I know, I know, this will strike some as "let’s just agree Bush is a bad man and move on" sort of post, but really, could they get out ahead of this Asia disaster relief press, please?
UPDATE: I haven’t clarified very well the main point here, so I’ll insert this:
I’m certainly not trying to build the argument that the US government is not working hard on this, just that they can’t seem to get out ahead of the story PRwise.
Consider the lastest headline regarding our relatively much smaller ally:
Meanwhile, in the land where $2 billion is spent on lobbying our government is still struggling to get this right:
The United States, faulted by critics for a slow and miserly response to the Asian tsunami, is preparing an aid package to be introduced in Congress early next year, lawmakers said on Thursday.
An amount of money has not yet been agreed upon but it would be in addition to the $35 million pledged by President Bush on Wednesday, congressional aides said.
In a statement, Rep. Henry Hyde, an Illinois Republican said he is drafting legislation to assist victims that he plans to introduce after the new Congress starts work on Jan. 4.
"The challenges of coping with suffering on this magnitude are almost unfathomable, and we will act" said Hyde, who chairs the House International Relations Committee.
He said a congressional delegation will visit Thailand and Sri Lanka next week.
Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, speaking on CNN said he had prepared a resolution for the return of the new Congress that will set the stage for "very generous appropriations."
We will act? Can we change the tense of that statement to the present continuous please? The New York Times Editioral page rang in today with:
[Bush] also hurried to put as much distance as possible between himself and America’s initial measly aid offer of $15 million, and he took issue with an earlier statement by the United Nations’ emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, who had called the overall aid efforts by rich Western nations "stingy." "The person who made that statement was very misguided and ill informed," the president said.
We beg to differ. Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world’s poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world’s richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That’s less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.
The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush’s turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.
Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.
Why is this so hard?
UPDATE: On a brighter note, American citizens seem to get it, even if our government doesn’t appear to…
And how about this from the Times:
Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 Billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.
Is there a list of the value of the non-cash aid the U.S. is donating? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the U.S. is sending an aircraft carrier group and additional ships (hospital ship maybe?) to help, those aren’t the least expensive things to run.
Good point Ugh.
I’m certainly not trying to build the argument that the US government is not working hard on this, just that they can’t seem to get out ahead of the story PRwise.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the U.S. is sending an aircraft carrier group
Yep, any nation that aids or abets a tsunami is going to feel the full wrath of the United States military. Seriously though, the problem is that the current administration does not know how to project soft power. A tsunami? Send in the troops!
It’s simply amazing. I have some little inside information on the scope of the Admin’s activities wrt tsunami relief, and it is truly impressive.
The great skill that the political people at the WH have shown in sending subtle, and sometimes not subtle, messages to their base on topics of interest to their base is also truly impressive.
What I think is happening here is two things. (1) There’s somehow just less interest in trying to communicate what they’re doing to people not in the base — as if the Admin sees its job in terms of serving those who support it, only, and who cares what everyone else thinks. (2) There are some among the Admin’s base who do not appreciate foreign aid, even in the face of a disaster like this. Not a majority, certainly. But enough to be taken into account — when aroused — so the WH would rather not blow it’s horn, even when it’s doing what I’d consider truly impressive work.
Maybe, we should redirect all the money spent on AID’s and cancer research and redirect it to Tsunamic warning system.
Maybe, we should redirect money spent on Welfare to Tsunami relief.
Maybe, we should fire the 5,000 sailors we are sending there and just send money instead.
Bitch, gripe, whine…
thanks for the insight Charley…that certainly explains a lot
Maybe you should re-read the post, smlook.
(1) There’s somehow just less interest in trying to communicate what they’re doing to people not in the base — as if the Admin sees its job in terms of serving those who support it, only, and who cares what everyone else thinks.
That’d fit in with the House Republicans’ apparent attitude, as outlined in this post.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/30/103814/07
Number of deaths due to four Florida hurricanes in 2004: 117
Number of deaths due to Aceh earthquake and tsunami in 2004: 120,000+
Homeless due to Florida hurricanes: 11,000
Homeless due to Aceh earthquake/tsunami: 5,000,000
US government aid to help Florida hurricane victims: $2.04 billion
US government aid to help Aceh earthquake/tsunami victims: $35 million
Estimated cost of George Bush’s upcoming inaguration celebration, not including security costs: $40 million
US government direct cost, per hour, of the US war in Iraq: $9 million
That’s devious Josh. And makes perfect sense.
This PR situation has arisen because it plays into the flaws of the Bush administration. For all their political skill, they are not politically nimble. This episode is somewhat reminiscent of the kerfuffle over the arsenic standards for drinking water from early in the first term, where they looked like they couldn’t punch their way out of a wet paper bag. For all its strengths, this administration appears to work very well with a formal playbook, but very poorly where improvisation is required.
While I understand the benefits of a grand gesture, I suspect that money is flowing in more quickly than it can be put to use right now – hundreds of millions of dollars. Providing money for food, medicine and other disaster relief supplies faster than those things can be purchased and delivered doesn’t improve the situation on the ground.
If the administration and the Congress put together a thoughtful, comprehensive, generous aid package within a few days, I’ll be satisfied.
More to Morgan’s point about the grand gesture, Bush needs a PR coup on the world stage. This one was a no brainer to me…unless…the more I think about it, the more Josh’s suggestion best explains it all, although I think etc.’s observation is on the money as well.
I’m surprised that Condi Rice, who seems so focused on message discipline, missed such a major PR opportunity. While the various entities (PACOM, the Pentagon, USAID, and the State department) were doing lots of work from the beginning, the NSC didn’t get into gear until yesterday. I just don’t get it.
The word pitiful keeps blistering up through the puss of much of your puny positioning. We could have a Vesuvius pile of cash sitting at the ready and nothing could be done with it at the moment. Edward, we’ve had some decent arguments, and I realize I’m a minor character in this particular blog neighborhood, but you’re efforts to dredge up the worst posts regarding what our country will ultimately mean to the efforts needed saddens me. The New York Times for Christ’s sake. Many of the world organizations that will respond to this horrible crisis are 40 to 60 percent funded by our wonderful country. Many of the on the ground expertise and logistical efforts will be provided by our country. All you and those who provide you with MSM tidbits can think to do is trash our administration and our country with your persistant negativity and vitriol. I know you have the right, and I’m proud to support your right, but it saddens me still. A marriage license can’t be that symbolically important to you to hold so much rage against one man. And he’s not even the one you have to convince. Saddened! I’m truly saddened. Have a Happy freak’n New Year.
Many of the world organizations that will respond to this horrible crisis are 40 to 60 percent funded by our wonderful country
read what he wrote, not what you want him to write.
The word pitiful keeps blistering up through the puss of much of your puny positioning.
awesome alliteration blogbudsman, but the rest of that comment is total hogwash…really, drop the “must defend Bush at every turn” armor and re-read the post.
I’m not questioning the effort. As Charley points out, behind the scenes it’s apparently awesome.
I’m questioning why the Amdinistration isn’t getting the same kind of headlines for its efforts that other nations are.
Really, it’s that simple. And it’s worth discussing
Oh, and this:
A marriage license can’t be that symbolically important to you to hold so much rage against one man.
This is way beneath you. Really, even if you don’t think so yourself, it is.
“The word pitiful keeps blistering up through the puss of much of your puny positioning”
You can do better. Try. You can disagree with Edward without attacking him.
Was it always like this? I start to see where Moe was coming from. Time away doesn’t actually help. It just makes the crap even more stark when you come back to it.
Was it always like this? I start to see where Moe was coming from. Time away doesn’t actually help. It just makes the crap even more stark when you come back to it.
Suggestions are welcome.
Suggestions are welcome.
How about actually banning some people? Or, better yet, take a cue from Teresa Nielsen Hayden and remove all the vowels from less-than-civil posts. It’s easy to do automatically, and it gets the point across.
Ban him and Stan.
Ban him and Stan.
No good purpose will be served. Heck, I wouldn’t even suggest banning Tacitus whose posts have generally been more insulting and offensive.
Back on topic: anybody notice those socialists from Spain are chipping in with 50M Euros? Despite the fact Spanish casualties in the disaster are estimated to be under a dozen?
How about actually banning some people?
We have, but we don’t like to let it come to that.
Believe it or not, there are many commenters still on this site who someone on the ObWi board has suggested be banned at one point or another. It goes with the mission of trying to welcome all points of views. We often debate it behind the scenes, and generally we decide to keep the banning at a minimum.
If we were just dedicated to the left or dedicated to the right POV, there would be more bannings. But what seems outrageous to me, often seems acceptable to one of the rightwing authors, and visa versa.
In the end, of course, we risk alienating the commenters who participate within the spirit of the site, but we’ve also watched someone who started off offending half the regulars turn into a welcome addition (after a bit of subtle nudging).
What I’m getting at is that we’re never going to accomplish the goal of civilized discourse across the political spectrum if we can’t keep a balance of POVs. It ain’t easy, but I at least think it’s worth it.
What I’m getting at is that we’re never going to accomplish the goal of civilized discourse across the political spectrum if we can’t keep a balance of POVs. It ain’t easy, but I at least think it’s worth it.
You’ll note I didn’t name any names. I can think of people on both sides who deserve to be banned.
But this is why I prefer the solution of removing vowels. It’s a far more precise tool than banning, and if people want to go to the effort of reading the offending bit, they can.
Honestly, though, some action is required. Right now it looks like bad behavior merits only a slap on the wrist, nothing more.
I think Charley’s post and Josh’s link tell pretty much the whole story. To me, it is just more evidence the political arm runs the whole shebang.
“Heck, I wouldn’t even suggest banning Tacitus whose posts have generally been more insulting and offensive.”
There’s a difference between personal insults and dripping condescension. AFAIK, Tacitus only takes issue with people’s arguments and ideologies, and it’s fairly amusing in any case. Calling people “homo” and mocking their grandparents’ maladies, on the other hand, is certainly against the posting rules. But it’s not my site.
Calling people “homo”
Where?
mocking their grandparents’ maladies,
The target of that let it slide. The person who made the comment explained, without malice, what was meant.
But it’s not my site.
As a regular, though, it is. We do seriously consider all suggestions for banning. Truly. But, again, we work hard to keep them to a minimum.
What ends up disuading us usually is that most often its those on the opposite side of the fence calling for someone to be banned. If someone on the same side of the fence called for it, we’d be more likely to heed the call.
“It goes with the mission of trying to welcome all points of views.”
Animosity isn’t a point of view. There are people from all shades on the spectrum who can more or less keep it constructive and people from all shades who more or less can’t. Anyway, my personal soul searching on the tenor of online political debate is really, really off topic, so on topic:
There seems to be a disconnect between those who look down on Presidents making PR decisions as inauthentic posturing and those who think that PR decisions are part and parcel of leadership. I tend to fall into the latter. Standing up and giving a speech about how horrible and important something is and asking your citizens to do their part is exactly what a president is supposed to do. He’s not just an executive, he’s a statesman. Or at least he’s supposed to be.
Well, to try and steer the comments back on topic —
Does any rightie care to comment on this cheap shot from a WH mouthpie- er “source” regarding Bush waiting 3 days to make a statement :
“The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts. He didn’t want to make a symbolic statement about ‘We feel your pain.’ ”
Why say this? What is the point? WTF? Again, Charley’s comments spell it out. They will miss no opportunity to play to the base. Ever. With that sort of playbook, the opposition can’t assume the WH is acting in good faith b/c apparently, good manners and compassion for people killed in a disaster annoy the base.
In the Bad at Diplomacy thread, both Sebastian Holsclaw and Stan LS appeared to be positively defending the Bush administration’s response to the disaster. (By “positively defending” I mean that, rather than sniping at people criticizing Bush, they were arguing that Bush’s reaction was the right way to respond.)
So I’d be interested in seeing, in this thread (or in a new post from Sebastian) why they see this apparent PR failure as the correct reaction.
Because I agree with Edward: I think this is a PR failure on Bush’s part. But Sebastian and Stan don’t appear to feel that PR or diplomacy are important.
Oddly enough, for something of this magnitude, I find myself in sympathy with that idea – it’s far more important to help than how the help is offered. But it does seem to be symptomatic of a particular style of Republican government: not just in response to a massive disaster, but in general, that the response is Who cares what you think?
So I’d be interested in seeing, in this thread (or in a new post from Sebastian) why they see this apparent PR failure as the correct reaction.
Well, Sebastian did say it would be disastrous if the media accused Bush of “grandstanding.”
Lord knows putting on a flightsuit and proclaiming the war was over wasn’t grandstanding.
So let me get this straight…
We should use this tragedy to gain PR points.
We should rush in and start throwing money around without planning first.
I guess when you build your house on sand one can only expect such much.
smlook-
This has been explained to you before, please go back and read the other post. It isn’t called “PR”, it’s called “leadership”.
I will, however, address this silly notion that money spent now is wasted. Fact is, some of it will be used inefficiently but that is the nature of the beast. It will be misdirected, spent on items that are never used, and go in the pockets of criminals. Tough tittie. Some of it will be spent in a way that saves lives, that is the whole freakin’ point. “Bang for the buck” needs to take a back seat to immediate need.
So, the need for money is now. There isn’t enough fuel to get material and personel to the remote areas where many are dead and dying. Communicable disease is breaking out in the hospitals and there isn’t enough medical supplies and doctors to go around. Children are orphaned, people are dealing with loss, and homes are destroyed. There isn’t enough housing and social services to deal with those problems. Money will help all of those things TODAY.
I’m beginning to get the feeling the disgust shown by some here is a reaction to those smelly Europeans trying to show us up by giving more and reacting more quickly.
Also, no comments on my request a few posts up?
Jesurgislac’s link is interesting and may lend some clue even to me of why this discourse has bothered me so…
“Our opinion? There are plenty of traditional outlets for expressing dissatisfaction with the policies and actions of elected representatives, but … telling him he’s doing a lousy job isn’t one of them. Such behavior demonstrates a lack of respect for the office of President of the United States, an honor that should be maintained …”
My editing changes the content a bit, but not too much I hope.
Ironically, the way the President is forced to play his hand may be his only recourse given the obvious intent of many Democrats the next four years. By remaining low key, regardless of the great potential for photo ops, and thereby opening himself to under spin criticism, most liberal complainers are more likely to come across as ridiculous whiners. If the minority party won’t let you take any credit for anything, then let them pull themselves down with manic negativity while solid action plans are put into place below the din. There’s a certain dignity to that. People feel it. And Edward, I appreciate your comments regarding banning. Choirs bring forth a comforting sound. These are not comforting times.
Eddie, I just skipped over the comments but please note the differences between a parlimentary system and ours (such us who controls the purse) JFTR.
Now what is the daily costs of operating two USN assault groups in the Pacific?
“may be his only recourse given the obvious intent of many Democrats the next four years.”
It’s not a compliment to suggest the President is letting crass domestic politics dictate his response to global crises. And without a re-election to worry about, no less. Is he really so weak?
“Choirs bring forth a comforting sound. These are not comforting times.”
Sorry, you don’t get that easy defense. Nobody recommended to anybody banning on ideological grounds. People ought be banned for being habitually rude and hostile towards other commentors. Don’t you think?
—
Now what is the daily costs of operating two USN assault groups in the Pacific?
—
Were they going to be in drydock instead, without a crew? This is what you call a “sunk cost”. It is going to help for sure, but many other countries are sending naval forces (and food aid in the case of India). Commendable but expected.
but many other countries are sending naval forces
Name them.
So you don’t uderstand the difference between operating cost and fixed costs, here is some help, after you buy car (fixed costs) you have to pay for fuel and maitenance (operating costs). You also pay the drivers of the ship, the Marines who will provide the manpower, aviators, engineers…..you get the picture.
I was about to post here a comment much along the lines of my comment below, but I was diverted at Tacitus by Harley. He was the first commenter I’ve read, out of probably hundreds of comments on this topic on various sites over the past day or two, to point out the obvious — the comparison shouldn’t be between Bush and Clinton but Bush and Reagan (and Bush 41 I might add).
So I’m taking the liberty of contributing my previously posted Tacitus comment to this thread — for which it had originally been intended — with a request for your understanding that its style was adapted for the Tacitus audience. (You can go there for Timmy’s reaction, my response etc)
***********
To Harley — It’s remarkable that it took 98 comments [his was the 98th in the Tacitus thread] for the real kicker to be mentioned, and by a Democrat.
Ronald Reagan would have said something fast and appropriate. It would have extended America’s sympathies and solidarity with those suffering. It would have said we were going to do everything in our power to help. He wouldn’t have mentioned dollars at a time of such pain and ongoing catastrophe. He just say that he’d told his folks to raise heaven and earth to get that help there as fast as possible.
And that would have limited the finger-pointing at early small $s, because it would have been clear that the first $s were just emergency pots we already have on hand, and more would come once the countries affected were able to say what they needed. It also would have pointed to the massive logistical resources of PACOM being on the case.
The international assistance efforts are going to be doled out over months or more. No one is going to be paying attention to the precise final figures or exactly what the US navy did or didn’t do. The important thing from the President — and what it means to show leadership — is to demonstrate solidarity of America with those who need help in their time of need.
In November, people around the globe felt that they had something at stake in our Presidential election, because, like it or not, our President is also the most powerful leader in the world. So in effect we were electing their leader, not only our own. Many of them have an emotional connection with the US president that’s unlike their attitudes toward any other foreign leader. Reagan understood that. Bush’s father understood that. Clinton understood that. Why Bush 43 doesn’t is totally beyond me.
Aside from Bush 43’s lousy instincts by comparison with his predecessors, this has been a remarkable demonstration of what’s wrong with this Admin in the field of public diplomacy. We just had a major study published that was a full-scale indictment of “strategic communication” from the Defense Science Board. Everyone nods sagely, agrees that we’re not doing a great job communicating what’s good about America, that this is a serious priority on par with improving our intelligence capacity.
But here’s this terrific opportunity to combine facts — major contributions no other country can make — with global recognition of how important it is for the US to take the lead, and how willing the US is to step up to the plate.
