Posted on 08/04/2009 6:50:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
What if a president, on his own initiative, under no demands from staff or from supporters or opponents, set out to spend an unprecedented amount of money on AIDS in Africa, literally billions of dollars, at a time when the nation could not afford it, citing his faith as a primary motivation and, ultimately, saved more than a million lives?
Wouldn’t the story be front-page news, especially in top, liberal newspapers? Wouldn’t it lead on CNN, MSNBC and the “CBS Evening News”? Might statues be erected to the man in the nation’s more “progressive” cities?
What if the president was George W. Bush?
I pose these uncomfortable questions for two reasons: 1) President Bush did precisely that regarding the African AIDS tragedy; and 2) a study claims that Bush’s remarkable action has indeed saved many precious lives.
And as someone who has closely followed Bush’s humanitarian gesture from the outset, I’m not surprised that the former president continues to not receive the accolades he deserves — including even from conservative supporters — for this generous act.
Bush himself realizes the lack of gratitude and media attention. I personally witnessed it very recently, on June 17, when I was in attendance for one of Bush’s first postpresidential speeches, in Erie, Pa. There, too, he mentioned the AIDS initiative — even adding that one of his daughters is in Africa today, working on the epidemic — and, there again, it received no press coverage whatsoever.
It all began in January 2003, during the State of the Union. In a completely unexpected announcement, Bush asked Congress for $15 billion for AIDS in Africa — drugs, treatment and prevention.
America soon learned this was not the typical State of the Union throwaway line: To show his seriousness, Bush followed on April 29 with a press conference in the East Room, where he exhorted Congress to “act quickly” on his “emergency plan.”
Accompanied by the secretary of state, he prodded America’s wealthy allies to join this “urgent work,” this “great effort.” He explained that AIDS was a “dignity of life” issue and “tragedy” that was the “responsibility of every nation.” This was a “moral imperative,” with time “not on our side.”
Bush then shocked the press by pointing to an unusual personal motivation, citing the parable of the Good Samaritan: “[T]his cause is rooted in the simplest of moral duties,” he told journalists. “When we see this kind of preventable suffering … we must act. When we see the wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not, America will not, pass to the other side of the road.”
With amazing quickness, just four weeks later, Bush inked a $15-billion plan and challenged Europe to match the U.S. commitment without delay.
How did the plan work? In April, a major study was released by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. According to the study, the first to evaluate the outcomes of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the Bush initiative has cut the death toll from HIV/AIDS by more than 10% in targeted African countries from 2003 to 2007.
“It has averted deaths — a lot of deaths,” said Dr. Eran Bendavid, one of the researchers. “It is working. It’s reducing the death toll from HIV. People who are not dying may be able to work and support their families and their local economy.” Co-researcher, Dr. Peter Piot, says PEPFAR “is changing the course of the AIDS epidemic.”
The study — still having received virtually no press attention several months after its release — estimates that the Bush relief plan has saved more than 1 million African lives.
Those are the facts. What about opinion, particularly public opinion?
That brings me back to my initial point. If a Democratic Party president had done this, he would be feted as both a national hero and international hero on his way to a ceremony with the Nobel Committee. George W. Bush, however, is getting very little credit — or, at least, no fanfare.
Again, I’m not surprised. I first wrote about the Bush AIDS initiative in a 2004 book, followed by several articles, including an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, plus many discussions on radio and TV talk shows.
I was struck by two reactions, from the left and the right:
From the left, I got incensed e-mails from Bush-hating elements refusing to concede that Bush did what he did. They said the craziest things, insisting not a dime had been spent and that the program effectively did not even exist. They could not find it within their power to grant that Bush could do something so kind, which they should naturally embrace. I’ve been most disappointed by my fellow Christians in the “social justice” wing — Catholics and Protestants alike — who have been deafeningly silent on a campaign that ought to serve as a poster child for precisely what they advocate.
To be fair, some have stepped up to thank Bush, including no less than Bill Clinton, as well as musician-activist Bob Geldof. But they are the exception. (In a piece for Time, Geldof wrote about the moment he personally asked Bush about the lack of awareness of the AIDS initiative: “Why doesn’t America know about this?” Bush answered: “I tried to tell them. But the press weren’t much interested.”)
From the right, I still get angry e-mails explaining that what Bush did for Africans is not a “core function” of government, certainly not enumerated anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Fiscal conservatives asserted that America could not afford this huge expenditure at a time of post-9/11 recession, burgeoning budget deficits, on the heels of a massive operation in Afghanistan, and as military spending was about to go through the roof as U.S. troops headed for Baghdad.
Technically, or perhaps fiscally, much of this is true.
Yet, to be sure, George W. Bush understood the financial cost — and said so explicitly. Nonetheless, he judged that only America could carry out this “act of compassion” at that critical juncture. He also judged, apparently, that only he, as a Western leader, had the will to do this.
So, he did it. He absorbed the cost to try to save lives.
Well, we now know that the policy has worked — just as, yes, we know it contributed to a record deficit. Still, it is rare when history can so directly, indisputably credit a president for a specific, undeniable policy achievement — a genuinely generous one that clearly emerged from his personal doing, from his heart. Millions of lives have been spared or bettered due to President Bush’s intervention.
But while the policy helped, it never did anything to help George W. Bush’s terrible disapproval rating — and still will not, given its lack of attention.
Well, George W. Bush, the much-ridiculed man of faith — ridiculed often because of his faith — always said he never expected rewards in this lifetime. Here’s one that apparently will need to wait.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kengor is author of God and George W. Bush (HarperCollins, 2004)
and professor of political science and director of the Center for Vision & Values
at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania.
Think of it as an illness, Deb. It helps to deal with them.
For some, I think, it's all about "my money" and they can't see beyond the end of their noses.
This was a good thing all around, and Bush should get credit for it. (He does in Africa - 80% approval in some countries).
Dubya is also a very down to earth man. He does not act like a royal.
I read an anecdote where he was walking his dog in town just a few months ago this year near his ranch in Crawford. He had to pick up his own dog’s poop in throw it in the garbage.
Wonder what Obama or Clinton would have done ... probably hire dog walkers.
I just knew that these people would be in here, with bells on! It’s like they smell a positive Bush thread; so they have this terrible need to come in here and stink it up! Grrrr..
The way I figure it, is we have a monster in the White House, and the only way some of you can keep being mad at President Bush is to ignore the reality of the monster, and fabricate blame on President Bush for things he didn't do, and not give him a shred of credit for things he did do - like tax cuts in the middle of the recession he inherited that revived our economy and kept us afloat through the attacks we sustained in 2001. Like doing everything in his power to keep us safe, and being vigilant in the war against those who would destroy us. Like being the strongest advocate for the unborn ever to occupy the WH, and being the best CinC our troops have ever had.
I appreciate that you have political differences of opinion with President Bush (and even agree with you on 1 or 2), but your hyperbolic, nonsensical criticisms make you look as though you need some fresh air or something.
Try to infuse a little logic and balance in your attacks. It will keep you from looking as though you've fallen off the deep end of reality.
And then focus on the Marxist demon that's trying to destroy the very fabric of our republic and all it stands for, and what we can do to get him out of the White House.
Reality, Moonman. It'll do you a world of good.
You're exactly right, though. President Bush is REAL. He cares about people. He's honest. He's a man of integrity.
In short - he is Christian.
Here’s the story :
http://petpundit.com/2009/05/pick-up-after-your-pet-president-bush-does/
Pick up after your pet; President Bush does
Posted by Cathy M. Rosenthal on May 23, 2009 at 11:24 am.
Former President George W. Bush appeared at a reception for high school seniors in New Mexico recently and talked about life outside the Oval Office, which including walking his dog, Barney. “There I was, former president of the United States of America, with a plastic bag on my hand,” he said. “Life is returning back to normal.”
Honestly, I expected the former President to have a dog walker to handle these duties, but there is something reassuring in knowing that no matter who we are, we all have the same responsibilities when it comes to our pets. We feed them, groom them, pick up after them, and even spoil them. We jump when they want to go outside, come inside, or be fed. We are trained to pet them the moment they sit near our feet. And we rarely move them from their sleeping spot, especially if it is our lap. To an outsider unfamilar with the canine/human animal bond, it may appear as if we are subserviant to their needs.
Instead though, humans and dogs share a special symbiotic relationship — a close relationship between individuals of two or more different species. Symbiotic relationships may benefit both species, one species at the other’s expense, or neither species. For humans and dogs, the ideal relationship benefits both species. We offer shelter, love, and care to the dog; in return, they agree to love, adore, even protect us, no matter what. Some canine/human relationships, however, are at the dog’s expense. Dog fighting, animal abuse ,and even neglect, are ways in which we mistreat dogs and throw off the balance of this trusted relationship.
If the former President of the United States can walk his dog with a baggie in his hand, so can everyone else who has a pet. Kudos to the former President for keeping it real.
No less than the liberal Huffington Post mentions this tidbit here :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/22/bush-liberating-to-be-out_n_206636.html
TITLE :
Bush: “Liberating” To Be Out Of Office, Picking Up Dog Poop
I’ve long thought that W was the best president of my long life time. He was a man of principle, who said what he stood for and didn’t waiver.
"Keep it real"........I love it!
And not for one minute does he think it's beneath him to do it.
It is a rare gift to this country to have a man of such principle and courage at its helm.
I just hope some of those who don't get it yet will some day wake up to an understanding of what we had.
No it can’t be called LBJ returns. LBJ had an incredible amount of power of the Senate and some of the House. Also the ad hominem attacks that you go in for speak to your character and why you don’t like Bush. It has been my experience that people with a lack of character do not like honorable men out of habit. In addition, before assuming that I agree with Bush’s immigration policy, first check and see if I have said anything that would make you believe that I agree with him on anything. There is a difference between agreeing with someone on everything and seeing him as an honorable man, this is a point lost on Obama supporters.
Giving quietly, without fanfare, is definitely the only way to give....your post was a good reminder for sure.
It is my considered opinion that when "We, The People" have all but totally ignored the problem, and are continuing to fail to address it through our own personal, charitable giving to organizations actively engaging the issue on the ground in Africa; at that juncture I think the onus to act can be legitimately taken by The Executive, the moral duty having thus devolved upon his Office by our collective failure to act privately in a degree equaling the severity of the issue. No, I do not believe that to be a Constitutionally defined role of The Executive, but seeing as righteousness in America has deteriorated to such a degree that we are able as a Nation to generally ignore the fact that millions in Africa are all but walking dead -- damned to the Hell of AIDS temporally, and then to Hell eternally -- if there be one righteous man who apprehends the gravity of the situation, and is in some degree empowered to rectify our collective lack of Christian charity, then let it be The Executive. Should we deem his recommendation out-of-line, we have Congress to bring to bear in opposition to it, and if our arguments cannot prevail before Congress, then they will carry The President's objective forward, and will answer to us in Town Halls, and at the polls. It is there that we will see whether or not their support was truly harmonious with the Will of The People.
Ping
Remember, I kicked $500 to the Swift Boat guys during the '04 campaign? I gritted my teeth as he held the border open and persecuted Innocent guys trying to do a miserable job.
But when he sent in a goon squad, a hunter killer team to arrest "Dog" Chapman, whose show I've never seen - end to end- well it exposed him for the character he is....
Now compare that arrest to how they hooked up Blagovitch? No courtesy phone call "could you please come to the door and let the nice FBI guy arrest you?".
No, none of that for those who embarrass his masters in Mexico.
I can only guess?
I've never heard the left criticize Dubya for his border policies - ever! Can you provide a link?
As to the $15 billion he likes to play his stupid like - buy friends game with - Here in Portland, OR, there is a one year waiting list for removing any serious type kidney stones AT THE VA MEDICAL CENTER!!!!!.....
A federal court in a case in California ruled it was a violation of the US Constitution to make a inmate wait for a full month before an operation which was also being held back via pain pills.
Shows the contempt Dubya has towards Veterans (which he ain't by the way)
...and is doing just super duper splendorous now under this new and marvelous regime.
What exactly did I say that isn’t true? People who revert to name calling when they cannot refute a fact are so-——small.
One thing I've learned over the past 8 years, don't bother arguing with the irrational Bush haters. Post the facts for those who are sane and understand reality, but don't argue with illogical, emotional nonsense.
On second thought, I WILL respond to your idiotic anti-military claim that President Bush isn't a veteran. You besmirch thousands upon thousands of ANG vets who have served their country nobly. SHAME on you.
That in and of itself, negates any argument you may have as being the product of an unclear mind.
(But leftists like to use it too, so you're in 'good' company).
What you said was irrational.
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.