George Bush, You're No Reagan
For you youngsters out there (if you are thirty two or younger, you are a youngster in my book) today's spectacle at the White House with President Bush playing apologist for the Chinese Communists was rich with irony. I'm not a hardened Cold Warrior who believes we should not deal with China. But, I am an old fashioned conservative who believes that the United States was supposed to offer an alternative model of government to the authoritarian nations, like China and the old Soviet Union. Put it simply, we used to believe that personal liberty superseded the "rights" of the nation.
Remember? Ronald Reagan stood in front of the Berlin Wall and called on the Soviets to "tear down this wall". Thanks in part to Reagan's policies the wall came down. Reagan followed in the footsteps of John F. Kennedy, who also stood in front of the wall and pledged America's honor to fight the totalitarian visions advocated by communist rulers in Moscow and Beijing.
Where are we today? A protester is forcibly removed from the White House grounds. The White House, a symbol of the American people, became a backdrop for the new authoritarianism of the Bush era. Rather than show the Chinese leader the beauty of tolerating dissent, Bush presided over the arrest of a woman who dared speak out against her country's leader. Bush furthered the insult to American democracy by apologizing to China's leader for the outburst.
Of course this is in keeping with the "new" style of leadership brought by George Bush. Instead of open town meetings where the average American can tell the President he's a fool, we have scripted, controlled events. Only those with connections and prior approval can gain access to these events. We have lost our sense of shame and national identity. In fact, those who dare to speak out against George Bush find their reputations and integrity immediately attacked. Just look at the number the White House is trying to do now on the retired Generals who have called for Don Rumsfeld's head. They join the list of Richard Clarke, Tom White, Paul O'Neil, Eric Shinseki, Joe Wilson, and Scott Ritter.
Complicit with the Administration's efforts to quash dissent and protest is the national media. They accept without protest the arrest of the small Chinese woman who had the temerity to speak out against a leader and a government that she believes is abusive and dictatorial.
We spent 45 years fighting a Cold War against the authoritarian governments of the Soviets and the Chinese. We supposedly won. And now what? We tolerate the arrest and detention without habeus corpus of American citizens because the Government tells us they are terrorists. We tolerate a President who lies about the intelligence and takes us into an unnecessary war. And, we look the other way when a small lady with a big heart dares to challenge the leader of the world's most populated nation.
Years ago we watched in amazement as a small Chinese man stood in the path of a tank in Tinamen Square to protest abuses by the Chinese Communist state. Today we saw our President apologize to the Chinese for allowing a protester to speak her mind. What next George? Will you help the Chinese run over demonstrators in a tank?
President Reagan spoke of a City on a Hill. That City was to be a beacon of hope and inspiration to the people of the world who yearned for freedom. George Bush has now torched that vision. Mr. President, I knew Ronald Reagan. I worked for Ronald Reagan. Mr. President, you are no Reagan.
Larry, that GWBush is no Ronald Reagan is possibly the only good thing I can say about him. When a president wants to emulate Reagan he wants to be the president with the most corrupt administration, short of GWBush's, in our history. He wants to be the most out of touch president, short of GWBush, in our history. He wants to be the most cruel president, short of GWBush in our history. So, as bad as Bush is, he is no Ronald Reagan. But, not by much.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 20, 2006 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Put it simply, we used to believe that personal liberty superseded the "rights" of the nation.
i still believe "it"
and live "it"
everyday
April 20, 2006 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that Larry is s'posed to be some kind of celebrity poster or something. But can't you guys keep him on the topics related to his celebrity? Posts like this embarrass us all.
April 20, 2006 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I found Larry's point was well put. It is quite ironic that Bush would apologize to the Communist Chinese leader, while blithely stifling political protest. What will the anti-communist conservatives say about this? That the Chinese protestor was a "moonbat"? Probably.
