Stephanie Cutter, one of the Obama campaign’s top officials, tweeted a link to the Xinhua news outlet, a Chinese propaganda front that reports directly to Communist Party.

Must read:China’s Xinhua slams Romney for making his money off Chinese companies before running for pres. #hypocrisy reut.rs/Ou5wIr

— Stephanie Cutter (@stefcutter) September 14, 2012

The so-called “must read” article, the veracity of which is dubious, alleges that Republican Mitt Romney profits from Chinese companies.

Some Twitter users did not appreciate Cutter’s shout-out to a Communist-run media outlet, responding to her tweet: “They’re almost as communist as you.”

Minkovski currently works as the host of “The Alyona Show” on RT, the Kremlin owned and operated English-language news channel that was previously known as Russia Today.

Minkovski’s show is known for its steady stream of anti-American propaganda, and a total blackout of news relating to crackdowns on democracy activists and opposition movements within Russia.

Politico has described the network as “raw propaganda,” and even the liberal New Republic has described the network as “Pravda on the Potomac.”

This is not the Huffington Post’s first foray into publishing Russian propaganda. Vladimir Putin was given a platform by the website earlier this year, publishing two pieces before criticism of the relationship seemed to bring it to an abrupt end.

It’s unclear whether Minkovski will continue to collect a paycheck from the Kremlin as she enters this new project with AOL’s Huffington Post.

Abby Huntsman, the daughter of Barack Obama’s former ambassador to China, will also be working for the online network.

The Free Beacon has requested comment from Huffington Post and will update as needed.

The Daily Caller reports:

The video, obtained and translated into English by the Palestinian Media Watch research organization, was performed for children in East Jerusalem, and included puppets singing, “Jerusalem, whose youth are being killed by the Jews… Jerusalem, we will not surrender to the enemies or be humiliated.”

According to Burj al-Luq Luq’s [a Palestinian Authority social organization] website, the organization has been supported by several branches of the UN, including UNICEF and UNESCO, and also has been backed by a number of international donors.

President Obama’s reelection campaign invokes the death of Osama bin Laden in a new web video, contradicting the president’s previous claim that he would not “spike the football” with respect to the terrorist’s demise.

The video uses footage of an interview with former president Bill Clinton from the pro-Obama propaganda film “The Road We’ve Traveled,” and suggests that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney would not have ordered the raid that killed bin Laden.

“The commander-in-chief gets one chance to make the right decision,” reads the text in the video. “What path would Mitt Romney have taken?”

Shortly following bin Laden’s death in May 2011, Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft that his administration would not release photos of the dead terrorist because he did not believe in using the occasion to score political points.

“You know, we don’t trot out this stuff as trophies,” Obama said. “We don’t need to spike the football.”

In 2008, Obama’s campaign criticized his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for trying to “invoke bin Laden to score political points” in a campaign advertisement.

“We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don’t need another,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement responding to the ad.

The video is not the first instance of the Obama campaign attempting politicize bin Laden’s death. Speaking to a crowd of supporters in New York City yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden implied that Romney would not have killed the 9-11 mastermind.

“If you are looking for a bumper sticker to sum up how President Obama has handled what we inherited, it’s pretty simple: Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive,” Biden said, invoking the controversial auto-industry bailout.

“You have to ask yourself, if governor Romney had been president, could he have used the same slogan—in reverse? People are going to make that judgment.”

Walsh is responding to a Free Beacon report revealing that signs posted in at least 20 DOL elevators depict Secretary Hilda Solis carrying a bullhorn and rallying alongside the Rev. Al Sharpton. Next to the pictures is a quote from Solis that reads in part: “We all march in our own way.”

Walsh, who sits on the Congressional Oversight Committee, condemned the posters as “propaganda” and demanded to know how much money the department has spent to produce the signs.

“Some employees that have remained anonymous have described these posters as ‘propaganda’ and I agree,” wrote Walsh, according to a copy of the letter that was provided to the Free Beacon. “This sign is both contrary to the role of your Department and is a misuse of taxpayer funds. Your job is not to inject yourself into politics – especially not by promoting your own political stance through a poster paid for by the taxpayer.”

