Trade vs. Security TO THE EDITOR: In his discussion of weapons proliferation and export controls, Gary Mil- hollin addresses issues of crit- ical importance ["Trading with the Enemy," May]. Un- fortunately, he makes several incorrect factual and legal as- sertions, leaving readers mis- informed and undercutting his thesis that "the White House is now pushing a bill in Congress that would make it easier for terrorists and the nations that support them to obtain … weapons of mass destruction." Commenting on this leg- islation, Mr. Milhollin states that it "would decontrol many of the same items that the Customs Service" cur- rently places on a list of "most dangerous goods." He gives the example of high-precision electronic switches, and also asserts that, if enacted, the law would require the Secretary of Commerce to allow the export of rocket technology.

Mr. Milhollin is wrong on all counts. The bill be- fore Congress does not man- date decontrol of any item.

Instead, it instructs the Commerce Department to examine a series of factors to determine whether an item is eligible for decon- trol. Indeed, Mr. Milhollin’s own illustrations disprove his point.

Under the pending leg- islation, any item now cov- ered by a multilateral ex- port-control regime in which the U.S. is a member remains subject to controls.

Thus, the status of the high- precision electronic switch- es to which Mr. Milhollin refers would be unaffected because, as he acknowl- edges, "for decades, these switches have been on the export-control list of the Nuclear Suppliers Group." Similarly, under its mass- market and foreign-avail- ability tests, the bill allows the decontrol of restricted items only if there are com- parable items available do- mestically or internationally that are of similar quality.

The rocket technology Mr.

Milhollin mentions would not be decontrolled because, as he states, what other countries sell is "far inferi- or to that which U.S. firms could supply." Despite Mr. Milhollin’s assertion that the pending legislation "makes no at- tempt to strike a balance be- tween national security and freedom of trade," it pro- vides several mechanisms that would prevent the ex- port of an item deemed to threaten U.S. national se- curity. For example, the bill refers all export-license ap- plications to the Secretaries of Defense and State, and gives the Secretary of De- fense explicit authority to help establish the list of items controlled for na- tional-security reasons. It requires a license for any ex- port if the Secretary of State determines that the item is destined for a country that supports international ter- rorism and would make a significant contribution to that country’s military or terrorist potential. The bill also provides the President with the authority to con- trol indefinitely, for reasons of national security, the ex- port of any item, and it substantially enhances our export enforcement capa- bilities, including higher penalties for violators and new undercover authority for agents.

Apart from his discussion of the bill, Mr. Milhollin makes numerous other as- sertions that simply do not withstand scrutiny. He as- serts, for example, that af- ter September 11 the U.S.

gave "a long list of Indian companies, plus a few in Pakistan … a green light to purchase dual-use equip- ment from the United States." He also states that these firms "have been cleared for sensitive Amer- ican exports." But Mr. Mil- hollin has misunderstood the way American export controls are managed.

A few weeks after Sep- tember 11, several Indian [3]COMMENTARY SEPTEMBER 2002 and Pakistani companies were indeed removed from the so-called "entities list." This simply meant that items not on a U.S. control list (such as office supplies and auto parts) could now be exported to them with- out a license. By contrast, items controlled for export to India and Pakistan would still require a license for shipment, with all such ap- plications carefully reviewed and judged on a case-by- case basis. No "green lights" were given, and no compa- ny was "cleared" for sensi- tive American exports.

The subject of export controls is not amenable to quick analysis or simplistic assertions, and responsible individuals can certainly dis- agree on the pros and cons of the bill now before Con- gress. But this debate should be based on a fair statement of the law and the facts.

KENNETH I. JUSTER Under Secretary Bureau of Industry and Security U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, D.C.

GARY MILHOLLIN writes: Kenneth I. Juster’s criti- cism of my article reveals that he has not read carefully the bill he is talking about.

First, Mr. Juster argues that the bill "does not mandate decontrol of any item." In fact, the bill does just that.

In section 211, it provides that the Secretary of Com- merce "shall" decontrol any item that comes under the broad criteria for decontrol that the section contains.

There is no discretion in the matter. As my article points out, the criteria are so sweeping that they would cover the special electronic switches used to detonate nuclear weapons and the high-strength steel that goes into missiles and plants to make nuclear-weapon fuel.

Both the steel and the switches have been con- trolled for years, but be- cause they meet the criteria in section 211, the Secretary of Commerce would have to decontrol them under the bill’s language.

Second, Mr. Juster argues that the bill would allow an item to be decontrolled "only if there are compara- ble items available domes- tically or internationally that are of similar quality." But the bill does not say that, ei- ther. It allows decontrol un- der standards that are far looser. In fact, the language that Mr. Juster cites, which refers to comparable quali- ty, comes from an amend- ment to the bill by the House Armed Services Committee that his admin- istration fought and still op- poses. Nor is it true, as Mr.

Juster contends, that items covered by a multilateral ex- port-control regime would remain subject to controls.

For such items, the Presi- dent is merely authorized to overturn the Commerce Secretary’s decision to de- control them. This will not happen unless George W.

Bush decides to become an expert in electronic switch- es and high-strength steel.

Third, Mr. Juster argues that the bill gives the "Sec- retary of Defense explicit authority to help establish the list of items controlled." In fact, the bill allows the Pentagon to be consulted only when the Commerce Department, which has al- ways been pro-trade, de- cides that it wants to add an item to the list-an event that is virtually certain not to happen. Mr. Juster’s ad- ministration fought and still otgoses an amendment by the House Armed Services Committee that would al- low the Secretary of De- fense to add items on his own.

Fourth, Mr. Juster argues that the bill requires an ex- port license for items going to "a country that supports international terrorism." In fact, these terrorism con- trols release American tech- nology to the entire planet except for the handful of of- ficially-designated terrorist states. Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein could pick up one of these items, such as a satellite telephone, in a country like Jordan that is not on the terrorism list.

Finally, Mr. Juster argues that when his department dropped scores of Indian and Pakistani nuclear and missile-manufacturing sites from the U.S. export-con- trol list, no "green lights" were given. In fact, drop- ping these firms allowed them to import powerful American equipment high- ly useful for bomb and mis- sile making that they could not get before. An example is supercomputers. Indian and Pakistani nuclear-wea- pon design sites can now buy American supercom- puters performing up to 190 billion operations per sec- ond, which they could not do previously. The new ma- chines will help create more warheads, which will in turn increase the risk of inciner- ating millions of South Asians.

