Saturday, January 08, 2005

Tsunami - Guardian bashes US

Seems everyone wants to use the tsunami disaster to bash the US. Here is The Guardian's usual tripe.

George Bush took his time before responding in person to the tsunami disaster. When he finally faced the press on December 29, his comments proved provocative. Speaking at his holiday ranch in Crawford, Texas, the US president raised his initial aid offer from $15m (£8.2m) to $35m (£19.3m). Then he announced that America was taking charge.

Well, gee, Simon what is more important, holding press conferences or ordering US military to immediately give assistance and coordinate world wide resources via the Texas "White House"?

And, Simon, what is this crap "When he finally faced the press"? Why don't you just come on out and say it you coward? Are you trying to imply Bush was hiding or something?

Strange, Simon, no one else seemed to step up to the plate and say they were taking charge. And who should be in charge, Simon? The totally ineffectual and corrupt UN? Unfortunately, Bush has bowed to public pressure and turned things over to the UN; now that the US has provided the first and most needed assistance.

"We've established a regional core group with India, Japan and Australia to help coordinate relief efforts," Mr Bush said. Meanwhile, the US military was on the way.

Nice of you to notice Simon. Simon, can you name another military on the planet the could have reacted as fast and provided the vital assistance that saved thousands more lives? No? Didn't think so.

Simons attack continues.

Mr Bush made no mention of the central coordinating role of the United Nations. Nor did he offer direct assistance to the several UN agencies that were already tackling the disaster.

That's probably because it doesn't exist Simon. Hey, Simon, have checked on how well the UN is actually doing on the ground, in you know, the actual disaster area? That is the point of the exercise is it not Simon, saving lives? The UN is not well and if anyone listened to you and your dog trainer of a newspaper, the death toll would be a lot higher. For your education, Simon, here is a report from a Diplomat on the scene.

Sitting VERY late for two consecutive nights in interminable meetings with UN reps, hearing them go on about "taking the lead coordination role," pledges, and the impending arrival of this or that UN big shot or assessment/coordination team, for the millionth time I realized that if not for Australia and America almost nobody in the tsunami-affected areas would have survived more than a few days. If we had waited for the UNocrats to get their act coordinated, the already massive death toll would have become astronomical. But, fortunately, thanks to "retrograde racist war-mongers " such as John Howard and George W. Bush, as we sat in air conditioned meeting rooms with these UNocrats, young Australians and Americans were at that moment "coordinating" without the UN and saving the lives of tens-of-thousands of people.

Simon, the UN could not organize a piss up in a brewery.

But Simon is not done getting the most anti-American sentiment out of this tragedy yet.

Instead, when asked about an assertion by Jan Egeland, the UN's emergency relief coordinator, that western aid contributions were generally "stingy", Mr Bush testily dismissed him as "misguided and ill-informed".

Mr Bush subsequently changed his tune as the enormous scale of the disaster unfolded - and as subtler political calculations came into play.

Really, Simon? As the scale of the disaster rose so to did America's and other countries contributions. America was not stingy in the beginning and not stingy as the scale escalated. So Bush was correct about Egelnd and you conveniently leave out the fact that Egeland withdrew his charge.

That's right Simon, Bush finally woke up and saw what a great political coup this could be for America. What a great distraction from the war in Iraq this would make. Gee, Simon, it's, it's, almost as if Bush created the tsunami for America's benefit. What do think Simon? Simon? Take off that tin hat and answer me, damnit.

I'm not going to go on and give this moron more of my time. The entire piece is just a hatchet job on the US.

The Guardian and this so called dog trainer of a newspaper should be ashamed of themselves. They accuse Bush of using, almost creating, this tsunami for political gain while the Guardian uses the disaster as a pretext to attack America.

Britain are you proud of this so called newspaper? If not, the complaint form to the Guardian reader representative and editor are on the left. Email them and complain, I did.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

for your information most people in the Uk view the guardian as a basically sound unbiased newspaper. maybe you are a little biased yourself??

Brain Bliss