Smith calls for Olympics boycott

Chris Smith is absolutely right. 

China is ruled by one of the most murderous governments in all of human history.

Having American officials or American athletes parading under the picture Mao Zedong in Red Square would be anethema to our commitment to human rights because we would not only be condoning the Beijing regime's murdering ways, but giving it our assent.

This occasion, Chris Smith is spot-on correct.

Instead of commending Congressman Smith's long history of fighting for human rights, Josh Zeitz calls this boycott call "political grandstanding."

Give me a break.

This is the same Congressman who got kicked out of the Military Veterans Committee Chairmanship by Republicans a few years ago because he was fighting too much  for veterans benefits. Chris Smith has been one of the strongest voices for human rights in Congress. He authored the first ever human trafficking law in the US: The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Law.

There are so many more examples that I could go on forever, but perhaps the best example is the bi-partisan Darfurscores.org rating of congressman smith in 2007: A+

http://www.darfurscores.org/christopher-smith

Chris Smith is without a doubt one of New Jersey's best Congressmen, and I agree with him 100%, China has done nothing but fund Sudan and the genocide in Darfur.

Chris smith is a wimp and doesn't get it. This boycott will accomplish nothing. Why don't we go over there and show those commies in Red China exactly the kind of strong, courageous and accomplished athletes Democracy produces. I say we go over and kick some Red China butt. That would be a great demonstration to the Chinese and people all over the world of the stregnth of our democracy.

Josh Zeitz has proven one thing from his brief but uninspired campaign against Chris Smith: he will say anything to contradict Smith. If Smith said the sky is blue, Zeitz would disagree.

Josh reveals his naivete once again by saying he supports human rights, but thinks there should be no real sanctions against China in connection with this year's Olympic. Trying to support human rights without concrete action is nothing more than empty rhetoric and political platitudes. At least Josh is consistent in this department.

Every time this site posts a story on Chris Smith, the Smith supporters recoil with horror that anyone should dare criticize the congressman. They call Zeitz names (e.g., Skippy, Zitzy, Phony) and hail their great leader, but they never actually address the criticism. (Come to think of it, for a bunch of self-styled humanitarians, these are some really angry people.) Yes, China is a lead violator of human rights. Yes, the United States needs to take a strong stand against Chinese abuses at home and abroad. But isn't it worth pointing out that we are in less of a position to do so then we were a decade ago?The military policies that Chris Smith supported have stretched our active-duty and reserve forces thin; we now have less muscle to flex when dealing with rogue states like China, North Korea, Iran, etc. They know we're in no position to react with force, and so they act accordingly. The same goes with economics. Too much of our debt (most of it new debt from the Bush years) is owned by China. Sure, we can skip the Olympics. And the Chinese will laugh (they'll just win more medals.) At the end of the day, they can abuse human rights in Tibet and sell arms to the Sudanese government, and there's nothing we can do about it: they now own a big part of our financial portfolio.

Human rights isn't a bumper sticker. Neither is national security. Can't we have a serious discussion about these matters?

My criticism of Zitzy boy's criticism if Smith was that he referred to Smith's prposed Olympic boycott as "grandstanding."  How ironic that one of Skippy's cyber toadies claims the high ground in a war of words.  Tell me, oh paragon of serious discourse, why did Zitty Kitty choose to employ the term "grandstanding"?  You know the answer.  It was specifically designed to both derogate Smith's push for the boycott while minimizing his decades-long record of support of human rights.  Grandstanding directly implies opprtunism, which is anathema to Smith's uncompromising commitment to protecting those most vulnerable around the world. 

So genius, it appears as if your friend Josh fired the first shot across Smith's bow.  If he really cared about human rights issues, he would not shamelessly politicize such issues by framing them in terms of "grandstanding."  And, since you've obviously never bothered to read Smith's resume as a hunan rights advocate, you should know that Smith has consistently opposed giving China economic privileges absent a verifiable commitment to improving human rights.  To Smith's credit, I'm sure he knows that leading the charge to boycott the 2008 version of the 1936 Munich Hitlerian love-fest will not win him any votes.  Personally, I don't support a boycott.  Most Americans don't agree with this approach.  So it gets him no political traction whatsoever.  Rather, it is a matter of conscience for Smith.   

As for the Iraq war, if this is the best you can do to try to tarnish Smith as a Chi-com enabler, good luck trying to sell this extrapolative nonsense to voters.  China came of age as a world economic power during the Clinton administration (can you say M-F-N or Wal-Mart?) and with Bill, Hill and Newt's best wishes.  During China's coming out party, more often than not, Smith found himself opposing both the White House and his own party's leadership.

As for human rights advocates being "angry", doesn't it piss you off that in places like Darfur women are raped and innocent children are slaughtered at the hands of monsters?  I guess your wrath is only kindled when the brewmaster at Starbucks puts too much cinnamon in your mocha latte.  Now that's beyond intolerable.  When you actually see the serial inhumanity perpetrated by humanity against itself, you tend to have a low threshhold for punks like Zitzy boy who exploit these wide-scale tragedies for political gain.  You also come to appreciate men of honor like Chris Smih.

Martin- Apparently this concept is lost on you. In response to Mr. Zeitz's criticisms of Chris Smith, you claim he is running an angry campaign. Then you proceed into a rage-filled post filled with ad hominem attacks and cheesy one-liners about lattes. Grow up and stick to the issue at hand.

Mr. Zeitz is making the point that boycotts don't work- which he is allowed to make, and frankly is correct (as he correctly cited Moscow 1980). The compromise solution which D's and R's including Nancy Pelosi and several posters (and I support) would be a US boycott of the opening ceremonies: to not give the PRC the satisfaction of the photo-op.

Moreover, blinded by your rage at anyone who is critical of Mr. Smith (who I like but disagree with on many issues) you missed this: "Zeitz emphasized that he and Smith fundamentally agree on the importance of human rights in China and elsewhere." Implicit in this statement, is an acknowlegdment of Mr. Smith's excellent record on human rights.

Given the past failure of the 1980 boycott, and given the symbolic nature of such a move, which Zeitz points out will hurt committed US athletes, and not change the PRC's policies one bit, its reasonable to say such a call is "grandstanding."

Moreover, it is completely reasonable to criticize a senior member of Congress for failing to support or advocate for coherent economic and foreign policies for dealing with China (and other human rights abusing countries).

So please, stick to the issues, and quit the insult-filled posts that distract from serious discussion.