Feinstein is Tough and Strong
By streiff Posted in Democrats — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sometimes obscurity of language works to one’s advantage in diplomacy. It enables nations to paper over significant differences in order to cooperate on issues where they agree.
But in matters of war and peace the general rule is that obscurity of language is somewhat less than helpful. A classic case being the hapless April Glaspie’s now infamous conversation with Saddam Hussein. Bright lines and clear intentions prevent accidental wars.
Yesterday, Dianne Feinstein spoke at a gathering of Chinese cultural and civic leaders in San Francisco. If the Democrats come to power and her view prevails, she may very well have set the stage for a war with China.
Update [2006-4-21 12:50:15 by streiff]: A colleague may have added to the puzzle in this story: Feinstein also has received scrutiny for husband Richard Blum's extensive business dealings with China and her past votes on trade issues with the country.
Read on.
According to the San Jose Mercury News:
In remarks certain to please visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Thursday told a gathering of Chinese-American business and cultural leaders in San Francisco that the United States has no obligation to defend Taiwan if it provokes China into a military confrontation.
Feinstein's comments came on a day when Hu and President Bush sat down together in Washington to discuss a range of issues -- including Taiwan, which China regards as the No. 1 issue in U.S.-China relations. Before his first U.S. visit this week, Hu urged Taiwanese leaders to resume talks with China and called actions toward independence a threat to the region.
``It is important to point out a common misconception -- nowhere does the TRA explicitly require the U.S. to go to war with the mainland over Taiwan,'' Feinstein said, referring to the Taiwan Relations Act, at the annual conference of the Committee of 100 in San Francisco. The group helps foster U.S.-China relations.
In the face of increased Chinese aggressiveness towards Taiwan, Feinstein’s statement is no less an invitation to invasion than that of Glaspie.
While she may be technically correct as no treaty requires us to come to the defense of any nation that has provoked a war, most Americans would be shocked to learn the ChiComs have called many of the purely domestic acts by Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian provocations.
They would also be shocked to learn that that Taiwan simply stating that it was independent would be casus belli from a ChiCom point of view.
It is difficult to imagine the Congress, the Administration, or the American people standing idly by if Taiwan is attacked by the Chicoms under any circumstance, even/especially if Taiwan had declared itself independent.
What purpose is served by making a bonejarringly stupid statement like this beyond trolling for votes among communist sympathizers is anyone’s guess. But it is clearly not in our nation’s interest to let a nuclear armed communist China be anything less than completely clear on what we will do should they attack Taiwan.
Update [2006-4-21 12:50:15 by streiff]:
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Tales From the Tough and Strong Files — Comments (10) »
Feinstein is Tough and Strong 17 Comments (0 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Oh, it's already on the front page.
Well, then: 5!
And put it on the navbar, so it's there until November. This is just the sort of thing Democrats do to endanger us all -- they speak.
What business is it of hers to make a statement like that?
for the United States not to come to the aid of an independent democracy when invaded? We went to war to liberate Kuwait but we will not help Taiwan? How about Japan? Australia?
Too many 'shrooms back in the '60s.
Since I started reading RedState, I've been trying to figure out the definition of "5" from context and I have now officially given up and am willing to reveal myself as an uninitiated newby in exchange for this definition. Please.
There used to be a rating system from 1 to 5 for readers to rate posts. A "5" was the best so when the ratings went away people started just posting "5" to praise the comment.
when dinosaurs ruled and there were giants in the earth, there was a comment rating system in effect where you could rate comments from 1-5, with 5 being the highest.
Because of abuses by interlopers we've had to can that system, but the terminology lingers.
Biden's position is no doubt that he'd vote to give Bush carte blanche to defend Taiwan as long as Bush promised not to ever use it.
of what was the WTC for the first time since surviving that day, I remember this:
"I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon,"
This President has done all he can to protect us since then and we will all forever be in his debt.
In contrast, the Democrat parties mind-numbing lack of a tenable, consistent national security plan is deplorable. I hope everyone remembers that in November.
Note to Feinstein: maintaining a credible voice on national security issues is part of the effort to keep us safe.
Carbon-dating specifies we are most assuredly from RedState's Jurassic Period. Initial test results indicate the presence of jsteele on, or about, August 20, 2004, and the presence of rbdwiggins on, or about, October 25, 2004.
having developed an opposable thumb!
check to see if your knuckles drag on the ground. If not you're fine.
This is right in line with the Democrat's general policy of pre-emptive appeasement. And yes, it makes war much more likely.
Its unfortunate that there don't seem to be any responsible adults in the Democratic party.