|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Newt Gingrich's 1997 Trip To China. aka Bush Loving Hypocrites Eat Shit.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Newt Gingrich's 1997 Trip To China. aka Bush Loving Hypocrites Eat Shit.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Ass Boil |
Newt Gingrich's 1997 trip to China
This is, of course, totally different than the right-wing outrage scandal de jour:
New York Times, March 31, 1997 -- reporting on a trip to China by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one week after Vice President Al Gore's trip:
Quote: Speaking with startling bluntness on an issue so delicate that diplomats have tiptoed around it for years, Newt Gingrich said today that he had warned China's top leaders that the United States would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked.
As he left for Tokyo after a three-day trip to China, Mr. Gingrich said he had made it absolutely clear how the United States would respond if such a military conflict arose.
Referring to his meetings with China's leaders, Mr. Gingrich said: ''I said firmly, 'We want you to understand, we will defend Taiwan. Period.'"
He also said, ''I think that they are more aware now that we would defend Taiwan if it were militarily attacked.''
Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, delivered his message, among the most forceful ever given about Taiwan by a visiting United States official, to Wang Daohan, China's chief representative in talks with Taiwan. Mr. Gingrich said he had given the same message to President Jiang Zemin and Prime Minister Li Peng in Beijing last week.
Chinese leaders offered no public response to Mr. Gingrich today. But on Friday, Mr. Jiang urged him to treat the Taiwan issue with care. . . .
Asked about Mr. Gingrich's statements, a Clinton Administration official in Washington said Mr. Gingrich had received briefings about American policy toward China, but that Mr. Gingrich ''was speaking for himself'' in his conversations with Chinese leaders.
The White House issued a statement saying that the policy of the United States was to ''meet its obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act, including the maintenance of an adequate self-defense for Taiwan,'' and that the Administration would maintain its ''one-China policy, the fundamental bedrock of which is that both parties peacefully address the Taiwan issue. . . ."
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Gingrich said he had spoken with Mr. Clinton, and with Mr. Gore on several occasions, to make sure that their messages to Beijing dovetailed. At the time, he did not mention his message on Taiwan. |
Several days later, Gingrich's remarks in China led to this -- New York Times, April 4, 1997:
Quote: China admonished the United States today to speak with one voice on foreign policy and accused Newt Gingrich of making ''improper'' statements on Washington's commitment to defend Taiwan from any military attack by the mainland.
The criticism was made by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Shen Guofang, who earlier this week had expressed basic satisfaction with remarks made by Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, during a three-day visit to China.
The visit followed Vice President Al Gore's first trip to Beijing. Both men spoke on issues of contention between Washington and Beijing, but Mr. Gingrich's remarks were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan.
China's decision to criticize Mr. Gingrich came after he traveled to Taiwan on Wednesday and met with President Lee Teng-hui. |
Back then, the media treated Gingrich like he was the American Prime Minister, and his right-wing supporters had no problem with the House Speaker travelling and expressing his own foreign policy views which deviated from the Clinton administration's. Quite the contrary, many right-wing leaders -- including Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, and Vin Weber -- went on PBS and praised Gingrich's "aggressive role in China."
They couldn't have been more pleased that Gingrich did what, in their minds, the Clinton administration was failing to do -- standing up to the Chinese. Gingrich, as House Speaker, was heroic for going on his own and doing that. The same behavior from Pelosi (which I'm sure is, in actuality, completely different for all sorts of unknown and indiscernible reasons) is now both a grave political mistake and a reckless breach of protocol.
-- Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw...hina/index.html |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Newt Gingrich's 1997 trip to China
This is, of course, totally different than the right-wing outrage scandal de jour:
New York Times, March 31, 1997 -- reporting on a trip to China by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one week after Vice President Al Gore's trip:
Several days later, Gingrich's remarks in China led to this -- New York Times, April 4, 1997:
Back then, the media treated Gingrich like he was the American Prime Minister, and his right-wing supporters had no problem with the House Speaker travelling and expressing his own foreign policy views which deviated from the Clinton administration's. Quite the contrary, many right-wing leaders -- including Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, and Vin Weber -- went on PBS and praised Gingrich's "aggressive role in China."
They couldn't have been more pleased that Gingrich did what, in their minds, the Clinton administration was failing to do -- standing up to the Chinese. Gingrich, as House Speaker, was heroic for going on his own and doing that. The same behavior from Pelosi (which I'm sure is, in actuality, completely different for all sorts of unknown and indiscernible reasons) is now both a grave political mistake and a reckless breach of protocol.
-- Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw...hina/index.html |
Does the fact that we had an mutual defense treaty with Taiwan at the time, which called for us to defend them were the Chinese to attack, mean anything to you. Gingrich was doing nothing more than stating what we as a country were bound to do by treaty. If the Clinton administration policy was so different, why did they send 2 aircraft carries to to the Taiwan strait, and why did it not end the treaty agreement??? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Does the fact that we had an mutual defense treaty with Taiwan at the time, which called for us to defend them were the Chinese to attack, mean anything to you. Gingrich was doing nothing more than stating what we as a country were bound to do by treaty. If the Clinton administration policy was so different, why did they send 2 aircraft carries to to the Taiwan strait, and why did it not end the treaty agreement??? |
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
Quote:
U.S.-TAIWAN RELATIONS
On January 1, 1979, the United States changed its diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the U.S.-PRC Joint Communiqué that announced the change, the United States recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China . The Joint Communiqué also stated that within this context the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people on Taiwan.
On April 10, 1979, President Carter signed into law the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which created domestic legal authority for the conduct of unofficial relations with Taiwan. U.S. commercial, cultural, and other interaction with the people on Taiwan is facilitated through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a private nonprofit corporation. The Institute has its headquarters in the Washington, DC area and has offices in Taipei and Kaohsiung. It is authorized to issue visas, accept passport applications, and provide assistance to U.S. citizens in Taiwan. A counterpart organization, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO), has been established by the Taiwan authorities. It has its headquarters in Taipei, the representative branch office in Washington, DC, and 11 other Taipei Economic and Cultural Offices (TECO) in the continental U.S. and Guam. The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) continues to provide the legal basis for the unofficial relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan, and enshrines the U.S. commitment to assisting Taiwan maintain its defensive capability.
Following de-recognition, the United States terminated its Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan . However, the United States has continued the sale of appropriate defensive military equipment to Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, which provides for such sales and which declares that peace and stability in the area are in U.S. interests. Sales of defensive military equipment also are consistent with the 1982 U.S.-PRC Joint Communiqué. In this document, the United States stated that "it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan" and that U.S. arms sales would "not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years," and that the U.S. intends "gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan." The PRC, in the 1982 Communiqué, stated that its policy was to strive for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question.
The United States position on Taiwan is reflected in the Three Communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). The U.S. insists on the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait differences and encourages dialogue to help advance such an outcome. The U.S. does not support Taiwan independence. President Bush stated y on December 9, 2003 that the United States is opposed to any attempt by either side to unilaterally alter the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. The United States has endorsed dialogue and exchanges between the two sides and has encouraged the PRC to engage the democratically elected leadership of Taiwan, as well as the opposition.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm |
Care to try again, jagoff? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Hello Hello...?
NCMoron?
Like every other subject, you are only 28 years behind the times. |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
Haven't seen this one in awhile...I thought you lost it...LOL.... A CLASSIC
|
|
|
| Ass Boil |
| I would never lose that. Monster Zero scored a homerun with that one. He managed to improve an already perfect picture.... I just figured it would be better after a little time on the shelf...LOL |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Where are you, NCMoron?
I want to hear more about the mutual defense agreement that ended in 1979......
Show yourself, coward! |
|
|
| AcquiringSignal |
Ass Boil...
I think it is almost time for him to to start an "New" name on the SFN.
This one you have exposed him, he needs a fresh start to pretend he is a new republican poster. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by AcquiringSignal
Ass Boil...
I think it is almost time for him to to start an "New" name on the SFN.
This one you have exposed him, he needs a fresh start to pretend he is a new republican poster. |
I don't think so... Mike is one of those rare fools who is very proud to be a dumbshit. He revels in his stupidity like George Bush on a 5 day coke bender. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Ummm, hello???
http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive...ations_Act.html
Quote:
(4) to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States;
(5) to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and
(6) to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan. |
That was signed in 1982 bud....you might want to try again....but as usual, you are 25 years behind the times.
But keep posting pictures, its what you do best. |
|
|
| Jackie's Career |
Did Gingrich attempt to speak on behalf of the US and it's allies like Pelosi did?
Was China harboring terrorists on their way to murder US troops like Syria is? |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Career
Did Gingrich attempt to speak on behalf of the US and it's allies like Pelosi did?