Walsh said that the signs are a waste of taxpayer money.

“Your sworn responsibility is to serve the American people and I ask you to stop the procurement of these signs,” Walsh adds, demanding an explanation. “I ask you to respond to the scope in which this poster was circulated, including the costs it took to produce such a product. I also will ask you to address whether further posters like this have been produced already and your policy on using taxpayer money to make a political point.”

The chief of the General Services Administration was forced to resign and other top employees were fired Monday after it was revealed that the department was misspending government dollars.

In an interview, Walsh called the motivational placards, which are said to be rotated on a weekly basis, an “absolute waste of government money.”

He also said that blatant political materials create “an unsafe and uncomfortable work environment. There is absolutely no place for this in the public sector. Who knows how many employees feel uncomfortable with this and lord knows they can’t speak up.”

Walsh said that Solis must “cease and desist” from posting political materials immediately.

One DOL employee who spoke to the Free Beacon Tuesday also said that the signs are inappropriate for the workplace.

“It is propaganda. This is what being in a Chinese factory during the Cultural Revolution is like,” the source said. “It’s offensive. It’s saying that we’re all on the side of Trayvon Martin, or whatever Sharpton is doing, and the people of Labor should be for it.”

The DOL did not return multiple requests seeking comment.

Signs posted in at least 20 DOL elevators depict Secretary Hilda Solis carrying a bullhorn and rallying alongside the Rev. Al Sharpton, the Free Beacon has learned. Next to the pictures is a quote from Solis that reads in part: “We all march in our own way.”

“Whether we take to the streets or simply do our work with integrity and commitment here at the U.S. Department of Labor… we are all marching toward the same goals: safe workplaces, fair pay, dignity of the job, secure retirement, and opportunities to make a better life,” the poster states.

It concludes with a call to action.

“I believe in the power of collective action. We all play a role. We all march.”

Several employees labeled the ads as offensive, referring to them as shameless political propaganda, said one DOL employee who requested anonymity.

“It is propaganda. This is what being in a Chinese factory during the Cultural Revolution is like,” the source said. “It’s offensive. It’s saying that we’re all on the side of Trayvon Martin, or whatever Sharpton is doing, and the people of Labor should be for it.”

The source, who noted that other employees have recoiled at the sight of the posters, added that the endorsement of Sharpton and his tactics is offensive to Jewish people.

“It’s offensive to Jewish people because Sharpton was the engineer of a pogrom in Crown Heights” New York, explained the source.

Jewish leaders and others have criticized Sharpton for inciting a riot in Brooklyn in 1991 that targeted Jews.

Sharpton apologized nearly 20 years later, admitting that he did not “know the full volatility of the situation” at the time.

It is unclear how much money the posters have cost the government to produce, but the DOL source speculated that across three years—when the signs first began to appear—the signage could total close to $1 million dollars.

The chief of the General Services Administration was forced to resign and other top employees were fired Monday after it was revealed that the administration was misspending government dollars.

A DOL press officer did not respond to a request seeking comment on the posters.

The DOL source explained that new pro-Obama posters appear in the elevators nearly every week. The source, who has worked at the department for more than a decade, said that the signs started appearing shortly after Obama entered office.

Other posters have touted “gay rights, quotes from Obama, and pictures of Obama with quotes from the chairman,” the source added.

From the Daily Caller:

The 8th grade students, who attend Liberty Middle School in Fairfax County, were required to seek out the vulnerabilities of Republican presidential hopefuls and forward them to the Obama campaign.

“This assignment was just creepy beyond belief — like something out of East Germany during the Cold War,” one frustrated father, who asked for his family to remain anonymous, told The Daily Caller.

The students were not given a choice to perform the same task against President Obama. The teacher has not been disciplined.

At issue is the Post’s China Watch publication, a print and online advertising supplement that purports to deliver the news about China. The site hosts numerous articles and feature pieces that portray the Chinese government—particularly its human rights record—in a glowing light.

Some journalism experts and China observers say the partnership crosses ethical boundaries and misleads unassuming readers about the Chinese government’s lackluster record on a host of important issues.

