| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
The brilliance of the Bush move into Liberia may not yet have been fully appreciated.
The Left was saying Bush was hypocritical to point proudly to the humanitarian results of freeing the Iraqi people. Why hypocritical? Because he was ignoring great humanitarian suffering in Liberia, of course. Here’s an example of this roundabout argument, from Arianna Huffington, printed on July 2. It’s a perfect example of the Left’s position on the subject:
Atrocities in Africa Not on Bush’s Radar
by Arianna HuffingtonWith Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction as difficult to find as Hussein himself, President Bush’s Iraq talking points now center on the humanitarian upside of having ousted the Butcher of Baghdad. His speeches are liberally peppered with mentions of “mass graves” and “torture chambers” and encomiums to “freeing the people of Iraq.” He has all but doused himself in the sweet-smelling scent of human rights and put on an Amnesty International T-shirt.
If we buy his new argument that ending humanitarian crises through military force is good foreign policy, then how can he justify embarking on his first trip to sub-Saharan Africa next week without including on his itinerary Congo and Liberia?
Notice that Arianna didn’t want Bush to actually go into Liberia? She says, “If we buy his new argument”. She’s nothing but skeptical of the notion of actually doing it. She doesn’t care about Liberia. She wants to slam Bush for not going into Liberia, and still reserve the right to slam him again if he does it.
The Left thought they had Bush in a dilemma – they figured he was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.
As the Left picked up this argument and trumpeted it around, Bush said, “Well, why not go into Liberia and help those people out?”
Now the Left is stuck – unable to say: “Wait a minute – we didn’t want you to actually do it!” Meanwhile praise is rolling in from all directions for Bush’s humanitarian actions:
Even liberals have credited Mr. Bush with doing more than his predecessor to help Africa. In May, Live Aid founder Bob Geldof said Mr. Bush is far more committed than Mr. Clinton to fighting AIDS and famine on the continent. “Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn’t talk but does deliver,” said Mr. Geldof, an Irish musician and activist who in 1985 staged the world’s largest rock concert to combat starvation in Africa.
It’s precisely because the arguments of the Left are so screwy, that they can boomerang like this. What a roundabout argument: “Bush was wrong to help people in Iraq, for the reason that he’s not helping people in Liberia!” So ridiculous.
#1
#2The US government should stop supporting repressive governments. The fact that the government fails to correctly deal with one country does not mean that the government has to fail when dealing with other countries. In dealing with foreign policy, as with most things, you have to start somewhere.
#3OK, Micah and James, if Bush does what you want will you vote for him? Next month he will do it so I guess he can expect your support.
#4The left doesn't care about anything. Let Hussein maintain prisons full of children, let Africa commit continental suicide, just so long as they have some reason to slam Bush on a daily basis in the mainstream media.
Remember when Bush was being called an isolationist? Then we got heavily involved in world affairs and suddenly the charge changes, now he's an imperialist bent of global hegemony.
How about homeland security? half of the left is running around saying we're no safer than we were on 9/11 and the other half are screaming he's turning us into a Gestapo police state. Well, which is it folks?
They just want to hate Bush no matter what he does. Where are the "no-nuke" lefties singing the praises of George Bush for unilaterally disarming half of America's nuclear stockpiles? You'd think they could at least acknowledge it, but no. Meanwhile Clinton had 8 years to do it and never did.
You won't see them (or hear about it in the press, for that matter) because hating Republicans is the raison d'etre of the left. Everyone and everything can go to hell ... just so long as we all hate George Bush and the Republicans.
Maybe I missed it...but when did we actually send thousands of combat troops into Liberia?
The very fact that Bush is HEDGING, and hasn't deployed them already proves he was lying all along about his "liberate the Iraqi people" motive for invading Iraq.
After all, everyone on the whole planet WANTS us to send troops to Liberia, not to mention the Democrats and liberals here in the United States.
So, he has no excuse for NOT sending them there by now. He can't even blame it on France or the United Nations.
His hypocritical demand that Charles Taylor leave office BEFORE we send troops, is also quite telling.
Note the difference with Saddam: Bush said he had 48 hours to get out, but if he didn't we were coming in to get him ANYWAY.
Not so with Chucky Taylor!
Nice try, but incompetent spin like yours [despite the endorsement of Instahack], is not going to convinve anyone with half a brain in tehir heads that Bush gives a rat's patoot about the Iraqi people, or the Liberian people.
#6You watch. After screaming that Bush is a racist for not helping Africans, the instant he decides to do so, they'll be screaming he's exploiting African anarchy because of the lucrative diamond trade.