And they blew it. They blew the chance to communicate something real — not spin, not propaganda. Real stuff that the US does that’s really, really good.
That’s potentially a whole lot more valuable than spending money on Arabic language radio stations or Cuban broadcasting. But they just don’t get it.
Facts are facts, but perceptions are reality.
turn off ital?
does this do the trick?
The target of that let it slide. The person who made the comment explained, without malice, what was meant.
I’d suggest that is one of the problematic points. If you let this kind of behavior slide, it virtually requires future victims to be let things slide or risk being called thin-skinned.
I also think you should establish some procedural standards, for ex. giving people a break when they start dumping multiple 3 or 4 line posts that are simply snark, or flagging people when they change the subject. I seem to recall a classroom experiment where the teacher, as an illustration, started putting limits on how much students could say and slowly racheting down those limits, and what it ended up was the same situation that comes about here, where it is simply trading barbs. I also think y’all should make people apologize. I know it’s like being on the playground, but if people could internalize this, we might have a decent conversation on some of this issues.
Hope that works
btw, nadezhda, I loved the Sontag post that praktike passed on here.
Many thanks! (for both getting rid of the ital and for the kind comment)
—
Name them.
—
From wikipedia:
“Japan will provide USD 30 million in aid to affected countries, and will send three navy vessels to waters off Thailand to help search for missing people.
India … The federal government has pledged INR 1 billion (US$ 23 million) to Sri Lanka and Maldives in addition to warships and aircraft to distribute relief supplies. A federal budgetary allocation of INR 7 billion (US$ 160 million) has been earmarked for immediate distribution to affected Indian provinces.”
Australia … “Three Royal Australian Air Force C-130 Hercules were immediately dispatched, laden with essentials such as medical supplies, water purification units, blankets and bottled water. Two more Hercules are on route, and once supplies are delivered, they will remain in the region to ferry more supplies to the affected areas. Ten medical specialists are also on board. Two AFP body identification teams, diplomatic staff and medical supplies are on route to Thailand aboard a donated Virgin Blue flight. Teams of medical and emergency professional are being continuingly sent.”
Germany … “On December 30th one unit with 23 members of the THW is sent to the Maldives to generate purified drinking water. According to the government, other military units are on stand by for humanitarian support.”
Greece … “two planes will carry to those countries over 6 tons of humanitarian materials.”
Also Spain, Norway, Brazil are sending military units.
Of course the US sends much more —
“The United States has dispatched several C-130 cargo planes containing disaster supplies, six P-3 Orion aircraft for search and rescue support, and several teams from the State Department and the Defense Department to coordinate additional assistance. They are using Utapao Naval Air Base in Thailand as their regional hub. Additionally, the United States has offered assistance from its troops stationed in Japan. The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which was in port in Hong Kong, and a five ship fleet led by the USS Bonhomme Richard, scheduled for a port call in Guam, were dispatched to render assistance.”
This is not a pissing match, I’d like to point out. We have much more resources, we should give more. My point is that the fact we are sending military units is not unique.
Yes, I know it what operating costs are. Do you seriously think those units, already in the sea, would not have cost us a penny? Would those engineers not have been paid? Were they hired yesterday? I know that isn’t your point. It will cost more to deploy them to the areas affected than wherever they were supposed to be, but not an order of magnitude more. We can afford it.
Just posted this in another thread, but after reading lj’s latest, I’m posting it here too:
Hi. I was away until yesterday night, with a brief flicker of internet access in the middle, which did not allow me to play bad cop. So I have no idea who started what, and I really don’t want to read all the comment threads to find out. So:
People. Stop it. No more snarks about people’s disabled relatives, how long anyone has been in the country, etc., etc. Make points. Argue your cases with passion. Care deeply about the issues, and let this shine through in your posts. But leave the insults out of it.
Next time, I will name names and snarl and growl and do my very best alpha bitch imitation. If that doesn’t work, I should warn you: I have been with my nephews, and that means I have just spent a week or so remembering my entire stock of knock-knock jokes. With time on my hands and such lethal weapons, it won’t be pretty. Spare yourselves and your fellow commenters. Be civil.
but many other countries are sending naval forces
Name them
Well, Australia for one. (Ah, beaten by heet. The point still stands).
It’s interesting to see the how the response from our conservative government, which usually parallels yours in so many respects, differs in this instance. Of course, we do live a lot closer to the disaster.
The PR value of immediate response should not be underestimated. Despite my usual cynicism about the actions of our government, the fact we have immediately given $AU35 million has raised my opinion – even against my own better judgement. I think the US missed an opportunity here to regain some goodwill from the international community.
This is not a pissing match, I’d like to point out.
Actually, it has been from the very beginning (unusual for Eddie btw). Style over substance is the best way to describe it or Phil Spector’s “Wall of Sound” is a better description. The amplification is what the left seeks, the constancy of the reverberations is actually amusing, so please keep it up, your dignity is slipping badly.
Timmy: blanket claims about what ‘the left’ or ‘the right’ wants are a violation of the posting rule. Stop it.
Knock knock
Who’s there?
Duane.
Duane Who?
Duane the bathtub, I’m duowning.
I told you it wouldn’t be pretty.
Your metaphor is good but overwrought. I’m not going to lie to you and say there is no political point-scoring going on but c’mon, is that all you got? I’d still like to hear how this was NOT a missed opportunity besides “who cares what they think” (fatally flawed) or “substance counts more” (debated here and elsewhere, guess where I stand?).
hilzoy, I suggest you look at the post(s) and then the comments and then Phil’s “Wall of Sound”.
We never wanted Bush to be President
yes, yes
Bush never liststens to us
no, no.
PR is so important
Europe is so upset
India, Japan and Australia
We prefer France and Germany
Why isn’t Kerry the President
He done it right
The dog and pony show
Would have dominated the nightly news
We never wanted Bush to be President
yes, yes
Bush never liststens to us
no, no.
Form over substance, can you sing the tune hilzoy?
My favorite is really meta knock-knock joke”
Knock knock.
Who’s there?
Interrupting Cow.
Interruptin..(MOOOOOOOOOO!)
Last time I told it it went:
Knock knock.
Who’s there?
Interrupting Cow.
That’s not funny.
Timmy: As I said in my first, general threatening post, I am not going to read everything and figure out who said what first. I am starting now, and alas you happened to step over the line first. Further violators will be dealt with with further annoying posts.
Timmy — I like that one better than “Shaddup You Whiney Hippie! (and Get a Job).” It has a better beat.
I’m not going to lie to you and say there is no political point-scoring going on but c’mon, is that all you got?
Well of course you aren’t going to lie, point-scoring has dominated wings on this topic (again, unusual for Eddie). Given hilzoy’s warning along with normal civility, I have more but it would definitely violate the posting rules.
Over at Tac before the election, Traveler raised the issue if those of us on the right would give Kerry the chance to govern. Traveler was surprised by the response, we had certain issues (Iraq and SCOTUS justices) we were ready to pounce upon but style (PR)wasn’t one of them.
Style over substance and Phil’s “Wall of Sound” describes the post and the conversation to a tee.
Arrgh. With the bickering and what-not, I forgot my original purpose in checking out ObWi today.
Namely: so Jeb Bush has been named as part of the US delegation to the region, and I’m afraid I don’t know enough about the political subtleties of the situation to determine where to stand on the matter. Leaving aside the matter of him being the President’s brother: is the Governor of Florida an appropriate personage to send in this situation? (From a PR point of view, since that’s what the thread’s about.)
President’s Brother carries some weight — particularly in the 2nd/3rd world, where that sort of thing matters more. I suppose you could make the argument that he has experience with natural disasters, but the comparison with Florida would probably just be insulting to the millions of people affected.
As I said in my first, general threatening post, I am not going to read everything and figure out who said what first.
Not for nothing hilzoy, you are about three posts late on this particular subject. As I noted to Von over at Tac, Wings is starting to look more and more like the Kingdom of Kos.
Ok, Timmy, this one’s for you. I’m going to hate myself in the morning BUT —
Jeb may actually be a good choice. He is governor of a state that has had several humanitarian disasters in the past year. Different scales and different problems (insurance payouts vs. cholera) but experience that is appropriate.
hilzoy, cept for no vulgarity.
Well heet, Jeb probably makes for a better photo-op, the PR thing, but I would have preferred more Marines, front loaders and water purification units, limited dog and pony opportunities though.
Well, of course I’m late; I was out of town, and then spent today in a futile quest for a bird. (But I did see a great bumper sticker: in tiny letters, it said:
Are you following Jesus this close?
I was behind it at a red light, not tailgating, I hasten to add.)
In general, I have tried to be even-handed in enforcing the rules. As I said, it was just that you were the first person who stepped over the line after my warning post.
Timmy, if I am interpreting your post correctly, you are way out of line. Hilzoy gave her reason for not being involved and you seem to be calling her a liar. Take a break and come back next year.
I think that if we focus on Bush’s National Guard record we can get Kerry elected President.
When can we stop the worthless attacks? They didn’t work during the election won’t work now.
Hey everyone… guess what country supplied 40% of the money for disaster relief for the entire world last year?
You only get one guess. Answer can be found in the NY times.
Heet,
Your posts aren’t really worth responding to. Bush sucks. Bush bad. Bush evil. No blood for oil. Why would one bother?
I think Jeb’s a great idea, and not for the dog & pony business. Although from the gesture standpoint, it’s good that the Prez is sending someone who is so personally close to him and will be reporting back directly to him, not as a bureaucrat but on a personal basis.
Jeb has had to coordinate with all sorts of levels, both government and private sector, and deal with the public communication aspects. He knows what the US gov’t does well, what types of resources we might be able to deploy that would do the most good. He knows about priorities, critical paths, bottlenecks, etc.
A Marine may know how to get his particular piece of the puzzle done, but there’s an overall executive function that the governors of states, especially those who have regular natural disasters, get to be pros at. The only folks who have comparable experience are certain parts of FEMA and the Nat’l Guard.
It’s why praktike earlier suggested Zinni, since Zinni has the unusual experience of mobilizing to help the Kurds in particular as well as a thorough understanding of how the military operates.
lj: It’s not clear to me what the post meant, so I’ll let it pass.
liberal, I was very clear to note (as hilzoy noted herself) she was late to the party, which coverd more than just this particular post.
hilzoy, please note, I take no issue with your warning or how you are applying it, after all this is your blog and not mine.
Praktike,
No need to ban. All you need to do is ask me to leave and I won’t overstay my welcome.
Edward,
calling people “homo” and mocking their grandparents’ maladies, on the other hand, is certainly against the posting rules.
Can we ban some few of praktike’s strawmen?
Since I waded in at this point, I should explain what got my dander up.
Not for nothing hilzoy, you are about three posts late on this particular subject.
I am trying to parse the ‘not for nothing’ comment. Obviously, something led hilzoy to comment now rather than earlier. I find it hard to parse this as a ‘gee, how are your nephews’, but that may just be me.
However, this seems to be an illustration of how shorter and shorter messages increase the noise. These threads have the potential of discussing how we measure generosity, how aid is disbursed, the unique nature of this disaster and how American foreign policy aims synch or conflict with aid. Thailand is the closest location and our ties with that country are the strongest, but it is the least affected of the nations. Somalia has been ignored, even though the opportunity to provide aid might deal with facts on the ground there. Indonesia is an obvious place where the Islamic insurgency could be dealt with in a way that would win hearts and minds, especially as the US military has ties to the Indonesian military. I personally wonder about the large number of identity documents that now available. The tension between supporting UN efforts and questioning the value/legitimacy of the UN is also interesting, but everytime someone suggests that the admin’s response has been to avoid legitimizing the UN, we are treated with a rain of comments about oil for food, or North Korean refugees, or how we should sell the UN building and send the money to the tsunami victims. Pathetic, given that the holiday season doesn’t end until after the new year.
See lj, if someone had posted or commented on those subjects, it would have been an interesting conversation but scoring points is what it (the three posts) has been all about.
Just one point, you’ve missed the efforts of this Admin with regards to India as well as Pakistan. Just as important, Indonesia just had a free election and a change of government. The American MSM don’t cover these topics, resulting in the aforementioned gotcha game.
Timmy–
And we know you have never, ever ever ever tried to score points. How’s the weather up on that high horse of yours?
Seriously, though. I admitted to trying to score points as a gesture of good will. You know as well as I that arguing in good faith AND scoring points are both possible. Why else do you post on these sites?
…it would have been an interesting conversation but scoring points is what it (the three posts) has been all about.
Mind-reading. Ten yards.
IOW: Give the lady a break, Timmy. It’s the holiday season and she’s trying to get some control over the melee that’s broken out all over ObWi. Lord knows we need it.
And thank you, hilzoy, for trying. Ditto to all the moderators; you’re all doing a fraught and (mostly) thankless job here at ObWi, and here’s to hoping that a measure of equanimity will return to our little slice o’ heaven once the year begins anew.
The American MSM don’t cover these topics
That argument is tinfoil-hat type nonsense. MSM coverage of the Indonesian elections:
Fox
CBS
CNN
NY Times
BBC (oops, strike this one, you said American)
MSNBC
Washington Post
USA Today
CS Monitor
Unless you are getting your news from the placemat at Pizza Hut, the coverage is there if you want it.
Here’s a useful mental exercise: of the 73 posts as of this writing, how many of them actually addressed the substance of Edward’s post, as opposed to a) reading into it something that wasn’t there, or b) engaging in same-old point scoring and penis wars with the Usual Suspects?
I just mentioned it on the Sontag thread, but the meta-blog discussion seems to be hotter over here, so:
I think ObWings needs a new mission statement and a new set of posting rules to support them. Von’s description in the Sontag thread is a good start. If the purpose really is to foster discussion across the aisle, then let’s see rules in place to encourage or enforce that, and the appropriate warnings and/or bannings for people who refuse to look past their own nose.
See lj, if someone had posted or commented on those subjects, it would have been an interesting conversation
10:46 post on Bad at Diplomacy
Just to be fair, I’m sure that one problem is that the US has to equally aid the affected nations. I imagine the urge would have been to aid Thailand first, even though it is the least affected, because more Americans are there. Aid to Aceh and Indonesian areas where the Muslim insurgency is active could not only cause problems, but also may interfere in what Indonesia has planned. There is no easy way to incorporate the infrastructure that the US boasts of into the larger relief effort.
my 10:10 post on the same thread
I have to wonder if there is some resistance to giving money to international agencies on the part of the Bush admin. I have to think the four nation initiative that Bush touted (Japan, Oz, India and the US) is also a way to go around the various international agencies. Bush is not playing to the base of people who are isolationist, he’s playing to the base of people who do not trust the UN, but he doesn’t want to insult what I would guess would be the majority of people who think that the UN’s work (through agencies like Unicef and the High Commission on Refugees) is admirable.
your 10:22reply
I’m just wondering what the High Commission on Refugees have done for the North Koreans in the PRC. I could also mention several situations in Africa but the PRC is more poignant.
Interesting definition of interesting.
I’m in complete agreement with KenB’s point both above and in the Sontag thread (which will hopefully be the last there)
Wings is starting to look more and more like the Kingdom of Kos.
then away, and spare your shadow the displeasure of darkening these shores.
“scoring points is what it (the three posts) has been all about.”
Aww — why? WHY? Edward is one of the least point-scorey people I have ever virtually met.
Knock knock.
Who’s there?
Police.
Police who?
Police let me in; I’m freezing out here.
(It will only get worse.)
Knock knock.
Who’s there?
Abe Lincoln.
Abe Lincoln who?
Do you really not know who Abe Lincoln is?
Aww — why? WHY?
That’s what I wanna know — why, why do you punish the rest of us, hilzoy?
(You’ve seen Ted Barlow’s warehouse of lightbulb jokes, right? Are we going to have to start up something similar for your knock-knock jokes?)
and heet: two wrongs don’t make a right, and all that.
I had two main thoughts about your post,
As far as PR, yes it was bad to the world but will bolster the right wingers who don’t like the UN (‘How dare those jerks criticize us?’). I don’t think it was planned that way though, I agree with you they just were asleep at the wheel (kinda like 9-11).
In reacting to disasters like these, what is the break-down between private and govenment donations amongst the worlds countries? I would think socialist type countries, their citizens would look to their governments to act for them. Here maybe different. IF this is the case then the UN official that complained may have been premature in his complaint.
In reacting to disasters like these, what is the break-down between private and govenment donations amongst the worlds countries?
This LAtimes article has a good breakdown of the figures involved, though this is not disaster aid, but general giving, I think (free registration is required)
And here is what some might say is an unwelcome geopolitical development, China is now ramping up its aid providing mechanisms. While the aid totals are a drop in the bucket (2-3 million), providing actual manpower will put a human face. Given that China is pursuing joint military exercises with India and Indonesia (often under the rubric of ‘non-traditional security issues’) one has to wonder what the shape of the future geo-political landscape there will be.
Mark Hamm,
Who was asleep at the wheel on February 26, 1993?
IF this is the case then the UN official that complained may have been premature in his complaint.
The UN official did not complain about the US specifically. He complained about “rich nations”, including “socialist type” countries. One can trace the confusion back to the usual sources (when looking for where a media lie began, it is usually wise to start with Drudge).
As for private aid, the extent of it depends on the definition. Most (more than 50%) of what is termed US private aid to foreign countries is “personal remittances”, i.e., money sent from US residents, legal or illegal, to family members in other countries. If this is what you are thinking about when you think of the term private donations, then the US is very generous. If by private donations to foreign countries you mean something other than a US resident helping to feed his or her family in another country, the US is not so generous.
As always, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Edward is one of the least point-scorey people I have ever virtually met.
Agreed, which is why his three posts have been so disappointing. You mix Eddies three posts with the Sontag comments and well, those posting rules prevent further comment.
I’ll bet if this appointed administration could figure out a way for Halliburton to get a cut of the Tsunami Relief efforts, the money spigots would open wide.
Good god, now we are going to worry because China is going to help these people. Will the absudity never stop?