The China Watch website, which features the Washington Post’s official masthead, looks like many other online news sites, containing videos, articles, and slideshows. However, a small block of text in the website’s right-hand corner offers a disclaimer: “A Paid Supplement to The Washington Post.”

Journalism experts believe that the Post should explain to readers the precise nature of its relationship with China.

“They need to address the proverbial elephant in the living room—why are you carrying a Communist government-sponsored publication?” asked Lois Boynton, a journalism professor at the University of North Carolina’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

“It raises some ethical issues for the Post,” said Boynton, who criticized China Watch for intentionally obfuscating its origins.

“There are issues of transparency associated with who publishes China Watch,” she said. “The ‘about’ blurb doesn’t provide that detail. Although many people may know that China mainstream media is government-controlled, it may not be clear for all readers.”

“Readers go right through this section as if they’re moving through the hard news to the more in depth reporting, never realizing that they’re being inundated with Chinese government propaganda,” said Stephen Yates, a former national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. “It doesn’t hit a person that they’ve arrived at an ad supplement filled with things that have passed Chinese Communist Party filters.”

China Watch’s content is chiefly produced by China Daily, an English-language newspaper that takes an uncritical look at the People’s Republic of China and toes the Communist party line on a range of issues, including the economy and politics.

Many of the links on China Watch carry the reader directly to China Daily’s website. That site operates under a China-based domain name, meaning that its content is heavily regulated by Communist Party censors.

Fred Hiatt, the Post’s editorial page editor, said that he has no problem with the business relationship—so long as the content is clearly denoted as advertising.

“I don’t object to the Post selling advertising space to those who have different viewpoints than I do, as long as—as is the case here—the material is clearly labeled,” Hiatt told the Free Beacon. “Anyone reading our editorials on China, human rights, the importance of democratic development in China both for Chinese people and for the world, will know that our point of view is quite different in many cases from that of the Chinese Foreign Ministry.”

Hiatt further noted that “no one on the business side of the Post has ever expressed any opinion to me about our editorial line, or tried to influence it in any way, and I similarly have no objection to their selling advertising.”

However, the paper’s ombudsman recently took the newsroom to task after it published a heavily doctored transcript of an interview with Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping in which, according to the Post, the Chinese government “provided questions and answers of its own.”

The interview and subsequent correction led Ombudsman Patrick Pexton to refer to the article as “more press release or propaganda than news.”

Pexton, who pointed to the Post’s financial relationship with the Chinese, criticized the paper for permitting the Communist government to dictate and alter its questions to Jinping.

“So, The Post submits written questions—already a far cry from a live face-to-face unscripted interview with journalists—and the Chinese say, thanks, but we don’t like your questions, so we’ll provide our own questions and answers. Take it or leave it,” he wrote. “The Post took it. I think it should have left it.”

A representative in the Post’s online advertising department hung up on a Washington Free Beacon reporter who called to inquire about rates for a Post-branded site.

The Post’s communications director, Kris Coratti, defended the newspaper’s advertising policy: “The section is clearly labeled as advertising so that our readers know it is not Washington Post news content. As for what’s in the ads, we have always given advertisers wide latitude to have their say, whether the advertiser is a business, person, or a group.  We have accepted the China Daily ads for many, many years under these standards.”

China Watch’s content also raises questions about whether the partnership potentially runs afoul of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which stipulates general guidelines about filing and labeling political propaganda.

“As a legal matter one gets into murky waters fairly quickly,” said Bill Reinsch, a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. “FARA was intended to address propaganda and lobbying, and, as always, there is a continuum of that kind of behavior, and drawing lines is difficult. Pieces that are overtly pushing a foreign government’s line fall at one end of the spectrum, but what about material that could best be construed as ‘information’?”

Reinsch said that the Post’s deal with the Chinese wades into uncharted legal terrain.

“It’s an interesting question and one that is rarely asked, I suspect because the media is not all that excited about investigating itself,” he said.

It’s an issue that the USCC could find itself debating in the years to come, Reinsch said.

China’s critics on Capitol Hill said China Watch illustrates a much larger problem.

“The Chinese have used our own free market and profit system, and twisted that to support the Communist Party in China,” an aide to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.), an outspoken critic of China, told the Free Beacon.

