Bush backs down from ANOTHER promise

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: jjsole
Millions are dying in africa, and Bush does this? He deserves to be in hell.

Since when did the U.S. become responsible for AIDS in Africa? They should feel lucky that they get any money at all.

Well daniel, the US isn't responsible for AIDS in Africa. But we are responsible for promises made by our leaders.

Let me ask you this. If Bush had no intention, or if he had any hint he wouldn't be able, why did he make a promise he wasn't going to keep?

Was his intent just to get a photo op and some good press? How cynical. Making political hay on the deaths of millions of Africans dying from AIDS.

PS

There is no cure for AIDS. A pandemic doesn't spread based on nationality. Even if not for humanitarian reasons the US should be interested in controlling this plague for our own good.

Did you ignore what Bush "promised" in your rush to make political "hay" yourself? I think not - so please read my earlier post.

CkG

Read Bush's statement and the article I posted. How do you reconcile the two? Are you trying to say Bush didn't promise $15 billion including nearly $10 billion IN NEW MONEY over the next five years? Are you trying to say the Bush administration is now twisting arms to get Congress to cut the program?

"I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." - George W. Bush -January 28, 2003

"The Senate is scheduled to vote soon on an appropriations bill that contains $2 billion for the AIDS initiative ? only $500 million more than this year's spending. The House has approved even less. This is the White House's doing. It is twisting arms to get Congress to cut its own program. The House and Senate had authorized $3 billion for next year."

Direct quote from Bush vs an OpEd piece....Hmmmm.

How much did Bush promise?
Now exacty how much is getting put towards 'Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief'? 2 Billion? (If Congress will approve it)

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wouldn't $15 Billion over the next 5 years be $3 Billion/year? Where's all this fuzzy math coming from?

If you were informed on this issue you'd know that Bush's 'Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief' called for 2 billion for 2004 then ramp up from there.

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: jjsole
Millions are dying in africa, and Bush does this? He deserves to be in hell.

Since when did the U.S. become responsible for AIDS in Africa? They should feel lucky that they get any money at all.

Well daniel, the US isn't responsible for AIDS in Africa. But we are responsible for promises made by our leaders.

Let me ask you this. If Bush had no intention, or if he had any hint he wouldn't be able, why did he make a promise he wasn't going to keep?

Was his intent just to get a photo op and some good press? How cynical. Making political hay on the deaths of millions of Africans dying from AIDS.

PS

There is no cure for AIDS. A pandemic doesn't spread based on nationality. Even if not for humanitarian reasons the US should be interested in controlling this plague for our own good.

Did you ignore what Bush "promised" in your rush to make political "hay" yourself? I think not - so please read my earlier post.

CkG

Read Bush's statement and the article I posted. How do you reconcile the two? Are you trying to say Bush didn't promise $15 billion including nearly $10 billion IN NEW MONEY over the next five years? Are you trying to say the Bush administration is now twisting arms to get Congress to cut the program?

"I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." - George W. Bush -January 28, 2003

"The Senate is scheduled to vote soon on an appropriations bill that contains $2 billion for the AIDS initiative ? only $500 million more than this year's spending. The House has approved even less. This is the White House's doing. It is twisting arms to get Congress to cut its own program. The House and Senate had authorized $3 billion for next year."

Direct quote from Bush vs an OpEd piece....Hmmmm.

How much did Bush promise?
Now exacty how much is getting put towards 'Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief'? 2 Billion? (If Congress will approve it)

CkG

So just as I said Bush used the deaths of millions of people in Africa for a photo op and some positive press without ever intending to help them. What a disgrace.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: jjsole
Millions are dying in africa, and Bush does this? He deserves to be in hell.

Since when did the U.S. become responsible for AIDS in Africa? They should feel lucky that they get any money at all.

Well daniel, the US isn't responsible for AIDS in Africa. But we are responsible for promises made by our leaders.

Let me ask you this. If Bush had no intention, or if he had any hint he wouldn't be able, why did he make a promise he wasn't going to keep?

Was his intent just to get a photo op and some good press? How cynical. Making political hay on the deaths of millions of Africans dying from AIDS.

PS

There is no cure for AIDS. A pandemic doesn't spread based on nationality. Even if not for humanitarian reasons the US should be interested in controlling this plague for our own good.

Did you ignore what Bush "promised" in your rush to make political "hay" yourself? I think not - so please read my earlier post.

