Costas interviews President Bush.
Is anyone watching this? My rough transcription:
Costas: What are your impressions so far?
Bush: First of all, I think the Chinese are being great hosts. The venues are fantastic. And our team’s fired up, and so am I. I’m excited to be here. It’s such a thrill to watch our men and women compete.
Costas: You met with the ballplayers before the basketball game tonight. What was their response to you?
Bush: Their response was, well, first of all… Obviously these are great stars. Their response was thanks for coming. We are really really honored to represent America. And I was impressed with them. And of course they put on a great performance.
Costas: Winning 101 to 70…. The opening ceremonies were glorious. There’s much to admire about China’s people, China’s culture, and its present accomplishments. But this remains an authoritarian state with an abysmmal human rights record. In the long run, is China’s rise irreconcilable with America’s interests?
Bush: No, in the long run, America better remain engaged with China, and understand that we can have a cooperative, constructive, yet candid relationship. It’s really important for future presidents to understand the relationship between China and the region, and it’s important to make sure that America is engaged with China–even though we may have some disagreements.
Costas: You met with President Hu Jintao, not just at the opening ceremony, but privately since then. Did you press him on the full array of American concerns? Human rights, press freedom, Tibet, China’s support of rogue regimes like Sudan and Myanmar–
Bush: –and North Korea and Iran.
Costas: It was all on the table?
Bush: Oh, absolutely. Every time, every time. You gotta undertsand something, Bob. I don’t need the Olympics to advance America’s agenda. I met with Hu Jintao a lot since I have been the president, and yeah, absol–yeah, had a full range of–and listen, we agree with them on a lot of things. And we disagree with them on things. And that’s the way the relationship is gonna be. It needs to be, as I mentioned, constructive and cooperative.
Costas: This past week, you restated America’s fundamental differences with China. But given China’s growing strength and America’s own problems, realistically, how much leverage and influence does the U.S. have here?
Bush: Well, first of all, I don’t see America having problems. I see America as a nation that is a world leader that has got great values. And leverage is–I don’t think you should look at the relationship as one of leverage, I think you ought to look at the relationship as one of constructive engagement, where you can find common areas, like North Korea and Iran, but also be in a position where they respect you enough to listen to your views on religious freedom and political liberty.
Costas: If these Olympics are as successful as they are shaping up to be, most people believe this only further legitimizes the ruling party in the minds of most Chinese citizens. And even absent true liberty as we understand it, the lives of hundreds of millions of Chinese people are much better than they once were. Therefore, what’s the party’s incentive to reform?
Bush: Well, first of all, if you’re a religious person, you understand that once religion takes hold in a society it can’t be stopped. And secondly I think the Olympics are going to serve as a chance to come and see China the way it is, and let the Chinese see the world, and interface, and have opportunity to converse with people from around the world. This is a very positive development, in my view, for peace. Who knows how China is going to progress. They’ve been through some very difficult political times, the cultural revolution, for one, where the leadership actually created violent anarchy as the society turned on itself. All I can tell you is that it’s important for the United States to be active in this part of the world with all countries, and to stay engaged with China.
(some discussion of the violence in Georgia…)
Costas: China is a nation that warmly received Omar al Bashir of Sudan, who has since been indicted by the international court on charges of genocide. Then this past week they revoke the visa of Joey Cheek, an exemplary Olympian, who had planned to come here not to protest China’s government but to call attention to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. What’s your reaction?
Bush: My reaction is I’m sorry Joey Cheek didn’t come. He’s a good man. Joey Cheek’s just got to know that I took the Sudanese message for him. My attitude is if you’ve got relations with Mr. Bashir, think about helping us solve the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. That was my messge to the Chinese government.
Costas: As you attempt to press these points with them, do you find Hu Jintao not just warm toward you personally, but is he receptive? Do you sense any movement?
Bush: It’s hard to tell. I mean, all I can tell you is that it is best to be in a position where a leader will listen to you. I went to church here. I’m sure the cynics say, well, it was just a state-sponsored church. On the other hand, it gave me a chance to say to the Chinese people, religion won’t hurt you. You ought to welcome religious people. And it gave me a chance to say to the government, why don’t you register the underground churches, and give them a chance to flourish? And he listened politely. I can’t read his mind. But I do know that every time I met with him I pressed the point.
Costas: Your father has long-standing connections to China. He was an envoy here even before we established an official ambassador’s position during the 1970s, and he is here with you on this trip, so there’s a connection, a family connection–
Bush: There’s a great connection. I remember riding my bike around Bejing in 1975–
Costas: –only bikes then, just about.