Unfortunately, the Com- merce Department seems to have missed the lesson of September 11. This is not the time to help spread weapons of mass destruc- tion. If we are worried about terrorists and the countries that support them, we must stop promoting trade at the expense of our security.

What Judaism Means To THE EDITOR: David Gelernter’s fasci- nating article, "Judaism Be- yond Words" [May], quali- fies as neither history nor law (halakhah), but it makes sense of the subjective ex- perience of contemporary Jews. This very subjectivity (e.g., seeing the two arms of the open Torah scroll as reminiscent of crossing the Red Sea between "two walls" of water), unhistori- cal and halakhically irrele- vant though it is, provides an opportunity for reflec- tion on the great themes of Judaism in a way that is compelling for Jews of this new century. Handled with- out adequate sensitivity, this impressionistic method can lead to inaccurate and even absurd results. Happily, Mr.

Gelernter proves himself thoroughly sensitive, and the result is a method that speaks to us in our contem- porary situation and yields a new understanding of ideas long embedded in Judaism.

True, one must beware of overstating the case for hav- dalah, or separation, the theme of Mr. Gelernter’s first article. Despite all the material he marshals, there is a countervailing theme in Judaism, namely, ichud or connectedness. The most obvious example is love-of God (Deuteronomy 12:5), of neighbor (Deuteronomy 19:18), and of spouse (Gen- esis 2:18, 24). There is clear- ly a dialectic between the two themes, although the hav- dalah concept is perhaps more in need of emphasis- especially in our generation, in which "togetherness" is seen as an undisputed virtue and "separation" as a sign of bias and narrow-minded- ness. Mr. Gelernter has achieved this masterfully.

[4] errs S . ,oGAmiErr The Pulliam Journalism Fellowship Jump-start your journalism career with a solid program that boasts four Pulitzer Prize winners among its alumni – the Pulliam Journalism Fellowship. The Fellowship offers myriad career opportunities; in fact, a Pulliam Fellow from our first class of 1974, Barbara Henry, now serves as president and publisher of The Indianapolis Star.

Now entering its 30th year, the 2003 Pulliam Journalism Fellowship helps build a bridge from the classroom to the newsroom. Fellows are assigned to The Indianapolis Star or The Arizona Republic in Phoenix for 10 weeks each summer as staff reporters. We award 20 Fellowships annually.

We’d like to encourage applications from students with a wide variety of backgrounds. Previous internships and part-time experience at a newspaper are desired or other demonstration of writing and reporting ability. Those who go through the Fellowship often find new professional opportunities opening up at other newspapers during and after the program. Past Fellows now serve as newspaper publishers, editors and reporters all over the world.

Traditionally, our Fellowships have been open only to graduating college seniors. In 2001, we expanded eligibility to include college sophomores and juniors, as well as seniors pursuing a career in newspaper journalism.

Contact us anytime after Sept. 1, 2002, for an application packet for our Summer 2003 program.

Our early admissions deadline is Nov. 15, 2002, with up to five winners notified by Dec. 15, 2002. Non-winning early admissions applicants will be reconsidered with all later entries, which must be postmarked by March 1, 2003. Winners from this group will be notified by April 1, 2003. The stipend for the 10 weeks will be $6,300.

Visit our Web site at http://www.indystar.com/pjf or e-mail Fellowship Director Russell B.

Pulliam at [email protected] for an application packet. You also may request a packet by writing: Russell B. Pulliam, Director The Pulliam Journalism Fellowship P.O. Box 145 Indianapolis, IN 46206-0145COMMENTARY SEPTEMBER 2002 We should recall that the very first divine command- ment to Abraham is one of separation. "Lekh lekha-get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee" (Genesis 12:1). Judaism be- gins with his departure from the bustling pagan world into which he was born.

The future of the Jewish people depends on how well we can manage separation as well as connection in our own world. For raising that issue alone, David Gelern- ter deserves our gratitude.

RABBI NORMAN LAMM President Yeshiva University New York City To THE EDITOR: David Gelernter beauti- fully captures the centrality of separation in Judaism. Yet Jewish thought also includes a contradictory strain relat- ing to unity and wholeness.

A midrash on the Creation story, for example, pictures the upper and lower waters weeping to be together again, not in order to return to chaos but to be reunited in God’s presence.

The thrust toward unity appears even in regard to the Sabbath, the most sep- arate of days. Building on the words "remember" and "observe" that appear in the two versions of the Sabbath commandment (Exodus 20:8, Deuteronomy 5:12), the rabbis advise us to "re- member" the Sabbath by bearing it in mind for three days after it has ended and to "observe" it by starting to prepare for it three days before it arrives. Instead of regarding the day as a gap in the week, they hoped to imbue the entire week with some of the day’s sanctity.

Perhaps the significance of this impulse toward wholeness in Judaism is an extension of the meaning of holiness. On the biblical verse, "Make yourselves holy because I am holy" (Leviticus 11:44), Mr. Gel- ernter relays the midrashic comment, "As I am sepa- rate, so you be separate." But another midrash says, "As He is gracious and com- passionate, so you be gra- cious and compassionate." Holiness involves not only separations, but also reach- ing across the separations to extend grace and compas- sion to others. The ideas may be contradictory but they are not mutually ex- clusive; the Jewish people have been sustained both by their separateness from the world and by their con- nectedness to it.

FRANCINE KLAGSBRUN New York City To THE EDITOR: As usual, David Gelem- ter is right on the mark.

With its integrative ap- proach to kedushah (holi- ness) and havdalah (separa- tion), "Judaism Beyond Words" might be a modem classic. His development of a literary and theological link between Creation and the Exodus and his expla- nation of the separateness involved in the Sabbath, the dietary laws, and the laws of family purity make the ar- ticle profoundly useful for understanding Judaism. At the risk of quibbling, I might question the appro- priateness of Mr. Gelernter’s attempt to connect the crossing of the Red Sea and the ritual of hagbah (raising an open Torah scroll) with the facades of the Central Synagogue in Manhattan and the Dohany Street syn- agogue in Budapest. The vertical spDires of these two buildings are probably an ac- cident of imitative architec- ture (following the precedent of churches and mosques) rather than intentional statements about separation.

It is obvious that Mr.