Just some perspective here… my Uncle was a millionaire… he paid for half my college education. I always wondered why he was so stingy and didn’t just pay for the whole thing himself.
And for the love of God people… shouldn’t there be a posting rule outlawing the term “appointed administration”.
Must every discussion be dumbed down to Jadegold’s misconceived notions of the election.
moving on from the posting rules flap and the knock-knock jokes … I’ll second nadezhda’s comments about Jeb and Reagan and Zinni, and add this nugget — the main reason that Operation Provide Comfort happened (and quickly) was that James Baker was there on April 5th, saw what was happening, snapped his fingers (more or less), and put the awesome wheels of the U.S. government in motion. He did it with particular aplomb because he saw the suffering of the Kurds with his own two eyes. That’s important. So if Jeb is going to the region, he’ll be able not only to have his brother’s ear, but also to be his eyes on the ground. You can’t get that from Washington (or worse, Crawford).
smlook, I was attempting to bring this to an area that might be interesting to discuss. I personally think that a discussion of the geopolitical problems involved is a topic worthy of discussion. As I live in Japan, I have been interested in the response of Asian countries to this disaster. China, despite a financially small contribution, has been very active in this area. They have certainly stolen a march on Japan. Here are some links
quick reaction of Chinese premier (note the date)
a second story
A third story.
As I believe you wrote, give credit where credit is due.
This is coupled with a new white paper on Chinese defense plans. There have also been a number of stories about various private donation campaigns in China. I believe that this is unprecedented.
Again, I am sympathetic to the ‘tyranny of distance’ that the US forces were operating under, but if you read Bush’s speech it contains so many sour notes, from discussion of problems in Iraq, to whining about how moving assets costs money (a bit like your millionaire uncle complaining about how expensive it is to transfer the funds for your tuition) to the invocation of 2.4 billion (which, if you followed the discussions on social security here, was dismissed as a mere aperitif)
It’s really hard to avoid the conclusion that avoiding any involvement with the UN was foremost on the minds of the admin (which, from your previous comments, is something you heartily approve of)
Timmy seems to think that three posts on this subject by Edward and the comments on another post add up to the Kossification of ObWi, which is surprising as I never thought he was so sensitive. I would like to think that we can agree (setting aside whether it is fair or not) that the perception of the US in the world is a problem. That Edward feels it is important leads him to post on it. Why is that so threatening to talk about it?
You mix Eddies three posts with the Sontag comments and well,
I’m really sorry this message hasn’t translated well across the aisle, Timmy. It’s something I feel affects all Americans, and it would very easily go away if someone would offer a rational explanation for why the Administration can’t seem to get good press when they’re clearly doing good work on this. Mentioning that perhaps it’s to downplay the aid-to-foreginers that many on the right are unfond of got me a bucket full of “Partisan” comments on Tacitus…in fact any discussion of this at all, despite it being ALL OVER the MSM, raises calls of partisanship. Methinks some doth protest too much. Face it…it’s a story. Some on the right are tackling it as well, suggesting it’s the left taking advantage of a tragedy…fine, that’s a good talking point as well…but I sure as hell didn’t dredge it up out of thin air, as many here seem to be implying. It’s in the press every day.
The Sontag comments? Come again? If you mean that I disagreed with Tacitus, well, I’m sorry…it happens.
Edward, stand strong my friend, this mentality will only get worse in the coming year so brace yourself.
To all, no matter what your political persuasion, Happy New Year. I’m off to relax in a house by the sea with an incredible bottle of St. Emillon and a nice bit o’ bubbly for midnight and the company of people i love dearly. May you all have as much or more this weekend and all throughout the coming year.
Speaking of the “tyranny of distance,” I heartily recommend this album to all right-thinking citizens of the world. I’m rockin’ it right now on my new Christmas present.
it’s the left taking advantage of a tragedy…
Nice cheap shot regarding “Bush inaugural festivities”. Might want to mention that Democrats spent $33 million (which is 43.164 million in today’s dollars according to this) on Clinton’s inauguration party while somewhere in the world children starved.
I got this as a new year’s present. Looks like a toy, but don’t let it fool ya! Much to your disappointment I am now able to access this blog from just about anywhere :]
As for music, I’ve been pretty much bored ever since the last mix by Peter Rauhofer.
Let’s see, why can’t the Administration get good press? What is ‘good press”? As far as the press is concerned, ‘good press’ are the videos of the powerful, destructive waves. They are gone now, but we’ll see them repeated for a few more days now. ‘Good press’ will be the heaps of body bags. Just the overwhelming enormity of it will provide the press with ‘good press’ for a week or so. Sure there will be some token offerings of plane loads of food and supplies. Volunteers will catch some airtime if the people they are helping look like they’re suffering enough, mostly children. Detractors are ‘good press’, retired Gererals are ‘good press’, poor folks that didn’t get enough quick enough are ‘good press’. They will be found, rather easily I’m sure. What the press will be searching for is the inevitable circumstances where some these hundreds of millions will be miss-spent or unspent or unaccounted for properly. There will be a token rebuilding story or two every now and then for the next year or so. Of course, no one will be satisfied with who got how much money and when. There will be corruption down the line, surely at the local level, and that will truly justify some ‘good press’. The administration can only come out of this a couple different ways – place or show. They hope to respond ‘adequately’ so they can look in the mirror every morning and know they are doing everything they can do. But there are deadlines to make, shock stories to submit, blogs to respond to, books to write. If this administration is hoping for any ‘good press’ they will be sorely disappointed, because that’s the price they pay for placing ahead of Dan Rather. I’ll take results and real action over fake sincerity any day. What our leaders are getting done is pretty good public relations.
Well, the US just announced that it would raise its pledge 10 fold, to 350 million dollars and there is supposed to be an Annan-Powell press conference at 2000 GMT.
liberal j,
Who cares? . If Bush were a statesman, he would have flown to Jakarta and announced his solidarity with the Muslims of Indonesia…
And you know, blogbudsman, your comment
Sure there will be some token offerings of plane loads of food and supplies. Volunteers will catch some airtime if the people they are helping look like they’re suffering enough, mostly children.
is really disgusting. You succeeded in making Stan look absolutely statesmanlike.
liberal j,
Aw, was that my new year’s present? Thanks!
Nice cheap shot regarding “Bush inaugural festivities”.
Who took that shot? I have crticized that notion from the get go.
Well, the US just announced that it would raise its pledge 10 fold, to 350 million dollars and there is supposed to be an Annan-Powell press conference at 2000 GMT.
I see my evil plan is working!
I’m outta here…Happy New Year All!!!
lj,
It really difficult to believe that you want to raise the level of the discussion with comments like this:
“It’s really hard to avoid the conclusion that avoiding any involvement with the UN was foremost on the minds of the admin (which, from your previous comments, is something you heartily approve of)”
1) People are dead and suffering! Do you not grasp this! You have no proof whatsovever that the adminstration is trying really hard to avoid any involvement with the U.N. The U.N. cannot be avoided in this situation. It would be impossible. Your statement is absurd.
2) I have said nothing about the U.N.
Wow. Is it that y’all are in a different time zone, or what? I wake up, get on-line, and find out all hell has broken loose.
I ‘fess up to being a snarker: I went and pulled Stan LS’s chain, and meant to. But if he is in fact a recent immigrant from a non-English speaking country, I have to take back what I said and apologize. I thought I responding to deliberate dimwittery on his part; not an actual lack of comprehension.
As to the topic: I don’t buy earlier suggestions that Bush prefers behind-the-scenes disaster relief to taking a public leadership position out of some sense of modesty and gravitas. I don’t buy it because there has never been any modesty or gravitas in any of Bush’s actions or demeanor previous to now, so why now?
I do agree that the behind-the-scenes stuff has James Baker written all over it; that’s his style. Which means that 41 probably summoned Baker in to clean up yet another of his kid’s messes (as Baker cleaned up the contract awards faux pas a couple of years ago). Which in turn means that 43 probably had no intention of contributing more than $15m (if even that; he has yet to fulfill his pledge of AIDS assistance), and only did so as part of a Baker-engineered face save.
Which means the people in the disaster areas actually have Baker to thank for the US government’s generosity.
And that actually explains Bush’s ‘modesty’ in a way that makes sense.
Bush isn’t being ‘modest.’ He’s being resentful, at being forced to do something he doesn’t want to do. Which isan established behavior pattern.
Mystery solved.
I think the subject of this thread was whether or not Bush made a PR disaster, not whether or not he deserved to be faulted.
I think he is to be faulted for a slow weak intital response, but our country seems to be right in there helping now and I’m glad of that.
I also think that the overwhelming tide of criticism interationally and at home is sympomatic of all the anger at all of the stuff he has gotten away with, for example the destruction of our national forests. It might not be fair but sometimes when people have justifiable rage about one issue ,they express it about another.
Ah yes, Bush doesn’t want to help out. He is eeeevil. Gotcha.
I thought I said we were helping out. I wasn’t trying to be offensive. I was speculating about why such a big deal is being made of this.
I do think Bush is evil, but not because of the slow initial response. That could simply have been a mistake and it’s fixed now.
CaseyL,
But if he is in fact a recent immigrant from a non-English speaking country,
Eh? Not that recent. My comprehension is just fine. Punctuaton might not be, though.
lily,
I do think Bush is evil,
I thought liberals were against the “evil” tag? Or is it just when it comes to terrorism supporting states?
liberal japonicus, so you think the press is going to conduct itself heroically, show all the good things that will be happening, getting the great human interest stories that will be widespread, lavishing praise upon our administration for all the wonderful things they funded and encouraged. You really think their true colors are the complete opposite of what they are showing in Iraq, and just about every other event in recent history. I hope you’re right.
I never thought I would see Bush-haters stoop so low as to try and get political leverage from such a major distater and loss of human life. There’s more than one tragedy unfolding here.
blogbudsman: I’ll take results and real action over fake sincerity any day.
When did this become an either/or proposition? Who is advocating for fake sincerity? How about results and a timely pledge of support? I realize Bush is a very busy man, but the benefits of actually getting out there and saying something right away are not fake, and he need not be insincere in offering his condolences and his promise of generous assistance. You, and those who keep going on about “style over substance” are inventing a dilemma where none exists.
smlook sez: And for the love of God people… shouldn’t there be a posting rule outlawing the term “appointed administration”.
and:
I never thought I would see Bush-haters stoop so low…
Maybe you should try setting an example.
Lily, I was responding to Casey but didn’t refresh to see that your comment had interposed.
This just in, via CNN —
US pledge increased to $350 mil
Good news, to be sure. I’d like to know how it is broken down (is some of it a loan, etc…) and how this came about.
gromit, I feel your pain.
Perceptions, schmerceptions. This brouhaha started with an adversarial UN bureaucrat, helpfully magnified by unfriendly media to create this perception of American stinginess, exacerbated by unfriendly weblogs. The fact is that the US and will assume its historical role of leading the way in relief efforts, both financially and with personnel. Perception is perception, reality is reality. I’ll take reality. Bruce Bartlett has more on our giving, and so does Dan Drezner.
I can’t call Bush evil; that’s against posting rules.
I can, and do, note that there are many instances where Bush has shown inexplicable meanness, pettiness, and emotional tone-deafness; even to members of his own family.
I can, and do, note that in one instance of the above – the flap over reconstruction contracts – James Baker was indeed called in to soothe ruffled sensibilities. I note further that James Baker is a longtime and acknowledged Bush Family fixer.
I can, and do, note that Bush has made unfulfilled pledges of international assistance before; the “$3 Billion per year for AIDS relief,” for example.
I can, and do, note that it took Bush three days and unknown numbers of speechwriters to come up with a statement of sympathy which: a) most ordinary human beings can manage spontaneously, and without professional assistance; and b) sounded neither spontaneous nor sincere.
I can, and do, note that Bush spokespersons “defend” their boss by getting in a slam at Bill Clinton. I note that such juvenalia is one thing in a blog post, but quite another thing coming from a Chief Executive’s personnel. I further note that there used to be a White House tradition of not badmouthing former Presidents, much less slandering them – one, incidentally, that 41 and 42 followed, but which 43 has violated since the day he took office.
I note, finally, what has been said elsewhere: Expressing compassion and sympathy to the countries hit by the tsunami immediately after the fact would have cost Bush little or nothing domestically, yet would have earned him some credit internationally. (Contrast Bush’s reaction to the tsunami to the world’s reaction to 9/11.) He could use some credit internationally. Saying “talk is cheap” overlooks the fact that Bush has spent years trashing our international relationships, in words and in actions. That plays very well with the bellicose and xenophobic RW echo chamber-cum-bubble universe … but not in the real world, where the rest of us live.
Charles Bird,
This brouhaha started with an adversarial UN bureaucrat, helpfully magnified by unfriendly media to create this perception of American stinginess
Speaking of bad diplomacy! Once again UN gets a free pass.
blogbudsman: gromit, I feel your pain.
I’d rather you felt the urge to answer my question.
Charles Bird: Perception is perception, reality is reality. I’ll take reality.
Again with this fictional dichotomy. Why not have both, when (at least in this case) it would have been so freaking easy, and each influences the other? Or are you of the opinion that Bush can talk the talk or he can walk the walk, but he can’t do both?
Nearly every news story I hear on the subject contains a statement like “In the wake of widespread criticism over its initial offering, the U.S. is increasing its aid package…” Surely it didn’t have to be this way.
Gromit,
“In the wake of widespread criticism over its initial offering, the U.S. is increasing its aid package…”
That’s cause we always get criticized. That’s what happens when you’re at the forefront – everyone tries to nip at your ass. When’s the last time you heard of, let’s say, Russia being criticized for not giving enough aid fast enough?
O, Mores! O, Tempore! O, echo chamber!
Did anyone who says “the UN called the US stingy” actually read the fricking quote?
Just out of curiosity, did anyone else think of Putin staying at his dacha after the Kursk disaster when they read about Bush staying at his ranch? (Note: I am not trying to make a point and/or start something. This is, as a matter of autobiographical fact, what I thought of, and I am just wondering if anyone else did too.)
CaseyL,
“We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries,” Egeland said. “And it is beyond me, why are we so stingy, really…. Even Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least how rich we have become.” source.
He called all western countries stingy. That includes us, no? Note him injecting Christmas into this. I’ve yet to hear an outcry from the lefties. Bad, bad, bad diplomacy. One can only imagine what would break out had Bush mentioned Christmas in conjuncton with the aid… Indonesia being muslim and all..
“O, Mores! O, Tempore!”
Or, in the immortal words of Flanders and Swann, ‘O Times! O Daily Mirror!’
10 points to Stan on the Christmas thing. That’s hilarious. He should have said ‘Even ChrismaHannuKwanzaKah time should remind…’
Okay. . ‘hilarious’ within the tight constraints allowed by a discussion about appeals to charity after the death of a hundred thousand innocent people. I did laugh, though.
Stan LS,
You have done a good job at pointing out once again how the MSM has taken a mole hill and tried to turn it into a mountain.
It’s lose lose for Bush. If I were him I would just ignore all the Bush-haters and anti-Americansism and just work to get the job done. Which is pretty much what is going on.
sidereal,
Haw, haw, haw, but had it been Bush saying that, I am sure there would’ve been an outcry. Imagine! Bush attaching a Christian message to the aid desperately needed by Muslim survivors! *gasp*
Bush is like evil n stuff.
When’s the last time you heard of, let’s say, Russia being criticized for not giving enough aid fast enough?
When was the last time Russia’s economy dwarfed everyone else in the world?
Let alone, when was the last time Russia tried to lay any (realistic) claim of moral leadership, or to forcibly promulgate moral values throughout the world?
Yes, Stan. That’s the exact point you made in your last comment. Your righteous indignation at the liberal menace is again noted.
Just out of curiosity, did anyone else think of Putin staying at his dacha after the Kursk disaster when they read about Bush staying at his ranch?
Nope. But I did think of Hitler. I am not trying to make a point and/or start something, either, as you can obviously see 🙂
When was the last time Russia’s economy dwarfed everyone else in the world?
So, stingy is a relative term. Glad we agree.
Let alone, when was the last time Russia tried to lay any (realistic) claim of moral leadership, or to forcibly promulgate moral values throughout the world?
I don’t get it. I thought, cause of Bush evil (n stuff), we’ve lost that “moral leadership”. So what gives?
This brouhaha started with an adversarial UN bureaucrat, helpfully magnified by unfriendly media to create this perception of American stinginess, exacerbated by unfriendly weblogs.
Demonstrably false. But it’s a typical rightwing meme that can be easily applied whenever this appointed administration steps on its crank.
In reality, it was Norwegian (BTW Norway is one of the few nations supporting our Iraqi misadventure; but apparently, the taint of the UN is the equivalent of having the sign of the beast on one’s forehead) UN relief official stated that western nation support was forthcoming fast enough and was ‘stingy.’
Of course, this is recognized as a slur against the US of A by the 101st Fighting Keyboardists who recognize the US of A is truly the only western nation in the galaxy.
And, at the time the comment was made–this appointed administration had pledged a paltry $15M, or roughly Laura Bush’s annual cigarette money.
Jade,
In reality, it was Norwegian (BTW Norway is one of the few nations supporting our Iraqi misadventure
Relevance?
And, at the time the comment was made–this appointed administration had pledged a paltry $15M, or roughly Laura Bush’s annual cigarette money.
Or an equivalent of Hillary’s abortion money.
did anyone else think of Putin staying at his dacha after the Kursk disaster when they read about Bush staying at his ranch?
They are similar cases in that both Putin and Bush elected not to interrupt their vacations in the slightest to respond to a disaster. And both took some heat for it and were forced to play catch up.
Or an equivalent of Hillary’s abortion money.
Or Bush’s abortion scandal coverup money or liquor money or cocaine money or drunk driving legal fees money, although I doubt 15 million would cover any of the above.
Still, good point Stan.
felixray,
I aim to please.
jade,
They are similar cases in that both Putin and Bush elected not to interrupt their vacations in the slightest to respond to a disaster
I understand the desire for the comparison… The analogy fails, however. The difference is:
Russian officials declined offers of assistance from other countries for another five days following the incident.
