\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

Biden Veers Off Script on Taiwan. It’s Not the First Time.

Biden Veers Off Script on Taiwan. It’s Not the First T...
Tan theater
  05/24/22
You know Biden was one of the original authors of the Taiwan...
swollen yellow whorehouse macaca
  05/24/22
did you know all kikes should he thrown into a volcano?
soul-stirring tanning salon
  05/24/22
your logic is flawless
swollen yellow whorehouse macaca
  05/24/22
...
soul-stirring tanning salon
  05/24/22
And non-senile Biden pointed out the Act did not have an &ld...
burgundy crotch corner
  05/25/22
...
violet stage
  05/25/22
maybe he's having trouble reading the original script notes ...
soul-stirring tanning salon
  05/24/22
...
up-to-no-good friendly grandma
  05/24/22
“Since reaching the White House, Mr. Biden has largely...
burgundy crotch corner
  05/24/22
Barry Moyer Washington, DC 44m ago "Joe" says...
Dun cruise ship scourge upon the earth
  05/24/22
...
up-to-no-good friendly grandma
  05/24/22
*chill offhanded comments *causes WWW III*
startling electric furnace address
  05/24/22
They're not sending their best
Fighting bat-shit-crazy state ratface
  05/25/22
It will not matter. The result will be the same.
wine odious cuckold feces
  05/26/22


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: May 24th, 2022 1:18 PM
Author: Tan theater

Biden Veers Off Script on Taiwan. It’s Not the First Time.

Offhand remarks that vary from the official talking points have become a feature of the Biden presidency, even as they leave his staff scrambling to spin them away afterward.

https://nyti.ms/3lA6w0u

SEOUL — Maybe President Biden isn’t speaking off script after all. Maybe he just doesn’t think much of the script.

Offhand remarks that vary from the official talking points have become a feature, not a bug, of the Biden presidency, as he demonstrated again on Monday when he dispensed with decades of “strategic ambiguity” and indicated that he would militarily defend Taiwan against attack by China.

Each time he says what he really thinks, there is the ritual cleanup brigade dispatched by the White House to pretend that he did not really say what he clearly articulated — or that even if he did, it did not really amount to a change in policy. But then Mr. Biden, unperturbed and unapologetic, goes out and does it all over again.

His remarks on Taiwan on Monday were just the latest instance of a president saying out loud what is on his mind even if it leaves his staff scrambling to spin it away afterward. In March, he called President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a war criminal (just his opinion, not a legal conclusion, aides quickly explained). Then days later, he ad-libbed at the end of a speech that Mr. Putin “cannot remain in power” (just an observation, they said, not a call for regime change).

This was not even the first time since he became president that Mr. Biden has said he would come to the defense of Taiwan militarily, a commitment that other presidents traditionally kept vague so as to leave China guessing while not boxing in the United States. In fact, it was the third time Mr. Biden has said so, making the nothing-to-see-here White House demurrals that much harder to sell.

“Biden has always been more open about his thinking than most politicians,” said David Axelrod, who saw that up close as President Barack Obama’s senior adviser while Mr. Biden was vice president. “Everyone’s strength is their weakness. His strength is authenticity. His weakness is he’s sometimes more willing than his staff would like to share his thoughts.”

None of this should come as much of a surprise to anyone who followed Mr. Biden’s nearly half-century career as a senator and vice president. For many years, under the definition of “gaffe” in the Washington political dictionary was a picture of Mr. Biden. “Gaffe machine,” in fact, was a common description, sometimes said with affection, sometimes with derision.

But presidential freelancing carries more consequences than when a senator or even a vice president does it. A president’s words are scrutinized to a forensic degree by politicians, diplomats and intelligence agencies around the globe searching for meaning and endeavoring to predict future actions. Any variation from past comments or official policy statements is accorded great weight, whether it should be or not.

Since reaching the White House, Mr. Biden has largely avoided some of the cringe-inducing comments that got him in trouble in the past, such as when he described Mr. Obama as the first Black candidate for president “who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Instead, the ad hoc remarks that have stirred controversy seem to be more in the category of the columnist Michael Kinsley’s legendary definition of a gaffe. “A gaffe,” he famously wrote, “is when a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.”

Mr. Biden’s latest comment on Taiwan came during a news conference with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan during a visit to Tokyo. Asked about Taiwan, Mr. Biden at first stuck close to the traditional formula, saying that American policy on Taiwan “has not changed at all” and that the United States supported the island against Chinese aggression. “We stand firmly with Japan and with other nations that — not to let that happen,” he said, keeping purposefully vague.

