Bono's silence is strange and disappointing

[Aine]

Yes it is.He's been showing his social&political consciousness all
the time,he made himself almost a new Lennon.His concern about Africa,Burma etc is something to be highly appreciated,as well as being the only European to take part in the video dedicated to September,11 tragic events.
But surely the current situation with Iraq is no less important?!?
Surely it would be interesting to hear what Bono thinks about
President Bush's policy?people in Britain,Germany,Australia,
Thailand,New Zealand protesting against the war?big event,eh?
Oh he can only criticise those guys in Burma?
Sorry,but I needed to vent.Don't flame me,I'm not trying to say
"Bono should show his anti-war views because he once wrote
Bullet the Blue Sky" or something like that.I'm just amazed at his
not saying ANYTHING at all.How come he's suddenly become so
politically indifferent??

[Dreadsox]

15 Billion Dollars.

[anitram]

I believe everybody has a right to form their own opinions, and it just very well might be that I disagree with Bono's at the moment. That's fine, it's the way of the world, although I am disappointed.

We all have to rebel against our own indifference somehow. Keep on marching for peace, keep rebelling. That is your part, regardless of what Bono does.

[BAW]

Does he really owe us his opinion?

[Screaming Flower]

Originally posted by Dreadsox
15 Billion Dollars.

exactly. he's smart enough to keep his eyes on the (possible) prize.

otherwise i'd agree with you.

[deep]

I was skeptical this aid would be delivered because of the social engineering that is usually attached.

I am happy to see W moving away from Regan's policies and towards Clintons.

Bush AIDS Relief Eases Abortion Rules
By Edwin Chen
Times Staff Writer

February 15, 2003

WASHINGTON -- In a major policy shift, President Bush has decided to allow social service agencies in Africa and the Caribbean to receive U.S. funds under his $15-billion emergency AIDS relief plan even if they promote family planning and provide abortions, White House officials said Friday night.

The only restriction will be that the agencies must use the money for treating people with AIDS, according to a senior administration official who requested anonymity.

"The president views this as a health-care issue," the official said.

"Any agency that provides treatment for AIDS will get the money, as long as none of the funds are used for family planning purposes or for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger," said another senior White House aide, who also spoke under the condition of anonymity.

Nevertheless, Bush's decision is likely to infuriate abortion opponents, who are a solid core of his political constituency.

The decision marks a shift in position for Bush, who just days after taking office issued an order barring any U.S. money to international groups that use their own funds to support abortion -- either through performing surgery, counseling as a family planning option or lobbying foreign governments on abortion policy.

By reinstating the so-called "Mexico City policy" restrictions that his father, former President Bush, as well as President Reagan, had supported before him, Bush reversed the Clinton administration's position on unrestricted family planning aid overseas.

The policy got its name because it was announced by Reagan at a 1984 population conference in Mexico City.

Bush's policy change could be significant because in many African and Caribbean nations, family planning services and AIDS assistance are often provided by a single agency. Thus a ban on funding to such groups could have proved counterproductive if Bush wanted his high-profile initiative to be effective.

When Bush announced his AIDS relief plan for Africa and the Caribbean in his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, he did not get into the details of the initiative.

Some lawmakers this week questioned Secretary of State Colin L. Powell about the funding -- in the context of family planning and abortion services -- during his appearances on Capitol Hill to brief them on the potential war with Iraq.

The AIDS initiative is to be administered by the Department of State, under the Foreign Assistance Act.

Bush's shift on the funding issue emerged Friday as other administration officials began consulting and informing lawmakers about the new policy.

In addition to angering abortion opponents, Bush's move threatens to undermine his otherwise unwavering stance against granting U.S. funds to agencies outside Africa and the Caribbean that promote family planning or provide abortions.

Opponents of his position, such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), now could seize on Bush's shift to point out the "inconsistency" of continuing to ban aid to some family planning organizations, according to one top Senate Democratic aide.

