Oh come on, you and Kashei are disappointed and confused. Did you really believe that Bush was any different to his predecessors in the fight for democracy? US presidents have always seamed to be champions of democratic reform only when it suits US interests. Ronald Reagan proclaiming the USSR the “Evil Empire” whilst at the same time giving unequivocal support to repressive regimes in Latin America. 100,000 – 200,000 dead in Guatemala, 30,000 dead in Nicaragua etc. The democratically elected governments of both Guatemala and Chile overthrown in US sponsored coups. JFK, LBJ and Nixon fighting communism in Vietnam yet South Vietnam was a dictatorship. So why now does it come as such a surprise that Bush would be any different.

Been beaten to it by Graeme - no point in repeating him. You surely can't be that naive Candace ! I thought that was the role of the left !

Clearly, you guys haven't had any leaders that you respect all that much. I respect George W. Bush because he represents my ideals in how America should promote democracy and freedom. While Europe twiddles its collective thumbs and hopes the terrorists will take them out last, he's promoting a way of life that will make these people less likely to kill us. So, yes, the Taiwan talk hurts, even though I realize its just talk. I know we have bigger problems and I know that Bush understands this better than anyone. One of my first post-9/11 thoughts about the bigger picture was 'Taiwan is fucked' and well, here it is. No man can be and do everything you want him to, that doesn't change that yesterday's rhetoric was hurtful.

From WSJ today

Speaking with reporters after his meeting with Mr. Wen, Mr. Bush criticized the Taiwan President, but he also went out of his way to make clear that the U.S. opposes "any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo." And in his welcoming statement, the President referred to human rights abuses in China, expressing the hope that "social, political and religious freedoms" will grow there.

In any event, it's fair to say that the era of "strategic ambiguity" is over in U.S.-Taiwan-China relations. It was good while it lasted -- about 25 years -- but it was probably inevitable that the U.S. would have to spell out more clearly what it expects of those on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Telling Taiwan's President not to give China an excuse for military mischief is more than justified.

This is going down as "appeasement" in some circles, and we think unfairly so. The Bush Administration has done much more than any recent U.S. government to help bring Taiwan out of its international isolation. It's allowed Taiwan's President to visit U.S. cities on "transit" stops, upgraded the de facto U.S. embassy in Taipei and helped the Taiwanese military to modernize. American support could eventually help Taiwan take a larger role in international organizations, despite China's resistance. All of this was unthinkable a few years ago.

Right on Jake. Good reference. I'm having issues on my own blog over this - and I'm happy we're talking about it (versus Gwenyth Paltrow's pregnancy on the cover of NY Post this morning - argh).

Anyways, Candace, your statement "How are those who suffer in China so different from those who suffered under Saddam?" implies you consider Taiwan still a part of China. I thought we are in agreement they are independent without the label? They have democracy, our guns & ammo, free speech and press, a capitalistic economy, and have more-or-less been free and independent for 50 years.

So do not try to conpare the two. Iraqis were within the same boundaries as Saddam. They had to endure his brutality, with safe place to retreat. Taiwan is separate, remember. Iraqis has to follow Saddam's law, Taiwanese have their own law.

So please do not idealize this issue over a grand and moral concept of independence. Understand that Bush's toughness has indeed put America's position out in the open. Taiwan cannot declare independence, yet China cannot invade and absorb.

Remember that above all else, that status quo was very much created by America. It is really a deceptive term. Bush says status quo in vague reference to the old "One China" policy for the last 25 years. But the truth is that status quo is quite different.

K, of course I have never had any leaders I respect . For half my life we lived under the Tories. My grudging respect for Blair in so much as that he genuinely seems to do thing because he believe them to be good, totally evaporated last week when like a spoilt child he threatened to resign if he didn’t get his own way on university fees.

Scott - Clarification appreciated; they are indeed different in those ways. But that still doesn't establish a clear reason why we would treat Taiwan so differently.

All - I'm going to have to agree with Kashei on this one. There are people who don't think a person of character can really exist, especially in a position of power. But it's not naive to know genuinely good and principled people, despite the fact that everyone seems to always be looking for A Flaw, and said Flaw is never just a Flaw, but a real Mark of Something Terrible in One's Soul that Said Politician Should Just Come Out With. We're all human, after all, right? Don't we want a President who screws around just like us?

Not I, and this is not that president, though that doesn't make him Flawless. The statements he made yesterday go against the principles I know him for, at least on the surface. Other principles are competing, it's clear. But I can be justifiably disappointed that in the choice between those principles, he's gone the other way. And it raises questions about which democracies get preference, questions I'd like answers to. If Iraq, if Georgia, why not Taiwan?

The truth is that there's a lot about our policy with China I have trouble with, none of which gets addressed (see: Nov/Dec Foreign Affairs, which spoke of China ONLY in glowing terms). Why special treatment for this authoritarian government over the others? That's what really needs to be told.

Couldn't agree more, Candace. China is the major issue that I break with Republicans on.

iranian nobel peace prize winner Shirin Ebadi is also criticising the US on its double standards on democracy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3306803.stm

Actually, she seems to be criticizing 'rights abuses' but not our promotion of democracy.
Look, I understand that most of the world wants us to just forget about 9/11 and pretend everything is ok. We're not going to do that. We're not going to listen to countries who themselves are terrified of terrorism but are powerless to stop it. We're not going to set murderers free from Guantanamo because people who were half-happy over 9/11 want us to. We're just not. The sooner the world realizes we're serious about not dying, the better we'll be able to get along with it. Until then, people can say whatever they want. Your link actually made me feel better about Taiwan. It reminded me that America has much larger problems to deal with at the moment and that Bush is the man to deal with them. So, thanks.

What is important with Bush on this issue is what is not said. Look at today's headlines already - Taiwan is holding a defensive postured referendum next year - supposedly in defiance of Bush's remarks.

There is strategy beneath the surface. Remember, Taiwan is a Democracy. We have succeeded to a degree there. Our foreign policy is tilted in our favor over this issue.

We are still taking on China and Communism. Much like with the Soviet Union, the fight was about spreading ideology. Often the battles were in 3rd party countries so as to avoid direct confrontation. A sad reality, but a reality. Now, with China, Russia, France and Germ, we have effectively botted them out of a major share of the Middle East - don't deceive ourselves into thinking there was not a larger economic picture here. We are spreading OUR WAY (Democracy) hoping to eventually constrict their ways. The alternative is their way.

Look at Hong Kong. The British failer miserably in protecting that Democratic area in the same way we have protected Taiwan. It has been reabsorbed into Communist China and the freedoms it once knew are slowly eroding away.

So my point here is that Taiwan must not become a major issue and must not sieze the headlines. We must do our part to ensure that by not criticizing the President out of context. It's too easy to latch onto a passionate, emotional issue and take it through a media tunnel, blinders welded shut. We should be bringing up "more important" issues like North Korea, Iran and others.

We MUST look at Taiwan as nothing less than victory for America.

4862 http://texas-holdem.ownsthis.com texas holdem