CkG

Read Bush's statement and the article I posted. How do you reconcile the two? Are you trying to say Bush didn't promise $15 billion including nearly $10 billion IN NEW MONEY over the next five years? Are you trying to say the Bush administration is now twisting arms to get Congress to cut the program?

"I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." - George W. Bush -January 28, 2003

"The Senate is scheduled to vote soon on an appropriations bill that contains $2 billion for the AIDS initiative ? only $500 million more than this year's spending. The House has approved even less. This is the White House's doing. It is twisting arms to get Congress to cut its own program. The House and Senate had authorized $3 billion for next year."

Direct quote from Bush vs an OpEd piece....Hmmmm.

How much did Bush promise?
Now exacty how much is getting put towards 'Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief'? 2 Billion? (If Congress will approve it)

CkG

So just as I said Bush used the deaths of millions of people in Africa for a photo op and some positive press without ever intending to help them. What a disgrace.

Huh? How does 2 Billion in funding(FY'04) for his 'Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief' translate into just a "photo op and some positive press without ever intending to help them."

Nice try though.

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: jjsole
Millions are dying in africa, and Bush does this? He deserves to be in hell.

Since when did the U.S. become responsible for AIDS in Africa? They should feel lucky that they get any money at all.

Well daniel, the US isn't responsible for AIDS in Africa. But we are responsible for promises made by our leaders.

Let me ask you this. If Bush had no intention, or if he had any hint he wouldn't be able, why did he make a promise he wasn't going to keep?

Was his intent just to get a photo op and some good press? How cynical. Making political hay on the deaths of millions of Africans dying from AIDS.

PS

There is no cure for AIDS. A pandemic doesn't spread based on nationality. Even if not for humanitarian reasons the US should be interested in controlling this plague for our own good.

Did you ignore what Bush "promised" in your rush to make political "hay" yourself? I think not - so please read my earlier post.

CkG

Read Bush's statement and the article I posted. How do you reconcile the two? Are you trying to say Bush didn't promise $15 billion including nearly $10 billion IN NEW MONEY over the next five years? Are you trying to say the Bush administration is now twisting arms to get Congress to cut the program?

"I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." - George W. Bush -January 28, 2003

"The Senate is scheduled to vote soon on an appropriations bill that contains $2 billion for the AIDS initiative ? only $500 million more than this year's spending. The House has approved even less. This is the White House's doing. It is twisting arms to get Congress to cut its own program. The House and Senate had authorized $3 billion for next year."

Direct quote from Bush vs an OpEd piece....Hmmmm.

How much did Bush promise?
Now exacty how much is getting put towards 'Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief'? 2 Billion? (If Congress will approve it)

CkG

So just as I said Bush used the deaths of millions of people in Africa for a photo op and some positive press without ever intending to help them. What a disgrace.

Huh? How does 2 Billion in funding(FY'04) for his 'Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief' translate into just a "photo op and some positive press without ever intending to help them."

Nice try though.

CkG

How does "only $500 million more than this year's spending" translate into ""I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." - George W. Bush -January 28, 2003???

$10 billion in NEW money over five years translates to $2 billion per year NOT $500 million.

Photo op. Press op. In reality BS.

Not even a good try. Just a disgrace.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
How does "only $500 million more than this year's spending" translate into ""I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." - George W. Bush -January 28, 2003???

$10 billion in NEW money over five years translates to $2 billion per year NOT $500 million.

Photo op. Press op. In reality BS.

Not even a good try. Just a disgrace.

Care to show how much was spent in previous years?
Did you know that Bush's "promise" was for 2 Billion for 2004?

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wouldn't $15 Billion over the next 5 years be $3 Billion/year? Where's all this fuzzy math coming from?

If you were informed on this issue you'd know that Bush's 'Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief' called for 2 billion for 2004 then ramp up from there.

CkG

Gotcha.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
How does "only $500 million more than this year's spending" translate into ""I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." - George W. Bush -January 28, 2003???

$10 billion in NEW money over five years translates to $2 billion per year NOT $500 million.

Photo op. Press op. In reality BS.

Not even a good try. Just a disgrace.

Care to show how much was spent in previous years?
Did you know that Bush's "promise" was for 2 Billion for 2004?

CkG

The amount spent in the previous years is not relevant. Bush made a promise with much fanfare. He reneged on that promise. That is the issue.

$500 million is not $2 billion. Period.

You are clutching at straws. Admit it. This is just another broken promise from Bush.

If he had no intention of keeping his word he simply shouldn't have said it. But he did say it and he did take advantage of the photo op and the good press his words garnered. That is simply wrong. It is a disgrace. He used the deaths of millions of AIDS victims for his own selfish political gain. Disgraceful.

And it is a pattern repeated by Bush throughout his presidency.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
How does "only $500 million more than this year's spending" translate into ""I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." - George W. Bush -January 28, 2003???

$10 billion in NEW money over five years translates to $2 billion per year NOT $500 million.

Photo op. Press op. In reality BS.

Not even a good try. Just a disgrace.

Care to show how much was spent in previous years?
Did you know that Bush's "promise" was for 2 Billion for 2004?

CkG

The amount spent in the previous years is not relevant. Bush made a promise with much fanfare. He reneged on that promise. That is the issue.

$500 million is not $2 billion. Period.

You are clutching at straws. Admit it. This is just another broken promise from Bush.

If he had no intention of keeping his word he simply shouldn't have said it. But he did say it and he did take advantage of the photo op and the good press his words garnered. That is simply wrong. It is a disgrace. He used the deaths of millions of AIDS victims for his own selfish political gain. Disgraceful.

And it is a pattern repeated by Bush throughout his presidency.

yes it is relevant - you are saying he is breaking his promise to increase Funding. I suggest you become informed on how much is currently being spent and how many $ are "new" and allocated to what. The info is out there. Bush isn't backing down on any "promise". The money is being increased and 2 Billion was slated for '04 and more will follow as promised.
Here is a little teaser
<snip>
"... Funding will begin with $2 billion in FY04, and ramp up thereafter. "
</snip>

Wonder what "ramp up" means.
Do you know how much Int'l funding has increased under the Bush administration?

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
How does "only $500 million more than this year's spending" translate into ""I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." - George W. Bush -January 28, 2003???

$10 billion in NEW money over five years translates to $2 billion per year NOT $500 million.

Photo op. Press op. In reality BS.

Not even a good try. Just a disgrace.

Care to show how much was spent in previous years?
Did you know that Bush's "promise" was for 2 Billion for 2004?

CkG

The amount spent in the previous years is not relevant. Bush made a promise with much fanfare. He reneged on that promise. That is the issue.

$500 million is not $2 billion. Period.

You are clutching at straws. Admit it. This is just another broken promise from Bush.

If he had no intention of keeping his word he simply shouldn't have said it. But he did say it and he did take advantage of the photo op and the good press his words garnered. That is simply wrong. It is a disgrace. He used the deaths of millions of AIDS victims for his own selfish political gain. Disgraceful.

And it is a pattern repeated by Bush throughout his presidency.

yes it is relevant - you are saying he is breaking his promise to increase Funding. I suggest you become informed on how much is currently being spent and how many $ are "new" and allocated to what. The info is out there. Bush isn't backing down on any "promise". The money is being increased and 2 Billion was slated for '04 and more will follow as promised.
Here is a little teaser
<snip>
"... Funding will begin with $2 billion in FY04, and ramp up thereafter. "
</snip>

Wonder what "ramp up" means.
Do you know how much Int'l funding has increased under the Bush administration?

CkG

CkG that is just ridiculous. There are millions of people in Africa dying from AIDS. Millions more are infected every year (thanks in part to the ludicrous insistence of the Bush administration in not supplying people with the simplest remedy, condoms, because they insist on not allowing any form of birth control with the threat of ending all funding to countries that do, but that's another story).

Those millions can't wait for Bush to "ramp up" the promised aid. And that is NOT what Bush said. Again, if Bush knew he couldn't keep his promise he should NEVER have made the promise. $10 billion in aid OVER the current amount.

If the Bush administration makes people dying from AIDS in Africa, where the life expentancy has is expected to drop
to UNDER 30 DUE TO AIDS, wait for the aid he promised to "ramp up" there very well may be no one left to benefit from the extra aid he promised.

This is a cynical, selfish use of the suffering and deaths of MILLIONS for personal political gain. It is the pattern of the Bush administration. Stop making excuses for this kind of activity. Stop evading the truth. The news reports of Bush's promise to increase AIDS funds to Africa never mentioned ramping up aid. That excuse is a horrible indictment of the Bush administration, Bush has a habit of saying one thing for the cameras and changing it all once the cameras are turned off. This kind of behavior is inexcusable.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
How does "only $500 million more than this year's spending" translate into ""I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." - George W. Bush -January 28, 2003???

$10 billion in NEW money over five years translates to $2 billion per year NOT $500 million.

Photo op. Press op. In reality BS.

Not even a good try. Just a disgrace.

Care to show how much was spent in previous years?
Did you know that Bush's "promise" was for 2 Billion for 2004?

CkG

The amount spent in the previous years is not relevant. Bush made a promise with much fanfare. He reneged on that promise. That is the issue.

$500 million is not $2 billion. Period.

You are clutching at straws. Admit it. This is just another broken promise from Bush.

If he had no intention of keeping his word he simply shouldn't have said it. But he did say it and he did take advantage of the photo op and the good press his words garnered. That is simply wrong. It is a disgrace. He used the deaths of millions of AIDS victims for his own selfish political gain. Disgraceful.

And it is a pattern repeated by Bush throughout his presidency.

yes it is relevant - you are saying he is breaking his promise to increase Funding. I suggest you become informed on how much is currently being spent and how many $ are "new" and allocated to what. The info is out there. Bush isn't backing down on any "promise". The money is being increased and 2 Billion was slated for '04 and more will follow as promised.
Here is a little teaser
<snip>
"... Funding will begin with $2 billion in FY04, and ramp up thereafter. "
</snip>

Wonder what "ramp up" means.
Do you know how much Int'l funding has increased under the Bush administration?

CkG

CkG that is just ridiculous. There are millions of people in Africa dying from AIDS. Millions more are infected every year (thanks in part to the ludicrous insistence of the Bush administration in not supplying people with the simplest remedy, condoms, because they insist on not allowing any form of birth control with the threat of ending all funding to countries that do, but that's another story).

Those millions can't wait for Bush to "ramp up" the promised aid. And that is NOT what Bush said. Again, if Bush knew he couldn't keep his promise he should NEVER have made the promise. $10 billion in aid OVER the current amount.

If the Bush administration makes people dying from AIDS in Africa, where the life expentancy has is expected to drop
to UNDER 30 DUE TO AIDS, wait for the aid he promised to "ramp up" there very well may be no one left to benefit from the extra aid he promised.

This is a cynical, selfish use of the suffering and deaths of MILLIONS for personal political gain. It is the pattern of the Bush administration. Stop making excuses for this kind of activity. Stop evading the truth. The news reports of Bush's promise to increase AIDS funds to Africa never mentioned ramping up aid. That excuse is a horrible indictment of the Bush administration, Bush has a habit of saying one thing for the cameras and changing it all once the cameras are turned off. This kind of behavior is inexcusable.

Still no research I see, just more emotional rhetoric which is already being addressed.

Hint. FY2001(The last Great Clinton Budget) - The TOTAL amount of $ spent on the Global(outside the US) Aids funding was 726million.

Come on BOBDN - I thought you knew this subject - so you could call Bush on his "broken promise". So far what I see is that 2Billion is being proposed(FY'04) by Bush(has to get approved by Congress) and that 2 Billion was stated as being what was going to be alloted(for FY'04). I fail to see how he's broken his promise. Did you think he was going to write a 15Billion dollar check and then sit idle for 5 years? The Budget doesn't work that way my friend.

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
How does "only $500 million more than this year's spending" translate into ""I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." - George W. Bush -January 28, 2003???

$10 billion in NEW money over five years translates to $2 billion per year NOT $500 million.

Photo op. Press op. In reality BS.

Not even a good try. Just a disgrace.

Care to show how much was spent in previous years?
Did you know that Bush's "promise" was for 2 Billion for 2004?

CkG

The amount spent in the previous years is not relevant. Bush made a promise with much fanfare. He reneged on that promise. That is the issue.

$500 million is not $2 billion. Period.

You are clutching at straws. Admit it. This is just another broken promise from Bush.

If he had no intention of keeping his word he simply shouldn't have said it. But he did say it and he did take advantage of the photo op and the good press his words garnered. That is simply wrong. It is a disgrace. He used the deaths of millions of AIDS victims for his own selfish political gain. Disgraceful.

And it is a pattern repeated by Bush throughout his presidency.

yes it is relevant - you are saying he is breaking his promise to increase Funding. I suggest you become informed on how much is currently being spent and how many $ are "new" and allocated to what. The info is out there. Bush isn't backing down on any "promise". The money is being increased and 2 Billion was slated for '04 and more will follow as promised.
Here is a little teaser
<snip>
"... Funding will begin with $2 billion in FY04, and ramp up thereafter. "
</snip>

Wonder what "ramp up" means.
Do you know how much Int'l funding has increased under the Bush administration?

CkG

CkG that is just ridiculous. There are millions of people in Africa dying from AIDS. Millions more are infected every year (thanks in part to the ludicrous insistence of the Bush administration in not supplying people with the simplest remedy, condoms, because they insist on not allowing any form of birth control with the threat of ending all funding to countries that do, but that's another story).

Those millions can't wait for Bush to "ramp up" the promised aid. And that is NOT what Bush said. Again, if Bush knew he couldn't keep his promise he should NEVER have made the promise. $10 billion in aid OVER the current amount.

If the Bush administration makes people dying from AIDS in Africa, where the life expentancy has is expected to drop
to UNDER 30 DUE TO AIDS, wait for the aid he promised to "ramp up" there very well may be no one left to benefit from the extra aid he promised.

This is a cynical, selfish use of the suffering and deaths of MILLIONS for personal political gain. It is the pattern of the Bush administration. Stop making excuses for this kind of activity. Stop evading the truth. The news reports of Bush's promise to increase AIDS funds to Africa never mentioned ramping up aid. That excuse is a horrible indictment of the Bush administration, Bush has a habit of saying one thing for the cameras and changing it all once the cameras are turned off. This kind of behavior is inexcusable.

Still no research I see, just more emotional rhetoric which is already being addressed.

Hint. FY2001(The last Great Clinton Budget) - The TOTAL amount of $ spent on the Global(outside the US) Aids funding was 726million.

Come on BOBDN - I thought you knew this subject - so you could call Bush on his "broken promise". So far what I see is that 2Billion is being proposed(FY'04) by Bush(has to get approved by Congress) and that 2 Billion was stated as being what was going to be alloted(for FY'04). I fail to see how he's broken his promise. Did you think he was going to write a 15Billion dollar check and then sit idle for 5 years? The Budget doesn't work that way my friend.

CkG

No research? Did you read the link?

The global AIDS epidemic has increased exponentially over the years. Whatever previous administrations spent on AIDS was based on the number of cases and need at the time and had NO BEARING on the amount Bush promised to increase AIDS funding by.

Bush made the promise. Bush broke the promise. If he had no intention of keeping his promise he shouldn't have made it and he shouldn't have basked in the glow of all those news camera lights in typical Bush fashion.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
How does "only $500 million more than this year's spending" translate into ""I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean." - George W. Bush -January 28, 2003???

$10 billion in NEW money over five years translates to $2 billion per year NOT $500 million.

Photo op. Press op. In reality BS.

Not even a good try. Just a disgrace.

Care to show how much was spent in previous years?
Did you know that Bush's "promise" was for 2 Billion for 2004?

CkG

The amount spent in the previous years is not relevant. Bush made a promise with much fanfare. He reneged on that promise. That is the issue.

$500 million is not $2 billion. Period.

You are clutching at straws. Admit it. This is just another broken promise from Bush.

If he had no intention of keeping his word he simply shouldn't have said it. But he did say it and he did take advantage of the photo op and the good press his words garnered. That is simply wrong. It is a disgrace. He used the deaths of millions of AIDS victims for his own selfish political gain. Disgraceful.

And it is a pattern repeated by Bush throughout his presidency.

yes it is relevant - you are saying he is breaking his promise to increase Funding. I suggest you become informed on how much is currently being spent and how many $ are "new" and allocated to what. The info is out there. Bush isn't backing down on any "promise". The money is being increased and 2 Billion was slated for '04 and more will follow as promised.
Here is a little teaser
<snip>
"... Funding will begin with $2 billion in FY04, and ramp up thereafter. "
</snip>

Wonder what "ramp up" means.
Do you know how much Int'l funding has increased under the Bush administration?

CkG

CkG that is just ridiculous. There are millions of people in Africa dying from AIDS. Millions more are infected every year (thanks in part to the ludicrous insistence of the Bush administration in not supplying people with the simplest remedy, condoms, because they insist on not allowing any form of birth control with the threat of ending all funding to countries that do, but that's another story).

Those millions can't wait for Bush to "ramp up" the promised aid. And that is NOT what Bush said. Again, if Bush knew he couldn't keep his promise he should NEVER have made the promise. $10 billion in aid OVER the current amount.

