![[Bomb2]](../../images/bomb2_li.gif)
|
Cloaks and Daggers
|
31 October 1996
Topics of the day:
1. NORDEX and Grigori Loutchansky (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 18:03:02 +0500
From: "David M. Birdsey"
Subject: Re: NORDEX and Grigori Loutchansky
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Wayne McGuire wrote:
> [Forwarded from a newsgroup:]
>
> --- BEGIN ---
>
> Suspected Nuclear-Dealer Attended Clinton Fund-Raiser
>
> By Christopher Ruddy>
> FOR THE TRIBUNE-REVIEW 10/30/96
>
> WASHINGTON - Why did President Bill Clinton meet with Grigori
> Loutchansky, a man whose company the current CIA director has
> told Congress is "an organization associated with Russian
> criminal activity"?
Who knows? I guess there always might be some nefarious conspriatorial
reason. But my first guess would be this: sloppy staff work, in the way
that Reagan's Bitburg visit turned into a fiasco, and numerous other gaffs
and faux pas have been made. Given that there was already, according to
the article, an investigation going on concerning this fellow, and
information about him in the press, I can't imagine anyone associating
him/herself with such a person, _especially_ if there were something
conspiratorial going on.
More likely is the fact that this guy's name registered on a who's who
list of possible contributors in his particular ethnic community, and the
GS-9 or whatever special assistant (and there are LOTS of them), or maybe
even an intern, put him on the list, which then went up the food chain to
the higher reaches of the admin part of the Adminsitration where someone
with some actual authority who has about 5,678 things to do glances at it
for 5 seconds and says "yeah that's fine."
Of course, I could be wrong . . .
David M. Birdsey
http://turnpike.net/metro/birdhaex/index.html
birdsey@lahorwpoa.us-state.gov
davidm@paknet1.ptc.pk
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 19:31:13 GMT
From: Wayne McGuire
Subject: Re: NORDEX and Grigori Loutchansky
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 18:03:02 +0500, "David M. Birdsey"
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Wayne McGuire wrote:
>> [Forwarded from a newsgroup:]
>>
>> --- BEGIN ---
>>
>> Suspected Nuclear-Dealer Attended Clinton Fund-Raiser
>>
>> By Christopher Ruddy>
>> FOR THE TRIBUNE-REVIEW 10/30/96
>>
>> WASHINGTON - Why did President Bill Clinton meet with Grigori
>> Loutchansky, a man whose company the current CIA director has
>> told Congress is "an organization associated with Russian
>> criminal activity"?
>
>Who knows? I guess there always might be some nefarious conspriatorial
>reason. But my first guess would be this: sloppy staff work, in the way
>that Reagan's Bitburg visit turned into a fiasco, and numerous other gaffs
>and faux pas have been made. Given that there was already, according to
>the article, an investigation going on concerning this fellow, and
>information about him in the press, I can't imagine anyone associating
>him/herself with such a person, _especially_ if there were something
>conspiratorial going on.
>
>More likely is the fact that this guy's name registered on a who's who
>list of possible contributors in his particular ethnic community, and the
>GS-9 or whatever special assistant (and there are LOTS of them), or maybe
>even an intern, put him on the list, which then went up the food chain to
>the higher reaches of the admin part of the Adminsitration where someone
>with some actual authority who has about 5,678 things to do glances at it
>for 5 seconds and says "yeah that's fine."
>
>Of course, I could be wrong . . .
Let's do a little thought experiment.
Let's imagine that in France, Russia or some other
major nation, someone is seeking the job of chief
analyst of American politics. This person is given this
news story, and asked to produce a report on its
significance, using all the latest information
technology and best relevant data.
Would the analysis that the contact was probably a
bureaucratic SNAFU without any larger political
significance get the analyst the job?
I don't know. This is just a question to produce a
thought or two.
I have no opinions about the news story other than to
notice that it is possibly interesting, and that the
facts should be filed away for future reference and
cross-referencing. The issues to which the facts
pertain are highly strategic.
--
Wayne McGuire
http://www.cybercom.net/~wmcguire
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 06:52:57 +0500
From: "David M. Birdsey"
Subject: Re: NORDEX and Grigori Loutchansky
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Wayne McGuire wrote:
> I have no opinions about the news story other than to
> notice that it is possibly interesting, and that the
> facts should be filed away for future reference and
> cross-referencing. The issues to which the facts
> pertain are highly strategic.
I think your last sentence hits it on the head. The "new" nuclear
problems out of the old USSR have indeed gotten short shrift. In fact,
last year there was a bit of a "scandal" regarding Germany's BND and what
may have been a setup to "sting" such people as Loutchansky might be. The
main significance is that there is clearly a market for this, and when you
combine it with what I think David Huff was pointing out in his earlier
post on "mini-nukes" it does serve to lower one's comfort level.
David M. Birdsey
http://turnpike.net/metro/birdhaex/index.html
birdsey@lahorwpoa.us-state.gov
davidm@paknet1.ptc.pk
------------------------------
End of CLOAKS-AND-DAGGERS Digest - 30 Oct 1996 to 31 Oct 1996
*************************************************************
