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.
Pepfar was begun in 2003, and it was passed in both the Republican House and Senate - that means that he had our approval of what he did via our representatives.
And the idea that he put African's interests ahead of Americans' is invalid. It's not exactly like he was ignoring America at the time. Your argument is no more valid than the leftists who say that going into Iraq in 2003 took money from Americans.......and they say that all the time.
But that's OK. I know you want to think Bush is bad, and you fancy yourself some sort of expert because you spent a wee bit of time in Africa, so go for it.
I'm not now, nor ever asking for sympathy... why should I ?
Life has been a blast. I actually feel sorry for someone who hasn't had the fun, challenges and experiences I've had.
I was a little man when I kicked in five bills to the Swift Boat guys?
Just certain things tick me off. Sending goon squads at the behest of the Mexican guberment to arrest someone for something that is not a crime in this nation is one of them...
And I do have ample experience working with just about every federal agency with investigative authority. Did you know even Dept of Agriculture has gun tot'n investigators?
There is no mystery why I participate in these threads... I enjoy seeing so-called conservatives using the tools of Saul Alinsky....
Toughens ya up don't it? :^)
OFF: Hannibal Lector snide tone of voice.
When I'm forced to tithe to some else's charity,
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
it is stealing no matter what it is for. NAsbU Exodus 20:15 "You shall not steal.
NAsbU Leviticus 19:11 'You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.
NAsbU Deuteronomy 5:19 'You shall not steal.
NAsbU Matthew 19:18 Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "YOU SHALL NOT
COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL
NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;
NAsbU Mark 10:19 "You know the commandments, 'DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT
ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR
FATHER AND MOTHER.'"
NAsbU Luke 18:20 "You know the commandments, 'DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT
MURDER, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.'"
NAsbU Romans 13:9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER,
YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment,
it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
(btw, why the repeated bragging about your Swift Boat donation? Sounds like insecurity to me. President Bush did his donating in secret. Sounds like security to me. He's a better man than you are mr world).
Your attempt at logical argument failed. The math is simple. The US government is borrowing money to operate. At the same time it sent money to foreign countries. Any and all of them, African or not it does not matter. What part of “we’re borrowing to give to citizens of other countries” don’t you get? Any and all so-called foreign aid should be ended. All foreign aid spend while we are in deficit put foreigners interests ahead of Americans interests. Period. We’re spending money we don’t have and committing our kids to pay the bill. Not a great idea. Approval of whatever legislative body is irrelevant.
Don't we all whine when .gov shovles money down worthless holes?
And his donating in secrete?
Well you know about it?
What he should have done - using all the information which is available to him is this: "Look Mr. Wall Street Operators, you Goldman Sacks of sh**, I'm letting a .gov proprietary (AIG Insurance) cover your lousy bets on some puffed & worthless real estate investment tranches.
"You guys are making billions and down the road the taxpayers are going to get a royal hosing. How about kicking in a couple of billion to my 'Africa Won't Win This Time Fund"
But he wouldn't get credit for that would he now?
Just like Nixon gave us Carter, W gave us Obama.
Time for a break. The man's not all bad no matter how hard you want him to be.
He's a better man than you, and I think you know it. That's why you're reaching so far to find fault.
Have a great life - and put on a happy face. LOL!
OK if you oppose all foreign aid. OK if you want to let earthquake victims die. It's your free will to oppose all humanitarian aid all over the earth.
However, as I stated in an earlier post, I believe that is a narrow view on what American is and ignores the morality and goodness in the founding of this great country.
You're free to be selfish with all our resources. I prefer President Bush's moral approach, and I won't convince you to abandon your "me first" attitude.
Nice talking with you.
We've got a dangerous Marxist in the White House, and poor moonman is still bashing decent, honorable President Bush. Says extremist, crazy things about him. Won't let the animus go.
Something inside him must have snapped. Unless I'm remembering a different guy, he used to be rational. No longer.
Actually you did a piss poor job of sorting out the “mess” and made no logical arguments at all. You appeal to emotion, when the cold reality is that we’re borrowing on our future. And yes I oppose paying taxes to fund “humanitarian aid” outside of the United States. And I am proud of it. You on the other hand seem to think that our resources are endless. I assure you, that while large, they are not infinite. Commit your own money where you will. Otherwise keep your hands off my wallet, majority vote or not. That is a moral stance that recognizes my priorities are not yours and my money is not yours.
And how did you conclude that I think our resources are "endless?" Don't just make things up, OK?
I'm not appealing to emotion any more than our Founding Fathers did when they acknowledged that morality must be a part of democracy, nor than de Toqueville did when he recognized the goodness of America, and that we would no longer be great when we ceased to be good.
It is my opinion that part of being "good" is helping those in crisis situations. I never said we should spend money irresponsibly or willy nilly, and I have said repeatedly that it is my opinion that this money is money well spent, and that I know others will disagree.
At any rate, you're drawing ludicrous conclusions from things I have and haven't said, and it is no longer productive for me to spend time discussing anything with you.
As I said, you can grab your wallet as tightly as you want, and when an earthquake hits you can yell and scream if we save people's lives and give them food and water. You're the one who has to live with yourself, not me. (Can I assume you give generously to all those in need around the world?)
Once again, you have the perfect right to believe that we, as a nation wealthy beyond measure. should never have helped anyone outside the US. Many people agree with you. I, as a consistent conservative, happen to disagree.
If you can't handle that, I'm really sorry.
Disclaimer for the rational reading this - the present Marxist administration is excepted from my view of America as being good, and therefore my position about how this particular administration would spend money entirely different than my view as to how Presidents Bush or Reagan would. Actually, this administration has already thrown our entire financial future away, so the point is moot. There is no more money to give. In 2003, there was.
Totally agree!!! After 2 election debacles, 2006 & 2008, courtesy of the incompetence & ineptitude of GW Bush, and the 2nd Bush (after Bush Sr) to destroy & decimate the Republican, GW Bush in my opinion is the primary reason we now have a DemoRAT one party systen in control of our country, led by a socialist-fascist-commie pig usurper 0bozo. Hopefully we will recapture & reclaim our country after this final Bush debacle & legacy of 0bozo.
Thanks for the ping!
Ron Paul sucks! Isolationism doesn't work. You people need to go back to the anti-war crowd forums where you belong.
I think they make meds to control extreme delusion...of course you'd probably need to stop smoking crack first.
You keep whining about spending 500 dollars. There is only two possible conclusions. You are lying about giving $500 dollars to the Swift Boat group (after all, why would you donate money to a group who attacks the opponent of your opponent), or you foolishly assumed that they were a pro-Kerry group when you donated.
You would have handed Western Europe to the commies.
Western Europe is a big place, I’ve spent some time there. Now days they don’t carry their weight in terms of defense spending. Yeah we saved their butts. Now they treat us like shit. Next time they need us they’ll get all cozy. Until then we carry the freight. Not a good bargain now is it?
May I suggest you and ohiowfan call the Portland Oregon, Vet's hospital (Phone number 503 696 4061) Ask for the secretary who schedules for the Urology Clinic.
When your connected, ask her how long the the waiting list is for services involving removal of 'embedded' kidney stones?
You know the big buggers that can't be removed via going through the bladder, but require surgery through the back to get to the kidney itself.
You should be told "it's running about one year, but patients usually find another source to pay for it, "No one can take a year of that pain, no one".
Now Dubya just happened to 'find' an extra $15 Billion laying around and did nothing to help US veterans admin to cut down that backlog?
Ask the secretary how long this has been their policy? I was told "as long as I have been here". A little over five years was her experience. And you ask me why I don't like or respect him?*
While we may disagree on him, I'd never wish that pain on anyone, even Dubya. - (but I do wish that he lose his fortune - sorry - not perfect, just a work in progress.
Look at all the hospitals that have closed because illegals don't pay for their medical care.......
Did you bother to read the Amnesty Bill he supported?
Just anyone could say I have a job for so and so, and they'd be granted a visa......
And I did get a lot of razing in the Army. I was a school teacher in a impacted area so I was exempt from the draft. (After I had to get waivers from my doc's to enlist for two years.)
I find his cold indifference to veterans needing medical care just totally so "Bush like".
*I've even came on this forum to ask for prayers to help me deal with the pain. But that's the way small people operate ;^)
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.