Gelernter loves the Zohar, the key text of Jewish mys- ticism, and sees it as part of a basic trilogy of sacred lit- erature that includes the Bible and the Talmud. But some would argue that Mai- monides’ Guide to the Per- plexed or his code of law are much more important reli- gious statements than the Zohar, which is something of a closed book to most people. Jewish tradition ad- vises studying the Zohar only after mastering the Bible and Talmud.

Recognizing this might have tempered Mr. Gelem- ter’s claim that "Judaism is Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai." Some of us might not have chosen ben Yochai as our central figure. Hillel (who said "If I am only for my- self, what am I?") or Rabbi Akiba (who said that the fundamental commandment in the Torah was "Love thy neighbor as thyself") might be deemed more central to Judaism than a man who se- cluded himself in a cave for thirteen years.

In the final analysis, Jews must learn to live apart from this world and at the same time strive to be a part of it.

This method is one of sep- aration rather than sepa- ratism-integration with the world without wholesale as- similation into it.

RABBI HASKEL LOOKSTEIN Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun New York City To THE EDITOR: Thank you for David Gelernter’s excellent treat- ment of holiness and sepa- ration. Withdrawal, un- derstood in Jewish terms, significantly enhances both the performance of a mitz- vah (commandment) and the person who performs it. One who observes the Sabbath by withdrawing from creativity and labor can better evaluate ordinary productivity. One who ob- serves ritual family purity by withdrawing from the conjugal relationship can better assess the marital union. One who observes kashrut by withdrawing from nonkosher food can better judge his behavior as a consumer.

A society like ours is bent on smashing rules and selling rebellion. Marketers appeal to the public by de- claring that their product knows no limits and breaks all boundaries. The absence of distinctions is especially visible on college campuses, where students are taught that no ethic can be con- sidered superior to any oth- er and that no one can draw moral lines. Judaism, by contrast, as Mr. Gel- ernter reminds us, con- stantly withdraws and sep- arates and distinguishes.

His refreshing voice speaks truth to our decayed pop- ular culture.

RABBI ALLEN SCHWARTZ Congregation Ohab Zedek New York City To THE EDITOR: David Gelernter’s splen- did exposition on the place of separateness in Judaism is the most lucid I have en- countered. His discussion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo- chai can be usefully con- trasted with the allegory of the cave in Plato’s Republic. In Plato’s telling, the phi- losopher is someone who escapes the cave-like world of shadows and emerges [6] —— r — – 1 vTHE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING SINCE 771 THE COPEPODOLOGIST’S CABINET: A BIOGRAPHICAL AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY David M. Damkaer A history of the study of copepods, from the first description (ca.

350 B.C.) and first illustration (1554) to 832. The narrative includes biographies of 90 early copepodologists and recounts their valuable contributions to science.

Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 240 $60 ISBN: 0-87169-240-6 "Forget not Mee & My Garden…

SELECTED LETTERS, 1725-1768, OF PETER COLLINSON, F.R.S.

Edited and with an Introduction by Alan W. Armstrong A selection of 187 letters of Peter Collinson, which Armstrong calls "vigorous, brisk, and emphatic." The letters are enhanced with more than 120 illustrations, many in color. The edition also contains notes and commentary for most letters.

Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 241 $60 ISBN: 0-87169-241-4 HISTORY OF THE PORTRAIT COLLECTION, INDEPENDENCE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK Doris Devine Fanelli, Editor A publication with Independence National Historical Park of the first catalog of portraits in the INHP collection. The book is divided into two sections-a history of the collection and a catalog-and is useful for museum staff, historians, and visitors to Independence Historical National Park.

Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 242 $65 (case) $50 (paper) ISBN: 0-87169-242-2 ,s a i LEON ABBETT’S NEW JERSEY: THE EMERGENCE OF THE MODERN GOVERNOR Richard A. Hogarty A study of late nineteenth-century New Jersey governor Leon Abbett, a governor who both in crisis and in ordinary times was a policy and party leader. He was a forerunner to a type of governor that had not yet appeared on the American political stage.

Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 243 $40 ISBN: 0-87169-243-0 METHODS AND STYLES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHEMISTRY Joseph S. Fruton A work that weaves the history of scientific investigations, from the influence of alchemy on early Greek numerology and philosophy, with social, religious, philosophical, and other events that have contributed to the field of modern chemistry.

Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 245 $40 ISBN: 0-87169-245-7 UNDER HEAVEN’S BROW: PRE-CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS TRADITION IN CHUUK Ward H. Goodenough For the people of Chuuk and for students of religion and Micronesian culture, this book makes available in English the published accounts (largely in German), along with Goodenough’s own information, about religious beliefs and ritual practices in pre- Christian Chuuk.

Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 246 $30 ISBN: 0-87169-246-5 THE REALITIES OF IMAGES: IMPERIAL BRAZIL AND THE GREAT DROUGHT Gerald Greenfield A study of Brazil’s 1877 drought, which continues to haunt "Northeasterners," for whom the specter of periodic droughts is both a cause and symbol of their region’s underdevelopment Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 91, Pt. 1 $20 ISBN: 0-87169-911-7 "FIGHTING FOR THE GOOD CAUSE" REFLECTIONS ON FRANCIS GALTON’S LEGACY TO AMERICAN HEREDITARIAN PSYCHOLOGY Gerald Sweeney A report on Sir Francis Galton, a mentor for many educational psychologists who supplied crucial doctrine to American eugenics in its classic period, 1903 to 1930.

Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 91, Pt. 2 $18 ISBN: 0-87169-912-5 "MY LIFE IN GERMANY BEFORE AND AFTER JANUARY 30, 1933": A GUIDE TO A MANUSCRIPT COLLECTION AT HOUGHTON LIBRARY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY Harry Liebersohn and Dorothee Schneider This collection of memoirs by refugees from Nazi Germany is a rich source of autobiographical information on the Nazi era and encompasses a wide range of humrnan experience.

Transaction s of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 91, Pt. 3 $20 ISBN: 0-87169-913-3 ALHACEN’S THEORY OF VISUAL PERCEPTION A. Mark Smith A two-volume work on the first three books of Alhacen’s De Aspectibus," the Medieval Latin version of ibn al-Haytham’s "Kit5b al-Manazir" ("Book of Optics"). Volume One is the Introduction and the Latin text: Volume Two is the English translation.

