraft with the unique power projection capabilities of the > B-2(2) and/or who contended that the B-2 would never be exposed > to combat due to its high cost(3) to recognize that the visionary > investment made "three decades ago" in this formidable strategic > bomber has paid off handsomely and will continue to do so. > > - 30 - > > 1. See the Center's Decision Brief entitled Bureaucratic Foul > Play Is A Threat To the B-2 Bomber, Not Foul Weather (No. 97-D > 116, 25 August 1997). > > 2. See The Nation Needs More B-2 Bombers (No. 97-D 85, 23 June > 1997); The B-2: A Key Component Of The Cost-Effective Defenses > Needed For The 21st Century (No. 97-T 1, 2 January 1997); and > Center Releases Summary of High-Level Roundtable That Affirms The > Case For The B-2, Debunks Critical Studies (No. 95-P 61, 9 June > 1995). > > 3. See What's Wrong With This Picture? Clinton Doesn't Get The > Need For Strategic Air Strikes -- Or The Right Tool For > Conducting Them (No. 98-D 26, 9 February 1998). > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > NOTE: The Center's publications are intended to invigorate and > enrich the debate on foreign policy and defense issues. The views > expressed do not necessarily reflect those of all members of the > Center's Board of Advisors. > > Publications of the Center for Security Policy > No. 99-D 74 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > DECISION BRIEF > 25 June 1999 > > > Richardson's Purge > > (Washington, D.C.): Yesterday, the House Government Reform > Committee held a critically important hearing featuring testimony > from Energy and Defense Department employees who have been > punished for warning about Clinton Administration policies that > threaten U.S. security.(1) No sooner had Republican and > Democratic Representatives received this evidence of efforts by > Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and other senior Clinton > Administration officials to punish people for the incompetent or > malfeasant behavior they opposed than rumors began circulating in > Washington about Mr. Richardson's next victim: Vic Reis, the > Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs. > > Vic Reis -- The Next Fall Guy? > > In today's Washington Post, Walter Pincus -- the Administration's > preferred outlet for its heavily spun damage-control efforts on > the China/nuclear scandal -- reports that: "The top Energy > Department official in charge of the Nation's nuclear weapons > complex, Victor H. Reis, may quit or be fired in a dispute with > Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, sources said yesterday." > > One of Pincus' unidentified sources at DoE is quoted as saying: > "It is no secret that Secretary Richardson has not been satisfied > with the emphasis given counterintelligence and security at the > labs, and Vic Reis has been the person in charge for the last six > years." (Emphasis added.) In other words, as Wonderland's Duchess > might have put it, "Off with his head." > > If this statement were not so pernicious, it would be hysterical. > In fact, for at least the past two years, responsibility for > "counterintelligence and security at the labs" -- and elsewhere > in the nuclear weapons complex -- has actually been vested in > somebody else, Rose Gottemoeller. Ms. Gottemoeller is a proponent > of radical anti-nuclear proposals(2) who, thanks to Secretary > Richardson's machinations, was stealthily elevated earlier this > year to the status of Assistant Secretary of Energy for > Nonproliferation and National Security. > > It has been Ms. Gottemoeller, not Vic Reis, who has had > responsibility for such scandals as: > > �the declassification of Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted > Data in violation of the Atomic Energy Act and job action against > a senior DoE bureaucrat who had the temerity to alert Congress to > this breach of security and the law.(3) > > �the demotion of Notra Trulock -- the former Director of DoE's > Intelligence Office, who was a prime-mover behind the effort to > uncover and comprehend the magnitude of Chinese penetration of > U.S. nuclear weapons secrets. > > > �the effective firing of Lieutenant Colonel Ed McCallum, one of > those who testified yesterday before Rep. Dan Burton's Government > Reform Committee, in transparent retaliation for his years of > warnings about DoE's appalling security situation -- warnings > that had been ignored until very recently by Secretaries > Richardson and Gottemoeller and their predecessors. > > What Richardson is Wreaking > > Evidently, in this case as in that of lower level officials, > Secretary Richardson intends to try to make lemonade out of the > bitter lemons arising out of his Department's burgeoning scandal. > Instead of holding accountable those actually responsible for the > various aspects of this travesty, he appears determined to use > the demands for "heads to roll" to purge those who have opposed > past and present Clinton political appointees' efforts to destroy > the nuclear weapons program and complex. > > One of those has been Vic Reis. The Center for Security Policy > has had occasion in the past to disagree with Dr. Reis' efforts > to defend indefensible Clinton Administration positions -- > notably, concerning the compatibility of a permanent ban on > nuclear testing with the need to maintain, for the foreseeable > future, a credible, safe and reliable nuclear deterrent.