Did China reply to Rice, "So!"

Most likely a slip of the tongue, but a pretty damn stupid slip.

par for the course

It was clearly a slip of the tongue. And why would any statement of a press spokesman reveal a "peak into the real soul" of the administration. Must be a slow news day for you to focus on this

I still find any government that kills innocent "foreigners" on their own land, has no right to say anything about human rights. That includes my own government's camel chasing and tail wagging in Afghanistan. For some reason, western nations seem to think that they have some kind of authority to chastise everyone and anyone, like they are some kind of parent.

Dana can slip her tongue over me any time.

WAR IS PEACE

VIOLENCE IS NON-VIOLENCE.

What an effed up bunch of amateurs this whitehouse houses! It's like Spanky and Our Gang running the country, except Spanky and the gang had some morals, honesty, and humorous value... the Bu$h cabal have nothing but crimes and misdemeanors, as well as lots and lots of lies and incompetence and probably incontinence too...

Perino: Tibet? Is that the tiny island east of China?

leftybydesign @ 14:

this is a weak story. she obviously misspoke. no real news happening?

Bing bing bing

If this was more than a mis-statement,

it would be worthy of Crooksandliars.com

Did Rice recommend "free speech zones"?

we would urge restraint in dealing with protestors, to refrain from non-violence and then Secretary Rice informed the President this morning of that conversation.

i.e., CRUSH!!!! KILL!!!!! DESTROY!!!!! FEED PENNY TO THE ROBOT!!!!

See this is what happens when peroxide pierces the scalp. Words get all messed up and stupid things exit the mouth.

Leslie @ 20:

Did Rice recommend "free speech zones"?

Word on the 'net has rumours flying about a possible VP run for Condomhead RiceARoni............wonder who's team she'll be on?!

We lost our moral authority to lecture any country on human rights the day we invaded Iraq.

Clearly she's just thinking "engage in non-violence" and "refrain from violence," but the two got mixed together in that compact little brain of hers.

Remember this is the same idiot lady who thought that the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis were the same thing, and thought it was hilarious that she was mistaken.

It's like Bush's comment, "Our enemies are resourceful, and so are we; they never cease thinking of ways to harm our country, and neither do we." It's an example of his inability to keep a thought straight in his head and to even notice what he's saying; I don't think he's actually thinking "we never cease in thinking of ways of harming this country," since the idiot believes he's actually doing great things for this country.

It's funny as a little "ha, see, this is what they really mean" joke, but not as a serious psychological question (or a "peak into the souls of the Bush administration"). It's the sort of thing that would be on a slow episode of the Daily Show, and even then only for a moment. It really doesn't deserve a full C&L post.

"...Success is not no violence." --George W. Bush, on Iraq, Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007

Matt Hussein in Texas @ 29:

Blue Lensman @ 4:

We're also refraining from non-torture in Gitmo!

Thanks. Now I have to clean my keyboard of the soda that came through my nose when I laughed! :)

Also please refrain from non-lying.

Happenstance @ 35:

Be fair. We can't really criticize China. After all, thanks to Li'l Dubbie, they OWN our asses. See? They have a signed receipt!

"Al Gore and George W. Bush are exactly the saaaaaaame!!"
--Progressives, 2000

Bill Clinton's administration granted China favored nation status.

Blue Lensman @ 4:

We're also refraining from non-torture in Gitmo!

lmao....!! :)

Freudian slip, definitely.

ThunderMonkey @ 36:

Happenstance @ 35:

Be fair. We can't really criticize China. After all, thanks to Li'l Dubbie, they OWN our asses. See? They have a signed receipt!

"Al Gore and George W. Bush are exactly the saaaaaaame!!"
--Progressives, 2000

Bill Clinton's administration granted China favored nation status.

And Bushco allows them to poison our children with lead and date rape drug coated toys.

"rioters raged through Lhasa, and Tibetans are claiming more than 130 dead"

I was in Lhasa the day the rioting broke out.

The one thing we know for sure is that 12 Han Chinese were stabbed or burned to death by Tibetans. Tibetans have attacked civilians and police with violence in many other places, as well. Claims about deaths due to Chinese PAP actions are (yes, unfortunately info is hard to get due to the stupid Chinese censorship) just that: Claims, and unproven, and by the Tibetan government-in-exile, at that, hardly an uninterested party. Yet the Western media is treating the claims as fact.

