Bush responsible for U.S. Spy Plane Secrets seen by China!

[wyldwolf]

We must hammer this one!

U.S. investigators have concluded that China almost certainly gained access to classified information as a result of a mid-air collision between a Chinese fighter and a U.S. spy plane, Jane's Defense Weekly says in its next edition.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63445-2003Sep12?language=printer

[jackcgt]

1. That's a little different than selling the plane to them.

n/t

[TAH6988]

2. How are they even close? N/T

[jackcgt]

3. Every administration has authorized overflights using

spy planes in enemy territory. Bush wasn't piloting the plane, but it crashed nonetheless. The Chinese got ahold of it and figured some things out. I don't understand how Bush is responsible for this other than the fact that he happens to be CinC doing what all CinC's (presidents) have done during their own terms in office.

[TAH6988]

4. While you are mostly correct

a few minor corections:

It wasn't an overflight, the EP-3 was in international waters.
It didn't crash, it landed after being struck by a Chinese fighter

[jackcgt]

37. OK, so that only makes me more correct...

If it was over international waters, what was it doing wrong? Whether it crashed, blew up, collided with something, or simply disappeared, how does that make it anyone's fault? It's a military exercise that went horribly wrong. The Chinese happened to glean so secrets from the wreckage. That's unfortunate, but no one is to blame.

[Brian Sweat]

5. Wrong

This plane is not supposed to be used in overflights. It was designed to fly over international waters and pick up tranmissions.

Hightech aircraft like the SR-71 are used for overflights. These plans are designed to evade fighter jets and air to air missles.

We don't fly what is basically a glorified cargo plane into harms way.

[TAH6988]

6. And that's what it was doing

flying in international waters. BTW, the SR-71 IS NOT used for overflights.

[Brian Sweat]

32. Your the one who mentioned overflights.

BTW, the SR-71 was used for overflights. That's why it was created.

[TAH6988]

39. No, I said

it was NOT an overflight. Yes, the SR-71 WAS used for overflights, but you used the present tense the first time you referenced it, and if you'll notice I capitalized "IS" to highlight the present tense. We don't fly the SR-71 anymore. And BTW, the SR-71 was NOT created as a spyplane to overfly other countries. It was actually created as the A-11, an interceptor. When it was not determined not to be suitable for that role, it was THEN converted to a recce platform.

[Brian Sweat]

41. Wrong and dishonest.

You said, "every administration has authorized overflights using spy planes in enemy territory." That is what I was responding to.


I said, "hightech aircraft like the SR-71 are used for overflights."

Also, the A-11 was created to e an interceptor. The SR-71 is heavily based on the A-11, but there are differences. The SR-71 was created as a spy plane.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OldSoldier]

58. We reactivated the SR-71 fleet for surveillance operations

The higher powers in the Reagan/Bush junta decided reconnaissance satellites were all we'd ever need to monitor the enemy. Someone forgot to ask the intelligence people, who'd have been more than happy to tell the higher powers that if you're working Iraq and the satellite you're working it with is over Baltimore, you won't collect on Iraq at that time, but if you're working Iraq with an airbreather, you can pretty much assume it will be in the area when you need it.

Fortunately, the SR-71 fleet was transferred to NASA and it wasn't much of a problem getting it back after they learned, during GWI, that satellites are a great component of an overhead coverage program but they can't be the whole program.

The SR-71A was the second-generation A-12 (not A-11).

[Rick Myers]

61. You are COMPLETELY incorrect TAH6988

The SR-71 was developed from the A-12 program (there is NO such thing as an A-11). The A-12 program was a DIRECT follow-on to the U-2 project. The A-12 was ALWAYS designed to be a RECON aircraft, and a variant was the YF-12, which was tested and rejected as an interceptor.

This data from The Offical History of Lockheed's Skunk Works, Midland Publishing, 1995

[TAH6988]

7. BTW, what was your point?

[arwalden]

20. It's The WIMP Factor... He Froze... He Blinked... HE APOLOGIZED!!

And then he allowed them to SET THEIR OWN CONDITIONS AND TIMELINE for the return of the plane.

Apologists Must Stop Defending The Chimp! Wake Up!

-- Allen

[TAH6988]

22. Again,

did you want us to go to WAR over this thing? Also, we did not apologize.

[arwalden]

23. No Silly... I Said Nothing About War... I Said He's A Wimp...

And HE DID APOLOGIZE!! You don't have to use the words "sorry" or "apologize" to offer an apology.

