Posted on 01/03/2005 12:08:48 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
If a tsunami were to strike Northern Europe, killing more than 100,000 people from Ireland to Sweden, does anybody think it would take President Bush 72 hours to speak up about the tragedy and call leaders of the devastated countries?
In fairness to the vacationing president, the full magnitude of the natural disaster in the Indian Ocean wasn't apparent immediately after the undersea earthquake and the ensuing tsunami struck a week ago today. Still, there is no disputing that the first response of the American president and government, seen as omnipotent in much of the world, was lackadaisical and stingy. When Bush finally spoke Wednesday, Spain's pledge of relief funds was nearly double that of the U.S., and even that U.S. contribution ($35 million) came only after heavy criticism of Washington.
All of this conveyed the impression that Americans don't value the lives of people in poor countries as much as they value their own, or European, lives. Most of us have been guilty of shrugging our shoulders in the past over natural disasters in South Asia. How much attention did we pay in 1991, for instance, when a cyclone claimed nearly 140,000 lives in Bangladesh?
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
How much has the LA Times donated?
Does anyone except Freepers read the LAT anymore?
Rest assured that if they donated anything, subscription rates would be raised to make up for it.
More road apples from the L.A Times.
I don't know, how much attention did they pay on 09/11/01?
Por Nada?
How much attention did the LA Times pay to hundreds of thousands of dead in Saddam's Iraq? Not much -- they even wanted to keep Saddam in power. Their outrage is very selective.
So apparently it's the opinion of the Loony Times that because there is some perception that the American president and government is omnipotent it should be, because even the Loony Times admits that the magnitude wasn't immediately apparent.
Ahhhh....the new lefty cry to replace "Fascism!" is born!
When Bush finally spoke Wednesday, Spain's pledge of relief funds was nearly double that of the U.S.
Sure--it included loans.
Why this liberal pant-wetting over who was "first"? In the end the US will be laying out most of the cash. Add our portion of the World Bank contribution, and private donations, and the LATheads should be pleased. Considering the time needed to account for the dead and burying them, a few days was no big deal. Are the non-white peoples of these Asian countries merely children who need the US to run their lives for them? Apparently the LATheads think so.
Why don't they just say "Bush still trying to finish book about goat!"
The only OUTRAGE here is the LAT itself, time for more cancelations to reduce their circulation even more and hoefully their demise of Socialist Drivel!
'If a tsunami were to strike Northern Europe, killing more than 100,000 people from Ireland to Sweden, does anybody think it would take President Bush 72 hours to speak up about the tragedy and call leaders of the devastated countries?'
Liberals are all about token gestures. Bush had already issued orders for relief efforts long before he spoke in public.
This coming from newspapermen who usually haven't shed a drop of blood but believe they're more important to America's freedom than our soldiers.
And not a peep of criticism of Kofi Annan who couldn't be bothered and didn't show his face until 24 hours after Bush spoke on the issue.
Revealing isn't it!
After the WWII, almost the whole infrastuctures in Europe were destroyed. None of the S/SE Asia capitals was destroyed. Perhaps part of their tourism industry, which may be very important, but not the whole economy.
The Los Angeles Times is the personification of LaLaland. Image is everything, and thus the LATimes would only be happy if Bush built a funeral pyre on his ranch and committed suttee to please the Left.
While disagreeing with the Times slant that America is uncaring and stingy, I would also point out that Marshall did not recommend the U.S. just going unilaterally into Europe to "save" it since that could create resentments and dependency. Rather he said (if I recall correctly) that if the European nations came up with a plan, then the U.S. would look to help.
Note that even today Germany still has a large amount of funds left from this original plan because of the responsible way they used it as a bank where successful projects repaid the investments which even in the 1990s enabled it to assist in the integration of Eastern Germany (again I think these facts are up to date). So how it is done is very important: the resentments were averted and dependency avoided.
Yes, there has to be immediate aid to even get to the plan stage. I think we could fully expect such a plan then to be forthcoming, and we would respond as America always has. Done this way, it could be quite a legacy for the region, improve our friendships and enhance long-term security.
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.