Let's not forget that the Dalai Lama's government, prior to destabilization by the British, was a despotic theocracy.

John West @ 43:

Step back, folks! I'm gettin' ready ta refrain from nonviolence again!

You better watch out, before I don't get non-violent on your ass.

Richard @ 5:

It was clearly a slip of the tongue. And why would any statement of a press spokesman reveal a "peak into the real soul" of the administration. Must be a slow news day for you to focus on this

Every time Bush slips up like this, it turns out he was telling the truth. We were wrong in thinking it was a slip up.

dennis @ 46:

Dr. Acula @ 39:

What a fucking pea brain. It's no wonder she works for presidunce shit-fer-brains!!!

C'mon, Doc, she just misspoke. She says a lot of things — millions of words a day — so if she misspoke, that was just a misstatement, a minor blip. She was more than likely sleep-deprived.

You mean like Shillary misspoke about Bosnia? She speaks "millions" of words per day also!

Terry740 @ 43:

ThunderMonkey @ 36:

Happenstance @ 35:

Be fair. We can't really criticize China. After all, thanks to Li'l Dubbie, they OWN our asses. See? They have a signed receipt!

"Al Gore and George W. Bush are exactly the saaaaaaame!!"
--Progressives, 2000

Bill Clinton's administration granted China favored nation status.

And Bushco allows them to poison our children with lead and date rape drug coated toys.

What Clinton did seems rather tame in comparison to what this administration allows them to get away with...

dennis @ 52:

Dr. Acula @ 51:

dennis @ 46:

Dr. Acula @ 39:

C'mon, Doc, she just misspoke. She says a lot of things — millions of words a day — so if she misspoke, that was just a misstatement, a minor blip. She was more than likely sleep-deprived.

You mean like Shillary misspoke about Bosnia? She speaks "millions" of words per day also!

Those were Hillary's words, yes. I've been looking for that thread here but must've missed it somehow.

But the real question is when was Hillary sleep deprived? She told the same "fish story" at least two other times over the past year or so.

And I thought nobody could be more fun than Puffy McMoonFace. Way to go Little Lying Sack of Cute!!

You're raising the bar on this Administration's incompetence.

Coming from Chicago, I know that Chinese government is not there to create disorder. The Chinese government is there to preserve disorder.

They've got colossal nerve, considering what just happened to Tibetan protesters in New York City. Watch this:

http://infowars.net/articles/march2008/250308Protesters.htm

The real question is since when have Dalai Lama been the speaker for non-violence?

Last time I checked, it's Richard Nixon who stopped CIA's funding to Dalai Lama...

Try this one "CIA in Tibet"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOhDBo6x2ZY

Sorry, the link should be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOhDBo6x2ZY

youtube search CIA in Tibet

This is why I never understood the lyrics "I can't get no satisfaction." Who the hell wants that?

Andrew @ 31:

I don't think he's actually thinking "we never cease in thinking of ways of harming this country," since the idiot believes he's actually doing great things for this country.

Wow, well then you have an entirely different view on affairs than most of us. I think the idiot EXACTLY meant that.

He knows he's raping us.

SplendidOne @ 45:

Let's not forget that the Dalai Lama's government, prior to destabilization by the British, was a despotic theocracy.

So therefore the Tibetans are lying? A despotic theocracy back 100 years ago (when China was under the long fingernail of the despotic Empress Dowager), so therefore the Tibetans are lying about the Chinese military killing protesters in 2008? Your prejudice is RIDICULOUS.

I'm sure the Tibetans killed those Chinese, and I'm SURE the Chinese military has killed hundreds if not thousands of Tibetans, ruthlessly tried to destroy their culture, and are engaged in ethnic replacement, dispossessing Tibetans and moving in Han Chinese.

As usual, I applaud Speaker Pelosi for her immediate support of the Tibetan culture. Since the San Francisco Bay Area is an area of Tibetan resettlement in the face of the military gov't of China's pogroms, the Speaker is up-to-speed on the issue, and while no one blames the Chinese themselves for these events, NO ONE should doubt that the Chinese military dictatorship has engaged in ethnic cleansing both in Tibet and in the Moslem areas of the West.

