Well, isn't this just jolly. President Bush has finally decided to
build a coalition of the major players to aid the tsunami-hit region in Southeast Asia:
CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday that he has formed an international coalition to respond to the massive tsunami disaster along coastlines of the Indian Ocean.
The president interrupted his vacation at his Texas ranch to speak with reporters for the first time since Sunday's earthquake-triggered waves killed tens of thousands of people.
"It's just beyond our comprehension to think about how many lives have been lost," Bush said. (Full story)
He announced that the United States has "established a regional core group with India, Japan and Australia to help coordinate relief efforts. I'm confident more nations will join this core group in short order."
Me being as cynical as I am, I see this simply as a PR effort to deflect attention away from the real fact of the matter: Bush's stinginess when it comes to doling out aid.
By getting more countries involved, Bush wants to put on the perception that we're being do-gooders, when we're really not helping out at all. At least it's good to see that Bush is putting those coalition-building skills that he honed from the war in Iraq into good use now. </snark>
What strikes me is that Bush had to 'interrupt' his vacation in Crawford. Too bad Mother Nature inconvenienced him from clearing the brush out on his ranch. Why I don't see national Democrats such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi criticize the Republicans on this one is beyond my scope of comprehension. Have we totally lost the will to point out the hypocrisy that the GOP practices so willingly? We're busy pissing away money in Iraq, but we can only scrounge up a meager $35 million, of which $20 million will eventually have to be repaid?! At least when Jan Egeland called out Western nations for being parsimonious, others had the good thinking to increase their amount of aid:
One-upping the U.S., France nearly doubled its aid pledge for tsunami victims to $57 million 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 approved a $68 million package, although about a fifth was in loans rather than outright grants.
Meanwhile, the New York Post was foaming at the mouth, ready with the wingnut response:
An appropriately red-faced senior United Nations (news - web sites) official beat a hasty retreat yesterday after accusing America and other well-off Western nations of a stingy response to the devastation in south Asia.
Jan Egeland, a Norwegian who holds the lofty title of Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, now claims he was misinterpreted when he charged Monday that there are several donors who are less generous than before in a growing world economy.
It is beyond me why we are so stingy, really, he told reporters.
Misinterpreted?
Baloney.
Egeland knew exactly what he was saying -- and he meant every word of it.
Of course, it was about as truthful as the rest of the slime that oozes from that cesspool on First Avenue.
As Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) noted, The United States has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world.
Of course we've given more money - as the richest country in the world, we can give the most money, even when we don't try. The New York Times, in what of its infrequently sensible columns, pointed out how the numbers point to a disconnect from reality for the Bush administration:
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.
Yes, it's a time of sadness, but that doesn't mean we can't call out the Republicans for being what they are - caring, insensitive people too caught up in Social Darwinism. But where are our leaders? I don't know I haven't heard from them yet. Once again, too little, too late.