House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s brief visit to Taiwan triggers China to see red, rattle sabers, and let the whole world know just how frightened they are of an ‘American geezer chick in a pink pantsuit.’
Scott Ott, Stephen Green and Bill Whittle create five new episodes of Right Angle weekly — one for Members only — thanks to the funding that comes from those Members. Those who join unlock access to Backstage content, our Member-written blog, forums and comments. We offer a full, rapid and cheerful refund if you don’t love your new conservative friends within 30-days. Membership starts at just $9.95/month. Tap the big green button above.
If you liked this show, and want to encourage the men of Right Angle, you can make a one-time or recurring donation with PayPal or credit card when you tap the big blue button above.
25 replies on “It’s About Time: Pink Pantsuit Pelosi Steps onto Taiwan Tarmac, Triggers China to See Red”
WAS? the pelosi visit a “near disaster” or a BIG NOTHING Burger. This an major Ass U Me period. Puff your chest, talk Tough and wag your finger while turning even REDDER.
It’s almost like it’s an election year or something.
I’m glad Steve called it “Republic of China” a few times, not just Taiwan.
Now we just need to refer to it as the ROC in some official or quasi-official communication. Maybe put an “Unleash Chiang Kai-Shek” bumper sticker on whatever vehicle totes around the next American political figure to visit the ROC.
I want to know how many dollars this little jaunt cost the American taxpayers. We don’t know why she went, but it required the mobilization of the navies of three countries? If she wants to back her own first-class ticket to Taiwan, fine. But when countless manhours are wasted and floating fortresses are sent to follow her, I demand an accounting for her actions.
The tuna smells like a big midterm loss for the democrats.
Screw the chicoms. Long live a free Taiwan.
Gents, I’m a faithful follower of your content, and I find myself in agreement with your position(s) more often than not. And, of course, I don’t have any deep need to spout off about how much I agree, when I do.
But this time, I believe I will spout off a bit. I’m very disappointed that you didn’t consider what some of the other motivations might have been for this trip. I feel that you completely trivialized this whole fiasco. Was the idea of ulterior motives even given anything but a passing thought? Or, conversely, will you do a follow-up post where you do investigate what might really have been the reasons for this trip, to this place, with this person, at this time?
Okay: rant (mostly) over. And a sincere thanks for all you do to get this content to all of us!
I seldom dip into conspiracy theory stuff, but I will now. We are less than 100 days out from a very important election and, by all the polls I’ve seen, the Democrats could get severely trounced. One of the big issues they face is China. They have adamantly refused to admit that China may have accidentally (or even purposely) released the Covid virus. They have continued to protect China (e.g. the most recent CHIPS bill). Many are rumored to be in Chinauhip pocket (along with a bunch of RINOs). So, what better time to try to disqualify these … rumors? Suppose Pelosi went to China with the full knowledge of her intent by the CCP MONTHS ago. Suppose they agreed to Sabre rattle about it? Suppose the Chinese prefer the Democrats in power rather than the Republicans. Suppose they won’t attack Taiwan until after the election so as to not upset the Apple cart? Suppose … ! Scott, perhaps you still have my email addy somew in your files. I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Regards, Dave Gell
Steve and Bill — I think that the motivation for 5-scotch Nancy to go to Taiwan was so that she could Taiwanon.
She was probably over there to see the new chip fab that made her beaucoup bucks with her latest insider trading deal (funny how non-politicians go to jail over that but politicians are somehow exempt from the laws they pass).
Also, I think we should refer to the mainland by its proper designation: the rebellious provinces of West Taiwan. All in favor? 😉
— G.K.
The CHICOM’s show of farce was unnecessary. It’s not like Pelosi is an “American” in ANY meaningful sense. A truly American president would have told the CHICOMS, “When we want your opinion, WE’LL GIVE IT TO YOU! Until then, sit down and shut up.” (But then, the presence of a truly AMERICAN president in the White House would have averted CHICOM lip service in the first place.) However, never forget that the CHICOM’s ace-in-the-hole is in Washington, DC. We lost the Viet Nam War because we had a Demonrat C-in-C who refused to allow our troops to fight properly, and that handicap exists IN SPADES once again.
