Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Just watched ex-President George Bush on FOX covering-up for Clinton and China. He says that we should have no fear of China and that a lot of lies were told about Clinton.
The interview will be shown in full tomorrow. Didn't catch the time.
uh oh!
I think it's on Tony Hill's show, in the morning on Fox Network......
Hey Jim,
I'm back!
Must be that Pres. Bush sold some 'stuff' to China as well, eh?
Must be that NWO-buddies thing...
I am very sorry to hear this about President Bush. It tends to lend credence to the idea that the reason Congress has been so damned quiet about Chinagate and other Clinton outrages is because both Democrats AND Republicans are involved. Too bad...
Ex-Pres Bush: China Made Dramatic Human Rights Progress (excerpt)
October 15, 1999
Former U.S. President George Bush said Friday that China had made dramatic progress on its human rights approach.http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a38071e3a7132.htmBush said it was wrong to expect all countries to live up to one human rights standard. "They (China) have made dramatic progress," he told a conference here.
"I have seen different countries with different standards, and yet we have had relations with them.
"Where there's shortfall - and there has been I think - the way to help as an outsider is to engage in constructive dialogue. It's not going to change overnight because some edict comes out of the U.N. of something like that."
Bush said he was disappointed China hasn't been granted entry into the World Trade Organization after recent talks between the U.S. and China in Washington.
"I do not criticize the president...(but) I think mistakes were made," he said. "I hope it can be done now." . . .
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
Bush SR was always wrong on China. His son won't be.
BUSH2000
And what is it that causes you to believe that?
let's just see this week how many of the mainstreams republican mouthpieces give this revelation the analysis it deserves. If we are lucky maybe a certain radio talkman will look at it through his truth detector! Don't hold your breath.
[Bush Sr. said] a lot of lies were told about Clinton.
The most charitable interpretation is that he really was born with a silver foot in his mouth. He should have said, a lot of lies were told by Clinton.
I didn't think 'human rights' issues were the be all and end all of American diplomatic concerns when it was the Democrats hammering away at the GOP for not overthrowing the government of Taiwan, South Korea, South Africa, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Greece, Portugal, Greece, Guatemala, the Phillipines, South Vietnam, etc etc. So I can't blame Bush for not wanting to make Chinese internal political matters the be all and end all of our diplomatic concerns. He is merely being consistent. Can those attacking him for this say the same?
Truth be said China IS a better place 'human rights' wise than when Mao, Deng or Li Peng were running the place, but that is no excuse for making excuses as Bush seems to be doing. No he was not my cup of tea as president though after Clinton his presidency does have the aura of a golden age.
Fortunately George H.W. Bush is not running for president, his son is. Since one of the more egregious forms of human rights abuses is the punishment of innocent members of a family for the perceived or actual wrong doing of a single member. This was common practice in places like China, The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. I hope it does not happen here.
Just watched ex-President George Bush on FOX covering-up for Clinton and China.
Get real. Dude.
Why such a Republican suck-up?
These folks are lower than whale dung.
Old man Bush always has had a thing for China, since Barbara and George lived there...I remember interviews over the years, and they both love China....a whole lot...I always thought it was the people more than the government...but maybe I am wrong...
Watch the interview tomorrow. His words were that we should not have any fear of China and that he actually feels sorry for Clinton because so many lies were told about him. Watch the interview and hear the words straight from the horse's mouth.
Arkinsides???
Bush Sr. has to do it dontchaknow Jim.
It's that whole Establishment Republican "engagement" thingy.
Personally, the only way I think we should be "engaging" the Chinese is in battle and the sooner the better.
Regards,
L
What is his motive? He has previously publicly stated that he would stay out of current politics.
Why the warm-and-fuzzies on this, of all, topics?
Is he trying to set the stage for a Clinton pardon?
This is really bothersome.
Agreed...
When will the light bulbs come on? See theres this global conspiracy with these three initials...got somethin' to do with the back of dollar bill or some such kookiness as that,what are they...?
I've heard the same rationalizations for Chinese behavior from that guy Lily? who was Ambassador over there during the eighties. Don't particularly care for it as I do believe China is not just a trading partner but a potential rival of the US. This has been made clear by their behavior during the CLINTON presidency. The regime was in serious danger of collapsing during the Bush presidency and his failure to give it the necessary shove was probably his most serious foreign policy mistake but that is in hindsight. I suspect his eyes were more focused on the danger the turmoil in the Soviet Union might portend should the military/ communists have seized control. There was a coup attempt as I recall.
Having China dissolve into chaos simultaneously with the Soviet Empire might have been even worse. I welcome an analysis of that scenario.
In any event mistake or not the Chinese have tipped their hand in the intervening years. Their aggressive espionage against the US coupled with their effective infiltration of the Clinton Administration has rendered null and void any benefit of the doubt earlier Administrations may have been willing to extend to them. George Bush Sr. should face up to this reality, not try and ameliorate and justify his own conduct of China policy.
Geroge Bush Sr is a true carpetbagger. Why should his son be any different? Remember where they got their educations.
Why am i not surprised by the statments made by ex-president Bush?
Regards, Suzyq
China wants to take America down, NO DOUBT...but even worst a lot Americans want this too, including the present evil administration...
Listening to the committee yesterday on the Panama Canal...I can not believe the depth this administration has gone to, to cover up the dangerous situation that is taking place in Panama with the Red Chinese....Is Bush in favor of this? Maybe so...
"Is Bush in favor of this? Maybe so..."
Bush, Clinton, so-and-so, such-and-such, Dems and Repubs . . . it's the same d___ thing . . .
Wolf: Jim, this conforms to my contention:
We need to elect someone that is not the same ole' thing...we need a man that has not been selected by the NWO...like Reagen....which one is the question...Keyes-Forbes-Buchanan...these guys are not a NWO pick...
Understand that Chinese actions in Panama are directed primarily to dislodge the diplomatic representation Taiwan has in Central America and the Caribbean.
They, like all states seeking expanded influence, move into areas being vacated by others. In this case the Chinese saw an opportunity that the withdrawal of American forces presented and took it. This is real politik. Happens every- where. The US/Nato moved into Eastern Europe much to the annoyance of Russia.
Should a state of general war breakout between China and the US we will regret allowing China into Panama but it is not a serious problem. Certainly much less so than the Soviet prescence in Cuba during the Cold War. China has no blue water fleet and would not be able to hold onto any putative bases they may aspire to create in Panama. Wrecking the canal might be about the best they could achieve but for a lot reasons that really would have no great bearing on the outcome of the conflict.
I'm going to listen to program and decide for myself.I think that the president loves the people,not the govenment.How many times did you post this Jim?(smile)
Just once (grin). Yes, please listen to the interview. Bush loves China and he's very forgiving of Clinton. He desperately wants the press to lay off GW, so he's promoting for a kinder, more compassionate campaign and a less critical press. If anyone thinks that Father (and powerful supporters) won't have an influence on Son, you're crazy. Don't you ever wonder how and why the politically inexperienced, bad boy, G W Bush, got himself born again, rehabilitated and groomed to become governor of Texas? Not to mention front-runner in the Presidential race? What experience did/does he have for either position? A Bush presidency will be very dangerous for America.
"It's not going to change overnight because some edict comes out of the U.N. of something like that."
IS this Bush going against the NWO????
...and his Sunday program on the Fox Network, not FoxNewschannel...
"to become governor of Texas? Not to mention front-runner in the Presidential race? What experience did/does he have for either position?"
Bout the same as Reagan....but no Hollywood and no union leadership position?
"Personally, the only way I think we should be "engaging" the Chinese is in battle and the sooner the better."
Yeah, pissing off three billion people is always a good idea.
George Bush Covers-up for Clinton and China
Yet, in another post......BUSH AND CLINTON CROSS SWORDS - See Clinton disses Bush etc.
What's wrong with this picture?
A Bush presidency will be a helluva a lot LESS dangerous than a Gore Administration or do you believe otherwise?
As to what qualifications Bush had to be Governor or President. As compared to whom? Certainly he has more executive experience than Bradley, Gore, Bauer, Buchanan, McCain, and anyone else with the questionable exception of Steve Forbes. Forbes, Perot and Trump all have greater personal fortunes but then they have ZERO experience running any government agency much less anything as large as the State of Texas. Bush has more military training and rank than any of the above with the exception of McCain, though McCain's military adventures were marred by his planes blowing up or being shot down.
So on the qualification scale, Bush has above average wealth, military background, and business experience and stands alone as ever having been elected to a position where he had to run a large government.
Watch the interview tomorrow and judge for yourself.
Military background? Yeah, right. Of the choices you listed, I think Forbes would be a better choice than Bush.
You got that right! It is unbeleivable to me that the GOP, my party, is going to nominate for president of the United States a man whose only qualification is his last name.
No joke. It's one big grand protection scheme to keep the truth from the American public.
The REAL old man Bush (Prescott) had a "thing" for China too.
Dems and Repubs . . . it's the same d___ thing . . .
Would Bob Barr agree with you? Hmmmm.
The Reagans got it right, they ARE downstairs folk..