Bush is at fault for basically not sending a greeting card along with the aid.
It’s something I feel affects all Americans, and it would very easily go away if someone would offer a rational explanation for why the Administration can’t seem to get good press when they’re clearly doing good work on this.
Don’t have an answer for you Eddie but it isn’t a new story about the MSM. Maybe it reflects that they (the media) are really lazy. It may also reflect that the current Admin seems to go out of their way *not* to throw them bones. Finally, it may simply reflect that today’s media mostly come out of the same place. “Group Think” is rampant in those type of situations.
What I enjoy about your posting Eddie, even when I disagree, is your ability to lay out a logical construct. As you are aware by now, your posts on this particular subject is just down right disappointing. I just thought you should know.
Happy New Year!
Russian officials declined offers of assistance from other countries for another five days following the incident.
This isn’t and wasn’t unusual for Russian/Soviet Navy casualties.
Again, there are many differences between the KURSK and the recent Tsunami. Check the header of this thread to find out what the topic is.
Heh.
“Normally at the this time, we look forward to the events, hopes and fears of the New Year here in Britain. At this moment, however, our thoughts are focused on what has just happened in Asia,” said Blair, who is still on holiday in Egypt, in a statement issued on Wednesday.
The article is dated December 30th.
Comments?
Jade,
Check the header of this thread to find out what the topic is.
I have, and the analogy is still faulty. Bush failed to make a statement quick enough, Putin failed to act quick enough.
Dammit, I am SO not voting for Tony Blair in the next election!!
Oh, wait — I don’t live in the UK, so I don’t really care.
Might want to get that tu quoque sharpened, Stan. It’s a little dull.
Hilzoy: Just out of curiosity, did anyone else think of Putin staying at his dacha after the Kursk disaster when they read about Bush staying at his ranch?
This is exactly what I thought of.
Stan LS: That’s cause we always get criticized. That’s what happens when you’re at the forefront – everyone tries to nip at your ass. When’s the last time you heard of, let’s say, Russia being criticized for not giving enough aid fast enough?
Yes, being a superpower subjects us to heightened scrutiny. But are you saying that if Bush had not sat silent at his vacation home while thousands of bodies washed up on shores around the Indian Ocean that we would still be having this conversation?
Phil,
Oh my… The Putin comparison didn’t draw any kind of a response from you, however. Telling.
But are you saying that if Bush had not sat silent at his vacation home while thousands of bodies washed up on shores around the Indian Ocean that we would still be having this conversation?
Maybe not this one specifically, but I am sure it would carry the same tone, and the criticisms would be aimed at the same target 🙂
Heh-2.
So, as we all know, Annan was on a ski vacation when the tsunami hit…
Q: Mr. Secretary, picking up on Richard’s question, I think a lot of people are asking exactly why you waited three days on vacation in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, before you decided to fly back to New York in the face of this extraordinary crisis. Could you give us a full explanation of your thinking on that? Secondly, what kind of signal does that 72-hour delay send to the nations to which you are now appealing for greater help?
SG: First of all, there was action. It wasn’t inaction. We live in a world where you can operate from wherever you are. You know the world we live in now. You don’t have to be physically here to be dealing with the leaders and the Governments I have been dealing with. You don’t have to be physically here to be discussing with some of the agencies that we have done.
I came back here because we have reached a level that I wanted to have meetings with all the people that I have met with today. So, we have taken action. And I don’t have to be sitting in my office to take action. I think the same goes for you in your profession.
source.
Comments?
Maybe not this one specifically, but I am sure it would carry the same tone, and the criticisms would be aimed at the same target
Not our fault C+ Augustus is such a target-rich environment.
Amazing, really, how that magical little “R” in the Party Affiliation column can transform even the most loutish pig’s ear into a fine silk purse.
posts on this particular subject is just down right disappointing.
Maybe to you, and that’s fine, but to me, seeing that the Administration has now promised 350 million, I feel that any miniscule part these posts played in keeping up the chorus of criticism was well worth it. Had there not been an outcry, we’d still be sending only 35 million.
Ahhh…democracy…I truly do love it.
e
target-rich environment.
A lot of ‘R’s?
Had there not been an outcry, we’d still be sending only 35 million.
Big assumption on your part.
Big assumption on your part.
Perhaps…but Occam’s Razor argues otherwise IMHO.
I hope Edward won’t spank too much for going off topic, but since this thread is winding down…
Who’s drinking what tonight? 😛
Perhaps…but Occam’s Razor argues otherwise IMHO.
History, however, paints an entirely different picture as does the current Admins overall actions.
Some bright fellow talks about a “Grand Coalition” over at Tac, amazing what can be accomplished if one has vision.
I hope Edward won’t spank too much for going off topic, but since this thread is winding down… Who’s drinking what tonight? 😛
Oh, that’s what he says…but just wait until his third scotch…he’ll be offering any willing stranger a paddle…
too far?
Wine, unfortunately, as I must end the evening with Champagne and mixing the grape with the grain always gives me a blistering hangover.
Hah! Glad to see you’re already drinking! 😛
Happy New Year!
**Yawn** I am on the undesirables list now, Stan? Did you internalize so much from Communism that you’re keeping secret files now? If you want to say something about me, say it, smart guy, and don’t hide behind your snide and not very clever insinuations. While I do not have the power to grant you a Posting Rules waiver, I promise not to run to the mods. So say what you want to say.
(I was about to repeat the rather obvious maxim that not commenting on everything doesn’t mean you don’t get to comment on anything, but since you actually DO comment on everything — even when your comment is utterly without value — maybe you don’t actually believe this.)
Stan LS: So, stingy is a relative term. Glad we agree.
As am I, but I don’t think it means what you think it means. Although, tbh, I’m not really sure what you think it means, so who knows?
I don’t get it. I thought, cause of Bush evil (n stuff), we’ve lost that “moral leadership”. So what gives?
If you’re actually interested in a dialogue here, I’ll be happy to explain my position in greater detail. If you’re interested in bashing on a strawman of your own concoction, well, flail away; I have better things to do with my time.
I’d like to add, for the record, two things:
1) I’m deeply, sincerely grateful to my country — and in particular the Bush Administration — for what appears to be a goodly amount of aid to those affected by this calamity. Here’s to hoping that the survivors will find sufficient comforts in the days and years ahead to help them continue with their lives.
2) I’m deeply, sincerely worried that it appears as if the governmental portion of the aid came because the Bush Administration was shamed into it. The US is fighting, and losing, a PR battle* of colossal proportions… and any opportunity fumbled or lost is one we can ill afford.
* The technical term is a “war of hearts and minds”, but I sometimes prefer the more nakedly honest formulation.
Some bright fellow talks about a “Grand Coalition” over at Tac, amazing what can be accomplished if one has vision.
You talk as if “vision” is the sole necessary prerequisite…
I dreamt Hilzoy said:
Just out of curiosity, did anyone else think of Putin staying at his dacha after the Kursk disaster when they read about Kofi Annan staying at the ski resort. (Note: I am not trying to make a point and/or start something. This is, as a matter of autobiographical fact, what I thought of, and I am just wondering if anyone else did too.)
Then in my dream Jade replied:
They are similar cases in that both Putin and Annan elected not to interrupt their vacations in the slightest to respond to a disaster. And both took some heat for it and were forced to play catch up.
And then Gromit:
This is exactly what I thought of.
And then I woke up and read that Edward actually thinks the Bush-haters had anything to do with how much money we send.
If only dreams could come true and reality wasn’t often so sad. Sigh.
smlook
You know, putting words into people’s mouths might seem witty and all, but it really demonstrates the fact that you aren’t listening to what anyone is saying. It also serves to confuse the discussion (not that there is much left after you and a few choice others (on both sides) wade in). Why are you so threatened by people taking an opposite point of view to yours?
I also think that the ‘Edward actually thinks the Bush-haters had anything to do with how much money we send” line reveals a flaw worse than any other that I could think of, which is the absence of a sense of humor.
I believe it is interesting to discuss the process by which the administration went from 15 million to 350 million. I’m not really sure what you think, but given the facts on the ground, you seem to be limited to arguing that this was planned from the outset, assuming that you do not try and change the subject. My concern is the same as Anarch’s, that it appears we were bullied into raising the amount. If you have some evidence for this, I’d love to see it.
I appreciate Charles (aka BirdDog) cites, and I’d agree that the notion of the US being stingy is unfair (again noting that the UN official was discussing all rich countries, not just the US, if you’re Christian, a tithe is 1/10th, not a couple of thousandths) but I can’t believe Bartlett wrote this.
In the area of international aid, the official data also exclude private transfers such as remittances by foreign workers in the U.S. According to the Inter-American Development Bank, remittances to Latin America alone amounted to $38 billion in 2003—more than all official assistance combined. And $31 billion of that came from the U.S. In some countries, foreign remittances came to more than 10 percent of GDP, thus having a significant impact on economic growth and poverty alleviation.
I’m assuming that these people are working to earn their money. At least Drezner doesn’t peddle this line. And Drezner agrees with Edward. He says:
At a gut level, however, $35 million sounds puny compared to the devastation in the region. Combine this with reporters eager to feed the “Bush administration does not play well with others in world politics” meme and you’ve got a lovely political football. Of course, the initial comment by the United Nations official also fed right into the conservative meme about the UN being reflexively anti-American
Drezner goes on to update that the comment by the UN official should not be considered as anti-American.
So I have to ask. Do y’all (and you know who you are) think that 15 then 35 million was stingy, so therefore 350 million was justified? Or do you think that the US is making a big mistake and that we should let other countries handle this as we have our own problems to deal with? Or is there some other reason for attacking people who were dissatisfied with that figure?
I’m not sure, so I have to ask this out loud, embarrassingly enough: Does everyone posting here understand that neither Vladimir Putin, nor Kofi Annan, nor Tony Blair, nor Gerhard Schroeder, is President of the United States of America? And, thus, that confining one’s immediate criticisms to the actions of the person who is President of the United States of America stems from the fact that we all live here, and our concerned about how our leader projects our image to the world? I don’t care about how Tony Blair’s actions might affect the image of the UK to the world, because I don’t live there. I live in the U.S., and want the world to have a positive image of the U.S. I will let the UKoGBaNIians(1) care about what Tony Blair does.
And “Tony Blair did it too!” is not an argument. (Neither is “Vladimir Putin did it too!”) It’s a distraction. It says nothing about whether how George W. Bush has acted since Sunday is right, wrong, good, bad, or anything. It’s the textbook example of tu quoque.
It strikes me as funny that so many people spent 1992-2000 constantly criticizing Clinton for the things he did because they made him appear “un-Presidential” and “tarnished the office.” I’m not claiming that Bush’s actions rise to the level of “tarnishing the office,” but noting that, when the other party’s guy is in office, suddenly the PR value of the Presidency, and how that person projects the U.S.’s image to the world, is important. But when it’s your guy, and someone suggests that PR matters, the wagons get circled. This stuff either matters or it doesn’t.
(1) Short for “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,” a USENET convention adopted so as not to offend those who might be Irish, Welsh, or Scottish by calling them “British.” Or vice-versa.
So I have to ask. Do y’all (and you know who you are) think that 15 then 35 million was stingy, so therefore 350 million was justified? Or do you think that the US is making a big mistake and that we should let other countries handle this as we have our own problems to deal with?
Well I was more impressed that the US put together a coalition and moved two task forces to begin to address the problem. I know that doesn’t answer your question but if you have some problem with the actions the
current Admin is taking, then spell them out. I prefer substance over style which is what the Admin has delivered on.
I did enjoy the false premise you raised, that America ever planned to do nothing, the grasping at straws moment highly amusing.
lj,
I am listening. But, what they are saying is just so absurd.
“Why are you so threatened by people taking an opposite point of view to yours?”
I guess it’s due to my huge inferiority complex because my side lost the election. Oh no. I guess that’s not really the reason, now is it? I’m not threatened. It’s just that history and facts prove that in time of world crisis the U.S. is pretty much the go to country. That is the evidence that people like you are trying to deny. Why people want to deny this just so they can score political points on this administration while people are dieing is beyond my understanding.
You just don’t get that Edward and others here like you are creating an imaginary problem and then trying to explain how it got this way.
BTW, guess what country is supplying helicopters that is saving lives as we speak?
Guess what country supplied an estimated 30 to 40% of all distater related aid last year under this “apppointed administration”?
Many on the left are sort of ignoring that little fact so they can try to make Bush look bad.
History is on my side LJ… in the end the U.S. will do far more in the effort as a whole than probably most countries combined.
Oh and guess what country supplies almost all the aid to Dafur? Just one guess… think really hard. Yes, once again… it was this “appointed administration”. Those evil Bushies… how dare they be so generous.
Timmy the Wonder Dog: I know that doesn’t answer your question but if you have some problem with the actions the current Admin is taking, then spell them out.
You are changing the subject to a friendlier (and I think largely uncontroversial) topic. The problem isn’t with the actions the admin is taking. It is with the admin’s apparent initial insensitivity to a colossal disaster and the effect this is having on global anti-Americanism. Remember when Giuliani refused Prince Al-Walid bin Talal’s money because along with it came a critique of U.S. policy in the middle east? Did the appearance of sensitivity to human tragedy matter then, but not now? Was Rudy wrong to place a value on style then? (And this is not to compare the degree of slight nor of disaster, mind you, only to highlight the importance of rhetoric in these sorts of situations.)
I prefer substance over style which is what the Admin has delivered on.
How many times do I have to point out that this is a false choice? Will you, or anyone else taking this position, please explain why I should think otherwise?
Substance will save lives of people who are currently dieing. No matter what “style” it will be criticized as bad and a distraction from getting the job done.
Does anyone seriously beleive that if Bush had come out and said the U.S. is giving a billion dollars for relief we wouldn’t still have the Iraq comparisons?
Does anyone really believe that Bush could have done anything that wouldn’t be criticized? No matter what he would have said or done it would be criticized by people who hate him.
If the U.S. is going to be looked to as the world leader on every thing, then as a good parent sometimes you have to let your child solve their problems the best they can and then either let them stand or fall on their own or provide assistance.
The challenge with this disaster is not going to be financial relief… the biggest difficulty by far will be the logistic problems. Getting aid to those who need it most. Anyone disagree with that?
Not that I think the US should be the world’s parent, but that is the role the world and sometimes ourselves forces us into.
In the instance of Iraq we could have gone in with 500,000 troops and done everything for them. But, then as soon as we left they might very well fall flat on their face. Whether planned or not Iraqi citizens are now fighting for their freedom. Something they chose not to do under Hussein. In the end this may make them a more confident and secure country or it may not. We don’t know yet.
If the US always solves every major problem in the world, how will other countries ever fully develop into equal partners?
I am making no claim that this was what this or any other U.S. administration has had in mind. It’s just an analysis of developing a more equal relationship with other countries.
Guess what country supplied an estimated 30 to 40% of all distater related aid last year under this “apppointed administration”?
Many on the left are sort of ignoring that little fact so they can try to make Bush look bad.
History is on my side LJ… in the end the U.S. will do far more in the effort as a whole than probably most countries combined.
Oh and guess what country supplies almost all the aid to Dafur? Just one guess… think really hard. Yes, once again… it was this “appointed administration”. Those evil Bushies… how dare they be so generous.
Can I have some sources? It seems highly unlikely to me to be honest.
Phil,
**Yawn** I am on the undesirables list now, Stan? Did you internalize so much from Communism that you’re keeping secret files now?
Eh? That’s what you are resorting to now? I think I am missing something. What connection to communism do I have? Secret files? Are you off your meds?
I promise not to run to the mods. So say what you want to say.
I have never accused anyone of running to the mods.. Heh. You must be the first person to accuse me of holding anything back.
And, thus, that confining one’s immediate criticisms to the actions of the person who is President of the United States of America stems from the fact that we all live here,
Or stems from the fact that those who hate Bush are grasping at straws. What’s the reaction of UK bloggers/UK media to Blair’s vacation during this time? What’s the reaction of media/bloggers to Annan’s vacation? Is it comparable to your (and other lefties’) reacton to Bush’s vacation? And if not, why not?
Again, I’ll note that the Putin comparison (which would put Bush in a bad lighit) drew no reaction from you, it’s only when I mentioned Blair that you came alive.
Anarch,
My point is that on one hand those who oppose Bush claim that because of him US lost the “moral leadership”, yet when its convenient to stay otherwise, claim that we are still leading. So did we loose it or not?
Is it comparable to your (and other lefties’) reacton to Bush’s vacation? And if not, why not?
***dingdingdingdingding!**** There it is! That’s the one I’ve been waiting for!! The one that shows me that the person with whom I’m engaging is so bloody shortsighted that they think they can divine my political views simply because I’ve dared to disagree with them about something.
Who did I vote for in November, Stan? Come on, Kreskin, give me a name.
What do you know of my politics that you feel comfortable calling me a “lefty?” Come on, out with it. Impress me. Restore my faith in humanity, Stan. Show everyone what assuming does.
Again, I’ll note that the Putin comparison (which would put Bush in a bad lighit) drew no reaction from you, it’s only when I mentioned Blair that you came alive.
****yawn**** Get a new shtick, kid. This one is dumb. It’s barely a step above Timmy’s “Why aren’t you holding protests against North Korea?”
I didn’t “come alive,” I pointed out the absurdity of caring about what Tony Blair has or hasn’t done in reaction to this particular disaster when I don’t live in his bloody country. I care what my country’s leaders have done. And, contra Timmy, whose faith in people extend to believing they can do one and only one thing, I believe in both form and substance, and wonder why the government feels that, when they’re engaging in substance, they don’t have to engage in form. Doing the latter can only help people get behind the former.
Grommit, if only George would learn to bite his lip everything would be copacetic, George got the ball rolling which is main responsibility.
Phil, did I miss all the comments on substance by you and others? Something like this, Bush is doing a good (great) job but he needs to work on the touchy feely stuff, maybe you could point it out.
