JUDICIAL WATCH TO PROBE BUSH CHINESE HOSTAGE “APOLOGY”

Does Deal Include Secret U.S. Promise Not To Sell Key Arms to Democratic Taiwan?

Freedom of Information Act Requests Will Seek Documentation


(Washington, D.C.) Judicial Watch, the non-partisan public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, said today that it will launch an investigation of the deal between the United States and Communist China for release of the 24 servicemen that had been held hostage for the last ten days. Judicial Watch shares the joy of all Americans that the hostages will finally come home, but will probe the Bush Administration’s handling of the crisis. To that end, Judicial Watch today is filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the appropriate government agencies, such as the State Department and the Pentagon, on the China hostage crisis.

“We are happy our young people are coming home,” stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman, “but Judicial Watch also wants to see if the price for their release are backroom deals not to sell defensive weapons such as AEGIS cruisers to our steadfast ally Taiwan.”

“The omens in this regard are not good, as today the United States has inappropriately and wrongly apologized for our plane making an emergency landing on Chinese territory ‘without permission’ and will now ‘discuss’ with Communist China the activities of U.S. reconnaissance flights in international waters. The Bush Administration has caved publicly to the Chinese communists and we aim to find out if any secret promises were made to the ‘Butchers of Beijing’ behind closed doors,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.



To Unsubscribe from this list, please go to http://www.judicialwatch.org/unsubscribe.asp.

I'll bet the information is denied on the basis of National Security. Any takers?

I knew certain things would improve during a GW presidency, but I also suspected that a lot of the lying, covering up, and secrecy would continue. I hope I was wrong.

This is what happens when financial interests take precedence over doing what is right. Did you really think that bush would jeopardize campaign donations for his 2004 re-election from the big corporations that have heavily invested in China?

[left]Since he caved in to china. now do you think he would cave in to the Antigunners! well lets wait an see![/left]

Like Father, like Son.

One Term Wonder...

A total disappointment. [:(]

I never thought I'd see the day that I would be in total disagreement with Larry Clayman and Judicial Watch, but they're getting pretty damn far out on this Bush limb.

I guess when they were going after Bill and Hillary, it didn't bother me that some of the crap was pretty far-fetched.  

Now, since it's one of our guys, things change.

Maybe your idea of a great politician is one that through sheer stupidity provokes a 'third world' superpower into further agressive action.

My idea of great statesmanship is that when you have 24 Americans in the clutches of a bunch of hooligans, you say or do whatever it takes to bring them back alive.  Then and only then do you determine what the punishment to the hooligans will be, or even if there is to be any punishment at all.

You know, kind of like how Ronald Reagan, our last great statesman, did with the hostages in Lebanon.  [b]Do whatever it takes![/b]

Eric The Hun
 

Better than the Alternative.
And at least his daddy made it to the Whitehouse.

I really don't see how Judicial Watch has a leg to stand on here.

This is entirely in the realm of statescraft and foreign relations.  I have not heard any allegations of corruption that would justify an investigation.

Even if there was an agreement not to sell weapons to Taiwan (and I would agree to sell them anything short of nuclear weapons), a president should not have to legally answer for an executive dicision like this one.  The Slickster was so totally corrupt that any executive decision was possibly tainted, but that is not true with the present administration.  It is a tough mindset to break, I guess.