April 20, 2006 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on. This post is ridiculous. The idea that something productive would have been accomplished by allowing this woman to rant at Hu is preposterous. Protest banners hung out private citizens' windows along the motorcade or whatever are one thing, but heckling at state appearances is pretty useless. All it would accomplish would be that the next time a US president visits China and tries to make an appearance, (s)he would find lots of anti-Japanese protestors exercising their rights to free speech by screaming at the US for acquiescing in Japanese veneration of war criminals, or whatever, with Chinese police shrugging helplessly that they are powerless to restrict their citizens' right to speak their minds.
Happy talk is not the way to gain the confidence of the people. - Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq
April 20, 2006 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
George W. gets folks yelling at him everywhere he goes, Australia, India, Britain... so what's the big deal with the woman in DC? I guess Dubya isn't like Reagan 'cause he hasn't dealt missiles for hostages, both BEFORE elected and AFTER elected, nor did he send Rummy to coddle Saddam, and deal arms and chemical weapons to Iraq, and Dubya didn't fire all the AT controllers. Dubya does have a lot of old Reagan re-treads that work for him, Elliot Abrahms, Negroponte, Cheney, etc. Both Reagan and W have exceled at adding trillions to the national debt. Reagan only lost 242 Marines in the Middle East, no where near Dubya's total, and Reagan had the sense to exit soon after.
April 20, 2006 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"but heckling at state appearances is pretty useless."
Ah, but this wasn't a state visit. Bush wouldn't grant that status to Hu. It's an official visit as witnessed by the needless ceremonies and 21 gun salute (yes, a 21 gun salute) but it wasn't labeled a 'state' visit.
April 20, 2006 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your citation of the Reagan quote: Tear down that wall, and its historical effect is interesting. I understand that the Berlin Wall was about 47 miles long. The entire wall dividing East and West Germany was about 600 miles long. In its 40 year history, some 257 people died trying to cross the wall.
Our U.S. wall in the desert is currently about 70 miles long. In its 10 years in existence, some 3,500 have died trying to get around it.
Why is there such a difference?
Some 257 people dying in Germany is an international scandal, but over 3000 dying in the U.S., is just business as usual.
The Republican response is to propose building a 700 mile wall.
How do you explain the difference?
April 20, 2006 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Happy talk is not the way to gain the confidence of the people. - Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq"
Well, he should certainly know! I wonder if he has *any* clue what is they way to gain confidence of the people? 'Cause he sure hasn't come with any so far, has he?
April 20, 2006 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Next election, let’s all collectively pinch ourselves and promise not to elect another fucking idiot raptureite…
April 20, 2006 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what's been missed by some here is the background to Larry's point.
In the meeting before the press photo op the conversation was picked up by a wireless mic and here's what transpired:
Bush to Interpreter: Tell the President that I am happy to welcome him to the People's House.
Hu directly to Bush: Cut the big shot act and listen up.
Bush: Huh?
Hu: Who were you expecting cowboy- Mr. Shake Hands Man?? What do you take me for? Mao? You think you're dealing with some bumpkin in a beanie?
Bush: I don't know what to say!
Hu: Good. Here's the script- you say frank and productive, keep out the Taiwan press and only allow in my media contingent. We smile, nod, I'm big time and you know it.
Bush: Hey wait a minute! I'm President of the United States!
Hu: You ain't gonna be dick when I start dumpin' your t-bills on the floor. You know how much you're into me for? You think I'm gonna let you go belly up on this debt like those pals of your Dad did?
Bush: Oh...well...ahh...don't worry, Dad, uh, er, the people of the United States are good for it!
Hu: Yeah, right, well your first installment of the vig is due- get your spy boys to clear the press out and get to smilin'.
Bush: Ah, well, ok. NSA to clear the press and keep them out. What else are we going to have to talk about?
Hu: Trade. Commerce. What valuable trading partners we are. How we just signed for enough planes to bust your economy up if we cancel and go with Airbus. We've signed deals with most of your military industrial complex and are making them ours also. We'll be sharing the same technology! Just imagine how I'll be able to keep a handle on my peeps with Motorola and Microsoft trying to get me into bed. You and your little NSA bugs can't even get good enough for gossip, let alone herding a billion cats in the "right direction"!