All I can figure about Pelosi is that the CHICOMS gave Beijing Biden a raise and didn’t give her one.
Well , biden can now claim his pseudo-administration is “being tough” on China.
It is also a year that democrats know they are going to be decimated in the mid-terms(unless they can turn the Titanic on a dime). biden admin will hope to get a polling bump from this as well.
Oh, and now the biden crime-family-business will need to figure out how to close the budget gaps left by those soon-to-be-dried-up chinese “business deals”.
I can offer a criticism of this little escapade – from out of left field.
Senior-political-figure geezer lady wants to visit Taiwan. A threat assessment is made. Most certainly it says, in so many words: “Nothing to worry about.” If there had been a credible threat Pelosi would not have been allowed to travel through that airspace, regardless of how much force we projected around her. Pelosi herself (I bet) would be the first to insist the trip be called off if she thought there were any chance over zero of being blown out of the sky.
Why, then, were any military/defensive contingency measures necessary – at all? The optics already look good (by accident and luck?), but imagine how much better they’d have been if the world had watched Chynah swinging its ineffectual sabers around while little old geezer-lady drops in on a regularly-scheduled commercial flight, or the VIP equivalent. With only normal VIP security. As though nothing were out of the normal – which was true. Imagine China’s loss of face. They caused it themselves, from their own flapping around. Would they have made something of that just because we would have “failed” to take them seriously?
The criticisms are: Failure of imagination and failure to be bold (knowingly, on purpose). Result: What Bill said. We prevailed, politically and optically, but we could have better driven home that idea that we set the pace, we primarily guarantee peace, we set the stage for world prosperity. Having the boldness, the strength of will, to demonstrate those things relieves tensions not exacerbates them.
I get what you’re saying and it’s well thought out and presented but international diplomacy just doesn’t work that way. What you’re saying should have happened is just too subtle for something like this.
The Chinese made a threat. It was an empty threat but a threat nonetheless. Empty or not it was pretty damn balsy to threaten a major American political figure with a shootdown. The threat might have been hollow but there was a reason it was made in the first place. Had we just ignored it because it didn’t worry us at all … The actions we take are always open to the most unfavorable interpretation to our enemies by our enemies.
They might have taken such a stance to mean we don’t care what happens to Pilosi. (I really don’t, but I care about the other Americans on board that flight as passengers and aircrew.) That could be considered an insult and a dare rather than as a lack of concern because we know they’re not going to do anything anyway. It’s ambiguous by nature because it does not send a clear, unequivocal message. You might think it does but you’re not a Chinese Communist People’s Republic military strategist. The other side will be looking for holes in our resolve and a lack of commitment and the stance you postulate could easily be intentionally misinterpreted.
There’s nothing to misinterpret about having Americans pointing guns at them and and saying “You think you’re tough? Bring it, let’s dance.”
The Chinese Communist leadership is evil and vile but neither crazy nor stupid. They know their forces are no match for ours and they know their forces are much more useful as a show and a threat than as genuine tools to use in a real shootin’ war.
Basically what our military did by the actions they took was to thumb their nose at the Chinese in such a way that China had no choice other than to bluster and fume but do nothing at all.
That’s the way it has to work in international politics. It’s not that we’re giving them more than they merit, are scared of them or showing fear by cranking up our military. It’s that we’re telling them we know they’ll back down if it comes to a fight because they know they’ll lose. And we know they know they’ll lose. It was a prime opportunity for our side to send an unmistakable message and that message was delivered loud and clear with no room to interpret it as anything but what it was. What it said was …
Go ahead. Make my day.
Seems we are on the same page, fundamentally: Make our day!