His aides were satisfied with that. No trouble there. But then Nancy Cordes of CBS News followed up. She noted that Mr. Biden had ruled out direct American military involvement in the Ukraine war and asked if by contrast he was “willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that.”

“Yes,” Mr. Biden replied. “That’s the commitment we made.”

That’s when administration officials around the room took notice.

“The idea that it can be taken by force, just taken by force, is just not appropriate,” Mr. Biden added, referring to Taiwan. “It would dislocate the entire region and be another action similar to what happened in Ukraine. And so it’s a burden that is even stronger.”

By that point, Mr. Biden’s staff knew he had gone further than it would have liked and sprang into damage control, cranking out with practiced efficiency the obligatory clarifying statement declaring that “our policy has not changed” and that Mr. Biden had merely “reiterated” America’s commitment “to provide Taiwan with the military means to defend itself.”

But Mr. Biden’s comment went beyond providing military means for Taiwan to defend itself and was widely seen as suggesting direct American military involvement.

Mr. Biden has ignored the strategic ambiguity of his predecessors with regard to China and Taiwan before. Last August, while reassuring allies that “we would respond” if there were an attack against a fellow NATO member, he added, “Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with Taiwan.”

Taiwan, however, has never been granted the same U.S. security guarantees as Japan, South Korea or America’s NATO partners, so the comment was seen as significant. Two months later, Mr. Biden was asked during a CNN town hall if the United States would protect Taiwan from attack. “Yes, we have a commitment to do that,” he said.

Mr. Biden’s improvisation in Tokyo stirred a mix of reactions back in Washington, where some political leaders praised his candid support for an ally while others mocked him for indiscipline.

“President Biden’s statement that if push came to shove the U.S. would defend Taiwan against communist China was the right thing to say and the right thing to do,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, wrote on Twitter.

On the other hand, Tommy Hicks Jr., a Republican National Committee co-chairman and close ally of former President Donald J. Trump, saw incompetence not courage. “Another clean-up job from the Biden spin room,” he wrote. “He cannot go overseas without saying something that his team has to walk back minutes later. It’s reckless and embarrassing.”

Mr. Trump, of course, was far more prone than Mr. Biden to issue provocative, off-the-cuff and unvetted statements at odds with traditional American policy. At various points, he threatened war with North Korea, Venezuela and Iran; castigated American allies like Germany, Japan, Canada and South Korea; and defended adversaries like Mr. Putin.

But even some in Washington who believe Mr. Biden has gone a long way toward restoring a more conventional, responsible foreign policy were nonetheless troubled by the seeming disconnect between the president and his staff, with some blaming his aides for undercutting their boss rather than ratifying his comments.

“Does anyone at the #WhiteHouse actually respect the words of @POTUS?” Representative Adam Kinzinger, an anti-Trump Republican from Illinois, wrote on Twitter. “Biden said we would defend #Taiwan, and the staff AGAIN walks back the Presidents own words! He needs to fire everyone who does this.”

That does not appear in the offing. To the extent that his aides issue clarifications after his comments, they presumably do so with his permission or at least acquiescence. But the practice has not served as a deterrent either and, for good or bad, does not seem likely to any time soon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44564778)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 24th, 2022 1:19 PM
Author: swollen yellow whorehouse macaca

You know Biden was one of the original authors of the Taiwan Relations Act?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44564789)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 24th, 2022 1:20 PM
Author: soul-stirring tanning salon

did you know all kikes should he thrown into a volcano?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44564798)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 24th, 2022 1:25 PM
Author: swollen yellow whorehouse macaca

your logic is flawless

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44564832)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 24th, 2022 1:25 PM
Author: soul-stirring tanning salon



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44564837)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 25th, 2022 9:53 AM
Author: burgundy crotch corner

And non-senile Biden pointed out the Act did not have an “obligation” to defend Taiwan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2001/05/02/not-so-deft-on-taiwan/2adf3075-ee98-4e70-9be0-5459ce1edd5d/

Not So Deft On Taiwan

Joseph R. Biden Jr.May 2, 2001

Words matter, in diplomacy and in law.

Last week President Bush was asked if the United States had an obligation to defend Taiwan if it was attacked by China. He replied, "Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would."

The interviewer asked, "With the full force of the American military?"