He had many more options available to him other than WAR... he chose not to use them. Why?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tinoire]

56. TAH6988- You are damn good but we did apologize

even if it was done in the squirmiest way possible- but what else to expect from a bunch of reptilian weasels who have never had a shred of dignity, honor or sense of responsibility?

I remembered the "very sorry" we sent and when in doubt, or needing proof, I always refer to the old DU archives for this kind of stuff. I look forward to your posts though... You seem very particular about facts and that's welcome. Check this out....


IndianaGreen (18833 posts) Apr-11-01, 09:32 AM (ET)
7. US to China; We are very sorry

Bush told China that he was VERY sorry, instead of just sorry. Please notice what else China is saying in the the Xinhua dispatch below. Faux News will call this a Bush victory, but it sounds to me that China came out ahead, and then some (Taiwan arms sales) that won't be announced. Read the next to last paragraph for the small print.
By the way, the Pentagon is going to keep the crew under wraps for 3 days before they are allowed to talk to the press. Getting our story straight?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20010411/396293.htm

US Side Must Take Full Responsibility for Incident: Chinese Foreign Minister
2001.04.11 20:32:01

BEIJING, April 11 (Xinhuanet) -- While receiving a letter that US Ambassador Joseph Prueher, the representative plenipotentiary of the US Government for handling the incident of a US military reconnaissance plane ramming into and destroying a Chinese military aircraft, handed over to Minister Tang on behalf of the US Government this afternoon, China's Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan pointed out that the US side must take full responsibility for the incident, provide convincing explanations to the Chinese people, stop its reconnaissance activities above the Chinese coast and take measures to stop the recurrence of such incidents.

Ambassador Prueher said in the letter that both President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have expressed their sincere regret over China's missing pilot and aircraft. He said on behalf of the US Government that they were very sorry to the Chinese people and the family of pilot Wang Wei and that they were very sorry for the US plane entering China's airspace and landing without a verbal clearance. The US side also expressed its appreciation of China's efforts to see to the well-being of the American crew.

<snip>

He also pointed out that this is not the conclusion of the case involving the US military plane ramming into a Chinese aircraft, causing the missing of the Chinese pilot, entering the Chinese airspace and landing at a Chinese airfield without permission. The two sides will continue with the negotiations on the matter and other related issues. The Chinese Government and people demand that the US side provide convincing explanations to the Chinese people on this incident, stop sending aircraft to the vicinity of the Chinese coast for reconnaissance activities and take effective measures to avert the recurrence of similar incidents. The US side must understand fully the seriousness of the incident, take seriously the solemn position of the Chinese side and properly handle this incident. It must not make an erroneous judgment and further damage the bilateral relations.

Minister Tang finally stressed that China's sovereign independence, territorial integrity and national dignity brook no infringement. It is China's consistent position that state-to- state relations, including China-US relations, must be based on such basic norms governing international relations as mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non- aggression and non-interference in each other's internal affairs. The Chinese side attaches importance to China-US relations. To develop friendly relations and cooperation between China and the US serves the interests of both countries and the world at large. It is hoped that the US will strictly abide by the three China-US Joint Communiques and the basic norms governing international relations and will refrain from doing anything more to impair the bilateral relations. The US should take a constructive attitude and work with the Chinese side to bring the bilateral relations onto the track of normal development. Enditem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=517&forum=DCForumID5&archive=yes#7

-------------

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200104/11/eng20010411_67479.html
"Both President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have expressed their sincere regret over your missing pilot and aircraft. Please convey to the Chinese people and to the family of pilot Wang Wei that we are very sorry for their loss," the US letter said. The US side goes on to say that its is "very sorry the entering of China's airspace and the landing did not have verbal clearance."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=517&forum=DCForumID5&archive=yes#8
--------------

bill1x1 (238 posts)
Apr-11-01, 11:08 AM (ET)
13. The Im sorry Apology

(51/M) 4/11/01 11:07 am
South China Morning Post
Wednesday, April 11, 2001 10:59 pm

This is the text of letter released by the White House from US Ambassador Joseph W. Prueher to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tang Jiaxuan.

Dear Mr Minister

On behalf of the United States Government, I now outline steps to resolve this issue.

Both President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have expressed their sincere regret over your missing pilot and aircraft. Please convey to the Chinese people and to the family of pilot Wang Wei that we are very sorry for their loss.

Although the full picture of what transpired is still unclear, according to our information, our severely crippled aircraft made an emergency landing after following international emergency procedures. We are very sorry the entering of China's airspace and the landing did not have verbal clearance, but very pleased the crew landed safely. We appreciate China's efforts to see to the well-being of our crew.

