Dana Peroxide Calls On China To Refrain From Non-Violence
Q China sent more troops into Tibet to crack down on the demonstrators. The United States have any reaction to that?
MS. PERINO: I hadn’t heard about that development. What I can tell you is that last night Secretary Rice spoke to the Chinese Foreign Minister to very directly reiterate our views and concerns about the situation and told the Chinese that we would urge restraint in dealing with protestors, to refrain from non-violence [sic] and then Secretary Rice informed the President this morning of that conversation.
President FreedomAgenda Supports Dictators
Q Dana, back on China for a moment. I know you’ve said in the past that President Bush attending the Olympics, that he’s really doing so just as a sports fan and not to make any kind of political statement. But can you really separate the two? Can you really sort of divorce the two? He is obviously the leader of the United States. And for him to be attending, many people say it’s impossible not to be there as a political statement.
MS. PERINO: One, the President — one of the things the President has said also in regards to this is that any country who’s going to be hosting the Olympics will have a bright light shined upon it. And it is a chance for that country to put its best face forward, and it’s also a chance for other countries to learn more about the country.
And we are very concerned about what’s happening in Tibet, and we have expressed those concerns. And that’s something that President Bush and Secretary Rice can do that other citizens, concerned citizens around the world aren’t able to do, just because they’re not elected as a head of state. But the President, as head of state, has spoken very frankly to President Hu, and Secretary Rice has done the same with her counterparts, and we will continue to.
[snip]
Q Follow on that? There is ample precedent for kind of a politicization of the Olympics. In 1980 the U.S. boycotted altogether because the host country, Russia, had invaded Afghanistan. Does the President think — intend to go to Beijing and have absolutely no political voice at all while he’s in China?
MS. PERINO: Actually, I think if you look back to some of the things he’s said before, that it — on a trip like that, he would make it a priority to have a meeting and a conversation with President Hu, which is something, again, that I said that he as a head of state is able to do, that other people aren’t able to do.
Big Time’s “So”
Q Dana, can I just follow on our colleague Martha Raddatz’s interview with the Vice President? Let’s set aside the meaning of the word “so” for a second, and get to something the Vice President then said about fluctuations in the public opinion polls: “You can’t be blown off course by fluctuations in public opinion polls.” That would suggest that at any point in recent memory that the American public has been behind the war. It’s not that there’s been fluctuations in polls; it’s been different degrees of opposition to the war. So is the Vice President saying it really doesn’t matter what the American public thinks about the war?
MS. PERINO: No, I don’t think that’s what he’s saying, and obviously I haven’t spoken to the Vice President since he’s traveling today and was in Kabul visiting with President Karzai a the request of the President. But what he went on to say is that President should not make decisions based on polls.
[snip]
Q So at what point — I mean, I guess I just — there is the impression that the Vice President doesn’t care about what the American people think in policy like that. Is that a wrong impression? And does the President share that impression?
MS. PERINO: I think that is the wrong impression. I think that the Vice President and the President both, together, all of us across the administration, would like for people to support the President’s decisions. We realize that that’s unrealistic, especially in a time of war — and in particular this war.
Dana Left An Opening For Helen
Q The American people are being asked to die and pay for this, and you’re saying they have no say in this war?
MS. PERINO: I didn’t say that, Helen. But, Helen, this President was elected —
Q Well, what it amounts to is you saying we have no input at all.
MS. PERINO: You had input. The American people have input every four years, and that’s the way our system is set up.
Q Every four years.
MS. PERINO: And we listen to —
Q It sounds familiar.
MS. PERINO: — different points of view. The President, in fact, had many meetings with members of Congress leading up to his decision about the surge.
Q Supposed to be a government for the people, of the people, by the people?
MS. PERINO: I would submit to you that people across America, if asked what type of a President do you want: one that stands on principle or that one that chases polls? And I think that they would want —
Q What’s the principle of going to war against the people who did nothing to us?
MS. PERINO: Helen, the President went to war to remove Saddam Hussein. He talked all about this yesterday in his speech. I’ll refer you to that.
Where’s Osama?
Q As far as Osama bin Laden and our national security is concerned, he has issued another tape and warning Europe and it may affect the United States. And also, yesterday Senator Obama called on the President to bring Osama bin Laden, who is in Pakistan. Does he think he’s still alive, Osama bin Laden?
MS. PERINO: I would put it this way. The intelligence community analyzed the tape. They do believe that that was his voice. So that would mean that for all things — for all that we know, that he is still alive. And the President has a very aggressive hunt on for Osama bin Laden.
od
Someone please ask Dana how the American people are supposed to have enough information to “have input” if the President blatantly lies to them before elections in order to tip the scales:
“Q Thank you, Mr. President. Last week you told us thatSecretary Rumsfeld will be staying on. Why is the timing right now for this, and how much does it have to do with the election results?
THE PRESIDENT: Right. No, you and Hunt and Keil came in the Oval Office, and Hunt asked me the question one week before the campaign, and basically it was, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? And my answer was, they’re going to stay on. And the reason why is I didn’t want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer.”
I understand that we have a 50 year history of the cold war / iron curtain and all that. I understand that China has a growing economy.
But could someone give me a logical reason why it was so important to the conservatives to boycott the olympics in Russia but it is so important that we not boycott them in China?
Maple,
Perhaps it’s because China has our (figurative) nutsack in a vise, what with loaning us all our money and all…
Bush also has quite a few buddies who have more than just their nutsacks in the Chinese vise grip. American corporations have billions invested in China.
And what, pray tell, do their dollars buy? Why American consumers purchase Chinese slave labor, toxic toys and food products, and cheap plastic garbage ultimately destined to float for thousands of years in big lazy circles around the Pacific Ocean.
Bush would never say anything bad about China. Doesn’t pay to piss off the landlord.
So this is why the Republicans are so big on throwing national elections. As far as they’re concerned, a national election is the only time the President is required to listen to the voice of the people, and the only thing the people are allowed to say at such a point is, “I trust you and whatever you subsequently decide that you’re going to do, even if you don’t give us a hint, when we’re voting, that you’re going to be doing certain things.”
What they really want is to be free of the troublesome people altogether — I suppose that’s the ultimate goal, to be a dictatorship that doesn’t even bother with the fiction of elections.
Nora, I’m sure you saw the Cheney interview where he was told that most of the people disagreed (its on TP). Cheney’s answer was a short and succint, “So?”
What they really want is to be free of the troublesome people altogether — I suppose that’s the ultimate goal, to be a dictatorship that doesn’t even bother with the fiction of elections.
What they really want is to be free of the troublesome people altogether — I suppose that’s the ultimate goal, to be a dictatorship that doesn’t even bother with the fiction of elections.
Posted by: Nora | March 21, 2008 at 07:32
Nora, I’m sure you saw the Cheney interview where he was told that most of the people disagreed (its on TP). Cheney’s answer was a short and succint, “So?”
Nora, I’m sure you saw the Cheney interview where he was told that most of the people disagreed (its on TP). Cheney’s answer was a short and succint, “So?”
Posted by: MapleStreet | March 21, 2008 at 09:33
His answer and attitude reminds me of that old classic BBC series I, Claudius when the emperor Caligula shouted back to the populace “if you all had one neck I”d hack it”
No impeachment means never having to say you’re sorry.