Condoleezza Rice’s article on Washington Post
In the second week of the eight-week campaign, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote an article, The Promise of Democratic Peace, for Washington Post on December 11, 2005. On the surface, Ms. Rice’s article had nothing to do with the Canadian election. So why did I call it Bush administration’s “action plan” for Canadian election in my last blog?
Because there are several instances of nut-cracking contained in her article.
“Fundamental character”
As I said before, my guiding principle is to do the right thing. That’s the primary motive behind my unrelenting efforts to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang. Therefore people could conclude that I have a strong character. I also believe that, if the perception that Mr. Warren Buffett has been paying attention to me turns out to be true, it would also be due to my character.
However, when Ms. Rice used the word as part of the phrase “fundamental character of regimes”, the connotation suddenly became political. It revealed Bush administration’s plan to put emphasis on the connection between Chinese government and me in the coming battle in the context of Canadian election.
“Conservative temperament”
In my email to the reporter at the New York Times in late August 2005, I used words such as “cautious” and “conservative” to describe the conclusions I made about Cecilia Zhang case. Therefore, people might say that I have a conservative temperament. (Depends on the circumstance!)
What Ms. Rice was trying to convey in this nut-cracking, especially to Canadian Conservatives, was that I may be conservative, but I am not a Conservative. (Again, I won’t feel comfortable to be granted any simplistic ideological label.) It was essentially an attack on both the Conservatives and me because of the perception that we were working together. It was also a jab at my poor English as I had earlier made the (embarrassing) mistake of not be able to distinguish between “liberal” and “Liberal”.
(But does it really matter what my political views are when all I want is to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang? For such a basic right-and-wrong issue, anybody with a conscience should be supportive of me.)
This was exactly the same kind of attack as their earlier one on my blog entry Summer hibernation where the key word was “oxymoronic”, meaning that the Left and the Right should work together to defeat the Liberals. Wrong on the issue, Bush administration resorted to ideological wrangling. This is the kind of politics that turns people off.
“Strategic logic”
I write about this nut-cracking last because it had the most impact on my decision of “limited participation” towards the end of the campaign.
I emphasized many times that, when I drew my conclusions about Liberal government’s involvement in Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder and the implications on Paul Martin personally, I relied upon facts and logic. My logical thinking is plainly reflected in my (too) many writings. As I wrote in the introduction of my previous report, it is precisely because of my sound logic in arriving at the truth of Cecilia Zhang murder that I was attacked on other fronts, such as attack on the format of my writing, personal and political attacks, etc.
In this instance of nut-cracking, Ms. Rice again appeared to be emphasizing the connection between Chinese government and me. What’s more, she seemed to suggest that national interests were at play here in Canadian election. This latter point came as a surprise to me because I had always thought that Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up was a scandal for Bush administration. (I still do.) I’ll talk about the role it played in my decision of “limited participation” later.
