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 ...
I’m not shocked. I remember a short but televised speech from the UN ambassador from Liberia a few years back, who gave credit to George Bush for saving her country. He continues to leave his mark on the African continent (and without any fanfare). History will catch up one day.
A good read, and you’re right, I am pleased. :-)
We have issues with some of GWB’s policies and programs. But in many areas he is one of the best at leaving a large footprint and small fanfare.
We have issues with some of GWB’s policies and programs. But in many areas he is one of the best at leaving a large footprint and small fanfare.
He’s a hero...with other people’s money. I have zero respect for a man who forces me to give to his favorite charity, even if it’s a worthy cause. Had he created a voluntary fund and asked for contributions, I would have likely donated far more than he took from me by force of government, but he didn’t ask. How can I give W a pass while blaming the Democrats for the same thing? Call it compassionate conservatism or big government wealth redistribution. It’s all the same.
There is a missionary from our church who spends a lot of time in Africa helping with water and medical needs. In some areas 100% of the adults have aids.
“Call it compassionate conservatism or big government wealth redistribution. Its all the same.”
That bears repeating.
Thats why we elect people, so they can make decisions such as this. Or should we only spend money on things that every taxpayer agrees with.
” I have zero respect for a man who forces me to give to his favorite charity, even if its a worthy cause.”
Wow, that’s harsh. So, no matter what else he is or does, you have zero respect? You have zero respect for Ronald Reagan?
No. We don’t elect people to engage in compassionate conservatism, i.e. wealth redistribution. Where in the US Constitution do you see the authority to take from one citizen to give to another citizen? In this case, W wasn’t even giving our wealth to citizens!
We despise Democrats when they do it. Do you honestly think they aren’t also trying to help people? Of course they are. How is handing a check to a welfare mom fundamentally any different than buying AIDS medicine for Africans? In fact, giving the money to the welfare mom is at least using it for a fellow citizen.
The 16th Amendment notwithstanding, the US Constitution says private property can only be taken for public use if compensation is given. The implication is clear to me. Why bother using the phrase “public use” at all if the founders thought it OK to give money to private entities (by “give” I mean not earned, like a government employee). Public use does NOT mean spending taxpayer money on whatever a public official wants contrary to past abuses.
Finally, you completely ignored my other point. If President Bush wanted to give his own money to Africa, he was clearly entitled to do so. If he had honorably asked for my help to fight AIDS in Africa, I would have almost certainly helped. Who knows how many billions Gates and others would have voluntarily kicked in? I guess we’ll never know.
If you can prove only government is capable of charity, then you might have a point, but everything Bush did with taxpayer money could have been done just as well by private charity...except he didn’t ask. He took!
This is a fundamental issue, because there is no shortage of worthy causes for government spending! If you say it’s OK, then don’t complain when the Democrats do it. Free contraceptives for all! I, on the other hand, prefer to keep government out of the private charity business.
BTW, if you also think AIDS in Africa needs fighting, no one is stopping you from donating, are they?
I like it when presidents are so generous with other peoples money. How noble.
Hes a hero...with other peoples money. I have zero respect for a man who forces me to give to his favorite charity, even if its a worthy cause. Had he created a voluntary fund and asked for contributions, I would have likely donated far more than he took from me by force of government, but he didnt ask. How can I give W a pass while blaming the Democrats for the same thing? Call it compassionate conservatism or big government wealth redistribution. Its all the same.I agree.
Well, let’s just say any respect I might have for ex-President Bush is greatly diminished by his compassionate conservative, i.e. big government, policies. Like I wrote, why should W get a pass? He’s apparently a nice guy, even a Christian, but he’s just another big government guy in my book. Did he even have $30 billion to spend? No. He borrowed it (adding to the deficit).
When Obama claims everything is Bush’s fault, he’s not entirely false. Bush left Obama a mess. Obama made it much, much worse, of course, but Bush is definitely not blameless. Have you forgotten TARP?
Sorry. President Bush was a terrible president. The fact that he looks good in comparison to a Marxist/socialist/fascist amalgam isn’t much of a distinction.
Great, let's get those folks on the horn to their "African-American" cousins and get the word into "the hood" Bush great, Obama, moslem murderer.
I’m glad to see a few people here see what’s wrong with government charity, whether its Republican or Democrat. In fact, this article reveals in an indirect way why our Founders made no provision for government charity in the Constitution. Notice that it’s GWB given the credit, not the American citizen or country that was forced to fund his generosity. As you correctly imply, what makes his charitable spending of coerced government funds any more virtuous than that of any Democrat?
Agreed. I hate Jimmy Carter, but the effort to wipe out the Guinea Worm from his charity is respectable. I respect it because it isn’t government mandated charity but private efforts to wipe out a major scourge.
Africa should follow Uganda’s example: “abstinance, be faithful, use condoms”. It’ll save lives, marriages and money.
This is why it’s so difficult to cut government. There are people on both the left and right who want to use other people’s money for private causes. Once you start on the path of public money for private uses, there really is no end to it. Everyone has worthy causes.
At least Social Security and Medicare go to American citizens and require contributions, and welfare moms are at least American citizens. The AIDS in Africa program used taxpayer money the government didn’t even have to give charity to foreign citizens. President Bush was not elected my pastor to dole out tithes to the needy.
Again, motives are irrelevant, because Democrats think they’re doing good deeds, too. Wrong is wrong even if other presidents do it and the giver’s motives are good.
Guyana (Georgetown) is the only English speakin country in S. America and Bush’s AIDS relief has been working miracles in this country as well. Having lived and worked there at the Am Embassy Georgetown for two years I can attest to the legacy Bush has left in his fight against AIDS.
I'm sure GWB did have feelings about the suffering in Africa. But most of the money spent there was actually war expenses. We fought a long an protracted operation in Africa during the early and middle 2000’s. It wasn't a rockets and bomb kind of war, but a war nonetheless.
The Chinese had decided they needed the raw materials Africa had to offer, and set out to greatly raise their influence. I have a business friend that has investments and holding in Africa, and he has talked about it a lot. Throughout 2000-2004 the Chinese were constantly building hospitals and other forms of public works. They were slowly gaining influence with the local governments and buying property.
Most of what the US did served to counterbalance the Chinese. I don't know if it worked, or if the Chinese just lost interest, but their meddling in Africa has greatly decreased. Compared to what we would have spent to build up the defenses and military of governments friendly to us, the money we spent on these programs was chump change.
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.