diamond
ONE love, blood, life
In my unbiased view..
GW coulda been a rock-star.
thank u-
DB3
GW coulda been a rock-star.
thank u-
DB3
Bush Speech
- Thread starter bonosloveslave
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Zoomerang96
ONE love, blood, life
ya, your right and he is - ted nugent.
oliveu2cm
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Mrs. Edge said:
I thought his was an excellent speech also. Why all Americans aren't Democrats is puzzling to me....
me either!
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
democrats need a father figure
thank u-
db3
thank u-
db3
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I have to say that I am positively surprised. Me, as a nonamerican, I was quite "america-patriotic", so to say; I stayed up until three in the night to see him live. So, I?ve slept only 3 hours, but it was worth it.
On my TV station they were talking about 50 million $, not 15 billion $, but as you are all agreeing on the amount of money, I have to say that this sum goes in the direction of nearly satisfying me, if its pushed through (should have been 50 billion $, but ok, its a good start). If they really do it. Which I hope. Keep the pressure up! Nail him to this point! Its important.
So, diamond - this is the only part of the speech that I really liked. I was disgusted by some other parts. But I must say, the talk about Africa and AIDS surprised me positively. For an american president this was the right thing to do. You were right that one time. I only hope he keeps his promises.
On my TV station they were talking about 50 million $, not 15 billion $, but as you are all agreeing on the amount of money, I have to say that this sum goes in the direction of nearly satisfying me, if its pushed through (should have been 50 billion $, but ok, its a good start). If they really do it. Which I hope. Keep the pressure up! Nail him to this point! Its important.
So, diamond - this is the only part of the speech that I really liked. I was disgusted by some other parts. But I must say, the talk about Africa and AIDS surprised me positively. For an american president this was the right thing to do. You were right that one time. I only hope he keeps his promises.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
yes a rockstardiamond said:In my unbiased view..
GW coulda been a rock-star.
thank u-
DB3
like a mixture of-
Gary Numan/Tommy Tutone/and a splash of-David Bowie for sexiness
thank u hiphop and for your openmindedness as well as others here
DB9
oktobergirl
Refugee
A Cautious Approach to the Bush AIDS pledge
The Washington Office on Africa (Washington, DC)
PRESS RELEASE
January 29, 2003
Posted to the web January 29, 2003
Washington, DC
The Washington Office on Africa greeted the pledge for new funds to confront the AIDS pandemic in Africa by President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address last night with caution.
While welcoming the pledge of a five-year $15 billion initiative as a significant step forward, Executive Director Leon P. Spencer noted today that the minimal Bush administration commitment to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and the "notorious" US government stance on African access to affordable medicines, left him wary of the announcement.
"Based upon a fair US share to address the defined international need," Spencer said, "the US should have contributed $2.5 billion in the 2003 budget year, with around $1.2 billion going to the Global Fund, which it has failed abysmally to do. An appropriate US share in 2004 is $3.5 billion, and yet here is the President promising only $2 billion next year. Yes, these are significantly higher figures than the Bush administration has been prepared to consider before, but they remain inadequate."
Spencer also expressed concern that only $1 billion is promised the Global Fund out of the new money over the next five years. "Despite indications from the President's own National Security Council that the Global Fund is effective, he retains his unilateralist mentality and dooms this important international effort," Spencer declared.
The Washington Office on Africa joined with other advocacy advocates in appreciating Bush's comments about the importance of treatment. "Our hope is that significant funds will indeed be directed toward making medicines available" Spencer said. "If so, I will be intrigued to see the conditions," he added, "for the United States has worked intensively to protect pharmaceutical corporations while seeking to appear concerned about providing life-saving drugs to those truly in need."