The advertising deal is just one cog in China’s PR machine, added Yates.

“There is a very well established pattern where Chinese entities exercise influence over American thought leaders,” said Yates, president of DC International Advisory, a political consulting group. “And they’re publishing in what used to be seen as the paper of record in the nation’s capital.”

Post reporters “should be concerned because what it does is equate what they’re doing with the propaganda product,” added Kelley Currie, a senior fellow at the Project 2049 Institute, a think-tank focused on Asia.

Others raised questions about what exactly the Chinese government is receiving for its money.

“What do they get? Traffic information? Identity information?” wondered Yates. “All kinds of things will leave a trace that you are reading something, sharing articles, leaving comments. Who gets that information?”

The target of these attacks is Michael McFaul, who was recently appointed by the Obama administration as the new U.S. ambassador to Russia. McFaul played a principal role in crafting the administration’s so-called Russian “reset,” a policy meant to ease tensions between Moscow and Washington.

It doesn’t seem to be working.

Earlier this month, an unknown group of flaks likely associated with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin unleashed a web campaign that draws comparisons between McFaul and a notorious rapist.

In one video that purports to be a man-on-the-street-style news package, bystanders are asked to review a photo comparison of McFaul and Pedro Alonso Lopez, a maniacal pedophile the Guinness Book of World Records has listed as the world’s most prolific serial killer.

The video begins with flashes of Lopez’s mutilated victims.

Pedestrians are asked if they can tell the difference between McFaul and Lopes:

Questioner: “Who of these two do you think is the pedophile?”

Pedestrian: “I think it’s that one.” (Points to McFaul)

In another exchange, the anonymous questioner asks, “Which of these is a pedophile?”

The response: “The American ambassador!”

A second video utilizes the same tactic, apparently travelling around the globe to ask people if they can tell the difference between McFaul and the pedophile.

“From childhood, priests teach Europeans how to discern what a pedophile looks like,” the video states in its opening credits, according to a translation.

Though their exact origin is unclear, the videos could have been created by the members of pro-Putin youth groups, or by the anti-American All-Russia People’s Front, a social movement backed by Putin.

The Washington Post recently speculated that the video could even be a product of the successor to the Russian KGB, the FSB.

“The anti-American campaign bears trademark Soviet and KGB thinking, reflecting the mindset of many of the high-level officials appointed by Putin as well as their efforts to protect their power and privileges from the gathering opposition,” the newspaper wrote last week.

McFaul recently drew the ire of Putin and his allies after holding a meeting with the Russian opposition upon his arrival in Moscow, and some speculate that the video campaign could be a reprisal.

The Sanya Initiative launched in 2008 with support from retired Adm. Bill Owens, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the China Association for International Friendly Contact (CAIFC), a Chinese military front organization, the report said.

“Institutions and persons affiliated with [People’s Liberation Army] military intelligence entities play a prominent role in the Sanya Initiative,” the report by Congress’ U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said.

The intelligence and influence effort was outlined in a late draft of the commission’s 2011 annual report. However, the section containing details of the intelligence links was left out of the commission’s final report made public in November.

A U.S. official said the passage’s deletion occurred because some of Sanya’s U.S. participants and senior commission members were concerned about portraying the exchange program negatively. The Washington Free Beacon obtained a copy of the omitted material.

William Reinsch, China commission chairman for the 2011 cycle, did not disclose why the material was excised. In an email he wrote, “While I supported the action taken, I was neither the lead nor sole proponent of it.”

According to the report, “the leading Chinese figure in the PLA delegations participating in the first two rounds of Sanya Initiative dialogues was retired Gen. Xiong Guangkai, the former deputy chief of the PLA general staff who was director of PLA Intelligence.”

Xiong “has remained active in public affairs since his retirement in 2007, serving as chairman of the Chinese Institute of International Strategic Studies, a think tank directly affiliated with PLA intelligence,” the report said.

Read the draft report section here, left out of the final report.

PLA uses retired military for influence

The PLA influence operation used the retired military officers to convey Chinese propaganda and policy messages to Congress and the Pentagon, including during meetings in 2009 with then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, briefings to the Pentagon’s advisory Defense Policy Board, and lobbying against the annual Pentagon report on China’s military.