"to become governor of Texas? Not to mention front-runner in the Presidential race? What experience did/does he have for either position?"
Bout the same as Reagan....but no Hollywood and no union leadership position?"
Hmmmm... compares more to Governor/President Clinton to me, only not as experienced.
"I hope it does not happen here."
Too late.
Jim, suprised to cath you on. I read something on another thread you might like: "Read my lips, No More Bushes". Regards.
"What experience did/does he have for either position?"
No disrespect Jim -- I love ya man! But Bush Jr. has the same "credentials" as Clinton, Reagan, Carter, FDR, TR, and without checking, I don't remember how any other presidents -- He is a State Governor. It is an executive (management responsibility) position, and has traditionally been a good route to the White House as opposed to a legislative (bitch and moan) position.
I am not quite sure what your main gripe is with Bush Sr. I don't have any special emotions one way or another unless we get into comparing him with Clinton. Bush Sr. starts looking like the man of the Century or perhaps the millennium, in that side-by-side comparison.
Just venting a little Jim, but you know I try to stay up on things, and I just don't understand the gut hatred of all things Bush. It sounds like the Contrail theories to me. BTW... My vote in the primaries is reserved for Alan Keyes. I just don't think he has a chance of winning.
Eagles Up buddy.
What experience did he have to become governor of Texas?
Rush said long ago that we would not remember a Reagan/Bush era.
He said, instead, we would remember a Bush/Clinton era.
I'm afraid we are going to remember a Bush/Clinton/Bush era.
"Watch the interview and hear the words straight from the horse's mouth"
Dontcha MENA horse's a**?
"What experience did he have to become governor of Texas?"
The same as Reagan did in California... high name recognition and some measure of business success (Movies & SAG vs. Oil & Baseball).
I still don't get the knee jerk reactions Jim. Am I missing something?
"though McCain's military adventures were marred by his planes blowing up or being shot down."
That and the fact that he sang like a cockatiel to the butchers in Hanoi. A real patriot would die first.
From 1990 forward the assimilation of the USA military into a world order has been afoot under the auspices of Globalism.
The downsizing of the USA military and ties to UN and related bodies has followed the same pattern under bush/clinton.
Pray tell what qualifications does Mr. Buchanan have or Mr. Forbes. As I posted on another thread it is easy to stand for principles when the only obstacle to their implementation is a keyboard. However grownups and serious juveniles understand that in the real world choices have to be made. People make mistakes and hopefully learn from them. As Mark Twain said; 'Good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement".
Reciting the works of Hayek or Freidman may make for an excellant speech, it however does not mean either that the candidate will or even can implement them. Politics is not that way. The Laffer curve may have been proven right but not in Reagan's tenure as president. Ironically it seems to have prevailed in Clinton's!.
Forbes may have the greatest proposals mankind has ever seen but he is not going to be able to implement them himself unless he does something he has heretofore never achieved- win an election. He may however get to see all or part of his program implemented if he is willing to allow someone else, more skilled at campaigning than himself, get the glory.
Thus I submit is it the principles or the glory that drive men like Buchanan and Forbes. They do not seem willing to take anything less than the top job. If they were truly concerned about their principles they espouse would they not seek to have them implemented above all else? Would they not rather have influence with the man likely to have the power to do what they wish or would they rather risk all in a vain glorious effort to see themselves at the top?
"Understand that Chinese actions in Panama are directed primarily to dislodge the diplomatic representation Taiwan has in Central America and the Caribbean.
They, like all states seeking expanded influence, move into areas being vacated by others. In this case the Chinese saw an opportunity that the withdrawal of American forces presented and took it. This is real politik. Happens every- where. The US/Nato moved into Eastern Europe much to the annoyance of Russia.
Should a state of general war breakout between China and the US we will regret allowing China into Panama but it is not a serious problem. Certainly much less so than the Soviet prescence in Cuba during the Cold War. China has no blue water fleet and would not be able to hold onto any putative bases they may aspire to create in Panama. Wrecking the canal might be about the best they could achieve but for a lot reasons that really would have no great bearing on the outcome of the conflict."
With all due respect, you are a) completely ignorant, b) blinded by gOp colored glasses or c) a communist sympathizer.
The Red chinese have built an alliance with narco-trafficers in Columbia, have bribed the corrupt Panamanians and brought tens of thousands of illegal Red chinese in who end up in America and probably are going to use the canal as a harbor for nuclear weapons aimed at our children. This is the single greatest threat of communism ever in this hemisphere and is 1,000,000 times more of a vital American interest than Yugoslavia ever was. Wake up or quit peddling this nonsense.
"Dems and Repubs . . . it's the same d___ thing . . ."
"Would Bob Barr agree with you? Hmmmm."
He is, and needs to be, too fine-tuned to move his perspective to outside the stadium where the same team (Congress) plays offense and defense. The bigger perspective from which I speak is in the parking lot. :)
News Plus
Bush II is simply another term for Bush I. No thanks. Been there, done that.
Thank you for your erudite comments. I will defer to your vastly superior information and intellect. I am no match for your wit and ability to express such complex matters.
"Yeah, pissing off three billion people is always a good idea."
Actually, if you know any missionaries who have gone into Red china, they'll tell you that the majority supported the freedom/democracy movement - which led to thousands being murdered - and would join in the next Chinese revolution should a patriot American president ever run the world and stand up to the communists in Beijing. I for one would give up my life to free the great people of China - they can't even have a conversation without the communist gubmint eavesdropping. Wait a minute, that's how it works here...
Truth be said China IS a better place 'human rights' wise than when Mao, Deng or Li Peng were running the place
Not so.
Than when Mao ran it, yes.
But Deng and Li overlapped and Li Peng is still running it.
The Human Rights situation has changed little since 1979 when Deng took over.
In the 80's the situation increased so much that there was the Spring 89 movement when literally millions of people demonstrated peacefully for weeks in the streets of Beijing and all over the country.
They were met with a massacre at the hands of troops from distant regions of the country.
Since then human rights have been worse.
Since Deng's death they also have been upping the repression.
George Bush really has no idea. He does not see chinese people as individuals. These are real people.
To my mind the China policy of the foreign policy elite would be acceptable (I would not agree with it though) if there was a concommittant support for Taiwan.
The ChiComs make the same argument George Bush made. That line of reasoning comes from them and the foreign policy elites who have strong contact with them.
I would say to them that if you want this that is fine but do not pull in 22 million people who have nothing to do with it. If you in China want to have such a messed up unfree system then go for it -- it is your funeral. But don't pull Taiwan in to it.
W told William Safire that he would visit friends in Asia before he visited China, who is not a friend. He then answered safire saying Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea are the friends.
For W to get my support he will have to (among other things) show that this is more than empty words to appease a friendly but dogged interviewer.
He will have to say things in support of the free countries in that region and against the one party dictatorships.
Better than that he should visit those countries soon. Before the primary season.
The capper is he should present as policy a two China policy that recognizes the reality of a split China.
That can be done.
China is a bigger problem than the Soviet Union (but in a different way). Bush must be able to address this.
But, Bush' foreign policy team do not engender confidence. The godfather of the team is Scowcroft who works for the ChiComs as much as Kissinger.
It isn't the people or the culture that GHW Bush and the rest of the clan love; it's the money and the power derived. Prescott Bush, GHWBush's brother, is making gazillions of dollars there now. Good Lord, President Bush secretly sent a special emissary just days after Tienamen Square massacre to smooth the path for a billion dollar deal for his brother Prescott.
By the way, I must've missed the years that Reagan's father was President of the USA. Also, I hardly believe that GW's experience sitting on the boards of ailing oil companies (as favors granted his powerful father) and collecting big bucks is the best experience (from a constituent's point of view) for becoming Governor or President. Nor do I believe the experience he gained by misusing tax dollars for private (the stadium deal) gain is a shining beacon of trust. From my point of view all I see is a powerful daddy pulling in markers from his rich and influential friends. And there aint no way you'll ever convince me that Bush is even one/tenth the statesman or conservative that Reagan was. There is NO comparison.
Perhaps you should read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37fc31c3226e.htm
Followed by this:
Having China dissolve into chaos simultaneously with the Soviet Empire might have been even worse. I welcome an analysis of that scenario.
This is the ChCom scenario. It is the ChiCom party themselves who push this scenario and rationalization more than anyone else.
But the truth is it is the ChiComs who would cause the chaos if they were to begin losing any power.
As far as your mention of Li peng. Li is now the Chairman of the National People's Congress. That is ostensibly China's Congress.
Last week very quietly a program has begun called the US China Inter-Parliamentary group. It will ential visits and exchanges between our Congress and the National people's Congress.
It was organized more than two years ago by Li Peng and two Republicans Bereuter and Manzullo in Beijing.
See here for an earlier post on this and also here
This is part of a new program the ChiComs have begun to sway the US congress. Thier goal is to gain support from congress for themselves but also to cause as much of a loss of support for Taiwan in congress.
Next year there will be an international meeting or "parlimentarians" where the Parliaments or congresses of all sorts of countries will meet in New York.
