劉記者在報導布希接受CNN的訪談，提到布希對
「如果台灣自己先宣佈獨立」的看法時說：

『被問道「假如台灣宣布獨立……」，布希重申「一個中國」，並且表示「台灣獨立就不是『一個中國』政策」。換言之，那不符美國政策。』
http://news.chinatimes.com.tw/Chinatimes/moment/moment/0,1100,900423019,00.html

這與原文有極大的出入：

『KING: I want to ask you more about that, but I want to follow up a little bit more on the Taiwan issue. You have said publicly the U.S. would commit military forces if China attacked Taiwan. What if Taiwan declared independence first?

BUSH: First, I have said that I will do what it takes to help Taiwan defend herself, and the Chinese must understand that. Secondly, I certainly hope Taiwan adheres to the one-China policy. And a declaration of independence is not the one-China policy, and we will work with Taiwan to make sure that that doesn't happen. We need a peaceful resolution of this issue.』

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushcnntext042501.htm

原文翻譯是：

問：「你公開說如果中國武力犯台，美國會動用武力。如果台灣先
宣佈獨立呢？」

答：「首先，我已經說過，我會不計一切地幫台灣保護自己，中國
人必須認清這點。其次，我當然希望台灣能遵守一個中國政策。宣
布獨立不符一個中國政策，我們會與台灣溝通確定這不會發生。我
們一定要和平解決這個問題。」

＋＋＋＋＋＋＋＋＋＋＋＋

布希的回答有兩部分：「會不計一切地幫台灣保護自己」及「台灣
宣布獨立不符一個中國政策」。第二點根本談不上是問題的答案，
因為，問題是「如果台灣宣佈獨立」，那表示台灣已經沒有遵照
「一個中國政策」了，因此只有第一部份才是問題的答案：「我會
不計一切地幫台灣保護自己。」

而且布希在這句話後面特別加上一句：「中國人必須認清這點」，
顯然是講給中國人聽的，等於是警告中國人說，即使台灣宣佈獨立，
我還是會不計一切地幫台灣保護自己。

因此，布希對「如果台灣宣佈獨立」的態度是很明顯的：

如果「勸台灣不要台獨」失敗，台灣自行宣佈獨立，我還是會不計一切地
幫台灣保護自己，而中國人必須認清這點。

劉記者在報導此消息時，很技巧地把布希對「如果台灣宣佈獨立」後
的「我會不計一切地幫台灣保護自己，中國人必須認清這點。」省去，
只報導布希回答的後半段：「台灣宣布獨立不符一個中國政策」，很
顯然有扭曲布希原意，欺騙讀者之嫌。

此話題的相關討論，請見中時「新聞對談」的：

德國「法蘭克福廣訊報」25日的一篇評論指出，「沒有人真正的懷疑台灣是中國的一部份。但是，並沒有跡象顯示台灣的人民希望在不民主的中華人民共和國這樣的中國生活。世人無權容許中共強迫它的同胞們在違背他們意願的情況下『回歸』。」

評論指出，由北京最近的聲明判斷，中共似乎感覺全世界都在與它為難。年初以來，美國對台軍售的問題、美國偵察機與中共軍機的擦撞事件，加上最近美國準備發給李登輝赴美簽證，都引發中共強烈的反彈。

中國時報今天(4.27-2001) 的第三版 焦點新聞 還刻意把劉屏做大新聞, 編輯還自己加個特大字號標題 "協助台灣自衛但反對台灣獨立". 可見得中時真的欲蓋彌張.
綜觀劉屏全文, 劉屏還是躲掉了 echo 所質問的, 布希在回答「如果台灣宣佈獨立」時所答的, ：「首先，我已經說過，我會不計一切地幫台灣保護自己，中國
人必須認清這點。」: First, I have said that I will do what it takes to help Taiwan defend herself, and the Chinese must understand that.

Secondly, I certainly hope Taiwan adheres to the one-China policy. And a declaration of independence is not the one-China policy, and we will work with Taiwan to make sure that that doesn't happen. We need a peaceful resolution of this issue.』

至於 secondly 部份, 與台灣共商使台灣不要"宣佈獨立"跟和平解決..這可以有不同解讀. 如果台灣正式說: "台灣的中華民國早已獨立, 她的主權僅止於台澎金馬, 做為一個早已獨立的國家, 我們無需再宣佈獨立, 因為這是普世價值普遍的認識 ", 這又如何?