The White House's rationale, like that of the administrations of his father and Reagan, was that if funds were given to agencies that promote family planning and abortions, even if the money was not used directly for such purposes, the agencies nevertheless would end up with more resources to promote their goals.

In any case, one Democratic congressional staffer for a lawmaker staunchly in favor of abortion rights hailed Bush's change in policy.

"It certainly is a welcome change from their position on family planning funds," he said.

In his State of the Union address, Bush called the AIDS pandemic in Africa and the Caribbean "a severe and urgent crisis," and described his initiative as "a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts."

The White House said the $15 billion in funding over five years would prevent 7 million new infections and treat 2 million HIV-infected people by providing advanced antiretroviral treatment in the poorest, most-afflicted countries.

Bush's initiative also would involve large-scale prevention efforts, including voluntary testing and counseling.

The financial commitment nearly triples U.S. spending in global AIDS assistance.

If approved by Congress, funding will begin with $2 billion in fiscal year 2004, and increase each year thereafter.

[Aine]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by anitram

We all have to rebel against our own indifference somehow. Keep on marching for peace, keep rebelling. That is your part, regardless of what Bono does.[QUOTE]

That's true.I totally agree that everyone's responsible for their own part regardless of what Bono or anyone else says or does,but my point is that I've been the band's fan for a long time and I think it's pretty natural for a fan to be concerned about what they think and what their views are,especially as Bono's always in the public eye with all those big words,and that's what he IS responsible for.And while Bono doesn't owe anything to anyone when it comes to his private life and likes,there's still this link between him and his fans when it comes to big issues like war which are no longer private for a public person like Bono.When he askes to give money for Africa doesn't he appeal to his fans in the first place? Don't at least some of them pay attention and try to understand what he's talking about? Joining that video he showed he didn't approve of the September,11 terract,which is quite natural but which IS also a statement.Does
he approve of 2000 people being killed during Yugoslavia bombing? Does he approve of the inevitable future Iraqi civil victims if the war starts? Why does he make statement about
the former and doesn't utter a single word about the latter?
Don't get me wrong,I'm not saying he MUST.I'm just an ordinary
fan of his,nothing more,nothing less.But I feel uncomfortable and confused about certain things Bono-related and I wanted to express that.Isn't that what a U2 forum was ment for?

[rafmed]

Too bad even Bono has a price

[The Wanderer]

$15 billion to fight 'weapons of mass destruction' in Africa (ie, HIV) is far more important than Bono giving his irrelevant opinion on Iraq and angering an administration that has already shown a tendancy to be vindictive

and I know it's inconceivable to many of you, but maybe Bono just doesn't agree with you... ? ok, not the most plausible scenario, but wasn't Bono once in favor of airstrikes in the former Yugoslavia, which btw, killed thousands of civillians?

whatever the case, stop whining and be proud of the man for what he is doing.

[bonoman]

You know what is strange and disapointing, the fact that anyone has the right to be slightly pissed off by the fact a great person doesnt want to give his opinion on everything in the world.

Pick your battles carefully!

[follower]

Aine, we have been discussing this subject at local mailing lists, and lots of fans here feel the same. A couple of weeks ago, when that Bono´s letter to Mr. Bush, asking for help to fight AIDS in Africa was published in the Washington Post I said the same in another forum, and I got flamed. I said that, although his letter was well writen and meaningful and his cause really noble, I couldn´t help feeling disappointed with Bono lately. Not a single word against the war on Iraq, that has been planned by US government and alies. At least Edge said something against it, I think it was in his last interview to Hot Press. Call me naive if you want it, but I think he should try, at least, say something, maybe a word against the war. He would be coherent with his history and background, coming from a country divided by war for so long. He has a way with words and it seems that he has the simpathy of the allmighty Mr.Bush. This is not a minor crisis, this is big, and it will affect the whole world, Africa included. Nobody can pretend that the problem doesn´t exist. War is not the answer, never was, never will be. Bono says in his letter "President Bush is in the business of making history". The thing is, in my viewpoint, what kind of history he will be remembered for.