The Chicoms are lobbying hard to get Li Peng a visa to attend. So far the Congress hasn't agreed.
That is what is going on now.
Li Peng is very much in charge in China and is heading up the sway the US congress campaign.
"Thank you for your erudite comments. I will defer to your vastly superior information and intellect. I am no match for your wit and ability to express such complex matters."
Good, glad we got that straightened out:) You need to get out of your basement a little and travel the world. It's big, it's beautiful and it's overrun with International communists who have waited for an American prez to be their puppet to usher in the final moves of diluding the greatest country The Lord God Almighty ever created. I know, when my flesh stops functioning, where my eternal home is. It's my job to keep America alive to bring in those who have ears to hear and eyes to see - and America is the last country on the planet capable of bringing in the largest harvest in the shortest amount of time. Which is why is has been the final obstacle which must come down for One World Gubmint. May, when your day comes, you be found in Him. Which is why, when I see all this blind Barbara Streisand being posted which is contrary to American interests, I make it known to those who might have eyes to see and ears to hear. The Red chinese would cut your throat in a heartbeat. Maybe you would bow down to them in exchange for your life and good gubmint job. Be blessed.
"What experience did he have to become governor of Texas?"
Same experience you had as a webmaster when you started FR.
I will defer to your knowledge of the extent of Li Peng's influence in the Chinese government, though I believe he has been put out to pasture and that Jiang is quite in command nowadays. Be that as it may, certainly there has been a uptick in repression against certain high visibility elements in China, but nothing like the gunfire in the streets of 1989. It may come though.
As I said, perhaps Bush's greatest mistake was not kicking the Peking regime when it was down but the Soviet Empire WAS collapsing simultaneously and there is no use in crying ( or making excuses for ) spilt milk. George Bush dropped the ball here, no doubt about it. I have nothing but agreement for your comments concerning Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and hope and believe GWB will make clear to China that there is a limit to what they get away with and they are fast approaching it.
"What experience did he have to become governor of Texas?"
Same experience that Buchanan has for the White House.
Can you tell us precisely what Scowcroft, Haig and Kissinger are doing in China and what positions or influence will they hold within/or over a Bush Presidency? And just who are the powers that be of the Bushies?
Well, then. I guess that should rule out both Bush and Buchanon.
"And there aint no way you'll ever convince me that Bush is even one/tenth the statesman or conservative that Reagan was. There is NO comparison. "
You are right - because REAGAN HAS BEEN PRESIDENT AND BUSH HAS NOT BEEN. Before Reagan got the White House, he had no real experience either - just being a governor or a major state (sound familiar?). Reagan was regularly derided as too stupid and nothing more than an actor and lacking in foreign policy experience (sound familiar?). Maybe you are right, maybe Bush will be a flop. But you don't have anything other than speculation to back up that assertion.
Read the papers boy..early on in klintons election he had several.
"Well, then. I guess that should rule out both Bush and Buchanon"
Sorry, no, your logic doesn't hold up. Your comment was "what experience did Bush have before being elected governor." NOW Bush has had a successful stint as governor, so he is definitely one up on the talking head populist.
Well again I may not be the globe straddling colossus that you are but you know what I have been to Panama and know what Pedro Miguel and Miraflores are. Do you. How about Omar Torrijos? Ever hear of him. Been to the School of the Americas? I have. You know I can even say I walked across the Isthmus. Don't recommend it. Lots of mosquitos. They even have a province named that. If you think China can just walk in and set up a missile base in Panama because they paid some money to a local politico it is you who had better get a grip.
"Watch the interview tomorrow. His words were that we should not have any fear of China and that he actually feels sorry for Clinton because so many lies were told about him. Watch the interview and hear the words straight from the horse's mouth."
Jim...with this post I awake from my slumber.
Having Bush Jr. provide support and cover for Clinton is not a good sign. Defending a democratic liberal slimeball?
Ahh...I can see it now...a kindler, gentler nation....Clinton being one of those thousand points of light....
To Bush Jr (borrowing some phrases from Bush Sr.):
...stop now...this action wouldn't be prudent...not gonna do it...supportin' Clinton a bad thing....bad, bad, bad...
Thanks for the info.
Maybe shrub can illuminate us as to why the heads of many US multi-nationals, including Kissinger-san, were in China celebrating the first '50 years of Communism'.
I'm sure there was a 'good' reason.
The duplicity is numbing, if not down right outrageous.
Do you know of Merle Haggard? Try singing this one with us...
Every time you see 'rose', substitute 'gOp'.
Ready?
"Those ro_____se col_______ered glas_ses, that you_____'re loo_____kin' through...."
Take off those gOp colored glasses, man. They've made you blind to the state of the state - and who the codependents of Krinton and the International communist movement really are.
Except the mark huh???
"It's big, it's beautiful and it's overrun with International communists who have waited for an American prez to be their puppet to usher in the final moves of diluding the greatest country The Lord God Almighty ever created. "
I am a born-again Christian who is offended by your assertion that somehow God agrees with the Sodom and Gomorrah that nows calls itself the US. Not everyone believes God cares about politics or political association other than maybe the nation of Israel. He loves all people everywhere equally. BTW, You imply that other people don't get out. Have you actually been to mainland China?
Chesty, what makes you believe that W will not take the advice of his father to allow China to the WTO?
Understand that Chinese actions in Panama are directed primarily to dislodge the diplomatic representation Taiwan has in Central America and the Caribbean.
Yes. That is a mjor reason.
Panama and Central American countries have diplomatic relations with Taiwan -- official ones with embassies and the real name, Republic of China, opposed to our name games where we call embassies the American Institute in taiwan and they have to call theirs the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office.
China wants to "win" all those nations to their side.
The answer is to change the game and end the one China make believe nonsense.
"If you think China can just walk in and set up a missile base in Panama because they paid some money to a local politico it is you who had better get a grip.
You have no clue. While you were down there playing 'el suave' we were establishing Belize Island so that persecuted Christians in Nicaragua could remain close to home and yet live somewhat free. Your affair with Panama is too journalistic - your postings even smell journalistic; are you now or have you ever been a journalist? BTW, do you know of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher's extensive research into this matter? Dana has risked his life more than once ferreting out the minions who ran the immigrant scheme and I believe dug a little deeper than you. Be blessed.
"I am a born-again Christian who is offended by your assertion that somehow God agrees with the Sodom and Gomorrah that nows calls itself the US"
Praise the Lord. I have to believe you are. W says he is too. I have to believe that also. He even went on TBN, "Life Today with James and Betty Robison" and talked about his time with Brother Billy Graham. Even born again, on fire for God's Kingdom-believers can be used of the devil - do you believe that? I can admit that this country is in the throws of the enemy as we speak - that which should be right is wrong, up is down and instead of cleaning up the messes in our lives, we blame something or someone and stick the mess in everybody elses face. His longsuffering has, obviously, been challenged during the 20th century America. No he doesn't agree. And, I actually believe and act upon God's Word that says pray for those in authority.
Until you have witnessed underground Christian pastors who won't join the phony 'licensed church' in Red china, gathered up, with their flock, taken into isolation, beaten beyond recognition, forced into labor camps - then 'prepped' for surgery when it behooves the communists for an organ harvest, taken out and lined up, rifles pointed at the base of their brains and shot, then their bodies taken inside for organ harvest; until then, you wouldn't understand what we're dealing with - and why the fact they have infiltrated this country at the higest levels and threaten us from Beijing, Peking, Kashi, Tacheng, Yinchuan, Mudanjiang - or Panama or anywhere else they exert their power - they must be stopped.
Kissinger is head of Kissinger Associates which is an "international Consulting" firm.
Essentially it is a go between where Kissinger, who is in close contact with the ChiComs, relays the ChiCom positions to big business who wants to do business in China. Dr K recieves millions of daollrs for this and does not register as a chinese agent.
One recent example is Disney. Disney made a film about the Dalai Lama. (I forget which one was Disney's, either 7 Year's in Tibet or Scorsese's Kundun -- both were about the Dalai Lama).
The Chicoms hated that. They made a lot of noise that Disney would lose business and be shut out of the entire market there.
Eisner became scared. The first thing he did was to hire Kissinger.
Kissinger said that Eisner's mistake was to have not hired him in the first place and he would have told Esiner not to touch such a film.
Eisner "learned" a lot.
The work of Kissinger and other mediators like Haig and Scowcroft are usually behind the scenes. The Disney one was public because it was about Disney movies. The movies and the ChiCom threats were very much in the public eye so there was a lot of press.
Kissinger and Haig are the two top dogs in this business of being the ChiCom's messenger boy.
Respectively they both acheived for the ChiComs their two most major goals. The break with Taiwan and the alliance with the ChiComs in the first place (Kissinger). And Haig achieved the 1982 August 17 communique where the US agreed to phase out weapon sales to Taiwan -- that was Haig.
Scowcroft is not far behind. He was the secret emissary sent by Bush to Beijing (mentioned above in a psot by someone else) before the blood of the 1989 Tiananmen square massacre was even dry.