反而是中時劉屏 自己只會從 CNN 延遲半小時播出的猜測, 無視國家安全顧問萊斯說布希用詞是經考慮的, 及白宮發言人都說布希總統"用詞無誤",

更糟糕的是中國時報編輯室的高官, 攪不好還是董事長余紀忠親自介入, 弄個斗大號字,
"24 小時內改變用語 布希: 協助台灣自衛 但反對台灣獨立". 劉屏全文並沒有如此字眼, 如果照中國時報的說法, 1998 柯林頓說出:"不支持台灣獨立", 布希從不支持進而到"反對台灣獨立", 這不明顯跟劉屏文中 "白宮幕僚表示, 布希的說法是為了重新平衡美國政策, 因為柯林頓的做法偏向了北京一邊, 因此布希設法扶正" 大大抵觸跟嚴重錯誤嗎?

中國時報的編輯高官-- 謠言製造業高階經理人, 此則新聞處理, 跟金庸要求香港媒體配合解放軍的意思很相似. 只不過, 中國時報在台灣, 解放軍在大陸.

////////////////////////
He rejected the notion that defending Taiwan depended on circumstances, such was whether Taiwan had been provocative. "If we leave any ambiguity about that, all we are doing is encouraging Chinese actions that could get both of us in trouble," he said.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

頗堪玩味。翻成中文：

【他不認為保護台灣有條件性，譬如說，台灣是否挑撥對方動武。他說：「在這件事情上再繼續模稜兩可只會激勵中共而帶給我們麻煩。」】

難道他暗示，即使台灣宣佈獨立（除此之外，台灣還有什麼可能去「挑撥對方」？），美國還是會保護台灣？聯想到布希在回答「如果台灣宣佈獨立」時對中國的警告：『我會不計一切地幫台灣保護自己，中國人必須認清這點。』

這是不是暗示，這樣的態度 ─── 不計一切地保護台灣，即使台灣自行宣佈獨立 ─── 已經是布希政府內部高層的共識？

To my amazement, it is not so. Candy Rice (the NSA chief) has
confirmed it through interviews and most of the editorials in
the next day were not against the statement at all. Even those
pro-china scholars such as David Shambourgh only had mutted
responses. Last night, there is a forum on Bush 100 days on CNBC.
The panelists are the editors of the Walls Street Journal. To my
great astonishment, they UNANIMOUSLY favor the firmer and less
ambiguious policy on defending Taiwan. These men and women are
the editors of WSJ, a major pro-businese newspaper !!! One of
the editors even remarked that (I am paraphrasing here) the U.S.
would never have allowed an authortarian china to militarily
conquer a democratic nation. How comforting and reassuring to
hear such words !!.

The stupid chinese are building their missile bases across
the straight and apparently, they are thinking that the U.S would
have done nothing strategically to counter it. What they never
had imagined is that this action is the main and ONLY reason why
the U.S. has to change her strategy (such as lessen the ambiguity
in strategic ambiquity) in order to prevent the miscalculations
by the chinese. It is to the benefit of the U.S. to make
sure that such chinese miscalculations would never take place.

of course, it is reassuring to hear the belated committment
from the U.S. However, the businese of defending Taiwan is mainly
our responsibility, not theirs. In this long struggle, it is
certainly good to have somebody in our corner rather than to fight
it all alone by ourselves.

Armstrong, do you have the url of "there is a forum on Bush 100 days on CNBC." ?

在下另有一帖：美國國會有史以來對中國最嚴厲的批判

共和黨國會議員 Dana Rohrabacher 在國會發表了一篇國會有史以來對中國最嚴厲的批判。文章很長（要夠長才罵得完），摘譯數段如下：

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Wake up, America. What is going on here? Large financial interests in our country whose only goal is exploiting the cheap, near-slave labor of China have been leading our country down the path to catastrophe. How much more proof do we need that the so-called engagement theory is a total failure?

到底怎麼回事？醒醒吧，美國人！只為了中國近似奴隸的廉價勞工，我們大筆的往中國投資已經為美國帶來災難。到底我們還需要多少證據才會相信所謂的 engagement theory（註：應該是指利用經濟力量帶動中國民主化）是一個徹底的失敗？

Our massive investment in China, pushed and promoted by American billionaires and multinational corporations, has created not a more peaceful, democratic China, but an aggressive nuclear-armed bully that now threatens the world with its hostile acts and proliferation. Do the Communist Chinese have to murder American personnel or attack the United States or our allies with their missiles before those who blithesomely pontificate about the civilizing benefits of building the Chinese economy will admit that China for a decade has been going in the opposite direction than predicted by the so-called ``free traders.''