The Chinese sponsor of Sanya, CAIFC, worked closely with the Chinese military’s Foreign Affairs Office “to raise the idea and secure the necessary approvals” for the exchange program.

“While nominally a civic organization promoting international exchanges, the China Association for International Friendly Contact is actually a front organization for the International Liaison Department of the PLA General Political Department,” the report said.

According to the report, the PLA uses CAIFC as a cover name for carrying out “ideological and political work on foreign armies, [to] explain China’s policies, and [to] disintegrate enemy armies by dampening their morale.”

The report also said the Chinese sponsor of Sanya “is linked to the Intelligence Bureau of the Liaison Department of the PLA’s General Political Department … [with additional] ties to both the Ministry of State Security and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The Ministry of State Security is China’s civilian intelligence service. The Liaison Department of the PLA is in charge of “conducting propaganda and psychological operations directed at other militaries.”

“The Liaison Department conducts its perception management operations in accordance with centrally determined [Chinese Communist Party] propaganda messages,” the report said, quoting a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst as saying that propaganda programs are implemented through PLA public and intelligence channels under the direction of political commissars.

In 2009 the office of the Director of National Intelligence identified the Chinese liaison office as a “major collector” of intelligence against U.S. interests, the report said.

Larry Wortzel, a U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission member, told the Free Beacon that the Chinese military skillfully uses political and intelligence units to cultivate relationships with retired U.S. and other foreign military officers.

“One way it has done this is by using the China Association for International Friendly Contact,” he said. “Its programs have sought to invite retired US officers to China as well as to cultivate representatives of U.S. defense industries. My experience in contact with groups brought to China by CAIFC shows that often the U.S. visitors are offered business or partnership opportunities in China.”

Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, formerly a senior U.S. counterintelligence policymaker, said in an interview that the retired officers’ effort highlights the Chinese government’s roots in the communist movement. “Subversion—the technical term—is their foremost stock in trade,” he said. “The regimes of this movement employ a number of political warfare/influence operation techniques which mislead the West because they are used as weapons, not as a means of cooperative relations.”

Western states regard exchanges and meetings as part of free, informed, open discussions while the Chinese regard them as part of a political warfare struggle, he said.

“Many in the West have been, and are being yet again, duped just as they were when the PRC and the late Soviets used them in the 20th century,” Mr. deGraffenreid said, noting that the FBI has been “gun shy” in using its counterintelligence operations to halt the activities as a result of poor counter-spying and strong political reactions from the pro-China lobby in the United States.

“The role of PRC military intelligence entities in the Sanya exchanges, and the consistency of messages from the Chinese participants with official PRC narratives, both strongly suggest that the Chinese government has intended the exchanges as a channel for communicating to the U.S. policy community the [Chinese Communist Party’s] preferred narratives on national security issues,” the report said.

Owens was quoted in the report as saying a central goal of Sanya is to “convey accurate and relevant information to key decision makers and national leaders in China and [the United States],” the report said.

“U.S. participants in the Sanya Initiative have made a number of proposals and recommendations on U.S.-China policy that closely parallel themes emerging from their meetings with PLA counterparts,” the report said.

For example, Owens told a conference in Washington in 2008 that China’s policy was peaceful; that China did not seek to be a superpower; and that “China’s intentions toward its neighbors are peaceful and neither irredentist or hegemonic.” All those themes have been identified as Chinese propaganda messages.

Retired Air Force Gen. Ronald Fogleman, a former Air Force chief of staff, was also identified as a Sanya participant who echoed PLA propaganda themes at the same meeting. Fogleman “warned that the United States risked making China into an adversary through the U.S.’s own actions,” the report said.

The report said Owens also has repeated China policy themes in op-ed articles in newspapers, and in one called for the United States to review the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act because it is the basis for selling arms to Taiwan and “is not in our best interest.”

China’s government and military has said repeatedly that the United States must not sell arms to Taiwan, which the Chinese regard independent as a breakaway province.