Bush sent him there secretly that summer after the June 4 massacre to tell the ChiComs (with the same Li Peng in charge as is now organizing the US China Interparliamentary Exchange group) to tell them that public opinion forced them to sign off on sanctions and other things considered "anti-China" by the ChiComs, but that it was just domestic poltics and not to worry because things would later settle down and the relationship would not be hurt.
It was Scowcroft and Bush who planned this on their own and did it without the request or input of the ChiComs.
As far as W, his main Foreign policy person and probable Secretary of State or NSA is Condelleezza Rice, a Scowcroft protogee and on the board of his think tank.
I have linked to this place before and talked about Rice's conection to Scowcroft before here.
The book the Coming Conflict with China talks about this new China Lobby, mainly mentioning Kissinger but also includes Scowcroft.
If Chesty could have voted for NAFTA, GATT and WTO, he would have.
Well I would say NWO but I would hate to be labeled a NWO conspiricist by the FBI. That would make me some kind of threat to the public good if something terrible happened..
Bush scares the bejeebies outta me. Looks like his father got us into this mess and Clinton stepped it up. Now Bush II comes in to finish the job. Guess we'll all be speaking Chinese soon, or not at all.
I thought Big Daddy Bush Said that??? How did Haig get started in China? Viet Nam?
As far as W, his main Foreign policy person and probable Secretary of State or NSA is Condelleezza Rice
From Investors Business Daily (10/21/99) --
"Asked about foreign policy in June, Bush told The New York Times, 'I may not be able to tell you exactly the nuance of the East Timorian situation, but I'll ask Condi Rice or I'll ask Paul Wolfowitz or I'll ask Dick Cheney. I'll ask people who've had experience.'
"That's Condaleezza Rice, Stanford University provost, who was President Bush's top expert on the Soviet Union. Wolfowitz was Bush's undersecretary of defense, serving under Cheney as secretary of defense."
A July 1994 editorial from the liberal site Znet:
Central America Voters Reverse Panama Invasion Verdict
By Eric Jackson
http://www.lbbs.org/ZMag/articles/july94jackson.htm
On May 8 most Panamanian voters marked their ballots for presidential candidates critical of the December 1989 U.S. invasion. One third of the electorate opted for the Pueblo Unido coalition, headed by the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) which General Manuel Antonio Noriega once dominated. In a seven-way race, this was enough to win the presidential chair for the PRD's Ernesto "Toro" Perez Balladares.
The election wasn't fought over the invasion, but hinged on the inability of old oligarchy which the invaders re-imposed after 21 years out of power to run Panama. Pueblo Unido's catchy campaign song began "No importa tu color ni tu apellido" (Your color or your surname don't matter). It was a devastating criticism of a regime whose first cabinet included 22 white males and a black woman, in a country where whites make up about 7 percent of the population. The reference to surnames was about the restored power of a couple of dozen intermarried families, whose sons used to be presidents and whose daughters were carnival queens.
But the "born to rule" crowd blew it. In the worst barrios, boys ran in vicious street gangs and men fought vultures for feeding places at dumpsters, all amid the stench of rotting garbage, raw sewage, auto exhausts, and burning crack. Even the Paitilla Medical Center, the private hospital in Panama City's banking district where rich people go for treatment, had a river of raw sewage flowing past it. The electricity, phones, and water kept going out. Transportation networks and buildings which Panama got under the 1977 canal treaties deteriorated and were often abandoned. Well-connected business interests snapped up reverted canal-area real estate at pennies on the dollar. Forests, wetlands, and wildlife disappeared. A new set of drug smugglers paid off new officials, as it was done under Noriega.
After over four years of this, people wanted change. Thus Torrijismo, the social reforming tradition founded by the late General Omar Torrijos, found an opening for its comeback. Right after the invasion, it didn't seem possible. The soldiers who dominated the PRD were in custody, the party's offices had been systematically destroyed and its files had been taken to the United States.
But the PRD's civilian members reorganized and democratized the party. A handful of PRD deputies gave spirited opposition in the legislature. Noriega, the CIA's erstwhile thug, was denounced as a traitor to the party and the nation. The PRD played up memories of Torrijos, who legalized labor unions, promoted the growth of a multi-racial technical and professional middle class and improved housing, education, and health care for the poor.
In a party primary unlike all the other parties' backroom nominating processes the PRD chose Toro Perez Balladares as its candidate. A 46-year-old millionaire former bank executive who served as minister of planning, head of the electric company, and minister of treasury and finance under Torrijos, Toro was educated at Notre Dame and Wharton.
Though the winning party has "revolutionary" in its name, it calls itself social democratic. The PRD platform promised jobs through road-building, wise use of bases and canal assets to be returned to Panama, and privatization of some public enterprises. Toro wants Panama to join NAFTA. Bill Clinton might have espoused such policies.
By the February deadline to form presidential slates, the coalition that had come to power with the U.S. invasion had split into three hostile factions. Then there were a bunch of new parties, some founded on extremely narrow social bases. Two were founded by the heads of rival breweries. Another was based in the Assemblies of God.
The strongest new party was Papa Egoro (Mother Earth in the indigenous Emera language). This green movement was founded by Ruben Blades, the salsa musician and actor. Blades, who has a law degree from the University of Panama and an LLM from Harvard, spent over 17 years in the United States, returning to Panama after the invasion. As a young lawyer, Blades did prisoners' rights work in Panama, and while abroad he helped to organize Amnesty International's global "Conspiracy of Hope" concert tour. Though he quietly helped victims of Noriega's repression, he was one of the invasion's harshest critics.
In mid-April it looked like Blades might catch Perez Balladeres. Polls had him a few points behind and rising fast. But then came a series of strident attacks, many of them totally scurrilous. The PRD attacked Blades for marrying a U.S. citizen. The pro-invasion parties accused him of ties to Noriega's G-2 intelligence unit. Both the PRD and the pro-invasion parties called Blades a communist, and dismissed him as too inexperienced to be president. Papa Egoro's argument that development must be decentralized, based on an inventory of national resources and planned in a way that takes environmental impacts into account was taken as the lack of a jobs policy.
In the end, Blades and Toro ran neck and neck in the capital city and San Miguelito, the latter a 1960s squatter camp that grew into a city of a quarter of a million. Papa Egoro also did well in Colon, the squalid city at the canal's Atlantic entrance where 60 percent are unemployed. But on election day the PRD and President Endara's Arnulfista party had well-organized "get out the vote" machines across the country, while Papa Egoro had nothing of the sort. With the exception of occasional pockets of support such as on the Embera reservation Blades wasn't a contender in the rural areas. With about 18 percent of the vote and six seats in the legislature, Papa Egoro ended up as the third force in Panamanian politics, with five years to mature into a stronger threat in the next national elections.
Even if there was no revolution, Panama's elections will have a profound regional effect. For all of his moderate stands, Toro insists on a sovereign and independent Panama. That includes sticking to the letter of the 1977 treaties, which call for the complete withdrawal of the U.S. Southern Command's 14 military bases by the end of 1999.
Most of the bases are closing anyway, due to Washington's budget. About half of the 10,000 U.S. military personnel are leaving Panama this year. But the plan is to withdraw to "Horoko," a complex just west of the Pacific canal entrance, which includes Howard Air Force Base, the Rodman naval facilities and Ft. Kobbe, a U.S. Army installation. These bases give U.S. forces the ability to quickly strike deep into South America. Military missions to Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia, larger than people in the states know, make Howard a busy place these days. The Central American wars of the 80s were also largely supplied from Howard and directed by Panama-based U.S. Army advisors.
Most pro-invasion parties wanted a new treaty to allow U.S. military bases, and the economic benefits that come with them, to stay. Though polls had most Panamanians agreeing, it wasn't a winning election issue. Candidates who promised it got trounced.
No PRD government will agree to a bases treaty. By the end of Toro's five year term, the bases will have but four months left to stay. Most of the jobs, and the soldiers who pay high rents to Panama City landlords, are likely to be a distant memory by then.
Although the 1999 elections will give Washington another chance to arrange things to save Horoko, it seems that the principle staging area for U.S. military intervention in Latin America will be leaving.
Ask any PRD member, or a lot of Panamanians who aren't, and you will be told that the December 1989 invasion was about bases, not drugs or democracy. When one considers the Reagan and Bush administrations' call for a "more realistic" Panama bases policy, massive political arrests, and firings by the Endara government and the increased post-invasion drug trade, there's a lot of supporting evidence for this argument.
If bases were what it was all about, then history books need to be rewritten to reflect political reality. George Bush lost his war against Panama after all.
My note: Or did he?
Yup. Bush II is simply a continuation of the failed Bush I.
I'll bet somewhere in his speeches to and support of The Asia Society, you could find the real meat of his views on our Chicom buddies.
Here's a little post with names (if not terribly operational links) of some others who wholeheartedly support the international work of the Asia Society: News from the Asia Society
Don't know if they still have up what was then current news on their "political education" of Hispanics and blacks out of their Texas center but it was interesting reading. Their Texas presence predates their California offices by nearly a decade.
