32 comments

  1. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Same here…he should also back off with the Free Trade agreement with Columbia.
    Those that harbor terrorists are just as responsible for the acts committed by the terrorists themselves.

  2. Paul from Jefferson says:

    The current government of Colombia has a good record of fighting terrorism and should be rewarded rather than punished for those actions.

  3. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Yet they still outsource negotiations with FARC to crisis management firms in the United States.

    the agreement would be mostly symbolic. Most of our trade is already free, and few jobs (if any) will be exported out of the US.

    You are right, Paul. They have tried…not it is time to dangle a free-trade agreement in front of them if they are willing to grow a pair and really crack down on those so called revolutionaries.

  4. boyreporter says:

    But back to Bush/Beijing: Once more the dude is on the wrong side of humanity and history. We ought to boycott, regardless of Tibet, because of the way China treats its own people, air and water. It’s a rapacious nation, showing the deep, dark side of unbridled capitalism. Yes, Red China (for the cold war crowd) is giving capitalism a bad name, the way it sells shoddy and dangerous goods, routs people out of their homes to make way for development, and spoils its natural environment with nary a care — ‘cept money.

  5. joe says:

    A Presidential boycott would not accomplish much. A total U.S. athelete and spectator boycott would send a real message.

  6. John Konop says:

    Erick

    Are you outraged by China using slave labor, selling us poisonous goods and manipulating currency in our trade deals? Why not do more than just than this boycot?

    Dear RedState Reader,

    We at RedState find ourselves in the nearly unique position of
    agreeing with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Like stopped
    clocks, we think they can be right twice in a day and their
    minute has come. President Bush should not go to Peking for the
    Olympics.

    Unfortunately, there will be a visceral reaction by some on the
    right because Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are calling for
    the same thing. There should not be. In fact, the right, which
    has spent the better part of the last hundred years fighting for
    freedom around the world, should own this issue.

    The Chinese autocrats are ruthless dictators seeking
    international legitimacy despite the terror they pour into Tibet
    and the human rights abuses they encourage in their own country.

    We know some on the right who tend to view the world mostly in
    economic terms will disagree with us. Yes, we recognize that
    China is a large trading partner. We recognize how much of our
    debt they hold. We also recognize the arguments of some that if
    the President were to go, the media would be inclined to shed the
    spotlight on China’s abuses.

    None of these arguments contradict the fact that our President,
    who has spent eight years liberating parts of the world from
    tyranny, should not give the seal of approval on China’s
    behavior — approval his presence at the Olympics would most
    certainly give to the Chinese people.

    We’re under no delusions. The Olympic organizers themselves put
    the world in this position. They wanted to welcome China into
    the new millennium by embracing them as some part of the modern
    world — a distinction the Olympics could supposedly give. They
    turned a blind eye to China’s human rights abuses and the
    chickens are now coming home to roost.

    If American athletes want to compete in China, we wish them well
    and hope they crush their Chinese opponents under the heavy
    weight of many gold medals. But we call on the President of the
    United States of America to personally boycott Peking during the
    Olympics. His presence would serve as a propaganda tool for the
    regime just as assuredly the lack of his presence will be noticed
    by the freedom loving people of China suffering Peking’s
    communist boot on the back of their necks.

    Should you want to join us, we would encourage you to sign our
    petition by clicking here
    (https://redstate.kimbia.com/olympics).

    All the best,

    Erick Erickson
    Editor, RedState.com

  7. Rogue109 says:

    We ought to boycott, regardless of Tibet, because of the way China treats its own people, air and water. It’s a rapacious nation, showing the deep, dark side of unbridled capitalism.

    No, it shows the problems with living under Communist rule.

  8. juliobarrios says:

    Thought this was an interesting article on dry Perdue in wet China: http://www.ajc.com/search/content/business/2008/04/07/chinaperdue.html

    “”I just lift the glass to my lips,” he said in an interview during his China trip. “If you empty the glass, they think you want more.”

    The governor said the primary aim of the mission was to build good relationships with the Chinese, which included honoring their social customs and business practices.”

    I wonder if there was any caning of Tibetan monks with NERF sticks.

  9. juliobarrios says:

    I’d say if you’re going to accuse Bush of being on the wrong side history with China, where does that leave the Clintons and their major China nuclear sellout ass kissing and fundraising.

  10. John Konop says:

    Jace, you better talk to Communist China about capitalism because they made it clear they not in the system!

    China: We Are Socialists!

    Beijing (FORTUNE) – Senior U.S. officials, led by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, arrived inside the Stalinist-style Great Hall of the People Thursday morning, briefed and breakfasted and eager to offer guidance to Chinese leaders on how to become a “responsible stakeholder” in the global economy

    According to the English translation of her remarks, she repeated six times that China was “sticking to” its “new path of industrialization,” and three times that China was “continuing to improve” on reforms already in place. Substantial free-market change wasn’t part of the equation. “By following a path of building socialism with Chinese characteristics in an independent and self-reliant manner,” she said, “we have scored glorious achievements that attracted worldwide attention.”
    At debate is China not playing by the rules of the trade agreement.