Perino: "We lost at the Bay of Pigs, but we'll get 'em this time."

Dana obviously couldn't hear the question over the sound of the air whistling through her head

Weaseldog @ 72 "I saw the video of her statingthat the US would stand by, but I never heard this before. do you have an attribution to such an important claim?"

The claim is found in Peter Galbraith's "The End of Iraq," page 38 (hardback).

"It isn't much of a stretch. Right after she met with him, and delivered that message on behalf of the White House, she was whisked out of the country and reassigned."

Galbraith: "Not sensing an imminent crisis, Glaspie flew out of Baghdad on August 1 for her summer holiday." (same page)

"The idea that ambassadors just make up stuff and say it is the White House's position, is a stretch."

G: "The title of her reporting cable back to Washington, 'Saddam's Message of Friendship for President Bush,' reflected how gravely she had misread Saddam's intentions." (same page)

Galbraith does not buy the Glaspie connection, which G. says was a theory in the Arab press.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Iraqi government published a transcript of Saddam's meeting with Glaspie. Liberal critics of the first Bush administration seized on the transcript to suggest that U.S. diplomacy bore some responsibility for the invasion, implicitly questioning President Bush's judgment as he decided to pursue military action to oust Saddam from Kuwait. The Arab media went further, suggesting that President Bush had deliberately encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait to have an excuse to destroy the most powerful Arab state.

Viewed on their own, the Glaspie meeting and the subsequent messages to Saddam convey weakness, but cannot reasonably be seen as a green light to invade Kuwait. But Saddam did not evaluate these messages in isolation. He saw tehm in the context of American diplomacy toward Iraq since 1980. When he had invaded Iran, the U.S. Security Council, with President Carter's blessing, passed a resolution taht did not demand Iraqi withdrawal from occupied Iranian territory. President Reagan authorized intelligence sharing and other concrete assistance to Iraq's war effort. Iraq started using mustard gas on Iranian soldiers in 1983, and shortly thereafter the Reagan Administration began providing Saddam's regime with hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies. When Iraq attacked the U.S.S. Stark in 1987, President Reagan blamed Iran. And when Iraq gassed the Kurds in 1988, the Reagan Administration fiercely resisted congressional efforts to impose sanctions. A year later, the Bush Administration increased U.S. subsidies. Even on the eve of the invasion of Kuwait, the Bush Administration was defending Iraq against congressional efforts to impose sanctions.

It is not had to imagine how all this looked to Saddam Hussein. American policy confirmed his view of his own importance. The United States had acquiesced in his past transgressions, including grave breaches of international law. Saddam probably assumed that the United States would condemn the annexation of Kuwait, but eventually would accomodate to the new reality.

Bushco's actions subsequently shoot any real argument of legitimate foreign policy to shit. Did Bush I plan on invasion, in order to replace Hussein after he refused to do the oil pipeline to Jordan? Then why didn't they simply invade Iraq and take him out? And why did Schwarzkopf give Hussein his attack helicopters? In order for him to destroy the Marsh Arabs?

It looks like a war of attrition, Pentagon-style. Though I held with Galbraith for a long while, nowadays if you told me that Bushco was building a Iraqi starbase for Altaic battlecruisers, I would not bat an eye.

samdog @ 56:

Ethnic Chinese horribly attacked and beaten, their property destroyed or burned, and many many innocent people killed....I don't care what your politics are, innocent people being attacked in their homes and businesses is inexcusable.

Ethnic Chinese MOVED INTO TIBET by the Chinese gov't, which has long carried on such programs of ethnic cleansing.

It's not a unique Chinese evil, obviously. Economic resentment is an obvious result of such forced integration, and just as the Han Tibetans are not themselves guilty, most ethnic Tibetans are not on the streets doing those crimes.

What a rabid commentary, love the ALL CAPS! And, wow, calling someone with a different opinion "ridiculous" sounds like something from Fox News, eh?

1949 was not 100 years ago, and the Tibetan government-in-exile descends directly from the former despotic theocracy.