Transactions of the American Philosophical Soc. Vol. 91, Pts. 4, 5 $32 ISBN: 0-87169-914-1 Na 2a.· M THE QUEEN MARY PSALTER: A STUDY OF AFFECT AND AUDIENCE Anne Rudloff Stanton A work that studies the Queen Mary Psalter (c. 1316-1321), long recognized as one of the most outstanding English Gothic manuscripts. Illuminated manuscripts are among the more intimate works of art surviving from the Medieval period.

Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 91, Pt. 6 $25 ISBN: 0-87169-916-8 +* COMING IN LATE FALL 2002 *- The Drawings of Stefano Do Verona and His Circle and the Origins of Collecting in Italy: A Catalogue Raisonn6 EVELYN KARET Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 244 $40 ISBN: 0-87169-244-9 -&M4 Book orders should be sent to: American Philosophical Society, P.O. Box 481, Canton, MA 02021-0481 (phone: 800-821- 7823; fax: 781-828-8915; e-mail: [email protected]). Also: visit our web site for our on-line order form and our backlist, and for manuscript submission nformation – www.aps-pub.com .- m M ___st__4_t· aa COMMENTARY SEPTEMBER 2002 into the blinding sunlight of the "real world." Having contemplated the true es- sence of things, he returns to the cave in order to rule wisely.

Ben Yochai, by contrast, escapes the "real world," which is in truth a world of shadows and persecution, to a cave where-without sight or sound or shadows of things-he is able to refine his visions of the divine.

MARVIN PRINCE Oradell, New Jersey To THE EDITOR: As a parent of children in a Jewish day school, I found David Gelernter’s article particularly pertinent. Since Jews in my area amount to only 1 percent of the popu- lation, sending one’s chil- dren to this school (which has only 60 students) is tru- ly a decision to separate them from their peers.

It is our custom to begin each meeting of the school’s board, on which I sit, with some words of Torah. How wonderful that my issue of COMMENTARY arrived shortly before the meeting.

This month’s lesson was several paragraphs of Mr.

Gelernter’s erudite yet sparkling prose. The Holy One Blessed be He may have separated us from all other nations, but where I live, this alone is not enough to ensure our children a Jewish education. We all agreed that "Judaism Be- yond Words" expressed why we send them to the school in the first place.

SUSAN ZIMMERMAN Millersville, Maryland To THE EDITOR: David Gelernter’s paean to separation is brilliant, quirky, and at times mis- leading. Though the act of seDarating and the state of being separate have much to do with Jewish thought and destiny, separation has never stood as an end in it- self. Rather, the Jewish people are to stand apart in order to bring goodness and vision to the nations.

"Through you," God says to Abraham as he prepares for his epic journey, "will all the families of the earth be blessed." Separation is not an in- struction to flee the world but rather a prelude to new modes of connecting with it. Yet the theme of con- nection is strangely absent from Mr. Gelernter’s re- flections on the reclusive Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai who, according to the Tal- mud, fails to return to nor- mal social life after spend- ing twelve years in isolation.

Ben Yochai is scolded by God: "Have you come out to destroy my world? Re- turn to your cave!" After an additional year of seclusion, Rabbi Shimon exits the cave in a gentler state of mind and even expresses a desire to beautify the world.

Mr. Gelernter’s Judaism of separation has its appeal, to be sure. The will to be different has been critical to the Jewish people’s survival.

An open and upraised Torah scroll can indeed appear a symbol of division, as he points out. But its teaching is one of miraculous con- nection and conjunction- flesh with spirit, Adam with Eve, God with humanity.

Jews have remained a dis- tinct people not out of de- fiant rejection of the world but in response to the wis- dom, love, and joy they have always found in living as children of an eternal covenant.

RABBIJAMES E. PONET Yale University New Haven, Connecticut To THE EDITOR: David Gelernter’s "Ju- daism Beyond Words" is the stuff of which a breathless new-age Reform rabbi might craft her sermon. A basic test for any quality touted as one of the essences of Judaism must be whether it is uniquelyJew- ish. But in Mr. Gelernter’s hands, the concept of "sep- aration" is so vague and ill- defined that it could apply to nearly anything. Cosmic gases separate into stars, people separate into states, individuals separate into groups, the body’s immune system distinguishes self from nonself, and the elec- trons of one atom general- ly orbit separately from the electrons in another. Does this mean that stars, Zam- bia, Liverpool soccer fans, enzymes, and electrons are all somehowJewish? Furthermore, Judaism provides ample instances of disapproval of separation.

The second of the four sons in the seder narrative is de- scribed as "evil" because he separates himself from his community; a minyan of at least ten people is required to say kaddish and other Jewish prayers; the right- eous Gentile is seen as de- serving a place in heaven more than the Jew who merely goes through the motions.

This brings us to the central point about Judaism Mr. Gelernter so clumsily misses: it is not separation that defines Jewishness, but the ability to make moral distinctions. Deuterono- my tells us that we are giv- en the ability to tell the dif- ference between good and evil, right and wrong, and life and death, and that we have the freedom to choose.

It is our ability to tell the difference that matters; oth- erwise, what is the point of separation? WALTER SCHIMMERLING Arlington, Virginia DAVID GELERNTER writes: To begin at the end: Walter Schimmerling is wrong to say that no prop- erty can be the "essence" of a thing unless it belongs to that thing exclusively; I can argue that freedom is the essence of America without implying that all manifesta- tions of freedom are mani- festations of America. Still, images are a matter of taste.

Any time a writer uses one, he runs the risk that a read- er might not like or under- stand it, and (worse) that this reader might be right.

But the risk is worth taking.

Unless we invent new im- ages, we cannot think new thoughts.

Mr. Schimmerling also believes that I have clumsi- ly missed the "central point"-that "it is not sep- aration that defines Jewish- ness, but the ability to make moral distinctions." Actual- lyJudaism believes that all men are able, and are re- quired, to draw moral dis- tinctions. Otherwise, how could it ever hold non-Jews responsible for anything? Nor is every important Jew- ish distinction a moral dis- tinction. Stealing is im- moral; a ham sandwich is treif: Rabbi James E. Ponet ar- gues convincingly that sep- aration is no end in itself; that it leads ultimately to connection or coming to- gether. Isaiah underlines his point: "It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it" (2:2-3).

[8] r .Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning — Taught by one of America’s Great Teachers ll of us practice argumentation virtually every day. It is a deeply ocial and cooperative practice. We should take the time to learn to do it well, and Professor David Zarefsky is the one to teach us.

