I don't want to get political here, but I feel it necessary to point out yet another failing of our President.
I was watching the news coverage of the earthquake aftermath on Sunday, several hours after news about the tragedy reached the US public, when the newscaster on CNN broke away to say that there was word coming in from the President in Crawford, Texas. Of course, they had been expecting a Presidential statement for some time.
The man speaking was not President Bush, though. It wasn't his press secretary, either. It was a deputy press secretary, who made a brief statement expressing the President's condolences. He then took questions, and the first question was "To which countries has the President sent a letter of condolance?" The deputy said, "I don't have the list at this time, but I'll get back to you." How many countries did the President contact? "Seven or eight. I'll get back to you." In other words, this deputy press secretary didn't even have the basic information about the US government's response to this unprecedented humanitarian crisis. He did say that "during the war on terror, the US government will do everything in its power to protest Americans at home and abroad." These are approximate quotes, but basically this guy was told to link the story to the war on terror to try to score some political points. Despicable.
And now, here it's Tuesday night, and the President still has not made a public statement about the tragedy. Bush instead has chosen not to interrupt his vacation.
The world has taken notice. This is an event that deserves a top-level statement. Many other world leaders made immiedate statements. Bill Clinton spoke out today, saying that "someone needs to take the lead' to coordinate the massive amounts of aid flowing to the affected countries.
The US only sending a deputy press secretary and then the outgoing Colin Powell to make a statement about this worldwide tragedy speaks volumes. Many around the world are pointing to Bush's choice to stay on vacation rather than make a statement as yet another example of America's callousness and insensivity. Way to win hearts and minds, Mr. President. You are an embarrassment.
I was watching the news coverage of the earthquake aftermath on Sunday, several hours after news about the tragedy reached the US public, when the newscaster on CNN broke away to say that there was word coming in from the President in Crawford, Texas. Of course, they had been expecting a Presidential statement for some time.
The man speaking was not President Bush, though. It wasn't his press secretary, either. It was a deputy press secretary, who made a brief statement expressing the President's condolences. He then took questions, and the first question was "To which countries has the President sent a letter of condolance?" The deputy said, "I don't have the list at this time, but I'll get back to you." How many countries did the President contact? "Seven or eight. I'll get back to you." In other words, this deputy press secretary didn't even have the basic information about the US government's response to this unprecedented humanitarian crisis. He did say that "during the war on terror, the US government will do everything in its power to protest Americans at home and abroad." These are approximate quotes, but basically this guy was told to link the story to the war on terror to try to score some political points. Despicable.
And now, here it's Tuesday night, and the President still has not made a public statement about the tragedy. Bush instead has chosen not to interrupt his vacation.
The world has taken notice. This is an event that deserves a top-level statement. Many other world leaders made immiedate statements. Bill Clinton spoke out today, saying that "someone needs to take the lead' to coordinate the massive amounts of aid flowing to the affected countries.
The US only sending a deputy press secretary and then the outgoing Colin Powell to make a statement about this worldwide tragedy speaks volumes. Many around the world are pointing to Bush's choice to stay on vacation rather than make a statement as yet another example of America's callousness and insensivity. Way to win hearts and minds, Mr. President. You are an embarrassment.
Grrrrr....
The article that you've cited points out that Bush has indeed deepened the amount of aid that the U.S. is pledging to the victims of the crisis. In fact, the article goes on to point out that Bush has arranged for a meeting to discuss, among other things, the effects of the tsunami and what the role of the U.S. should be.
As it stands, it would appear that Bush has interrupted his vacation to deal, in some way, with the tsunami. What you want is for him to show himself on television to say something about it. What is more important in this case, words or actions? He pledged money that's going to get there.
I'm fairly certain that most of the other "world leaders" who have spoken on this issue aren't also quarterbacking what is, in essence, a war AND the restructuring of two countries.
The effects of the tsunami are tragic, and they affected a wide variety of people... but they still took place on foreign soil, and Bush is the president of the United States, not the King of the World. King George the Second needs to take care of American business first before he handles the events that take place in other countries. He was elected by us, not them.
All of that is beside the point, because, as far as I'm concerned, the aid that he's pledging is more important than a token press conference which, at this point, he's already given.
Clinton doesn't have anything else to do, so he can easily add to his legend by hopping in front of a camera and catering to his adoring liberal constituency. Afterwards, he doesn't have to do a damn thing. Who really cares what Clinton says? Let him peddle his revisionist books and shut the F up.
By the way, some of the quotes in that article are truly inane and despicable. Equating an intentional, domestic act of terror to a natural disaster on foreign soil and then implying that the two deserve an equal measure of concern from out government is flat out dumb.
Erik, if you got lost in a tsunami, I'd be more upset than anyone else, but I wouldn't fault the president for not talking about it. If Al Qaeda blew you up with a bomb while you were walking on the beach in Thailand, I'd be really pissed off, and you can bet the president would be as well. And, I guarantee you he'd say something.
Don't turn everything into a chance to say "Bush sucks." It betrays the level of contempt that you have for the man. If it weren't on tape, someone would blame Bush for throwing the beer that got Ron Artest riled up.
Even Chris Rock, unintentionally as it may have been, betrayed the hatred of liberals for Bush when he joked about how it was Bush that was "f'in Paris Hilton in that video."
The tsunami was tragic. You think it's an insult to the people who died that Bush took so long to give a public interview on the tragedy. I think it's a greater insult to remove the focus from the people who died and to place it on our president who not only had nothing to do with the tragedy, but had more important domestic issues on his agenda. Yet, he still addressed the problem and pledged our aid, demonstrating his understanding of the tragedy. You're acting like Bush said "F it," wiped is ass with the press clippings, and turned his back on Thailand. I'm sure they'd rather see Bush's money than Clinton's face.
ICD
It seems to me that every time Bush fucks up and Eric calls him on it, you accuse Erik of crazy liberal biases (I don't deny he has them, he is getting a PhD in sociology after all), as if that somehow takes away from the legitimacy of what he's saying. That's what those who did well on the LSATs call attacking the arguer and not the argument (and those, like me, who did not do as well call difficult to pick out on a test), and it is not considered a valid argument.
I don't care if George Bush is quarterbacking two wars or twelve, he could have taken some time sooner to say something, because at this point, the millions of dollars in aid are not going to get there for quite some time, but a short television message can be transmitted almost instantaneously.
If you are a Thai family sitting in Bangkok, staring at your TV, having just lost two kids in a Tsunami, and you hear that, while the leaders of almost all European nations have made a statement, the leader of the free world is still waiting to see how things "turn out", it says something to you. And when that leader of the free world is also commanding 400 of your soldiers in Iraq, your best doctors, technicians, and logistics experts, who could be very useful in disaster relief, it would help if he got up right away and said "don't worry, we're with you." Needless to say, it doesn't help the matter that while all this happened, he wasn't in his War Room planning strategy, or meeting with domestic economic advisors, but on vacation at a Texas ranch.
Saying that "actions speak louder than words" completely ignores what diplomacy, and in this case, public diplomacy, really is. A concise but timely and powerful statement of "you guys helped us out, and now we've got your backs, because I was elected by Americans but we're all human beings and have to help each other," goes a lot further than just writing a check. Personally, I don't buy the "waiting to see how it plays out" excuse. I can tell you how it plays out: when people fight a wave, the wave wins. Lots of people are dead and more will die or be discovered. If however, that was really what was happening, that he wanted to make an informed decision, then it just proves Erik's liberals' accusations of the administration's diplomatic ineptitude.
For better or worse, the president dropped the ball on this one diplomatically, and Erik called him on it. Suck it up and move on, that isn't a reason for a tirade against liberals. And Eric, as long as we're pointing out flawed arguments, there's always "I don't want to get political here, but I feel it necessary to point out yet another failing of our President," is pretty bad.
If you're following this story, The VitoNet, a far more awesome site than The Most Important Blog....Ever, has made initial contact with our two teams of field operatives in Thailand and will be compiling their reports starting later today and continuing all this week.
-Dave
All Awesome, All the Time
It seems to me that every time Bush fucks up and Eric calls him on it, you accuse Erik of crazy liberal biases (I don't deny he has them, he is getting a PhD in sociology after all), as if that somehow takes away from the legitimacy of what he's saying. That's what those who did well on the LSATs call attacking the arguer and not the argument (and those, like me, who did not do as well call difficult to pick out on a test), and it is not considered a valid argument.
-Actually, if the arguer frequently comes up with points that I feel are invalid, I think he's worth attacking. In this case, he's politicizing an event that isn't political. Thousands of people are dead, and he's picking on our president who couldn't have done one thing to prevent it. If Bush could have prevented the wave and didn't, I'd say "have at him." Bush is being attacked for not jumping in front of a camera as fast as humanly possible to say something positive about an F'ed up situation that was beyond anyone's control. The fact is, he said something, and pledged money, and for some people that's not good enough.-
I don't care if George Bush is quarterbacking two wars or twelve, he could have taken some time sooner to say something, because at this point, the millions of dollars in aid are not going to get there for quite some time, but a short television message can be transmitted almost instantaneously.
-What did you want him to say? "This is F'ed up"? I think the Thai's knew that. Better that he takes his time, gets all of his facts straight, and determines precisely how much aid is available to send before he jumps on the camera and starts making promises he can't keep. Again, it's easy for Clinton to say whatever he wants because he doesn't have to do a damn thing to back it up.-
If you are a Thai family sitting in Bangkok, staring at your TV, having just lost two kids in a Tsunami, and you hear that, while the leaders of almost all European nations have made a statement, the leader of the free world is still waiting to see how things "turn out", it says something to you. And when that leader of the free world is also commanding 400 of your soldiers in Iraq, your best doctors, technicians, and logistics experts, who could be very useful in disaster relief, it would help if he got up right away and said "don't worry, we're with you." Needless to say, it doesn't help the matter that while all this happened, he wasn't in his War Room planning strategy, or meeting with domestic economic advisors, but on vacation at a Texas ranch.
-You act like the Texas ranch isn't an equipped presidential headquarters, or that it's impossible to conduct any business from the ranch. Also, if I'm a Thai family who lost two kids, the last thing I care about is what a foreign president thinks about the situation. I sincerely doubt that the first thing that crossed their mind after losing their children is "what is Bush/America going to do about this?". "Don't worry, we're with you"? You probably lost 100,000 people. I think there's plenty of need to worry, and I don't think it matters a whole lot that we're "with them" if we're not actually sending help in some form.-
Saying that "actions speak louder than words" completely ignores what diplomacy, and in this case, public diplomacy, really is. A concise but timely and powerful statement of "you guys helped us out, and now we've got your backs, because I was elected by Americans but we're all human beings and have to help each other," goes a lot further than just writing a check. Personally, I don't buy the "waiting to see how it plays out" excuse. I can tell you how it plays out: when people fight a wave, the wave wins. Lots of people are dead and more will die or be discovered. If however, that was really what was happening, that he wanted to make an informed decision, then it just proves Erik's liberals' accusations of the administration's diplomatic ineptitude.
-Yes, it's inept for someone to make an informed decision. Next time, he should just shoot off his mouth without hearing from his staff. I'm sure the timely and powerful donation of $35 million will go a lot further than anything he could have said. I think that was the best possible demonstration of how he had their backs.-
For better or worse, the president dropped the ball on this one diplomatically, and Erik called him on it. Suck it up and move on, that isn't a reason for a tirade against liberals. And Eric, as long as we're pointing out flawed arguments, there's always "I don't want to get political here, but I feel it necessary to point out yet another failing of our President," is pretty bad.
-For better or for worse, the president has probably donated more money to Thailand relief that most other countries, and he didn't have to do it. Suck it up, and give credit where credit is due. The president did nothing wrong by not making an immediate speech. For the record, Erik made this political with his opening sentence. If he eliminates the opening line, and if I didn't know how he loathes the president anyway, then maybe his argument can be afforded more credibility.-
-The fact is, Erik hates Bush with a passion, and if Bush congratulated the Super Bowl winner and kept his speech too short, Erik would probably point it out as a presidential failing.-
ICD
Speaking of which...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142815,00.html
It would appear that the president was using his time to form an organized, international coalition to deal with the problem before he said anything. Very inept of the administration.
ICD
Bush got re-elected because making public statements in order to make a good impression on foreign leaders isn't one of his top priorities.
Salam Erik,
It is 2005 in Syria. Right now, Syria is one year advanced than US ;)
Enjoy each second of 2005 with health, happiness, love, and peace.
Abdulhadi
Thanks, Hadi, and salaam to you and your family as well.
Thanks, as well, to my amazing readers for this great and respectful debate.
Dave, I admit that "I don't want to get political... but" is lame, but I was anticipating Ian's unwarranted accusation that I was trying to politicize this unspeakable human tragedy to put more blame on Bush. Bush did that to himself, and I think the focus of this debate is right where it should be -- how best to help the vicitims of the disaster.
Phil, the criticism here isn't that Bush failed to "impress world leaders," but that he failed to impress the world's people. The US, in case you haven't noticed, is on probation around the world. Just about everyone hates us these days. Even our old friends. We need to make a good impression to get back on everyone's good side. The President is our chief diplomat and our face to the world. It is his responsibility to represent us. He chose to stay on vacation rather than perform that most basic of his roles while the entire world was in crisis mode over the disaster in Asia.
Again, compare this to the leaders of other nations. They all spoke out immediately to sympathize with the victims and to pledge support. Where was Bush? Ian, as much as you and I both don't like it, Bush really is seen as the leader of the entire world. There were US presidential political rallies in Pakistan last year. Everyone has an interest in the actions of the US government. Everyone was looking to Bush for some reassurance.
The great people who work in our government -- in the Pentagon and in the State Department and in our embassies worldwide -- began working on relief efforts within an hour of the tsunami. They began drawing up plans for rescue and aid and they have done incredible work. Individual Americans have donated with heartwarming generosity. Our government has pledged an amazing $350 million to help the survivors. All of this is an example of why America is great.
Bush wasn't taking his time preparing a coalition. The people working in the State Department were. And, besides, Bush could have continued "working" while taking 5 minutes to make a speech.
And all Bush had to do was get up and make a 5 minute speech saying "We feel your pain and our men and women in government are already working to help you." Making this speech would have given the world the correct impression about America -- that we're doing an incredible job of helping the survivors. Instead, he sent a deputy press secretary with no information out to make a pathetic statement linking our reaction to the disaster with the 'war on terror' to score some domestic politial points. Bush failed, again, and America's position as the greatest and most generous nation on the face of the earth remains in question around the world. All because our President failed to perform one of his basic duties as our head of state.