You start out in 1972 by saying, "One China, One China." By 2016 you can't say "One China"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like “the close economic,

You start out in 1972 by saying, "One China, One China." By 2016 you can't say "One China"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like “the close economic, political and security ties between Taiwan and the US” and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now that you're talking about permanent training missions, and all these things you're talking about are totally regional stability things and a byproduct of them is the PRC gets hurt worse than the KMT. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the Taiwan problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "these are the commitments we made" is much more abstract than even the training mission thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "One China"