This series by a top Argumentation professor will help you understand and master the art and science of giving rea- sons to explain your actions and beliefs, and to influence those of others. Learn how to identify key issues, spot the strengths and weaknesses in arguments, and use time-tested techniques of ratio- nal persuasion that are older than Cicero but as fresh as the op-ed columns of today’s newspapers. Argumentation is not mere quarreling: it is the study of human communication that seeks to per- suade through reasoned judgment.

What You’ll Learn Through this series, Professor Zarefsky provides you with a deeper, more sophisticated awareness of this cru- cial method for making decisions in a world of imperfect knowledge. From his talks, you can take away: · a systematic analysis of the art of persuasively reasoning toward a con- clusion; · a precise and comprehensive vocab- ulary of terms that are explained in the lectures and also defined in the glossary that you will find in the printed guidebooks that come with each copy of the course; · a philosophical foundation to ground you in the basic methods and premises of what often is an activity conducted intuitively and unconsciously; * a cogent historical account of how argumentation has been studied, taught, and explained over the cen- turies by scholars and practitioners alike; * clear techniques for evaluating the evidence presented to support claims, with special emphasis on the confusion of correlation, cause, and effect; * practical advice for improving the use of language in arguments.

Shop securely on-line at: www.teachl 2.com A Great Teacher Dr. Zarefsky is the Owen L. Coon Professor of Argumentation and Debate and Professor of Communication Studies at Northwestern University, where he has taught for over 30 years. The Student Government of Northwestern has elect- ed Professor Zarefsky to the Honor Roll for Teaching twelve times. A nationally recognized authority on rhetoric and argumentation, he has won several national awards for his own successes in debate and argumentation, and has coached National Championship debaters at Northwestern University.

He is also a distinguished author on communications. The National Communication Association has twice awarded its Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Rhetoric and Public Address to Dr. Zarefsky. In 1986, he received the Award for his book, President Johnson’s War on Poverty: Rhetoric and History, and he received it again in 1991 for Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate.

We close with this argument: 1.) This is a great course taught by one of the outstanding experts in the field who is a proven communicator and teacher.

2.) You can begin to harvest the benefits of his lectures next week if you order today. 3.) You will save a great deal of money if you act promptly. 4.) We’ll refund your money if you are not fully satisfied with the course. If that isn’t a persuasive argument, we need to take the course again.

4151 Lafayette Center Drive, Suite 100 Chanilly, VA 20151-1232 www.reach 12.com Priority Code 13270 Yes, send me Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning-which consists of twenty- four 30-minute lectures (12 hours in all)-with complete lecture outlines and handsome storage cases.

L] Audio $34.95* (reg. price $129.95) SAVE $95! o Video $54.95* (reg. price $199.95) SAVE $145! o Audio CD $49.95* (reg. price $179.95) SAVE $130! ‘plus $10 shipping, handling, and guarantee.

O Check or Money Order enclosed ‘Additional international shipping charges may apply **Virginia residents please add 4.5% sales tax.

Table of Contents PART I (Lectures 1-12) 1 Introducing Argumentation and Rhetoric 2 History of Argumentation Studies 3 Formal and Informal Argument 4 The Emergence of Controversy 5 Resolutions and Issues 6 Stasis-The Focal Point of Dispute 7 Presumption and Burden of Proof 8 Argument Analysis and Diagramming 9 Claims and Evidence 10 Reasoning from Parts to Whole 11 Moving from Cause to Effect 12 Establishing Correlations PART II (Lectures 13-24) 13 Analogy, Narrative, and Form 14 What Makes a Sound Argument? 15 Fallacies in Reasoning 16 Validity and Fallacies Reconsidered 17 Assembling a Case 18 Attack and Defense I 19 Attack and Defense II 20 Language and Style in Argumentation 21 Arguments between Friends 22 Arguments among Experts 23 Public Argument and Democratic Life 24 The Ends of Argumentation No-RISK MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE! "[The Teaching Company is] a force in adult education." THE NEW YORK TIMES "…brilliant teaching…lectures by the best that Harvard, Yale and other top universities have to offer…" The WALL STREET JOURNAL I1 Charge my: (please check desired format) ACCOUXT NuMor SIC NATURE Exp DArE NAME (PI EArE INT) MAILING ALDRFSS CTYI/STATE/ZIP P lONE (If We have questons regardingyour ordr) El FREE CATALOG. Please send me a free copy of you current catalog (no purchase necessary).

Offer Good Through: November 1. 2002 To order, mail coupon below or call our toll-free number: (Please refer to Priority Code 13270) 1-800-TEACH-12 (1-800-832-2412) Fax: 703-378-3819COMMENTARY SEPTEMBER 2002 Malachi writes (2:10): "Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us?" A rabbinic opinion holds that the most important verse in the Bible is "These are the generations of Adam" (Gen- esis 5:1), because it shows that all men are one family.

Nonetheless, while Jew and Gentile might come to- gether at the end of time, they will not meet each oth- er half-way. Gentiles will come to the Lord’s house, Isaiah says, in order to ac- knowledge Israel’s Torah.

Until then, Jews are re- quired to stand apart, set an example and be separate, no matter what it costs. (And it has cost plenty.) Now to return to the be- ginning: I have thought hard about Rabbi Norman Lamm’s letter, in which he points out that my piece is neither halakhah nor histo- ry and refers instead to "a method that speaks to us in our contemporary situation and yields a new under- standing." This idea that my piece is something new, not part of an existing genre, is a generous suggestion. But it seems to me that it is in fact not a solo but a voice in a choir-the choir of modern Jewish philosophy, which is so often underval- ued and neglected by ob- servant and secular Jews alike. Observant Jews natu- rally rank halakhic and homiletic literature higher.

SecularJews tend to be in- terested in philosophy, not Jewish philosophy. But Jews have an urgent oblig- ation, today more than ever, to speak to the world about fundamental ques- tions not merely as gener- ic human beings but as Jews. Jewish philosophy (which is descended from two uniquely Jewish liter- ary forms, prophecy and midrash) is a way to do that.

Francine Klagsbrun is right that any view of Ju- daism that omits unity and wholeness is no good, and that two ideas can be su- perficially inconsistent but equally fundamental. I hope that the second installment of my essay, appearing in this month’s COMMEN- TARY, will clarify my un- derstanding of the dialectic within Judaism to which she and several other corre- spondents refer.