Was China harboring terrorists on their way to murder US troops like Syria is? |
Gingrich repeated current (at the time) US policy. Leftbots are reaching far and wide to justify Pelosi's activities. But, its not working. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You idiot!
Are you actually saying the TRA is a "mutual defense agreement"? Those were YOUR words. The TRA is a MUCH more moderate stance than the "MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY" it replaced, wouldn't you agree?
The Mutual Defense Treaty said if one country came under attack, the other would come to it's aid and provide military support. That is alot different than the text of the TRA.... |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Career
Did Gingrich attempt to speak on behalf of the US and it's allies like Pelosi did?
Was China harboring terrorists on their way to murder US troops like Syria is? |
Oh, the "we don't deal with terrorists" talking point?
Maybe you forget the Bush administration sent people to Syria to be tortured on our behalf?
Stop with your bullshit excuses. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Gingrich repeated current (at the time) US policy. Leftbots are reaching far and wide to justify Pelosi's activities. But, its not working. |
Bwaaaaahahahahahahaha!
God you are a barrel of laughs today!
I guess you missed this:
Quote:
The visit followed Vice President Al Gore's first trip to Beijing. Both men spoke on issues of contention between Washington and Beijing, but Mr. Gingrich's remarks were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan.
|
|
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You idiot!
Are you actually saying the TRA is a "mutual defense agreement"? Those were YOUR words. The TRA is a MUCH more moderate stance than the "MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY" it replaced, wouldn't you agree?
The Mutual Defense Treaty said if one country came under attack, the other would come to it's aid and provide military support. That is alot different than the text of the TRA.... |
Ummmm numnuts...maybe you missed this little nugget:
| Quote: 6) to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security , or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan. |
And you still havent explained why the Clinton Admin sent aircraft carriers to the strait.....
LOL...keep reaching Mr apologist |
|
|
| Crazytree |
likelihood of an actual prosecution: 0%
likelihood of Bushbot whining: 100% |
|
|
| Jefferson |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
likelihood of an actual prosecution: 0%
likelihood of Bushbot whining: 100% |
In 1997, at any time, did the Clinton administration formally and directly request that Newt Gingrich NOT travel to China to speak with government officials over there?
When Gingrich traveled, was a consequence of his action to present the United States government as divided on the issue of foreign policy, providing the Chinese the opportunity to play him against the President?
What you're doing is comparing two very different situations.
| Quote: In an interview on Friday, Mr. Gingrich said he had spoken with Mr. Clinton, and with Mr. Gore on several occasions, to make sure that their messages to Beijing dovetailed. |
You're not exposing hypocrisy hear, you're displaying you're own ignorance.
Gingrich was briefed by the administration, followed a visit by Gore, and simply stated in clear, unapologetic terms, what the position of the U.S. government was at the time. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Jefferson
In 1997, at any time, did the Clinton administration formally and directly request that Newt Gingrich NOT travel to China to speak with government officials over there? |
Cockroach at Work
Bush did not "formally and directly" request anything either, dumbfuck. Pelosi told him in person they were going and what they were going to say...he didn't bat an eyelash.
THERE WERE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS (AKA BUSH ADMINISTRATION) IN HER DELEGATION TO SYRIA.
Nothing was said outside of recognized policy. How is that "divisive"?
Stupid fucking DUPED SUCKER!!!
Keep exposing your own ignorance tho...we like it in here!
:rdf: |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Ummmm numnuts...maybe you missed this little nugget:
And you still havent explained why the Clinton Admin sent aircraft carriers to the strait.....
LOL...keep reaching Mr apologist |
You idiot. The Clinton Administration and China BOTH said Gingrich's comments stepped outside the norm, yet here you are making excuse after excuse. So we are not to believe the Clinton administration when THEY say Gingrich was not stating it's policiy, but we ARE to believe the Bush administration when THEY say Pelosi overstepped?
This is the type of hypocrisy only an asshole like you could believe.
I'm sure you know there were State Department officials in every meeting during the trip, don't you? And maybe you can specifically point out where Pelosi's actions during the trip went against US policy, not forgetting the Bush administration had no problem dealing with Syria when they needed a place to send people to be tortured.
Quote:
Rahall: Pelosi Personally Told Bush Of Syria Trip And He Did Not Object
Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), who traveled last week with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as part of her delegation to the Middle East, said this morning on C-Span that Pelosi told Bush of the trip to Syria a day before they left, and Bush did not object.