US lost the “moral leadership”
I’m curious, can someone explain exactly what it means for a nation or leader to “lose his/her/its moral leadership (or authority)?” AFAICT it seems to be shorthand for “You did immoral action X, therefore you have no right to be preaching about Y.” Is that pretty much it? Do you have to be perfect to have “moral authority?”
Thanks for pointing to tu quoque, Phil. That provides a nice, neat label for one of my biggest pet peeves about certain Usual Suspects here and at Tacitus–the propensity for answering any criticism of Bush or Republicans with “Look, over there, Clinton!” or some obvious variation thereof.
Doing so should instantly disqualify one from being taken in any way seriously.
Geez, I haven’t seen anyone use the Clinton metric in such a long time. I guess bringing it up when it hasn’t been mentioned disqualifies someone. As for current world leaders as a measure of their cheerleading qualities, it has some basis in qualifying a dog and pony “disaster”, even if you don’t have a chance to vote for that particular world leader.
Timmy the Wonder Dog: Grommit, if only George would learn to bite his lip everything would be copacetic, George got the ball rolling which is main responsibility.
You are still evading the question. Why are style and substance mutually exclusive in this instance? How would a timely statement of concern and commitment to assist have impeded getting the ball rolling on actually providing the assistance?
Did I say it would impede.
What I pointed out was that the actions were more important than the words in this instance. As I previously mentioned, if you had prefaced George is doing a good job but I wish he would have made a statement stating our resolve and good wishes. I may have disagreed but I would have been silent on the overall matter. Of course, that wasn’t the thread now was it, hence by comments.
Phil,
****yawn**** Get a new shtick, kid. This one is dumb. It’s barely a step above Timmy’s “Why aren’t you holding protests against North Korea?”
Huh? I am not the one who introduced other leaders into this thread – it was Hilzoy and his Putin comparison (which is, obviously, not a compliment to Bush). His post, however, did not bring about a rebuke from you. It was my post regarding Blair’s vacation that did. Hmmm.
Phil,
The one that shows me that the person with whom I’m engaging is so bloody shortsighted that they think they can divine my political views simply because I’ve dared to disagree with them about something.
This one’s too rich! This is coming from a guy who said:
**Yawn** I am on the undesirables list now, Stan? Did you internalize so much from Communism that you’re keeping secret files now?
What’s my connection to Communism, again?
Geez, I haven’t seen anyone use the Clinton metric in such a long time. I guess bringing it up when it hasn’t been mentioned disqualifies someone.
Timmy, I occasionally have cause to question your honesty, but try not to violate the posting rules while doing so. But this is such blatantly dishonest BS that I’m going to say it outright: you’re a liar, and you’re lying. I direct you upthread to Stan LS:
Nice cheap shot regarding “Bush inaugural festivities”. Might want to mention that Democrats spent $33 million (which is 43.164 million in today’s dollars according to this) on Clinton’s inauguration party while somewhere in the world children starved.
Or, for another of Stan’s Greatest hits, also upthread:
Who was asleep at the wheel on February 26, 1993?
Or, if you prefer someone a little closer to home, you–in the the Tac thread cited above. I didn’t have to look far:
So the Press Conference where Clinton apologized for Rwanda is your preference because of the PR factor?
And these are just straight text searches, or off the top of my head. Care to hazard a guess how many other examples will pop up if we don’t restrict this to Clinton, and instead track down every example of your (and others’) reliance on tu quoque as a substitute for argument?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Huh? I am not the one who introduced other leaders into this thread – it was Hilzoy and his Putin comparison (which is, obviously, not a compliment to Bush).
Not that it’s particularly germane to the discussion, but I’m fairly certain that hilzoy is an innie, not an outie.
But hey, she’s welcome to prove me wrong. 😀
Catsy,
Nice cheap shot regarding “Bush inaugural festivities”. Might want to mention that Democrats spent $33 million (which is 43.164 million in today’s dollars according to this) on Clinton’s inauguration party while somewhere in the world children starved.
That wasn’t a shot at Clinton. I was just making a point that Bush’s inauguration party is comparable in cost to those a democratic president (in response to: That’s less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.) . Was my point not valid?
Who was asleep at the wheel on February 26, 1993?
Well, some people make it out to be like the only times we were attacked on our soil was during Bush. That is not the case as I’ve shown. So, again, not a shot at Clinton per se.
Hilzoy,
Not that it’s particularly germane to the discussion, but I’m fairly certain that hilzoy is an innie, not an outie.
Doh! My apologies.
Thank you for demonstrating my point by explaining that both of your examples amounted to responding to your opponent’s argument with “Hey, Clinton too!”
Timmy the Wonder Dog: Did I say it would impede.
What I pointed out was that the actions were more important than the words in this instance.
If the two are not mutually exclusive, then what is the point of weighing their relative importance in this context? If you are not implying that critics want nice words rather than material aid, while the no-nonsense administration has chosen action over talk, then what on earth are you saying with all this substance vs. style talk?
As I previously mentioned, if you had prefaced George is doing a good job but I wish he would have made a statement stating our resolve and good wishes. I may have disagreed but I would have been silent on the overall matter. Of course, that wasn’t the thread now was it, hence by comments.
I’m sure a lot of our conversations would go more smoothly if I would preface them by telling you what a great job I think Bush is doing. Anyway, excepting the pro-administration puffery, this is what this thread has been about (and remember, Edward wrote the post before the aid package was decupled). The thread is and has always been about the bungled PR component of the U.S. response.
Catsy becoming unhinged so early in the New Year but the “Clinton Metric” would pertain to the management of the Clinton Admin, as compared to the Bush Admin. The tit for tat is amusing but not relevant, unless of course you are of the opinion that Clinton was deeply involved with the management of his inauguration, which still isn’t relevant as George isn’t involved in his. Next.
Stan LS: Huh? I am not the one who introduced other leaders into this thread – it was Hilzoy and his Putin comparison (which is, obviously, not a compliment to Bush). His post, however, did not bring about a rebuke from you. It was my post regarding Blair’s vacation that did. Hmmm.
Hilzoy brought up Putin as an aside. She explicitly said she wasn’t trying to build an argument with it, but mentioned it as a point of trivia.
Did that make sense to anyone, or was Timmy just stringing together one-liners again in the hopes someone will mistake it for a point?
I know that doesn’t answer your question but if you have some problem with the actions the
current Admin is taking, then spell them out. I prefer substance over style which is what the Admin has delivered on.
Well, to spell it out, as I have noted previously, I wish (as Edward does) that the US had gotten in front of this. This latimes article discusses the worries of experts, though it also notes that some didn’t think it was a big deal. However, it’s pretty clear that after it happened, there were a lot of experts who realized how bad it was going to be.
All I would like from Timmy is an explanation of why the 15 to 35 to 350 million is evidence of the admin reacting appropriately. I’ve already noted that there are a number of points that limited the US reaction, so when you say
I did enjoy the false premise you raised, that America ever planned to do nothing, the grasping at straws moment highly amusing.
you really owe me an apology. Not that I’m expecting one, though.
smlook makes an attempt at providing a reason, which is that the admin is attempting to have other nations stand on their own two feet as it were. I would suggest that a multi-nation catastrophe may not be the best time to be starting this.
Apparently, it must have struke a nerve. But try again, I’m sure relevancy will be touched upon at sometime. Good Luck.
All I would like from Timmy is an explanation of why the 15 to 35 to 350 million is evidence of the admin reacting appropriately
Since I’ve never made such a comment, none will be forth coming. Now, if you have issues with respect to the Coalition Bush put together or the movement of the two USN task forces into the region, I’m more than happy to explain why the actions are appropriate. It should be self evident but I’m more than happy to explain it to you.
BTW, I’ve never mentioned money, money is such a vulgar subject.
The thread is and has always been about the bungled PR component of the U.S. response.
My point exactly, it shouldn’t have been. The important parts of the equation had many important drivers, PR wasn’t one of them.
Hilzoy brought up Putin as an aside. She explicitly said she wasn’t trying to build an argument with it, but mentioned it as a point of trivia.
Note that I merely posted excerpts and links in my posts December 31, 2004 05:03 PM and December 31, 2004 05:25 PM and requested comments without making my own.
Dutch,
The U.N requested 250 million. The U.S. has provided 194 million for 2004. Go to US aid to look it up.
That’s over 77% of the aid.
LJ says:
“which is that the admin is attempting to have other nations stand on their own two feet as it were”
If you actually read my post you would have seen this:
“I am making no claim that this was what this or any other U.S. administration has had in mind. It’s just an analysis of developing a more equal relationship with other countries.”
Timmy
Apparently, it must have struke a nerve. But try again, I’m sure relevancy will be touched upon at sometime. Good Luck.
No, no nerve struked, as it were, just trying to encourage a little more of a thoughtful approach to discussion, which entails commentors not making up things and putting ideas (or worse, words) into other people’s comments. (which is why “mindreading” is a comment sin. I suppose) The apology is no big deal to me, but since it seems to be something very difficult for you to muster and, as I noted, we don’t seem to have the same definition of interesting, I will leave the field to you. This means I have to leave smlook’s comment unanswered, other than to apologize for thinking you were attempting to answer my query rather than merely stating your own view.
Well I wasn’t answering your comment (apparently, you missed Catsy’s side track and my response, no matter).
Simply put, if you want to discuss important things, I more than happy to engage. I suspect the final amount of money will end up being alot more than $350 million, so discussing dollar amounts at this time and place, really isn’t relevant. Hence, I will not engage in that discussion and don’t intend to in the future.
Finally, a year from now, what Bush did or didn’t do on the public stage won’t matter, but if he keeps his word, works with India, Japan and Australia and solves the problems, well priceless.
So LJ any time you want to have a serious conversation about serious issues, I will be happy to engage. And if snarky retorts is your preferred venue, from time to time I will do that to, just ask Catsy, but only in the framework of the “Posting Rules”.
Timmy, Smlook: I confess in all the back-and-forth I’ve gotten slightly confused as to the actual argument that you are making. Are you saying a) That the PR component of any American response is irrelevant to an assessment of that response, b) That the PR efforts of the Bush Administration weren’t necessarily as good as they could have been, but that the Bush administration would have been criticised no matter how perfect its PR efforts were, c) That the Bush Administration’s PR efforts are up to par in this case?
My point is that on one hand those who oppose Bush claim that because of him US lost the “moral leadership”, yet when its convenient to stay otherwise, claim that we are still leading. So did we loose it or not?
I’m in a hurry, so I’ll be brief:
a) Why aren’t you actually talking to me here? It feels like you’re addressing a Borgish collective (“Those who oppose Bush claim…” blah-di-blah, as if I magically speak for an entire group) rather than an individual.
b) “Moral leadership”, like so much in life, is not well-modelled by two-valued (or even Boolean-valued) logic. Which you’d know if you ever bothered to address me as an individual.
Well Mark two points, first, in the situation at hand, PR was not a key driver. That is, it wasn’t relevant.
Second and totally unrelated, every disaster has its own life cycle, the PR critics have the luxury of looking back and commenting. I’m more interested in how it plays out in the countries affected than at the NYTs or in the European press.
‘m more interested in how it plays out in the countries affected
Bingo!
Timmy the Wonder Dog: Well Mark two points, first, in the situation at hand, PR was not a key driver. That is, it wasn’t relevant.
Not the key driver in what? In the actual amount or quality of disaster relief, perhaps, though this point is arguable given that relief packages from several nations increased by orders of magnitude during the firestorm of criticism (post hoc ergo propter hoc, I realize). But is PR not a key driver in the level of anti-Americanism around the world?
Second and totally unrelated, every disaster has its own life cycle, the PR critics have the luxury of looking back and commenting. I’m more interested in how it plays out in the countries affected than at the NYTs or in the European press.
As far as PR is concerned I’m most concerned with how it plays out in the realm of national security. This means those countries that might spawn terrorists, and those whose cooperation we need to fight terrorism. We need to work really hard to avoid reinforcing the view that we are spoiled and uncaring, particularly when doing so costs us next to nothing. That our president doesn’t seem to consistently see the connections here I find unsettling.
And this is not a case of hindsight being 20/20. This was foreseeable, and our executive and all the smart people with whom he has surrounded himself seem to have been caught with their pants down.
The important parts of the equation had many important drivers, PR wasn’t one of them.
That’s silly. PR is carefully interwoven into everything the government does, from the background and lighting at a Press Conference to the talking points for each and every announcment. Nothing is left to chance. To say PR isn’t important is more or less to agree that here they screwed it up.
If the only screwup is PR, I’m not concerned. I’d rather have us being instrumental in the recovery and aid, and not thumping our collective chests about it with a great deal of urgency, than having the chest-thumping be a distraction. If the government’s failing to be properly political, I’m a happy guy.
Timmy: Relevant to what, exactly? The quality of our actual disaster relief efforts? Well, probably, assuming Edward’s point about the effect of criticism is wrong (and we really don’t have enough information to answer that question). But not relevant to the broader strategic picture? You _must_ be joking. How is a failure of PR not going to affect our standing in success in a strategic PR war?
I’m not totally sure that’s what you meant, of course: “PR was not a key driver” is a strikingly opaque sentence. If you meant that PR concerns weren’t a key driver of how the Bush Administration framed its response, then it seems to me that you’re granting the point under discussion. PR concerns damn well SHOULD have been an element of the Bushies’ disaster response.
I’m glad that Stan and Timmy (and Slart, for that matter) are concerned with the substance of our response and how that makes a difference in Southeast Asia. No sarcasm. But it seems to me that such a concern really misses the point of what we’re upset about. Step back a sec and look at the broader strategic picture. Our response (and the _perceptions of our response) was a chance to win a strategic PR victory in the PR war that we’re fighting with Islamist radicals, by acting in ways that are seen to disprove their slurs and stereotypes. And we muffed it.
What baffles me, really, is that conservatives are so concerned with PR, in certain ways. One of the reasons that Iraq is so important, for example, is the _perceptions_ created by a successful/stable Iraqi liberal democracy: Iraq would serve as a giant PR beacon to prove Western beneficience and the evils of Arab (and Persian) dictatorship. Perceptions and PR matter THERE. So why not here?
And Slart, it’s not like the PR concerns would necessarily get in the way of substance. There is clearly a time and place for PR: liberals object to the Bush Admin’s ubiquitous employment of PR not because PR is inherently evil, but because Bush uses it to obscure substantive flaws in his policies. Here, PR would have (COULD have) been used to highlight the substantive STRENGTHS in our disaster relief policies, without in any way making it harder to put those policies into action. And yet it wasn’t. _That’s_ what we have a problem with.
The real issue here is that there is no PR failure. A bunch of people hate the Bush administration. In the end it will play out like the Bush’s National Guard record, supposed Cocaine use, “appointed administration”, loss of civil liberties and on and on. Truly non-issues that people try to make into issues because they hate Bush.
I bet the people on the ground in that I saw on T.V. with a U.S. Seahawk hovering over them dropping food weren’t thinking… “If this appointed administration had just said $350,000,000 on Monday we would all be alot happier now.”
Once more, Smlook, misses the point..badly and rather comically. The point of the PR in this relief effort isn’t directed at those directly impacted by the disaster; if you’re looking for food, clean water, medical help–you’re probably pretty unconcerned as to whether it comes from the US or Japan or Sweden.
Mark Shawhan’s comment was exactly on the mark.
This was an uncontested layup for this appointed administration and they didn’t even throw up an airball; they didn’t get a shot off.
The real issue here is that there is no PR failure.
Not just a river in Egypt.
Fine, have it your way. There’s now $350 million on its way and that’s just the floor, so I’ll move on…
Whether or not Bush mended any fences will be clear enough when we need to ask other countries for help/participation in the next adventure anyway.
No PR failure…in fact, we’re all simply stunned by the glowing success of the PR in all this.
smlook:
Dutch,
The U.N requested 250 million. The U.S. has provided 194 million for 2004. Go to US aid to look it up.
That’s over 77% of the aid.
I went and looked, thought their reporting confusing 😉 and discovered no direct link to UN requests.
Are you familiar with the financial tracking system of reliefweb? It is intended to give a full overview of humanitarian global aid. What is needed, how was it spent, who paid for it.
If you download the donor report on Dafur you will find that over 2004 the US paid 38.08% and the contributions of the EU and EU countries as far as they are mentioned seperately are 37.46%. (I looked at the report with all contributions).
If you download the global donorpage for 2004 you will find that the US contributed 25.30% and the European Union (the institution & the individual countries) 48.36%
Step back a sec and look at the broader strategic picture.
Well exactly, that is why the time spent on putting together the Coalition (Australia, India, Japan and the US) was so much more important than the missed opportunity of a really great “dog and pony” show.
Edward, I thought you would be happy that the Admin is listening to you on increasing the level of aid. Eddie are you are now statisfied with $350 million, I’m not. BTW Eddie, have read any local Indian papers on the overall situation pertaining to the US in the region.
Dutch, does the global donorpage cover carrier task forces or private donations.
Dutch, does the global donorpage cover carrier task forces or private donations.
It has a section ‘private’, but not per country. Carrier task forces are in the USAID factsheet, and there were links to that document so I assume those items are covered. Not everything can be traced though. And it does not log “binding conditions” on aid either. But it is the best attempt at keeping track I have found so far. If you have better info sites I hope you share them, I am always glad to expand my fact-finding URLs file.
Well exactly, that is why the time spent on putting together the Coalition (Australia, India, Japan and the US) was so much more important than the missed opportunity of a really great “dog and pony” show.
Unfortunately, Bush had exactly zero to do with putting together any coalition.
He was, as he has been about 42% of the time, on vacation. He couldn’t be bothered.
Look, this was a real no-brainer. Even Bush should have been able to see the utility of calling a little press conference where he commiserated with the victims, pledged US support, and outlined some vague but impressive plan to have the US take the leadership position in forming a broad-based coalition for relief activities.