The Sanya Initiative has also targeted the annual Pentagon report to Congress on China’s military, a report frequently criticized by the PRC as an exaggeration of China’s military intentions. The congressional report stated that U.S. members of Sanya were “asked by their PLA counterparts … to use their influence to press for a delay in the publication of the Pentagon’s ‘Military Power of the People’s Republic of China’ report to Congress.” It said Fogelman had contacted U.S. government officials to propose this but was not successful.

Congress changed the name of the annual Pentagon report from the “Military Power of the People’s Republic of China,” to the “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China,” in 2010, however. Some congressional aides said this was an effort by Congress to soften the report.

Initiative launched in 2008

Sanya launched in February 2008 after Owens and CAIFC hosted a series of meetings in Beijing and the city of Sanya on Hainan Island in the South China Sea.

In addition to Owens and Fogleman, U.S. participants have included retired Army Gen. John M. Keane, former Army vice chief of staff, and retired Marine Corps Gen. General Charles E. Wilhelm, former commander of U.S. Southern Command. Chinese participants have included Xiong and four other retired PLA generals.

A 2008 report produced by Sanya listed “key outcomes” of the first meeting. Included on the list was that “American and Chinese Generals agree that they are in an excellent position to convey information to key decision makers and national leaders.”

According to Sanya report, “all four American generals have already begun to discuss writing op-ed pieces to provide a counterpoint to the current writing about China’s military, for example that of Bill Gertz….”

Read the 2008 Sanya report here. 

Owens, since retiring from the military, has been engaged in business in China, where government connections with Chinese leaders is considered essential to success.

A spokeswoman for Owens had no immediate comment. However, last year he responded to written questions, saying that he started Sanya based on his belief that the initiative would serve U.S. interests for retired U.S. and Chinese generals to meet once a year for discussions about military relations.

“This project has the full knowledge and support of senior government officials, and the work that I do has been conducted in close consultation with the U.S. Embassy and policy makers in Washington,” Owens said. “It has been undertaken with clear attention to America’s security and best interests.”

Regarding his contacts with Xiong, the former PLA intelligence chief, Owens said the retired Chinese general was his counterpart for the first two Sanya meetings and is no longer involved.

“Regarding the Pentagon’s annual report on China’s military build-up, the Chinese raised it in the first Sanya Initiative meeting two years ago, but I have never worked on my own or with the Sanya Initiative to lobby Congress or the executive branch to change this report,” he said.

Asked about reports that he had earned as much as $100 million through investments and businesses based in Hong Kong, Owens declined to comment on his personal finances.

Fogleman and Wilhelm could not be reached for comment and Keane said he has not been associated with the group since 2008.

Other Sanya participants have included retired Adm. Joseph Prueher, a former U.S. Pacific Command commander and former ambassador to China, and retired Adm. Timothy Keating, another former Pacific Command leader, according to the report.

Prueher headed an academic commission on China at the University of Virginia that produced a report in April 2011 that sought to play down the threat emanating from China’s development, the report said.

That commission’s recommendations closely aligned with Chinese propaganda from the Sanya program on Taiwan in opposing U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and reviewing U.S. policy on the transfers, according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s report.

The congressional report said Prueher’s commission played down “the Communist identity of China’s ruling party—a staple of PRC messages to foreign audiences” and made the questionable assertion that “it is accurate for Americans to view and interpret China as ‘Chinese’ rather than as ‘Communist,’ as they are pragmatically, rather than philosophically, driven.”

The Sanya group met in 2008 in China, in 2009 in Hawaii, New York, and Washington, and in Beijing in 2010. The 2010 session was hosted by Chinese Gen. Xu Caihou, vice chairman of the Chinese Central Military Commission, China’s highest organ of power, and by Gen. Liu Zhenqi, deputy director of the PLA General Political Department.

The report said that during the meeting Xu called on the United States to “‘to respect and accommodate China’s core interests and major concerns’ in order to further bilateral military ties.”

The Pentagon has tried for the past decade to develop closer military relations with the PLA. But China’s military continues to view the Pentagon as its main enemy and relations and exchanges have been stymied. Beijing cut off the military exchanges twice in recent years to protest U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.

The report also asserted that the United States is wrong to seek a democratic government in China because “a complete democracy is not necessarily the best model for the Chinese at this time.”