Mr. Bush's Kowtow

Washington Post ^ | December 10, 2003 | Editorial

[beida]

FOR THE PAST several weeks, Taiwan and China have been exchanging rhetorical broadsides about how the island's political future might be decided. Taiwan's democratically elected president, Chen Shui-bian, has been hinting that maybe his people should make a democratic choice about whether to unite with China or become independent. Beijing's Communist dictators have replied with bellicose threats to settle the matter by force, no matter the price. Yesterday President Bush essentially placed the United States on the side of the dictators who promise war, rather than the democrats whose threat is a ballot box. His gift to visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was to condemn "the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan" while ignoring the sanguinary rhetoric of the man standing next to him. Mr. Bush had his reasons for doing so -- above all to avoid one more foreign policy crisis during an election year. But in avoiding a headache for himself, he demonstrated again how malleable is his commitment to the defense of freedom as a guiding principle of U.S. policy.

[beida]

It's good to see WashPost is against the communist.

[Russ]

If the president had come down on the other side of this issue the Washington Post would have a hand-wringing editorial today against that policy.

[Bubba_Leroy]

It's good to see WashPost is against the communist.

No, the Washington Post is just against Bush. It really doesn't matter what side Bush takes on any issue, you can always count on the Post to come out against him.

[zook]

Exactly. This is BS. Bush said nothing different the other day than has been stated for the past 15 years--that we do not support unilateral action by either side. Given the state of affairs in the world today, this is the right policy. The Washington [BLEEP] simply saw a new angle to bash GW.

[LisaMalia]

So, now he's MISTER Bush? Pathetic! I deplore the Washington Post.

[Romulus]

It really doesn't matter what side Bush takes on any issue, you can always count on the Post to come out against him.

Meanwhile, for other folks it really doesn't matter what side the Post takes on any issue, since you can always count on them to prefer blind loyalty above principle.

I'm tempted to say "Pot, meet Kettle", except the Post did support the war in Iraq. Maybe one a you cats can 'splain me dees.

[beida]

incorrect. It's different between "do not support" and "we oppose". Bush said the latter.

[zook]

"Do not support," "oppose," -- a huge difference only in the minds of those who really want to see Bush fail.

Ask yourself--do we really want to go to war with China right now? Do we want China to take action against Taiwan? Bush made the right decision.

Moreover, however, I'm sure we did not simply say "we would not 'support'" a unilateral Chinese invasion.

[zook]

It's real simple. We support this president because right now (and like no one since Reagan) he represents America's best hope to remain strong and free in this world. This may be "loyalty," but it is reasoned, not "blind."

Also, because the election is getting nearer, it becomes necessary for the Post to find ways to slap this Republican president down.

[sinkspur]

Meanwhile, for other folks it really doesn't matter what side the Post takes on any issue, since you can always count on them to prefer blind loyalty above principle.

And you oppose anything Bush does, on any issue, any time.

Your "priniciple" is to despise GWB.

Say "hi" to your organ grinder, Askel5, for us, will ya?

[Romulus]

I was very pleased to see him sign the bill that bans PBA.

But tell me: does the person you mention chase you in your dreams? Why the gratuitous introduction of a name having nothing to do with this thread? Your anger and obsession are not healthy, not to mention your inability to distinguish between two very different people.

I don't think stalking the object of your obsession, even by proxy, is the answer. Have you considered prayer and fasting?

[sinkspur]

I don't think stalking the object of your obsession,

Except for the tainted blood, you sound just like her.

[Romulus]

Have your hearing tested.

[Tamzee]

So, now he's MISTER Bush? Pathetic! I deplore the Washington Post.

Yep... that jumped out at me, too.

[Tamzee]

I'm tempted to say "Pot, meet Kettle", except the Post did support the war in Iraq. Maybe one a you cats can 'splain me dees.

Popular support... same reason many Dem congresscritters voted for it. Another benefit of the public's slow movement to the right, thanks in part to President Bush.