In view of the tragic incident and based on my discussions with your representative, we have agreed to the following actions:

Both sides agree to hold a meeting to discuss the incident. My government understands and expects that our aircrew will be permitted to depart China as soon as possible.

The meeting would start April 18, 2001.

The meeting agenda would include discussion of the causes of the incident, possible recommendations whereby such collisions could be avoided in the future, development of a plan for prompt return of the EP-3 aircraft, and other related issues. We acknowledge your government's intention to raise US reconnaissance missions near China in the meeting.

Sincerely,


Joseph W.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=517&forum=DCForumID5&archive=yes#13

[secretshopper]

8. Whistle Ass's Fault is rolling over for the Chinese

This administration's problem started when the business people in it, including Mitch McConnell and Elaine Chao, got so tight with the Chinese government and ours. Otherwise, we could have simply let all Chinese imports go through 100% Customs inspections (which would slow them all down in West Coast ports.)

But no, though China exports 50% of her products to the U.S. and E.U. (http://www.tdctrade.com/tdcnews/9808/98080402.htm and http://www.chamber.org.hk/info/daily_business_news/china/chi00061702.asp) we had to let 24 servicemen and women sit in Hainan for 11 days, let the Chinese pick over one of our spy planes, and "apologize" for flying in what every other country besides China considers international waters.

Instead of troubling the business relationship, we compromised American servicemen's lives and safety and sucked up to a regime that uses slave labor (http://www.google.com/search?q=China+slave+labor&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8).

One month after the spy plane incident, China was granted Permanent Normal Trading Relations.

Meanwhile, jobs in the U.S. are being lost faster than ever.

Grrr...

[TAH6988]

11. What did you want us

to do, go to war with China over the incident?

[newyawker99]

57. Hi secretshopper!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[kentuck]

9. how about when he begged the Russians to return it to us....

in pieces...on a Russian transport? It was humiliating. No wonder ....

[TAH6988]

10. Did you want us to leave it there? N/T

[DocSavage]

12. Intelligence missions

The US has been flying missions like the P-3 was doing for years. There are a lot of near misses that you do not hear about. The military will continue to fly these missions unless the CIC says to stop them, and IMO, there is not one CIC now or in the the future that will.

[sangh0]

13. So what?

Other Presidents have done the same thing. The only difference, and the reason for this thread, is that under elected Presidents, we didn't lose a plane and it's secrets.

[TAH6988]

16. Really?

Obviously, you have never heard of the U-2, RC-130, and RB-47 shootdowns by the Russians. A little research might help your case.

[sangh0]

25. Different mission

Note that you didn't mention anything about the P-3's being shot down over int'l waters.

[TAH6988]

28. No, same mission, different country

And, no, I did NOT mention the aircraft shot down over Int'l waters (not an EP-3 though), because your post referred only to aircraft in which we "lost secrets." Such as the three I mentioned. :-)

[sangh0]

31. Wrong again

My post responded to a post about the EP-3 flights, and was not about any plane that has been shot down and "lost secrets", such as the three you mentioned.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TAH6988]

44. You are not even close

Here is what you said: "The only difference, and the reason for this thread, is that under elected Presidents, we didn't lose a plane and it's secrets."

You did not say EP-3, you said "plane"

Wrong, we have lost other planes and their secrets (The RC-130, RB-47, and U-2 are planes).

[sangh0]

48. You are not even close

and editing out the context doesn't help your case.

[TAH6988]

52. Where did I edit out of context?

Do you deny posting "Other Presidents have done the same thing. The only difference, and the reason for this thread, is that under elected Presidents, we didn't lose a plane and it's secrets." ????

How is that "out of context."?

[Rick Myers]

62. EP-3 is specifically SIGINT

Most others named are photo recon. BIG difference.

[kentuck]

18. No. Just admit it happened.

??

[TAH6988]

21. Admit what happend?

It's common knowledge it happened.

[gratuitous]

14. Bush was every bit as responsible for the spy plane

As Clinton was for the USS Cole. When I see the Repressive Right backing off the ludicrous assertion that Clinton was somehow responsible for policing the Cole while it was docked in hostile waters, then I'll be more than happy to quit saying that Bush bears the onus for the spy plane.

[TAH6988]

19. True, I guess

which means that Clinton was not responsible for the Cole. I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise.

