knoxville tennessee high school football scores...

Which country has moved further toward being more open and freer society, China or Cuba?

And as for the straw man, who has suggested offering Iran PNTR?

Really, where did I imply that China's trade status was the result of corruption by the Democrats? I don't see it.

Bit,
That in no way answers my question. Again, where is the inconsistency in questioning the wisdom of giving China PNTR and wanting our administration to talk with the Iranians?
And, yes PNTR was given to China in the hopes of, among other things, improving human rights within China and providing us with cheap labor. It has had some degree of success in the former and tremendous success in the later. Perhaps we should have tried the same with Cuba.

Obviously, we offered China MFN with the best of intentions, and we see now how the road to hell is paved.

Do we really have indications it's going to work any better with Iran?

If the argument is to be that we should shut off MFNTS because of repeated indication of Chinese government involvement with corruption of our elections, (And I suppose that to be why MFNTS was brought up) I think it would be well for us to remember that that trading status was offered up to China in the interests of engaging China to improve its human rights record. Further, we have been reluctant to remove that status for the same reason.

I'm sorry, but I think you are mixing apples with oranges. The issue of granting various trade statuses with China is one issue, corruption is another.

Ironic, that so many that are complaining today about China's most favored nation status, are the ones who are telling us that we are not "engaging in" Iran.

No irony there.
Aside from the misuse of the term, I take it you mean that there is some inconsistency in questioning the legitimacy of China's PNTR status and thinking that we should be talking to Iran. Perhaps you could explain the inconsistency?

China's continued NTR with the US and EU should be contingent on human rights reforms within China and ending its support of the genocide in Darfur, but I'm not holding my breath.

In accordance with this procedure, the President, on October 23, 1979, [ed. during the Carter Administration] transmitted to Congress the trade agreement with China, signed on July 7, 1979, its proclamation, and the executive order extending to China the Jackson-Vanik waiver (H.Doc. 96-209). The agreement was approved by Congress on January 24, 1980 (H.Con.Res. 204, 96th Congress) [ed. under the Carter Administration] and entered into force (together with the reciprocal grant of the MFN status which it contains in addition to all other provisions required by section 405(b) of the Trade Act of 1974) on February 1, 1980 [ed. under the Carter Administration].

Although the agreement, concluded for a 3-year initial term, provides for automatic 3- year extensions, its continuation in force is also subject to Section 405(b)(1)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2435(b)(1)(B)), which applies to any trade agreement with an NME. The provision requires the President to determine "that actual and foreseeable reductions in United States tariff and nontariff barriers ... resulting from multilateral negotiations are satisfactorily reciprocated by the other party...." The agreement has been thus far renewed five times, most recently by Presidential Determination No. 96-33 of June 21, 1996 (61 F.R. 32631) through January 31, 1998.

Discussing the merits of China's MFN status is another subject altogether. My own view is that the initial granting of MFN status was appropriate when you consider the substantial reforms China had put into place in 1979. I think that renewal should have been contingent on more reforms than have actually taken place.

Similarly, WTO membership should have been contingent on more reforms. China hasn't even met the reforms that were required for its membership (particularly those having to do with banking).