    CNN-But Paulson said earlier this week China could and should do more to reduce its massive trade surplus and revalue its currency. And a WTO report released Monday complained bitterly about continued rampant counterfeiting and piracy, policies limiting imports and regulatory barriers to U.S. service companies
    “We see troubling indications that China’s momentum toward reform has begun to slow,” US Trade Representative Susan Schwab, a participant in this week’s meeting, wrote in the Financial Times.

    http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/china-we-are-socialist

  11. boyreporter says:

    Uh, see Jace, things have, uh, changed…and the Chinese are trying to make money now, pushing ideology into the background while they make moneymoneymoney-our money, mainly. Where’ve you been? They are and have been for some time beating us at our own game because they don’t effing care. You’re an effing idiot for being so ideologically blind. Capitalism is fine, it is good, but it also has a dark side which is now being evident in the international money chase that the Chinese are on…and they don’t have to answer to their people. It’s called a mixed economy, you simpleton, and they’re winning, ’cause they’ve got us by the financial balls. Communists can’t do that. Unleashed capitalists can.

    And Jnd Julio: Get off your obsession with Clinton. How long has it been? Bush is an effing idiot, and Clinton was a different kind of tool. You can’t excuse Bush for everything he does by throwing in Clinton’s name. But if that’s all you got…

  12. juliobarrios says:

    Not defending Bush, by bringing up Clinton – just trying to keep things consistent. We can go all the way back to Nixon if you’d like. My only point is you can’t state Bush is “on the wrong side of history”; which implies his policy towards China is somehow unique compared to past administrations.

    The Clintons, and their sucking-up to the Chi-Coms, are just the most recent administration in memory.

    I’m still 50/50 on whether Bush should go to the Olympics or not. I think China has got some awful human rights policies that we seem to overlook due to their financial power. On the flip side, that financial power affects our economy, jobs, and ultimately the ability of our citizens to put food on their tables. It’s more of a grey moral dilemma than some realize.

  13. Jace Walden says:

    Boy,

    Like I said, anyone who can look at China’s problems and blame “Capitalism” is a f*cking idiot and no further discussion on the matter is required.

    But thanks for playing anyway.

  14. Roy says:

    Boyreporter, I can see the angle you’re coming from, as capitalism without responsibility can
    be detrimental. But I think the issue here is more with China’s suppression and fear of their masses, namely Tibet. This could play under any economic system, communist or free market.

    While I do think Bush should not go to the games, I doubt he won’t. How much $$$ do we owe China now??? But the list of cancellations seems to grow, Their HRS’s Charles & Camilla,
    Chancellor Merkele, and the French Prez? I’ve heard have cancelled. Question is though, is this really gonna bring about a change of heart in the Chinese Communist Party? I don’t think so.
    The official Chinese news agency XinHua though has posted humourous remarks…like “everywhere the torch goes it’s met with exuberant celebration!” That’s good for at least some laughs!!

  15. boyreporter says:

    I’m always impressed by your open mind, Jace, especially your habit of closing debate at will. Who elected you God? “No further debate is necessary”? How f***ing convenient. I don’t really care to continue the “debate,” either, but you don’t own truth. You only own your opinion.
    By criticizing China’s version of capitalism, I merely point out its rapacious nature. It’s not collectivism that’s at the core of all the evil coming out of that country; it’s its new-found reverence for making megabucks, at which it has shown sheer genius (of the not good sort). By the way, I did not blame “China’s problems” on capitalism. I blamed its excesses on its new economic playground, wherein no rules are allowed.

    And Roy: I repeat that my core problem with China is not Tibet. I’m sorry for the people there, and hope they get freedom and a democracy. But I won’t hold my breath. And separation just to go back to the oppressive, feudal, backward theocracy that Tibet was under the Dalai Lama would be little if any improvement.

  16. Roy says:

    Boyreporter:
    A good point regarding the ancient tibetian feudal society. However don’t you think today with technology and info exchanged so freely it’d be alot different? But I guess you never now what you’ll get with regime change, i.e. look at Iraq! In regards to one of your earlier post, I heard on CNN this am several patients have died because of tainted Heparin, made in, where else, the PRC.

  17. Jace Walden says:

    John,

    I never said I did.

    There are capitalist aspects in certain sectors of China’s economy. It is a mixed economy, leaning HEAVILY toward economic socialism. But I am with you. China is almost entirely a socialist country.

    China’s problems come from it’s still heavily socialist economy and totalitarian attitude toward individual choice and freedom.

  18. Jace Walden says:

    Roy,

    I would be eternally grateful if you did that. In fact, when I go back to Georgia this summer, I’ll pick you up a bottle of their Saperavi wine.

  19. Roy says:

    Jace:
    Cool! i will bring back what I can. I am packing my duty free in another suitcase and wrapping it all with bubble wrap and check it. Because, what I’m not sure about is when you clear customs at ATL, and I transfer to ASA to Albany, not leaving security any, if I can have bottels in carry ons?

  20. Jace Walden says:

    Roy,

    It is my understanding that if you don’t have to go back through security that you can have bottles as carry on. In fact, if I remember correctly, I had my bottle of Saperavi as carry on.

  21. Roy says:

    Jace:
    I thought that the case but wasn’t sure. I think the Egyptians were the first to brew beer?

  22. Jace Walden says:

    I don’t know…but good God. Can you imagine how good their beer must taste having nearly 7,000 years of brewing experience?

    I’m jealous that you’ll have tasted it before me.

Comments are closed.