[gratuitous]

30. Well, perhaps not so much here

Or at least, perhaps not by regular posters, but certainly at other message boards and from time to time some disruptor will come along here to assert that Bush's incompetent response to terrorist attacks is excused because Bill Clinton didn't personally stop the USS Cole from getting bombed. It's usually at the end of a long string of baseless assertions designed to let Chimpy off the hook for September 11 because Clinton left national security in such disarray that the U.S. was just low-hanging fruit for terrorists.

What gets elided, naturally, is that Clinton can hardly be charged with personal responsibility for the Cole, or that Clinton dealt with terrorism in a sure manner, tracking down, prosecuting, convicting and jailing terrorists, whether it was the World Trade Center bombers from 1993 or the Oklahoma City bombing.

I'll see if I can find some of the defunct threads. Bartcop also deals with what he calls "Monkey Mail" on this matter from time to time.

[MrBenchley]

36. It's a common theme

among right wing nuts....supposedly because Clinton "let" the Cole happened, Chimpy's family friend Bin Laden felt safe to attack on 9/11...little reckoning that times had changed and America's action hero was poised to respond...as soon as he emerged from hiding.

(Yeah, I know it doesn't make much sense...but that's right wing propaganda...)

[Q]

15. The point of this thread...

...is that 'strong on national security' Republican presidents also fuck up and 'lose' secrets'. It was during the Reagan admin. that China stold secrets for a 'suitcase' nuke.

[TAH6988]

17. Fail to see how a Chinese

pilot running his airplane into an EP-3 is the fault of anyone but the friggen CHhinese pilot.

[Imajika]

26. Agreed

"Fail to see how a Chinese pilot running his airplane into an EP-3 is the fault of anyone but the friggen CHhinese pilot."

Correct.

The thread title is completely misleading. The story says nothing about it being Bush's fault. Further, the plane was in international airspace and once the incident occured, short of threatening war, there was no way to avoid the Chinese from pouring over the aircraft gathering whatever intel they could. The US would have done exactly the same thing.

There is nothing here that hurts Bush, and attempts at doing so by hyping this story only make us look silly.

Imajika

[sangh0]

27. There's a lot you fail to see

one of which is that the issue is not "Is it Bush* fault a Chinese pilot rammed our plane?" but "Isn't Bush* responsible for apologizing and kow-towing to the Chinese?"

[TAH6988]

29. No, since he did

not do that.

BTW, The title of this thread says that Bush is reponsible for losing the plane and its secrets, not that he apologized (which he did not do anyway). Are you not paying attention?

[gratuitous]

35. According to the story, Bush did apologize

I suppose kow-towing is in the eye of the beholder, but here's the pertinent paragraph from the Post story:

"China held the 24 crew members of the spy plane for 11 days and released them only after Washington said it was "very sorry" for the death of the Chinese pilot and the spy plane's landing on Hainan island without permission."

If I say I'm "very sorry", I'm usually apologizing. Are you saying that when Bush says it he's not? Or are you privy to some other information? It'd be nice if you shared that, instead of simply making a flat denial when the facts as printed say otherwise.

[TAH6988]

38. Wow

No link and totally out of context. The Chinese wanted us to apologize for spying on them. Someone in the DoD (Not Bush) said we were sorry for their friggen dumbass pilot dying, and that we were sorry for landing without "permission." If you recall, the Chinese reject that as a "non-apology."

[gratuitous]

40. Sorry

I thought my reference to the Post story would tip you off that I was referring to the original link from the post that started this whole thing. But here it is again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63445-2003Sep12?language=printer

Perhaps you could explain how the paragraph is totally out of context, as you assert? Because the statements seem pretty complete in and of themselves, and are certainly consonant with the rest of the story from the Post.

Also, what is the basis for your assertions:

1. The Chinese wanted us to apologize for spying on them;

2. That it was someone in the Department of Defense who apologized;

3. How Bush is not responsible for the statements issued by his administration, as implied by your parenthetical;

4. That the basis for the apology was landing without permission, and how that is to be distinguished from your previous assertion that there was no apology at all; and

5. That the Chinese rejected the apology.

Please provide links. You apparently place great store in them, and it seems that your unattributed assertions are not to be trusted otherwise.

[TAH6988]

43. Easy,

This alleged apology has NOTHING to do with this thread! And there WAS no apology from Bush, none, zilch, nada. Show me where their was.

[gratuitous]

45. Well, I quoted the paragraph and showed you the link

The Washington Post paragraph quoted from letter of apology stating that the administration was "very sorry". I'm not sure how it could be clearer to you. Now, please provide the basis for your ungrounded assertions as I enumerated them.