The World Trade Organization, meeting in Doha in 2001, had agreed that public health should take precedence over pharmaceutical patents. But what was left unresolved was how African nations lacking capacity to manufacture their own "generic" drugs could obtain them from others more cheaply. In further negotiations, the US stood alone in blocking a Mexican-brokered deal which the rest of the world was prepared to endorse. "The Bush administration is determined to serve the interests of drug companies," Spencer claimed. "For Bush to say he believes denial of treatment is wrong is hopeful, but there are no grounds to trust this administration if a choice must be made between drug patents and African lives."
Spencer indicated a final concern over the President's State of the Union commitments. "He promises $15 billion over five years," Spencer remarked, "but $5 billion of that is not new money. Where is it going to come from? If the administration proposes reducing development assistance that addresses other pressing African needs, then this is not helpful for human development and poverty reduction in Africa."
"We have no quarrel with the substance of the Bush message last night," Spencer concluded. "He says he supports prevention and treatment for all that need it, that the massive tragedy of the AIDS pandemic is intolerable, and that the US should lead in this global effort. Excellent. If that means he accepts the wisdom of provision of generic drugs - which is the only way to make his numbers work - excellent. If that means he will provide significant new funds at once, excellent. If that means he will be prepared to lead in the global effort through multinational initiatives - implying that the US contribution to a Global Fund is negotiable upwards - excellent. With those interpretations, his remarks last night deserve our congratulations."
Note: The Washington Office on Africa is a church-sponsored advocacy organization seeking to articulate and promote a just American policy toward Africa. Founded in 1972 to support the movement for freedom from white-minority rule in southern Africa, WOA now has an expanded mission which seeks to address issues affecting grassroots African interests throughout the continent. We monitor Congressional legislation and executive policies and actions and issue action alerts to advance progressive legislation and policy. We seek to work in partnership with colleagues in Africa, the Africa advocacy community in the United States, and grassroots organizations concerned with various aspects of African affairs.
The Washington Office on Africa (Washington, DC)
PRESS RELEASE
January 29, 2003
Posted to the web January 29, 2003
Washington, DC
The Washington Office on Africa greeted the pledge for new funds to confront the AIDS pandemic in Africa by President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address last night with caution.
While welcoming the pledge of a five-year $15 billion initiative as a significant step forward, Executive Director Leon P. Spencer noted today that the minimal Bush administration commitment to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and the "notorious" US government stance on African access to affordable medicines, left him wary of the announcement.
"Based upon a fair US share to address the defined international need," Spencer said, "the US should have contributed $2.5 billion in the 2003 budget year, with around $1.2 billion going to the Global Fund, which it has failed abysmally to do. An appropriate US share in 2004 is $3.5 billion, and yet here is the President promising only $2 billion next year. Yes, these are significantly higher figures than the Bush administration has been prepared to consider before, but they remain inadequate."
Spencer also expressed concern that only $1 billion is promised the Global Fund out of the new money over the next five years. "Despite indications from the President's own National Security Council that the Global Fund is effective, he retains his unilateralist mentality and dooms this important international effort," Spencer declared.
The Washington Office on Africa joined with other advocacy advocates in appreciating Bush's comments about the importance of treatment. "Our hope is that significant funds will indeed be directed toward making medicines available" Spencer said. "If so, I will be intrigued to see the conditions," he added, "for the United States has worked intensively to protect pharmaceutical corporations while seeking to appear concerned about providing life-saving drugs to those truly in need."
The World Trade Organization, meeting in Doha in 2001, had agreed that public health should take precedence over pharmaceutical patents. But what was left unresolved was how African nations lacking capacity to manufacture their own "generic" drugs could obtain them from others more cheaply. In further negotiations, the US stood alone in blocking a Mexican-brokered deal which the rest of the world was prepared to endorse. "The Bush administration is determined to serve the interests of drug companies," Spencer claimed. "For Bush to say he believes denial of treatment is wrong is hopeful, but there are no grounds to trust this administration if a choice must be made between drug patents and African lives."