由美國富豪及跨國企業所推動的中國投資，不但沒有給中國帶來和平與民主，相反的，中國反變成一個具攻擊性的擁核霸權，正以敵意與赤化的意圖在威脅全世界。難道那些不停地宣揚「中國經濟成長對美國有益」的人必須等到中共謀殺美國人或以飛彈攻擊美國或美國盟友後，才會承認十年來中國早已走向與「那些自由貿易者所預言的」完全相反的方向？

We have made a monstrous mistake, and if we do not face reality and change our fundamental policies, instead of peace, there will be conflict. Instead of democratic reform, we will see a further retrenchment of a regime that is run by gangsters and thugs, the world's worst human rights abusers.

我們已經犯了個天大的錯誤。如果我們沒有面對事實修改基本策略，我們將得到「衝突」而不是「和平」；我們將不會看到「民主改革」，而是看到一個由歹徒、惡棍等全世界最糟糕的人權侵犯者所執掌的退化政權。

But it made no sense, and it still makes no sense, for the United States to permit a country that is sinking even deeper into tyranny and into anti-Western hostility to have a huge trade surplus as a resource to call upon to meet their military needs.

美國允許一個越來越專制、越具「反西方」敵意的國家用與我們的貿易盈餘來建立他們的軍備，這一直是很荒謬的一件事。

In effect, the Communist Chinese have been using the tens of billions of dollars of trade surplus with the United States each year to build their military power and military might so some day the Communist Chinese might be able to kill millions of our people, or at least to threaten us to do that in order to back us down into defeat without ever coming to a fight.

事實上，中共早已用每年與美國貿易的億兆盈餘整軍建武，有一天很可能會用來殺害我們的同胞，或用來威脅我們使得我們在開戰前投降。
/////////////////////////

B I O G R A P H Y of Dana Rohrabacher

http://www.house.gov/rohrabacher/

As Chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, of the House Science Committee, Rohrabacher is a leading advocate of technology and aerospace programs that lower the cost of getting into space. Rohrabacher is also a member of the Energy Subcommittee, overseeing research of the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

As a senior member of the International Relations Committee, Rohrabacher is one of that body's most forceful spokesmen for human rights and democracy around the world. Rohrabacher led the effort to deny Most Favored Nation trading status to Communist China, citing the rogue nation's dismal human rights record and opposition to democracy. His subcommittee assignments are East Asia and Pacific, and Middle East and South Asia.

Rohrabacher is a strong voice for lower government spending and taxes. His record of fiscal restraint and pro-growth policies has won him acclaim from the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business. He is a strong proponent of term limits and other congressional reforms.

Rohrabacher led efforts in the 104th and 105th Congresses to restore the intellectual property rights of American inventors legislated away with the implementation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), authoring the Patent Term Restoration Act.

The 45th congressional district is the birthplace of California's Proposition 187, a reform initiative which removes illegal aliens from the state's welfare and education rolls. Rohrabacher inspired the grassroots movement and, as a principal spokesman for Prop. 187, framed the debate that led to the passage of the popular measure.

Prior to his election to Congress in 1988, Dana served as Special Assistant to President Reagan. For seven years he was one of the President's senior speechwriters. During his tenure at the White House, Rohrabacher played a pivotal role in the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine and in championing the cause of a strong national defense. He also helped formulate President Reagan's Economic Bill of Rights, a package of economic reforms that the President introduced in a historic speech before the Jefferson Memorial.

http://reagan.com/HotTopics.main/HotMike/document-5.18.1998.8.html

http://www.fas.org/news/china/1998/980515c-rnc.htm

Friday, May 15, 1998

Chinese Delivery

"…it seems that the Clinton Administration has finally found a practical application for the Reagan Administration's anti-missile program: improving Communist China's rockets. China's once-unreliable Long March booster was vastly improved with the help of U.S. satellite companies under the Clinton Administration's liberalized export controls. According to the Pentagon, the technology that improved the Long March has also made China's Dong Feng series of strategic nuclear missiles more lethal.

"According to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.), Chairman of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, U.S. expertise has 'perfected' China's Long March rockets, which are identical in design to Chinese strategic nuclear missiles.

"Engineers from Loral, assisted by engineers from Hughes Electronics, and at the direction of their superiors, charged forward to correct the problems in the Long March,' Rohrabacher said in a floor speech on April 30. 'It seems what happened was a sterile, coldly calculated decision to fix these problems with no consideration of the national-security implications to the United States.' Rohrabacher saw the technology transfer as a betrayal. 'Chinese missiles blowing up on launch is a good thing,' he says. 'We should not be making their missiles better…'