Gen Clapper Testimony to Congress 10 Mar 11
Taking a break from the debate on Warden's article, Noticed this today on the news:
Intelligence chief James Clapper causes a stir with remarks on Moammar Kadafi and threats to U.S.
Gen Clapper (Director of National Intelligence) was testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee today. He was asked who the biggest threat to the US was - and answered China and Russia (sounds like he meant from a capabilities standpoint). He also said he expects Qaddafi to hang on based on better capabilities.
The administration is already walking back his comments:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-prevail-.html
Sen. Lindsay Graham has called for Clapper's resignation... interesting stuff.
V/R,
Cliff
1 Attachment(s)
enter the gift horse: the falsifying metaphysics of presents
There are those in the Asia-Pacific region who are convinced, or perhaps have convinced themselves, that the sometimes apparent US "incoherence" is actually a highly advanced and, uh, vigorous form of inscrutability.
Compares to: Wayang Kulit - Wikipedia
anticipating the future with baited breasts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Nah, we're just dumb and clumsy... :D
And the Chinese are predominantly lazy daydreamers, also overly sentimental. The coming mystifications of the 'Changlosphere' can only be imagined.
[title missing][insert clever title]
Red Dong 2: The Return of the Son of China's Emergence as a Superpower! The Middle Kingdom meets The Middle Finger!!:)
Uh, I'm gonna skedaddle now...
Possibly of interest:
Quote:
Another reason Chinese leaders give boring speeches is because they can. Giving interesting speeches - by the standards of Western speechmaking at any rate - has little upside and much potential downside: people might quote them out of context or misinterpret them, or the leader might mis-speak in an effort at extemporaneous rhetorical flourish, with various consequences that might be used against him in internal political power struggles. Also, rousing, inspirational speeches just don't fit with the Chinese style of political leadership. In Chinese culture, if you're already powerful, you don't want to act like there is a need to win anybody over. If you act like you care what people think of your speeches, you're admitting weakness. You leave it to loyal henchmen like Sha to say provocative things on your behalf, but avoid stooping to verbal sparring yourself. It also runs directly against Chinese culture for a powerful person to admit to being powerful or talk about being powerful. It's what you do, not what you say that counts.
Thomas Friedman gets the middle finger in the Middle Kingdom - Rebecca MacKinnon - Sept 9, 2007
***
Q & A With Rebecca MacKinnon: Internet in China - The New Yorker - Feb 22, 2011
***
Quote:
Rebecca MacKinnon is a former CNN journalist who headed the CNN bureaus in Beijing and later in Tokyo, before leaving television to become a blogger and co-founder of Global Voices Online. She is on the Board of Directors of the Global Network Initiative and the Committee to Protect Journalists, and is currently with the New America Foundation as a Bernard L. Schwartz fellow.
Rebecca MacKinnon - Wikipedia