Your corporate pals sold you out little turd blossom, and you're not bright enough to get it!
Oh, and about Taiwan- tell 'em to pound sand. Tell them you support one China and are for unification. And sound convincing you (turns to translator and translator whispers in his ear) Yes! That's the one! All hat and no cattle! HAHAHAHAHA!
_______________________________
So now you all know why George Bush was apologizing to another repressive regime.
But don't believe me, here's the Taipei Times .
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
April 20, 2006 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Difference: the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in. The US's border fence is being built to keep people out. It's the difference between locking your front door to keep out burglars and locking your basement door to keep someone prisoner in your dungeon. That's a pretty significant difference. I'm against anti-immigrant hysteria, but your argument here cuts very little mustard.
Happy talk is not the way to gain the confidence of the people. - Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq
April 20, 2006 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, George W. Bush is a Ronald Reagan. Immoral, illegal foreign policy in Nicaragua (RR) - immoral, illegal foreign policy in Iraq (GWB). Iran/Contra (RR) - WMD lies (GWB). Out of touch with reality (RR/GWB). Lie about "welfare queen" (RR) - lie about impact of tax cuts (GWB). John Negroponte (RR/GWB). This list could go on and on.
Larry, I usually agree with your posts. Not this time, however.
Tom
April 21, 2006 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I appreciated this post. Another good one, Larry, quite sincere and touches on a number of important issues. (and btw, nice paraphrasing of Lloyd Bentsin.)
First thing perhaps is to deal with the specific issue of this protestor. I actually understand the need to have removed her - where the mistake was made was in arresting her. You see, diplomacy is all about subtle signals (note that Hu was NOT on an official state visit... subtle, but very important), and by removing the protestor but NOT arresting her, I think would have sent a subtle but powerful signal.
But what should not be lost on anyone is this: the Bushies, with their ridiculous Potemkin townhall meetings, can choreograph official events with the best of them. The Chinese know this. The fact the Bushies could not get it right yesterday is hugely embarrassing.
I didn't know before, but one check on Wikipedia confirms that the Epoch Times, for whom the protestor works, is strongly pro-Falun Gong and anti-Communist Party. Now put yourself in Hu's shoes for a moment. Happy about the fact the Bush media team conducted zero background checks on some reporters? Hence the public apology for the majorly embarrassing diplomatic screw-up.
(BTW, I am not saying this diplomatic screw- up was a bad thing ultimately, but I think we should acknowledge what a diplomatic screw-up it was.)
But to the substance of Larry's post. I am in Europe at present (hence the apparently ungodly hour of posting), and this issue about that the end of the Cold War symbolized I believe marks a significant divergence between America and Europe.
The standard American narrative is that ultimately, our victory over the Soviet empire represented a victory of a capitalism over communism. The fact we could outspend and effectively drive the Soviets into bankruptcy proved that our economic system was superior to theirs.
The standard European narrative (and especially the German narrative) is different - they believe that the victory, fundamentally, represented a victory of open society over closed society (or more prosaically, a victory of freedom over totalitarianism).
I know which version I find more compelling.
Now one of Larry's old mates from the CIA, Melvin Goodman, subscribes to the European narrative too. I have also heard him lament the fact that the "official" American narrative does not recognize the extent to which the USSR collapsed from within... but basically, I see little difference between the expert CIA view and that of the Europeans.
And honestly, I am delighted that ex-CIA people like Larry are willing to speak their mind on these issues. You see, King George has co-opted the rhetoric of freedom and put it to Orwellian use... it's time to take it back. And reminding ourselves of what the Cold War was all about is a pretty good way of doing so.
April 21, 2006 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
America has a much deeper plan for dealing with China than is obvious. Don't assume you know everything that is going on.