[TAH6988]

46. It's not clear at ALL

that BUSH apologized. Now can we stick to the TOPIC? This is not about an apology that never occured.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Apr-12-Thu-2001/opinion/15853522.html

[gratuitous]

47. You keep saying the apology never occurred

Yet, the letter is quoted as saying that the administration was "very sorry." I realize that you don't want to back up what you're saying, because in all likelihood it's as fatuous as your assertion about the apology, but please provide the links and the rationale behind your following assertions:

1. The Chinese wanted us to apologize for spying on them;

2. That it was someone in the Department of Defense who apologized;

3. How Bush is not responsible for the statements issued by his administration, as implied by your parenthetical;

4. That the basis for the apology was landing without permission, and how that is to be distinguished from your previous assertion that there was no apology at all; and

5. That the Chinese rejected the apology.

That's the matter at hand. Why are you ducking it?

[sangh0]

49. Bush* says the same thing

"We did not apologize to that nation, the People's Republic of China"

[TAH6988]

51. That's not my matter at hand

"At a press conference by the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Beijing, officials said they would only accept a formal apology in which the U.S. admitted it was to blame for the collision on April 1 between the Navy plane and the single seat Chinese fighter jet."

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/10/air.collision.02/

It was actually the US ambassador who said we were sorry their dumbass pilot died (see link in previous post).

See link in previous post to asnwer the rest of your questions.

The matter at HAND is the title of the thread. If you wish to debate that fine, if not, I'm not interested in your idea of an "apology" versus mine. I maintain that we did NOT apologize to the Chinese for the incident.

[gratuitous]

53. The previous post?

Oh, I see, you edited it after I composed my response. Not only are you fatuous, but you're dishonest, as well. Let's take a look at your link: An April 2001 editorial of "by jingo" manner and tone from some online edition of the Las Vegas Review Journal, which is hardly the equal in credibility or journalism to the Washington Post or Jane's. Golly, I can't understand why I'm unpersuaded.

But you're satisfied to continue to maintain in one sentence that an administration official said "sorry" but that that is somehow not an apology from the administration. You failed to state what the letter apologized for, accepting the word of an editorial (not even a news story) that uses characterizations like "hotdogger" and "strutting Chinese" and referencing "Gomer Pyle" and "Abbott and Costello". Hardly what any rational observer would call a reliable source.

So, we've established that you're fatuous, dishonest and irrational. Please provide me with a credible source for the previously enumerated assertions.

[TAH6988]

54. You obviously did not pay

attention to the news when this occured. I don't have time to hold your hand through this. Look it up yourself. Then e-mail me.

[gratuitous]

55. I don't need the spam, thanks

It's pretty clear you don't have a leg to stand on. You insist on links but provide none of your own. You claim omniscience, but can't be bothered to back up your assertions. Then it's "e-mail me." Sorry pal, but that's not the way it works. You made the statements, you told the lies -- I'm just holding you accountable, but you shirk responsibility. Oh, and suddenly you don't have time. Does the "T" in your handle stand for "Tucker" or "Tweety"?

[sangh0]

59. I just wanted to point out

that your use of the phrase "Sorry pal" should not be misconstrued as an "apology" :-)

[gratuitous]

60. It would only have been an apology

If I'd said, "Very sorry, pal." :-)

[lazarus]

63. It's perfectly clear

Ambassador Prueher said in the letter that both President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have expressed their sincere regret over China's missing pilot and aircraft. He said on behalf of the US Government that they were very sorry to the Chinese people and the family of pilot Wang Wei and that they were very sorry for the US plane entering China's airspace and landing without a verbal clearance. The US side also expressed its appreciation of China's efforts to see to the well-being of the American crew.


How do the words "very sorry" not constitute an apology?

[DocSavage]

33. Options

Sure, we could have sent over a couple of tomahawks and destroyed the plane and its contents, but would we have gotten the crew back? This aircraft was full of crypto and comm gear. There are self destructs on a lot of the equipment. Some of it used the same hardward as a SINGARS set which are humped all over by US ground forces. There have been plenty of these lost.

The biggest loss was the info on how we listen. With that they can hide or change the way that they communicate. But, they will always be behind us by 2 to 3 generations of hardware just like the soviets were during the 60-80's. That P-3 is not the first spook plane to be lost and it will not be the last. If you really want to be scared, read that book on US subs that came out a couple of years ago and find out what they do and where they go.

[sangh0]

50. Misleading

You mention "options" (note the plural) but you only offer one - military action.