I commend her for being pretty consistent on China – though her trade deficit and China-owning-our-debt talking points are off the mark. How is it that she does not recognize that President Bush hardened the line on China, which was woefully soft under Clinton? Pelosi should not be confused by the pomp and ceremony; the kowtower is no longer in office.
Meanwhile, Reid blasts that unilateralist SOB President for not being unilateral enough. President Bush has been a dismal failure when it comes to winning Reid’s heart and mind. Notice how with Reid it cannot be done. Always. Can’t this, can’t that. He’s already removed the military option for Iran:
"We don't have the resources to do it " because of the ongoing war in Iraq."
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
2 comments:
I agree with you to some extent that Dubya has stepped up to the plate a bit more on China, but he is still weak-kneed on them in general as has been every president since Nixon first went there and when Carter opened ties, thinking engagement would turn them around. All that resulted were oppressive communists that we could make money with. Contrast that with the isolation the Soviet Union was placed under and how sanctions led to the fall of apartheid in South Africa, it's clear that decades of U.S. policy toward China have failed and both parties share the blame.
I disagree. Though not entirely a result of our policies, look at China before Nixon – revolution, commie-induced famine, the catastrophe of the Cultural Revolution. As bad as China’s human rights record is now, it’s nothing like the ‘60s and before – when bodies were counted in the millions, not the thousands (actually, they bodies weren't counted at all). True, our economic engagement hasn’t toppled communism in China, but it has forced the People’s government into an awkward compromise with capitalism that cannot be sustained forever. Nothing good happens fast in China. And for about a tenth of the Chinese population, things have improved since ’89 – thanks to capitalism more than anything else.
As for political freedom – I believe that even with Google and Yahoo filters, etc., the Internet will prove too powerful to silence. Also, the more affluence enjoyed by the Chinese people, the more likely they’ll gain their freedoms as well. Besides, having oppressive commies we can make money with is better than having dirt poor oppressive commies that we can’t make money with.
Post a Comment