And never content with having their wildest dreams fulfilled, I was listening to an NPR smear piece about Bush' proposed $15 billion African Aids package, a humanitarian gesture on an unprecedented scale. The slant on the piece was that AIDS medications aren't really that useful to people that don't have enough to eat, so Bush really doesn't deserve all that much credit.
Oh, and since Bush decryed slavery yesterday afternoon, the left will be shrieking about reparations by this weekend.
Count on it.
#7ROTFLMAO:
". . . the Bush Administration [should] stop supporting repressive governments. Stop supporting countries like Sudan. . ."
The U.S. currently has economic sanctions in place against Sudan, and is refusing to lift them until there is a credible peace plan in place between the rival factions in Sudan's civil war. What more do you want them to do to show their lack of support for Sudan? Invade?
The irony is that again Bush is defying the UN -- the UN lifted its sanctions back in 2001.
P.S.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
"President Bush suggested Wednesday that any U.S. military help in ending brutal civil unrest in Liberia might consist mostly of advisers and trainers to avoid stretching American forces too thinly around the globe.
"We won't overextend our troops, period," Bush said at a joint news conference with South African President Thabo Mbeki, who had pressed him on what role the United States would play in the crisis."
Once again, we liberals were right, and you lose.
#9>>>...is not going to convinve anyone with half a brain in tehir heads that Bush gives a rat's patoot about the Iraqi people, or the Liberian people.
Right, but you do. You're not at computer keyboard right now, you're out delivering food aid in Swaziland. Because if not, that just proves that you don't really care about starving people, yes?
Even when Bush does what the left wants him to do, they curse and hate him the whole way.
Thanks for proving my point.
#10Hesiod,
Good for you. Liberians are dying; Bush considers deploying U.S. troops to stop the bloodshed, but is concerned about over-extending U.S. troops; the South African president pushes Bush (where the f*ck are their troops??) but Bush won't be bullied; and you crow "Once again, we liberals were right, and you lose."
It must feel nice to claim "victory" on the bodies of dead Liberians because nothing could possibly be more important than being "right" and Bush (and those supporting him) "losing."
Good for you. I really hope you feel better.
#11Certain people on the left cannot get over their hatred of George Bush. It makes them immune to reason, logic and rational thought. It's becoming tiresome to listen to the repetitive, predictable, smug, moronically deductive perorations of the I-hate-George-Bush-No-Matter-What-He-Says-Or-Does crowd.
"Once again, we liberals were right, and you lose." OK. Whatever you say, Hesiod. If you say so it must be. I'm rolling over and so is George Bush and everyone who supports him. We've all been awed by your intellect and pithy comebacks. "You lose!" Brilliant! Did you think that one up all by yourself?
Maybe the hysterical left will some day realize that most people ignore them and maybe Hesiod will use his noggin and think. And maybe he’ll realize that Bush isn't the reincarnation of Satan and that certain Bush policies align perfectly with the his positions and that it would be intellectually and politically honest to give GW his due.
I’m not holding my breath.
#12John,
> How about homeland security? half of the left
> is running around saying we're no safer than we
> were on 9/11 and the other half are screaming
> he's turning us into a Gestapo police state.
> Well, which is it folks?
These are hardly mutually exclusive. There's a lot of stuff in the USA PATRIOT act which restricts civil liberties while not only not making us safer, actually makes us less safe. But that measure wasn't a Bush move opposed by Democrats -- congressional Democrats were all for it.
There are a lot of reasons to vote against Bush in 2004, starting with the apparent lack of plans for what to do in Iraq after the battle was over, the continuing lack of accountability in the form of shakeups in the intelligence community's management ranks, and his and his family's inexplicable friendship with the Sauds.
But unless the Democrats offer us a candidate who acknowledges that we've been at war since the 80s (at least) there's no other choice for voters concerned about the security of the West.
#13You can tell how well Bush is doing by the shrillness of the opposition. They are practically losing their minds like raging, ranting drunks. You can almost see the spittle coming off Hesiod's lips.
Makes you smile doesn't it?
#14It has been stated that this Administration's focus on Africa could help Bush and the GOP win more black votes in 2004.
I have a sure fire move to win Bush more votes from blacks. Have Dick Cheney step down as V.P. (medical reasons) and appoint Michael Jordan into the position. The 2004 election would be a slam dunk for Bush!
#15I will applaud Bush if he sends troops into Liberia, but I really don't think it'll help him pick up any black votes.
Most black people don't really give a hoot about Africa. My ancestors are from England and Germany, and I do not feel any affinity at all for those nations, even though they are my ancestral home. I think most black Americans feel the same way about Africa.
