Tsunami kills 120k, Bush Sucks

[corplinx]

Anyone else notice this meme emerging? It seems like the US media is helping perpetuate it too. Basically, most of the tsunami story we see seems to be centered around money, how much we're giving, how Bush is responding, etc, etc.

Now, I know there is a hardcore contingent who takes any opportunity to slam the Bush administration. Even over one hundred thousand people being snuffed out isn't too tasteless for them to use for their political advantage.

Is the rest of something deeper maybe? Like dealing with the sudden deaths of so many? Is it easier to play the partisan game than it is to try to deal with your feelings about such a sudden loss of so many lives? Would humanity rather deal with distractions than with the profoundness of such a calammity?

Are we running from the real story out of our fear of death and dying?

[TragicMonkey]

Tsunami kills 120k, Bush Sucks

Both true, but hardly related. :arrow:


Originally posted by corplinx
Is the rest of something deeper maybe? Like dealing with the sudden deaths of so many? Is it easier to play the partisan game than it is to try to deal with your feelings about such a sudden loss of so many lives? Would humanity rather deal with distractions than with the profoundness of such a calammity?

Are we running from the real story out of our fear of death and dying?

It's simply too difficult to imagine the degree of loss. 120,000 is a very large number. It's hard to reconcile such a large number with the fact that each one was an individual person. Add to that the fact that it happened in a part of the world not many Americans actually know about, and it seems rather unreal. So it's predictable, if disappointing, that some would run in their accustomed grooves and start up on Bush.

There may be a buried psychological component, but I doubt it's really fundamentally a fear of death that's being sublimated into politics here. Perhaps it's more of a feeling that one ought to react, but not knowing how? Natural disasters tend to render one pretty damn helpless, and that angries people up. Bush is a familiar target.

[Ladyhawk]

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. Unfortunately....

It is the nature of politics to play both sides against the middle whenever a tragedy like this occurs....or even a happy or victorious event, for that matter. You either find someone to blame or find someone to credit.

But, I think you have a point, Corp. Over 80,000 deaths and counting is so incomprehensible to many of us. We just can't grasp it. In spite of the constant coverage by the media, I watch as if it just isn't real.

And, there is a helplessness we feel. 15 million, 15 billion or 15 trillion dollars...what difference does that make to a person who has lost their entire family in a matter of seconds? You can rebuild a city, but how do you rebuild the lives of so many thousands of survivors who have lost everything they've ever known or loved?

[hgc]

Another way to look at it: Bush underperforms in regards to a tragedy; immune to criticism because, gosh darn it, look at all the dead people!

- All critics of Bush only seek political advantage.
- There is no such thing as valid criticism of Bush.
- Any criticism in the vicinity of dead bodies is heartlessly using tragedy for political purposes.

From now on, apply to corplinx for a license to criticize the president. He will decide if it's well enough distanced from tragedy.

[crimresearch]

There are always going to be those who put the 'jerk' in knee jerk.


The profiteering from this tragedy, particularly its use as political fodder via conspiracy theories and the blame game, do seem to be more in our faces, perhaps due to the media and the internet.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by corplinx
Anyone else notice this meme emerging? It seems like the US media is helping perpetuate it too. Basically, most of the tsunami story we see seems to be centered around money, how much we're giving, how Bush is responding, etc, etc.

Now, I know there is a hardcore contingent who takes any opportunity to slam the Bush administration. Even over one hundred thousand people being snuffed out isn't too tasteless for them to use for their political advantage.

Is the rest of something deeper maybe? Like dealing with the sudden deaths of so many? Is it easier to play the partisan game than it is to try to deal with your feelings about such a sudden loss of so many lives? Would humanity rather deal with distractions than with the profoundness of such a calammity?

Are we running from the real story out of our fear of death and dying? Good post. It's always helpful to find a point to focus our feelings toward.

You can look at if from a PR standpoint. Perhaps there is some valid critisism from that point of view. Valid politically but is that critical thinking?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by corplinx
Anyone else notice this meme emerging? It seems like the US media is helping perpetuate it too. Basically, most of the tsunami story we see seems to be centered around money, how much we're giving, how Bush is responding, etc, etc.


I'm anti-Bush. I really don't like the guy and I disagree with almost all of his policies.

Yesterday I picked up my Mom at the airport and it's a long drive back so we had plenty of time to talk. She's as anti-Bush as I am, and being 71 years old, she has some experiance when she says Bush is the worst president she's ever seen.

I asked her why she was anti-Bush, and her answers were an interesting contrast to the arguments we see here on this board. She mentioned his environmental policies, his economic policies, his potential to nominate Supreme Court justices...all of which are legitimate grievances and well worth mentioning. What she didn't talk about was his response to this natural disaster, or his policies on the Iraqi war.

There are so many things to bash Bush over, why would anyone focus on this trivial nonsense?

He is committing the United States to massive aid for this crisis. That's the important thing. How well he made the speech about it is trivial.

I don't like the guy either, but I cringe with embarassment at the feeble attempts to demonize him for the stupid little things while the big issues go unadressed.

[corplinx]

I don't presume to have any answers. Its just as the death toll climbs higher and higher I find it fascinating that the "blame Bush" or "blame the UN" noise gets even louder. I think to some degree that some people have to keep their sports mentality towards politics and government going to keep from dealing with the tragedy.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by corplinx
I don't presume to have any answers. Its just as the death toll climbs higher and higher I find it fascinating that the "blame Bush" or "blame the UN" noise gets even louder. I think to some degree that some people have to keep their sports mentality towards politics and government going to keep from dealing with the tragedy.