Spencer indicated a final concern over the President's State of the Union commitments. "He promises $15 billion over five years," Spencer remarked, "but $5 billion of that is not new money. Where is it going to come from? If the administration proposes reducing development assistance that addresses other pressing African needs, then this is not helpful for human development and poverty reduction in Africa."
"We have no quarrel with the substance of the Bush message last night," Spencer concluded. "He says he supports prevention and treatment for all that need it, that the massive tragedy of the AIDS pandemic is intolerable, and that the US should lead in this global effort. Excellent. If that means he accepts the wisdom of provision of generic drugs - which is the only way to make his numbers work - excellent. If that means he will provide significant new funds at once, excellent. If that means he will be prepared to lead in the global effort through multinational initiatives - implying that the US contribution to a Global Fund is negotiable upwards - excellent. With those interpretations, his remarks last night deserve our congratulations."
Note: The Washington Office on Africa is a church-sponsored advocacy organization seeking to articulate and promote a just American policy toward Africa. Founded in 1972 to support the movement for freedom from white-minority rule in southern Africa, WOA now has an expanded mission which seeks to address issues affecting grassroots African interests throughout the continent. We monitor Congressional legislation and executive policies and actions and issue action alerts to advance progressive legislation and policy. We seek to work in partnership with colleagues in Africa, the Africa advocacy community in the United States, and grassroots organizations concerned with various aspects of African affairs.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Thanks for that post Octobergirl. I'm also cautiously optimistic.
Sherry Darling
New Yorker
I meet with my fellow Jubilee gals, the Washington Office on Africa (quoted in the above article) and some other faith-based social action groups (the Methodist Social Action, UCC, Cathoic Relief Services, etc). The mood was very excited and stunned. The biggest complaint I heard, keeping in mind the overall "wow!" of our general reaction, was that only part of the money goes to the Global Fund. The rest goes to USAID. A lot of us didn't even expect AIDS or Africa to be mentioned. The word is that it will pass the Senate but might be stuck in the House. I'll do my best to keep yall updated. Meanwhile, I've got a letter of thanks, encouragement and accountability to write.
Don't forget to call him tomorrow if you haven't already!
SD
Don't forget to call him tomorrow if you haven't already!
SD
gvox
Ghost of Love
I'm just wondering, am serious here, has the US even made good on its initial pledge that Bono got out of Bush, somewhere in the neighborhood of $3B for debt forgiveness or whatever?
Somewhere recently I read that so far only Ireland and Canada had ponied up their pledges?
Factoids, anyone?
Besides, if a full scale war happens, won't they somehow reserve the right to freeze all these pledges? In that aspect it all sounds kinda hollow to me then...
Somewhere recently I read that so far only Ireland and Canada had ponied up their pledges?
Factoids, anyone?
Besides, if a full scale war happens, won't they somehow reserve the right to freeze all these pledges? In that aspect it all sounds kinda hollow to me then...
deep
Blue Crack Addict
diamond said:In my unbiased view..
GW coulda been a rock-star.
Everybody knows (nose) he partied like a rock star.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Sherry Darling said:
post that number again plez.
thanks-
diamond
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
diamond:
COMMENTS: 202-456-1111
SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
COMMENTS: 202-456-1111
SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
thanks.whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
db9
Sherry Darling
New Yorker
diamond said:
Just a reminder that the #'s to Congress, the White House and the US Treasury are ALWAYS on the site in my sig if anyone needs 'em for future ref. No excuses.
Thanks Diamond, and thanks whenhiphop.
SD
Kristie
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
thoughts:
- the standing and clapping every 10 seconds thing IS really annoying
- God, I hope that $15 billion passes...
- It really makes me nervous when any politician uses such an ambiguous term as "evil." Or any term seen as negative that doesn't have a widely-accepted definition. Not that I don't think Saddam is trouble, but if he'd said it about abortion, or about the death penalty, or about anything, it'd still make me nervous... Once you start attacking things because they're "evil," when do you stop?