President Bush replied, "Whatever it took" to help Taiwan defend itself.

A few hours later, the president appeared to back off this startling new commitment, stressing that he would continue to abide by the "one China" policy followed by each of the past five administrations.

Where once the United States had a policy of "strategic ambiguity" -- under which we reserved the right to use force to defend Taiwan but kept mum about the circumstances in which we might, or might not, intervene in a war across the Taiwan Strait -- we now appear to have a policy of ambiguous strategic ambiguity. It is not an improvement.

The United States has a vital interest in helping Taiwan sustain its vibrant democracy. I remain as committed today to preserving Taiwan's autonomy as I was 22 years ago when I cast my vote in favor of the Taiwan Relations Act, which obligates the United States to provide Taiwan "with such defense articles and defense services . . . as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability." I remain committed to the principle that Taiwan's future must be determined only by peaceful means, consistent with the wishes of the people of Taiwan.

What is the appropriate role for the United States? The president's national security adviser last Wednesday claimed that "the Taiwan Relations Act makes very clear that the U.S. has an obligation that Taiwan's peaceful way of life is not upset by force."

No. Not exactly. The United States has not been obligated to defend Taiwan since we abrogated the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty signed by President Eisenhower and ratified by the Senate. The Taiwan Relations Act articulates, as a matter of policy, that any attempt to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means would constitute "a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area" and would be, "of grave concern to the United States."

The act obliges the president to notify Congress in the event of any threat to the security of Taiwan, and stipulates that the president and Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, an appropriate response by the United States.

So, if the choice is between an "obligation" and a "policy," what is all the fuss about?

As a matter of diplomacy, there is a huge difference between reserving the right to use force and obligating ourselves, a priori, to come to the defense of Taiwan. The president should not cede to Taiwan, much less to China, the ability automatically to draw us into a war across the Taiwan Strait. Moreover, to make good on the president's pledge, we would almost certainly want to use our bases on Okinawa, Japan.

But there is no evidence the president has consulted with Japan about an explicit and significant expansion of the terms of reference for the U.S.-Japan Security Alliance. Although the alliance provides for joint operations in the areas surrounding Japan, the inclusion of Taiwan within that scope is an issue of the greatest sensitivity in Tokyo. Successive Japanese governments have avoided being pinned down on the issue, for fear of fracturing the alliance.

As a matter of law, obligations and policies are also worlds apart. The president has broad policymaking authority in the realm of foreign policy, but his powers as commander in chief are not absolute. Under the Constitution, as well as the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act, the commitment of U.S. forces to the defense of Taiwan is a matter the president should bring to the American people and Congress.

I was quick to praise the president's deft handling of the dispute with China over the fate of the downed U.S. surveillance aircraft.

But in this case, his inattention to detail has damaged U.S. credibility with our allies and sown confusion throughout the Pacific Rim.

Words matter.

The writer, a U.S. senator from Delaware, is the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44570048)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 25th, 2022 10:02 AM
Author: violet stage



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44570104)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 24th, 2022 1:20 PM
Author: soul-stirring tanning salon

maybe he's having trouble reading the original script notes in Mandarin

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44564794)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 24th, 2022 1:21 PM
Author: up-to-no-good friendly grandma



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44564809)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 24th, 2022 1:27 PM
Author: burgundy crotch corner

“Since reaching the White House, Mr. Biden has largely avoided some of the cringe-inducing comments that got him in trouble in the past,”

Really?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44564845)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 24th, 2022 1:28 PM
Author: Dun cruise ship scourge upon the earth

Barry Moyer

Washington, DC

44m ago

"Joe" says things. He's been saying things for decades, and we elected him our President anyway. Roll with it. You remember the former guy, right? He said things too. Hateful, hurtful, obscene, and wrong things. And he DID things. Really bad things. And he's still doing them.

Count your blessings, America. We've had some really terrible presidents and Joe isn't one of them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44564855)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 24th, 2022 1:40 PM
Author: up-to-no-good friendly grandma



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44564925)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 24th, 2022 1:30 PM
Author: startling electric furnace address

*chill offhanded comments *causes WWW III*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44564874)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 25th, 2022 9:57 AM
Author: Fighting bat-shit-crazy state ratface

They're not sending their best

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44570078)



Reply Favorite

Date: May 26th, 2022 4:14 PM
Author: wine odious cuckold feces

It will not matter. The result will be the same.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5115719&forum_id=2#44578948)