Okay....who the heck is Tony Hill? ROFL.
....what makes you believe that W will not take the advice of his father to allow China to the WTO?....
The guvna has all ready publicly(sit-down interview in Iowa prior to the caucus broadcast on C-SPAN) called for the unconditional exceptence of China into the WTO. He also called for a lowering of the technology controls on trade with China.(same interview)
Bush loves China and he's very forgiving of Clinton.
Bush probably put Clinton in power as a reward for his fine service in the cocaine import agency. He is not covering up for Clinton, he's covering up for the orders he gave Clinton.
The Bush family has been globalist since before GHW was born, they were globalists who supported Hitler and they have ties to China for generations. The Bushes have more respect for the British elite than the American peasants, and the British are proud of their deal with China, they don't mind a little communism here or there, it is not that different from their own feudalism.
Considering the way the Red China factor has been stonewalled and ignored by both party's, I believe both have blood on their hands. Every time you think something substantial is going to come out it suddenly gets very quiet. The problem seems to be the republicans can't make a case against the bent one without incriminating themselves. At least that is the impression I get.
Bush lite sure isn't going to make any waves when it comes to Red China.
WarHawk42
You have a reality denial problem.
GW is NWO, Skull & Bones, Bildeberger-lovin', China-lovin' commie symp SOB like his old man.
I hope I wasn't too subtle for you.
GW corporate donor dollars has VERY close ties with China businesses including U.S. corporations dealing with Chinese military businesses.
This is very dangerous.
His dad's leadership in the CIA has been acknowledged by naming the agency headquarters after him.Can you imagine a president of the US and at the same time his dads name on CIA buildings.Very dangerous.
The Bushes have more respect for the British elite than the American peasants
Same as 200 years ago when Adam Smith described "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind" -- "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people."
GW corporate donor dollars has VERY close ties with China businesses
including U.S. corporations
dealing with Chinese military businesses.
This is something I have been saying for quite a while here on FR. The Multi Nationals are huge supporters of Bush. Why? They want his "free" trade policy's. The Multi's don't give a rats behind about american jobs. The bottom line is their only concern. They want that cheap labor.
WarHawk42
Excuse me, but I just saw the promo for Bush on Tony Snow tomorrow
is not ALL that it says....he said that a lot of lies were told about Clinton -- which you all know that SOME of the things said about Clinton were NOT true -- and Bush went on to say that because Clinton denied the Lewinski matter, when THAT turned out to be true, then everybody now thinks Clinton has lied about everything. Bush did not sound to ME like he was excusing Bill Clinton, but listen and YOU be the judge.
I found my old post on Asia Society ... the link's in my earlier post.
Obviously
that a lot of lies were told about Clinton
Should have been in the second paragraph.
You have seen the Undertaker haven't you? Spooky!
GW corporate donor dollars has VERY close ties with China businesses
And you can see the danger by looking at what W. Bush did for his contributors in Texas(Boston Globe (10/3/99) --
"George W. Bush calls them 'my best friends.' They are Texans, men of pride and substance, and considerable generosity. They stand out as his fund-raising 'pioneers,' business partners, and financial angels...
"In return, Governor Bush has shown his gratitude and loyalty.
"He has appointed his 'best friends' to the state boards and commissions that regulate business and the environment in Texas. He has invited polluters to craft air pollution standards in a state that is facing federal sanctions for its dirty air. He has given contributors the power to make investment decisions for the huge state employee pension funds and university endowments. He has championed his friends' cause to make the courts more protective of corporate interests, at the expense of plaintiffs."
The people who are upset over the new Reagan biography coming out and putting Reagan in a bad light shouldn't worry at all about that book. The fact that Reagan made George Bush his VP already makes Reagan look bad enough.
So, basically, you embrace the "least worst" approach in selecting presidents? Get real. This guy GWB is about as "conservative" as Dianne Feinstein.
This is exactly why GW reminds me of the last Mr.Dole campaign
The democraps will cut into the baggage and we will end up with more of nothing.
the mantra is that the other republican candidates are " not electable ",guess what GW MIGHT win the Republican nomination,but ,sorry Deb,he is NOT electable.
There has been a betrayal of principal at high levels of the Republican party for about 10 years. Dole took a pass on criticizing Clinton over any corruption and/or scandal in 1996. There is a complete lack of integrity at the high levels of the Republican party.
It is an inadequate system of choice because the Republicans don't dare to differ. Many Americans don't vote as a result.
Bush SR was always wrong on China. His son won't be.
Doesn't he have most of the same advisors?
Reagan did not CHOOSE Bush.
There is a complete lack of integrity at the high levels of the Republican party.
I think it goes deeper than that. I think there are too many skeletons in the republican closets for them to be too critical of clinton. I think a lot of the big money boys that back the republicans can't stand the light of day on some of their activities too. It isn't just Loral and Hughes who have had shady dealings.
WarHawk42
Actually, Ambassador Lilly has, for some time now, been speaking out and saying that communist China is not our "strategic ally" and on more than one occasion has spoken out for the free Chinese who are seeking to change our policy toward China to one of treating it as the strategic threat that it is.
So I would not lump him in with former President Bush.
It is when President Bush says things like this that you have doubts about his son, because you recall how he, President Bush, took the promise and the momentum of the Reagan legacy and squandered it.
"I think it goes deeper than that. I think there are too many skeletons in the republican closets for them to be too critical of clinton."
And don't Carville and Flynt know it.
And don't Carville and Flynt know it.
Yep, so what we get is a dog and pony show. What else explains the wet noodle impeachment trial? Among other things. It's CYA by both sides.
WarHawk42
"Fortunately George H.W. Bush is not running for president, his son is. Since one of the more egregious forms of human rights abuses is the punishment of innocent members of a family for the perceived or actual wrong doing of a single member. This was common practice in places like China, The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. I hope it does not happen here."
There's considerable difference between fearing that members of a political family will follow in the foot-steps of family predecessors, and merely withholding votes from them because of that concern, and the obviously unjust punishing of people for wrongdoing by others.
Is it wrong to assume, or at least fear, that offspring are likely to have the same values as the parent?
Li Peng has hardly been put out to pasture.
He is, in fact, the Politburo member still whose portfolio is "security", just as he was when he ordered the tanks into Tianemen Square.
This position also places him in charge of the prisons which the Party runs, the "reeducation through coerced labor camps" that are the heart of the slave system, for there is no hearing or process of any sort for those who are taken to them and the international inspectors from the human rights watch groups are never allowed to see them because they are told that they are not prisons, but only for "education".
The Party runs the government, so it matters little what government title Li Peng has, as long as he is the Politburo member in charge of "security" he remains the power.
They don't need to set up a missile base. They can transport them anywhere that they want in containers of one arm or another of Li Ka Sheng's operations.
If you go to Panama today you will find that there is no monitoring whatsoever of the containers that come and go on COSCO and other PLA run ships into Li Ka Sheng's ports and that no one has any idea what is really in the containers.
"Dems and Repubs . . . it's the same d___ thing . . ."
"Would Bob Barr agree with you? Hmmmm"
Probably not, but I'll bet Ron Paul and Bob Smith damn sure would and I wouldn't be surprised if Dana Rorabacher and Duncan Hunter said the same thing.
There is a difference of course, but is there enough of a difference on the issues that matter? I don't think so
"The Reagans got it right, they ARE downstairs folk.."
The story has been going around for years that Reagan was given no choice but to select Bush as his running mate. I have no idea whether it's true, but I remember thinking at the time that it was odd.
"The Reagans got it right, they ARE downstairs folk.."
The story has been going around for years that Reagan was given no choice but to select Bush as his running mate. I have no idea whether it's true, but I remember thinking at the time that it was odd.
"The Reagans got it right, they ARE downstairs folk.."
The story has been going around for years that Reagan was given no choice but to select Bush as his running mate. I have no idea whether it's true, but I remember thinking at the time that it was odd.
I have no idea either, but if this is true, I'm having second thoughts about George W.....
It is when President Bush says things like this that you have doubts about his son, because you recall how he, President Bush, took the promise and the momentum of the Reagan legacy and squandered it.
Still, I didn't judge GW based on his father until he started talking like his father. For example on Kosovo.
Both Bushes adore Clinton policy. During the Clinton trial, GW said "I just hope this ends soon" while Buchanan and Keyes were saying that Clinton needed to leave office. During and after Kosovo, GW said this war was a great idea as we have "strategic interest" over there. Yeah, Clinton/Bush, those bridges over the Danube represented a real threat to our security.
Remember the Bushes are the same family that supported Hitler before during and after World War II. Would GW have been Governor had not his father been a President? In turn would GHW have been President had not his father been a Senator? They are American aristocracy, and they have been corrupted by the aristocracy of other countries. Why are we bombing aspirine factories? It is as absurd as sending troops to Somalia.
The Clintons and Bushes agree wholeheartedly that it is just great to donate our kids as UN security guards.
I agree, of course, our opposition to the Kosovo folly was well known, including Admiral Moorer's article posted here from WND, "Obeying the Constitution makes sense."