Bush: Unbelievable, how far this has changed. And he feels the same way. And we were honored when Hu Jintao invited my dad, and me, and Laura, and my sister, and my daughter, my brother for dinner, or lunch, it was just a great gesture of kindness. Bob, it’s very important for the American people to know that coming here gave me a chance to obviously root for our team–and you’ve captured that. But it’s also coming here is a sign of respect for the Chinese people. And this is a big, important nation. And we’ll have our differences, we’ll have our agreements, but in order to find common ground and to move the world toward peace, it is important for this country to show respect for the people of this country.
China is changing unbelievably in rapid fashion. I think it is positive that many dissidents (former)are participating in the Olympics and other business areas. The good news is that China needs all of its people to keep up with its phenomenal progress. The Olympics has motivated it to do something about pollution and other important matters.
China certainly does have its problems but we might look hypocritical in insisting on human rights when America is now flouting international rights as well as civil rights in this country.
Considering the past what is there to prevent us from being more optimistic about China?
I groaned when I saw Bush embracing a Chinese fellow worshipper and drawling “God is universal. God is love”. China is in the throes of a vast religious revival, including a Buddhist revival. Bush is fatuous and patronizing.
I’m beginning to wonder what position we are in as a nation to be saying anything to anybody about human rights or freedom of the press.
Costas did a great job interviewing Pres. Bush. Pres. Bush made one of the best decisions of his presidency by attending the Olympics, both for the US and the rest of the world. His church attendance was an effective symbol for the need for religious freedom. Much of what a president does is symbolic, and this happens to be one of the times when Bush used his power effectively for the US as well as China. With China having a population 4 times larger than ours, we must show a presence when it will mean the most for us as well as them—this was one of those times!
Pamela,
Exactly how is freedom of the press in the US being restricted? There are more books than you can count in the book stores that chroncile how supposedly awful Bush has been … there are news reports on TV, in the newspapers and magazines, etc., the DailyKos is a daily pain to the Bush amdinsitartion, s is the Huffington Report and other anti-Bush bloggers … Bush has been accused of ineptitude, of outright evil, of sending thousands to their deaths to beenfit his oil company friends, etc., etc., etc. … yet not a single newspaper has been shut down, not a single puiblisher’s presses smashed, not a single Tv station suddenly went off the air … Air Amnerica’s only problem is ratings–nobody’s listening to the liberal talk radio show …
How is our free press in any way being endangered?
Heartening to know that the great man has not only re-established the nature of American values in the world’s eyes but is traveling the world mouthing feel-good platitudes.
Hasn’t it been eight years yet? And will he really go away after that?
Paul – Original Faith
Pamela:
I hereby join Robert Reid in asking you: Specifically, how many newspapers, TV stations, news services, wire srevices have been shut down? Has moveon.org been shut down? Has Michael Moore’s web site been shut down? Huffington Post? Daily Koz? The Nation? Well? We’re waiting.
O’Leary: Your snotty remarks about President Bush are simply one more confirmation of the hatred that emanates from this blog. So unbecoming of a Christian…
“Specifically, how many newspapers, TV stations, news services, wire srevices have been shut down?”
Now, now Robert. Leading questions do not prove anything. Freedoms are usually impeached in small ways until the blowup. To throw it back at you and Robert, you are in a very small minority. And Chaney has said publicly that he knows better than you what’s right for the country.
Bill: What are the “small ways” in which freedom of the press has been “impeached” in the United States? And what is the “blowup” you are referring to?
Hey Bill! Nice to hear from you, even in a confrontational way. But I have to second Mat’s question; and by the way, what’s this about “leading questions”? The only important things about the questions is: What are the answers, and what do the answers indicate?
I see an endless stream of vitriol directed at President Bush and Vice President Cheney in the media. They (the Media) don’t seem to be suffering for it. Or am I missing something?
This sentence,
The only important things about the questions is:
should have read,
The only important things about the questions are:
One of President Bush’s greatest and most lasting accomplishments is that he has driven his critics absolutely nuts! The best example: the Left now believes that the media is AGAINST them, that it is too much of a lap dog for Republicans, etc., etc., etc. Thus, obviously we have no press freedom if the press is not out there working as a donation-in-kind, auxiliary wing of the DNC (Note to Left: the media is still all yours–just check any study on coverage of Obama versus coverage of McCain … or consider the NY Times’ sleazy front-page innuendos about McCain back during the primaries versus how the media all sat on the Edwards affair story …)
“Bill: What are the “small ways” in which freedom of the press has been “impeached” in the United States? And what is the “blowup” you are referring to?”
For Matt and Bob,
Especially at the beginning of the Iraq war, the press was quite hesitant to report the whole story as the White House almost made any criticism an act of treason. No filming of dead soldiers, no going into hospitals. When the torture of prisoners exploded, (this would be the blow up) the White House put pressure on the press. Is this not hindering freedom of the press. What about the CIA affair and her husband the govt. employee?
Fox News gave the press a bad name.
Don’t misunderstand I have problems with the press also. They approach megalomania the way politicians do. But the press must remain free.