I think "sports mentality" hits it exactly. When your team loses, it's obviously due to the criminal idiocy of that coach. Or those corrupt refs. Or the other team is on steroids.

I suspect the same sort of thinking applies to theism--there's always a reason, an explanation, for anything and everything, because people seem very unwilling to accept that "s*** happens" is a fundamental law of reality, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Finding scapegoats is much more comforting.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by corplinx
I don't presume to have any answers. Its just as the death toll climbs higher and higher I find it fascinating that the "blame Bush" or "blame the UN" noise gets even louder. I think to some degree that some people have to keep their sports mentality towards politics and government going to keep from dealing with the tragedy.

Tell you what, corplinx. Why don't you donate $5.00 to the relief effort every time you see someone blaming Bush or the UN for the catastrophe.

That way, at least some good will come out of the hot air.

[glsunder]

I despise Bush, but this type of thing isn't his strong point. He didn't do much "leading" immediately after 911 either. Guiliani filled that void, but Bush did fine after things cooled down. Not everyone can be great at everything, and I can cut him some slack on this type of issue.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Mycroft
He is committing the United States to massive aid for this crisis. That's the important thing. How well he made the speech about it is trivial.Actually, when he finally took the opportunity to speak on the subject, little Bush spoke reasonably well. His speech suggested that there were reasons why he was less prompt with his speech than others were, namely, he wanted not only to express sympathy, but also to announce what relief operations had been put in motion.

Bush--appropriately, in my judgment--made mention of the fact that the citizens of the United States were providing aid to those hurting over and above the aid coming from the US Treasury. Bush was clearly miffed by a remark from United Nations' emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland, who said the overall aid efforts by rich Western nations were "stingy," and suggested that Egeland was misguided or misinformed.

Actually, Egeland had a legitimate point. The USA previously announced that it would contribute only $15 million, which is a very modest sum in comparison to the wealth of the USA, the contributions from other nations, and the extent of the injuries and damage. Bush's speech mentioned that US aid would be more than twice that, and this aid would be "only the beginning."

[KelvinG]

As others in this thread have stated, there's a lot of reasons to dislike Bush, but I'm not sure this is one of them.

The criticism levelled at Bush seems a little contrived. But, that's the price of being president.
If Bush walks from his limo and boards Air Force One, someone will say "What a arrogant jerk. Did you see the way he was walking. He thinks he's better than everyone else."
Every aspect of his being will be analyzed to death, and subjected to criticism. And many criticisms will only be politically motivated.

Now, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be critical. Absolutely.
But, there is a point where you have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by corplinx
... I find it fascinating that the "blame Bush" or "blame the UN" noise gets even louder. .

Now maybe in the media (I will admit I have probably watched less thanmany of you) the 'blame" game is going around, but I think you need to prove to this poor soul where the 'blame Bush' is here.

The critique in the other thread, as far as I can see, IS NOT about what the US is doing, or the amount and aid of assistance, or how fast we are getting it there, or that the appropriate Government Departments aren't responding as they should. Nothing here that I can see.

The only point is that President Bush, who one must presupposed has been kept aware of the massive devasation and deathtoll, couldn't be bothered make a public statement for nearly four days while on vacation. And some folks here (including me) thought that was not the way the 'Leader of the Free World' should act.

Look, HE WAS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT SOMETIME--you knew it, I knew it, even Nee Trink Wasser's three surviving brain cells probably puzzed that out. But to wait four days to say what was going to be said anyway is incomprehensible to some.

And hgc and others stated that POV--perhaps harshly, but still a valid POV. And now it is a matter of "Blame Bush??"

Sorry, corp, maybe I'm dense, but you need to convince me a bit more on exactly what, besides poor judgement on timing (and in politics, timing may not be everything but it counts) that we are blaming bush for?

[AtheistArchon]

- Actually, I think the criticism is being blown out of proportion. For example:

What she didn't talk about was his response to this natural disaster, or his policies on the Iraqi war.

There are so many things to bash Bush over, why would anyone focus on this trivial nonsense?

- The invasion/occupation IS a big deal... probably my biggest gripe. In comparison, this little faux-pas is comparitively trivial, and it's received a comparitively trivial response. What... two threads now? Hardly a murmur compared to more pressing concerns.

- Kneejerk goes both ways, and politicians should expect to be in the spotlight. It's their job after all.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I'm anti-Bush. I really don't like the guy and I disagree with almost all of his policies.

Yesterday I picked up my Mom at the airport and it's a long drive back so we had plenty of time to talk. She's as anti-Bush as I am, and being 71 years old, she has some experiance when she says Bush is the worst president she's ever seen.

I asked her why she was anti-Bush, and her answers were an interesting contrast to the arguments we see here on this board. She mentioned his environmental policies, his economic policies, his potential to nominate Supreme Court justices...all of which are legitimate grievances and well worth mentioning. What she didn't talk about was his response to this natural disaster, or his policies on the Iraqi war.

There are so many things to bash Bush over, why would anyone focus on this trivial nonsense?

He is committing the United States to massive aid for this crisis. That's the important thing. How well he made the speech about it is trivial.