He couldn’t be bothered. Instead, his handlers offered up $15M and hoped, in vain, those foreigners who don’t contribute to GOP campaigns anyway would leave us alone.
dutch,
According to their own data that you emphasized, which they do put a qualifier on the accuracy right at the top. Dafur needed $368,783,286 and has received $305,737,863.
US Aid says that we have given $194,408,134. (OCHA has a smaller number.) The US Aid doesn’t list a disclaimer at the top so I think we should go with their number being more accurate.
So that still comes out to over 63% using the data you provided.
To both Dafur and Eastern Chad the U.S. has given $256,374,106. OCHA has only 447,517,526 as received. That comes out to 57%.
This really points out the actions over words debate…
In this African crisis it really seems like the U.S. is carrying the rest of the world on its back.
Maybe, my numbers are wrong. You would have to show me how you calculated yours to come up with your result. I got the EU providing about 29%. Maybe the difference is a math mistake on my part or maybe it is what people said they were going to do versus what they actually did.
BTW, if we add in who pays the way at the U.N. I bet we jump up quite a bit over that 63% in Dafur.
Jade,
Why stop at 42%? I mean Bush is a moron, right? Why don’t you just say that he is permanently on vacation 100% of the time.
Why stop at 42%? I mean Bush is a moron, right? Why don’t you just say that he is permanently on vacation 100% of the time.
Yes and no. Yes, Bush is a moron. No, he isn’t on vacation 100% of the time; it might be a mitigating factor in his favor if he were.
He couldn’t be bothered.
Actually, that isn’t the case, Bush put military assets in movement and put together a Coalition (notwithstanding, your observations). That is, he took care of the important aspects but ignored the “dog and pony” show.
Smlook: It’s kind of a matter of public record that Bush has spent a great deal of time on vacation in Crawford.
Timmy: are you asserting that PR is _not_ an important aspect of how the American government conducts itself in high profile events and affairs? Excuse me?
Actually, that isn’t the case, Bush put military assets in movement and put together a Coalition
Nope. He didn’t. The orders to divert the CVBG and associated ESG/MPPF elements didn’t come until the critism of US relief efforts mounted. The LINCOLN was in port and, thus, available immediately to respond. But the order wasn’t given until nearly three days later. Likewise, the MPPF exists for such emergency contingencies and should have been deployed immediately.
Once again, though, you’re attempting to divert attention away from Bush’s failure to score a PR victory with what has clearly become attempts at damage control.
I think the main point of contention is this —
What Timmy so gleefully considers a “dog and pony show” others call “leadership.” We can go round and round (and have) about what the proper response is but I imagine at this point it is just bickering.
For those who woefully lament the dismal partisan point scoring — I direct you once again to the WH official who went out of his way to take a jab at ole Bubba, before Bush made any statements I might add. Point is, it’s all freakin’ point scoring these days.
On a related note, how can we believe Bush is all about results and thin on the PR? That is a ludicrous idea. Keep that in mind in the coming months when we are subjected to a cross country blitz of focus-grouped, slogan-assisted speechifying by cabinet members, congressfolk, and the Pres hisself all just to sell us (and that digusting MSM) a little something called “privatization.” Dog an pony show my hiney.
This is a bit OT but I can’t help but wonder why we didn’t have some early warning of this tsunami. I know NOAA monitors seismic activity as does the US Navy–particularly in this area.
heet, I believe you confusing cheerleading with leadership. The leadership is self evident by the actions taken (Coalition and moving military assets). As for the balance of your comment, you confuse analysis with projecting.
Timmy:
As Jadegold pointed out, the military assets were not ordered to move until later. Also, you seem to confuse responses with mindreading. Carry on…
“heet, I believe you confusing cheerleading with leadership.”
Guys/gals, I guess you’re being baited at this point. Maybe Timmy thinks Bush shouldn’t have even announced how much we’re donating – who knows – but do you care? If he’s not willing to acknowledge what Jadegold‘s January 2, 2005 11:58 PM does to his argument, the discussion isn’t going to move forward with further bickering.
Oops, the site uses different timestamps when previewing – make that Jadegold‘s January 2, 2005 06:58 PM. Powers-that-be, could you enforce consistency please?
Jadegold: This is a bit OT but I can’t help but wonder why we didn’t have some early warning of this tsunami. I know NOAA monitors seismic activity as does the US Navy–particularly in this area.
It’s my impression from a recent NPR broadcast that we did have warning, there just wasn’t any infrastructure in place to quickly get the warning out to the millions living in the affected areas. Sorry I don’t have a cite.
Thanks, Gromit. That hadn’t occurred to me.
BTW, WRT the CVBG–they’re not really a whole lot of help. Generally, a CV deploys with 10-12 helos and about 6 of them are really suited for VERTREP missions. The other helos can perform very limited VERTREP missions but are limited as to payload. The C-130s are what really help.
Additionally, the addition of the BONHOMME RICHARD will help as they deploy with H-53s.
Gromit: I think this might do for a cite.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/27/science/27science.html?oref=login
There has been some agonizing in the sphere about the fact that the seismologists called their associates and friends in the affected regions and informed the authorities but nobody thought of the simple expedient of using CNN etc. to pass on the warning. Plus what Gromit said.
Not to be ghoulish, but is this horrible disaster that significant on the scale of the number of people who die in an average year from earthquakes etc.? Relative to starvation and malaria and civil wars?
This LATimes article has some information about the problem of getting the warning out. Looking at the timeline, the warning would not have been possible for SEAsia, but Sri Lanka and India could have benefitted.
and this essay by Cringely has some thoughts about a do it yourself tsunami warning system
“Our response (and the _perceptions of our response) was a chance to win a strategic PR victory in the PR war that we’re fighting with Islamist radicals, by acting in ways that are seen to disprove their slurs and stereotypes.”
I think we are talking about different things here. Clinton was a PR master, but his saving Muslims in the Balkans didn’t do a damn thing for us with respect to how the larger Muslim world sees us. If there was any kind of strategic PR victory to be had in the response to the tsunami, it is such a small thing compared to the importance of actually helping people that it is hardly worth talking about. As a matter of scale, even if it had been masterfully done, it would be utterly trivial.
Mark,
Do you really believe that just because the President is at his ranch he is on vacation? Again, another non-issue that people try to make into and issue.
Oh, why? Oh, why?
And to the rest of you…
On one hand you want to bitch about how Bush rushed into Iraq after 10 years of sanctions.
And then you want to accuse him of not having a plan for Iraq. And then you want to bitch that our military is stretched to thin. And then you want to bitch because he didn’t rush in.
And then many of you accuse him of being all about image and managed by his handlers in such a way that makes him look good. And then you want bitch about him not doing enough PR.
Bitch, gripe, whine.
Maybe Timmy thinks Bush shouldn’t have even announced how much we’re donating – who knows – but do you care?
Spot on Dude, I would have preferred Bush simply stating, America will insure that the job gets done, simply reflecting that $350 million may (isn’t) enough.
Maybe, my numbers are wrong. You would have to show me how you calculated yours to come up with your result. I got the EU providing about 29%. Maybe the difference is a math mistake on my part or maybe it is what people said they were going to do versus what they actually did.
I gave you the link to the various reports. I went to the Sudan 2004 donor page, took the donation from the EU; added the donation from Echo & added the donations from all the countries that are in the EU. You can add all the European countries if you want to compare with Europe instead of with the EU.
In 2004 the US gave more than the almost 200m you quote: it gave 364,895,039 dollar. The total (consolidated appeals & other contributions) for 2004 was 958,130,070 dollar.
BTW, if we add in who pays the way at the U.N. I bet we jump up quite a bit over that 63% in Dafur.
LOL, you want to de the same thing? US versus the cumulative EU countries? Are you sure?
This is a bit OT but I can’t help but wonder why we didn’t have some early warning of this tsunami. I know NOAA monitors seismic activity as does the US Navy–particularly in this area.
NOAA is only responsible for monitoring the Pacific. When the reports first came in, the severity of the earthquake was underestimated and NOAA sent out an alert about the earthquake but said there was no threat of a tsunami in the Pacific. When the estimates of the severity of the earthquake were revised upward, NOAA sent an alert to Australia that there was the possibility of a tsunami in the Indian Ocean, and Australia passed this on to Indonesia – this was almost an hour after the initial earthquake.
The bottom line is that earthquakes happen all the time – most of them don’t generate a tsunami. If people had been, over the last few decades, warned of every earthquake they would ignore the warnings as earthquakes around the Indian Ocean have not generated a large tsunami in over a century. There needs to be an actual tsunami warning system, as there is in the Pacific. This would monitor waves, not earthquakes, and would be able to send out warnings only when they were warranted, in which case the warnings would stand a better chance of being heeded.
There also needs to be a warning system in the Caribbean and in the Atlantic. An earthquake off Portugal caused a major tsunami in the Caribbean in the 1750s, if it happened that recently in geological time it will almost certainly happen again.
There was a push a few months ago to get a seismic center for the Caribbean open 24 hours a day as a first step towards this, it was killed due to lack of funding by the Bush administration. “Leadership”, some call it, when they are bitching, griping, and moaning about people being held responsible, when those doing the bitching would rather that the buck be passed (preferably passed back in time to the Clinton era, as we have already seen in this thread).
Maybe, you guys should go to:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6770575/
They have the transcipt of Powell and Russert. Then you can see how everything folder atleast according to Powell.
According to Powell, this “appointed administration” isn’t quite so diabolically evil or incompetent as many of you here believe.
If there was any kind of strategic PR victory to be had in the response to the tsunami, it is such a small thing compared to the importance of actually helping people that it is hardly worth talking about. As a matter of scale, even if it had been masterfully done, it would be utterly trivial.
True. Help is the most important thing. The current contributions are a big help (both money, if aid without conditions, and manpower/material) and are recognized as such.
The vacation thing is not a big issue I think. By now Bush should have practise enough in how to keep things running whilst on vacation [insert evil grin]. I do agree with Edward that it is a missed PR opportunity. People who care about the US image in the world will have more of a problem with that than people that don’t really care what other counries think. But compared to the aid given it is trivial.
They have the transcipt of Powell and Russert. Then you can see how everything folder atleast according to Powell.
According to Powell? Heh. Can we assume his answers are just as honest as his UN testimony (or his “PR” work in Vietnam)?
felix’s description of Powell, lays out the issue in perfect context, no matter what Bush did or didn’t do felix would have an issue.
Dutch,
What’s your take on aid to Dafur? Is the U.S. carrying the heavy weight or did I make a mistake in my analysis?
Timmy,
It really comes down to this for me:
Do I trust Jadegold’s and Felix’s analysis or Powell’s. I’m guessing neither one has talked to the President in the last week. Neither probably were out at the ranch vacationing. Probably not included in the discussions at all. Maybe Jade’s keen insight is right on target. Maybe, he does know more about the situation than Powell.
Do I trust Jadegold’s and Felix’s analysis or Powell’s. I’m guessing neither one has talked to the President in the last week.
Wow, that point went way over your head, didn’t it? I will make it as clear as I can for you: Powell is a known and proven serial liar. Powell does know about the situation. Where you fail is in your assumption that he will relay that information to you truthfully. He has shown by his actions that such an assumption is false. You may choose to place your trust in known and proven serial liars if you wish, that is your right, as damaging to a free republic as the exercise of it may be.
I’m guessing neither one has talked to the President in the last week. Neither probably were out at the ranch vacationing. Probably not included in the discussions at all.
Of course, neither one of them lied to the UN so, y’know, a little from column A and a little from column B…
I don’t know if this was intended to be rhetorical, rilkefan, but I’ll take a quick stab at it anyway:
Not to be ghoulish, but is this horrible disaster that significant on the scale of the number of people who die in an average year from earthquakes etc.?
AFAIK yes. High-casualty earthquakes are quite rare; the recent Bam earthquake was the exception not the rule. [Though if anyone knows anything about this mythic earthquake in Tangshan, China in 1976 I’d be grateful. I can’t find any meaningful accounts, let alone reconcile the ones I’ve been able to find.] Worldwide casualties from earthquakes *usually* clock in around the thousands, occasionally the tens of thousands IIRC. I’d wager this single event is probably an order of magnitude greater in the initial strike alone; lord knows what will happen with the subsequent health calamities.
Relative to starvation and malaria and civil wars?
Malaria’s a tricky one; from what I remember there aren’t good malarial statistics because most of the deaths occur in areas with marginal reporting capabilities. There hasn’t been a true malarial epidemic in quite some time, though, so it’s difficult to compare the two.
As for starvation or civil wars, this isn’t even close. The one potential exception would be if an epidemic were spawned because of it (cholera, typhoid, dystentary and malaria, in that order I’d bet) or if the civil destabilization resulted in outright warfare. Given that even the Tamil Tigers seem to be on the straight-and-narrow for the moment, though — and given the unprecedented level of scrutiny — I suspect that won’t happen.
Whether these are useful or meaningful comparisons… sorry, I haven’t the wisdom to say.
“Powell is a known and proven serial liar.”
Let’s see… Clinton thought Iraq had WMD, Kerry thought it and Richard Clarke thought it.
Good point felix and anarch… that does put him in some pretty sorry company.
Ah, the voice of moderation…
Of course, neither one of them lied to the UN so, y’know, a little from column A and a little from column B…
What we do know is that two task forces were on the move by the morning (EST) of the 28th and a Coalition was up and running by the 29th.
As for Powell and veracity as compared to felix-anarch and veracity, have to go with Powell every time on geopolitics.
Let’s see… Clinton thought Iraq had WMD, Kerry thought it and Richard Clarke thought it.
“Iraq has WMD” was not the sum total of Powell’s UN performance (and has no bearing whatsoever on his actions in Vietnam).
Ah, the voice of the fallacy of extension.
The point stands.
felix, that free republic you are so fond of, made the decision before Powell ever spoke to the UN JFTR.
As for Powell and veracity as compared to felix-anarch and veracity, have to go with Powell every time on geopolitics.
“felix-anarch”? Once again, I’ve been addressed as a collective. Is there something in the air that’s promoting that particular pathology or did I just miss a memo?
As for the substantive point, minimal though it may be, I don’t doubt Powell is more intelligent than myself and his understanding of geopolitics exceeds mine by so many orders of magnitude as to render the comparison vacuous. If we’re talking about his veracity, otoh — by which, to clarify my point about, I would mean being honest rather than merely truthful — well no, sorry, I’ve got him beat by a country mile. Often to my detriment, alas.
All of this is beside the point, however. While I hope that Powell’s version is correct in the sense that the US government was willing, and planning, to give aid of this magnitude, I find it distinctly worrying that Bush missed a golden opportunity to score some easy PR points — and to be perfectly clear: which in turn would have translated to a victory on the battlefield of hearts and minds, which in turn would’ve played into national security and the safety of our troops in Iraq and the successes of our various ventures abroad — and instead may have fostered a perception of the US that could adversely impact our aims.
felix, that free republic you are so fond of, made the decision before Powell ever spoke to the UN JFTR.
Whether the UN presentation would have impacted the realpolitik of the situation is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether Powell displayed the requisite integrity at that presentation. JFTR.
I find it distinctly worrying that Bush missed a golden opportunity to score some easy PR points
With whom, certainly not with Felix. What would have had to say to score points with you Anarch.
Powell presented a case vetted by State and the CIA and Powell still maintains his integrity in the geopolitical playing field.
” find it distinctly worrying that Bush missed a golden opportunity to score some easy PR points — and to be perfectly clear: which in turn would have translated to a victory on the battlefield of hearts and minds, which in turn would’ve played into national security and the safety of our troops in Iraq and the successes of our various ventures abroad — and instead may have fostered a perception of the US that could adversely impact our aims.”
Once again incredibly overplaying the potential PR benefit of tsunami aid. On a scale of impact compared to Egypt’s venemous press, the tsunami relief PR opportunity is a 0.000000001.
As a general concept I think people in the world drastically underestimate the good the US does in the world and overestimate the bad. But you all are really going overboard on the utility of the PR here.
“On a scale of impact compared to Egypt’s venemous press, the tsunami relief PR opportunity is a 0.000000001.”
I’d be interested to know how you quantify this – but more relevantly, do you think this estimate is accurate for Aceh?
The Egyptian press is read throughout the Middle East, and as far as Indonesia. Do people in the Aceh sections watch CNN? How much good do you think a statement would have done for them?
I know squat about the relative market share of the Egyptian press and CNN in Indonesia, but my guess is that opinion-makers there read both.
My sense of the way things work is that America has advocates throughout the Islamic world, and that their position would have been strengthened by a clearer leadership role by Bush. I bet there are conversations going on right now in coffee houses (or the local equivalent) where a moderate is arguing with an anti-American radical and wishing that when he says that the US is giving $0.35B to (mostly) Muslims that his interlocutor had no counterargument; and sorry that Al Jazeera’s nightly broadcast was dwelling on the tardy US response instead of (perhaps grudgingly) admitting the US had taken the obvious leadership role from day 1.
On a scale of impact compared to Egypt’s venemous press, the tsunami relief PR opportunity is a 0.000000001
Of course the Bush administration had a plan to combat the venemous (sic) Arab press, didn’t it? I believe her name was Charlotte Beers. What happened to that plan? Perhaps she could be persuaded to return to the State Department to run the campaign to convince the electorate that Bush doesn’t care about PR…
“and sorry that Al Jazeera’s nightly broadcast was dwelling on the tardy US response instead of (perhaps grudgingly) admitting the US had taken the obvious leadership role from day 1.”
And that would be pure spin. There has in fact been no tardy response.
And hey, if you want to talk about how we need an effective VOA or something in the Middle East, I’m right there with you. But that has squat to do with any miniscule and alleged lack of PR on the tsunami.
Re Charlotte Beers…
“There has in fact been no tardy response.”
Here we’re back at the “what is a response” impasse. And in any case I don’t understand how you can show such lack of interest in what al J says, spin or not, or in the counterarguments the moderate I posited is facing.
Got a link for Muslim criticism of “tardy” US efforts?
Got a link for Muslim criticism of “tardy” US efforts?
