"President Obama has faced a fair amount of criticism for his China trip. He was too deferential; he didn’t speak out enough on human rights; he failed to press Beijing firmly on revaluing its currency; he achieved no concrete results. The trip wasn’t all that we had hoped it would be".
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/opinion/21sat1.html?_r=1&hp
"The trip wasn't all you hoped it would be"? What, if anything, did he do right? The editorial's conclusion:
"President Obama was elected in part because he promised a more cooperative and pragmatic leadership in world affairs. We support that. The measure of the success (or failure) of his approach won’t be known for months, and we hope it bears fruit. But the American president must always be willing to stand up to Beijing in defense of core American interests and values."
"The measure of his success (or failure) won't be known for months"? Sorry, but 2009 is over, and Obama's foreign policy rates an F.
"The American president must always be willing to stand up in defense of core American interests and values"? Sorry, but this American president is too busy bowing, literally and figuratively, to tyrants.
No comments:
Post a Comment