(4) > Still, there is little doubt but that, had it not been for his > efforts, the damage done to date by the Clinton-O'Leary policy of > "denuclearization" would have been even worse than has actually > transpired. > > The Last Straw -- Supporting the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski Amendment > > > If Walter Pincus' leakers are to believed, the coup de gr�ce for > Vic Reis came over his refusal to back Secretary Richardson's > opposition to Senate efforts to save the U.S. nuclear weapons > program by making it the responsibility exclusively of a > semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy. (If > anything, this initiative, sponsored by Republican Senators Jon > Kyl of Arizona, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Frank Murkowski > of Alaska actually does not go as far as it should. As the > President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board recently > reported, [DoE cannot reform itself]; consequently, the new > [Agency for Nuclear Stewardship] should actually be made > completely autonomous along the lines of the Atomic Energy > Commission.) > > Apparently, Mr. Richardson is running into a similar problem > elsewhere in his "fiefdom." Reports reaching the Center suggest > that the nuclear lab directors and other senior professionals in > the weapons complex are also unwilling to tow the > Administration's line on DoE reorganization. They understand full > well that, at a minimum, the sort of streamlining and > clarification of lines of authority and responsibility > contemplated by the Kyl et.al. initiative is sorely needed. > Perhaps the Secretary will have to fire all of them as well in > order to find toadies who will support his position, seemingly > born of nothing more than personal egotism and the reflexive, if > petty, turf-protectionism of any bureaucrat, i.e, that no further > improvement to the Department of Energy is necessary. > > The Bottom Line > > To this point, Bill Richardson has largely been given the benefit > of the doubt by his former colleagues on Capitol Hill (with whom, > as he recently colorfully put it, he "plays basketball.") He has > been excessively credited for having taken steps -- under duress > and very belatedly -- to enhance security at DoE. He has been > spared to a greater extent than he deserves the worst of the > criticism about the mess over which he has presided for nine > months. > > The Secretary should be on notice, however: Should he continue to > pursue a vindictive policy of punishing those who have tried to > protect national security against the effects of misguided and/or > subversive Clinton policies, while protecting those who > promulgated those policies, he may put his own tenure at the > Department in jeopardy. > > - 30 - > > 1. The witnesses were Lt. Col. Edward McCallum, Director of the > Office of Safeguards and Security, Department of Energy; Dr. > Peter Leitner, Senior Strategic Trade Adviser, Defense Threat > Reduction Agency; Michael Maloof, Chief of Technology Security > Operations, Defense Threat Reduction Agency; Jonathan Fox, Esq., > Arms Control Specialist, Defense Special Weapons Agency; Robert > Henson, Physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, > New Mexico. For more on these individuals' contribution to the > national security in the face of Administration recriminations > and job actions, see the Center's Decision Briefs entitled > Profile In Courage: Peter Leitner Blows The Whistle On Clinton's > Dangerous Export Decontrol Policies (No. 97-P 82, 19 June 1997), > Everybody Didn't Do It: Clinton Administration is in a Class by > Itself on Damaging Security Practices (No. 99-D 68, 11 June > 1999), and Saving Lieutenant Colonel McCallum (No. 99-D 64, 1 > June 1999). > > 2. Ms. Gottemoeller's substantive views were considered > sufficiently extreme as to deny her an expected appointment as > Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. > See Clinton's Reckless Nuclear Agenda Revealed? Study Co-Authored > By Candidate For Top Pentagon Job Is Alarming (No. 97-D 96, 12 > July 1997). > > 3. See After Years of Wantonly Declassifying Nuclear Secrets, > D.O.E. Is Suddenly Seized with the Need to Protect Them -- from > Us (No. 99-D 46, 20 April 1999). > > 4. See Warning to the Nuclear Labs: Don't Count on 'Stockpile > Stewardship' to Maintain Either Overhead Or Confidence (No. 97-D > 183, 1 December 1997). > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > NOTE: The Center's publications are intended to invigorate and > enrich the debate on foreign policy and defense issues. The views > expressed do not necessarily reflect those of all members of the > Center's Board of Advisors. > > Top of Page� 1988-1999, Center for Security Policy > Top of Page� 1988-1999, Center for Security Policy A<>E<>R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." --- Ernest Hemingway + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