I don't like the guy either, but I cringe with embarassment at the feeble attempts to demonize him for the stupid little things while the big issues go unadressed. Your mother's 3 concerns (environment, economic policy, Supreme Court) are all in my top 5 concerns about federal policy, and strong areas where I criticize Bush. As a matter of fact, the most important one, environmental policy, is actually a much bigger issue than just Bush and the U.S. government, as it concerns the viability of this planet to support human civilization.

But all that doesn't mean that I ignore smaller things. I started the thread yesterday because I was mad as hell that Bush's spokesman answered a query about Bush's lack of public statement by taking a peevish swipe at Clinton. Does it matter 1/10th as much as those other issues? No. It was just something that bothered me at the moment.

[Snide]

Originally posted by hgc
Does it matter 1/10th as much as those other issues? No. It was just something that bothered me at the moment.

Agreed. It does seem to me that the real knee-JERKS here are the ones over-reacting to your initial point.

[Wolrab]

Where has Kofi Annon (sp?) been?

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Snide
Agreed. It does seem to me that the real knee-JERKS here are the ones over-reacting to your initial point. :)
a sig is worth thousands words.

[Tmy]

I dont believe this death count. Sure there are alotof people dead, but who the hell comes up with 120,000??? The United Nations Department of Made Up Numbers?

The waves hit such a large area, and with various power and destruction. Some of the footage aint so bad, others the waves are huge.

Is the wave zone one of those areas of the world where women dont learn to swim? Did that add to the deathtoll.

[PogoPedant]

the 120k number comes from adding the numbers various governments give of the death toll in their respective nations. When you look at the footage you must remember that all the people shooting this film made it alive. All the footage I've seen has been from areas less badly hit. Keep in mind that a lot of villages and small towns have been taken off the map by this wave. Yes, everybody died in some places. That's where the big numbers come from.

This has been described as the biggest catastrophy in recorded history. I don't know if that's entierly accurate, but this is still incredibly bad.

[Tmy]

I bet the numbers come in inflated so the govts can score more ER funds.

This just in: A gajillion-million dead. Send more money!


When all is said n done my guess will be........70,000.

[PogoPedant]

Hope you win the million, then....

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont believe this death count. Sure there are alotof people dead, but who the hell comes up with 120,000??? The United Nations Department of Made Up Numbers?

The waves hit such a large area, and with various power and destruction. Some of the footage aint so bad, others the waves are huge.

Is the wave zone one of those areas of the world where women dont learn to swim? Did that add to the deathtoll.

I would imagine the percent of swimmers there is less than here. Further, children aren't great swimmers. Further yet, not many can swim for an extended period of time whilst waiting for rescue, adult or child.

Imagine the force of the water pulling you out to sea. For children, weaker, it might be hard to hold on. I know when I am in the ocean and feel the water pulling me sideways down the beach it is sometimes hard to stay standing even. Somehow my experience pales in comprison to a sudden influx of water like over there.

You aren't safe in many of the buildings as they crumble and fall to the ground and are swept out to sea. I think you are not using your imagination to see how difficult it might be. Even if you hold on to something, how long do you have to hold on while being battered by waves and tides?

Lurker

[Tmy]

I imgaine the waves pushing you rather than pulling you out like a riptide.

As for the numbers. This always happens in tradgety. The early numbers are always so high, and usually come down. Take the Word Trade Towers. They had the death count way up! Werent the early #'s like 20?? It ended up being like 3.

[Cleon]

In the WTC case, the numbers started going down immediately. Here, every day goes by and the numbers go up.

Your point is taken; in chaotic situations the death numbers vary wildly, but really, the devastation this has caused is beyond our imagination. Entire towns have been demolished. Body after body is being dragged out of the sea and out of buildings.

If you want more graphic visualization, check out www.ogrish.com.

I only hope that everybody who's so busy waxing polemic about this has contributed something--anything--towards the relief effort.

Somehow, sadly, I'm not holding my breath.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Brown
Actually, Egeland had a legitimate point. The USA previously announced that it would contribute only $15 million, which is a very modest sum in comparison to the wealth of the USA, the contributions from other nations, and the extent of the injuries and damage. Bush's speech mentioned that US aid would be more than twice that, and this aid would be "only the beginning."

While driving around I heard two days worth of right-wing talk show hosts inviting callers to rant at the U.N. for making that remark. No discussion of actual numbers or of aid per capita or aid as a percentage of GDP. Just a bunch of indignant callers.

corplinx
It seems like the US media is helping perpetuate it too. Basically, most of the tsunami story we see seems to be centered around money, how much we're giving, how Bush is responding, etc, etc.

Are we running from the real story out of our fear of death and dying?

Isn't it a bit fooloish to think the U.S. media is capable of dealing with this story in any other manner than the one that is being focused on.

Actually, there are two focuses (foci) for the U.S. media - (1) numbers: initial deaths, subsequent deaths, aid money and (2) celebrity: a model's husband was lost, a television host's personal trainer was lost, etc.

As for Bush, even if he stepped up to a microphone and said that those people don't deserve our sympathy or our money, I wouldn't put that response in the top 30 things to be upset at him about.

[mbp]

We'll probably never get very accurate totals, but I don't doubt that the number of victims is very high indeed.
Have you seen pictures from the Aceh area in Indonesia?
There's a video report available from this BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4133071.stm) page.

Considering the size and population of the areas affected I can easily believe that total number will end up being several hundred thousands. After all, the quake in Bam last year killed something like 30,000. And that was one city.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Cleon


I only hope that everybody who's so busy waxing polemic about this has contributed something--anything--towards the relief effort.

Somehow, sadly, I'm not holding my breath.

Well maybe some people help others on a regular basis and not just when the cause happens to be the trendy flavor of the month.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by hgc
<SNIP>But all that doesn't mean that I ignore smaller things. I started the thread yesterday because I was mad as hell that Bush's spokesman answered a query about Bush's lack of public statement by taking a peevish swipe at Clinton. Does it matter 1/10th as much as those other issues? No. It was just something that bothered me at the moment.

So that justified your thread title claiming that Bush himself attacked Clinton?

You were mad as hell, because you have the mystical ability to read a press release, and magically know what someone else 'really meant'?

Yeah, we can all see exactly where you are coming from.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well maybe some people help others on a regular basis and not just when the cause happens to be the trendy flavor of the month.

Thank you for proving my point.

People in this thread seem more motivated by scoring "points" and "being right" than about helping the people who are suffering from this tragedy.

[PogoPedant]

I don't mean to pick on you Tmy, but this: Well maybe some people help others on a regular basis and not just when the cause happens to be the trendy flavor of the month.
makes me want repeat that this is possibly the worst catastrophe in recorded history. Maybe you didn't see that the first time. This is therefore not a flavor-of-the-month thing.

[Zep]

Drifting from the point a little...

Whole areas of Aceh province in Indonesia have been completely destroyed. The destruction is so total that they cannot yet get in there over land. Indications are that only a handful of people out of tens of thousands in each town have survived. And that was a populous area - Indonesia has more than 150 million people.

For comparison, imagine if a 10 metre wave washed over the Long Island and Manhattan area, a much smaller area than Aceh. I expect the death toll would be horrific there too.

But back on track... Let's clarify.

I'd like to point out that the criticism being levelled is by far at the presedential cabinet PR team (don't know what they are called officially - presidential PR gnomes?), who made a totally botched job of representing the US to the world. This IS important - the US claims it is the world's "leading country", and as such is now looked to to at least show compassion at an appropriate speed. It's just that the PR gnomes fumbled this one very badly, and it showed big time. It would have taken so little effort to have set up a statement of support right off the bat - no commitments, no specifics, at least sympathy and comfort. It has been done before often enough. The failure to respond publicly in a timely fashion has been interpreted as lack of sympathy.

Bush personally, I'm sure, is deeply concerned, and wants to see that compassion realised ASAP - I don't think even he is that heartless. I agree though - him getting on the phone and frantically ordering out the National Guard, Coast Guard, lifeguards, Texas Rangers, cavalry, etc, would have been pointless.

And as I mentioned in another thread, there has been and is now no criticism at all of the speed and size of the US response on the ground. Nor of the US public's compassion. On the contrary, it's most gratifying to see.

[materia3]

If this is going to be the money thread, I throw the following Associated Press wire story into the pot:


Thu, Dec. 30, 2004

France Doubles Aid for Asian Disaster

JOHN LEICESTER

Associated Press


PARIS - One-upping the United States, France nearly doubled its aid pledge for tsunami victims to $57 million Thursday and briefly claimed the role as leading donor nation, following barbs from Washington about French generosity.

But Britain quickly topped France by more than tripling its donation to $95 million and Sweden promised $75.5 million. Spain's Cabinet, meanwhile, approved a $68 million package, although about a fifth was in loans rather than outright grants.


I don't know if anyone else caught this but what's really annoying is a Fox News running banner yesterday saying "France donates $135,000.00" for tsunami victims."

Fair, balanced, unafraid and a complete fabrication should be their slogan.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Cleon
People in this thread seem more motivated by scoring "points" and "being right" than about helping the people who are suffering from this tragedy.

Cleon. Posted on this on another thread to gig Jocko (who passed) and I'll post it here. Got this on my e-mail yesterday.

(I have removed my name, address, and reference ID for privacy purposes.)

12/29/2004 6:39:01 AM

Doctors Without Borders

D******* Hutch******
121 ************
************,AL ********

Thank you for your online donation to Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

In a world where the need for Doctors Without Borders' work is greater than ever, your support is the fuel that drives us to reach the most vulnerable, to raise issues that are not popular, and to demand - and help bring about - an end to suffering. Without you, our work simply would not be possible.

If you have any questions about the processing of your donation, please feel free to send an email to donations@newyork.msf.org or call Sarah McGowan, our Donor Services Assistant, at (212) 655-3759.

You will also be receiving a thank you letter in the mail, which will serve as your legal receipt.

Please find below your donation information as it appears in our records.

The following summarizes your contribution:
Payment Amount: 100.00
Reference ID: ********


Visit our website at http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org

If you have technical questions, please email them to webmaster-nyc@msf.org


So Cleon (not picking on you, mind you), I have put money where my mouth is. I trust the rest of our little group has done the same.

[mbp]

Originally posted by Hutch
I have put money where my mouth is. I trust the rest of our little group has done the same.
I have.
And the company I work for will match my donation, which I think is nice touch.

[Ed]

A US aircraft carrier group is heading for Indonesia's tsunami-hit Aceh province, and several other US military ships are on course to the Bay of Bengal to help with relief operations.

The carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and four other vessels will be stationed off Aceh on the northern tip of Sumatra island, where the death toll from Sunday's earthquake and tsunami has risen past 47,000.

Another group of seven US military ships, including a helicopter carrier, are steaming for the Bay of Bengal in the Indian Ocean.

Lieutenant General James T Conway, joint chiefs of staff director of operations, told a briefing in Washington late today the Lincoln group had 12 helicopters on board, "which we find extremely valuable in these types of scenarios".

Lt-Gen Conway, according to a transcript given by the US embassy in Jakarta, said a US assessment team was expected in Aceh on Thursday.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11815490%255E1702,00.html


Wonder what it costs to maintain a carrier group per day? I understand that some water purification ships from Guam are on their way too.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Ed
Wonder what it costs to maintain a carrier group per day? I understand that some water purification ships from Guam are on their way too.
[Red Flag] You cannot include such things when calculating aid totals. Only figures which makes the US look stingy can be counted. Next time you do this, a penalty will be assessed. [/Red Flag]

[Ed]

Originally posted by WildCat
[Red Flag] You cannot include such things when calculating aid totals. Only figures which makes the US look stingy can be counted. Next time you do this, a penalty will be assessed. [/Red Flag]

Damn and I thought I could get away with it. Guess those water purification ships are off limits too, huh?

[Ed]

This sourse (http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/impeach11.html) suggests that keeping a carrier at sea costs $1,000,000 a day. God knows what the cost of a carrier group is plus those other ships plus unbudgeted fuel for AWACS and helocopters and reconnasance planes and stuff. Figure a couple of million a day, 3 maybe?

So a month is 90 mill? Not small.

[Zep]

Let me repeat: big kudos to the US task forces swinging into action on the scene.

[Ed]

Bigger than I thought:

Three military disaster-relief assessment teams are either in place or are moving into place to make an immediate assessment of the nature and the scope of the disaster. The first team arrived in Thailand early December 29, a second was to arrive later the same day in Sri Lanka, and a third will arrive in Indonesia December 30.

The Navy is immediately moving five freshwater-producing ships from Guam to the region, Conway said. "Each ship can produce 90,000 gallons of fresh water a day, and of course that'll be extremely valuable," he said. Pacific Command is sending two additional freshwater-producing ships from Diego Garcia that can also produce 90,000 gallons daily.

A sixth ship from Guam with a field hospital is also being sent to the region. The field hospital can be sent ashore once it arrives, he said, depending on the need.

"The ships out of Guam will take seven days to reach Thailand, perhaps as many as 11 [days] if they go all the way over to Sri Lanka and must go through the Straits of Molucca," Conway said. The ships steaming from Diego Garcia should reach their stations in four to five days, he said.

Six U.S. Air Force C-130 cargo planes, flying from Yokota, Japan, and loaded with emergency relief supplies and assessment teams, will be operating from the Utapao air base, he said. Nine U.S. Navy P-3 Orion reconnaissance aircraft from Kadena, Japan, have been sent to the region as well. "As we speak, there are at least two P-3s in the air, conducting that initial observation and reconnaissance of some of the damage sites to further the assessment," said Conway.

The Navy's five-ship USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, which is part of the U.S. 7th Fleet, was diverted from a port visit in Hong Kong to the Gulf of Thailand, Conway said. Before the joint task force arrives, aircraft from the Abraham Lincoln will conduct a reconnaissance of the Molucca Straits to check for debris that could hamper the carrier's movement.

The Abraham Lincoln has 12 helicopters on board that will be used in assisting disaster relief, reconnaissance and recovery operations, Conroy said. The carrier's supporting ships are scheduled to take position off the island of Sumatra.

The USS Bonhomme Richard Expeditionary Strike Group in Guam will forgo port visits there and in Singapore to move quickly to the Bay of Bengal, Conway said. It should be in position before January 7, 2005, he said.

"It has seven ships associated with the strike group, [and] carries 25 helicopters, which will be valuable to us again in disaster relief," he said. The Bonhomme Richard group has 2,100 Marines and 1,400 sailors.

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-4195.html


From what I can gather, the orders started going out the day after the Tsunami. Who knew we had desalinization ships. Wild stuff.

I am amazed that there have not been snide comments yet. I have confidence that there will be.

[fishbob]

I am amazed that there have not been snide comments yet. Well, there was the first one.

I am not a fan of GW Bush at all, but I do not fault the guy a bit for not issuing statements immediately. In this case, actions speak a lot louder than words, and assistance was put into motion pretty early on.

Certain media types dinged Bush for not immediately leaping into action on 9-11 (7 minutes as I recall). I have commented previously that those were undeserved criticisms. A leader has to assess some information before making huge commitments of money and resources.

[demon]

35million dollars is it?
Thats about 17 cruise missiles worth is it? (I`m not an arms dealer, could be wrong, maybe it`s 16 or 18 ).
The lucky people of Fallujah must be ever so grateful at the expense lavished on them in order to free them from terrorists. Would have bankrupted America is Fallujah had been hit by a tsunami by that reckoning!

[materia3]

Perspective? Some commentators estimate thirty five million is about 8 hours worth of expenses in Iraq.

Another report did say when Congress reconvenes, they intend to tap into funds set aside for Iraq reconstrction, funds which cannot be deployed due to the instability of the insurgency and
divert them to the tsunami operation.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Wolrab
Where has Kofi Annon (sp?) been?

While Bush took three days (already inflated to four in this thread) Kofi did take four. However he explained that he did not have to be in front of reporters to be effective. That seemed to quash any criticisms.

I have been involved in numerous crisis es, and the lowest priority when dealing with a crisis is public relations. But that will never satisfy the Bush Basher.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by corplinx

Anyone else notice this meme emerging? It seems like the US media is helping perpetuate it too. Basically, most of the tsunami story we see seems to be centered around money, how much we're giving, how Bush is responding, etc, etc.

Now, I know there is a hardcore contingent who takes any opportunity to slam the Bush administration. Even over one hundred thousand people being snuffed out isn't too tasteless for them to use for their political advantage.

Is the rest of something deeper maybe? Like dealing with the sudden deaths of so many? Is it easier to play the partisan game than it is to try to deal with your feelings about such a sudden loss of so many lives? Would humanity rather deal with distractions than with the profoundness of such a calammity?

Are we running from the real story out of our fear of death and dying?
Yup. What we really need is a child in a well. (http://www.theonion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4049&type=opinion&o=2&id=506)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by demon
35million dollars is it?
Thats about 17 cruise missiles worth is it? (I`m not an arms dealer, could be wrong, maybe it`s 16 or 18 ).
The lucky people of Fallujah must be ever so grateful at the expense lavished on them in order to free them from terrorists. Would have bankrupted America is Fallujah had been hit by a tsunami by that reckoning!

NOTE: the image is not too graphic, but not awfully nice either. If you don't wish to see a blurred view of a corpse, don't click it.

See if you can spot Demon lending a hand in this photo... (http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=51896117&cdi=0)

Wonder how much cash Osama's sending to the effort???

-z

[hgc]

Originally posted by crimresearch
So that justified your thread title claiming that Bush himself attacked Clinton?

You were mad as hell, because you have the mystical ability to read a press release, and magically know what someone else 'really meant'?

Yeah, we can all see exactly where you are coming from. OK, I'll explain it again.

1) I take the actions and statements of the people who work for Bush, particularly in the White House staff, to reflect his policies. I can only be disabused if the White House says that such and such statement does not reflect the President's policy. So if a spokesperson says that the reason that Bush didn't make a statement was [fill in the blank], what else am I supposed to think?

2) I have no doubt that the derisive use of "feel your pain" was a swipe at Clinton. It is so blindingly obvious, I can't even believe that it is a bone of contention here. If you don't believe it then so be it. There is nothing I can say to convince you.

[zenith-nadir]

Maybe Ashley Simpson can serenade the tsunami survivors....or Kobe could pawn his wife's $4,000,000 apology-ring for relief food....or maybe Babs will subsidize free screenings of "Meet the Fokkers" for homeless Sri Lankan orphans....could Paris and Nicole do a fourth Simple Life in India?...is there any food leftover from Star Jones multi-million-dollar wedding to send?... can Michael Moore can take advantage of this tragedy to further his career...or maybe J Lo will send some J Lo designer duds to the homeless women of Sumatra...perhaps P Diddy will rap for aid...or maybe the multimillionares in Hollywood will see it in their hearts to produce a movie - see: Fallujah with Harrison Ford - to profit off the dead...sorry.... for the betterment of mankind.

Naaaaaaaa...lets bash Bush..;)

[Zep]

Seems some people in this thread just get their teeth into a wrong idea and won't let go even when it's right.

*sigh*

So let's just go over this again ONE MORE TIME FOR THE DUMMIES.

1) Bush PR team = pissweak PR effort when it was most needed.

2) Bush himself = seriously concerned, but who was to know because (1) stuffed up.

3) US aid effort = typical finest kind, bravo.

OK??

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Zep
Seems some people in this thread just get their teeth into a wrong idea and won't let go even when it's right.

*sigh*

So let's just go over this again ONE MORE TIME FOR THE DUMMIES.

1) Bush PR team = pissweak PR effort when it was most needed.

2) Bush himself = seriously concerned, but who was to know because (1) stuffed up.

3) US aid effort = typical finest kind, bravo.

OK??

What he said.

PS--All of you concerned about what various Dems have done...what have you done? (I've posted my contribution to this thread) I'm absolutely sure you have all given generously.

[Cleon]

135,000 dead. And counting. :(

(Hutch--appreciate the post. I gave $250 to the red cross, myself.)

[Tmy]

Originally posted by PogoPedant
I don't mean to pick on you Tmy, but this:
makes me want repeat that this is possibly the worst catastrophe in recorded history. Maybe you didn't see that the first time. This is therefore not a flavor-of-the-month thing.

Of course its a catastrophe. What bugs me is when the "How much did you give " police pop up. Its so disengenious.

How much did country X send to Dafrur? To Iraq? Does that suffering not merit a responce? How dare people complain that the US Govt. has not sent enough money. Howz about we add up yearly totals and compare that.

To be honest, as a US taxpayer I think we've spent enough in foreign aid this year. Let some other countries take the lead in this case.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
Anyone else notice this meme emerging? It seems like the US media is helping perpetuate it too. Basically, most of the tsunami story we see seems to be centered around money, how much we're giving, how Bush is responding, etc, etc.

Now, I know there is a hardcore contingent who takes any opportunity to slam the Bush administration. Even over one hundred thousand people being snuffed out isn't too tasteless for them to use for their political advantage.

Is the rest of something deeper maybe? Like dealing with the sudden deaths of so many? Is it easier to play the partisan game than it is to try to deal with your feelings about such a sudden loss of so many lives? Would humanity rather deal with distractions than with the profoundness of such a calammity?

Are we running from the real story out of our fear of death and dying?

That Bush is a jerk has nothing to do with the Tsunami, but you will notice he is in the mosh pit already playing games himself. The coalition he set up to dispense aid at first ignored the UN. He has just changed his mind and been big hearted enough to let the UN in.

[Drooper]

This thread demeans the forum.

In the aftermath of the greatest human disaster I can recall and at a time when there is so much to be done and being done by so many people, here we have the regular political posturing and name calling.

Very mature.:rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper
This thread demeans the forum.

In the aftermath of the greatest human disaster I can recall and at a time when there is so much to be done and being done by so many people, here we have the regular political posturing and name calling.

Very mature.:rolleyes:

Which makes you wonder why the posturing by the Bush team on this issue in respect of the UN. At a time when inclusiveness was needed, the UN as at first on the outer.

[Wolrab]

Originally posted by SRW
While Bush took three days (already inflated to four in this thread) Kofi did take four. However he explained that he did not have to be in front of reporters to be effective. That seemed to quash any criticisms.

I have been involved in numerous crisis es, and the lowest priority when dealing with a crisis is public relations. But that will never satisfy the Bush Basher.

Thanks, I couldn't remember seeing him on the news and was waiting for someone to trash him too. Probably took him a few days to set up some new Swiss accounts;) .

[materia3]

Originally posted by Wolrab
Thanks, I couldn't remember seeing him on the news and was waiting for someone to trash him too. Probably took him a few days to set up some new Swiss accounts;) .

Annan was in Wyoming on a skiing holiday if you can picture that. Can you set up Swiss bank accounts from there? Ah, yes, that's where Cheney calls home, isn't it? .

[EvilYeti]

Of course, lost in the noise is the fact that Bush cut NOAA's 2005 budget. Thats the US agency responsible for our tsunami early warning system. And he damn well sure deserves to be bashed for that, not that I think anyone in the mass media will take notice of it.

The real issue here is that Bush has an absolutely dismal record for paying attention to environmental issues. Or any issues in general, really, until we get smashed over the head with them.

[materia3]

A few moments ago according to CNN the White House announced Bush will see everybody's donation and then raise them ........

$350 Million

[jj]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I asked her why she was anti-Bush, and her answers were an interesting contrast to the arguments we see here on this board. She mentioned his environmental policies, his economic policies, his potential to nominate Supreme Court justices...all of which are legitimate grievances and well worth mentioning. What she didn't talk about was his response to this natural disaster, or his policies on the Iraqi war.

I'm with your mom. While politics prevented the installation of tsunami warning systems in the countries involved, it was barely, if even at all, US politics that had that effect.

The disaster, as awful (and I dont think we even have a clue how awful yet, unfortunatley) as it is, was natural, not Bush's fault. On the other hand, maybe the media will notice that the shrub cut NOAA's budget, and thereby its ability to warn about things like this. Still, I don't think that NOAA could have done anything at all in this case. It's an example of how a lack of education and understanding of science can make a tragedy worse, but it's not the USA's fault, for once, at least.

On the other hand, the prisoner abuse in Iraq, his attempts to destroy the national forests, his abuse of the Park Service, his willingness to not-tax and spend (which is even worse, in the long run, than tax and spend, making him much worse than the behavior attributed dishonestly to dummycraps in that regard), those are his real legacy, bankruptcy, polution, and destroyed resources.

IF/when he appoints a Supreme Court Justice, he'll have the opportunity to enforce his faith-over-science policies even more.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by materia3
A few moments ago according to CNN the White House announced Bush will see everybody's donation and then raise them ........

$350 Million

Glad to hear it.

It's unfortunate the administration had to be "shamed" into bumping it up that high, but the important thing is that aid is getting to people who need it.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Which makes you wonder why the posturing by the Bush team on this issue in respect of the UN. At a time when inclusiveness was needed, the UN as at first on the outer.

We can always count on AUP to hammer a home a point.:rolleyes:

[hammegk]

Why do so so many whiny USA-is-always-wrong doofs post here?

http://www.nypost.com/commentary/37436.htm


gives as good a reason as any. Who does want to think about the human tragedies that will continue to unfold for months, years, and life-times.

That darn USA!

[Mr Manifesto]

It is fine and proper to have a debate and discussion about the degree of generosity the United States could, should and must show in the wake of this literally earth-shaking event.

But at this moment, the United States is not the issue.

The foreign-aid budget of the United States is not the issue.


Sounds like someone can't make up their mind. Still, inconsistency of thought is pretty typical for your Murdoch rags.

[hammegk]

Damn it must be galling to be totally insignificant even vicariously to the sweep of history . Life is just a movie you sods will never affect, let alone effect.

[SRW]

The environuts have now gotten into the act, blaming the U.S. for the wave because of global warming. Holy pissant batman, why don't we just use our magical powers to wipe out the entire world HA Ha Ha Ha...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper
We can always count on AUP to hammer a home a point.:rolleyes:

I was quite happy to leave this out of the political arena.

Not long after the Tsunami was reported, Rick was out there peddling a conservative argument about not wasting billions on a warning system. Then we see that the US has organised a coalition of countries to organsise the aid the consists of America, Australia, India and Japan, IIRC. An anti-UN dig about how it is not relevent. Bush is nowhere to be seen, so the press chases down Clinton, who is always happy to see a camera. An anonymous 'aid' has a dig at Clinton for just being there and saying something.

It's not my fault that there are elements of the Bush administration that saw the tragedy as an opportunity to score points against the UN.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I was quite happy to leave this out of the political arena.

Not long after the Tsunami was reported, Rick was out there peddling a conservative argument about not wasting billions on a warning system. Then we see that the US has organised a coalition of countries to organsise the aid the consists of America, Australia, India and Japan, IIRC. An anti-UN dig about how it is not relevent. Bush is nowhere to be seen, so the press chases down Clinton, who is always happy to see a camera. An anonymous 'aid' has a dig at Clinton for just being there and saying something.

It's not my fault that there are elements of the Bush administration that saw the tragedy as an opportunity to score points against the UN.

Your unreleived negativity is getting tedious.

Tell me why, if UN bashing is the object, GW came out in support for that vagabond who is Secretary General? Or why did he not say nothing.

[Skeptic]

The problem with the criticism of Bush's reaction to the Tsunami is not so much in the criticism itself, but in the fact that no matter WHAT Bush would do, he would be criticized by the usual gang of idiots.

For instance, I have read on a left-leaning blog that Bush should have flown to the striken areas instantly, and in not doing so had missed an opportunity "to show compassion to the Muslims of Indonesia".

Perhaps. But if Bush would have done just that, the same people would have been apoplectic about how he is "using the tragedy for political grandstanding" and would be calculating how many lives Bush's visit "cost" in terms of money used for his security instead of help to the homeless, etc., etc.

Or consider the aid figures. Apparently the US is "going at it alone" and giving most of its aid directly, instead of going through the UN beurocratic aid agencies (at least at the moment, I am not speaking of longer-term help). This, of course, is leading to howls and cries that the US is "using the tragedy to disrespect the UN at a time when inclusiveness is needed", etc.

But it is not hard to imagine that if the US had given most of the aid money to the UN agencies instead of directly to the victims, the same gang would be claiming that the US is "using the tragedy to try and mend its relations with the UN" (or the equivalent), and that if the US had not disrespected that august institution regarding Iraq in the first place, it could have given the aid directly to the victims and saved countless lives instead of relying on the inefficient aid agencies, etc., etc., etc.

Or consider the increase in US aid. Like most western contries, the US first pledged a certain amount of aid, and soon after substantially increased that amount. This is natural: like other governments, the USA first pledged whatever it could at that moment, and then went to see if they could raise more.

But to our resident "Bush experts", this is naive nonsense: the "real" reason the US started with a small pledge is that it is "stingy" and "doesn't care" about the crisis, and the "real" reason it soon after increased the aid is because it was "shamed" into it, by the whining of those who claimed the originaly pledge is stingy. Strange--isn't the whole point of the anti-Bush criticism that Bush & co. are too stupid and evil to feel any shame at all? How could shameless poeple be "shamed", then?

The logic of the Bush-bashing about the Tsunami help is the usual "logic" of Bush-bashing: first, if Bush could do either A or not-A (e.g., either instantly visit the victims or not), then, whatever he chose to do, he was wrong. Second, if Bush doesn't do something the bashers thinks he should have, it's because Bush is evil; but if he DOES do something the bashers thinks he should have (like increasing the aid), this doesn't prove he isn't evil, this merely "proves" he was "forced" or "shamed" into doing good by the forces of light and truth.

Not much of a "criticism", if you ask me.

P.S.

The most distasteful aspect of this criticism is the cheeky demands, from some parts, that the US must send a lot of aid throught the UN agencies right now, no questions ask, or else risk the impotent wrath of those who self-declared themselves the US's moral superiors and, as such, the arbiters of its duties.

It is incomprehensible to me how someone can be so disconnected from reality as to think that such "demands" have any effect on the US public and government except, perhaps, to make it less likely to send aid. The US government, and public, tend to be very generous when it comes to requests for help from those who need it; but it is very resistant to demands for help from self-important blowhards.

Remember the "Guardian" letter-writing campaign that "explained" to Ohioans how they must vote Bush out of office because it is their moral duty--a moral duty they are obviously too stupid and silly to understand by themselves, according to the "Guardian"? It achieved nothing but make Ohioans more likely to vote for Bush, if only to piss of the self-important letter writers.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed
Your unreleived negativity is getting tedious.

Tell me why, if UN bashing is the object, GW came out in support for that vagabond who is Secretary General? Or why did he not say nothing.

To say nothing of how tedious the relentless agression of the Bush administration is. No, tedious is not the right word, is it. Fear might be better.

Bush and Co can't quite work out what to do with the UN. They attack it, then realise they can't do without it, then attack it, etc. It will be interesting to see what happens when Powell goes.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Skeptic
...but in the fact that no matter WHAT Bush would do, he would be criticized by the usual gang of idiots.


Yes, and the gang of idiots on the other side of the fence will bend over backwards to defend every single thing he says and does.
But I'm going to guess you don't find their behaviour quite as upsetting.