Rabbi Haskel Lookstein notes that the twin spires that sometimes occur in synagogue facades are bor- rowings, not inventions or deliberate statements.

Agreed. The question re- mains, though: why are some synagogue buildings better than others? A syna- gogue facade that suggests an upraised Torah feels right even if the architect had other things in mind; even if the suggestion re- mains subliminal.

I also agree with Rabbi Lookstein that no one is more central to post- talmudic Judaism than Maimonides, that no tal- mudic sage outranks Akiba, and that Hillel is more im- portant than Shimon ben Yochai. In singling out Shi- mon ben Yochai, I did not mean to deny any of that, but rather to underline the way in which his experi- ence-of withdrawal (under threat of violence) and of a subsequent explosion of cre- ativity-foreshadows the history of the Jewish people itself.

Rabbi Allen Schwartz makes an important obser- vation: our refusal to draw distinctions has a lot to do with the modern mood.

Marvin Prince’s remarks on the distinction between Pla- to’s cave and Shimon ben Yochai’s are compelling. I am deeply grateful to Susan Zimmerman.

Public Diplomacy To THE EDITOR: Joshua Muravchik rec- ommends a variety of meth- ods for teaching the Islam- ic world to behave itself ["Hearts, Minds, and the War Against Terror," May].

These include winning the war on terrorism by what- ever means necessary and lecturing the Islamic mass- es through electronic me- dia (as if the cold war were won with Radio Free Eu- rope and the Voice of America). He also seems wistful about the Pentagon’s decision to scrap the Office of Strategic Influence, claiming that it was never meant to produce propa- ganda.

But missing from Mr.

Muravchik’s essay is any call to pay attention to the ter- rorists’ complaints. A policy of "all talk and no listen"- in politics as in a family-is almost always a recipe for disaster. In 1998, when Jesse Helms chaired the Senate foreign relations committee, I twice issued public pleas asking him to hold hearings to discuss what the Mus- lims who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 sought to accomplish. What had so deranged their minds that they would do some- thing so uncivilized? I told the Senator that if we failed to address this underlying problem, there would be others who would come back to finish the job at the World Trade Center. There were no hearings.

Listening to petitions from those with a grievance does not mean you must give in to them. But a child who knows that his parents have listened carefully to a request and turned it down with a reasoned response will be less likely to burn down the barn than if the parents simply say, "Shut up and go to your room." The reason there were no hearings, I surmise, is that the Jewish community was afraid its "parents" in Washington would ask it to share with its Muslim sib- lings. A clear majority of Jews in Israel and in Amer- ica support the idea of a Palestinian state living peacefully next to a Jewish state. But Jewish and Pales- tinian extremists are like two spoiled brats who want it all for themselves.

JUDE WANNISKI Morristown, New Jersey To THE EDITOR: In his article on the war against terror, Joshua Mu- ravchik writes: "Just as we succeeded in imbuing Japan and Germany with liberal- ism and democracy after we had defeated them… so the defeat of terrorism …

may open the way to new thinking in the Middle East." I would extend his argu- ment and suggest that the present reign of Arab terror against Israel can be traced to the ill-advised pressures brought to bear on the Jew- ish state by the U.S. during the Middle East wars of 1956, 1967, and 1973. Such pressures deprived Israel of the political fruits of its vic- tories. Saved from crushing defeats like those suffered by Germany and Japan in 1945, the Arabs have not been motivated to achieve a bona-fide peace. If Israel successfully extirpates the terrorist networks from the West Bank and Gaza, its [10] JCOMMENTARY SEPTEMBER 2002 Arab enemies may well be induced at last to accept the Jewish state as a permanent part of the region.

BENJAMIN D. SHERMAN Saddle Brook, New Jersey To THE EDITOR: Joshua Muravchik is cor- rect to observe that, though we cannot kill the ideas pro- pounded by Islamism, we can hinder the movement by killing the terrorists who further its goals. Islamic fundamentalism arose be- cause of the failure of Arab nationalists to deliver their societies from the ills that plague them. If fundamen- talists like Osama bin Laden can be shown to be losers in the same mold as Arab na- tionalists such as Saddam Hussein and the late Egyptian president Gamal Nasser, the Arab masses may begin to look away from radical Islam and to- ward more constructive ide- ologies.

JOHN C. ZIMMERMAN University of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada JOSHUA MURAVCHIK writes: I thank Benjamin D.

Sherman and John C. Zim- merman for their letters. I do share Mr. Zimmerman’s hope that the defeat of yet another destructive ideolo- gy (radical Islam) embraced as a panacea by many Arabs will allow healthier ideas to take root. But whether or not the United States should have stayed Israel’s hand in the wars of 1956, 1967, and 1973, I1 do not agree that this is at the root of our current predicament. As far as I know, the government of Is- rael never contemplated oc- cupying and remaking its vanquished Arab foes the way the United States did the Axis countries at the conclusion of World War II.

As for Jude Wanniski, or- dinarily I would discourage COMMENTARY from pub- lishing letters by writers who have clearly gone off the deep end. In this case, however, it may be useful to allow Mr. Wanniski to ex- pose himself, since it is likely that most readers will recall him only as a once influential advocate of "sup- ply-side" economics and may be unaware of the sub- jects to which he has ad- dressed himself obsessively in recent times.

His letter is emblematic.

He claims that "the Jewish community" prevented Sen- ator Helms from heeding his sage counsel to hold hearings in order to give the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 the opportunity to ex- plain what was on their minds. Even if their de- mands were not all met, this, he seems to reason, would have made the bombers feel better and led somehow to the emergence of a peace-loving Palestin- ian state living side-by-side with Israel. Such a happy outcome would have pleased the "clear majority" ofJews and displeased only Jewish extremists-which does make it hard to understand why "the Jewish communi- ty" blocked it.

The logic of this argu- ment is, in short, not linear.

But it is of a piece with much else that Mr. Wan- niski has to offer these days.

He has made himself the principal champion of Sad- dam Hussein and Louis Farrakhan. The former, he says, is concealing no wea- pons, did not use poison gas against Iraqi Kurds, and was not behind the assassination attempt on George H. W.

Bush in Kuwait in 1993.

