Posted on 09/15/2005 1:42:43 PM PDT by Gritty
WASHINGTON – It wasn't just a speech commemorating the 60th anniversary of the United Nations that President Bush delivered in New York yesterday.
Instead, he laid out an ambitious program of increased U.S. foreign aid to tackle worldwide problems of poverty and disease.
Think of it as Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" plan gone global.
And he characterized this plan as an extension of his war on terrorism.
"Confronting our enemies is essential, and so civilized nations will continue to take the fight to the terrorists," Bush said. "Yet we know that this war will not be won by force of arms alone. We must defeat the terrorists on the battlefield, and we must also defeat them in the battle of ideas. We must change the conditions that allow terrorists to flourish and recruit, by spreading the hope of freedom to millions who've never known it. We must help raise up the failing states and stagnant societies that provide fertile ground for the terrorists. We must defend and extend a vision of human dignity, and opportunity, and prosperity – a vision far stronger than the dark appeal of resentment and murder."
This means working within the U.N.'s goals and plans for cutting poverty and disease, he explained.
"To spread a vision of hope, the United States is determined to help nations that are struggling with poverty," Bush said. "We are committed to the Millennium Development goals. This is an ambitious agenda that includes cutting poverty and hunger in half, ensuring that every boy and girl in the world has access to primary education, and halting the spread of AIDS – all by 2015."
The increased aid, Bush said, would go to nations that agree "to take responsibility for their own economic progress through good governance and sound policies and the rule of law."
"Developed countries agreed to support those efforts, including increased aid to nations that undertake necessary reforms," he said. "My own country has sought to implement the Monterrey Consensus by establishing the new Millennium Challenge Account. This account is increasing U.S. aid for countries that govern justly, invest in their people, and promote economic freedom."
Bush tied the international relief effort to U.S. activities and financial commitment to treating AIDS in Africa.
"Today, America is working with local authorities and organizations in the largest initiative in history to combat a specific disease," Bush said. "Across Africa, we're helping local health officials expand AIDS testing facilities, train and support doctors and nurses and counselors, and upgrade clinics and hospitals. Working with our African partners, we have now delivered lifesaving treatment to more than 230,000 people in sub-Sahara Africa. We are ahead of schedule to meet an important objective: providing HIV-AIDS treatment for nearly 2 million adults and children in Africa. At the G-8 Summit at Gleneagles, Scotland, we set a clear goal: an AIDS-free generation in Africa."
Bush also mentioned plans to spend another $1.2 billion fighting malaria around the world.
"This preventable disease kills more than a million people around the world every year – and leaves poverty and grief in every land it touches," he said. "The United States has set a goal of cutting the malaria death rate in half in at least 15 highly endemic African countries. To achieve that goal, we've pledged to increase our funding for malaria treatment and prevention by more than $1.2 billion over the next five years. We invite other nations to join us in this effort by committing specific aid to the dozens of other African nations in need of it. Together we can fight malaria and save hundreds of thousands of lives, and bring new hope to countries that have been devastated by this terrible disease."
He also announced a new international effort against avian influenza.
"If left unchallenged, this virus could become the first pandemic of the 21st century," said Bush. "We must not allow that to happen. Today I am announcing a new International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza. The partnership requires countries that face an outbreak to immediately share information and provide samples to the World Health Organization."
Another aspect of the massive redistribution of wealth globally is a plan to cancel 100 percent of the debt for the world's most heavily indebted nations.
"Even with increased aid to fight disease and reform economies, many nations are held back by another heavy challenge: the burden of debt," he said. "So America and many nations have also acted to lift this burden that limits the growth of developing economies, and holds millions of people in poverty. Today, poor countries with the heaviest debt burdens are receiving more than $30 billion in debt relief. And to prevent the build-up of future debt, my country and other nations have agreed that international financial institutions should increasingly provide new aid in the form of grants, rather than loans."
Then he supported the efforts of the U.N. Democracy Fund.
"Every free nation has an interest in the success of this fund – and every free nation has a responsibility in advancing the cause of liberty," said the president.
The way to fight a global war on poverty is to champion rule of law, private property ownership, representative government with inalienable basic rights, and similar ideas, in places currently struggling with despotism, under various guises.
Say, are those crickets I hear?
Nope, he started out as a really big spender, and is only getting worse.
HEY GEORGE!!! STOP WITH THE SPENDING ALREADY!!!
Why? Why? The UN has screwed President Bush every opportunity. For crying out loud, tell the UN to go boof themselves......
Geez. At least in his first term, he pretended he wasn't a socialist. We were duped, he was actually pretending to be a moderate to fool conservatives into thinking he was one of them, not the other way around.
