Hu’s news, "agree to disagree" and regrets.
Leaders may be followed no matter if what they mean can be verified or even understood.
Translation aside, "as friends" do they trust or will they even bother to verify?
Regrets of protest a shock that it takes a foreign leader’s appearance to demonstrate freedom of speech but at least the method of dealing with it is understood and appreciated.
Fog of preemption aside or tangentially let us hope that the intention to "cooperate more closely on trade and nuclear tensions over Iran and North Korea" is followed and bring desired results whether we can verify even the intentions or not. The point is that if war can preempt even intentions where does one start to stop them? Or is there any intention to blow off the fog of intention, contention or pretension.
A wink and a nod to Reagan, from the "Great Communicator" to "I'm the Decider", here we go again the hard work of deciding who will cross the road or control the trickling downers that democracy eggs or growed.
THE GRIDDLE:
Just when and what did who decide and when did who know it?
Thanks Woodward and Bernstein.
[Note: the link below implies no indication that I have or intend to read the book(not uncommon), but while one should not judge a book by it's cover, one may discern meaning from a title and give it credit if you get it, unless you have already decided.]
No comments:
Post a Comment