Ignoring contrary evidence, CNN's King said of Bush's African AIDS program: "Any liberal will tell you it has been a dramatic success"
SUMMARY: After President Bush's farewell speech, John King said of Bush's program to fight AIDS in Africa, "Any liberal will tell you it has been a dramatic success." However, progressives and health organizations have criticized the legislation that authorized the program, which originally required that 33 percent of funds be spent on abstinence-until-marriage education -- a provision the Bush administration reportedly lobbied Congress to add.
In an analysis of President Bush's farewell speech on the January 15 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, chief national correspondent John King said of Bush's program to fight AIDS in Africa, "Any liberal will tell you it has been a dramatic success." However, progressives and health organizations have, in fact, been critical of the legislation that authorized the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which required that starting in fiscal year 2006, 33 percent of funds for AIDS prevention be spent on abstinence-until-marriage education -- a provision the Bush administration reportedly lobbied Congress to add.
As Media Matters for America has documented, according to many of the government officials responsible for managing PEPFAR abroad, as well as the Institute of Medicine, the Government Accountability Office, and the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), the abstinence-until-marriage education requirement hindered PEPFAR's effectiveness in preventing the spread of AIDS. Congress removed the requirement when it reauthorized PEPFAR in 2008.
In a November 2006 report titled "Bush's AIDS Initiative: Too Little Choice, Too Much Ideology," the CPI stated that PEPFAR "has enabled his administration to funnel tens of millions of dollars to Christian faith-based organizations that support his ideology and form his political base." The report quoted Dr. Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, asserting that PEPFAR "is failing to stop the global spread of AIDS and failing to help lead the world to stop this deadly disease. ... We have a flawed framework with flawed policies that have kept us from being where we should be by now."
From the January 15 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull:
CAMPBELL BROWN (host): And John, of course, you covered this president for almost a decade. What was your reaction as he said goodbye tonight?
KING: That is George W. Bush, Campbell. You covered him as well. And he is a president who has become known to many Americans as almost a black-and-white figure. He said it himself: Good and evil is how he casts things. Some people don't like that. He was the president who said, "Dead or alive." He was the president who said, "Bring it on."
People have often seen him in the biggest battles of the presidency as a black-and-white, with-me-or-against-me kind of guy, but he's a lot more complicated than that. And, yes, you know, the economic collapse, Katrina, Iraq are stains on his legacy at the moment. He thinks history will judge him more kindly, but without a doubt, he leaves with those stains on his legacy.
But he also mentioned the program to fight AIDS in Africa. Any liberal will tell you it has been a dramatic success. He believes he has made a decent impact on public schools here in the United States. And he is a gentleman, to follow up on Wolf's point. Whatever you think of him politically, he is a gentleman. And his tribute to Barack Obama was genuine.
Okay, here is a liberal who praised Bush for his program in Africa. His name is Barack Obama. Ever hear of him?
I am very glad to see MMFA pick up on this. I rememner, if CNN does not, that Bush's AIDS policy was initially correctly seen as a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies, and not very effective at treating AIDS. The plan was modified, thanks to the influence of U2's Bono, and no doubt many Africans are grateful.
But what we need is an accurate portrayal of the program and its history, including a comparison of its promises with its actual performance, and showing how US funding compares not only to other countries and organizations, but also to the needs on the ground. Unfortunately, the bar was set so low, Bush could hardly have not achieved some success.
Of course, how much more could have been accomplished had the US (including under Clinton/Gore) not supported the US pharmaceutical industry in opposing the issuing of compulsory licenses for cheaper drug production?
You raise excellent points! Clinton did so little in regards to AIDS, it would have been difficult for Bush not to have done better. I'm happy that at least after leaving office, Clinton did recognize that more needed to be done and he and his foundation are doing good work (too bad he didn't take such initiative as President; he could have achieved so much more).
I would note, however, that PEPFAR now reportedly relies heavily on generics, rather than brand name pharmaceuticals. This is a major achievement and one which should have achieved much earlier.
Barack Obama; there is one.
so you can't name one either. figures.
Has it been a success? Has it saved lived? Seems like MMFA simply cant accept anything positice by a rebublican.
But thatw ok, we have a Dem Gov selling a senate seat, Another Dem Gov in serious trouble, Hillary working on behalf of donors of Bills, a potential attorney general who helped pardon terrorists, and a nominee for treasury who is a tax cheat. Happy days are here again!!!
let's see, we libs want to get rid of that dem gov selling a senate seat (we impeached the rotten crook), you don't have any proof about Hillary (typical republican lying), and gosh, the rest is just extra gibberish you couldn't prove if you tried. But you're more than welcome to try and post a few facts. It could be quite an enlightening experience for you!