However, with regard to that journalist who protested, you have to realize that this was a responsible journalist who had covered White House events before. What I suspect happened was that she heard the abuse testimony before congress a couple of days ago and couldn't take it any longer.
It was pretty horrible testimony.
China has this thriving transplant business. The problem, of course, is getting enough human organs to transplant. In true capitalistic fashion, they declared the Falun Gong (among others) terrorists, imprisoned them in a medical gulag (LoaGai, etc.), and whenever they found a compatable organ match, transplanted the approriate organs, and then shot them. The lucky ones get anethesia first. I have heard rumors there is a thriving intenet video business on the side, as well as a brothel.
Kinda puts Abu Ghraib in perspective, doesn't it?
Here is some URL's on the subject http://archives.cjr.org/year/95/5/wu.asp
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-3-22/39537.html
In all fairness, Hu is probably powerless to stop this practice, for now at least. I am fairly certain he would, if he could.
On the other hand, I have not gone into details; they get a lot sicker. Think Abu Ghraig run by a whole collection of someones that think Haniibal Lecter and Jason are pussies, and operate with impuity across the entire continent, since there is not always an appropriate spare part in the stock on hand. I hear they occasionally dabble in custom manufacture of parts, as well.
I suspect Hu and the others spared Congress the worst details, those tables aren't far from the dias, and he may have not been certain about the maximum distance for projectile vomiting.
Ask yourself this question however. If you were Jewish, and you knew everything that was happening in, say Dauchau (which was, relatively, a lot less sickening than some of the worst Chinese gulags, impossible as that may seem), would you have stood within shouting distance of Hitler as he met with FDR and not said anything?
April 21, 2006 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the first president to do invitation-only appearances only, what's so surprising? This Administration has been roughing up dissenters for six years. It wasn't done to impress the Chinese. It's just their nature.
April 21, 2006 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Without getting into the specific debate of Bush versus Reagan that Bush has lost people like Larry Johnson who admire Reagan tells you why Bush and the Republicans are in such political trouble.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
April 21, 2006 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I despise Ronald Reagan and his legacy, I can see Larry's point. Reagan was a demagogue and a sabre-rattler, and executed a disastrous economic policy while leaving America's cities in the dumpster.
But even so, he was a man vision (one which I disagreed with), of integrity (holding to opinions I disagreed with), and strength. George Bush represents everything that I hated about Reagan, without any of his respectable qualities. He's that much worse.
April 21, 2006 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure integrity is a word we want to apply to a president -- Reagan -- who was directly and indirectly responsible for policies in Central America which would have shocked us no less than Abu Ghraib, had we been shown the pictures, digital, in color, on the front page. I do think our willingness to prop up Reagan in history is part of our continuing problem with responsibility and accountability -- our own and that of our governance. Reagan's administration was (and continues to be through inaccessible documents) a disgrace.
April 21, 2006 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry
Although it is convenient to blame George W. Bush for all of our nation's problems, referencing the removal of a Chinese woman from the White House grounds hardly constitutes the totalitarian metamorphosis that you surmise. Anyone, whether it be a petite Chinese lady or a six foot body builder, will be remove from the White House grounds if they do not have permission to be there. This would be true if Bill Clinton were still in office. Bush's apology to Hu Jintao likely had more to do with the itinerary being disrupted than an ideological renouncement of the woman's message. Would it have been any different if it had been a bare-assed streaker parading through the White House grounds? Likely not.
While I readily acknowledge Bush's seeming intolerance toward any political opposition, modern politics dicatate that leader's are intended to be strong and resolved. The days of Abraham Lincoln granting almost daily access to average citizens (everyone from local businessmen to old lady's complaining about feces on sidewalks)have long since past. Townhall meetings and things of that nature are still evident throughout America today. The liberal press have been unusually critical of this presidential administration throughout--I find it ironic that you think otherwise. Granted, if you consolidate all media into Fox News Channel (which, given their through-the-roof ratings you may very well) it would seem as if most members of the White House Press Corps are against the president.