#16Joe,
If Bush pulls back from the "war on terror" as a war against whatever he decides, for no reason actually relating to matters involving security or human rights, to convince the U.S. public is the big issue of the moment, then yes I would consider voting for him. Of course, I can say that without any sort of risk since it isn't going to happen. The point being that my critique of the "war on terror" isn't just that it doesn't involve doing X and does involve doing Y but rather is that this war without end is flawed as a concept.
#17Brian,
Actually, The U.S. had mixed feelings about the U.N. Security Council removing sanctions on Sudan two years ago, an action Uncle Sam of course could have prevented. (Not that the U.S. should have used a veto necessairly, just that it could have.) Last October the "Sudan Peace Act" became law and says that the President will review the progress of the negotiation between Sudan's ruling government and Sudan People's Liberation Movement to determine that negotiations are being productive and should continue. If it is determined that they should continue, then the U.S. is authorized to try to isolate either side or both sides of the conflict. In May the U.S. military began working with the government of Sudan on a limited level.
The point being that the U.S. isn't concerned about human rights in Sudan, at least not the extent that it claims to be in other countries.
#18>>> There's a lot of stuff in the USA PATRIOT act which restricts civil liberties while not only not making us safer, actually makes us less safe.
Name three.
I'm all for having my civil liberties protected, and I certainly don't like government grabbing more power, but I have to tell you that I haven't seen any erosion in my civil liberties since The Patriot Act.
So I'm intersted in hearing your case against it. Since there is "lots of stuff" in the Patriot Act that restrict my civil liberties AND make me less safe, pointing out three concrete examples should be a piece of cake.
Name three.
#19Let's see, the Sudan Peace Act which Micah links to includes provisions for $100M in aid per year to areas "outside government control" (i.e., rebel-controlled territory) within Sudan. I guess I'm not quite clear on the concept of "support" ... if we're helping out the rebels to the tune of a hundred million per annum, how is that "supporting" the government they're rebelling against?
#20Taras,
Spending that money in areas outside of the Sudanenes government's control does not constitute support for that government but the link was to show that the U.S. is not trying to install strict sanctions on the country as has been suggested. As far as giving support, you have to read the link about military ties.
#21Told you. From the Atlantic-Journal Constitution, this headline: "U.S. has eye on Africa oil - Vast potential stirs skepticism of Bush's mission of mercy."
Okay, so I said it would be the diamond trade. I guess I gave them too much credit for originality. They ran home to the ever-comfortable "Bush hates [fill-in-the-minority-group], It's All About Oil."
So frigging predictable, it's pathetic. They just can't stand it. The stupid, drunken frat-boy runs rings around them.
#22George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate who teaches economics at the University of California in Berkeley.
BERLIN - American Nobel Prize laureate for Economics George A. Akerlof lashed out at the government of US President George W. Bush, calling it the "worst ever" in American history, the online site of the weekly Der Spiegel magazine reported Tuesday.
"I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extradordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy," said the 2001 Nobel Prize laureate who teaches economics at the University of California in Berkeley.
"This is not normal government policy. Now is the time for (American) people to engage in civil disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as possible," the 61-year-old scholar added.
Akerlof has been recognized for his research that borrows from sociology, psychology, anthropology and other fields to determine economic influences and outcomes.
His areas of expertise include macro-economics, monetary policy and poverty.
Text of Der Spiegel interview by Matthias Streitz
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Professor Akerlof, according to recent official projections, the US federal deficit will reach $455 billion this fiscal year. That's the largest ever in dollar terms, but according to the President's budget director, it's still manageable. Do you agree?
George A. Akerlof: In the long term, a deficit of this magnitude is not manageable. We are moving into the period when, beginning around 2010, baby boomers are going to be retiring. That is going to put a severe strain on services like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is the time when we should be saving.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So it would be necessary to run a budget surplus instead?
Akerlof: That would probably be impossible in the current situation. There's the expenditure for the war in Iraq, which I consider irresponsible. But there's also a recession and a desire to invigorate the economy through fiscal stimulus, which is quite legitimate. That's why we actually do need a deficit in the short term - but certainly not the type of deficit we have now.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Because it's not created by investment, but to a large extent by cutting taxes?
Akerlof: A short-term tax benefit for the poor would actually be a reasonable stimulus. Then, the money would almost certainly be spent. But the current and future deficit is a lot less stimulatory than it could be. Our administration is just throwing the money away. First, we should have fiscal stimulus that is sharply aimed at the current downturn. But this deficit continues far into the future, as the bulk of the tax cuts can be expected to continue indefinitely. The Administration is giving us red ink as far as the eye can see, and these permanent aspects outweigh the short-term stimulatory effects.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: And secondly, you disagree with giving tax relief primarily to wealthier Americans. The GOP argues that those people deserve it for working hard.
Akerlof: The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it - they will primarily increase their savings. Remember that wealthier families have done extremely well in the US in the past twenty years, whereas poorer ones have done quite badly. So the redistributive effects of this administration's tax policy are going in the exactly wrong direction. The worst and most indefensible of those cuts are those in dividend taxation - this overwhelmingly helps very wealthy people.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: The President claims that dividend tax reform supports the stock market - and helps the economy as a whole to grow.
Akerlof: That's totally unrealistic. Standard formulas from growth models suggest that that effect will be extremely small. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has come to a similar conclusion. So, even a sympathetic treatment finds that this argument is simply not correct.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: When campaigning for an even-larger tax cut earlier this year, Mr. Bush promised that it would create 1.4 million jobs. Was that reasonable?
Akerlof: The tax cut will have some positive impact on job creation, although, as I mentioned, there is very little bang for the buck. There are very negative long-term consequences. The administration, when speaking about the budget, has unrealistically failed to take into account a very large number of important items. As of March 2003, the CBO estimated that the surplus for the next decade would approximately reach one trillion dollars. But this projection assumes, among other questionable things, that spending until 2013 is going to be constant in real dollar terms. That has never been the case. And with the current tax cuts, a realistic estimate would be a deficit in excess of six trillion.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So the government's just bad at doing the correct math?
Akerlof: There is a systematic reason. The government is not really telling the truth to the American people. Past administrations from the time of Alexander Hamilton have on the average run responsible budgetary policies. What we have here is a form of looting.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: If so, why's the President still popular?
Akerlof: For some reason the American people does not yet recognize the dire consequences of our government budgets. It's my hope that voters are going to see how irresponsible this policy is and are going to respond in 2004 and we're going to see a reversal.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What if that doesn't happen?
Akerlof: Future generations and even people in ten years are going to face massive public deficits and huge government debt. Then we have a choice. We can be like a very poor country with problems of threatening bankruptcy. Or we're going to have to cut back seriously on Medicare and Social Security. So the money that is going overwhelmingly to the wealthy is going to be paid by cutting services for the elderly. And people depend on those. It's only among the richest 40 percent that you begin to get households who have sizeable fractions of their own retirement income.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is there a possibility that the government, because of the scope of current deficits, will be more reluctant to embark on a new war?
Akerlof: They would certainly have to think about debt levels, and military expenditure is already high. But if they seriously want to lead a war this will not be a large deterrent. You begin the war and ask for the money later. A more likely effect of the deficits is this: If there's another recession, we won't be able to engage in stimulatory fiscal spending to maintain full employment. Until now, there's been a great deal of trust in the American government. Markets knew that, if there is a current deficit, it will be repaid. The government has wasted that resource.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Which, in addition, might drive up interest rates quite significantly?
Akerlof: The deficit is not going to have significant effects on short-term interest rates. Rates are pretty low, and the Fed will manage to keep them that way. In the mid term it could be a serious problem. When rates rise, the massive debt it's going to bite much more.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why is it that the Bush family seems to specialize in running up deficits? The second-largest federal deficit in absolute terms, $290 billion, occurred in 1991, during the presidency of George W. Bush's father.
Akerlof: That may be, but Bush's father committed a great act of courage by actually raising taxes. He wasn't always courageous, but this was his best public service. It was the first step to getting the deficit under control during the Clinton years. It was also a major factor in Bush's losing the election.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: It seems that the current administration has politicised you in an unprecedented way. During the course of this year, you have, with other academics, signed two public declarations of protest. One against the tax cuts, the other against waging unilateral preventive war on Iraq.
Akerlof: I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign and economic but also in social and environmental policy. This is not normal government policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil disobedience.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Of what kind?
Akerlof: I don't know yet. But I think it's time to protest - as much as possible.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Would you consider joining Democratic administration as an adviser, as your colleague Joseph Stiglitz did?
Akerlof: As you know my wife was in the last administration, and she did very well. She is probably much better suited for public service. But anything I'll be asked to do by a new administration I'd be happy to do.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You've mentioned the term civil disobedience a minute ago. That term was made popular by the author Henry D. Thoreau, who actually advised people not to pay taxes as a means of resistance. You wouldn't call for that, would you?
Akerlof: No. I think the one thing we should do is pay our taxes. Otherwise, it'll only make matters worse.
SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003
How about this - before using military means to achieve "peace," "freedom" or whatever the buzzword of the day is, the Bush Administration stop supporting repressive governments. Stop supporting countries like Sudan, and then there can be an honest discussion about using military force to achieve good in the world. Till that is done, the Bush Administration is a bunch of manipulative hypocrites for claiming that they care about human rights outside of the U.S.