"So therefore the Tibetans are lying about the Chinese military killing protesters in 2008? Your prejudice is RIDICULOUS."

You show prejudice. Clearly you had chosen a "side" prior to these events. I went into this with open eyes and no pre-set opinions. The "therefore" is that the Tibetan government-in-exile is *not* an uninterested party and its statements - just like those of the Chinese government - should not be accepted as truth without further evidence.

"I'm sure the Tibetans killed those Chinese, and I'm SURE the Chinese military has killed hundreds if not thousands of Tibetans, ruthlessly tried to destroy their culture, and are engaged in ethnic replacement, dispossessing Tibetans and moving in Han Chinese."

The more I know, the less I am sure of. Sounds like your knowledge grows in a different way.

"As usual, I applaud Speaker Pelosi for her immediate support of the Tibetan culture."

Apparently you do have a history on this and are in fact prejudging the instant situation. I rather think that Pelosi's turf contains a lot of people who have been swayed by the charismatic personality of the Dalai Lama.

"NO ONE should doubt that the Chinese military dictatorship has engaged in ethnic cleansing both in Tibet and in the Moslem areas of the West."

Really, no doubt? You are so sure of yourself and those statements. I am not so sure. I rather think you reveal some prejudice by calling the Chinese government a "military dictatorship": Somehow I think it probably does not fit into accepted definitions of such.

And I was just there. In Muslim areas and in Tibet.

"1949 was not 100 years ago,"

OK, if that was your reference, then it was sixty years ago. Few who are alive today were alive then.

"and the Tibetan government-in-exile descends directly from the former despotic theocracy."

Which is completely moot. The current Chinese gov't 'descends' directly from the mass-murderer Mao. Let's compare Mao's crimes to the Dalai Lama's, shall we?

"Clearly you had chosen a “side” prior to these events."

I am more or less neutral.

"I went into this with open eyes and no pre-set opinions."

Oh? In that case you do not have the background to judge what "we should remember" about Tibet's previous gov't.

“The more I know, the less I am sure of. Sounds like your knowledge grows in a different way."

You withdraw your statement? Tibet's previous gov't in 1949 is not the issue. China's right to Tibet is contested, by Tibetans. It is not surprising that there are riots.

"I rather think that Pelosi’s turf contains a lot of people who have been swayed by the charismatic personality of the Dalai Lama."

The Bay Area is also the largest population of Chinese in the United States.

“NO ONE should doubt that the Chinese military dictatorship has engaged in ethnic cleansing both in Tibet and in the Moslem areas of the West.”

"Really, no doubt?"

They do have a relocation program, and they are dispossessing ethnic Tibetans, and they have attacked Tibetan religion and culture. In the Muslim regions I have read of similar actions, most recently in Gary Gedes' new book, Kingdom of Ten Thousand Things. He traveled through NW China in 2001.

"And I was just there. In Muslim areas and in Tibet."

But while having just been there, you suggest that you have no real knowledge on which to base an opinion. I find that odd. Funny how the rabbit disappears down the hole when the hawk flies above.

"Let’s not forget that the Dalai Lama’s government, prior to destabilization by the British, was a despotic theocracy."

Let's not forget that you don't know what the facts are. Mao destroyed maybe 2 million Chinese (unless you count the famine caused by his stupid Great Leap Forward). The Dalai Lama only eats the children of the Han -- it is no comparison.

When were you last in China? My reading of the current news is that Tibetans are angry, and much of that anger is justifiable. But the preponderance of known violence is coming from Tibetans, not the Chinese government. I don't care for real world information but I do care about news headlines that suggest violence is coming from the folks who, so far, based on evidence, are the victims of the current violence. Bottom line for me: I don't much care for communism, but I care even less for theocracies.

There have been Han Chinese shops (with people inside of them) burned up. Han Chinese stabbed to death. Han Chinese police cars burned up. And Chinese government police stations burned up. I haven't yet read about any monasteries being burned up. Have you?

The "no real knowledge" implication is a fiction of your imagination, maybe, perhaps it is completely and intentionally made up? It is certainly not a valid statement of my opinion. I think I have some pretty decent knowledge, I just didn't come into the current situation with a "side" already chosen. You obviously did. Coming from someone who doesn't understand what a "military dictatorship" is, "no real knowledge" is an underwhelming insinuation.