By the way, those 15 billions might get down the drain with the upcoming war. That´s what Anthony DeCurtis said in his Rolling Stone article below:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/new....asp?nid=17473

[STING2]

I think I should inform everyone here that Bono is NOT a Pacifist. Bono supported US airstrikes to stop the fighing in Bosnia as clearly noted in the book "Until The End Of The World". In a HOT PRESS article last year, Bono supported Bush's war on terrorism 100%. Bono may be for or against a war in Iraq. But it would be naive to assume what his position is until or if he speaks about it. I'm sure everyone would love to draft BONO to their cause or point of view, but Bono is an individual and free thinking person, and many here would probably be disappointed if they new his views on multiple political issues he has never spoken on ever.

[Aine]

Originally posted by bonoman
You know what is strange and disapointing, the fact that anyone has the right to be slightly pissed off by the fact a great person doesnt want to give his opinion on everything in the world.

I'm not "anyone".First of all,I'm a human being,no less than Bono
himself,with the right to say what I feel,EVEN if Bono is concerned.
Second,I'm his fan and as I said it's perfectly natural for me to care about his public statements though they might not be crucial
for my own view in the end.Third,I sincirely hope that by saying he's great you don't mean he's a kind of idol whose words and deeds can't be discussed.
Wanderer,if I could be just "proud with what he's doing" I wouldn't start this thread.The fact is,I've got my doubts.I love Bono and WANT to be "proud" of him as I used to but hey,when someone asksyou,"It's all nice for a rich guy who has everything to preach about safe sex to those wretched people in Africa,how about doing a more risky thing and oppose the killing?"you can't but realize you've been asking yourself practically the same for some time already. No way I think what he does for Africa is easy or "nice",as well as writing songs is never easy.But then again:he feels for Sept,11 victims which is obvious, but with Yugoslavia and
Iraq it's as if they've never existed.Sorry,but that's a bit of a double standard.I'd love to prove myself wrong and I don't want to lose the respect I've always had for Bono but I haven't found a solution to my doubts yet.I'd love to understand this
man and why he does what he does - I hope there's nothing wrong with that.
Follower,thanks for your response ,it's exactly what I ment.
Btw,it's even nothing wrong with Bono saying he's pro-war - well,
it is for people like me who are strongly anti-war,but it would be
his honest opinion anyway.

[Aine]

Sting,I wouldn't want to draft Bono to my point of view,honestly.
I just want to understand who Bono is,want to know if I got him right or wrong.I thought you can't save people in Africa and bomb people in Iraq at the same time.I wanted to know if Bono thought the same.It's just my own U2 crisis,really.Has nothing to do with
Bono's freedom of thinking.

[arw]

Originally posted by Bono's American Wife
Does he really owe us his opinion?

I agree. He doesn't owe us anything.

[pub crawler]

Originally posted by STING2
I think I should inform everyone here that Bono is NOT a Pacifist.

STING2, despite your proclamation, I'd venture to say you don't know any more about Bono's opinions than the rest of us.

[STING2]

Aine,

Bono spoke out extensively on the former Yugoslavia and supported US military intervention to stop the fighting.

[gvox]

Originally posted by STING2
I think I should inform everyone here that Bono is NOT a Pacifist.

Bono's definition of not being a pacifist was quantified on Larry King. He said he aspired to be a true pacifist but if pushed would defend his wife and children, like most of us would.

There are probably very few complete pacifists in the world, and many more who aspire or long to be. Bono has made it clear that he longs to be in the club, but that his imperfect human nature sometimes gets the better of him.

No spin, just exactly what the man said.

[BAW]

No matter how much we love and respect Bono, he owes us nothing but great music. He is first and foremost a musician who just happens to be a great humanitarian. He's not a politician. He doesn't owe us an opinion on Iraq or anything else going on in the world. If he chooses to give these opinons, great. If not, that's his choice.

He gives so much to the world...why can't we let him keep something to himself.

I can't imagine what it must be like to have this kind of pressure, to be held to such impossibly high standards.

[martha]

Why do we care what Bono thinks? Does he need to tell us everything?