Howard Berman must not have called him in because, as we predicted, he came roaring back at the Taipei Times and, in true form, beat the dead horse yet again! Let's take apart his latest skirmish with the Times in his second letter to the editor on April 8. Keep in mind as you are reading this that his sole objective is to deflect attention away from his humiliation at the hands of his own Democrat colleagues who reversed his Beijing-backed revisions to the TRA resolution on which he had insisted at the subcommittee he chairs, over which he has full control.
Faleomavaega response No. 2
Eni: Once again, Taipei Times has inaccurately reported on the workings of the US Congress and my position regarding Taiwan and Beijing.
ABCDEFG: Deflection. The fact is the Times accurately reported that the House reversed Eni's amendments to the TRA resolution. Workings of Congress are not at issue. It's the results.
Eni: Most recently, Taipei Times published my rebuttal on March 31 to a guest editorial [sic] printed in its paper on March 25 in which an anonymous author misrepresented my involvement with the TRA [Taiwan Relations Act] legislation.
ABCDEFG: As the Times notes in the use of the term [sic], this is not a guest editorial. The Times made that point in its editor's note following his first letter, which he must have read in order to write this second letter. This was the paper's own editorial and in standard journalistic practice, editorials are not signed.
Eni: To be clear, Taipei Times falsely states that I cannot support my claim that changes I made to the TRA legislation [sic] had the full backing of Committee members. If Taipei Times understood the workings of Congress, it would have understood what I already stated in my previous response — that the changes I made were supported by our Subcommittee members, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the full Committee, as well as the bill’s author, each of whom approved the measure to go forward by unanimous consent.
ABCDEFG: Eni arrogantly insults the Times about the paper's knowledge of how Congress works but makes a fool out of himself in so doing. Note that the Times again employs the term [sic] as a gracious way to put him down. What they are doing is demonstrating that Eni has made an error in calling the TRA resolution legislation. It is not. It is a resolution. Thus he is demonstrating that it is he who does not understand how Congress works, not the Times.
Eni: The bill then moved from the Subcommittee to the full Committee, as this is how the process works in the US Congress. Although the Chairman and Ranking Member of the full Committee had already agreed to the Subcommittee changes, other Members, which is their prerogative in a democracy, asked for the word “cornerstone” to be put back in the legislation to replace the word “vital,” which I had used instead. Upon the advice of the US House of Representatives’ legislative counsel — which argued that the word “vital” (which means “essential,” “critical,” “most important”) was legally stronger than the word “cornerstone” (which means “foundation,” “starting point,” “beginning”) — Republicans and Democrats of the full Committee reached an agreement to make the change back to “cornerstone,” and the bill was then sent directly to the House floor, with no further changes.
ABCDEFG: This is a time tested Eni tactic: over explanation. If you can't beat them, confuse them. Buried in all his verbiage is the concession that the "full committee reached an agreement to make the change back to 'cornerstone.'"
Eni: Finally, regarding Taipei Times’ assertion that I am confused about the TRA, I would kindly point out that the Taipei Times should review the TRA, as contrary to your assertions, the TRA absolutely implies that the US wants peace — peace between Taipei and Beijing, peace in the Western Pacific and peace for US troops. This is why the TRA plainly states that it is the policy of the United States “to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland and all other peoples of the Western Pacific area.”
ABCDEFG: Once again Eni employs one of his favorite tactics. He admits in the previous paragraph that he lost the battle over cornerstone, so now he wants to change the argument to what the TRA means to the concept of "peace." Moreover, "absolute implies" sounds like one of those oxymorons like "jumbo shrimp," "guest host" and "army intelligence."
Eni: While I have always supported the people on Taiwan, my first priority will always be to prevent as much as possible a gross misuse of US military forces to fight any unnecessary war and, for this reason, I will continue to support the long-standing position of the United States on the issue of Taiwan, which is to support peaceful relations across the Strait and to maintain the One China policy. Every President since 1979 has affirmed this position.
ABCDEFG: Another Eni tactic: here he infers that the Times does not want peace. He is standing as a noble and lonely guardian against the wicked agenda of the Times.
Eni: And no matter how Taipei Times twists the truth, or contorts the words of Senator Richard Lugar or President Ronald Reagan, the fact remains “that the Taiwan question is a matter for the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to resolve.” Hopefully, the Taipei Times and FAPA [Formosan Association for Public Affairs] will do their part to support peace more than ever in a manner that is respectful of America’s young men and women who do not deserve to be dragged into another war, now or in the future, just because sensible people refuse to get along.
ABCDEFG: He goes on to imply that the Times and FAPA want to drag American troops into war over Taiwan.
This should be the end of this skirmish because Eni is too dense to understand how the Times put him down with classic subtlety. That is the only reason they published his second rebuttal. Remember Eni, the Times buys ink by the barrel.