But one striking feature of the Kosovo intervention was how much it truly differed from the Gulf War in the working with Congress, in the building of a well-crafted coalition and the like, although there was the chilling similarity of both being started in essence by duplicitious double talking female diplomats, Glaspie and Albright, both of them good arguments for never sending a woman to deal with the mad dogs of that part of the world, who only respect strength, unless she's Maggie Thatcher.
"...duplicitious double talking female diplomats, Glaspie and Albright, both of them good arguments for never sending a woman to deal with the mad dogs of that part of the world, who only respect strength, unless she's Maggie Thatcher."
There's something strange about choosing to send ANY woman to represent you to leaders in a culture which believes that a woman's place is in the kitchen and bedroom. Seems to me that it may be an intentional affront. I'm not going to buy for a moment that it is merely sending a message about our enlightened views on the equality of women.
As a resident of California since 1947, let me educate you about Ronald Reagan. Prior to his two terms as the governor of California, he had vast MANAGEMENT experience in the movie industry.
He ran the Screen Actors Guild when it became apparent that the Communists and associated empty-headed liberals were trying to control the industry. That helped prepare him for dealing with them later in the Presidency. (He could spot their phoney deals a mile away.)
In California, the governor has real power! The Lt. Gov. is window-dressing, only having power in the absence of the governor. Texans can correct me if I am wrong but I believe the the Lt. Gov. in Texas has real power and makes many decisions, making the Governor largely a figurehead.
While George W. Bush may be a decent man to his wife and children, unlike the current President, I am fearful that he has wasted much of his life being a crowd-pleaser and not developed an inner core of knowledge, resolve, and strength. I am not heartened when I envision him having to ask someone else all the time before he makes a decision.
Worse, yet with his reported temper, I am fearful of him making a bad decision and being too stubborn to back down. We have that in the White House now and look where it has gotten us.
It boils down to me wanting a grown up in the White House for a change. I want a President who put America's needs and concerns FIRST. He is after all elected to represent US, not General Electric or Lockheed!
...duplicitious double talking female diplomats, Glaspie and Albright...
Hey, the fact that they're female doesn't make them duplicitous, double talking, or anti-American. They are no worse than their male counterparts Bush and Clinton.
Kosovo was more like Somalia than the Gulf War, but one similarity was the way we supported the side we fought before the battle. That theme goes back to Panama. Bush and Clinton have identical foreign policy.
Regardless whether the next duplicitous double talking diplomats are male or female, under GW you can bet on the fact that they will blunder their way into more and more debacles like Kosovo and Somalia, more death to more American soldiers in the name of globalism.
I don't care if we piss them off.
All we have to do is kill a couple of million of their combatants.
That will be far easier now than later.
Regards,
L
"he said that a lot of lies were told about Clinton -- which you all know that SOME of the things said about Clinton were NOT true -- "
Well what lies was he talking about? Did he say? Because I tend to think that lies were told about Clinton. Everything we hear (and we hear a lot) can't be true. I am taking it the same way you are. I think.
"Worse, yet with his reported temper, I am fearful of him making a bad decision and being too stubborn to back down. We have that in the White House now and look where it has gotten us."
You know I worry about that too. I worry W is too impulsive and will get into a jam and end up having to spin his way out, and we know how that goes. Mistrust, investigations and suspicion. I am so sick of investigations! W has to really stay clean!!! But will he?
Yeah, and GWBush appointed to his Texas council on science and technology a Chinese-American woman who heads up a Houston company called Tanox that reportedly is partly owned by James Baker II and George HW Bush and is a bio company that markets worldwide an injectible substance and this injectible substance causes Gulf War Syndrome symptoms.
You are right. The whole adoption of the Bush clan's kindler gentler campaign philosophy is because they don't want anyone scratching the facade they've worked to develop. Sometimes I think of that family as comparable to one of those horror flicks where the skin melts off the face and you see the grisly monster underneath. Buncha crooks.
"Can you tell us precisely what Scowcroft, Haig and Kissinger are doing in China and what positions or influence will they hold within/or over a Bush Presidency? And just who are the powers that be of the Bushies? "
Condoleeza Rice, Bush's favorite and much-hyped foreign policy advisor, is a protege of Scowcroft.
"I am a born-again Christian who is offended by your assertion that somehow God agrees with the Sodom and Gomorrah that nows calls itself the US. Not everyone believes God cares about politics or political association other than maybe the nation of Israel. He loves all people everywhere equally. BTW, You imply that other people don't get out. Have you actually been to mainland China?"
Here, in a nutshell, is the Republican/Conservative MO for Communist sympathy. Libertarians/Patrots take note.
Jim, is it any wonder that George "Read My Lips" Bush was a one-term president? What a pathetic excuse for a Republican he is.
Bush interview coming up now on Fox broadcast Tony Snow program
Just saw the Bush interview on Fox. Your critisism was a low blow...really beneath you. Take all the shots you want at George W., we all know your feelings only too well, but a little more fairness as well as intelligence would be nice.
Click here for for video of Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the security of the Panama Canal.
"Watch the interview tomorrow and judge for yourself."
I watched and reached the same conclusion as Tony Snow.
George Bush is a good virtuous man who set a standard that will be hard to live up to. (paraphrase)
My take is that Bush was too nice and people can't handle that. They (many) would rather have a scumbag like the current WH incumbant.
Everytime George Bush opens his mouth he tells me I was correct in not voting for him in 1992.
Thanks for the heads up on this. Just wonder if President Bush Sr., read the book Betrayal? Also, did he specifically say which lies were told as compared to how many stories about Clinton are true? Or is he trying to placate and tame the Clinton goons from going after his son?
Wrong. While the ChiComm navy is small now, it is being upgraded very fast while ours is being downgraded thanks to the traitor Bill Clinton. We need the canal to move our troops and material easily around the world, the blockading of the canal would make it much harder for us to respond quickly to situations around the globe and would help the ChiComms in their aggresive designs.
Well I watched it. I agree he is mistaken about China but I never did say I approved of his China policy. He believes in the so called 'constructive engagement' policy that Reagan espoused in his dealings with South Africa.
Bush agreed that if Jiang Zemin ordered the espionage and infiltration that would make things different but my question to Bush would be - who in the hell does he think ordered it! If not Jiang , for he was not premier, what about Li peng? It is beyond all credulity to imagine that some low ranking functionary in the Chinese government could sanction the infiltration and espionage against the USA without approval or knowledge from the top. Where did they think those warhead designs were coming from.
Other than this, perhaps not well thought out reply, Bush to me came across as a gracious and decent man, perhaps too gracious and decent, but not the sinister architect of evil that some here believe him to be.
I just read the St. Martins Press article on Drudge.
How familiar that was.
You see, people, the guys who are saying this terrible stuff about Bush are felons. They can't be believed. They have no credibility.
And Arkansas was in the article, too.
I have always contended that the reason everything dirty about Bush in the eighties and Clinton in the nineties has been dismissed by the "cooler heads" because the sources for any negative information have been scumbags.
The irony is that it is always the scum who will do the dirty work.
Look at Lucianne and Watergate! Sorry. Had to throw that in. Did you see that story about Ken Starr not knowing who she is!?!?!
Come on.
I am so disgusted with both sides of this coin I will vote for whatever other candidate is on the ballot.
BUSH=CLINTON=NWO
I feel better. I don't know if I have ever actually said that before. Thanks for letting me share.
Wrong. Forbes ran the US Information Agency just at the time we were winning the Cold War (and while continuing to run his business). He did a great job and no one can doubt he can be a great administrator. He also has a lot of foreign policy experience and has Margaret Thatcher supporting him.
GWB had absolutely no experience when he ran for Governor, which is what Jim was talking about. It is pretty evident that GB has done a lot behind the scenes to get his son where he is at right now. Also have not heard GWB disagree with anything his dad has done or said.
Why do we not hear of these atrocities? Why do our government officials, businessmen visit China without seeing the misery, the pain, the horror, of many Chinese? I do not understand how these people can be so blind, mute and deaf to the most tyrannical forms of government and say they must be our MFN, they must participate in the WTO, they must have bases on the Panama, Long Beach, CA? Why not the truth?
Both G.W. Geo. come from the Liberal core, no different than Clinton. Sure hope the people wake up in time to keep this Liberal from continue the Clinton way in the White House.
Tanox that reportedly is partly owned by James Baker II and George HW Bush and is a bio company that markets worldwide an injectible substance and this injectible substance causes Gulf War Syndrome symptoms.
Thanks for the reference! I had heard something to this effect some years ago but hadn't been able to find any details.
It would take a generation for the Chinese Navy to build a fleet capable of sailing across the Pacific and defeat the US Navy and then only if we did nothing in response.
The Canal is of limited utility today, because of the nature of modern war not because our carriers cannot pass through it. This is not 1941. Nations will fight with what they have on hand. The lead times to build modern armaments do not allow for a two or three year mobilization. There range, accuracy and power will not grant us or our enemies the time to construct vast new production centers as was done in WW2. Therefore we will not be sending 15 million men overseas to fight and neither will we have to supply such a vast fighting force.