You are correct that Bush is no Reagan, but neither is he Josef Stalin.
April 21, 2006 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't we set our standards a little higher than that?
April 21, 2006 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear. Reagan's presidency was a horror show that betrayed all of the best qualities of our country. His administration looks good only in comparison w/Dubya's, which is certainly one of the three or four worst administrations in our history.
April 21, 2006 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Anyone, whether it be a petite Chinese lady or a six foot body builder, will be remove from the White House grounds if they do not have permission to be there."
Your analysis fails before it even gets started. That woman had press credentials for Hu's visit thus had total permission to be there.
April 21, 2006 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
drv
If she had press credentials then her job is to report and ask pertinent questions not spout off on a personal commentary. Such manifestations are intended for blogging sites such as this or op/ed sections of any newspaper, not a joint presidential press conference. Disagree?
April 21, 2006 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm baffled by some of the comments upthread, which criticize Larry for praising Ronald Reagan instead of grappling with the actual point of this post, which should be completely uncontroversial.
A woman stood up in front of a dictator to condemn him, in our nation's capital. The President's response was to have her arrested and apologize to the tyrant. This violated nearly every principle that freedom-loving Americans, whether liberal or conservative, hold dear. It was an embarrassment to our country.
I'm no fan of Reagan, but he's revered in this country by many people, including some who don't always vote Republican. This incident should make everyone who admires Reagan's speech in front of the Berlin Wall squirm, and it clearly illustrates the gap between the rhetoric of Bush supporters and reality. Symbolically powerful moments like these are the sort that help to break existing political coalitions and help build new ones. It is pure folly to sneer at potential new allies for speaking well of Reagan instead of joining together with them to run the current crop of Republican crooks and weasels out of Washington.
April 21, 2006 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fine point here: I said she had press credentials, not that she was there to report the news. Had the White House done anywhere near a half-assed job of vetting her they might have been suspicious of her intentions. Shades of the James Gannon/Guckert mess of a few months back.
But the hypocrisy is stunning. Bush stands there and tells Hu that he should allow more freedoms and when someone takes him up on it Bush apologizes to Hu. Simply stunning.
Yeah, maybe it wasn't the right place for her protestations but there's a world of options between having her arrested and letting her continue. Surely one or two would have been consistent with the words Bush just spoke. Or maybe those words don't really mean anything. Ya think?
April 21, 2006 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Dubya is no Reagan. Reagan won his second term in a landslide. Contrast that with Bush, who didn't even win his first term, and won his second by a slim 60,000 votes in Iowa.
All this protest quashing is embarrassing for Bush and his chorus of apologist-supplicants, but the fact of the matter is that he is, and remains, a dreadfully unpopular president despite the grandiose conviction that he has inherited the Reaganite mantle.
April 21, 2006 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with LaFollette Prog here.
The obvious point that Larry is making here is that the US under Bush is becoming more like China (and maybe Putin's Russia) in alarming ways.
Scripted public events, fake letters to the editor, paid shills posing as editorial writers, public lies as official policy, etc etc, reveal a decidedly totalitarian bent. The powers wielded by a Hu or a Putin probably draw envy from the Bush crowd, especially when inconvenient facts and images show up in the news media.
Genuine conservatives of the Reagan stripe should, if they have a shred of integrity, be sickened by what happened yesterday (among other things). I think we are already seeing some of them separate themselves from Bush-Cheney-Rove Republicanism.
We are dealing not with conservative ideologues but with criminals who care only about power - a "gangsta government" as hip hop record producer Russell Simmons once put it to a startled Charlie Rose. These people do not care about the national good, only that of the Party and themselves individually. The Bush Republicans' resemblance to Soviet Communists and the Politburo is growing more obvious by the day.
For some reason I'm reminded of the Reagan-era movie "Red Dawn", you know, the one where a Soviet invasion is foiled by a band of small town average Americans? Imagine if China invaded and conquered the US tomorrow, who do you think would be the first to enlist in a Vichy-style government? Who would be out in the woods forming a resistance? Based on Bush's Eunuch-like performance yesterday, I have a pretty good idea.