Let’s check the list of fallacious arguments for the classification:
Failure To State:
if you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic.
Yeah, that about sums it up.
I’m hoping there is someone fluent in Bahasa, but most of the Indonesian newspapers are subscription only, so it’s tough to find out what was or is being said. However, this op-ed piece from The Hindu, a national Indian newspaper, should give Americans pause.
I’d also point out on the day the news hit about the tsunami (27 Dec), the top story on the international page was the following
An energetic push to inaugural fund
WASHINGTON, DEC. 26. Drawing support from the energy industry and other long-time backers of the U.S. President, George W. Bush, the presidential inaugural committee has raised almost $8 million since it began gathering money this month, according to a list it released.
And other stories on the page included ‘Germany stands by to help’, Putin offers condolences’ The next day in the international section, one of the top stories was ‘Chinese Premier offers condolences’. There’s also a front page story on 2 Jan about donations by the Chinese embassy. I still haven’t found an article mentioning Bush offering condolences, though there is a 1 jan article highlighting Blair’s disagreement with Bush’s 4 nation proposal and an article about Jeb Bush and Powell visiting. At the risk of being accused of reading too much into it, the last article has the following graf
The decision to send Mr. Powell and Mr. Jeb Bush, President Bush’s brother, was seen by administration officials as likely to help defuse whatever hurt feelings there might be in Asia that Mr. Bush was slow to respond, at least compared with how quickly many other nations reacted to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“Let’s check the list of fallacious arguments for the classification”
felixrayman, got a link for that list?
lj – thanks for the cites. If I haven’t mentioned it before, I appreciate your contribution to this blog.
got a link for that list?
The list is here.
Substantively, it is not as good as the list alluded to earlier in the thread by Phil, but it is all on one HTML page, which makes for easier reading.
v. cool, thanks.
You might want to check the response time to the Iran earthquake before you start freaking out. There was no tardy response the aid was and is being sent with amazing rapidity. Those who want to complain that some PR is as important, or even particularly important, are free to do so. But frankly, you are being ridiculous if you think that it is within orders of magnitude of importance when compared to the quick physical response. We can still highlight the actual work done, if you think it is crucial to engage in PR stunts.
smlook:
Dutch,
What’s your take on aid to Dafur? Is the U.S. carrying the heavy weight or did I make a mistake in my analysis?
You said:
No the US is not supplying almost all the aid and no, the US does not do more than most countries combined.
The US *does* provide aid and *does* help. But comments like yours (and Stan elswhere saying that Europe is just rhetoric and everybody knows that they should go to the US for the dollars) give a wrong impression.
JFTR, the Bush Admin had military assets moving on the 27th, the local media was reporting about it on the 28th.
There’s always Changing The Subject. This was Tacitus’ first appearance on this thread, with a one-sentence post, and you accuse him of being unresponsive. I wonder which of you is more guilty of evasion, here?
Dutch,
“the US does not do more than most countries combined.”
I originally heard the U.S. was supplying 80% of the aid to Dafur. But, I can only show the U.S. is providing over 63%. That means the U.S. is providing more than the whole world combined in Dafur.
I should revise my statement to be a little clearer. I meant that the U.S. will probably do more than all the countries in the EU combined.
Which seems to be clearly the case in Dafur.
smlook
See my post of January 2, 2005 04:51 PM
Bravo Mr. President – we have helicopters from USS Lincoln’s carrier group actually dropping supplies and provisions to unreachable areas faster than UPS could have shipped from NYC to LA. This is just an incredible Logistics accomplishment that could have only been achieved by immediate ACTION. There will always be time for ‘gestures’.
don’t overdo it Blog…a little goes a long way. 😉
And you know, it sounds like we owe our President a couple of ‘comp’ days. He must not have been on vacation afterall. Anyone here in favor of giving him some days off?
Anyone here in favor of giving him some days off?
Sure…let’s schedule them for January 2009, shall we?
So, I ask: “Got a link for Muslim criticism of ‘tardy’ US efforts?”
And felixrayman, taking a break from boning up on Russian history, writes, “Let’s check the list of fallacious arguments for the classification….”
The embittered obsessives strike! Actually, I really am looking for links to Muslim criticism of “tardy” US efforts. Before posting this, I searched for some, and could not find a one.
The embittered obsessives strike!
Indeed…
this goes out to everyone….New Year…new tone, please.
“But comments like yours (and Stan elswhere saying that Europe is just rhetoric and everybody knows that they should go to the US for the dollars) give a wrong impression.”
If we are speaking about Dafur, pretty much the sum total of all aid is in the PR category. No one is willing to stop the actual killing. The genocide continues, abated only from time to time by weather. But I predict it will end before December. The genocide will be successful.
Timmy: What would have had to say to score points with you Anarch.
Would it kill you to actually write in complete sentences, Timmy? It’s especially irritating when you omit the object of the verb; what would who have had to say?
Nevertheless, I’ll take a stab at it and guess that you mean President Bush. So, first: scoring points with me is utterly irrelevant to this context. [It’s not like I’m going to get another chance to vote on him, and he’s made it abundantly clear that he doesn’t give a damn what I think.] I’m worried about how Bush’s response affects our image abroad. I’ll therefore reinterpret your question as “What would [Bush] have had to say in order to improve our international image?”
The short answer is: I would have wanted Bush to a) immediately cut his vacation short, b) make an immediate public appearance (not a radio address). Specific utterances are a little hard to qualify; I’d’ve liked, among others, for him c) to have used the opportunity to point out that the US would be prepared to offer whatever assistance was necessary, and in particular to be careful to phrase all talk of aid amounts as “first responses” rather than give the impression of them being discretized chunks meted out charily; d) to take the opportunity to point out that political differences are nothing compared to moral commonalities; and e) to ensure that this aid is a gift, rather than a loan or anything similar.* He may have done some of d and e — I can’t find a link to the radio address he gave, nor do I remember it clearly enough — but I thought I’d include them to profile what I think an appropriate response would have been instead rather than merely try to bash Bush.
* There was a developing story around the 30th about how some of our aid amounts were originally phrased in terms of a loan or something similar, but it might have just been sloppy reportage. I’m not sure how it panned out (my internet access is sporadic right now); I hope it turns out to have been wrong.
Powell presented a case vetted by State and the CIA and Powell still maintains his integrity in the geopolitical playing field.
Prove the latter assertion. I’m all ears.
Sebastian: Once again incredibly overplaying the potential PR benefit of tsunami aid. On a scale of impact compared to Egypt’s venemous press, the tsunami relief PR opportunity is a 0.000000001.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step. The battle for a billion hearts and minds begins with… well, when the Bush Administration begins to fight it, let me know.
And really, that’s part of the problem I mentioned in Charles Bird’s thread. The Bush Administration is enormously reluctant to clarify what it is we’re supposed to be fighting, let alone decide how it is we’re supposed to fight it, and this blown opportunity — though, I agree, it’s a small one — is a testament to that fact.
That said, I find myself enormously heartened by Edward’s most recent post and so I think it’s time to let this thread die. See ya in the funny papers.
Given the massive Muslim goodwill we earned saving the Muslims of Somalia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo, it seems difficult to believe that tsunami relief efforts will make much of a difference.
Anarch,
I reall think this would be more accurate:
“To me” The Bush Administration is enormously reluctant to clarify what it is we’re supposed to be fighting, let alone decide how it is we’re supposed to fight it, and this blown opportunity…
I mean seriously, the election shows that most Americans don’t really agree with you.
Given the massive Muslim goodwill we earned saving the Muslims of Somalia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo, it seems difficult to believe that tsunami relief efforts will make much of a difference.
There are those who nothing will satisfy, surely, but don’t you think the moderates (on whom our hopes really lie) were influenced by such efforts?
Beyond those individuals whose lives we immediately saved? No. If they were, I missed it.
I would distinguish between this effort and those by saying that in this case, we aren’t fighting anyone.
For instance, by the time we acutually began occupying Kosovo, almost all of the Serbs had actually been “reverse cleansed,” and the occupying forces have spent most of their energies preventing the few remaning Serbs from being abused, kicked out, and/or slaughtered.
Tacitus,
As if!. Gallup poll taken in Kuwait (whom we bailed out in 1991):
Have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the United States :
Favorable: 28%
Unfavorable: 41%
Neither: 31%
Say U.S. military action in Afghanistan is morally justifiable:
Justifiable: 17%
Unjustifiable: 69%
Neither: 14%
Believe news reports that Arabs carried out Sept. 11 attacks:
True: 11%
Not true: 89%
Don’t know: 0%
Article is dated 02/27/2002
If they were, I missed it.
Would you know? Would most people in the U.S. necessarily know? American reporting on the Arab and Muslim worlds is severely handicapped, so it’s not clear to me what mechanism you or I would have for really answering that question. (British reporting is less severely handicapped, but still, if you’re restricted to English-language sources you’re likely missing out on a lot. That’s the generic “you”, not the specific btw.)
Well, you’re right, I can’t read Arabic, Turkish, et al., so I rely upon translations to English for my sources. That being said, I would like to think I’m comparatively well-read within that constraint. Those with the skills I lack are welcome to point out whatever relevant information they wish on this subject.
Beyond those individuals whose lives we immediately saved? No. If they were, I missed it.
Well, Muqtedar Khan is one. Perhaps starting with him you’ll find the others.
“There are those who nothing will satisfy, surely, but don’t you think the moderates (on whom our hopes really lie) were influenced by such efforts?”
Influenced ON ANY LEVEL? Sure. Influenced on any important level? I doubt it.
Tacitus,
memri.org is a good start. heh.
Edward, from his book:
The World wars, the holocaust, colonialism, imperialism, slavery and racism are just a few of the crimes that the West has and/or to much lesser extent continues to commit outside its borders. These elements of the West are puzzling. How can a society that has so much respect for a human life at home be so determined to allow the steady elimination of innocent Iraqis? Source
More from his book:
They have seen how U.S.-led sanctions have gradually squeezed the life out of Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of Muslim children. Recently they watched in horror as Israeli Army killed more than 2000 protesting Palestinians…Source
Need I go on?
Stan,
down boy…
repeat after me: new year…new tone.
Stan,
The question was Kosovo et al., which Muqtedar Khan has gone out of his way to praise the US for intervening in.
With regards to your quotes, prove that he’s wrong…
Edward, I can’t provide excerpts from the book you’ve provided as an example of moderation?
smlook: I mean seriously, the election shows that most Americans don’t really agree with you.
No, actually, it doesn’t. It shows that a lot of people in this country think they know what Bush and his Administration stand for, but as I’ve maintained repeatedly that’s a far different claim than the one you’re (implicitly) making. Furthermore, it’s my contention that the Bush Administration is deliberately obscuring their aims because clarifying them would necessarily cost them political support in their base by those who think they understand the Administration, but are in fact incorrect.*
Let me expand a little because I don’t think you’ve seen me make this point previously. I think that in the early days of the Bush Administration their aims were unclear because the Administration was riven by political differences and because Bush himself lacked a unifying plan. This is why we had what I referred to elsewhere as a “weirdly schizophrenic march to war”: disparate elements of the Administration gained ascendancy at different times, resulting in proclamations of almost every conceivable rationale, in effect rendering the Administration a Rorschach test… so what you see is what you want.** Over time, I think they perceived the utility of this morass of ambiguity, so that now the Administration actually does this as a matter of deliberate policy — by, for example, never actually clarifying exactly who or what we’re fighting against.
That’s why we have a “War on Terror”, which means precisely nothing, as opposed to a “War With Al Qaeda” or “War Against Wahhabism” or “Struggle Against Radical Islam” or “Fight Against Violent Fundamentalism” or something that actually has a meaning. [This is the core of the former Bird Dog’s complaint in the previous thread.] That’s why we don’t have clearly defined objectives and why we don’t — and can’t — have a clearly defined strategy to pursue them. [Hence the blown PR opportunity here.] That’s why this “War on Terror” is infinitely malleable, justifying anything from the invasion of Iraq to shutting down strip clubs in Nevada to banning prescription drugs from Canada. It means nothing, so it can mean anything.
And meaning anything, it can mean whatever you, as a generic individual, want.
So yes, Bush won the election. Yes, my guy lost. No, that doesn’t in the slightest contradict anything I’ve said. Bush is practicing governance through obscurity and, while it’s patently politically successful, I think it’s enormously destructive to our nation’s interests and our nation’s political health. You’re free to disagree, of course; I only ask that you address my actual position in the process.
* Clarifying would probably garner them support (possibly even more than they’d otherwise lose) but from groups whose political leanings don’t mesh so neatly with Bush’s. My read of the political calculus is that they’d rather have 50% + 1 from within their base than 60% diluted through a coalition.
** Or, if you’re a liberal, what you don’t want.
Edward,
How can a society that has so much respect for a human life at home be so determined to allow the steady elimination of innocent Iraqis?
Determined?
U.S.-led sanctions have gradually squeezed the life out of Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of Muslim children
No mention of the UNSCAM and moneys diverted by Saddam to build palaces instead of buying food/medicine? No mention of the purpose of the sanctions? Come on, Edward.
Stan,
to clarify, the “new year…new tone” comment was about the memri.org line…not the quotes.
About the quotes demonstrating that Khan is not moderate, again, prove those statements are not true.
Being a moderate doesn’t mean one must be pro-US, just not anti-US.
Stan,
we can parse each line Khan has written with you emphasizing this word and me emphasizing that word, but in the end, Khan has chastised other Muslims for not recognizing that good the US did to save Muslims in Kosovo, and that was the reason I suggested Tacitus re-consider his original statement.
Being a “moderate” doesn’t mean being a push over…ask von.
Edward,
While claiming that we are so determined to allow the steady elimination of innocent Iraqis?
I don’t want to start this all up again, but I do want to point out a few things. Tac wrote:
Actually, I really am looking for links to Muslim criticism of “tardy” US efforts. Before posting this, I searched for some, and could not find a one.
Well, I gave you the Hindu link. Not Muslim, I know, but certainly appropriate. The jakarta Post has free registration, and while you may argue that the absence of stories about aid means that you are right, I would suggest that the absence of any comment that the US has donated money (the only one is in this one laundry list article that appeared today and the one below) and the (archived) articles about Howard and Koizumi’s efforts (with no mention of Bush) and the acknowledgement of condolence calls by Putin, Jiang and Howard (but not Bush), I would argue, says volumes.
Unfortunately, for the paper in Ache, much of their staff is missing (though they have been able to go to print
And if non-Muslims feel that we aren’t being generous, they are going to have a stick to beat us with, regardless of how fair or unfair the charge is.
We now have Powell saying that we aren’t going to pay anymore than what we said, which is why I personally would have preferred an immediate gesture by Bush sans a financial figure.
Here, from behind the registration wall, is the Jakarta Post article about the condolence letters received in Indonesia. I hope you are right that this is no biggie and everyone is going to congratulate us. I really do. But I have found that it is not what is said, it is what is left out, and this article is an example of that
Presidents, prime ministers, kings and queens from around the globe offered the Aceh tsunami victims their heartfelt sympathies and pledged aid and assistance to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Copies of condolence letters and offers of help sent to Susilo were made available to The Jakarta Post on Tuesday by a range of embassies in Jakarta.
On behalf of the European Union (EU) and the Netherlands, the Dutch Queen Beatrix and Prime Minister Balkenende extended their heartfelt sympathies to the victims and relatives of those affected.
“The EU stands ready to assist in every way possible to alleviate the sad plight of the victims. To that end it has activated its Monitoring and Information Center in Brussels to coordinate the rescue and relief efforts from the European Union,” the Queen and Prime Minister said in a declaration.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi offered on Monday victims’ families his condolences through a letter sent to Susilo.
Japan announced on Tuesday assistance of US$1.87 million to Indonesian victims.
The U.S. Embassy in Jakarta said on Tuesday that Washington has provided an initial $100,000 to the Indonesian Red Cross for immediate relief activities. The U.S. is planning to give another $2 million to the Red Cross.
Meanwhile, British aid minister Gareth Thames telephoned Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda on Tuesday to convey condolences on behalf of the British government and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
“We are ready to respond to the need to help Indonesian people in Aceh by sending two British humanitarian aid advisers immediately to coordinate our response,” Thames said.
Indonesia’s neighbor India, which is also a victim of the tragedy, conveyed its deep sympathies to the victims’ families.
“Our sympathies are with the families who have lost their near and dear ones. We pray to the Almighty to give them strength to withstand this difficult period with courage,” Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam said in a letter sent to Susilo.
“The Government of India stands ready to provide any assistance that you may require,” Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in a separate letter sent to Susilo.
The Chinese Embassy said on Tuesday that Chinese President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao had sent a message to Susilo.
“The two Chinese leaders extended deep condolences to the Indonesian President and, through President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, to the families,” the Embassy said.
China has donated $600,000 worth of blankets, tents and food to the victims.
Italian President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi also conveyed similar message to Susilo.
“In the spirit of friendship and collaboration that unite our two countries, the Italy is very close to and supportive of Indonesian people in this tragic moment,” President Ciampi said.
“I promptly gave instructions to stand ready and contribute to the relieve of the population affected. Italy is close to you and to your country in this tragic moment of sorrow,” Berlusconi said in a letter sent to Susilo.
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin also expressed on Sunday his sympathy and support to the quake-hit countries including Indonesia.
“On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to express my deep sympathy and condolences to those affected. We extend our thoughts and prayers to all the victims, their families, and others hit by this terrible disaster,” Martin said.
A powerful earthquake measuring on 9.0 on the Richter scale and deadly tsunamis struck Indonesia’s two northern provinces — Aceh and North Sumatra — and killed more than 15,000 people. The death toll may rise further as scores of villages, towns are still cut off from the outside world.
I also wonder about your figures on the generosity of Americans in the link you gave. You quote 240 billion, but that figure includes religious organizations (84 billion), college bequests (31 billion) before we even get to a tranche that might be mostly the kind of donations that are being discussed. I’m not sure why it is so hard to just say that there was a problem here but it’s been fixed. But I am definitely going to leave while there is the slightest faint traces of some equine life form left (though some may disagree)
Off, italics!
lj,
too much quoted stuff…try to keep em shorter please.
