"Pay close attention to that man behind the curtain!"

Friday, May 21, 2004

World media kowtows to Beijing, echoes their lies

Bullies play victim
A current Google news search for "Chinese Media Slam Taiwan President" finds a story with that title repixelated at least 33 times by media outlets ranging from the Atlanta Journal Constitution to the San Jose Mercury News to the San Francisco Chronicle to the Guardian, UK.

Out of all the statements contained within that article, there is probably only one (questionably) positive-sounding statement which says that the White House called Chen Shui-bian's inaugural address "responsible and constructive" -- as if the White House has any credibility about anything.

The rest of the article panders to China, which acts as if Taiwan is the bully. Here are some examples [with emphasis added]:
Chinese state media branded Taiwan's president a "slippery politician" ... While most newspapers featured Chen Shui-bian on their front pages, the stories focused more on protests generated by his swearing-in Thursday after a disputed election victory. Many also carried interviews with academics denouncing Chen's motives for the inaugural address. ... An editorial in the China Daily proclaimed: "Chen Shui-bian's latest offer of 'goodwill' turns out to be another sham."

"His latest inaugural address is once again gaudily decorated with such 'universal human values' as 'public welfare,' 'freedom and democracy,' as well as 'peace and goodwill,'" the editorial said. "The very latest, and the most beguiling words of a slippery politician."

A statement issued by the Foreign Ministry hours after he took office called him the "biggest threat to the current peace and stability" in the region.

"Damn that Chen Shui-bian" for "making China" aim all those missiles (more than 500 of 'em) at him, eh?

If you want something a little more revealing, try reading the inaugural speech for yourself. (Basic understanding of Taiwan's political situation and the ability to think for yourself required. Batteries not included.)

No truth, no pan-blues
My wife was wondering aloud earlier tonight where the surviving victims of the "228 incident" and Taiwan's "White Terror" era have been these days and why they aren't out counterprotesting Lien Chan and James Soong's so-called search for the "truth" of "why President Chen Shui-bian didn't just fall down and die" when he was shot the day before the March 20 election.

Despite their age, the people affected directly by those incidents are the ones who could best shout down Lien and Soong, who are/were members of a party which ruled Taiwan for 50 years -- most of that time with an iron fist. Everything they do reveals how they now pretend to be "victims" of the very people they bullied.

How could they possibly know what being a victim is?

Turnabout is fair play, ain't it?
I wonder how Lien and Soong would change their definition of what is and isn't "reasonable" if the pan-greens were to ask them, "Did you have Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu shot?" When (If?) they were to deny it, the pan-greens would tell them that they weren't satisfied with the answer and would not be satisfied until they revealed the "truth" and produced the killer. In the meantime, they would be instantly rendered personae non grata by the mere fact that the question had been asked.

Doesn't that sound just about right, according to the rules as the pan-blues have written them?

"Must read" related links:
* Unanswered Crimes, Short Term Memories and Rose-colored Glasses: An Open Letter to the Strawberry Generation
* Only KMT merits the 'fascist' label
* The full text (English translation) of Chen Shui-bian's May 20, 2004 inaugural speech
eXTReMe Tracker
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?