April 21, 2006 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
An apologetic Bush is somewhat of a surprise considering he has been criticized for never apologizing or admitting mistakes. Events such as yesterday's press conference was mostly just a photo/op signifying the so-called significant visit from Hu. The real negotiations are obviously not waged on a sunny White House lawn with the press present.
April 21, 2006 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our Pet Goat has accumulated a lot of cowardly acts over the five past five years. At what point do his supporters -- those gun-rack Republicans -- give up on him?
April 21, 2006 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are now threatening to charge her with intimidating a foriegn leader which carries 6 months.
Asking her to leave was ok, in fact she probably expected it, she had made her point. Then Bush could have used it as an object lesson to show Hu "see free speech is ok" Of course that would be a total reversal in attitude for him...
April 21, 2006 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's already starting. A Fox poll (yes, that Fox) that I heard yesterday showed Bush's numbers dropping below 70% (it was 66%) among Republicans for the first time. Breathtaking, isn't it. 'You can look it up', as they say.
April 21, 2006 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
drv
Although a bit late, I finally read today's Wall Street Journal and it states that the lady had acquired a press pass somehow despite having no legitimate access to it. Perhaps the most important bit, however, is the fact that she referred to China as "Taiwan," its Nationalist name from when Chiang Kai Shek ruled the nation before Mao. That is a fairly large insult. It would be akin to someone crashing a Kremlin news conference and calling for the Bolsheviks to stregthen the U.S.S.R. I can understand now why Bush apologized.
April 21, 2006 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the Berlin wall was a political divide - the Mexican wall an economic divide. In my book "want" trumps "ideology" in every instance.
But let's be honest. The victims of the Berlin wall "wanted" too, just like the Mexicans. I think the "differences" weaken a bit looking at it this way.
Neoboho
April 21, 2006 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's beyond me why your comment got such bad ratings. I can't find "rapturite" in the dictionary, but your point seems obvious - and I'm with you on that. Maybe it's because a lot of folks here didn't actually cast their vote for the rapturite - but that in itself doesn't explain low ratings to me, at least.
Neoboho
April 21, 2006 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably, the "F" word. Using intemperate language distracted readers from the main point, which I also agree with. Having an educated President as opposed to a dimwit would seem to be rather obviously a good idea.
Tom
April 22, 2006 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The way in which this incident was dealt with by the President and the MSM is shameful.
A proper response would have been to engage the woman, show that you can think on your feet, demonstrate to your vistor and the nation that you are secure in your position, actually talk to her.
No doubt it would have been awkward, it already was...and it is especially so the next day, when it now appears that the President not only apologized to the Chinese leader but that the woman may be prosecuted for a felony for her outburst.
Her motivation is irrelevant to the response of the President and the White House, though a previous response to this story was very revealing and very sickening...I can see her point, but again I speak to that which Bush could control and does control, the reaction.
A shameful one for our Republic in my view.
Oh, by the way...
As LBJ was fond of saying, "I'd rather have him in the tent pissin' out, than have him outside, pissin' in..."
Thank you Larry!
RGJ
April 23, 2006 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Umm, it usually isn't quite that simple. There are many elements in China that are pro terrorist in the Western sense.
Bush had no way of knowing if the reporter had other agendas besides the Falun Gong. The safest thing to do was reassure Hu and let the law enforcement authorities sort out the situation.
The real test is going to be what the judge in the felony trial does, not the arrest. Most amateur China watchers don't think anything will happen. The Chinese don't care about talk, you can safely say anything you want in China, and a lot of bloggers do. The Chinese only come after the people who try and organize opposition.
P.S. If you thought that what the China is doing to the Falun Gong was horrible, wait till you see their impementation of policies toward the elderly, starting in 2009.
April 23, 2006 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink