The Clinton Crisis: A Question of Loyalties
By: David Horowitz
Sunday, June 06, 1999

EVEN AS THE GOVERNMENTprepared to release the Cox Report
    revealing how the Communist dictatorship in Beijing had stolen the design information for
    every advanced nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, the Democratic National Committee was
    announcing the appointment of its new political issues director, Carlottia
    Scott, a former mistress of the Marxist dictator of Grenada, and an ardent supporter of
    Americas Communist adversaries during the Cold War.

EVEN AS THE GOVERNMENT prepared to release the Cox Report revealing how the Communist dictatorship in Beijing had stolen the design information for every advanced nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, the Democratic National Committee was announcing the appointment of its new "political issues director," Carlottia Scott, a former mistress of the Marxist dictator of Grenada, and an ardent supporter of America’s Communist adversaries during the Cold War. What could the DNC have been thinking to make such an appointment at such a political juncture? And what might this tell us about the roots of the nation’s security crisis—the dramatic erosion of America’s defenses and military credibility in the midst of an ill-conceived and ineptly fought war, and the theft of its nuclear arsenal by an adversary the Administration thinks of as a "strategic partner," while its Communist leaders regard America as their "international archenemy?"

Carlottia Scott was for many years the chief aide to Congressman Ron Dellums, a Berkeley radical who, with the approval of the congressional Democratic leadership, was appointed first to the Armed Services Committee and then to the chair of its subcommittee on Military Installations, which oversees U.S. bases worldwide. The Democratic leadership apparently saw no problem in the fact that every year during the Cold War with the Soviet empire, Congressman Dellums introduced a "peace" budget requiring a 75% reduction in government spending on America’s defenses. Nor did they have any problem with Dellums’ performance during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which occurred on Jimmy Carter’s watch. As Soviet troops poured across the Afghanistan border and President Carter called for the resumption of the military draft, Dellums told a "Stop the Draft" rally in Berkeley that "Washington DC is a very evil place," and the only "arc" of a crisis that he could see was "the one that runs between the basement of the west wing of the White House and the war room of the Pentagon."

Among the government documents retrieved when the Marxist government in Grenada was overthrown were the love letters of Dellums’ chief aide—and now the Democratic Party’s political issues director—Carlottia Scott to its anti-American dictator Maurice Bishop. Scott wrote: "Ron has become truly committed to Grenada. . . .He’s really hooked on you and Grenada and doesn’t want anything to happen to building the Revolution and making it strong. . . . The only other person that I know of that he expresses such admiration for is Fidel." Bishop and Fidel were not the only Communists in the Americas favored by Dellums. About the time these letters were retrieved, Dellums was opening his congressional office to a Cuban intelligence agent who proceeded to organize support committees in the United States for the Communist guerrilla movement in El Salvador. Yet, on his retirement, the Clinton Administration’s Secretary of Defense, William S. Cohen, bestowed on Ron Dellums the highest civilian honor the Pentagon can award "for service to his country."

After Dellums’ retirement, Carlottia Scott became the chief of staff to Dellums’ successor, Berkeley leftist Barbara Lee. I met Barbara Lee in the 1970s when she was a confidential aide to Huey Newton, the "Minister of Defense" of the Black Panther Party, whose calling card was the "Red Book" of Chinese dictator Mao Zedong, and who was responsible for several unsolved murders in the Bay Area. Also among the documents liberated from Grenada, were the minutes from a politburo meeting attended by Barbara Lee and the Marxist junta. The minutes state that "Barbara Lee is here presently and has brought with her a report on the international airport done by Ron Dellums. They have requested that we look at the document and suggest any changes we deem necessary. They will be willing to make the changes."

The airport in question was being built by the Cuban military and, according to U.S. intelligence sources, was designed to accommodate Soviet warplanes. The Reagan Administration regarded the airport project as part of a larger Soviet plan to establish a military base in the hemisphere, and Administration officials invoked its construction as a national-security justification for the invasion that followed. In an effort to forestall such an invasion, and as head of the Military Installations subcommittee of the House, Dellums made a "fact-finding" trip to Grenada and issued his own report on the airport, concluding that it was being built "for the purpose of economic development and is not for military use." Dellums’ report also made the political claim that the Reagan Administration’s concerns about national security in regard to the airport were "absurd, patronizing and totally unwarranted." In other words, the captured minutes of the politburo meeting show that Ron Dellums and his aide Barbara Lee colluded with the dictator of a Communist state to cover up the fact that the Soviet Union was building a military airport that posed a threat to the security of the United States.

Despite this betrayal, and with the approval of her Democratic colleagues in the House, Barbara Lee is now a member of the House International Relations Committee, which deals with issues affecting the security of the United States. With equal disregard for national security, the Democratic Party has now made Carlottia Scott—former chief aide to both Dellums and Lee, and thus an abettor of these treacherous schemes—the new political issues director of the Democratic National Committee. When I asked a leading Democratic political strategist, who is not a leftist, how it was possible that the leaders of the Democratic Party could appoint someone like Carlottia Scott to such a post at such a time, he replied: "You have to understand that in the 1960s these people were chanting "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF Is Gonna Win!"

The left-wing culture that pervades both the Democratic Party and the Clinton Administration is at the heart of the current national-security crisis. People who never conceded that the Soviet Union was an evil empire, who never grasped the dimensions of the Soviet military threat, who regarded America’s democracy as an imperialist empire and as morally convergent with the Soviet state, who insisted (and still insist) that the ferreting out of Soviet loyalists and domestic spies during the early Cold War years was merely an ideological "witch-hunt," who opposed the Reagan military buildup and the development of an anti-ballistic missile system in the 1980s, and who consistently called for unilateral steps to reduce America’s nuclear deterrent, could hardly be expected to take the post–Cold War threat from the Chinese Communist dictatorship seriously. And they have not.

In fact, the current national-security crisis may be said to have begun when President Clinton appointed an anti-military, environmental leftist Hazel O’Leary to be Secretary of Energy in charge of the nation’s nuclear-weapons labs. O’Leary promptly surrounded herself with other political leftists (including a "Marxist-Feminist") and anti-nuclear activists, appointing them as assistant secretaries with responsibility for the nuclear labs. In one of her first acts, O’Leary declassified eleven million pages of reports on 204 U.S. nuclear tests, a move she described as an action to safeguard the environment and as a protest against a "bomb-building culture." Having made America’s nuclear-weapons secrets available to adversary powers, O’Leary then took steps to relax security precautions at the labs under her control. She appointed Rose Gottemoeller, a former Clinton National Security Council staffer with extreme anti-nuclear views, to be director in charge of national-security issues. Gottemoeller had been previously nominated to fill the post—long-vacant in the Clinton Administration—of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. But her appointment was successfully blocked by congressional Republicans because of her radical disarmament views. The Clinton response to her rejection on security grounds was to appoint her to be in charge of security for the nation’s nuclear-weapons labs.

The architect of America’s China policy over the course of the current disaster has been Clinton’s National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger. Berger began his political life as an anti-Vietnam war protestor and member of the radical "Peace Now" movement which regards Israel as the aggressor in the Middle-East. Berger first met Clinton as an activist in the McGovern for President camp, the most left-wing Democratic presidential campaign in American history. Berger’s law practice, prior to his appointment, was lobbying for the business arm of China’s Communist dictatorship. (The other root cause of the present security crisis is, of course, greed—a major factor in all its aspects, and on both sides of the political aisle.)

Is it surprising that a political leftist and business lobbyist for China’s rulers should take steps to lift the security controls that previously protected US military technology? Or that, under his tenure, invitations to the White House should be extended to agents of Chinese intelligence and China’s military, or that appointments like that of John Huang to posts with top security clearance should be considered reasonable? Is it surprising, given the politics of the Clinton managers, that the Administration should place its faith in arms-control agreements that depend on trustworthy partners, while strenuously opposing measures to develop anti-ballistic missile defenses that do not? (Even now, after the revelations of China’s thefts, Berger and the Clinton Administration are still opposing the implementation of anti-ballistic missile defense programs, while pressing to keep China’s Most Favored Nation trading status.)

Nor is it surprising that a Democratic Party, whose political culture is pervaded by left-wing illusions and deceits, should work so assiduously to obstruct the investigations of the debts of the Clinton-Gore campaign to the Chinese dictators, or should be so irresponsibly complacent in the face of the revelations of the Cox Report. There is perhaps nothing more alarming for the prospects of the two-party system than the wall of denial that has been hastily and irresponsibly erected around these issues by Democratic leaders like Tom Daschle in the wake of the Cox disclosures. To say, as the Senate Minority Leader has, that there is nothing really new in these revelations—as though previous administrations had dismantled vital security procedures, taken illegal monies from foreign intelligence services, and then blocked investigations when the illegalities were revealed, presided over the wholesale evaporation of the nation’s nuclear weapons advantage, abetted the transfer of missile technologies that can strike American cities, or opposed the development of weapons systems that could defend against such attacks—is patently absurd.

At the heart of the current crisis is, in fact, a White House that has loaded its administration with officials deeply disenchanted with, if not actively hostile to America’s character and purposes. Behind that White House and still supporting its cover-up, is a party that lacks proper pride in America’s national achievement and proper loyalty to America’s national interests. This is a party whose leader has spent enormous political capital apologizing to the world for America’s role in it. This is an administration whose leader has now embroiled his country in a war in Europe that is about no national interest and that is guided by a multi-lateral alliance he cannot control. This is a party that even in the face of the most massive breach of security in America’s history is still taking the position that, like Monica, "everybody does it."

Democrats should think carefully before they proceed any further on this slippery path. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by asking voters the question: "Do You Feel Better Off Now Than Your Did Four Years Ago?" How do Democrats think the American electorate will respond to the question Republicans must surely pose in the next presidential election: "Do You Feel Safer Now Than You Did In 1992?"

David Horowitz is the founder of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and author of the new book, One Party Classroom.