Redstate

Funny, but NPR hasn't mentioned that the two areas hardest hit by the tsunami (Aceh, Sumatra and the east coast of Sri Lanka) were both terrorist sanctuaries.

I wonder how that little fact got left out?

....but I've seen plenty of MSM mention on the Tamil Tigers and the Acehnese guerrillas.  Nightline, for one.

Details on French generosity.

All I had was a somewhat sardonic chuckle over the fact that Kos' and Co's obsession over the cost of next month's Inauguration has all of the ear for political nuance that we've come to expect from the activist Left.  The event isn't at taxpayer expense, and it's not clear that President Bush has control over those funds.  The only permanent result from all of this is that there's a precedent now for criticizing Democratic Inaugurals.

Unless, of course, all of this represents the (hypothetical) private opinion of Kos that the Democrats will not win another Presidential election in any of our lifetimes, anyway - so he might as well go ahead and burn that bridge.  Then it all makes perfect sense.

I was listening to NPR last night on eth way home and there was a lot of discussion of the separatist movement in Aceh.

AIDS Activists Say Bush Shortchanging Global Fund

by Maggie Fox

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson has been chosen as chairman of the board of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, AIDS campaigners and sources said yesterday.

Mr. Thompson, who will keep his current job, will chair board meetings and work to raise the profile of the fund, the sources said. They said he would be formally named to the new job today at the fund's headquarters in Geneva.

A spokesman at HHS said he could not confirm the report.

AIDS activists said the decision is ironic.

They have criticized U.S. President George W. Bush for his decision to give the fund less than requested. In his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Mr. Bush announced a $15-billion (U.S.), five-year plan to fight AIDS in Africa, Haiti and Guyana, but designated only $1-billion of it to go to the fund.

The rest will be used in separate programs the United States will set up independently with 14 chosen countries.

"Secretary Thompson will be chosen to chair the board of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS a day after a generous presidential AIDS initiative largely sideswiped the Global Fund," Asia Russell, director of international policy at the AIDS lobby group Health GAP, said in a statement.

"If the U.S. is going to buy the chairmanship, they could at least use real money," she added.

The fund has asked for $3.5-billion a year from the United States. The United States gave $200-million last year and Mr. Bush's plan would add $200-million a year.

The fund was set up in 2001 as a kind of global war chest against the three infectious diseases by the United Nations and the G8 group of industrialized nations.

The Millennium Challenge Account, an idea Bush proposed in 2002, is in a bigger financial hole. The original goal was to provide more than $4 billion in the first two years and then $5 billion in 2006 to help poor countries that are trying to open markets, promote democracy and abide by human rights standards.

The administration asked Congress for $2.5 billion in 2005;(Republican) Congress (emphasis mine) initially tried to cut that in half. Lawmakers agreed to $1.5 billion only after White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten reminded them that this was a presidential priority and that if it got less money, the program could not provide multiyear support to the 17 countries that had qualified.

One problem was congressional delays in approving the government entity responsible for assessing proposals from countries. It did not formally begin work until last spring and has yet to approve a compact.

Steven Radelet, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, said he believed the AIDS initiative eventually will be fully funded. He is less confident about the Millennium Challenge Account because of budget pressures.

"It's a little unrealistic to think Congress will agree to $5 billion" in 2005 or future years, he said.

Radelet also worries that, contrary to the two initiatives' original intent, they will be promoted at the expense of other aid programs. Lower-profile existing programs - money for the global environment or multinational development banks - "could begin to be squeezed, and I think that's where the danger is," he said.

OOPS maybe you should have done your homework, you would have realized that the  Millenium Challenge is yet another unfunded Bush mandate.

Yeah, that first story.....Lordy, where to begin?  You don't know much about this subject, I'm guessing.  Any idea why the bilateral program got more funding?  Any idea what proportion of GFATM funding comes from the US?  Any idea what the discrepancy is between US funding versus other sources?  Between US pledges versus other sources?  Any idea just what the MO of these AIDS activist organizations usually is?  (Hint: how often do you see the headline, "$15 billion over 5 years is a welcome effort, activists say"?)  Any idea in what universe a $1.5 billion program is an "unfunded mandate"?

The voice of ignorance.  Actually, reading at least one of the links above would have forestalled your embarrassment here.

How's Zurich?

If one actually bothers to read some of the details on the Global Fund website, then one notices this footnote where it lists the US contribution:

The maximum amount the United States could have contributed for 2004 is $546,755,000.  However, the USG contribution cannot exceed 33 percent of total contributions made in the year that ended 30 September 2004. This has resulted in a confirmed contribution level from the United States for 2004 of $458,881,279.

So it turns out that one limiting factor for our government's contribution to the Global Fund is actually the level of contributions from all of the other countries.  If they had given more, we could have given more.  However, we are limited to giving no more than 33% of the total budget.

Once again someone tries to criticize Bush and goes down in flames.  I think the same people who criticize Bush would have criticized Mother Theresa for not ministering to more lepers while she was alive.

"I think the same people who criticize Bush would have criticized Mother Theresa for not ministering to more lepers while she was alive."

Was Mother Theresa a reliable source for anti-Bush quotes?  :)

Once again someone tries to criticize Bush and goes down in flames.

But that does not seem to matter here anyway. I just thought I'd inject a little reality into this woefully misinformed rant.

The above link contains an update that corrects the French amount to 15 or 20 million euros.  Apparently the smaller amount was a contribution from various city and county governments in France and not from the French government itself.

I think it's too early to compare the contributions from various nations, as the early amounts are sure to change in the coming days.

When DDD criticizes Bush for supposedly not funding his programs, he is way off base.

First, DDD obviously has no real world experience in working with large budgets and large organizations.  Large amounts of money allocated, even when the need is great, is not just instanteneously and magically spent, if one intends it to be used wisely.  In short, you can't literally throw money at a problem.  You have to find the right channels to spend it through, and the right objects to spend it on.  Sure, one can do what the UN does and allow the money to slip away into the pockets of corrupt politicians and dictators, but if one really wants to accomplish something positive one has to spend the money with due diligence.  And the channels that need the money can still only spend it so fast.  It takes a finite amount of time for real people to spend money on real programs.  There is no getting around that.

Second, it is not surprising that Congress would in some cases modify what the President asks for.  But you know what? Even then, when you ask for a huge amount of money, and Congress forces a compromise, you still end up with a huge amount of money.  As Trevino points out, no matter how you look at it, Bush has spent an enormous amount on foreign aid, far more than Clinton ever did, in fact.  

Third, there is also the other forms of aid that America provides that is not included in these dollar figures.  As Pres Bush alluded to in his remarks this morning, there is the mobilization of American military forces to the disaster region to assist...well, that ain't cheap.  In fact, US military forces across the globe pour in dollars into foreign economies, providing a big boost.  Oh, yeah, by defending countries in Europe and Japan we free them up to spend more on foreign aid.

The US is the greatest, most generous country on the planet, and Pres Bush is the most generous president to date.

Myopist: Mother Theresa died in 1997, and so didn't have much to say about Pres Bush!

However, she was an outspoken prolife crusader, and definitely would have applauded his prolife stance.

The diary starts off ranting about the supposed mistruths Kos wrote then the diarist tells two of the biggest whoppers...OOOOPS!!!

DDD: Basically, every one of your points has been debunked.  All you can do is affirm that you are trying to inject a "little reality" here.  I'd say you were trying to inject a little unreality here.

Face it...no matter what Bush did, you would find a way to criticize.  If Bush walked on water, you would complain that he couldn't swim.

At a time when we could've shined, and made true on our promise of international generosity and a beacon of optimism and hope, the Bush administration gave us the opposite.

Look how much good will $2 billion in annual aid to Egypt buys us among the Muslems.

DDD: you state that the diarist tells two whoppers...but it seems that your data to back that up has been itself disproven.

In short, Trevino and myself have debunked that assertion.  

However, you blindly cling to it.  I guess you have no other option...to admit you were wrong is not conceivable for you...

Here's a point often overlooked when measuring American generosity: the enormous giving by private citizens.

According to CNN:

Americans last year gave an estimated $241 billion to charitable causes -- domestic and foreign -- according to a study by Giving USA Foundation.

The point is this: In America, even though our govt gives more in foreign aid than any other nation, the far greater amount is given by private citizens.

This is a tribute to our people and is fantastic.  For when the people are involved the accountability is higher, and the money is more wisely spent.  The collective wisdom and accountability will see to it that the charity bears more fruit.

One more point: one reason why Americans are able to give so much is because we have a highly prosperous economy along with a relatively low tax base.  For those who always want to raise taxes, they should remember that when taxes go up charitable giving goes down.

...instead of simply spouting off, were to go to the trouble to look up the amounts spent by the US on various foreign crises and disasters in the past 10-20 years (including aid "in kind", like use of military transports).

Then, we could actually have an informed debate on whether or not the aid package being prepared by the Bush admin is actually above, below, or about average, after adjusting for the size of the disaster.

Better, maybe some Red Stater with time on their hands (not me, unfortunately) could look it up and with any luck find a nice hammer to hit those one-note Johnnies over the head with...

No answers to any of the questions posed to you?  Or are you still looking them up?

the 200 billion we spent bombing Iraq.

Or the 100 hundred dollars given to residents of Falluja on their return to their bombed out homes.

The cup runneth o'er in foreign aid.

Any idea why the bilateral program got more funding?

The "US Leadership on AIDS, TB, and Malaria Act" also authorized $10 billion over the next five years for Bush's bilateral program to fight AIDS in fifteen African and two Caribbean countries. The untested bilateral program, which is not yet operational, has already come under international suspicion as a slush fund for US pharmaceutical companies and a vehicle to dictate abstinence in African communities. Activists contend Bush's side-stepping of the multilateral Global Fund for the sake of a program of his own design will have disastrous consequences for people with HIV/AIDS in need of antiretroviral therapy. Financing from the Global Fund will enable an estimated 500,000 to receive antiretroviral therapy, representing a tripling of current coverage in poor countries.

Activists point to spending patterns and "buy American" rules in US aid as evidence that US-run HIV/AIDS programs are likely to prefer US pharmaceutical companies. Confirming the US will stick to protectionist and preferential policies, they claim, is the recent US pressure on the Global Fund to accept brand-name pharmaceutical donations. According to the activists such a policy would curtail the open-bidding process and competition that would otherwise favor lower-cost quality generic versions of AIDS medicines.

Are you sure you want me to answer the rest??

Here's some interesting data from the State Dept:

After hittingan all-time low in the mid 1990s, total foreign assistance (but excluding Iraq reconstruction) for FY2003/2004, in real terms, has been larger than any two-year period since the mid-1980s.

Here's more interesting data:

It was under Saint Bill Clinton that foreign aid took a sharp dropoff in 1996.  In fact, as a percent of GDP and in inflation adjusted dollars some of the lowest records on years were during the Clinton administration.  The guy could cry for the cameras, but that was about it.

As AIDS activist Lord Alli commented:

"Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn't talk, but does deliver," Lord Alli said.

DDD brings up the point inadvertantly, but it does bear mentioning:

Our liberation of Iraq, along with our liberation of Afghanistan, rank as huge contributions to humanity.

There is no doubt about that...just because it was a military operation doesn't mean it didn't serve a tremendous benefit to the people liberated, as well as the whole human race.

and the Iraqis are throwing flowers at the feet of our soldiers in honor of our generosity!!!!

Links to the above:

State Dept Report

Quote from Lord Alli

You conveniently leave out the fact that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are not acting in any violent way against our soldiers.

The only ones doing so are the terrorists and the former Baathists that had it good under Saddam.

I guess you really did not read this...particulary page 21

Open markets, not aid, foster growth and development. Data show that the key to development is open markets, not aid. The top freest economies in the world also have also some of the highest living standards.

The top 10 recipients of foreign aid have received contributions from the United States since the 1960s under a myriad of health, infrastructure, education and technical assistance programs. Unfortunately, despite the billions sent, most of these recipients are just as poor as they were in the 1960s, when they began receiving aid.

More trade lifts people out of poverty.  And the key to helping people in the most profound sense, and in the long term, and in the way that helps them the most to withstand natural disasters, is to promote economic growth and prosperity.

The real benefit we offer other nations is this:

we are by far and away the top importer of goods from developing countries, and by far and away the top source of private capital to developing countries.  This is the real way to help.

And Pres Bush's free market philosophy is ideal in this regard.

so H U G E that over 1300 soldiers have been killed. No wonder Rummy got tired of writing all those KIA letters to their parents and loved ones.

I guess you didn't notice that the low point in the curve of foreign aid was in 1997...under Saint Bill Clinton...and that the curve is going up under Bush...

So I guess the death toll of 1300 or so soldiers somehow implies in your mind that it takes the majority of the population of Iraq, (25 million people), to achieve that?

It took 19 people to kill over 3000 here in Sept 11...or don't you understand assymetrical warfare?

Yes, tragically, we've lost approx 1300 troops in Iraq...but that in no way implies that the majority of Iraqis are against us.

You are just repeating dumb talking points, without logical connections.

But see, here's the thing: I know you have no idea what the answers are, and it takes you a while to look up ones that support you, however tenuous they may be.  Case in point above.  The actual reason for the preference for bilateralism versus the Global Fund lay in two factors:  first, the nature of GFATM funding, and the concurrent control over expenditures and practices that bilateral aid renders; second, the increasingly bad lag between Global Fund grants and disbursements.  This latter is no small matter -- when I attended the GFATM forum in Geneva last May, it was a major topic of complaint.  To the Fund's credit (and I'm a fan of it, by the bye), it is working in good faith to resolve these issues; but one can hardly fault the United States for choosing the most expeditious means to its end.  You may choose to believe, as you will, that the end in question is the large-scale funding of greedy pharma companies.  Having been on the ground and with the people involved, I know better.

Now, back to Google with you, kid.

You've got his MO down, certainly.  The makings of a loyal dKos reader, there.

don't hurt your brain...I know how painful truth is to you people. I didn't come here to change anyone's mind but that diary was so GLARINGLY IGNORANT that I could not let it pass.

I am outta here...no matter how many facts I can show it won't change your faith-based reality...that is to say throw out the fact when it doesn't fit the reality.

But I did get a giggle as to how far you would go in order to remain in the dark. I also find it interesting that the first thing you did was NOT to try to argue on fact or merit but to intimidate...bullying will only get you so far. If you need proof just look at the fall in standing the US has had to suffer these past four years.

When 9-11 happened THE ENTIRE WORLD RALLIED TO OUT SUPPORT...even the most radical Islamic countries...now look at us ...a petty dictator like Castro gives us the finger and the whole world says we deserve it. So if you think it is better to bully than debate then we are headed for more trouble ahead.

Do you know what "unfunded mandate" means?

It's a requirement to do something, that has no money attached. That is in no conceivable way the case here.

And it's Extra Special Neat how anything an "activist" complains about must be true. I mean, they're activists, man, so why would they ever have any reason to even exaggerate?

QED, fellow.

Can't hack it, by all means go.

It has "come under suspicion"? By whom?

On what grounds?

The fact that activists "suspect" something is not an argument that something is actually wrong. (And, gee, which AIDS medicines are available as generics yet, legally? Hmmm? "According to activists" this might be curtailed. Are the "activists" eliding the issue of patent-breaking, and the negative incentives that creates for new research?

Naw, they wouldn't care. They're activists. Activists are in almost all cases, from what I can see, more interested in maintaining a postitive self-image and a cushy activist job than actually getting anything done. Carping in a press release doesn't get medicine to sick people, but it sure gets you press and donations, eh?

And accepting DONATIONS of brand-name pharmacetuticals? That's just evil Kkkorporatism, right? Jesus. Do you even live in the same world as sane people? It seems not, if you buy this at face value. Credulousness does not help your case.

Factor in private donations to international charities and get back to me. I for one am quite content for our country to sit at the bottom of that graph. And it speaks well of our economy that such a low percentage puts us at the top of the raw dollar graph.

Offtopic, but DDD's response here reminds me of an old joke that I've heard credited to Abraham Lincoln:

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?

A: Four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

DDD proves the point that liberals care more about vague fuzzy feelings than facts and realities.  He writes:

"When 9-11 happened THE ENTIRE WORLD RALLIED TO OUT SUPPORT"...

First, the only reason we received such an outpouring of support was that we had been attacked...I'll gladly trade such short term sympathies for lack of attacks anyday...

Second, no one expected that to last anyway...even Richard Clarke was on record in 2001 noting that these good feelings would inevitably ebb no matter what...they were short term sympathies...the same one experiences if you visit someone in the hospital...but they in no way altered the basic reality that nation states act first and foremost on their perceived self interests.  That did not change and would not have changed regardless of what Bush did...

Third, it has been said that a formula for failure in life is to try to please everyone all of the time.  That same axiom holds true for nations as well.  If all we seek out is the approval of other nations, or at least no disapproval, then we are a sorry people, indeed, and destined for failure.  The only way to gain such unanimous approval is either by always being the victim or at least by doing nothing.  Doing nothing will generally offend no one.  However, doing anything in this complex world will generally offend someone.

I'd much rather has the respect of other nations...rather than some vague fuzzy perception of good feelings.  

Let's remember: Churchill was not very popular warning people about Hitler, or advocating action against him...until people saw what Hitler really was.  It's not uncommon for great men to encounter opposition.

Finally, it is a huge myth that America's standing in the world has suffered so much under Bush.  By and large it is just fine.  We still engage in the same amount of trade, people still want to immigrate here in huge numbers, and we still influence the entire world in culture.  So we can't be doing that much wrong.  It is only in the liberal echo chamber that there is all of this resentment against America.

More comments on DDD's rather silly comment:

"When 9-11 happened THE ENTIRE WORLD RALLIED TO OUT SUPPORT...even the most radical Islamic countries"

First, I remember there were many radical Muslims who celebrated the attacks of 9/11, including the Baathists in Iraq and many Palestinians....

Second, presumably those countries of "the entire world" who "rallied to our support" on 9/12 felt the same way about us on 9/10...in other words, the outpouring of support immediately after 9/11 was a reflection of a base of support that existed prior to 9/11.  Well, that only proved that this base of supposed support did nothing to protect us from the attack of 9/11.  In fact, all during the Clinton years, when Clinton did everything to kiss up to foreign governments with his foreign policy by photo-op, did everything to kiss up to the UN, and did everything to appease Arafat, the terrorists still kept on building up and attacking us with progressively larger and more daring operations.  So apparently building this vague and nebulous good feeling doesn't amount to so much after all.

Reagan wasn't much liked when he dared to confront the Soviet Union in various ways...the Europeans in particular protested.  Yet lo and behold Reagan won the Cold War and the Berlin Wall came tumbling down.  Amazing.  So those same Europeans that were so worried about Reagan starting this nuclear war with the Soviets were instead freed from this threat by Reagan.

When people take strong action it inevitably causes a stir among a lot of people.  That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Instead of sitting around waiting for a conservative to make a mistake; it would be intelligent for liberals to offer their assistance in the Indonesia tragedy.  Liberals seem to be caught in a intellectual void where they have nothing to offer on this or tax reform or ss reform or anything - they can only sit and wait for a "mistake" to be made,

I think a perfectly valid response would be for the United States to slap a "for sale" sign on the U.N. headquarters, with the idea that every penny raised would go to the relief effort.

Least percentage of GDP=Most dollars.

Sounds like a double winner to me. Apparantely you glossed over page 20. 100% of nothing is still nothing so % of GDP argument won't fly with me.

Head back to Kos and rant about W there. Heck while you're at it bash the good ole USA too.

~leaves~

You're not one of those people who criticize Bush and Republicans for the debt and deficit, are you?

While I agree with the general thrust of the post here, it should be noted that no actual money has been dispersed yet under the auspices of the Millenium Challenge Account. As for your claim about " the most meaningful steps ever to link aid to good governance in recipient nations," I'm not sure it's true. The MCA was developed out of the World Bank's 1998 study, assessing aid.

That said, it's a good program.

I would argue that open markets and aid have two completely different roles to an impoverished country.

When comes a disaster, aid is needed to maintain a threshold of infrastructure so the country can get back on its own feet. Free trade does indeed foster growth, but it doesn't (on its own) eliminate the need for aid.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but this seemed like an important distinction to make.

I believe the real story here is the missed opportunity for the President to demonstrate America's committment to a culture of life as an alternative to Osama.

Bush should be on a plane to Sumatra preparing to make a highly visible and genuine demonstration of American leadership and aid during this incredible disaster for all the people of the region a significant percentage of whom are Muslim. The President's charisma coupled with real leadership in the disaster relief effort would, in my opinion, have a powerful, positive impact on the Muslim street's opinion of America. Next time Osama's hate-mongering recruiters come around looking for recruits or cash people would have to think twice about the "Great Satan".

We're in a war on terror and we've just missed an opportunity that will never come again. It's a shame. It could have been Bush's version of Reagan at the Berlin wall.

Avoid small, pink fellows with voracious appetites and the ability to subsume their enemies' powers. That's all I'm saying.

"Bush should be on a plane to Sumatra preparing to make a highly visible and genuine demonstration of American leadership and aid"

My impression of Bush were he to do that would be far more negative than positive.  It would come off to me as if he was using the tragedy to further political issues rather than truly caring about the people.  Far more effective to work on providing the aid and getting it done rather than posing for a camera (this is akin to the quote above where Clinton could cry for Aids/HIV victims and get wonderful press coverage, but not do sh-t... Bush on the other hand was busy taking care of business and not posing for the cameras).