Rahall said, “The Speaker had met with President Bush in the halls of the U.S. Capitol just the day before we left and mentioned to him that we were going to Syria. No response at all from the President.”
Watch it:
Despite the White House’s public rhetoric that the trip was a “bad idea,” President Bush “did not tell her not to go, nor did the State Department tell us not to go,” Rahall said. “The State Department was certainly aware of our traveling to Syria and our full itinerary. And there were State Department officials in every meeting that we had on this codel. So that is all hogwash as far as I’m concerned.”
Transcript:
CALLER: I am a Republican. And I thought under the Logan Act that Ms. Pelosi has committed a felony because under our Constitution, section 2 of the Constitution, that the president is the one who conducts — sends the people off, to conduct our foreign affairs. Now he told her he didn’t want her to go. That is a violation of the Logan Act. She should be hauled off in jail because if i was to commit a felony, i’d be hauled off and gone to jail.
RAHALL: First of all, that’s baloney. We were in violation of no u.s. laws. Second of all, the President did not tell her not to go, nor did the State Department tell us not to go. There were three Republican members of Congress in Damascus a few days before our trip. There was a Republican member of Congress in Damascus meeting with the President after our trip.
The Speaker had met with President Bush in the halls of the U.S. Capitol just the day before we left and mentioned to him that we were going to Syria. No response at all from the President. The State Department was certainly aware of our traveling to Syria and our full itinerary. And there were State Department officials in every meeting that we had on this codel. So that is all hogwash as far as I’m concerned.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/08/rahall-syria-trip/
|
Quote:
Pelosi Challenges White House: If I Gave Syria The Wrong Message, Prove It
Conservatives and media figures continue to claim, without evidence, that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) delivered an incorrect message from Israel to Syria during her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Pelosi insists that Israel’s message was communicated accurately, and has suggested a good way to prove it:
[Pelosi spokesman Brendan] Daly pointed out that Pelosi was briefed by State Department officials before her meetings with the foreign leaders and that State Department officials also attended her meetings.
So if Pelosi really committed foreign policy flubs of the first order, the State Department is in a position to confirm as much.
The White House certainly received a read-out of what exactly Pelosi and the foreign leaders said in their meetings. Significantly, the White House has not openly accused Pelosi of the foreign-policy missteps the Post had accused her of.
In an e-mail follow-up, Daly wrote: “WH has not said that because in fact the Speaker did not get the message wrong — she included the necessary caveats and did not say or imply that this was a change in Israel’s position.”
Indeed, despite President Bush’s claim that Pelosi’s trip sent “mixed signals,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said during his briefing today, “I don’t think [the trip] necessarily complicates anything that we’re doing.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/05...syria-prove-it/ |
Keep spinning, Mikey..... LOL |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Keep spinning, Mikey..... LOL |
*FLUSH*
*FLUSH*
:crapper:
(that was a two flusher) |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Jefferson
In 1997, at any time, did the Clinton administration formally and directly request that Newt Gingrich NOT travel to China to speak with government officials over there?
When Gingrich traveled, was a consequence of his action to present the United States government as divided on the issue of foreign policy, providing the Chinese the opportunity to play him against the President?
What you're doing is comparing two very different situations.
You're not exposing hypocrisy hear, you're displaying you're own ignorance.
Gingrich was briefed by the administration, followed a visit by Gore, and simply stated in clear, unapologetic terms, what the position of the U.S. government was at the time. |
Couldn't help but notice you left out a couple of details, like the very next sentence after your selective quote:
Quote:
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Gingrich said he had spoken with Mr. Clinton, and with Mr. Gore on several occasions, to make sure that their messages to Beijing dovetailed. At the time, he did not mention his message on Taiwan.
|
Quote:
The visit followed Vice President Al Gore's first trip to Beijing. Both men spoke on issues of contention between Washington and Beijing, but Mr. Gingrich's remarks were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan. |
Nice try...... I'm sure it was a coincidence you left out the sentence about Gingrich not mentioning his Taiwan comments, right?
LOL |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Quote: Originally posted by Jefferson
In 1997, at any time, did the Clinton administration formally and directly request that Newt Gingrich NOT travel to China to speak with government officials over there?
When Gingrich traveled, was a consequence of his action to present the United States government as divided on the issue of foreign policy, providing the Chinese the opportunity to play him against the President? |
and which of those constitute an element of the fucking law you are trying to justify using? |
|
|
|
|
|