Nor was Saddam attempt- ing to acquire nuclear wea- pons until Israel drove him to do it in 1981 by bomb- ing the Iraqi nuclear plant at Osirak, which "was being used for peaceful purposes." True, it was bad of the Iraqi ruler to invade Kuwait in 1990, but, since he acted with the approval of the U.S. government, who are we to judge? Then there is Farrakhan, who, says Mr. Wanniski, is "emerging as the spiritual leader of the entire Islamic world." In 1999, Farrakhan gave a speech explaining that Jews had falsely brand- ed him anti-Semitic because, "when God sends a prophet into the world to point out where we went wrong, we don’t ordinarily say, ‘you’re right, thank you."’ (In oth- er words, Farrakhan was sent by God to chasten the Jews.) This was hailed by Mr. Wanniski as "by far the best speech I’ve heard from anyone in this last decade," and was posted on Mr.

Wanniski’s website although, as he gushed in a letter to Farrakhan, readers "really should get the audiotape to appreciate what you can do in a 90-minute address." A third self-defined prophet whom Mr. Wan- niski has courted is Lyndon LaRouche, the anti-Semitic conspiracist and migrant from extreme Left to ex- treme Right. Presumably what attracted Mr. Wannis- ki was not LaRouche’s con- viction for credit-card fraud but his relentless expos of the Henry Kissinger-Queen of England-Zionist plot to control the world. The LaRouche-Wanniski part- nership faltered, however, or so Mr. Wanniski told the New Republic’s Jona- than Chait, because of La- Rouche’s refusal to embrace supply-side theory. (Ap- parently Mr. Wanniski be- lieves that Farrakhan has embraced it, and perhaps Saddam, too.) Mr. Wanniski has a con- spiracy theory of his own, claiming that the U.S. gov- ernment is secretly con- trolled by Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. The lat- ter in particular evokes the full measure of Mr. Wan- niski’s mania. "Richard Per- le," he writes, "is a madman, totally out of control. Pos- sessed by the forces of Dark- ness … the most evil man on the face of the earth.

Hannibal Lecter [in the movie Silence of the Lambs] only ate his victims one at a time. Perle likes to eat them en masse." If Perle is not stopped, he warns, "anoth- er six million Jews [will] per- ish in a second Holocaust." Is he himself an anti- Semite? Mr. Wanniski wax- es indignant at the sugges- tion. "I know anti-Semitism when I see it," he says, "and can assure you neither [Far- rakhan] nor I have a speck of anti-Semitism in our hearts or souls." That’s a relief.

Wen Ho Lee To THE EDITOR: It is disappointing that Gabriel Schoenfeld’s seri- ous, perhaps even libelous, allegation [Letters, July- August] that my "miscon- duct did immense damage to our government’s abili- ty to combat the very real and ongoing Chinese espi- onage" should be based on nothing more than a re- statement of the allegations of the Bellows report.

Mr. Schoenfeld claims that the 1996 Administra- [12]COMMENTARY SEPTEMBER 2002 tive Inquiry (Al), for which I was responsible, sup- pressed accurate informa- tion and dissenting views offered "by a body of gov- ernment experts," and that I purveyed inaccurate in- formation to the FBI. But he offers no facts beyond those contained in the Bel- lows report, and he ignores conflicting evidence pre- sented in the 2001 Senate Judiciary Report. He also implies that the issue of Chinese nuclear espionage is by no means settled.

Could he please provide a single, on-the-record, offi- cial government refutation of the 1999 judgment of the Intelligence Community (the interagency body that coordinates all U.S. intelli- gence functions) that the Chinese had acquired U.S.

nuclear-weapons informa- tion by espionage? Or could he show how my view dif- fered from the Intelligence Community’s conclusions- especially as I supported and concurred with its judg- ments? On the subject of whe- ther I suppressed dissenting information, perhaps Mr.

Schoenfeld did not bother to read the footnote in the Senate report noting an FBI summary of a 1996 inter- view that states: "there was no disagreement that ‘Re- stricted Data’ information had been acquired by the Chinese. The only dis- agreement was over how valuable that information was." Rather than pertain- ing to the judgment of a "group of government ex- perts," by which I assume Mr. Schoenfeld means the 1995 Kindred Spirit analy- sis group, this reference to a "disagreement" concerns a lone dissent by Bobby Hen- son, a scientist at Los Alam- os who argued strenuously that the group’s conclusions were far too "soft." Henson believed that the Chinese had acquired the W-88 warhead information from a spy, most likely at Los Alamos, and urged the group to adopt that conclu- sion. I thought that Hen- son’s arguments were not supported by the evidence available to us at the time and accepted the group’s conclusions while noting his dissent.

Mr. Schoenfeld then al- leges that we misled the FBI with regard to our review of lab facilities, citing Sandia and Pantex as examples of facilities we claimed to have reviewed, but did not. Re- ally? How does he know this-because the Bellows report says so? But is he aware that Dan Bruno, the Department of Energy (DOE) investigator, has tes- tified under oath that he and the FBI agent assisting us did visit Sandia in Janu- ary 1996, only to learn that the Energy Department had permitted Sandia to destroy all records of foreign travel or foreign visitors-and so there were no records for Bruno to examine? Did he know that Bruno had tasked Pantex (and Rocky Flats, too) to assemble similar sets of records for review? But counterintelligence officials at both sites reminded us that these facilities were considered too sensitive to permit foreign visitors or to allow workers to travel to China or Russia, and such records therefore did not even exist.

We understood that this did not automatically elim- inate these sites from suspi- cion, and said so. But only the FBI had the authority to employ the counterintelli- gence tools-like covert ex- amination of mail or trash.

electronic surveillance, etc.- necessary to complete the review of these locations.

The FBI explicitly directed that we not undertake ex- tensive interviews of lab sci- entists or workers; it feared that such activity could tip off any potential suspects.

Finally, it is perfectly conceivable that the Bellows report could be a generally accurate assessment of the government’s handling of the case, but still be badly mistaken about the partic- ulars of the DOE Adminis- trative Inquiry. The Bellows team, composed of Depart- ment of Justice officials and FBI agents, did not begin its work until 1999-more than three years after the AI was delivered to the Bureau.

The investigators assisting Bellows did not interview lab scientists until well into 1999. By that time, both the FBI, especially in Albu- querque, and Los Alamos were well along in their re- vision of the history of this case in order to blunt the criticisms both expected (and received) from the Cox Commission.

Again, Mr. Schoenfeld must have overlooked the 2001 Senate Judiciary Re- port’s conclusion that "The FBI’s failures in the Wen Ho Lee investigation should not be blamed on the Al." Be as- sured that the Senators and their aides who wrote that re- port had full access to the en- tire record of what really happened in 1995 and 1996.

