Skip to comments.Bringing Africa back to life: The legacy of George W. Bush
Posted on 06/11/2012 2:29:02 AM PDT by markomalley
On a beautiful Saturday morning, Delfi Nyankombe stood among her bracelets and necklaces at a churchyard bazaar and pondered a question: What do you think of George W. Bush?
George Bush is a great man, she answered. He tried to help poor countries like Zambia when we were really hurting from AIDS. He empowered us, especially women, when the number of people dying was frightening. Now we are able to live.
Nyankombe, 38, is a mother of three girls. She also admires the former president because of his current campaign to corral cervical cancer. Few are screened for the disease, and it now kills more Zambian women than any other cancer.
By the time a woman knows, she may need radiation or chemotherapy that can have awful side effects, like fistula, she said. This is a big problem in Zambia, and hes still helping us.
The debate over a presidents legacy lasts many years longer than his term of office. At home, theres still no consensus about the 2001-09 record of George W. Bush, with its wars and economic turmoil.
In Africa, hes a hero.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
So about that lack of respect and blind observations made here at FR today, this policy did two things - it enhanced the US while dimishing the UN,and by extension those EU Countries who lost so much when we wacked Saddam Hussain in Iraq, and secondly, we controlled who got US funds. Win-Win.
Bush apologists. OK. I stand corrected. President Bush was a fantastic president. All that arm twisting his administration did to force conservatives to participate in his big government schemes? All justified. /s
Well, just darn!
Good news out of Africa? Who could of imagined that?
And its Bush’s fault!
“All that arm twisting his administration did to force conservatives to participate in his big government schemes?”
Don’t really know what you are talking about, since this discussion is about conducting foreign policy.
We protect ourselves in the world via shooting wars or by buying influence. Been going on since the founding of the country, and was practiced extensively by my favorite president, Ronald Regan.
It’s bullets or dollars, and frequently dollars are cheaper.
Really? I thought Bush was elected.
What a sorry, pointless culture. Their entire world resides between their legs. Bill Clinton wannabees all.
$30 billion to fight AIDS in Africa on top of his earlier program of $15 billion.
Bush: “the generosity of the American people is one of the great untold stories of our time.”
Yeah. We’re real generous, except it’s his legacy and he had to borrow the money.
Are you saying anything Bush did was OK because he was elected? By voting for him against the real losers the Democrats nominated, I endorsed all Bush policies? I’ll keep that in mind with Romney.
Contrary to what others have posted, the record says the money was used for PEPFAR. While I agree helping people is a worthy cause, I do not buy the argument that government needs to be in the charity business. None of the posters have addressed the issue that if it’s OK for Bush to do it, then why is it bad when Democrats do the same? Or is this really about which causes are worthy and which are not? Either way, I’d like to see a so-called conservative Republican take a conservative, small government approach to governance once in awhile. Bush and Congress (a Republican Congress btw) didn’t even bother to try the small government approach. They spent money we didn’t even have to do what they wanted, pretty much like Democrats.
I’m saying Bush was elected, you said he wasnt.
driftdiver: “Im saying Bush was elected, you said he wasnt.”
I did? If so, I certainly agree Bush was elected.
In regards to President Bush’s administration, ping to this thread:
The author’s premise?
“The Bush-Obama policies of bigger government and more intervention have made America less attractive, while other nations have learned from their mistakes.”
That pretty much sums up Bush and Obama — bigger government and more intervention (although Obama is much worse). The world is full of needy people and worthy causes, my FRiend. I just don’t think it’s the president’s job to take care of the world’s poor and needy. At least, I don’t see that listed in the US Constitution in his job description.
Ah! Now I see where you got the idea I said Bush wasn’t elected. I wrote he wasn’t elected to be my pastor. Charity belongs in the private sector, not in government. When my pastor spends my tithes to take care of the needy, that’s good. When my President takes my money to spend for private purposes, it’s not charity. It’s force. He simply took from me to give, not pay, to someone else, meaning I have less to use for my family for causes I think are important. There’s a very important distinction to be made between things for public use, i.e. bridges, roads, libraries, etc., and public purpose, i.e. whatever a politician wants.
21st Century America:
We’re broke at an historically unprecedented level, but we feel good about our intentions.
Lot’s of good people fell on their swords during Iran-Contra to prevent the dolts in Congress (and the American people for that matter) from ever figuring out how much we actually spent in Central America. But it worked, and it WAS less than a shooting war.
And I’m sorry that $45 billion has kept you up at night, but it is a pittance compared to the possible other outcomes. Nobody, not us - not the Chinese, really gives a fig about what’s above ground in Africa. But a lot of those neat gee-wiz defense toys require rare earth elements, many of which are only found in Africa. And no outside power has gotten control of them and cut us off. Whatever part the $45 billion played, it WAS cheap.
I was in Liberia when Bush visited there. (was it 2008?) They love the man. I spoke with people who walked for two days just to catch a glimpse of him. There was a song that played every 20 minutes expressing their love for him.
Thank you for sharing that. :-)
Not to mention about $50 billion of other people's money(that means your tax dollars.)
Big footprint indeed.
I agree with every thing you said in that post.
W, overall, was an awful president. May be he didn’t even want to president.. the legacy of the Bush Clan it must be, and he was not, in many ways, comparable to Ronald Reagan - that was really cheap, political, shot by poster in #9.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.