If the Bush administration makes people dying from AIDS in Africa, where the life expentancy has is expected to drop
to UNDER 30 DUE TO AIDS, wait for the aid he promised to "ramp up" there very well may be no one left to benefit from the extra aid he promised.

This is a cynical, selfish use of the suffering and deaths of MILLIONS for personal political gain. It is the pattern of the Bush administration. Stop making excuses for this kind of activity. Stop evading the truth. The news reports of Bush's promise to increase AIDS funds to Africa never mentioned ramping up aid. That excuse is a horrible indictment of the Bush administration, Bush has a habit of saying one thing for the cameras and changing it all once the cameras are turned off. This kind of behavior is inexcusable.

Still no research I see, just more emotional rhetoric which is already being addressed.

Hint. FY2001(The last Great Clinton Budget) - The TOTAL amount of $ spent on the Global(outside the US) Aids funding was 726million.

Come on BOBDN - I thought you knew this subject - so you could call Bush on his "broken promise". So far what I see is that 2Billion is being proposed(FY'04) by Bush(has to get approved by Congress) and that 2 Billion was stated as being what was going to be alloted(for FY'04). I fail to see how he's broken his promise. Did you think he was going to write a 15Billion dollar check and then sit idle for 5 years? The Budget doesn't work that way my friend.

CkG

No research? Did you read the link?

The global AIDS epidemic has increased exponentially over the years. Whatever previous administrations spent on AIDS was based on the number of cases and need at the time and had NO BEARING on the amount Bush promised to increase AIDS funding by.

Bush made the promise. Bush broke the promise. If he had no intention of keeping his promise he shouldn't have made it and he shouldn't have basked in the glow of all those news camera lights in typical Bush fashion.

Hehe - did YOU read your link? www.vomitus.com/museum/rants/aids_in_africa.html Did you check the date too? LOS ANGELES TIMES: Tuesday, July 11, 2000

Bush made a promise - he is NOT breaking it by funding Global AIDS projects $2 Billion for FY'04. That is exactly what was proposed. Sorry you can't see the truth.

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

$10 billion in ADDITIONAL aid. Period.

$15 billion TOTAL over the next five years. Period.

The millions of AIDS victims in Africa were promised this. They can't afford to wait.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Hehe - did YOU read your link? www.vomitus.com/museum/rants/aids_in_africa.html Did you check the date too? LOS ANGELES TIMES: Tuesday, July 11, 2000

Bush made a promise - he is NOT breaking it by funding Global AIDS projects $2 Billion for FY'04. That is exactly what was proposed. Sorry you can't see the truth.

CkG

Did YOU read the link?

"Nearly three-quarters of the 34 million people living with AIDS reside in sub-Saharan Africa, and deaths are increasing at a rate that scientists would have found incomprehensible only a few years ago."

"About 5,500 now die of AIDS every day, but researchers predict that about 13,000 will die daily by 2010."

"Stanecki predicted that within three years, the populations of Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe will begin to drop by 0.1% to 0.3% per year because of AIDS deaths. In the absence of the epidemic, those populations would have risen about 1% to 3% per year."

The epidemic is ACCELERATING as predicted in this piece in. That is the point. It matters not the piece was written in July 2000. If you read the piece you'd realize what matters is the predictions were accurate for NOW and the FUTURE.

Bush made the promise. This has NOTHING to do with prior funding. Bush made the promise. This has EVERYTHING to do with Bush travelling to Africa to divert attention from Iraq, making a PROMISE to increase funding for AIDS for no other reason than a blatant photo and press op for his own selfish political motives then reneging on the promise ASAP. Disgraceful.

I would go so far as to expect Bush to use this during the coming campaign as proof of his committment to fight AIDS while the truth is he NEVER intended keep his promise. This administration is an outrage. Disgusting.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Hehe - did YOU read your link? www.vomitus.com/museum/rants/aids_in_africa.html Did you check the date too? LOS ANGELES TIMES: Tuesday, July 11, 2000

Bush made a promise - he is NOT breaking it by funding Global AIDS projects $2 Billion for FY'04. That is exactly what was proposed. Sorry you can't see the truth.

CkG

Did YOU read the link?

"Nearly three-quarters of the 34 million people living with AIDS reside in sub-Saharan Africa, and deaths are increasing at a rate that scientists would have found incomprehensible only a few years ago."

"About 5,500 now die of AIDS every day, but researchers predict that about 13,000 will die daily by 2010."

"Stanecki predicted that within three years, the populations of Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe will begin to drop by 0.1% to 0.3% per year because of AIDS deaths. In the absence of the epidemic, those populations would have risen about 1% to 3% per year."

The epidemic is ACCELERATING as predicted in this piece in. That is the point. It matters not the piece was written in July 2000. If you read the piece you'd realize what matters is the predictions were accurate for NOW and the FUTURE.

Bush made the promise. This has NOTHING to do with prior funding. Bush made the promise. This has EVERYTHING to do with Bush travelling to Africa to divert attention from Iraq, making a PROMISE to increase funding for AIDS for no other reason than a blatant photo and press op for his own selfish political motives then reneging on the promise ASAP. Disgraceful.

I would go so far as to expect Bush to use this during the coming campaign as proof of his committment to fight AIDS while the truth is he NEVER intended keep his promise. This administration is an outrage. Disgusting.

Hey! I've got an idea! How about the U.S. stops spending money to stop AIDS in Africa, and people stop having unprotected sex, especially with those infected in AIDS. It's so simple!

Why is the fact that AIDS is spreading Bush's fault? Because he is spending more money than any other president to stop AIDS? So, before you start inventing these black-helicopter leftist stories that Bush was trying to divert attention from the war and thta he never planned to spend this money on AIDS, why don't you look at the facts that have been pointed out by CAD.

Bush didn't need to divert attention from the war that the majority of Americans supported, and still do!

 

[BoberFett]

If Bush gave shoes to every person in the world that didn't own a pair, BOBDN would be livid that Bush didn't also give them socks.

Yet another wonderful thread by BOBDN: Professional Bush Hater.

 

[Pers]

clinton got head.

heh

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
If Bush gave shoes to every person in the world that didn't own a pair, BOBDN would be livid that Bush didn't also give them socks.

Yet another wonderful thread by BOBDN: Professional Bush Hater.

You and daniel113 don't get it and you'll apparently never get it.

The Bush administration tied funding for clinics all over the world to them NOT giving the option of birth control to families IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, INCLUDING CONDOMS.

So the answer your question is YES Bush is responsible through the policies of his administration.

You two geniuses also fail to address the FACT that Bush went to Africa, made promises he had NO intention of keeping in order to reap the benefits in the press. You find nothing wrong with that?

Yet another apology from bober and daniel: Professional Bush Lovers. Get the guy a dozen roses already. Or maybe he should give you two a dozen each. After all he's already F***ed you.

 

[BoberFett]

Oh, I get it. I think Bush is scum. What you don't seem to get is that all politicians are scum. You'd bend over backwards to give Clinton and Gore a blowjob. You pin all the evils in the world on Bush because he's a convenient target right now. But I'll bet dollars to donuts you were a Clinton apologist. "It was only a blowjob, why are you bothering Clinton? The man is a saint. Ignore the fact that he's been lobbing missiles into Iraq for nearly a decade without UN backing."

Get it straight, I'll never be satisified with who's in office. It's to be expected that the kind of power the presidency wields is bound to draw the slimiest of the slimy. But you are partisan politics at it's worst. You think the world would puppies and rainbows right now if only that evil Bush hadn't stolen the election. If Gore, the rightful king... errr.... president, was running the show, there would be an end to all suffering in the world.

Get real.

 

[numark]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: jjsole
Millions are dying in africa, and Bush does this? He deserves to be in hell.

Since when did the U.S. become responsible for AIDS in Africa? They should feel lucky that they get any money at all.

Because what happens in Africa with AIDS affects all of us. If we had been prepared for the emergence of AIDS 30 or 40 years ago, it's quite possible we wouldn't have the epidemic we have now. Likewise, if we can bring down the number of people suffering from AIDS in Africa today, we have a real change of curbing the epidemic before it becomes any more serious. With diseases as devastating and contagious as HIV, you can't afford to see it from an isolationist view. It's all just a big net interconnecting all parts of the world together.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: BoberFett

You two geniuses also fail to address the FACT that Bush went to Africa, made promises he had NO intention of keeping in order to reap the benefits in the press. You find nothing wrong with that?

How do you know that when Bush made that promise in Africa, he had no intention of keeping it? Perhaps he did have every intention of keeping it, but then something happened that he had no control over. Come back if you can prove that he did all of this "in order to reap the benefits in the press".