"All we have to do is kill a couple of million of their combatants."
That's the spirit. I bet you claim to be PR0-LIFE too?
Yeah but he wins elections. By huge majorities. In a democratic system that is sine non qua.
You can back Forbes because you like his promised platform but you know what, the platform and policies you get will be those of the Democratic National Committee. OTOH if Bush is elected and Forbes plays a constructive role in helping he just might become Secretary of the Treasury and you and Forbes will have the great pleasure of seeing those policies advanced at the highest level of government.
If Mr. Forbes believe that it is more important for him to become president, despite there being no evidence he has the popular support necessary to be elected, then I suggest Mr. Forbes doesn't really care about his principles and policies but is more interested in his personal ambitions.
Can you grasp the concept of "logistics"?
We actually need the Canal more now because the forward deployed carrier groups demand a higher rate of resupply, geometrically, than at the time of Korea.
Check the rate of fuel usage on today's jets compared to those of that time and also check the rate of resupply for the more sophisticated bombs and missilles compared to the iron bombs and bullets of that time.
Further, our number of resupply ships is way down, necessitating more, not less, continual resupply from ports and the resulting higher frequency of resupply by fewer ships means more not fewer transits and, in addition, because of fewer ships overall, the need to shift them back and forth between theatres of operation is greater not less.
It was the same before World War II with regard to both Germany and Japan.
When they came across the Yalu, we killed them in droves
but they kept on coming.
Chinese peasant boys in the advancing units,
many of them, had no rifles.
When one who did have a rifle would fall,
one who was without a rifle would take it and
the cartridge box and keep on coming.
At Chosen Reservoir,
they kept on coming wave after wave.
The marines piled up Chinese bodies as so many sandbags
and used them as barricades from behind which they could
keep on firing.
After a while their machine guns grew so hot from the
constant firing that they jammed from the overheating,
and still the Chinese kept on coming.
Why should they care if they loose a few million?
Against the Japanese the Chinese nationalists lost 40 out
of 70 divisions.
In the rape of Nanking, in as many days as it took us to bomb
Nagasaki and Hiroshima
the Chinese lost as many to Japanese killing by
conventional shooting and bayonetting and clubbing
as the Japanese lost to our Atomic bombs
and it did not stop the Chinese, who kept on
fighting.
In the rest of East Asia they say:
China is like the sun.
And you cannot fight the sun by
blocking some of its rays.
Speaking of Lilly. does Quayle have business invested in China?
Well when I was down THERE at the MIRAFLORES Lock very few American military or even American vessels passed through. This was during Vietnam of course so the military requirements may have completely changed.
Oh yeah I have heard of logistics. Have you ever worked on the Panama Canal?
Nonsense. The true danger to the Republicans is not a candidate with no charisma. The true danger is spliting the Party and GWB is doing his utmost in that regard. Neither Gore nor Bradley have any charisma. The candidate that keeps the Republicans together will win and that can only be Forbes.
As to polls - I am neither surprised nor dissilusioned by them. At this point, they mean nothing at all especially since the media has been carefully making sure that they never even mention the name of Forbes anywhere. Whoever becomes the Republican nominee will become very well known so that will be no problem for Forbes once the race gets going. What will be a problem for GWB is that in every single Republican caucus, meeting, get together, he gets absolutely no support from the rank and file. What that means is that even if he gets the nomination, he will not have the troops to get out the vote to win the election.
Prescott had a thing for adolf hitler also. as a matter of fact he was involved in a bank that was financing adolf's military buildup and was taken over by the DOJ. Prescott was too powerful to be tarnished by all of this, however.
Most CEO's of large industrial companies would give their collective left nuts to have a chunk of the china market. They would celebrate anything - Mayday, Mao's Birthday, Deng's Bar Mitzvah - anything to get a piece of that market. Just remember, if everybody who drinks coca cola in china right now were to drink one additional bottle of coke per annum, coke would have to double its production - that is the motivation behind celebrating these nonsensical events, not the secret love or agreement with communist principles. Business whores, yes; idiots, no.
It's the most amazing thing: just about every time you post something, it's an ad hominem attack rather than actually addressing the issue. "Suckups", "whale dung"? Real class.
Why should what an ex-President has to say be bothersome? Are you assuming that Dubya thinks in lockstep with his father in all things? Do you assume that if elected, Dubya will conduct foreign policy as his daddy did?
Did you agree with your parents' ideas about everything? Looking back, there may have been two things about which my parents and I agreed so why attack Junior for something his father said? Check out Buchanan's father's position on things political, why don't you?
Even though Pat's daddy wasn't President, your assumption is that sons think as fathers do. So do you still want Buchanan or Keyes for President if their daddies said something about Commies or Jews or Blacks you find frightening? Let's be fair.
With all due respect, Jim, you have really taken these comments out of context. I know you have no love for the Bush family, but I saw the interview and you are doing democrat spin here.
Because BUSH2000 is really dubya in disguise?
No, but in conjunction with our work we have had reports on interviews of those who do at every one of their annual meetings for a number of years now. Until a few years ago there was a reluctance to speak out and a parroting of the company line. That has changed. Now there is a constant flow or reports of failures of maintenance and reductions in security and functioning capacity.
Much of what is now going wrong is visible to every one in Panama, of course, and is reported in the press there, but is not reported here. An example would be the recent power failures and black outs. If you read Spanish you can go online and read about them in the Panamanian press. They never occurred prior to the last year or so. But, look, if you are determined not to see, that is your right. But, for many now, such wilfull irresponsibility is something which we have every right to speak out against.
We also would point out that Viet Nam was won by the Chinese and their Vietnamese clients (with the Russians vying for server status as well, of course) on logistics as you can verify in Dr. (Gen.) Sorley's new book, despite the fact that we then had a forward logistics and resupply capability at Subic that we have now lost.
But we were outmaneuvered on logistics because of the LBJ concept of "limited war" which allowed our foes to use our erstwhile "allies" as their logistics auxiliary. However, we could not have fought the way we did without Subic Bay and other nearby facilities, which, as you may have noticed, we no longer have. Our forward most repair and supply facility is at Guam, which we have today not because of Clinton but because a private group led by Ret. Adm. "Ace" Lyons bought it before the Chinese could and have turned it around and upgraded it. But it is still small. Thus the Canal is much more important now than it was at the time of Viet Nam.
Incidentally Li Ka Sheng was about to gain control of our former faciities at Subic when a Panamanian-American alerted President Ramos. President Ramos, a West Point graduate, wise to the ways of the Chinese communists, stopped the acquisition. There is no indication that he ever took Chinese communist money for his political campaigns or desired in any way to increase their military capability to dominate his country, or assisted the Chinese in seeking to do so. He was more of a patriotic president, for both his country and ours, than our present president.
Don't you ever wonder how and why the politically inexperienced, bad boy, G W Bush, got himself born again, rehabilitated and groomed to become governor of Texas? Not to mention front-runner in the Presidential race? What experience did/does he have for either position? A Bush presidency will be very dangerous for America.
You're suggesting that his born-again status is a fake, right? That's among the more cynical things I've heard you say and it's not a nice feeling to know that the man who runs this show doesn't believe that a man (years ago) took his life in hand and straightened it out, becoming a good Christian instead of the bad boy he was. Being "born again" is "rehabilitated." As a good Christian, you should know that.
As for his "experience" to be President, being a Governor of a rather large state is good experience, I'd say. Reagan did it. By contrast, Keyes, Buchanan, Forbes have never held elective office so far as I know.
As for becoming front-runner so quickly, what is your theory? Contributions poured in from all sources. Businesses contributed and millions of ordinary citizens did too. Don't bother with the list of contributors you ascribe to "NWO"-types: Everybody's list looks alike.
As for Bush being "bad for America", you cannot know that - you have no crystal ball. What if I said, "Buchanan would be bad for America! He's got no experience! He's an anti-Semite! And he writes ill-timed stupid books, which means his judgment is bad and that would carry over into his governance!"
Jim, please.
I still don't get the knee jerk reactions Jim. Am I missing something?
If you're missing it, so am I. It's just plain irrational.
I didn't take anything out of context. They showed a blurb about the inbterview and those are the parts they included. They showed Bush saying that we have nothing to fear from China and that he thought a lot of lies were said about Clinton. Straight from the horses patoot! And knowing Bush, I agree that he DOES have a softspot for China and I see that he IS trying to soften up the campaign rhetoric BIG TIME for his Son. In fact, if you watch real close, you'll see him pulling the strings and sometimes his libs actualy move.
First of all, GW does not agree with his father on China - he has much more conservative views towards China and Russia. Second, Jim's comments on the interview were totally taken out of context. Third, GW is not his father. This constant lying about GW is becoming nauseating. I hope there are some people here that saw the interview and can speak some truth about it. I saw it and taped it, but since I support George W., nobody would listen to me anyway. That's the way it is here.
That and the fact that he sang like a cockatiel to the butchers in Hanoi. A real patriot would die first.
What did he say in Hanoi? And where did you read that?