Oh, and am I supposed to be the rabbit or the hawk? I always get that confused. Or is it the yak and the vulture? The yak climbs the mountain when the vulture flies above? Are the Tibetans the hawks/vultures and the Chinese the rabbits/yaks? Or vice versa. What's the opposite of "anthropomorphic?" :)

Have no fear, Condi and *blink*Pelosi*blinkblink* have it all covered.

You take the side of Bush & Co. We know who the bullies are.

SplendidOne @ 89:

You take the side of Bush & Co. We know who the bullies are.

I'm glad you have no response other than to be wrong.

If you think Bushco favors Tibetan freedom, that's HILARIOUS.

[Deleted. Trolling. And you're banned, too. Site Monitor]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of egregious China-bashing that goes on in this blog, in the comments sections and in other blogs and the comments there. I even recall a commenter (maybe on another liberal blog) say something recently like "We can all agree that Bush's America 7 years on is a disaster but, nonetheless, it's not half as bad as China". I have no doubt that there is a lot of journalistic prejudice against China. I've read a lot of reports recently regarding the events in Tibet and journalists casually drop words into their articles such as "xenophobia" to describe the Chinese government's attitude and "crack-down", a politically loaded word. Isn't a Government entitled to restore order? I'm sure there are other examples. My point is: these journalists proffer these extreme words and offer no proof or research to back them up, no fact-checking, other than revealing their own raw prejudices, their own blind acceptance of the neo-con world view.

"China daily", an English language daily newspaper published in Beijing, ran a story recently on how "The West" is misreporting the events in Tibet. One misleading article and photo published in a western newspaper, gives the impression that the police attacking the protestors in the photo were in Tibet. In fact, they were Nepalese policemen. Nepal isn't China. It's Nepal. Another picture had been cropped to remove a section of the photo clearly showing rioters throwing missiles of some sort (maybe stones, maybe not) at Chinese army trucks. Another photo has the caption with it saying that Chinese officers were carrying away a Tibetan rioter. In fact, the officers had saved the dazed and bloodied guy from the mob that was going on the rampage in Lhasa.

It's the old and overwhelming and intellectually-deadening narrative of Red China, to be feared, by all "freedom" loving peoples around the world. My own view is this fits into the neo-Con world view of "America is always right" and since China has the temerity to stand up to "America" more than it should, then it's clearly wrong. Sad to say, most of the "liberal" commenters on this blog (and the main posters too apparently) and on other blogs have bought into it.

Guys, don't you remember Iraq just 5 years ago? Don't you remember the run-up to that? When the neo-cons successfully hoodwinked the public into believing that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and that he had links with Al Qaeda, something Dick Cheney continued to claim for months after the conquest of Iraq in March 2003. Don't you think it's possible you're being hoodwinked again? Don't you think it's possible that you're just letting yourself slide into the "comfortable" neo-con world view of "them" versus "us", or "freedom"-loving people versus those other guys? The couch-potato world view of things so-to-speak. It makes for great drama but doesn't accord with the more pedestrian reality. Come on, people, WAKE UP!!.

The United States of America doesn''t care in the least about Tibet and the welfare and happiness of the Tibetan people. I mean your government. And, guess what!! The Dalai Lama doesn't care in the least about you guys either!! He's not interested in your agenda of "freedom". Don't forget that the Dalai Lama condoned serfdom in Tibet prior to his expulsion from Tibet in 1959. Before 1959, I understand, as Dalai Lama, he was running the place, to a large extent, and serfdom wasn't eradicated. And, I have just read now in the comments section that he disapproves of oral and anal sex (by extension, therefore, he's homophobic). Kinda reminds me of Zimbabwe President, Robert Mugabe. Don't believe the Dalai Lama just like you shouldn't have believed (but did) the bullshit trotted out by Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi in the months leading up to the Iraq war in March 2003. Bullshit such as Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were in cahoots and were doing a brisk business together, despite the fact that, like it or not, they were both on opposite sides of the political ideological spectrum.

People of the United States of America, you have been proven to be connable. The challenge for you now is not to allow yourselves to be dupped again.