Stan,
you emphasize “determined” in that sentence…try emphasizing “allowed”…if you do that can be read as a call to end Hussein’s regime.
Edward, I think he’s referring to the sanctions.
Stan, again, essentially we’re in a parsing contest, which only muddies the point. As your source links aren’t bringing up the quoted text for me, I’ll limit my example to your quote:
Who is “They”? It’s save to assume the author is talking about anti-US Muslims in this context, but all he’s describing is what “they” have “seen”…it’s a fair and accurate description from some peoples’ point of view, most likely attempting to explain an attitude. The US-led sanctions DID squeeze the life out of Iraqi.
You’re stripping away the context and trying to portray him as radical for not painting each observation in red, white, and blue. I’m not sure why either.
By the way, “Recently they watched in horror as Israeli Army killed more than 2000 protesting Palestinians…”
That “protesting” part is killer. Really.
If parse we must…
what would you substitute for “protesting” Stan?
Let’s…
Definition of the word protesting.
Tell me if you see anything in there that even remotely deals with violence, murder, etc.
All I’m asking Stan is what word would you substitute there.
It wouldn’t be one word. The fact that he chose to use that particular word shows that he is trying to give sympathy to that cause and also, more importantly, makes the reader relate to those radicals.
I mean, hey, who’s not against an army killing 2,000 people for merely protesting? Hell, these people are not radicals, cause I am horrified, too!
A rather cheap trick.
Edward
I might be more appropriate to say “violent” protest.
smlook,
Not even. A violent protest implies rock/bottle throwing (kind of like a football match) not suicide bombings, automatic gunfire, mortars, etc.
Kind of like after a soccer match, I meant to say.
The appointed administration does this:
That evil Republican congress!
Atleast when it comes to food aid it seems that it’s not really the U.S. that is stingy after all.
And what we did in 2000 for food aid:
USA – $796 million
EU – $118m
Netherlands – $63m
UK – $60m
Germany – $47m
Denmark – $42m
Norway – $33m
Sweden – $31m
France – $26m
Dutch,
I would think even you would have to admit that when it comes to food aid $796m to $340m makes the U.S. look pretty darned generous.
Would it kill you to actually write in complete sentences, Timmy? It’s especially irritating when you omit the object of the verb
Anarch, occassionally I do on purpose, sometimes not, (Sorry do it on purpose) but it doesn’t affect the points I’m trying to make.
Edward, I’m shocked that you closed down the comment section on your last post on the subject. I had so many pictures I wanted to show you and they speak volumes about the importance of our immediate actions to move military assets into the area.
Anarch, occassionally I do on purpose, sometimes not, (Sorry do it on purpose) but it doesn’t affect the points I’m trying to make.
It affects them when I have to mind-read in order to figure out what point you’re trying to make. All I’m asking is to not become eligible for a Karnak Award every time we have a conversation.
Don’t anarchists leave objects out of sentences all the time? 🙂
Who is the real radical here?
Timmy, I think Anarch’s got a bit of a point, here.
I had so many pictures I wanted to show you and they speak volumes about the importance of our immediate actions to move military assets into the area.
Though opinions vary, I recommend blogger.com
I am also pleased to note that Japan, either in response to being shamed by the US or China stealing a march on them, has upped its aid to 500 mil. However, as several sites have noted, though Japanese give a higher dollar amount, they often attach interest and unrealistic conditions to their aid. And there certainly doesn’t seem to be the public outpouring that one has in the states.
A picture like this for starters.
If we are speaking about Dafur, pretty much the sum total of all aid is in the PR category. No one is willing to stop the actual killing. The genocide continues, abated only from time to time by weather. But I predict it will end before December. The genocide will be successful.
Not entirely true. The EU pays 250m to fund the African peacecorps, I know that the Dutch raised 1m the week before the Tsunami to fund a hospital there, we hold 100m in reserve for the rebuilding of the country. More countries (including the US) do more things too, but I have an easier time tracking “our” accomplishments 😉
It is not all PR, but I wish more could be done too.
What I understand from the people actually working in the region is that more than anything it is a humanitarian crisis and most money should go to humanitarian aid.
But to get anywhere you have to stop civil wars, regional conflicts. The peace agreement between the North and the South is a very good start of 2005, I hope it will improve handling of the Dafur crisis.
smlook:
I would think even you would have to admit that when it comes to food aid $796m to $340m makes the U.S. look pretty darned generous.
Yes, but your original statement was about help in Dafur in 2004. First you said the US did more than everybody else combined and based that upon factsheet about a part of the total aid package and pointed at the US part in it. So I sent links to a site where you could look up the figures about *all* of the aid to Dafur in 2004 to show the total picture. In which the US gives a good share, as does the rest of the Western hemisphere – and we all should, being as rich as we are IMHO.
Now you come up with figures about another part (food), but no context. You give figures of both EU and non-EU countries, but not all EU countries. Which makes it rather hard for me to say anyting about it.
Also, I am not entirely sure what point you wanted to make. As I said, I reacted to your point about Dafur in 2004 (and a bit to Stans remark elsewhere about the aid for Tsunami victims). You want to discuss general foreign aid politics now, and compare the US with the EU? Or the US with Europe? Or the richest countries with each other? And if you want to compare, do you want to compare how much food everybody gives, how much emergency aid, how much development aid, the commitment towareds decreasing poverty in the world….???
I am perfectly willing to give an opinion and try to base it in facts, but I do need more context.
Rats! Link doesn’t link.
Slactivist has another really good explanation of why it matters.
That’s a very human, very reassuring photo, Timmy…thanks for sharing.
It sort of confuses the point though. No one has questioned the compassion or generosity of the people of the United States through any of this. The question was whether or not our government was accurately/competently representing our heartache and concern.
According to the fact sheet you provided the U.S. has done more than everyone combined in Dafur.
The reason the EU and non-EU was listed out like that is because that is how the U.N. website had it. That was 92% of the total aid.
I am assuming that they counted aid from the EU and the independant aid from each country. Any other country wasn’t included because their aid was so small.
“do you want to compare how much food everybody gives,
Already did that above. Based on the info provided by the U.N. we can see that the U.S. is providing 65% of the aid. The EU and its countries contribute, but it is not comparable to what the U.S. food contribution is.
Don’t shoot the messenger… check out the U.N. websites WFP and FAO.
Meanwhile…
SPIEGEL ONLINE:
“For the Americans the action is not just help for the desperate Indonesians, instead also an important PR campaign. They can indeed prove, that they don’t just conduct wars against Muslims, but instead stand at their side in an hour of need.”
Heh.
I’ll see your Spiegel story, Stan and raise you one Associated Press story:
Despite those who couldn’t believe I was just being partisan in my criticism of the PR effort, my feeling has been that it IS in our best interest to get good press on this issue and until just a few days ago we weren’t.
By the way, any idea what Muslims states are donating?
Are you trying to start a fight Stan?
any idea what Muslims states are donating?
Well, first off, Muslim Aid is sending 1 million British pounds, and there’s conflicting reports, so apparently the Muslim nations are no better at PR. One source says SA and Kuwait together only donated 10 million dollars, but this Saudi Arabia website has its nation’s current donation at 30 million dollars and this site says Kuwait is pledging $10 million itself. Likewise, this UAE website has its donation currently at 20 million dollars. etc. etc.
your point?
A fight? Why so defensive, Edward? If we are going to get graded on this, then I’ld like to see how others fare.
Any idea as to what % of Kuwait’s GDP goes to aid?
If we are going to get graded on this, then I’ld like to see how others fare.
As a teacher, that’s perhaps the single most (self-)destructive attitude you can have…
But since we are the ones getting graded, we are not the “teacher”…
Why so defensive, Edward?
Because you could have chosen any number of other categories with which to compare the US.
any idea what Buddhist states are donating? any idea what Catholic states are donating? any idea what Taoist states are donating? Hindu states, etc. etc, etc.
But you chose Muslim. So again, I ask, what’s your point?
And, yes, I’m sensitive about gratuitous Muslim-bashing. That question is so totally unrelated to the PR issue and whether or not the administration should have worked harder in the beginning to ensure they got better press. Even when I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and link my response back into the PR question (“apparently the Muslim nations are no better at PR”), you ignored that bit and went straight back to your highly selective comparison, leading me, once more, back to the question, what’s your point?
You view a simple question as Muslim-bashing??? Can you explain yourself?
That question is so totally unrelated to the PR issue
The point is rather simple and I am surprised that you are having a hard time seeing even after the “grading” post. Our response is just so overwhelmingly greater then those of Muslim states when it comes to helping Muslims and yet we get very little credit in the Muslim world (and the world in general). I think that we won over all the reasonable Muslim folk even prior to the tsunami.
The point is rather simple and I am surprised that you are having a hard time seeing even after the “grading” post.
Maybe I’m too tired to see it. My apologies if I misread you. I took your response as a deflection tactic and, yes, as chance to bash Muslims for not donating enough, as if how much other nations are donating lets us off the hook somehow.
Our response is just so overwhelmingly greater then those of Muslim states when it comes to helping Muslims and yet we get very little credit in the Muslim world (and the world in general).
Our response should be overwheminlgy greater than that of all other nations, as befits our status as the world’s only superpower.
I think that we won over all the reasonable Muslim folk even prior to the tsunami.
There’s a kernel of truth in that, I suppose, but it begs for a clarification of “reasonable.” Is it reasonable for an Iraqi mother whose child was incinerated by a US bomb to hate America? I could go on in this vein, but again suspect I’m a bit too vexed already to offer you a fair debate. Until tomorrow…
Stan LS: Our response is just so overwhelmingly greater then those of Muslim states when it comes to helping Muslims
Proportionate to GNP?
and yet we get very little credit in the Muslim world (and the world in general).
Well, isn’t rather the point of this thread? Had President Bush considered it worth interrupting his vacation to respond immediately with a few well-chosen words about the horror of this disaster and the necessity for a generous response, the US would have gotten more credit for making a generous response. As it is, the impression given to the world in general is that the Bush administration’s response to the disaster was stingy until driven upwards by public opinion – and that Bush thought so little of it he didn’t bother to interrupt his vacation to speak about it.
If PR matters, as Edward said in his initial post, then it matters that the US got very little credit with the Muslim world for its response.
If PR does not matter, if it doesn’t matter what people think about the US, then what do you care what the response of the Muslim world was?
yes, as chance to bash Muslims for not donating enough, as if how much other nations are donating lets us off the hook somehow.
But why not? Western nations got bashed (called “stingy”), no? Why are the rich oil states off the table?
as if how much other nations are donating lets us off the hook somehow
That’s not what I was getting at. It ties into the point I was trying to make – can the West (well, mainly US) do enough to get into the Muslims’ good graces? After all, if its passable for fellow Muslims to do virtually nothing (let’s see if there’s a backlash, but I doubt there will be), while we are doing so much with $, equipment, and human resources and still not being viewed as benevolent… Well, are we being graded on merit or something else? And if it’s “something else”, what good will our PR do?
Our response should be overwheminlgy greater than that of all other nations
I wasn’t talking about absolute numbers, I asked about %.
Is it reasonable for an Iraqi mother whose child was incinerated by a US bomb to hate America?
You are shooting yourself in the foot here. Is it reasonable for an Iraqi mother whose child was incinerated by a US bomb to love US because of a great PR campaign?
Jes,
if it doesn’t matter what people think about the US, then what do you care what the response of the Muslim world was?
Looks like we are going in circles. My point is that since we are not being graded on merit then we should stop paying attention to the grades.
As for PR… Everyone knows what whom we helped in Kosovo, Somalia, etc.. Weeks from now, people won’t even remember how many days it took Bush (except for lefties) to make a statement. What will be remembered is what we did and how much we gave.
Stan: Weeks from now, people won’t even remember how many days it took Bush [elided] to make a statement. What will be remembered is what we did and how much we gave.
You can certainly hope so. We’ll see. What this thread was about, though, was the conviction that it would be better if instead of hoping that people would forget the Bush administration’s PR failure, the Bush administration had actually managed a PR success. Don’t agree that all else being equal, it’s better to be successful and have people remember that, than to hope that people will forget the failure?
Argh. That should have been: “Don’t you agree that all else being equal”
Sorry.
stan:
Any idea as to what % of Kuwait’s GDP goes to aid?
In general, or for this disaster? For this disaster the nationmaster holds graphs, amongst which aid in ratio with GDP. They are not complete though, since they do not take private donations and such into account.
They try to keep track of more, including amounts pledged by NGO’s and the public
“Don’t agree that all else being equal, it’s better to be successful and have people remember that, than to hope that people will forget the failure?”
I at least want it to be a success and not have it remembered as a failure.
But since we are the ones getting graded, we are not the “teacher”…
Precisely. I’m saying, from my perspective as a teacher, that perhaps the most destructive attitude a student can possess is the instinctive urge to ask how other students fared — to be blunt about it, to try to be measured on a curve. You either succeed or fail on your own merits, not the merits of those in the room with you.
What would it say about America that if in a time of dire crisis for many millions of people we consider the PR effect during the planning stages?
I for one would like to think it actually didn’t occur to the President or his administration to use this for PR points. Atleast that is the kind of President that I want for my country. Wouldn’t that be the most sincere response to a tragedy?
What would it say about America that if in a time of dire crisis for many millions of people we consider the PR effect during the planning stages?
You mean like the Doolittle raid?
Cool link, felixrayman, though it’s not clear to me that such a narrowly-directed PR campaign is still PR.
I once again tried reading a doorstop history of the 20th C over xmas and found it just too depressing. The later years of WWII seem (despite the intense horror of the time) an oddly optimistic period (which the book I tried to read seemingly in response skipped).
I once again tried reading a doorstop history of the 20th C over xmas and found it just too depressing
Generally I find reading monolithic history texts like that too boring for words…I prefer books that take one small dimension of history and use it as a starting point from which to branch off…for example I read “Coal: A Human History” over the holidays. It’s interesting how much can be touched on with such a restricted lens.
As for the Doolittle thing, it gives a good example of how PR can sometimes be more important than material results – militarily the raid accomplished nothing, as a boost to moral it is claimed to have been effective.
Missed the _Allied_ opinion point reading with my cavalier morale-be-damned-win-the-damned-war-on-the-battlefield chess player’s attitude: fair enough. Your link claims that the raid accomplished a lot militarily – it was a gambit which succeeded in making the other side overcommit.
Your link claims that the raid accomplished a lot militarily – it was a gambit which succeeded in making the other side overcommit
True, but I don’t believe that was planned or expected at the time the attack was conceived.
I don’t believe that was planned or expected at the time the attack was conceived.
Then I suggest that you read up on the subject.
We will act? Can we change the tense of that statement to the present continuous please?
Nope, not yet. From the AP:
ggd: What would it say about America that if in a time of dire crisis for many millions of people we consider the PR effect during the planning stages?
This is in itself a PR question, i.e. “how would it look if we were too concerned with how things looked?” It brings to mind those rebellious individuals who make absolutely sure everybody knows that they don’t care what anyone thinks of them.
And to answer your question, as long as the PR didn’t get in the way of actually providing the aid, taking it into account would only say that America’s leaders are actually trying to do an important part of their job. Note that Colin Powell himself is now saying he sees the aid effort as an opportunity to repair the U.S.’s image abroad, particularly in Muslim countries.
I’d be interested in the reaction of Christians and others to Delay’s prayer today.
Great. Then, as a teacher, wouldn’t you agree that from a student’s point of view, it’s important to know exactly what constitutes a passing grade? Otherwise, there’s just no pleasing you.
from a student’s point of view, it’s important to know exactly what constitutes a passing grade
From a student’s point of view, it’s important to know exactly how little one can do and still get an ‘A’. Inmates do not run the asylum however, at any asylum worth attending.
Actually, that is an interesting question, slarti. If you aren’t worried about people failing or falling behind, you generally don’t set a ‘minimum’ bar, as the goal is not fixed. However, if you want to set some sort of standards deal with education on a certification basis, you need to have some minimum standards. The testing then becomes a question of making sure that people attain the minimum standards. For a scholarship or a prize, the former is more appropriate, for something like a drivers license, the latter is more appropriate. In this case, since we aren’t going to kick countries off the planet for not measuring up, I would think that we would want to encourage the absolute most generosity rather than claim that there is some passing grade. At least that’s my opinion.
Another PR disaster:
While the rest of the Minnesota Vikings were fighting to the last, Randy Moss was skulking away.
With his helmet in hand and head down, Moss slowly walked off the field Sunday while his teammates were lining up to try an onside kick with 2 seconds left. The Redskins recovered, handing the rattled Vikings a 21-18 season finale loss.
Did it matter?
felixrayman
I highly recommend _Europe: A History_ by Norman Davies. The text is broken up with sidebars that ties different eras and areas together. Davies is an specialist in Polish history and more generally Eastern European history, so he pulls the view away from the more western europe-centric focus.
Fair enough. Now, what constitutes “absolute most generosity”?
Hmmm. I trust this isn’t the voice of experience. That aside, extremely poor analogy. Maybe some clarification is in order.
Anarch,
You either succeed or fail on your own merits, not the merits of those in the room with you.
But now we are back where I’ve started. So we should care abou the merit, not what what others in the room think.
So we should care about the merit, not what what others in the room think.
Yeah, right – what does it matter if Muslims round the world think of the US as a stingy nation with an administration that fundamentally doesn’t give a damn for anyone who isn’t Christian/voting Republican? It’s not like their poor opinion of the US or of the Bush administration could possibly affect anything important.
Would that be what you’re trying to say, Stan?
Fair enough. Now, what constitutes “absolute most generosity”?
Slarti
I dunno, Matthew 13:45-46?
Sarcasm in lieu of a point isn’t all that effective, Jesurgislac. Nor is it even in the neighborhood of civil.
Thanks for playing folks…but this thread is too long now and causing some memory problems…I’m turning off the comments in 15 minutes…get your “last word” in quicly…