"The way to fight a global war on poverty is to champion rule of law, private property ownership, representative government with inalienable basic rights, and similar ideas, in places currently struggling with despotism, under various guises."
How to achieve that? Become a global revolutionary force?
And if not, isn't it 100% inevitable that the US will succumb, and be colonized by this socialist world order? I doubt isolationism will work, and active consersion will be needed. Nativism exported, with force.
" "We are committed to the Millennium Development goals. This is an ambitious agenda that includes cutting poverty and hunger in half..."
So, I guess this means the world taxing authority is the UN?
Isn't it .70 per $100 of GDP? For a family, making 100K the UN tax is $700 per year. If, I understand this correctly.
They still haven't found the money trail for oil for food and now, we give them more?
I knew GWB was a globalist, but this is Soros-Clinton stuff.
Not that it even would be necessary to go that far. It appears from your profile page that you live in either Maryland or DC, do I have that right? Both those places went pretty heavily with the Dems in 2000 and '04, and will probably do so again in '08. You could vote Libertarian or Constitution Party there without affecting the outcome of the election in any way, because once your state goes with the Dems, any votes to the contrary don't get counted toward the result anyway. So you might as well vote in a way that sends a clear message to whoever does win, that tells him how he's expected to govern.
Just a suggestion, anyway.
A liberal pretending to be a conservative pretending to be a moderate. The GOP is full of them. Sadly, it is also full of sheeple willing to pull a lever for, and defend, someone just because his a republican.
Outrageous flop? Those are nice words compared to how I would describe him and his policies.
Who ever thought this President was a conservative was/is outrageously wrong!
Bush claimed to be in the Reagan mold. He's clearly not. I'd rather have the Gipper in the Oval even in his current state. At least he's make fewer gaffes than W's team.
One of Reagan's biggest policy errors was the amnesty program which was a failure because it did not see the followup enforcement necessary. And yet Bush learned nothing from that. *WE* are having to resist it. He doesn't seem to have learned from Reagan's successes such as putting forth Rehnquist as chief as a distraction thus allowing him to get Scalia on the high court. Instead we get an question mark who is no where close to Scalia and Thomas (W's rhetoric) and likely not as conservative as the late former Chief Justice. History shows *most all* Justices become more liberal as time goes on. They simply don't move in the other direction. After Souter, and others, Bush should've make a bold statement and gone with someone KNOWN to be an originalist.
Worst of all, he's not a speck on the Great Communicator when it comes to articulating, defending and selling an agenda to the American People.
Bush sure knows how to spend. Clearly we've learned what "Compassionate Conservative" really means. And, in my estimation, we can't afford much more of it.
We were all suckered. W thru us a couple of tax cuts and we fell in love with the guy-all while he was boosting domestic spending on a scale Bill Clinton couldn't have dreamed of just a few years earlier. His leadership at the beginning stages on the WOT were superb-now I don't see much in the way of any leadership. For the love of God why did he accept blame for the NO debacle when the facts clearly illustrate otherwise. WTH is this guy thinking?
Because they're the ones who get the funding from the party apparatus (a problem made more severe by campaign finance "reform"), and the instinct of Republican voters in the primaries is to vote not for who they think would make the best President, but who they think would have the best chance of defeating the Democrats. That almost unfailingly translates to who has the biggest campaign war chest.
It's come to a time of decision for conservatives: Walk off the GOP plantation, or forgo further progress.
Your statement is admirable both for its brevity and its clarity. I am sorry to say I have to agree with you.
Amen to that. I have a dream. I dream that one day, for just one day at least, we would all not go to work. A show of force against how much we are taxed and what our tax dollars are being squandered away on. Alas, we are probably too large of a country demographically to accomplish such a show of unity from the taxpayers. We are too busy trying to keep a roof over our heads and food in our mouths to take off work for even a show of protest. However, nothing will change if we don't in some way hurt the pocket book of the government. /rant
Problem is there are a lot of local politicians I do wish to vote for, and independents cant vote in the primary's.
Dont get me wrong I voted for Bush last time. I campaigned for him. I liked him. But lately his friendlisness with bill Clinton his refusal to do anything about illegal immigranst he passing out money to Palestinians and his refusal to stand up and answer Democrats who are taking pot shots at him make me wonder whats going on. Especially his friendship with Bill Clinton who I dont trust as far as I can throw his fat wife.
Bush is already on that. Read here about the "Global Peace Operations Initiative".
But you can vote for whomever you want in the general election, right? What would stop you?
"We wipe out malaria and heaven's knows what else, and tell emerging nations to act responsibly (we know they won't)...but where's the stick? I'm quoting of all people, Moira Laisson on Fox."
Hershey, it's a subsidy for the American drug industry. We will inherent millions of AIDS patients, paying for their meds for life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.