You just had to know this administration was going to pull these kind of acrobatics regarding the Vice President’s remarks on China’s “one-child” policy:
As I mentioned in my previous post, I contacted the White House this afternoon for an explanation of Vice President Biden’s stunning remarks regarding China’s odious one-child policy. Moments ago, I received the following on-the-record statement from Biden’s press secretary, Kendra Barkoff:
“The Obama Administration strongly opposes all aspects of China’s coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization. The Vice President believes such practices are repugnant. He also pointed out, in China, that the policy is, as a practical matter, unsustainable. He was arguing against the One Child Policy to a Chinese audience.”
Oh. So when he said “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family.” that really meant he was against it.
Who do they think they are trying to kid here?
He never once argued that the One Child Policy was unsustainable…just that expecting one child to support four elderly grandparents is unsustainable. He never once argued against the policy’s outcome…forced abortions and sterilization
If he does believe, as the White House states, that the policy is “repugnant”…do ya think he might of brought that up in the speech?
He didn’t….I wonder why? (h/t Hot Air)
…we owe ‘em a ton of money. Which means you can figure for yourself the likelihood of an American vice-president standing up in public and expressing his repugnance at the wholesale slaughter of China’s baby girls. A few lines before the passage above, I quote Jonathan Swift’s “Run Upon The Bankers”: “They have his soul, who have his bonds.” China has our bonds, and thus in a certain sense they have our soul. Or at any rate Joe Biden’s. The big theme of my book’s prologue is that it starts with the money but it never stops there. For three decades, US foreign policy “realists” have assured us that China’s economic liberalization would inevitably lead to political liberalization. As Biden’s wretched remarks suggest, the inverse was always more likely: the reality of China’s economic dominance is western acquiescence in its repulsive politics.
See author page
Biden brings to mind the Biblical admonishment:
Proverbs 22:7.
Obama can squawk all he wants from the safety of DC (or Martha’s Vineyard) but Joe Biden bit his tongue while IN China because he HAD to.
Jonathon Swift, (“They have his soul, who have his bonds.”) as well as William Shakespeare (“neither a borrower nor a lender be”) both knew their Bibles better than most college grad Americans today.
Loathe as I am to defend just about anything ‘Joey Plugs’ Biden says, I don’t think he was agreeing with China’s one child policy. In context, Biden seemed to be saying that China’s O.C.P. was a solution that he understood without agreeing and though the US is facing a similar problem of having too few workers supporting too many retirees, a proposition Biden sees as unsustainable, we are seeking a different, less severe, solution involving a safety net that China does not have. Further, he suggested that by working together, a possible less severe solution could be applied by both nations.
The comment in question, “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family,” is incomplete, out of context, and appears to me to be more of a diplomatic nature than any sinister agreement with a repugnant policy.
Answering a question about America’s debt rating downgrade, Biden spoke about the arrived at solution and the problems inherent in America (I’m guessing humaity and compassion) that made a Chinese type solution untenable.
“…The bottom line is we have to deal with two elements of our economy. One is what we call entitlement programs — long-term commitments to our people in the area of particularly Medicare. That is the safety net we have for people once they reach the age of 65 to be able to be assured that they have health care.
“And it is not sustainable without some changes in large part because we had what we call a baby boom, which doesn’t sound like much to Chinese — 40 million people is not a big deal, I know. (Laughter.) But adding 40 million people to those who will benefit from the Medicare — Medicaid payment — Medicare payments has put the program in a position where changes have to be made.”
(…Here is obligatory paragraph blaming Republicans for failure of Obama plan…)
… I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”
And here is that all important ‘what was said next’ that is so often deleted from the news stories of late:
“So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.”
New-speak Primer:
No means No. except when Yes means No, and those other times when No means Yes.
Patriot’s are racists, baby-killers, and terrorists.
Terrorists are protestors and freedom fighters.
It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
Christians want to impose their religion on everyone, while Islam is a religion of peace.
For Democrats this can’t be any clearer, but conservatives “are too stupid” to understand it. /sarc
China’s one child policy is as about as effective as our policy “breed em even if you or our government can’t feed em”. One grown adult child can’t support two parents, and four grandparents, and six grown adult children on welfare, and all the secondary government programs can’t support two parents, and four grandparents here in American. I guess he knew he did not have a counter argument. As for sterilization, well I am all for it. Lets start with Nancy, Maxine, Debbie S., Barney franks,Sharpton, mothers and fathers who killed their kids,….. never mind it would take me months to complete the list. But not me of course!
@Gary G. Swenchonis
I’m pretty sure that Pelosi, Waters, Feinstein and B.Boxer aren’t going to be pushing out any more babies. Nor is it likely that Barney will be passing his genes to a child. As for Al S., I wouldn’t trust that weasel around any female capable of giving birth, however I expect his oily sleaziness serves as it’s own form of birth control. (Sharpton is one of the few politicians who makes my skin crawl just by hearing his sanctimonious banter.)
@Ditto: Good point! But maybe just for good measure? And your right on the money on A. Sharpton. I don’t even know why some Fox gives this creep any airtime at all.