Any tactic can be misinterpreted. Sabre-rattling in response has its downsides, too. Commanders on the scene – even a bit player – can make mistakes that get people killed and unintentionally ramp up the stakes.
If show-of-force is the best tactic, do it and be ready to handle the contingencies. If my tactic is too subtle, offset that downside with proper propaganda techniques. A Donald Trump might have greased the skids with back-channel prep, then in public made clear to the world our non-response was the best response. Then rubbed the Chicoms noses in it as only he can do. “As only he can do”: Maybe that’s the best reason not to use my tactic. Joe ain’t up to it.
I’m late with this, but you make me think and that’s always a good thing. Thank you.
While I agree that once her visit Taiwan was made public it was important she go, I disagree with the statements that we should continue to provoke China. I don’t say this out of fear but concern the timing very poor.
We are depleting our forces of material and personnel at a rate which has undermined our strategic flexibility while struggling with inflation and more government spending. There was nothing Pelosi could accomplish which would reassure our partners in the region because the force structure is insufficient. China will escalate in other ways and we have not thought through the possibilities. Suppose China moves ahead with seizing more reefs and militarizing them? Suppose she pushes more aggressively in expanding her fisheries? Our Navy is a sledge hammer when a screwdriver is needed. This is not the time to increase tension. Her visit was all about Pelosi. BTW, Taiwan is not an ally in any formal sense since it would require a treaty which would be a declaration of independence.
We may never know the real reason for the visit but deliberately or not it did force Biden to speak with the Chinese leader for over two hours in classified communications of which there will be records of.
What would be more incongruous historically? Nancy Pelosi starting WW III or Biden making it through his term?
Yes.
All political comments aside, I think it is appalling that our Speaker of the House appeared in public in that ghastly, ill-fitted Pepto Bismol pink pantsuit!! It is clear that she spends more of her money on ice cream than on her wardrobe!! Isn’t there an advisor of some sort to make sure our representatives at least give the appearance of respectability when they are in public representing us???
I think she chose pink because it hides the ulcer vomit. I think she choose tacky and cheap because if it gets ulcer vomit on it, it’s no big deal. She probably has a closet full of the same revolting identical pantsuits.
This was not so much China making a big deal out of a frail drunken old lady in a tacky pantsuit landing on Taiwan as it was China testing American resolve. China pulled out all the stops, overtly menacing America in word and deed without quite crossing the line to armed belligerence. Clearly this was an attempt to see if they could coerce America into a course of action by applying nothing but empty threats. And yes, those threats were empty.
I don’t know if this has changed or not but about a year ago China finally got to the point where they could reliably launch aircraft from their two POS “carriers”. I put that word in quotes because I don’t want anyone confusing Chinese ships that carry aircraft with our Aircraft Carriers that are the easily the greatest, most powerful war machines ever devised by human beings. Because …
In order to reliably launch aircraft from the decks of Chinese “carriers” the aircraft must have nearly empty fuel tanks and no weapons load out at all. If they’re carrying the weight of bombs, rockets, ammunition and topped off fuel tanks they don’t launch, they splash. Really big, spectacular, impressive splashes.
This is the fault both of the “carrier” to provide sufficient catapult launch force and crappy aircraft that are poorly built out of inferior materials.
But hey, they look real good sitting tied up to a quay in port.
Their carriers are floating Potemkin villages.
That is a particularly apt observation being as one of the two Chinese “carriers” in service (a third is floating but probably won’t be operational for several years) is the old Russian Navy ship “Admiral Kutuzov”.
The Russians tried to use the Admiral Kutuzov off the coast of Syria a few years back and it broke down. Dead in the water. It had to be towed back to Russia by tug boats. The Russians very wisely sold that pile of junk to the Chinese who are still trying to get it to stay afloat.
If communist China is so technologically advanced, why do they put so much effort into stealing from us and other countries? China’s singular talent is to replicate what others create and do it cheaply with slave labor.