Well, howdy there, Internet people it spell again.

So today, we're going to talk about AOC, China, Taiwan, and commentators.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York received backlash from a statement she made at the Munich Security

Conference about whether the U.S. would or should protect Taiwan in the event that China moves on

the island. Here's a question about the exchange. Bell, I'd like you to defend AOC's statement on Taiwan and her unwillingness to say we'd

defend it.

She didn't even answer.

Just said she didn't want war.

Okay.

So when a reporter at the conference asked, quote, would and should the U.S. actually commit U.S. troops to defend

Taiwan if China were to move? AOC responded with quote, you know, I think that this is such a,

you know, I think that this is a, um, this is, of course, a, um,, a very long-standing policy of the United States.

And I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point.

And we want to make sure that we are moving in all of our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such

confrontation. Well, that answer was ambiguous. You're right. She, as a representative,

didn't commit troops to a hypothetical war in which none of the conditions are known. Very, very ambiguous.

I know there's a bunch of Trumpy foreign policy commentators who are pointing out that she didn't

reinforce the U.S.'s longstanding commitment to go to war, to protect Taiwan, and that it's because

she's a weak lib or whatever. They're making a big deal about this and saying it shows she isn't

ready for the international scene. Here's the thing. The U.S. doesn't have any such longstanding commitment.

But, but it was the plot of a movie. Yeah. I repeat, the U.S. doesn't actually have a commitment to go to war over Taiwan.

Since the 1970s, the U.S. has maintained a policy known as strategic ambiguity

...