A guest essay by Jerome Keating.
——————————————————————–

Kinmen—Once More into the Breach?
Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.

October 25th, the anniversary date of the battle of Guningtou approaches and the small island of Kinmen once again is in the spotlight. Kinmen sits some two kilometers off the southeastern coast of mainland China at the Jiulong River estuary in Fujian province. Though not large, its special location has nevertheless given it important, diverse, and changing roles in the history of China and later of Taiwan.

The name Kinmen (golden gate) comes from when Ming fortifications against marauding pirates were built in 1387, a foreshadowing that war and battles would leave a defining mark on the island. Zheng Cheng-gong (Koxinga) would use Kinmen in his ill-fated attempt to retake Ming China from the Manchu conquerors. Later the island would serve those same Qing Manchus as a defensive fort guarding the treaty port of Amoy (Xiamen). Later still the island would be the western

(more…)

How could such a cute guy be such a prick?

This article in the NYT is rich with implications; the great Steve Clemons explains why. There’s no way out; it looks more and more like Watergate each day. The implosion continues. “Get your popcorn ready.”

Update: Sorry about the image of Cheney being fingered.

A photo album proves this to be so, China Daily insists. And if China Daily prints it, that’s good enough for me.

A photo album was published in Beijing Monday to mark the 60th anniversary of Taiwan’s return to China from Japanese occupation at the end of World War II….

The photo collection serves as convincing proof to the fact that as a inseparable part of China, Taiwan has, since the ancient times, been related to the Chinese nation as closely as flesh to blood, and that a kinship has always bound the Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, said Tian, also the chairman of the Taiwan Guild Hall.

I’m glad that’s finally settled. All we needed as incontrovertible proof was this photo album!

In a related article, Xinhua further bangs the reunification drum:

The heroic Taiwanese did not yield to the atrocious rule of the Japanese aggressors in half a century, and they contributed to the final victory over the Japanese aggression, said Chen Yunlin, director of the Taiwan Work Office of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee at the ceremony.

“Their deeds will be recorded in Chinese history forever,” he said.

He also called on Taiwan compatriots to remember the history and carry forward the patriotism to oppose Taiwan independence and build peaceful and stable relations across the Taiwan Straits. “Let’s strive for the peaceful reunification and rejuvenation of China,” he said.

“…the atrocious rule of the Japanese aggressors.” That raises a serious question: Was the rule of the Japanese aggressors over the Taiwanese more or less “atrocious” than the rule of the CCP over the Chinese? Would those Taiwanese under the Japanese have given it up for the privilige of living under the magnanimous leadership of Mao? Inquiring minds want to know.

No, I’m really not kidding.

The popular blog Gateway Pundit was kind enough to link to my post today on Kristof’s review of Mao and even referred to TPD as “a great blog about China,” which I really appreciate. I suspect, however, that once he sees my blogroll he’ll decide to edit that post, as we have very different, um, perspectives.

Still, one good turn deserves another, so allow me to link to Pundit’s post about how swimmingly things are going in Iraq and how there’s no signs of a quagmire.

I’d really like to believe it. Unfortunately, I just read this.

Stepped-up attacks by insurgents over the last two days have killed at least 44 Iraqis, including 12 laborers — five of them brothers — who were gunned down at a construction site, police said Monday.

In addition, the bodies of eight Iraqis who apparently were kidnapped and killed in captivity were found in the capital on Monday, police said.

Meanwhile, the toll among American service members in the
Iraq war was approaching 2,000 dead. At least 1,996 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

Monday’s worst attack occurred in southwestern Baghdad when suspected insurgents opened fire at two civilian cars, killing three of the municipal workers they were carrying and a passer-by, said police Capt. Talib Thamir.

A suicide car bomber killed two Iraqis and wounded five in an attack on a police patrol in the northeastern neighborhood of Shaab, where insurgents had kidnapped and murdered a defense lawyer in
Saddam Hussein’s trial last week, said police Lt. Malik Sultan.

Insurgents opened fire on an Iraqi army checkpoint in western Baghdad, killing a soldier and a girl who was standing in front of her nearby house…

I guess it depends on what your definition of a quagmire is. Every day we announce we’ve killed or captured scores of terrorists, and we periodically insist the tide has turned and victory awaits us around the corner. And each time it’s countered with reality – more death and destruction, and more terrorists lined up to replace those we took out. When you’re stuck in the same place year after year with no end in sight, I think it’s safe to call it a quagmire.

As indictments loom imminent, the Republicans are scrambling to get their talking points down pat, and it appears their strategy is simple and straighforward.

With a decision expected this week on possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, is expected to announce by the end of the week whether he will seek indictments against White House officials in a decision that is likely to be a defining moment of President Bush’s second term. The case has put many in the White House on edge.

Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., who is Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, have been advised that they are in serious legal jeopardy. Other officials could also face charges in connection with the disclosure of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer in 2003.

On Sunday, Republicans appeared to be preparing to blunt the impact of any charges. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, speaking on the NBC news program “Meet the Press,” compared the leak investigation with the case of Martha Stewart and her stock sale, “where they couldn’t find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn’t a crime.”

Ms. Hutchison said she hoped “that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.”

Where are those Republicans who six years ago were salivating over the impeachment of Bill Clinton for the exact same “technicality” as described by Hutchinson? Since when was perjury and obstruction of justice a technicality?

And if they try to portray Fitz as an out-of-control, activist prosecutor, they may have a bit of trouble. Even the Queen of Darkness Michelle Maglalang is repulsed by Hutchinson’s implication that Fitzgerald will indict simply for the sake of doing so.

Um, has anyone suggested that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is a “gotcha” kind of guy who would throw away his good reputation by pursuing “technicalities” instead of “real” crimes? I haven’t heard anyone on our side suggest anything of the kind. Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. attorney and NRO contributor whose opinion I have the highest respect for, said this about his former co-worker Fitzgerald (via MSNBC):

“He’s a pit bull and he’s also the best and most honorable guy I know. I think that the country is in good hands having this particular investigation, in particular in his hands.”

I’ll take McCarthy’s first-hand knowledge over Sen. Hutchison’s insinuations.

But for the ultimate in sheer hypocrisy, check out what Hutchinson herself had to say about perjury and presidents back in 1999, when the president was a Democrat. You literally won’t believe the brazen double standard.

I don’t think this sort of talking-points-based whisper campaign will get very far this time. Those days appear to be over – the days when Karen Hughes and Karl Rove could set the world on fire with a magical meme (Kerry lied about Christmas in Cambodia! McCain had an illegitimate black Child! Arlene Richards, a grandmother, is a lesbian!). With Katrina, Iraq, Harriet Miers and Plamegate exploding over their heads, the media has stopped being afraid, and are finally doing their jobs. Fitzgerald’s record as a selfless, diligent, non-partisan prosecutor is simply too outstanding, and instead of regurgitating the lies they are fed (as they did with the Iraqi mushroom cloud BS), the reporters are going to challenge and expose them. I really think it’s come to that; there’s been a tipping point, a seismic shift, and the ditry tricks of yesteryear simply won’t work. And it doesn’t say much for our media that they allowed this crap to go on for the past five years.

This post has sort of rambled, so apologies if it lacks my usual tighter-than-a-noose coherence. I’ve been writing it in bits and pieces throughout the afternoon.

Chinese scientists redefine the concept of “body building.”

John Pasden of Sinosplice’s presents a number of Top Ten lists.

You have to read this to believe it. That’s all I can say.

Support our troops.

Always one of my least favorite pundits (what did he do to deserve his own op-ed column??), Kristoff writes his own review of the book we’ve been discussing so much over here. Even more interesting is this attempt to fisk his review, which includes links to other fiskings.

Here’s a sample of Kristoff’s review:

Mao comes across as such a villain that he never really becomes three-dimensional. As readers, we recoil from him but don’t really understand him. He is presented as such a bumbling psychopath that it’s hard to comprehend how he bested all his rivals to lead China and emerge as one of the most worshipped figures of the last century.

Finally, there is Mao’s place in history. I agree that Mao was a catastrophic ruler in many, many respects, and this book captures that side better than anything ever written. But Mao’s legacy is not all bad. Land reform in China, like the land reform in Japan and Taiwan, helped lay the groundwork for prosperity today. The emancipation of women and end of child marriages moved China from one of the worst places in the world to be a girl to one where women have more equality than in, say, Japan or Korea. Indeed, Mao’s entire assault on the old economic and social structure made it easier for China to emerge as the world’s new economic dragon.

Perhaps the best comparison is with Qinshihuang, the first Qin emperor, who 2,200 years ago unified China, built much of the Great Wall, standardized weights and measures and created a common currency and legal system – but burned books and buried scholars alive. The Qin emperor was as savage and at times as insane as Mao – but his success in integrating and strengthening China laid the groundwork for the next dynasty, the Han, one of the golden eras of Chinese civilization. In the same way, I think, Mao’s ruthlessness was a catastrophe at the time, brilliantly captured in this extraordinary book – and yet there’s more to the story: Mao also helped lay the groundwork for the rebirth and rise of China after five centuries of slumber.

It looks like anti-New York Times bloggers will have a field day with this. But Kristoff is asking for it; with that last sentence, he is playing with dynamite. (Be sure to check that last link; I despise Roger Simon, but his post and its comments are quite intriguing, even if he does refer to Deng as “Deng Tsaio Peng.”)