Probably not, but I'll bet Ron Paul and Bob Smith damn sure would and I wouldn't be surprised if Dana Rorabacher and Duncan Hunter said the same thing.
The real heavy-hitters, huh?
Thanks for the reference! I had heard something to this effect some years ago but hadn't been able to find any details.
Check your Freeper mail. I sent you a URL.
Doesn't he have most of the same advisors?
Noo, he has more Reagan advisors. Stick to Steve Irma, You know more about him.
But the curious thing is that they do not have the same drive to have a chunk of the Indian market although India will soon have more people than China and a large, English-speaking, increasingly computer oriented middle class.
It doesn't matter. Reason won't prevail here. This reminds me all too much of Ross Perot's blind hatred of Bush Sr. which gave us Clinton (infinitely worse from any perspective).
No matter that Keyes and Buchanan are blow-hards without any elected experience. No matter that GW Bush has been a very good governor of the 2nd (or 3r?) largest state for 5 years without a scandal to his name, it makes no difference. The name condemns him without proof being necessary.
I want a good political debate as much as anyone, but let's base it on facts, not blind prejudice.
Dianne (Bwana's wife)
I challenge you to find any member of Congress in either house who can match Dana Rohrabacher in digging out the truth on these matters. He has personally gone and seen every bit of the Chinese build up that he can and verified everything that he says. Name one thing that he has said on this issue that is not accurate and supported.
The truth is not served by unsupported denigration.
I saw it and taped it, but since I support George W., nobody would listen to me anyway. That's the way it is here.
I noticed.
What I find most objectionable about the anti-Bush crowd is their willingness to have Gore or Bradley in the White House, rather than reduce the odds of having a socialist as President by voting for Bush rather than for a loser. Anybody but Bush, even if it means a return to Clintonism with its socialist policies, taxing, spending, political-correctness, treasonous, lying, govern-by-Executive-Order, pro-abortion, anti-religious stance.
Their fears of Bush are groundless. The odds of Bush doing damage to the Conservative cause is slim to none, but the odds of Gore or Bradley doing same is astronomically high.
Since none of the other candidates can win unless something dramatic happens to change the present state of affairs in this campaign, it seems the anti-Bush crowd almost wants a Democrat win. How else to explain their vitriolic anti-Bush stance and their hapless determination to vote for someone they know will put Gore in office?
"The real heavy-hitters, huh?"
If the point you're trying to make is that the guys who are most honest and most true to their principles and most protective of our national sovereignty aren't heavy hitters in the GOP I guess I have to agree with you. You think honesty ever will be "heavy hitter" criteria in the GOP?
Stick to Steve Irma, You know more about him.
LOL...that is why I asked. I'm leaning to voting for Forbes in the primary, but I'm not rock-solid behind him like I was with Quayle.
BTW, I watched the interview this morning. I think Bush, Sr. is a very good man and I really like his sense of humor. I think GW is a good person also and is very dedicated to his family. I just am not thrilled about some of his issue positions and I think some of his comments are kinda squishy.
Boy! You guys go crazy when some one call G.W. a liar, you can't spin fast enough, Both Bush's are liars and the evidence on both is much in evidence by their public remarks.
Thanks for the message via FReeper mail. Neat new feature, that.
but I'll bet Ron Paul
Just goes to show how much you know which isn't much by the way. Ron Paul voted for MFN for China.
The India concession is already spoken for. China is open because of the tremendous control exerted by its leadership and the way the culture deals with that control. If the Chinese signifying monkey starts buying Zenith televisions, it's boom time for Zenith. If Ford gets to sell some kind of basic transportation vehicle to the chinese masses, Ford becomes the biggest auto producer on earth.
India, on the other hand has a culture, and political environment far different from China. It is very hard to get the majority of India's population to move in a particular direction. The class structure, religious differences and political environment is chock full of factions and infighting. I think the large multinational businesses smell an enormous pent up demand that it about to be unleashed in China. That demand is the prize.
I learry aglee with what you say. Even in rarge plint.
So far it seems to be an illusion. There is no evidence of a rate of personal saving that would create such a demand, or the capacity to build it. The books are being cooked and the unrest and unemployment going badly out of control as Keynesian solutions of favoring certain state run industries while closing others creates the worst of both worlds. A lot of companies have simply allowed themselves to be placed in capativity and will want the U.S. taxpayer ultimately to pick up the tab if things don't work out.
Nationalize the costs & Privatize the profits. Thats the way business has been done in the good ole USA for years. Why would it change now?
"Business whores-yes", "Idiots-no"
Sorry, I had to paraphrase your point, the 'cntrl' function seems to be on the fritz.
I agree with you. Let 'em go sell anything and everything. That is fine. That is our system, and I agree with it.
Cut the Chi-Com 'ENEMY' bullshit as a ruse.
NBC and CBS are ass-deep in China and have been for years. And, they are not alone.
vote pubby-crat for more of the same.
We need a two party system of government.
Because its suppressing the entrepreneurial class that's really driving the engine. Innovation does not come from the behemoths with the subsidized costs.
The ChiComs are doing a lot of selling to us; they don't appear to be doing a whole lot of buying, except for politicians and technology.
"Just goes to show how much you know which isn't much by the way. Ron Paul voted for MFN for China."
The question under discussion was who would believe there's not much difference between Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
It's possible to know quite a lot of facts and not know what they mean or to be unable to follow a discussion and know what it is about.
Just in case you don't know as much, Ron Paul comes from a libertarian perspective and would probably vote against any government restriction on commerce and/or vote to reduce any restriction.
I like both Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, even though they are worlds apart on trade, because I believe they each have integrity, which is my primary criteria.
I appreciate being given facts, but it's more helpful when they are relevant to the discussion at hand.
If anyone thinks that Father (and powerful supporters) won't have an influence on Son, you're crazy. Don't you ever wonder how and why the politically inexperienced, bad boy, G W Bush, got himself born again, rehabilitated and groomed to become governor of Texas? Not to mention front-runner in the Presidential race? What experience did/does he have for either position? A Bush presidency will be very dangerous for America.
Sorry, but like GWB, I was born again, rehabilitated and groomed to be a decent human being .. by the good Lord...my parents did not have a dang thing to do with it(in fact, it is the opposite, I did it in spite of them)...neither did his. Faith is not inherited, dear. As for experience, well, you know you forgot one important fact... he has been interested politics all his life, even ran for class president in seventh grade, and he was proctor of his 10th grade dorm, and was president of his fraternity, LOL! Actually...here is a link with the story on his experience which began "as a political novice running for Congress in a district stretching from Lubbock to his hometown of Midland," ...
And he has always been a conservative...
"Midway through the year, Bush returned from a trip home to Texas with Barry Goldwater's book, The Conscience of a Conservative. Kidde did a double take when he saw it lying on Bush's desk. "I said, 'What the hell is this?'" Kidde remembers. "We didn't have any time to read anything extracurricular. If we did, you would read a novel. But George seemed honestly interested in the book. He said his parents had asked him to read it. I remember him telling me what Goldwater stood for."
If you really want a look into his background, the above article is just part of a seven part series on GWB. The main index for the series can be found at:
Oh and by the way, the rumors that the Buchanan bunch are spreading that he split up with old flame Cathryn Wolfman because of pressure from his parents because she was Jewish are untrue as well. Here is a quote:
"Although the Houston Press speculated that he broke up with Wolfman because she was Jewish, she's actually Episcopalian. "
That statement can be found at that website too. Please lighten up on him...as some of the other have stated, I am deeply concerned that you are letting your prejudice cloud your otherwise good judgement. He was elected by the people of Texas in an overwhelming majority for a second term because he is a good, decent man and has done a heck of alot for Texas --- he is definitely not the Anti-Christ as some Buchananites would like to have us believe.
First of all, your statement as read did not make sense, but us Texans know that "ya gotta listen to what they mean, not what they say", so I get the distinct impression that you called GWB a liar. Do you have any particular proof on that, maybe witnesses or credible documents, anything other than your own opinion? If so, please provide it -- if not, you have lowered yourself to the level of that Hatfield character, which makes you the liar.
I know what you mean. I'd love to believe them ALL (and probably have a tendency to believe more than are really true), but there are some things even I don't believe......LOL.
I think this was President Bush's point. A lot of things that weren't really true were spread, making the ones that were true seem suspect, BUT when the Lewinsky thing turned out to be true, then everybody could/does think ALL of them are true.
Still, there are plenty of "truths" to go around for him. I just did not take President Bush's statement to mean that they were ALL lies.
Buchanan has been the only man with the good answers on the communist chinese .
RIGHT ON-The Chinese-Colombians-Russians-Israelis-CIA control the world coca market.
You don't suppose Clinton has a copy of Barry Seal's tape-The one that shows both Bush governors on a plane in FLA making a coke buy? Or that Bush-Clinton-CIA have been long time partners in the coke biz? And what's happened to Bush's other son, the one with the Silverado S&L Scam? They are like a WWW wrestling match-and we're the suckers buying the tickets.
Yeah, China has made progress on human rights policy. The executioners stick their pinkies out when they shoot a dissident.
Bttt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |
