Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

What is it with you and reading articles?

I read that same article, and it only says other people made that accusation. In fact, it allows a great about of room for both sides of the debate. Maybe you need to read slower before you decide to post something, because it seems to me you post something anytime somebody even refers to criticism of Bush.

If you had your way, it’d be puff pieces and softballs all the way. It’s a funny thing, really. As cynical as you are about the government, you are all too willing to take it at is word. I am not so trusting.

Stop being so thin-skinned.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 29, 2004 03:30 PM

Stephen,

You don’t see any loaded characterizations within this story?

Posted by: ericsimonson at December 29, 2004 03:35 PM

Once again, Eric, you are right.

Bush probably should have come out earlier with a statement, but he is wise to stay away personally. I understand the French foreign minister has already visited the region. I am sure he and his retinue got in the way and his publicity stunt probably cost somebody his life or health.

In another thread, I posted some figures on how much the U.S. is contributing. I repeat them here (sorry for etiquette break) since they are otherwise buried.

The United States has made an initial pledge of $35 million. In addition, disaster experts, a Marine expeditionary unit, the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, and the Maritime pre-position squadron from Guam have been dispatched to the area. It will end up being alot more.

In 2004 alone, the United States contributed $2.4 billion to emergency humanitarian efforts, representing 40 percent of the total world contribution to emergency aid this year.

The U.S. is almost always the biggest donor in the world. The percent of GDP figures don’t mean so much. I always like to point out the U.S. military spending, as a percentage of our GDP doesn’t even rate in the top half of countries of the world. Nobody accuses us of having too small a military. Percentages matter, but so does size.

Re private giving - the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation just gave a grant of $24 million to fight malaria. That is a bigger gift than many country’s foreign aid budget. In addition, given the nature of the U.S. tax system, this means that the U.S. government also made a grant (lost tax revenue) of several million.
For more information on U.S. aid see http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2004/Dec/07-973541.html

Find more about the U.S. and the disaster at http://usinfo.state.gov/sa/south_asia/tsunamis.html

Posted by: Jack at December 29, 2004 03:54 PM

Eric,
I can see your point about a slant to the article. But how else do you explain Bush taking so long to appear & offer US leadership? The death & destruction has been horrible, and the dead include hundreds of US citizens. Seems to me like Bush simply showed poor judgment in taking so long to to represent our country, in a scenario where we can really show our best side.
Your right about the stupid comment made by that UN official. The US contributes a great deal through the private sphere. The official did retract his comment, as well he should. But once again, I think the US missed an opportunity by contributing ‘only’ $30 million. We’re capable of doing better, and again, this is a terrible catastrophe where we, through our government, can and should stand head & shoulders above the rest, simply because it’s the right thing to do.

Posted by: phx8 at December 29, 2004 04:19 PM

Whether the US should provide more or not is a moot discussion. The US, with more than 7.6 trillion dollars in national debt and climbing 1.77 billion more daily, can ill-afford to be philanthropic throughout the world. I say we call the 40% of the interest we pay on our national debt to foreign investors already more philanthropy than we can afford.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 29, 2004 04:29 PM

David,
While I agree that the debt is a huge problem, I absolutely disagree with the idea that the US can ‘ill-afford philanthropy’. We can afford it, and I can think of few more worthy ways for Americans to pool their resources as a country & act, than to provide relief to victims of a catastrophe. If that requires cuts elsewhere, I believe most people would accept that.

Furthermore, disaster relief is not simply a matter of ‘philanthropy.’ Hundreds of US citizens died, and countless others are injured or in dire situations. If you prefer to look at it as a matter of self-interest, it is incumbent upon the government to act on behalf of those citizens.

Posted by: phx8 at December 29, 2004 04:43 PM

Dubya’s Ranch, Crawford Texas, Tuesday, Dec 28:

Dubya: “Awwww, do I have to say somethin’ to them reporters about all the dead people? Its Christmastime!” Crosses arms, pouts. “Why can’t I ever do stuff I feel like doing?”

Rove: “Just go make a quick statement, give a little more money - that oughta shut them up.”

Dubya: Wrinkles brow in annoyance. “This is such hard work. Sometimes I can’t believe how _hard_ it is…, doing this work.”

Posted by: Adrienne at December 29, 2004 04:44 PM

The only philanthropy George Bush is concerned with takes the form of tax cuts to all his rich buddies and the corporations that control this world.

Posted by: Escobar at December 29, 2004 04:50 PM

Eric, thanks for summarizing, but you missed this.

In Britain, the predominant U.S. voice speaking about the disaster was not Bush but former president Bill Clinton, who in an interview with the BBC said the suffering was like something in a “horror movie,” and urged a coordinated international response. … Many Bush aides believe Clinton was too quick to head for the cameras to hold forth on tragedies with his trademark empathy.

Personally, this looks like yet another goofup to me. Leave aside the humanitarian issues, Indonesia is one of the largest Islamic nations in the world - isn’t it good PR to show that we’re willing to put some money into a Muslim nation without invading it?

Posted by: William Cohen at December 29, 2004 04:53 PM

In my experience as a writer, there’s no such thing as absolute neutrality. Events themselves can load the scales politically. If you seek neutrality from language, one has to resort to diplomatic speak that itself is bereft of meaning and emphasis.

I think you can only get what you’re wanting if the press totally abandons it’s reason for existence. If you think the press is all that liberal, I’d sure hope you’d explain its fixation on Whitewater and all that other stuff. Clinton got roasted by the press, but people’s lives got better, and he successfully got your people to put your foot in your collective mouths. Which of course, you blamed on the liberal media, rather than entertain the heresy that your behavior might have had something to do with it.

Bush’s secrecy makes him a prime target. In Texas, a governor’s papers are made almost immediately public. But Bush shucked his papers away in his father’s library, playing a game of archival keepaway. His administration has torn the living hell out of legislative oversight, all to prevent the public from finding out who put forward the energy policy that we now live with. Of course the UN doesn’t tell the truth, from time to time, but they’d have to go to great lengths as an institution to be as secretive as Bush is as an individual.

Bush also has failed to live up to his own press. You guys talk about what a great man Bush is, but great at what? Obviously his administration dropped the ball on choosing our battle, much less justifying it. We wouldn’t have had to fight al-qaeda terrorists in Iraq, ironically, if we hadn’t gone there in the first place. There absence would have been ensured by Saddam’s strict control of his country.

Before you get it into your head that I would have liked Saddam to stay indefinitely, I’ll tell you right off that my issue is with the deficits of security that plagued us from the start. By doing things that way, we not only handed our enemies a weapon, but turned our back to their knives. I could have forgiven this war much easier had he run it much better.

It would be easier to say that removing Saddam was a wise idea regardless of whether we got the case right, if the situation weren’t trending towards civil war, radicalism and anarchy. I mean, my standards are pretty simple in principle: Solid government, solid security, and solid peace. In short, creating a safe democracy that will serve to decrease tensions in the region rather than ratchet them up. It’s what you want. I’m just saying that Bush needs to do every damn thing that is necessary to get it done.

So far, though, that’s not what I’ve seen. I just get the sense of somebody whacking the top of a TV set, wondering why it’s not getting a better picture, instead of making the adjustments or getting the repairs necessary. The Bush administration seems to get stuck in a kind of fixation on making things work, when things don’t go as expected.

By the time Bush got re-elected, the insurgency had been gathering power for a year, starting in the summer of 2003.

Despite all the setbacks, the feedback from the Bush administration to these concerns is simply that the problem is stiff resistance from those who haven’t woken up and smelled the coffee of Democracy yet, and that the resistance reflects the panic and despair of the enemy in the face of a successful policy.

Maybe that works for the first few months, but when you start losing cities, start seeing casualties skyrocket, the explanation of catastrophic success, or last ditch desperation wears quite thin.

Bush’s biggest P.R. problem is himself and his own policies. If the media is burying him with negative coverage, it’s only because he dug his own grave with his impractical, incompetent, and stubbornly perseverated courses of action. Looking back at LBJ, you can see the same thing- LBJ did more to cook his own political fortunes with the way he screwed up Vietnam than Nixon ever did. As it is, Nixon won the 1968 campaign by a slim margin.

I think you confuse people printing uncomfortable truths about this war and this president with people being biased against him politically. I think you’re in a state of denial concerning just how bad a situation he’s in. God help him, he did it to himself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 29, 2004 06:10 PM

The press in this case was not only attacking president Bush, they were attacking the concept of U.S. generosity. It is an old canard that is just not true. The U.S. is so far and away the biggest donor to almost anything that people have to work on creative ways to make it look bad.

I just finished watching the News Hour on PBS, where AID Director Andrew Natsios set Gwen Iffel straight about U.S. aid. He pointed out that president Bush has increased development aid by 140%. It went from 10 billion under Clinton to 24 billion under Bush. I don’t recall the trumpets hailing American generosity of President Bush’s humanity. We are leading in the fight against AIDS, contribute 40% of all disaster aid in the world and supply nearly 60% of the food aid. Yet when a UN official calls us stingy, our own media lines up to explain why he might be right.

Americans can criticize President Bush for being slow to hop on the official show of grief. People around the world can criticize America for lots of reasons. But only the ignorant or the malevolent can believe they justifiable claim that we are doing less then our duty to help the rest of the world, especially in this case.

References

http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2004/Dec/07-973541.html

http://usinfo.state.gov/sa/south_asia/tsunamis.html

Posted by: Jack at December 29, 2004 07:59 PM

Jack-
It’s not the amount, it’s the proportion.

Eric-

Let’s compare versions of that headline:

Your version:

…Bush’s decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy — showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work…

With your quotation, the only conclusion possible is that the writer is the originator of the opinion.

Original:

Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics said the initial aid sums — as well as Bush’s decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy — showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia.

The voice changes. It goes from commentary to a summation of the opinion of the skeptics.

Your version:

…vacationing President Bush has been insensitive to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.

An accusation, which would demonstrate a substantial slant.

The original version:

The Bush administration more than doubled its financial commitment yesterday to provide relief to nations suffering from the Indian Ocean tsunami, amid complaints that the vacationing President Bush (news - web sites) has been insensitive to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.

Now it’s context.

Your version:

…domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise.

An appeal to popularity against Bush.

Original version:

Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise.

If criticism rises on a subject at home, and it doesn’t abate, it’s a statement of fact. You have yet to demonstrate this is a false statement.

Your version:

After a day of repeated inquiries from reporters about his public absence…

Even there, you can find a statement of fact. Did the reporters ask repeatedly after the subject? Did the president not appear in public to address the matter?

Original:

After a day of repeated inquiries from reporters about his public absence, Bush late yesterday afternoon announced plans to hold a National Security Council meeting by teleconference to discuss several issues, including the tsunami, followed by a short public statement.

Here, I can’t make sense of your redaction. You cut out the part where the reporter reports favorable actions on the administration’s part. Maybe you sought more punch to your point.

Your version:

Bush’s actions and words both communicated a lack of urgency…

A value judgment on Bush’s actions.

Some foreign policy specialists said Bush’s actions and words both communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do in the United States.

A description of somebody else’s value judgments, somebody else’s opinions.

Your version:

…they were surprised that Bush had not appeared personally…”It’s kind of freaky,” a senior career official said.

There was an international outpouring of support after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and even some administration officials familiar with relief efforts said they were surprised that Bush had not appeared personally to comment on the tsunami tragedy. “It’s kind of freaky,” a senior career official said.

A description of what could be a very interesting perspective on the president. It’s not positive, but again it’s a matter of whether it’s a factual perspective.

What strikes me is this: you seem to go farther in your interpretation than decrying bias. It seems to me you’re trying to more or less ban even the mention or description of liberal or adversarial points of view in journalism. You denounce statements in that article which are descriptions, quotations and paraphrasings of other people’s opinions.

In the meantime, your friends in the conservative media openly comment, openly opine, creating a strong media bias, and yet you don’t even bat an eye. If you were really concerned about objectivity, about truth, you’d slam the door on them too. No, this is a culture war entrenchment.

This is just a way of avoiding the uncomfortable truth about the Bush Administration’s efforts. This is just a way of justifying a strong bias and tendency to distort information by moral equivalence. It is misdirection.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 29, 2004 10:43 PM

Folks, you are missing the big picture. What if a similar Tsunami occurs in the Pacific and wipes out our west coast? Do we have a national debt picture that will permit us to recover? Do we have a reserve of economic resources to handle such a catastrophe? Or are we rationalizing that we are a Christian nation and God would not let something like that happen to us, or some other rationalization?

And if we don’t have the econmic resources for recovery, do we have the political good will with the world to ask for their help if we are the unfortunate nation to be hit by such a massive catastrophe?

There is a bigger picture here. We as a nation need to resolve our own economic weaknesses in order to self insure against such catastrophes which can come at anytime and in a number of ways, a virulent bacteria or virus, a monstrous West Coast earthquake, or worse, an earthquake from the fault running from Texas to Boston, or the Arctic Ice Shelf threatening to drop into the sea. It is not a good time to be broke and in debt, folks. We are bearing the brunt of the cost in the War on Terrorism, let that be our contribution to the world for the time being, and let the rest of the world aid the Indian Ocean coastal nations.

We simply must get our spending under control, and it won’t happen by throwing money at our own and everyone else’s misfortunes.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 29, 2004 11:18 PM

Stephen, you mentioned:

“In the meantime, your friends in the conservative media openly comment, openly opine, creating a strong media bias, and yet you don’t even bat an eye. If you were really concerned about objectivity, about truth, you’d slam the door on them too. No, this is a culture war entrenchment.”

There is a major difference between “our friends in the conservative media” (I can only assume you mean talk radio people such as Rush Limbaugh). Each of these figures is well-known to be coming from a conservative perspective and are not trying to claim an unbiased approach. The mainline media does give their reports in a manner that implies complete, undeniable truth. I will agree that they may be speaking the truth, but the problem comes as much in the portions of the truth they decide to leave out as it does in the way they say things.

This article is interesting to me in the way it approaches the facts. When you are reading an article, where do the most important facts go? They are in the introduction and the conclusion. You get a summary of any article by simply reading the first couple paragraphs and the last paragraph. While this article does have some positive statements about Bush and the US administration, the overriding theme is negative, and it ends on the negative note of the “low foreign aid.” I find it interesting that the second to last paragraph again quotes Egeland after saying earlier that he had withdrawn his comment. If he withdrew the comment, why is it being repeated again? Maybe because the writer of this article liked what Egeland had to say and was biased to use it against Bush?

Read just the first 3 and last 3 paragraphs, what is the overriding theme?

Posted by: danny at December 30, 2004 12:01 AM

Just yesterday, I thought the howling over our President’s delay in offering relief and public condolences, was contained to the Lefty blogsphere. But, no matter what percentage and amount this country has and will give in emergency aid, there will be one overriding impression Bush Apologists cannot explain or deflect - the appearance that this administration really didn’t give a damn!

That impression is reinforced, because here it is 5 days hence and the administration’s AID director is not detailing our relief efforts, but doing damage control, having to admit his $35 Billion budget allocation is spoken for. Criticism would’ve been unwarranted, if he was able to detail the efforts by Congress and the White House to expedite the remainder of his allocation of funds.

And although David is pragmatic in his insistence that we’re too broke to be of any help here, there is much more an actual compassionate leader of the richest nation can offer under these extraordinary circumstances. Many point to the $30-40 million being spent on the Inauguration, plus during this supposedly thriving economy, is it too much to expect our empathetic leader to put the pressure on U.S. corporations that have benefited the most during the ‘Bush Boom’?

Regardless of you being a political animal with thin skin, if you genuinely felt you and your administration had responded to this tragedy in a timely and appropriate manner, then the exact opposite was on display at today’s belated press conference. Addressing criticism most would expect a second term President would not even bother acknowledging, Bush’s irritated retort today spoke clearly as to what really prompted his sudden attention to the tragedy.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at December 30, 2004 02:36 AM

Liberal bias?

How about an attempt to shame your country into getting its ass in gear? When the US was attacked on september 11th (with an ensuing death toll that was about 1/10th of what we are seeing right now) the whole world was quick to jump to offer you support. Now, Bush is nowhere to be seen when he could be reaching a hand out to hard-hit Muslim countries like Indonesia, which would certainly help in the war on terror. Even Clinton has been more visible as an American leader! You can be sure that next time the US asks for help (say, in the event of another attack on your soil) these countries are going to remember how quick the White House was to jump to help them. Hell, Bush is offering less aid money (35 million) than tiny countries like Canada (40 million) who have 1/10th the population!

Claiming ‘liberal bias’ here is a pretty weak excuse here. Sorry my man, but the truth hurts.

Posted by: Canadian at December 30, 2004 02:54 AM

The operative word is OFFERING.

We have seen in many international situations where many countries offer aid. They sometimes offer the same aid three or four times. When the actual money rolls in, it is a lot less than was offered. The U.S. usually ends up giving more.

We all know that the U.S. will end up giving more than any other country. This will come from U.S. government sources as well as private American ones. Let me remind everyone once again that private American giving is on the order of several times that of most European countries and since our tax system allows deductions for such things, it means the U.S. Government is pitching in around 20%. I used the example of Bill Gate’s $24 million grant to fight malaria as an example. I read the Pfizer has pledged $35 million to the tsunami victims. That will be roughly 8 million in forgone revenue to the U.S. treasury. Few other countries allow these sorts of deductions.

The U.S. will also cover most of the transportation costs. A U.S. carrier group is dispatched to the region. That is very costly. You know that U.S. military transport planes and helicopters will be doing most of the heavy lifting.

Right now there is a lot of grandstanding. Everyone is standing in line to show how much they will give. It is a little unseemly, especially when you know that a lot of this money will never actually be dispatched. Beyond that, it shows a lack of understanding. Money doesn’t do anything by itself. Right now, the key is getting to the people who need help. That is something the U.S. military will be helping with. After that rebuilding can begin, but just pouring money in will only mean that much will be stolen and misdirected.

This truth might also hurt, man, but doing good requires more than promised and a good heart. It will require American C-130 transports. Oh yes, that military we maintain will be saving more lives than all the good wishes.

Posted by: Jack at December 30, 2004 09:03 AM

Perhaps if we didn’t have to pay for Canada’s entire national defence we could kick in a few more bucks.

“Sorry my man, but the truth hurts”

Posted by: Beagle at December 30, 2004 09:33 AM

Another example of anti-American bias (not liberal) has to do with foreign aid and AIDS. I remembered but had to look it up. You can check out http://www.iht.com/articles/534831.html among others for background.

Last summer, there were complaints that the U.S. wasn’t doing enough to fight AIDS and tuberculosis. We were even criticized by Europeans on this, but the reason was often left out.

The U.S. had agreed with the EU and others that we would all share the expense. To make sure that the U.S. was not left holding the bag, congress made U.S. giving contingent on ACTUAL not pledged contributions by others. The U.S. was not allowed to give more than a third. We found we are contributing much more and had to cut back because other pledges weren’t coming in. This was reported in many media as U.S. stinginess. So before people criticize the U.S., I suggest they check into the dollar figure and actual results.

And Stephen, both proportions and size matter. Besides when you add private American giving and do the same for others, the American per capita begins to look a lot better. In our system, we do a lot through the private sector in general that most others do through the public sector. It is a different way of organization. If we measure only government giving, the U.S. looks a little stingy. If you measure European (continental not UK) private giving, most of them look like absolute scrooges. In truth you have to consider both.

Posted by: Jack at December 30, 2004 09:36 AM

Danny-
I wonder, if I asked you, what important, signficant information you would indicate got left out, because I can’t seem to figure out what it is. I mean, we have an earthquake of a magnitude not seen in 40 years anywhere, a large segment of the Indian Ocean’s coastline inundated, and over a hundred thousand dead, including a number of Americans. I know he resents Clinton’s empathizing, but good God, if six figure casualities and multinational devastation isn’t an occasion for sympathy, then our president has been wrung pretty dry of tears.

You claim that our story is incomplete. That may be. But Eric’s story is demonstrably, intentionally incomplete. He left out qualifications, balancing information, information that indicated the opinion offered was not that of the author. He fundamentally changed the character of many statements for what I feel is the sake of dramatic effect.

We all would bias a story by our assumptions, but it’s entirely different to bias it by knowingly presenting a different picture of the text than what is really there. In short, it’s one thing to have an imperfect perspective on the information, it’s another thing to create an imperfect picture of that information on purpose.

You guys seem intent on having your administration look good, even if that means that it become opaque to the observation of the American people. You would rather have us ignorant of the mistakes that affect our lives than dissenting and complaining about their policies.

As for the overriding theme, it’s this: There is controversy about the president’s response to the disaster. Biased or not, it’s true. What’s not true is that the author of the article is taking sides. It worries me greatly that you people don’t make the distinction between presenting the sides of the argument and taking sides.

Overall, my sense is that your people are too concerned about the image of your actions and not concerned enough about the nature of your actions. It is useless and fruitless to continue trying to fight Bush’s negative image, if substantial actions are not brought to bear with that.

Personally, I would say this: Bush calls himself a Christian, and a Christian is obligated to help those in need. Bush should stop complaining and lashing out at his critics and recognize that it is his Christian duty to help those affected by the disaster to the greatest extent possible. If he is willing to to be lackadaisical about this whole thing, I don’t know how he can claim to be a Christian.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 30, 2004 09:44 AM

Jack-
We are offering a drop in the bucket. Can you look at all that destruction and say that a few million will do anything to help that? The damage in Thailand alone will figure about 510 million. Bush can boast about the munificence of the United States, but the people of South and South East Asia will see little benefit from that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 30, 2004 09:54 AM

Eric, come on. Egeland? UN? Why would anybody be surprised that a representitive of the UN, a corrupt, anti-American organization would try to use a natural disaster to do more Bush bashing.

“in the year 2004, our government provided $2.4 billion in food, in cash, in humanitarian relief to cover the disasters for last year. That’s $2.4 billion. That’s 40 percent of all the relief aid given in the world last year, was provided by the United States government.”

“what you’re beginning to see is a typical response from America. First of all, we provide immediate cash relief, to the tune of about $35 billion [sic]. And then there will be an assessment of the damage, so that the relief is — the next tranche of relief will be spent wisely. That’s what’s happening now. I just got off the phone with the President of Sri Lanka, she asked for help to assess the damage. In other words, not only did they want immediate help, but they wanted help to assess damage so that we can better direct resources. And so our government is fully prepared to continue to provide assistance and help.”

“It takes money, by the way, to move an expeditionary force into the region. In other words, we’re diverting assets, which is part of our overall aid package. We’ll continue to provide assets. Plus, the American people will be very generous, themselves. I mean, the $2.4 billion was public money — of course, provided by the taxpayers. But there’s also a lot of individual giving in America.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/12/20041229-1.html

If the liberals want to bash Bush, at least find something that has some merit.
Bush didn’t react fast enough, he didnt do this or that. Yawn!
The facts are there. Bush did react and America will supply the majority of all relief. And there won’t be one person or organization that will stand up and say, “yeah, we did make a mistake, President Bush and the American people did alot more than we were complaining about.”

This is nothing more than another lame attempt to blame Bush for everything. Next thing you know, the UN, the Post and other media will be blaming the earthquake and tsunami on him.

Theres plenty of “real” stuff to hold him accountable for, people should concentrate their efforts on those.

Posted by: kctim at December 30, 2004 10:14 AM

Sorry to be talking to too much, but I do want to apologize for writing in anger. I see that my peevishness came out a little.

In this situation, the whole world is acting honorably. I am proud of the human race in this case. The international community is moving quickly and effectively. We should not bicker and argue about it. There will be plenty of time later for that sort of thing when the rebuilding starts. I am proud to live next to “the Canadian” and salute that country’s generosity and decentness in so many situations. .

Stephen

I think the U.S. will and is doing its duty. President Bush’s pledge is only an official aid pledge and only a beginning. Count in all the private U.S. contributions, the in kind and organizational contributions by the U.S. military and the remarkable generously of businesses like Pfizer and you get a truer picture. Most of the rebuilding can’t and won’t be done by government aid. But even when you take into account only government funds, the U.S. spent 2.4 billion on disaster relief last year. That is 40% of the world total. Our food aid was nearly 60% of the world total. You can always ask for more, but what percentage of the world total do you want to be American? Size matters.

When you include private U.S. giving and humanitarian military aid (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1104/ijpe/topic.htm), we would be pushing the limits.

Posted by: Jack at December 30, 2004 10:16 AM

Of the $220 million pledged so far, the US is only covering 15%. Usually, we cover about 25-35%.

But from a public relations standpoint, that doesn’t matter anymore. Bush could pour a bazillion dollars in there now, and everyone will think he was shamed into it. An immediate statement of sympathy would have gone a long way towards maintaining and generating respect for America.

It amazes me how people all over the world call on America for help. In Liberia, Haiti, Sudan, and now Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia. The US, by our prosperity, strength, and values, occupies a special place in history. Too bad our leader is not helping us live up to our potential.

If Bush was any good, Clinton wouldn’t have had to say anything.

Posted by: American Pundit at December 30, 2004 10:23 AM

AP

Pluralism.

That is what makes the U.S. so strong and prosperous. It is also what makes us so misunderstood. As an American, I am proud of Bill Clinton and of firms like Pfizer. American private charity will pick up a large part of the costs. The U.S. military will provide most of the logistics and transport to alleviate the disaster. The U.S. government in only one voice in this American symphony and the president one part of that.

Most other places are organized around their governments. Louis XIV famously said that he was the state. Even with the evolution of free market democracy the state is the nation to a much greater extent most places than it is in the U.S. The American people are usually ahead of their government. This is a good thing. But it does lead to misunderstanding among the more statists countries that include most of the world.

Posted by: jack at December 30, 2004 10:34 AM

Jack, you can rationalize all you want. The fact is, compared to other recent disasters, President Bush was slow to “feel their pain”, and then compounded the error by pledging a smaller percentage of aid than we usually do.

Posted by: American Pundit at December 30, 2004 10:41 AM

Let me put it this way, if Bush had been as on the ball as he was with the Iran earthquake last year, this wouldn’t even be an issue.

In fact, Bush scored a lot of goodwill from his prompt handling of the Bam relief operation. Even I was impressed. Unfortunately, Bush dropped the ball on this one, and it’s going to cost our country some respect and admiration.

Being President is hard. Usually Americans choose a man who is up to the challenge.

Posted by: American Pundit at December 30, 2004 10:48 AM

AP

It is sometimes our role as citizens in our democracy to fill in for the deficiencies of our leaders. I hope you will make sure people in Singapore are aware of the U.S. contributions. When the Abraham Lincoln shows up, I am sure there will be a lot of news and pictures.

Posted by: Jack at December 30, 2004 11:17 AM

Jack-
I believe we can and should do more. Our generosity in Europe after WWII ensured allies for the next half century. Generosity here will reap dividends in the future. We should make this a major operation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 30, 2004 11:36 AM

Stephen

I agree that we should be generous in this case. And I am sure we will be crucial to this recovery. I also agree that our generousity after World War II was crucial to our current prosperity, but it is easy to take these analogies too far. The Marshall plan was instrumental in making getting the Atlantic alliance off to a good start, but it was the military and economic follow up that made it stick. As will be the situation in this Asian case, most of the heavy lifting was done by private business, that invested and made everything work.

Gratitude only goes so far. Remember how Charles de Gaulle paid back our liberation of his country.

Posted by: Jack at December 30, 2004 11:43 AM

Jack,

Once again, Eric, you are right.

I never tire of hearing those words, Jack. Thank you. ;)

Stephen,

Here we have a natural disaster and what is the focus of the left? The Bush Administration. This ‘public relations disaster’ is a creation of those who have a political axe to grind. It’s sad really, that real tragedy is used in this way for scoring political points.

With your quotation, the only conclusion possible is that the writer is the originator of the opinion.

Again Stephen, you’re trying a little too hard here. Who wrote the article? Who chose the wording? There are lots of ways to characterize and report the news. The use of ‘snarl’ words is not generally an accepted practice in journalism unless it’s an editorial. That’s what this piece is: an editorial.

For instance, I could explain to someone else that you have responded with a thoughtful comment on the merits of my arguments regarding this article’s bias… or I could say that up to the point you finally deigned to explain your position, that your previous prolonged silence on this issue showed how insensitive and politically uncaring your ideology really is.

See how easy it is?

Words have a connotation in addition to their normal denotation and this article was clearly meant to send the negative message about Bush that it did. The article itself is part of the “domestic criticism of Bush that is continueing to rise.” In fact I’d say these ‘journalists’ here are campaigning to increase domestic criticism of Bush.

What strikes me is this: you seem to go farther in your interpretation than decrying bias. It seems to me you’re trying to more or less ban even the mention or description of liberal or adversarial points of view in journalism. You denounce statements in that article which are descriptions, quotations and paraphrasings of other people’s opinions.

Here’s the difference, Stephen. I have no problem with journalists expounding on their political views. Just don’t ask me to pretend that it is impartial. Declare your affiliation and then argue your point. Journalists can be as liberal as they are or want to appear, just don’t tell me that it’s when they are that it’s not liberal or adversarial.

ALL I am saying here is that this article is adversarial. I said nothing about banning or censoring. Far from it. I WANT the adversarial. Bring it on! (as it were.) I am just pointing out that this article violates the standards of journalism itself. News is not supposed to be commentary. It’s not supposed to be an editorial or political diatribe. If they want to call themselves reporters then report the freakin’ news!

They could have reported this story with facts instead of slant. Report that there is criticism. Report who is making the criticism. Report what they’re political leanings might be. I am asking for more facts not less!!!!

The ‘stingy’ statistics are another example. Does the article mention that the per capita international giving is only direct budgeted gvernment aid? That it completely ignores private donations which far exceed the government aid? You’d think that that would be a pertinant fact that could shed light on the issue.

But I guess that’s why the good Lord invented blogging.

Posted by: ericsimonson at December 30, 2004 12:51 PM

The American tax payer underwrites a portion of all private charitable giving. Folks who can afford to give charitably, deduct the amounts (up to a capped limit) from the amount of their income to be taxed by the IRS, thus increasing pressure to raise additional revenues to compensate.

Charitable giving benefits the giver who pays federal taxes, reduces federal gov’t revenues from those who can afford to give, and places upward pressure on tax rates for all to make up the difference.

Those who can and do give charitably are to be commended. It is not inappropriate that the IRS incentivizes charitable giving. But, let’s not forget that all taxpayers underwrite charitable giving with tax rates that compensate for the tax deductions of charitable giving.

The President should have paused to think before committing huge sums to foreign nations. He wants to cut the deficits in half, he wants to lower the tax burden on the American people, and large donations to the Tsunami disaster victims will serve to undermine these other goals.

We as Americans are apparently going to act like big spending rich people until the day we look in the wallet and discover we are destitute and having to rely on the kindness others ourselves. What is your opinion of a wealthy business man who spends & gives away his wealth to the point of having to live on the public dole himself? Why is he different than the US which gives away hundreds of billions while racking up a trillion dollars of debt a year?

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 30, 2004 01:37 PM

TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK PEOPLE

First the media bias doesn’t exist just on one side.

I find it incredulous to say the least. No one not one pepe about the hundreds of thousands of people who year in year out are being beatin, tortured, raped and murdered for believing in Jesus Christ. Yes the same Jesus that this liberal press who claimms to have all the tolerance tries to impune on a regular basis.
These men,women and yes children who are never spoken of silently cry out to a world who is more interested in stupid comments from people who don’t care. Your intolerance screams so loud that your actions are muted! Have you been to the capital yet and seen the inscriptions on the walls there,they where there before you and will be there after you are gone. they refer to that God with which people willingly die for. This country was founded upon these precepts which are written on biuldings. Why is it that this country is on of the youngest on the planet and yet we alone are the last remaining superpower.
Or has your own bias blinded you from the truth.
Even athiests of the highest order turn from there ways to acknowledge a GOD who has given this country the ability to do all that it does even for those who don’t acknowledge his supremacy in all things?

Posted by: Chris at December 30, 2004 02:34 PM

“Even athiests of the highest order turn from there ways to acknowledge a GOD who has given this country the ability to do all that it does even for those who don’t acknowledge his supremacy in all things?”

Not all of us.
And where are you trying to go with this sermon?

Posted by: kctim at December 30, 2004 03:03 PM

David Remer wrote:

What if a similar Tsunami occurs in the Pacific and wipes out our west coast? Do we have a national debt picture that will permit us to recover? Do we have a reserve of economic resources to handle such a catastrophe? … We simply must get our spending under control, and it won’t happen by throwing money at our own and everyone else’s misfortunes.

Well, how about this, then: we cancel the Bush tax cuts which put our nation’s economy in such a fragile state that you fear we might not have the “economic resources to handle such a catastrophe.” That way, we could pay down our national debt, and have plenty of money for disaster relief, both here and abroad.

Posted by: buddhistMonkey at December 30, 2004 03:32 PM

buddhistMonkey, Bingo! It is about setting priorities in all our actions both to accomodate the present, the planned future, and the unexpected future, to the best of our ability. We are not doing so to the best of our ability at this time, neither the electorate, the politicans, nor the government agencies. We are all capable of much better - but, the priorities have to be there to set such a plan of action in motion.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 30, 2004 05:33 PM

David,

The American tax payer underwrites a portion of all private charitable giving. Folks who can afford to give charitably, deduct the amounts (up to a capped limit) from the amount of their income to be taxed by the IRS, thus increasing pressure to raise additional revenues to compensate.

Charitable giving benefits the giver who pays federal taxes, reduces federal gov’t revenues from those who can afford to give, and places upward pressure on tax rates for all to make up the difference.

LOL! Yes, it all belongs to the government! This is Mr. Eggland’s basis for saying governments aren’t giving enough. I thought greens were for personal responsibility? How silly of me. In Orwell newspeak, “We are the government.” Hee hee.

I’m not sure why you think we should keep ANY of our money since anything that reduces our taxes is stiffing the treasury. Why not just do away with incomes altogether? That would certainly solve the deficit problem. The government can provide for us. I’m sure we’ll all get equal rations.

Posted by: ericsimonson at December 30, 2004 06:20 PM

Eric, you completely misread my post and intent. As I said, I have no problem with charitable giving or IRS deductions for same.

The point is, if we are ever to get our financial house in order to take care of our own, our government must quit playing Santa Claus or Mother Theresa to the rest of the world.

When we get our financial house in order, then, we can play Santa Claus and Mother Theresa.

The other point you missed, is that every dollar Bush sends overseas, is going to be a dollar cut from services rendered by our government for its own citizens and tax payers, because Bush is out cut the deficit in half. If he is cutting spending while giving money away overseas, the cuts will come from programs that benefit Americans here at home.

Priorities, my friend, priorities!

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 30, 2004 07:09 PM

Eric-

Here we have a natural disaster and what is the focus of the left? The Bush Administration.

Your president is the only one we’ve got, and he couldn’t take time from his busy vacation to deal with the sudden annihilation of over a hundred thousand people in the worst tsunami event in recorded history. How is it that he should not be called to a higher standard? This is the price of becoming the world’s greatest superpower: people expect more of you.

Hell, we should expect more of ourselves. This isn’t merely politicization, but Democrats saying we’ve had enough with your mediocre president. What is likely the worst natural disaster of the year, and Bush drops the ball.

I’m not going to go back over the quotations you mangled so badly. You obviously read pretty thoroughly through that article, and knowingly got rid of qualifiers and context that did not fit your agenda. You focused exclusively on those “snarl words”, while taking out language that indicated who was opining. That is a fallacy of accent, an argument built on the removal of important information from your reader’s immediate sphere of attention.

A reporter should not downplay the passions involved in a dispute. They should not write “Falwell disagreed with the court decision” When Falwell denounced it angrily. What you propose is something akin to Orwell’s newspeak, watered down, meaningless, and purposefully so. You don’t even have the decency to apply it equally.

Fact is, Bush has stepped on so many toes an stirred such anger in this country that such language is not only appropriate but accurate to describe the opinions of those involved.

Were Bush a less controversial, less secretive, less scandal plagued president, I would not be saying that, but as it is, opinions run strong about the man. You just don’t want to face the consequences of such a divisive and hardline presidency.

Here’s the difference, Stephen. I have no problem with journalists expounding on their political views. Just don’t ask me to pretend that it is impartial.

I don’t care about the political views of the reporters. What I care about is the quality of the reporting. The polarization of the media is a pretty damn useless development as far as I’m concerned, because the point is to let the facts and what conclusions that can be supported by those fact create the story. The point isn’t pretending the system is impartial, it’s expecting it to be impartial. I expect writers with liberal or moderate views to live up to their journalistic obligations. I see no evidence the writer here wrote anything false, or editorialized.

You have no business saying this writer is editorializing, especially not with all the times you linked us to sources of yours that were nothing more than blogs and editorials themselves. You seem to have news and editorials confused on a constant basis.

You don’t seem to make the distinction. I do. I don’t link to blogs if I can help it, I link to nice, solid journalistic material from outlets that have something to lose by not reporting things properly. I will go a long way to find facts, before I will resort to posting something that’s just somebody’s opinion.

Fact is, you had to crop and edit that material to make it look like it was an editorial, to make it look like it violated journalistic standards. There was no paragraphs of commentary, no political language, no first person language I’m aware of. He was reporting, you just didn’t like what he had to say. So you claimed it to be an opinion piece so you wouldn’t have to do the real work of checking facts, instead of “snarl words”. You exploit ambiguity and political prejudice to bypass discussion of facts.

As for private charities, I don’t see how that is pertinent, when the subject is Bush’s giving on behalf of the American people

Chris-
That is more a bias against international news than anything else. Such deaths also have to compete with the death and destruction of thousand every year in other parts of the world. You shouldn’t get mad at a worldly press for not taking on your religious point of view. Besides, in the end, no death, much less that of a Christian goes unnoticed by God, and when Judgment comes, they will have their vindication. I think modern Christians in America have become too sensitive to the slings and arrows of the world. It’s not like we weren’t told by our Lord and Savior that the world would make things tough on us.

We should help these people, if we can, but if circumstances prevent us, we should trust in God’s wisdom and his plan.

Do recognize that America was founded to be secular, to have religion and politics separated in the public sphere. God has allowed many empires, Christian and non-Christian to be raised, and eventually let each fall. I’m sure over time, ours will, too.

Don’t be so quick to accuse others of being blind to the truth. We Christians are no better at having perfect sight and insight into the world and the heavens. Everybody has their ethos, their voice of conscience in them. How can you be so sure that God doesn’t guide them? How can you be so certain that you are any closer to the truth than them. It is not your job to judge the souls of other.

We must not get our will and God’s confused, because in that moment, the whispers of our Enemy insinuate into our souls with the most subtlety.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 30, 2004 07:10 PM

Stephen-

Do recognize that America was founded to be secular, to have religion and politics separated in the public sphere. God has allowed many empires, Christian and non-Christian to be raised, and eventually let each fall. I’m sure over time, ours will, too.

I agree with much of what you said in this post, it is not ours to judge others. But this quote is one thing that drives me crazy. If this country were truly founded on the principles that so many people today claim, why do most of the founding fathers include God (and not just a benevolent being, but the God of the Bible) in the documents they wrote.

When the pilgrims came here from England, they came as a group of Christians who desperately wanted to be free from the Church of England and a forced religion.

When the idea of “separation of church and state” was put in place, it was not to save the state, it was to protect the church.

Posted by: danny at December 30, 2004 07:50 PM

Stephen,

I’m not going to go back over the quotations you mangled so badly. You obviously read pretty thoroughly through that article, and knowingly got rid of qualifiers and context that did not fit your agenda. You focused exclusively on those “snarl words”, while taking out language that indicated who was opining. That is a fallacy of accent, an argument built on the removal of important information from your reader’s immediate sphere of attention.

You’re not going back over them because you are flat wrong about that. Were you not able to read the whole article? You have no reason to accuse me of hiding any part of the story. This is both a strawman and a non sequiter. I merely pointed out the parts of the story where the author(s) added their own emotional slant.

You guys have to do better than ‘quotes out of context’. What’s the point of quoting the article if I must post the entire thing in order for you to ‘get it’ and not be accused of rearranging it? Out of context is only applicable if in fact the meaning is changed by what’s left out. Not your creative defense

For the record, I have never rearranged quotes to make them say something else. I edit for brevity, else this whole blog would merely be a reprinting service.

I don’t care about the political views of the reporters. What I care about is the quality of the reporting. The polarization of the media is a pretty damn useless development as far as I’m concerned, because the point is to let the facts and what conclusions that can be supported by those fact create the story.

Let me translate the first two sentences of your above quote. You don’t care about the liberal political views of reporters, as long as it criticises the ‘mediocre’ Republican President. I notice that any quotations of ‘conservative’ sources are automatically and fully discredited and unacceptable to any non-conservatives on this blog.

It’s happened to me before that an AP story with some information critical about the left is outright dismissed because the link is to the syndicated AP story on the FOX news website. The story itself, mind you, was also on the ABC, or NBC, CBS news site etc. But since FOX reprinted the AP story it must be wrong.

I see no evidence the writer here wrote anything false, or editorialized.

Well, that just tells me that you may be unable to be impartial yourself. I can honestly tell you if a story has a conservative slant. I can spot it right away. Even if I agree with it wholeheartedly I can tell you the viewpoint of the writer. I’m quite sensitive to the voice of the writer and how they say things, because it effects the meaning of the story. This story has an anti-bush slant. It’s just a fact, Stephen.

As for private charities, I don’t see how that is pertinent, when the subject is Bush’s giving on behalf of the American people

This is definately part of the pertinance. The whole criticism is that our government isn’t doing enough. It’s a class of outlook and philosophy. So what if official US international aid is only 18% of the total of 20 or so nations. If the private donations of individual Americans dwarfs that and that of all the giving of these nations combined that pretty much makes the point that we are stingy utterly wrong. Then it’s an argument about whether individuals should be giving or it should be taken from them and given by the state. Which is what the UN guy originally stated— that we should raise taxes so we could give more to international aid. Which I happen to agree with David about would be absolutely wrong.

Posted by: ericsimonson at December 30, 2004 09:04 PM

When the idea of “separation of church and state” was put in place, it was not to save the state, it was to protect the church.

You mean, “churches”. The colonists were of many different Christian sects, Protestant, Catholic, Quaker, and a bunch of others including the wacko fundamentalist Puritan “pilgrims”.

Those pilgrims came here to escape an old world state religion, which the relatively new Christian sect of born-agains seems to be trying to impose on the new world also.

In any event, I’m glad the Bush apologists have gone into high-gear to explain away our president’s “deficiencies”. Maybe someone, somewhere in Asia will believe it.

Posted by: American Pundit at December 30, 2004 09:10 PM

AP

Maybe you should stop apologizing for your country and start defending it. People who are critical of the U.S. for not saying something sooner, even while we are doing all sorts of things are ignorant and in need education. Give them a little.

Point out the millions of dollars it will cost the U.S. to send its carrier groups and that anyone who gets any aid on a remote island or isolated hilltop should thank the U.S. transport system. No piece of aid will get to them that didn’t travel on an American transport on some part of its journey.

Tell people that the fresh water refugees are drinking comes probably comes via a U.S. purification ship

Point out the American firms like Wal-Mart will offer 2 million dollars. That Bill Gates is giving 3 million dollars. That Amazon.com raised 5 million for the American Red Cross in two days, or that Pfizer will give 35 million. Explain that American private aid will amount to more than aid from governments.

Explain to them how the American system works.

If they still think that having the president say something in the hours immediately after the disaster means more than all the help the American government and the American people are giving, forget about them.

If their prejudice against the U.S. is so strong that it trumps their reason all together, there is no point in talking any more. Your friends, unfortunately, are unreachable. But I think you underestimate them. Don’t let your own prejudice color their thoughts.

Posted by: jack at December 30, 2004 09:26 PM

Danny-
I will not claim that Christian religion did not have its influence, but keep in mind that there is also a strong secular influence, an influence that hearkens back to classic times.

Jerusalem is a part of America. But so is Rome and Athens. Our form of government hearkens back to the latter two. The decision of George Washington to resign his commission and leave power after eight years of presidency follows that of an ancient Roman general named Cincinnatus. Our constitution, highest law in the land mentions no God. It is well to remember that before liberal arts became a major concern in college, being classically educated was the ideal. Look at the culture at the time of the Founding fathers, and you will find classical ideals and philosophies saturating the culture.

If you look at the roots of the separation of Church and State, I think you will find influences from both sides- Secularists who wanted freedom, and religionists who wanted it too. Some who didn’t want worldly government polluting religion, others who didn’t want the irrationality of religion infecting government.

I think the wall of separation represents a truce, between sectarians of different stripes, and between those who wanted a country born of the enlightenment, and those who wanted it born of the spiritual revivals of the time. And it’s worked extraordinarily. We are both one of the most secular countries in the world and at once one of the most religious.

Eric-
I already went over your mistakes and quite baldly put them out for all to see. I spend enough time responding you to waste time repeating what’s already on the record. I was quite able to read the whole article, and I especially took notice of the way you selectively chose your quotations. Maybe you just want to see hateful liberal propaganda there, maybe you’re trying to B.S. me, but either way, I stand on my conclusion, and I think others can rely on it.

You isolated parts from passages that expanded on and clarified meaning, that indicated who were the people offering these opinions. I don’t need to do better than this, it’s bad enough and deceptive enough on its own to eviscerate your argument, and you know it. I quite extensively explained the differences brought about by your ellipses.

I too edit out parts of a passage for the sake of time. But in doing so, I do my best to include those parts of the passage that contribute to the big picture meaning.

I don’t need translation, anymore than those quotes needed your translation either. I deliberately left out reference to party, because I believe reducing reporters to propagandists on either side is shameful, and harmful to our society. I don’t trust the press in the hands of any kind of ideologue.

That’s why I don’t trust your sources, because your sources always have an agenda, and often commit the same errors (or offenses) that you do. I want independent sources with scrupulous journalistic standards. I might defend Michael Moore from time to time, but how often have I quoted him? I direct people to Frontline, not Salon; newspapers, not tabloids; dependable sources, not fervent ones. I don’t link you to editorials and claim that you should believe me on that account.

FOX deserves its bad reputation. Fox reported several times that we had found chemical weapons, and several times they turned out to be wrong. Nobody else jumped the gun like that.

Well, that just tells me that you may be unable to be impartial yourself. I can honestly tell you if a story has a conservative slant. I can spot it right away. Even if I agree with it wholeheartedly I can tell you the viewpoint of the writer. I’m quite sensitive to the voice of the writer and how they say things, because it effects the meaning of the story. This story has an anti-bush slant. It’s just a fact, Stephen.

Again, the paradox operates. If I agree, you knew it all along. If I disagree, it’s because I’m deluded or lying. Wonderful. You know, I don’t trust you as an authority on textual interpretation. You think you’re sensitive to the voice of the author, I think you’re sensitive to who it hurts and who it benefits. But you seem very willing to jump to conclusions on the politics and the truth of that article, and I don’t think you read either accurately at all. You’re looking to defend Bush and other Republicans at all costs, and to do that, you end up being very selective about what you see in an article. There is a point that is antagonistic to Bush in the article, but no evidence that the point in question is false or presented in an unbalanced, journalistically questionable fashion. That is the fact that presents itself to me.

On the question of the pertinence of American private donation, the question still stands. What Bush and our government contribute takes on added importance because it is our head of state acting and setting official U.S. Foreign policy. The question isn’t whether Americans are stingy, but whether Bush is showing the kind of committment necessary to dealing with a what may be a future source of national security concerns to our country.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 30, 2004 10:59 PM

Stephen,

On all accounts I see the same thing in your responses. So we must agree to disagree.

I can say all the same things of your sources and your arguments.

If we are to disqualify FOX news from the realm of reputable sources what shall we say about CBS and Dan Rather? There are many more examples of bad information and outright bad reporting in the ‘credible’ sources you prefer. Often the majority of what constitutes bias is what is left out as well.

I’ll address just the first example which you hold out as one of my distortions.

Your version:

…Bush’s decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy — showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work…

With your quotation, the only conclusion possible is that the writer is the originator of the opinion.

Original:

Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics said the initial aid sums — as well as Bush’s decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy — showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia.

The voice changes. It goes from commentary to a summation of the opinion of the skeptics.

Is cloistered, scant appreciation, and magnitude of suffering (in contrast to Bush’s cloistering) a direct quote from ‘sceptics’? No, they are words chosen by the author(s). That is what I have pointed out. Both examples above read the same to me and it goes on and on throughout. The fact that you can reference some unknown, unnamed third person is less a proof of impartiality, than it is a journalism sleight of hand.

Posted by: ericsimonson at December 31, 2004 12:17 AM

I’ve been trying to remember which president made this quote ever since this article first appeared, and after digging around, finally managed to find it in its entirety.
Republican apologists for Dubya may want to give it a bit of thought - especially since it was said by a man from your own party:

“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”

Theodore Roosevelt

Posted by: Adrienne at December 31, 2004 01:27 AM

If they still think that having the president say something in the hours immediately after the disaster means more than all the help the American government and the American people are giving, forget about them.

Jack, that seems to be the attitude of this administration, too.

As a defender of my country, I will do whatever I can to make sure its leaders live up to the values my country stands for.

As a de-facto ambassadore for American values in SE Asia, I do all the damage control I can when my president drops the ball. But if I don’t believe half the crap McClellan spews, it’s hard for me to change other people’s opinions without insulting their intelligence - something the people in this region have in abundence.

I do all I can to inform my friends and associates of America’s values and ideals, but it’s tough when President Bush undercuts me on a weekly basis.

As I mentioned earlier, no one doubts that American aid will be substantial. But they believe we were shamed into it, rather than giving it freely.

Posted by: American Pundit at December 31, 2004 02:12 AM

Eric-
The whole document scandal was shameful, but at least the people there had some sense of shame, and when a source came forward and confirmed the forgeries (the commanding officer’s secretary), they went with that. It wasn’t their finest hour, but it wasn’t a total fiasco either.

There are hundreds of documents and the secretary herself to confirm what they were reporting in the first place. You won only by making Rather a scapegoat for the document forgery, by insinuating that he intentionally used false evidence. You had a propaganda victory, and that’s it.

You go and come forward with your examples. It’d be just fine by me. I have nothing to fear from the truth. Keep in mind, though, if you’re not telling me everything, I will find out, and I will show your error for everyone to see. You talk about our people leaving things out? Well, then, do what I do: put it back in, if it’s there to be restored.

You criticize word choice because it’s easier than factual analysis. You can just go in there and insist your “snarl words” constitute evidence of bias, even as the reporter’s writing and it’s style don’t take sides. You call it sleight of hand, you’re insinuating the person’s lying. What evidence do you have of that? Are you that suspicious of anything that doesn’t come from the conservative media?

Me, my first approach is to get the facts, then cross-check them, then make my analysis on things. What’s your basis for comparison? I mean, I’ve seen the same information elsewhere. There’s no reason to believe he would have to lie in order to reasonably put that out in the article. I can tell you from personal experience in writing classes that they teach you to use robust language in writing journalism prose and print. You jump to the conclusion that the use of those strong terms is politically motivated, when matters of craft and style are also involved.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 31, 2004 02:27 AM

Stephen,

The whole document scandal was shameful, but at least the people there had some sense of shame, and when a source came forward and confirmed the forgeries (the commanding officer’s secretary), they went with that. It wasn’t their finest hour, but it wasn’t a total fiasco either.

Do you recall how long it took them to find that sense of shame? Even as we learned that their own ‘experts’ had warned them before they put it on the air? You probably don’t remember that Dan Rather said that those claiming these were forgeries were ‘politically motivated’? It was weeks before they admitted it, and they knew all along!!!

There are hundreds of documents and the secretary herself to confirm what they were reporting in the first place. You won only by making Rather a scapegoat for the document forgery, by insinuating that he intentionally used false evidence. You had a propaganda victory, and that’s it.

…Me, my first approach is to get the facts, then cross-check them, then make my analysis on things.

I’m at a complete loss. Are you then standing by the claim that even though the ‘evidence’ is fraudulent the claims are still true? And you still have the audacity to claim you care about the facts!

Posted by: ericsimonson at December 31, 2004 04:49 PM

Eric-
Rather confirmed the forgery, and apologized for using those documents in his report. He did this with the report of a credible witness, the secretary of Bush’s superior officer. Her statement establishes something in addition to the truth that the documents were forged. It establishes that while the documents themselves are a lie, what’s in them is not.

You don’t have facts, you have a strong, misplaced sense of outrage. The same strong sense of outrage that Rather got from your side. How dare he accept any evidence that Bush was not a pure and untrammeled soul! But still you have not addressed those questions, just loudly proclaimed your verdict, and stubbornly persist in your praise of Bush and your vitriol towards Rather.

Your people have made not case to support Rather being anything else than the victim of a source whose “ends justify the means” burned everybody involved. The woman who confirms the fakery of the document, confirms the facts presented in them. So you can’t say with any absolute certainty that Rather was lying, much lessing knowingly doing so, because that source breaks that dilemma. The document can be a fake with out the facts being false.

You still with me?

So Rather, despite his mistake in accepting and not better authenticatign the document, acts within the guidelines of good journalism by apologizing for the mistake, and keeping the story bound to the facts.

It’s not a conclusion you’re willing to accept. You want Rather to be an enemy to be destroyed, and you can’t destroy somebody for sins and mistakes apologized for, now can you? So you make it about liberal bias, when the facts were more the issue. You make Rather the scapegoat rather than laying responsibility at the person who deserves the blame, the forger. It makes it all right to slander him, because he’s then an intellectual coward unwilling to operate openly with his ideology.

What you fail to understand is that not everybody so elevates ideology, and there is little evidence that Rather is that concerned with ideology as you are.

So quit being so surprised. I have good reason not to jump to conclusions, and rush to condemn people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 1, 2005 12:02 AM

AP

If Bush was any good, Clinton wouldn’t have had to say anything.

Of course he could always take lessons from Clinton, like crying on cue… when the camera is on him. That would surely make him “good”.

Posted by: MAW at January 1, 2005 12:38 AM

Stephen

The whole document scandal was shameful, but at least the people there had some sense of shame, and when a source came forward and confirmed the forgeries (the commanding officer’s secretary), they went with that. It wasn’t their finest hour, but it wasn’t a total fiasco either.

The aroma that comes from this post makes me want to open my windows to get some fresh air.

I am only left to wonder exactly what a “total fiasco” would look like!

Posted by: MAW at January 1, 2005 01:06 AM

MAW-
The woman who put the stake through the heart of the forgeries confirmed that the contents were real, even if the documents themselves were a fraud.

Do you recall that according to that woman, Bush disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer in not showing up for the physical, and that the failure to take that physical was a violation of Air National Guard standards?

Do you recall that independently authenticated documents support the assertion that our president didn’t show up for his assigned drills, and didn’t make them up in time?

This would have never been an issue had Bush not declared himself a war president, the martial leader of a democracy. I think perhaps the issue of empathy with the troops was overplayed, to where more importance was set on whether the president had the experience to sympathize with troops in combat, and not enough on a crucial issue that extends far beyond that temporary issue.

In short, the issue is whether he ever had the resolve, the focus, and the integrity to lead this country without becoming entangled in his own character flaws. Sounds harsh to you? It would have sounded harsh to me a few years ago, but I have had the opportunity to see this guy give up on finding Osama Bin Laden, leading us into an unnecessary war, and allowing our army to become entrapped in a bloody insurgency. Clinton had the press telling him he was bombing countries just to distract from Monica. Nonetheless, he ended years of civil war in the Balkans. Shouldn’t Bush, this strong willed fellow, be capable of being decisive and pragmatic about this issue? Why is something so insubstantial as press coverage keeping him from doing his job? At some point, the excuses have to end, and the successes have to begin.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 1, 2005 02:00 AM

Stephen,

The woman who put the stake through the heart of the forgeries confirmed that the contents were real, even if the documents themselves were a fraud.

Need I remind you this was an 80 year old, admittedly biased Kerry supporter? Or did that just slip your mind.

Do you recall that according to that woman, Bush disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer in not showing up for the physical, and that the failure to take that physical was a violation of Air National Guard standards?

The physical was needed for his flight status. On an aircraft that was no longer being used in Vietnam and that he would no longer be flying. So lets not go there, OK. It’s simply not relevant. Especially from a delusional 80 year old woman

Do you recall that independently authenticated documents support the assertion that our president didn’t show up for his assigned drills, and didn’t make them up in time?

He put in plenty of time to complete his duty in the Guard.

But just to get back on topic, don’t you find it just a bit odd that the media dredged up ancient history on Bush’s service and couldn’t find the time or the place to ask Kerry to release his military records? Don’t you find that just a bit disingenuous?

What I would have like to have seen from the media is just a little bit of balance and some scrutiny of Kerry’s war record. Which illustrates the whole point of this topic. The amount of information from the media concerning Kerry’s service records was absolutely non-existent. Or should I say the lack of information.

Quite honestly Stephen, what you call a character flaw, I call integrity. So for me, a man that has the resolve to stop treating terrorism as something the world needs to learn how to accept as a just a way of life, so we might as well get used to it, is quite remarkable as far as I am concerned and apparently for quite a few of us.

You also pretend that finding OBL is the magic bullet and by doing so this will cause some mysterious event to rid the world of all terrorism. Magically it will all go away and we can all go back and sleep comfortably in our beds knowing that never again will we be attacked, because of course, OBL has been caught. Really?

Maybe Clinton did drop bombs because of the Monica situation. Do you know this not to be true? If we can sit here and discuss whether Bush didn’t commit enough money or do it quickly enough or more sincere, then I think we should not be questioned as to the reasons for some well placed bombs by the Clinton Administration.

Shouldn’t Bush, this strong willed fellow, be capable of being decisive and pragmatic about this issue? Why is something so insubstantial as press coverage keeping him from doing his job? At some point, the excuses have to end, and the successes have to begin.

I didn’t see someone not being strong willed or indecisive. This may come as a bit of a surprise to you, but I would expect my President to analyze the situation, have some discussion with his advisors and leaders of the affected countries as well as other allies to ascertain what is most effective in the short term as well as what is needed in the long term. I did not expect him to commit to millions of dollars without properly diagnosing the entire situation. Throwing money out will not fix a thing.

Really Stephen, do you think that if Bush had committed to 10 billion dollars in the first few hours, it would have changed anything? The devastation had already occurred. It would have gone nowhere in preventing it.

But Oh, yes there is that Goodwill thing the press wants us all to believe would have changed the world’s opinion of the US and the Bush Administration. If you believe that… well you know the rest.

So Stephen, I see no excuses. I see people pouting and finding the lamest of reasons to bash a President. Find something justifiable to criticize him for. Not some imaginary silly thing such as this!

But that is OK with me because most of the people in this country sees through all that rhetoric and understands it for just what it is.

Plain and simple bias. And as Eric points out, they don’t even bother to do it covertly any longer.

Posted by: MAW at January 1, 2005 03:46 AM

Jack — thank you for pointing out that our military spending does not rank high as a percentage of GDP either. It exposed inconsistency in my tendency to saying our military spending is high because it’s high in absolute terms and our foreign aid is low because it’s low in relative terms. We only rank #47 for military spending as a percent of GDP! http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32209.pdf

I agree with Stephen that the editing in Eric’s post is deceptive. I agree with Eric that bashing the President for this is lame, but I’m not sure that once you have decided (in a biased process) to publish a story on the criticisms, that using words like “cloistered” and “public absence” aren’t the only way to actually write the story.

I would like to opine on the damn lies and statistics but even after visiting all the pages Eric linked to and Daniel Drezner’s http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001805.html on the subject, I can’t tell whether we are stingy or not.

Posted by: Noumenon at January 1, 2005 08:02 AM

MAW-
Almost 150,000 people are dead. 12 nations are in the path of the destruction across a distance wider than the continental U.S. The earthquake that caused this tsunami is among the strongest in history. Near the epicenter, entire cities and towns have been razed to the ground. Entire parts of indonesia have been depopulated.

Stop me when I start speaking of lame and silly reasons why Bush should express his concern earlier. It seems nobody can criticize Bush for anything, in your eyes. He can’t be criticized for invading the wrong country. He can’t be criticized for his administration’s failure to plan for the post-war period. He can’t be criticized for anything.

The questions still arise. When something happens to be the truth, there are always signs to follow. Some may be recognizable, I admit only in retrospect. Others, though, may be recognizable before a decision must be made.

The Forgery that created the most memorable line in Bush’s 2003 SOTU address, for example. That was a known fake, known months before the address was given. Senator Bob Graham laid out any number of signs that the terrorists were interested in crashing planes into buildings. You may say “No actionable intelligence” but that phrase just means we didn’t have terrorists holding up arabic language signs saying “bomb me” It doesn’t mean there weren’t leads that would have allowed us to burn out the organization and its support infrastruction.

The theme among Republicans regarding Bush is that he’s a great man, and that great men only fail when they’re betrayed. Especially by reporters with a hidden political agenda.

This seems to me to be about authority, about whose word is trusted, and whose is disregarded. I’ve seen Republicans disregard facts that are corroborated in multiple sources, because they’ve deemed one source to be politically compromise.

It seems to me, you don’t want to listen to people who aren’t committed Republican. Problem is, God hasn’t exactly obliged your side with all the wisdom in the world. Both sides of this disput have our wise folk, our fools, and our ideologues.

The line of thought and motivation with bias presupposes truths untold, ideas surpressed, worthy agendas frustrated by a media that won’t give them the airtime necessary.

But that hasn’t seemed to be a problem for the Republicans in some time. Your problem is not that you don’t have a voice in the media. FOXnews alone disproves that. You have your own publishing houses, your own network of thinktanks that advocate tirelessly for your causes. You have nearly the entire market on Talk Radio. Your problem is that your control is not nearly complete, and that certain nagging problems with your methodology keep on cropping up. For example, things like Eric’s selective editing. I think the wresting of power from the left has become a central driving motivation for the right.

The whole bias thing is about taking power over the minds of the American people away from those not conservative or loyal enough to the republicans to report the news they want to here, to support the conservative establishment the way they want it supported. They want an expansion of the echo-chamber.

Unfortunately, the echoes are getting loud enought that they’re drowning out real concerns, real issues. Why is it that you automaticall assume this woman is a liar? Do you have proof of her dishonesty? No, you don’t. That’s why you claim senility.

Memory is fragile, you say, she’s a Kerry supporter, you say. Maybe the nutsy old broad simply conflated a few memories, or convinced herself of some negative story. But that too has yet to be proven. Of course, it’s impossible to prove the negative, especially with an audience that doesn’t want to believe bad things about President Bush.

This is the whole problem with the bias theory. It encourages Republicans to disbelieve negative things about the Republican party leadership outright, to blame the messengers and allege hidden agendas against these leaders, rather than proper examination and sound judgment on the issue. It makes ideological, not factual consistency the yardstick by which the truth of a matter is determined. Paranoia about media, in place of skepticism about the Republican leadership.

My question to you is whether you want control over your government, or it’s control over you. As long as the only authorities you trust are those that these people tell you to trust, you will see error pile on error.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 1, 2005 01:19 PM

Stephen,

Of course, it’s impossible to prove the negative, especially with an audience that doesn’t want to believe bad things about President Bush.

I do believe all the bad things about Bush’s military service. I believe all of it. The absence of attending meetings, the failure to get a physical, the joining of the Guard to avoid duty in the jungles, special treatment that got him in the Guard. I believe all of it.

That was not the point. The point is where was the outcry over Kerry’s military service? Your philosophy is to question everything. So where was the outcry over his questionable actions? The 3 scratches and the bruise, the shooting in the back of a Vietnamese running away that he got a Silver Star for. That is the point here. Not whether or not Bush was a model soldier that excelled in every skill. So yes, I do believe it. So just what is your point here. I just did not want to debate that old tired stuff again.

One of my favorite sayings is, those who can’t teach. Those who can do. Bush is a doer, and not good in front of the camera, ala Clinton. His actions speak volumes. So yes, he is guilty for not expressing his concern. Expressing his concern, this is his crime. And you can’t seem to find the silliness in that? He doesn’t fit your picture of a caring and concerned President. You are ashamed. Want to know what I am ashamed of?

Glad you asked. I am ashamed of a President that has sex in the Oval Office with a nineteen year old. That is what shames me. We simply have a disagreement over what we consider to be less than Presidential actions. Mental pictures of Clinton having sex in the Oval Office always pop in my head and lots of school aged children still giggle when his name is mentioned. Want to know why?

And you still want to blame Bush for 9/11 while Madame Reno and Clinton were more concerned, spent more time and energy and money going after Bill Gates than OBL. Yes, that is where their focus was. Those nasty old Corporations. That is where all the evildoers must be. Not OBL. Of course doing something that daring would not have made him so popular. Just sweep that nasty old terrorism stuff under the rug. No time to do anything of any importance those two or 3 if you want to add Madame hAlfbright.

It seems to me, you don’t want to listen to people who aren’t committed Republican.

I want to listen to anyone that has a legitimate complaint. Remember, I am the moderate. Or have you forgotten? I just don’t see the same things in Bush that you do. This is my crime. I see a decent human being that takes action, right or wrong. We could debate his actions forever. You see mistakes. I see someone doing something. Finally! And not taking the easy way out.

All I see from the left is constant complaining and crying. Oh, and appeasement and expecting the US to be obliging to the world. There are some of us that think the world should be obliging to the US and admiring our system and being grateful for our presence in the world for all the things we do. Silly huh? Another crime of mine. The glass is half full for me.

But that hasn’t seemed to be a problem for the Republicans in some time. Your problem is not that you don’t have a voice in the media. FOXnews alone disproves that.

You are correct about that. FOXnews is ALONE. On talk radio the left gets the opportunity to call in and voice an opinion. Trouble is, it never makes any sense.

My question to you is whether you want control over your government, or it’s control over you. As long as the only authorities you trust are those that these people tell you to trust, you will see error pile on error.

What I don’t trust are publications that treat the UN as if they were blameless in the Iraq fiasco. What bothers me is that there are those that think we should blindly follow the UN when it is simply outdated and doesn’t work. What bothers me is the NYT’s refusal to print anything of substance concerning the billions of money stolen to prop up an evil dictator. What bothers me is that France and Russia had their hands in the cookie jar and nothing is written about it. Only Bush’s military service seems to get front page.

So yes, I do not trust the NY Times. Strange huh?

Posted by: MAW at January 1, 2005 02:29 PM

MAW-
The citation for Kerry’s Silver Star has no mention of anybody getting shot in the back. It does describe how Kerry turned his boat into the attack, charged the enemy, and then pursued him on foot. Whether he shot the man in the back is irrelevant, because that man was carrying a weapon, and very likely was trying to reposition to get a shot off.

Why no outcry over Kerry’s record? I don’t know, maybe it’s because nobody in thirty years has felt it necessary to question how he got these medals, and now that they do, it’s done by a group saturated with Right-Wing money, lead by people who have close association and affiliations with far-right organizations, and presided over by folks with serious axes to grind against Kerry.

John O’Neill alone should raise red flags. Nixon organized a group around him on purpose to counter Kerry’s influential Soldier protest movement. The questioning of Kerry’s record is artificial in it’s origins and not that well corroborated. The news media, after giving a great deal of press to O’Neill’s accusations, found that most of them had serious factual problems with them. The medal citations of the very soldiers making these accusations were contradicting them. Other soldiers, some who felt no love for Kerry, came forward and confirmed his side of the story.

Bush’s record, on the other hand is far from complete, and many people have come forward with information he can’t refute about what he’s done. So whose character comes off better under these circumstances? With Kerry, the facts seem to confirm his side of the story, and improve his image. With Bush, the facts tended to serve to aggravate the flaws already presented.

What’s worse, having an affair with a nineteen year old, or getting hundreds of them killed because of negligence in intelligence gathering and planning? Bush is a doer no doubt, but one can do, and do badly at something. Resolve does not grant wisdom, committment does not breed intelligence.

As for Clinton not spending enough effort to go after Bin Laden, I don’t see how your party or your president have any place of privelege on that issue, not with the president telling us Bin Laden was not important anymore, not with the Republican congress citing a fricking Hollywood movie anytime he shot a cruise missile at a terrorist or a suspected terrorist facility. Clinton actually did things, made it a priority. You can review the budgets and find that out. His people were capturing and killing terrorists long before Bush got his chance to promise the American people he would get Bin Laden dead or alive.

I see in Bush a human being, but I also see an elected official who has a job to do that I don’t think he’s done all that well. He has diverted us not just into another war, but into a manpower-sucking guerilla war occupation which we are likely to be stuck with for the next few years.

Appeasement. Good God, what was there left of Saddam’s power for us to appease? We were going to leave him in the same hurt locker he’d been in for the past thirteen years. He was going to remain under our thumb for the forseeable future and we were going to finish up our business with the enemy who was a proven threat to our country.

As for “FOXnews” alone disproving anything, I meant, that just the presence of FOXnews alone was all that was needed to see the lie in the notion that somehow the Right Wing had not representation in the media. I never meant that was the sole outlet for Republican views.

Let me challenge you to find the places where Robert Novak, Tucker Carlson, Paul Gigot, George Will, and Joe Scarborough set up shop. Find out how many times the Cato institute gets referenced in the media. If you don’t think the Republicans have a strong grasp on the debate in television, you haven’t switched on a television lately.

As for talk radio, I dare you to call up and express a liberal opinion to these fellows, and see how long it takes for them to shout you down and kick you off.

Lastly let me ask you a question: If you never read the New York times, how do you determine their coverage and quality of coverage of an event? Start looking for yourself. If it strikes you as false, don’t believe it, but at least give yourself the chance to find out what you believe for yourself. I counted at least ten article I could find just by using their search engine, and that’s only the most recent stuff. You won’t find it, if you don’t look for it. Maybe you have the wrong impression of the New York Times.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 1, 2005 08:44 PM

Maybe the President should have made a comment sooner about the disaster, but who was going to hear him….the victims? Not likely since a very large portion of communications was distroyed. To the rest of the world, why?…they weren’t directly suffering the disaster.
As fast as the USA can come up with money for disasters, speed wasn’t the problem. Two things need to be considered. One, was disaster over enough to begin support, and two, a survey of needs to determine the actual needs of the victims and countries.
Let the UN and others really scream about stingy if the USA would set maximum of UN (dues) and etc to per capita and GDP, and let the other nations pick up their fair share.
Screw the UN. Time to pull out and put our (tax dollars) money in more useful and appreciated locations.

Posted by: dc at January 1, 2005 09:26 PM

As for Clinton not spending enough effort to go after Bin Laden,

After all, and there were several, attacks on the US plus a declared war against the US, I would have expected Clinton to spend as much time and energy going after OBL as he did going after Bill Gates. Not much to ask.

So yes. Having sex having with an intern is far worse than sending troops to fight terrorism rather than having innocent civilians and servicemen being picked off like sitting ducks.

Too bad all that intelligence gathering didn’t uncover the corruptness of the UN, France and Russia Perhaps if it had, then we would have known the real reasons they were so adamantly against supporting an invasion. And yes, then that invasion would never have had to happen. Take off the rose colored glasses.

Appeasement. Good God, what was there left of Saddam’s power for us to appease? We were going to leave him in the same hurt locker he’d been in for the past thirteen years.

Did this locker include all the stolen money from that corrupt UN Oil for Food program, to build up his war chest and fund terrorism in the region? Oh and was Mark Rich in that locker with all that stolen money along with his pardon? Unbelievable.

Are you forgetting the price we paid to keep troops in the region to protect countries against invasion by Saddam?

I could go on but why bother. We have debated this before and it is pointless now. The topic is the liberal press. And they seem to be doing their job well on you. You buy all they dish out.

I see in Bush a human being, but I also see an elected official who has a job to do that I don’t think he’s done all that well.

Yes, ‘you think’, is fine. As long as you state it in that way, who could disagree? And I think he is doing an excellent job.

As for talk radio, I dare you to call up and express a liberal opinion to these fellows, and see how long it takes for them to shout you down and kick you off.

Try Michael Medved or Dennis Prager. They won’t shout you down. They will give you an honest dialogue and an honest and intellectual debate. I agree, many of them shout you down. Heck, even try Tammy Bruce for that matter. Posted by: MAW at January 2, 2005 11:20 AM

Yes, ‘you think’, is fine. As long as you state it in that way, who could disagree? And I think he is doing an excellent job.

I disagree. (tongue only slightly in cheek)

Posted by: Noumenon at January 2, 2005 12:07 PM

Eric, while agree the 3 day or 4 day thing is merely in the loop politics as usual and sounds so silly on the face of it, that it makes you want to puke.

Bush is a big boy and will handle it. Perhaps he did mis