Mullings A Political Cyber Column By Rich Galen

�

Click here for the Secret Decoder Ring to this issue!

Peek-a-Boo

Monday, April 9, 2001

From New York, New York

Some context on the China situation. Sources with experience in airborne surveillance operations have told Mullings (oooh, I feel so, so � I don't know � so, Washington POST) that one of the reasons the U.S. turned on its "regret" offensive last week was because of the nature of these flights.

Not speaking about this flight in particular, but about these types of flights in general, (Vice President Dick Cheney, yesterday on Meet the Press, said surveillance flights like this take place around the world as the U.S. deems necessary) the source told Mullings that the pilots often actually fly into the object country's air space and attempt to draw attention to themselves as one of their mission objectives.

The plane will dip in and out of the airspace attempting to get the object country's air defense units to actually turn on their radar to determine what kind of plane has flown in, its direction, if possible its intentions, and so on.

This is exactly what the surveillance aircraft is looking for. As soon as it is "painted" by the radar its high-tech gear whirs into action; recording the type, strength, and location of the radar, then scoots away while the on-board electronic wizardry compares that data to previously known data and notes any changes.

So, it is quite possible that, while the collision took appears to have taken place in international air space, the plane might well have been IN Chinese airspace at some point during its flight profile.

That fact gives each side a debating point, if not a bargaining chip.

The Senate's approval of a $1.2 trillion tax cut is being trumpeted by the news media as a major loss for the Bush Administration because it did not approve the $1.6 trillion President Bush wants.

Two things: (1) The House passed the $1.6 trillion package and, although many reporters and ALL Senators and Senate staff think that doesn't matter; it does. (2) The number the Democrats were touting was $900 billion. The number the President wanted was $1.6 trillion. 1.2 trillion is 33 percent LARGER than 900 billion and only 25 percent less than 1.6 trillion. So, at least by this bit of tinkering, the number is significantly closer to Bush's than Daschle's.

Ron Brownstein, in his LA Times summary of this week's activities, draws an interesting contrast between the negotiations on the budget and other, less reported, negotiations on an education program.

Brownstein wrote about the Senate budget vote, and then:

"However, just hours earlier, after exhaustive talks, the administration reached an agreement with both Senate Democrats and Republicans on sweeping reforms in federal education programs. With backers now arrayed from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) on the left to Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) on the right, that bill appears on track for bipartisan Senate approval later this month."

What? Republicans and Democrats getting along with the Administration on the one policy issue which is consistently at or near the top of every poll of public concerns?

What's next? The lion and lamb lying down together? (perhaps, but as Woody Allen once wrote "but the lamb won't get much sleep.")

To see the full Brownstein piece and the usual other stuff, go to the Secret Decoder Ring page.

An Associated Press story buried on page 30 of the New York Times notes that President Bill Clinton paid the $25,000 fine in the case of providing "misleading testimony" in the Paula Jones lawsuit back on March 21.

This, remember, was another of the shots at the buzzer launched by Mr. Clinton. He signed an agreement with the Office of Independent Counsel on January 19th - one day before the end of this term, in effect, pardoning himself.

Speaking of pay-backs and pardons has anyone checked recently on whether America's House Guest, Hugh Rodham, ever paid the rest of that 400 Grand he was supposed to give back when he got caught selling influence FROM the White House?

Just trying to tie up loose ends, here.

Walking to breakfast yesterday morning with The Lad down 34th Street near Park Avenue, we passed an Italian Restaurant with a sign in the window saying it was closed "due to religious observances."

I laughing said, as I whipped out my notebook to include this as a Mullings point, that only in New York would a clearly named Italian restaurant be closed for Passover.

Current Issue | Secret Decoder Ring | Past Issues | Email Rich | Rich Who?