Mr. Schoenfeld, on the oth- er hand, does not seem to have such access. Neither does he seem to have read carefully the reports of those who do. Until he does, per- haps he should be more cau- tious about his accusations in print about my "misconduct." NOTRA TRULOCK Falls Church, Virginia GABRIEL SCHOENFELD writes: Notra Trulock is almost entirely correct that my characterization of his role is "nothing more than a re- statement of the allegations of the Bellows report." But it follows logically from this that if what I wrote was li- belous, so too is the Bellows report.

Of course, I do not believe that the Bellows report or my own summary of it is libelous at all. The first authority I would cite is none other than Notra Trulock himself, who has praised the Bellows re- port unreservedly in other forums. Indeed, the materi- al he now suggests might be libelous he even had his lawyer greet, upon its pub- lication, with a press release headlined, "Bellows Report Exonerates Notra Trulock." In our previous round of cor- respondence, I noted the as- tonishing pirouettes he has performed with respect to the Bellows report, but he does not explain or even mention his bizarre reversals here.

When I say that Mr. Tru- lock is "almost entirely" cor- rect in his comments about my sources, I have some- thing specific in mind. In writing about his role, I also relied on materials other than the Bellows report, in- cluding a document that Mr. Trulock twice refers to here as the "2001 SenateJu- diciary Report." He draws upon this "2001 SenateJu- diciary Report," which he accuses me of having over- looked, to make several as- sertions about the 1996 Ad- ministrative Inquiry.

But there is a minor mys- tery here. The Senate Judi- ciary Committee did not re- lease any reports about the Wen Ho Lee case in the year 2001. One can search high [14] —– – -I..COMMENTARY SEPTEMBER 2002 and low in the stacks of the Senate library and still not find the "2001 SenateJudi- ciary Report" or anything titled like it issued by the Ju- diciary or any other Senate committee.

The document Mr. Tru- lock is referring to, a copy of which I have in hand, is missing the customary ap- paratus of a congressional committee report and is not available to the public in the usual bound form. The text itself, which does indeed concern the Department of Energy investigation, con- tains no account of how it was prepared, what facilities were visited, or who were the principal investigators, among other basic features.

It includes an introduc- tion-written in the first- person singular-but it also, quite peculiarly, lacks an identifiable author.

Nonetheless, the mystery is easily solved. The report was issued by a single Unit- ed States Senator, Arlen Specter, "published" on a copying machine and on the Senator’s website, and in- serted into the Congression- al Record. It has no standing beyond what attaches to an ordinary utterance of any congressional officeholder.

What is even more rele- vant, the report is remark- ably sloppy and contains significant distortions. At one point, it even asserts that Notra Trulock was only "closely associated" with the AI and "not its author" (em- phasis added). Only in a purely literal sense can this be construed as true: name- ly, that subordinates to Mr.

Trulock drafted and typed the AI. But to leave it at that, as the report does, is to air- brush Mr. Trulock to the edge of the picture and seri- ously mislead about the chain of authority. It directly con- tradicts Mr. Trulock himself, who in both of his letters to COMMENTARY makes clear his full responsibility for au- thorship of the AI.

In any event, Senator Specter himself does not claim that his report is a de- finitive accounting. Speak- ing on the Senate floor on December 20, 2001, he was at pains to explain the ob- stacles he was unable to overcome in its preparation.

His Senate colleagues, he complained, never granted him the crucial power to is- sue subpoenas and compel testimony. His inquiry was "thwarted repeatedly" by the FBI, which at a certain juncture simply "refused to provide additional informa- tion." The Department of Energy would not cooper- ate, and indeed was "in- transigent." As for the Sen- ate resources devoted to the inquiry, a solitary staff mem- ber was assigned responsi- bility for "virtually single- handedly conducting the oversight investigations and writing the reports" (em- phasis added).

When Mr. Trulock false- ly suggests that Senator Specter’s document bears the imprimatur of the Sen- ate Judiciary Committee, and then falsely asserts, in a sentence purveying multi- ple misrepresentations, that "the Senators and their _ 1 _ _ A . . . I alies wno wrote mat report had full access to the entire record of what really hap- pened in 1995 and 1996," he is offering a glimpse into the kind of verbal manipu- lations that transformed the Wen Ho Lee case from a valid counterintelligence in- vestigation into a fiasco that gravely undermined our government’s ability to combat the ongoing prob- lem of Chinese espionage.

Yet another revealing ex- ample of Mr. Trulock’s meth- ods can be found in his re- quest that I "please provide a single, on-the-record, of- ficial government refutation of the Intelligence Com- munity’s 1999 judgment that the Chinese had acquired U.S. nuclear weapons in- formation by espionage." This challenge is more dust thrown in our eyes. In our previous round of cor- respondence, Mr. Trulock claimed that a 1999 intera- gency intelligence study confirmed the premise of his 1996 Al. I stated in response that the issue was "by no means settled." He is now suggesting that by ques- tioning him on this point, I am calling into doubt the 1999 interagency finding.

But I made it plain that I do not quarrel with the in- teragency finding in the least. The Chinese almost certainly did obtain U.S.

nuclear secrets via espi- onage, and I stated as much in mv article. The only thing not "settled" was Mr. Tru- lock’s contention that the 1999 study confirms the contents of his AI. The AI, to judge by those portions of it in the public record, went far beyond a finding that the Chinese had fruit- fully engaged in espionage.

It pointed a finger exclu- sively at Los Alamos Na- tional Laboratory and at Wen Ho Lee before ruling out all other locations and suspects.

I cannot fathom why Mr.

Trulock puts forward such easily exposed distortions, but his claim that the 1999 Intelligence Community study retrospectively vindi- cates his AI and his effort to inflate Senator Specter’s personal report into some- thing more comprehensive and authoritative than it is immediately bring to mind the scathing criticisms di- rected at him by the Bel- lows report. Mr. Trulock’s AI, we are told there, was "a slapdash affair" that con- tained "numerous incon- sistent and contradictory statements as well as un- substantiated assertions." It also employed "horribly in- exact language" and was "so poorly written and orga- nized that this alone made it difficult to evaluate and comprehend." What a pity that the AI document remains classi- fied so we cannot judge for ourselves, but from the way Mr. Trulock has conducted himself in this correspon- dence, I am prepared to be- lieve the worst.

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link