Is That Legal?

Everyone knows Americans are rude, so let's go with rude. Of course, based on our conduct of the conflict in Iraq, everyone knows Americans are incomptent, too.

Let's go with both rude and imcompetent!

Plus, it seems that the White House only cares who gets credentialed when it's the president who might be criticized. The attitude must be "it's only China, dude; who cares?".

You know what else is rude?

Killing people for their organs cause you don't like their religion. I'm just sayin'.

I've always found Chinese opera both rude and incompetent.

As for us? Make no mistake, we're rude, incompetent and I would add "we have a lot of moxy". As in "it showed a lot of moxy for President Bush not to care that he appeared rude and incompetent to the Chinese"

I'd vote for incompetent. Increases their tendency to underestimate us. And, given our leadership, it's more plausible anyway. This crew isn't given to subtlety in message delivery, after all.

Can I vote for both?

I want that dictator of a billion people,placed in power by tens of people,to know that the gutsy little chinese woman who confronted him and the leader of the battering ram(President Bush) for worldcorp is FREE.I want them to know that she has,so far, a right to speak her mind.Both of these little men in enormously powerful positions would silence her for money.I hope when she gets in front of a judge he will have the wisdom to tell her that there are US laws used all the time in all sorts of crooked ways,so,she has been brought before him.I hope he tells her go home and don't do that anymore,with no other conditions.She certainly will never again see another opportunity like that.The named and unnamed government agencies will see to that.Delbert W Allegood http://npublici.blogspot.com

Aw...let's go for the trifecta -- rude, incompetent, and lackadaisical. Not that I think we're lackadaisical, mind you. It's just I'd rather think we're that than what we really are.

China's record on human rights, such as free speech, is abysmal. (And note that the heckler was censored from CNN's China broadcast.) Seems to me that allowing a heckler may show one way that we are different from China. Not killing and imprisoning folks without a fair trial is another, of course.

Wow. Just, wow. I knew that UNC law professors trended left-ward. But what is it with their affection for Communist murderers? It was bad enough when the keynote speaker at graduation last year urged us to adopt Chinese-style 5 year plans and emulate their magnificently egalitarian education system. This really takes the cake. I know you probably don't read National Review, but please go to the magazine shelf in the library and read Jay Nordlinger's piece on the Falun Gong in the most recent issue. Now I remember why I chuckle when I toss my alumni donation solicitation letters in the trash, unopened.

"it is obviously rude to allow someone to heckle a head of state for three minutes while standing on a platform reserved for press..."

So somehow it's different when elected Democratic congresscritters use their position to invite Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan to official government functions solely to heckle the President?

There are no horns to the dilemma. The Chinese ALREADY think we are rude and incompetent, merely because "we" are not chinese.

Or bombing and invading people for their oil and because they tried to kill your dad, then saying it's for human rights purposes while another country you're perfectly willing to snuggle up with harvests organs from prisoners and religious dissidents.

Can I vote for both? They think we are imcompetent for undervalueing them and choosing to be delibertately rude to them.

Yes--we need the Clinton administration back, in a hurry.

After all, they never allowed anyone to heckle the Chinese head of state.

They did, however, bomb the Chinese embassy in Serbia. But standards for competence were much different back then. That was before left-wing law professors became armchair generals.