Replies

“BS.Too much credit to Clinton. US-Chinese romance dates to earlier 1970s.”

Actually, I didn’t assign WJC any more or less blame than anyone else. What made you think I gave ‘too much credit’ to Clinton?

I agree it started in the 1970’s - I suppose you’re referring to Nixon opening the doors to China with a visit to Beijing. But the real damage began in the post-Reagan era, the way I see it.

China was granted status as a Most Favored Nation while Clinton was prez, but the final confirmation occurred after Bush became prez.

As the article points out, Mearsheimer is a foreign policy realist so the NeoCon republicans and interventionist dems may not agree with him.

The article is based on questions and answers after Mearsheimer's talk on the Mideast and Mearsheimer is very controversial on ME foreign policy. All realists tend to be controversial on ME policy but Mearsheimer is especially.

In the fall of 2007, he and Stephen Walt(another college professor realist) published their book: The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy. The premise of the book is that US foreign policy is not always in the best interest of the US because the Israeli lobby(like AIPAC) in the US is very powerful.

And this has recently become a big issue, because of the Iranian negotiations. AIPAC pushed the NeoCon republicans and the Liberal Interventionist democrats in the Senate to write the legislation imposing additional sanctions on Iran. That seems to be losing steam now.

After that book was published in 2007, J Street was created in the spring of 2008. But as an Israeli lobby, J Street is always are at odds with AIPAC. J Street has grown strong and are passing out a lot of money now. So you have Senators Feinstein(D) and Corker(R) getting their Israeli money from J Street while Senators Kirk(R) and Menendez(D) are getting their Israeli money from AIPAC.

So you need to look at what the NeoCons and Liberal Interventionists are saying about China, not just what a realist like Mearsheimer is saying.