So you don't think that the nominated Treasury Secretary is a tax cheat? I am an American citizen who works as a consultant for the World Bank, the sister organization to the IMF. I can tell you that we regularly are told you have to pay your taxes, including social security taxes. I don't even live in the United States, yet I know enough that I have to pay social security taxes because I'm an American citizen. In fact I just received a letter from the World Bank saying again that I have to pay my taxes.
And might I add honorable Congressman Charlie Rangel (D)? Here is the guy responsible for writing tax code, and he claims he doesn't know that he can't hide his earnings from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic? Which of these facts don't you understand?
P.S. MMFA is just reporting on the lies and exaggerations by this typical republican apologist. We support republican success. We don't support lies and exaggerations of fake success.
Has it saved lived?
OK bigboy... And how many lives were LOST and how many more AIDS cases are there today because W. insisted on forcing his BS religious agenda down everyone's throat? If 1 life was lost because he insisted on putting those stupid, uneccessary and conuter-productive provisions in there, then's he's responsible for that lost life - and no amount of lives saved makes up for it because that one loss was completely preventable.
And to be fair, how many lives were lost because Bill Clinton didn't take the lead in expanding America's AIDS response earlier? How many people died of AIDS because Clinton sent Gore to South Africa and insisted that the South African government purchase only American pharmaceuticals, at a price of $1,000 per month. If you are going to be balanced, then I would think the bigger criticism would have to go to the failure of Clinton to do much in the area of HIV and AIDS in the 1990s. In fact his policies resulted in a lot more deaths and certainly a lot less money going to prevent and treat AIDS.
How unreal that our politicians seem to be of the same side of the coin, surprise you forget about Delay, the senator from Fl. who likes them young and male, the senator from Alaska, the Alaskan Gov. glad we got a whiff of her style getting prayed over by a witch minister so the witches stay out of her. I guess the bar is really low at this point.
I suggest that all politician run on public money and only so much to each candidate, just maybe we will get government for and by the people.
you want one? Barack Obama
Sorry, but I'm new to this website. Does Media Matters really claim tax-examption status? Can you show me the evidence; seems totally incredible that such a site could claim to be tax-exempt, but if you can steer me in the right direction, I'd be happy to follow.
I read on AOL a few days ago that Bush's approval ratings in Africa are in the upper 80s.
Yep, Africa. Not America, where an American President's approval ratings actually mean something, but in a totally different place on the planet.
That's only because he ignored the entire continent for the last 8 years...
Actually this isn't true. Donor assistance to Africa increased dramatically during the Bush administration.
his ratings are also high in india and over the top in israel.
I think you mean "Darfur". However, maybe you can expand on your point?
First of all, oskie boy, it's Darfur. Secondly, those are our options.... shrub's half-baked bs or genocide that he ignores.
I would be more valuable to the Red Sox at SS than no SS at all. That doesn't make me a good Major League SS.
I stopped reading this article once I came across "CNN's John King...
I stopped for a second when it was said that he has been "covering this president for 10 years". I don't conder that a positive attrribute. Most who can make that claim are toadies who grovel for the privlige and "carried water" for the most inept president in recent history in order to advance their own career.
I am a liberal, and I had been duped by this sort of fawning reporting. I thought it was out of character for Bush to be successful in Africa.
Kind of sad to see Campbell Brown's show getting a lot of play on MMFA these days. I thought she really meant it when she said "No bias, no bull."
If... and it's a BIG if, Bush is popular in some parts of Africa, it's mainly the parts dominated by Conservative Christians. I have journalist friends in many parts of Africa, and believe me, the majority of the people can't stand Bush. But in countries like Uganda, where AIDS was on the run till conservative fundamentalist Christians took over and bought into the abstinence only myth and refused to distribute condoms, AIDS is once again skyrocketing. But there's not much outcry in places that lack freedom of the press, and in places where the church dominates. No offence to moderate Christians, but the Taliban-like rightie policies that were imposed on many innocent people are being reinforced by churches over there that want to remain in power and get funds from the Bushies. If Bush (and his rightie BFF John King) think substituting religion for science is a big success, shame on him, and shame on John King for letting his own Republican leaning shine through again.
Just makes me wonder how many African countries you have been to? I have been to 18. If I want to know what the people think, I ask them. I don't go to my journalist friends to give me their opinion about what is "really going on in Africa".
What is the opinion of Bush in the countries I've worked in? To be honest, its mixed. There is a large dislike for what went on in Iraq, and a very positive opinion of what is going on in the field of AIDS. Apparently the liberals on this site can't see any value in such a nuanced assessment.
As for Uganda, I'm not sure you have ever been there. I was there a few months, ago and I first went there back in 1997. There are contradictory messages about what worked and what didn't in Uganda (Uganda still is viewed as one of the world's few success stories; not a basket case run by rabid Christians as you suggest). What is obvious though is that the incidence of HIV began to decline in the late 1980s, long before there was any push to distribute condoms (I can provide you the citation if you want to read about it). This doesn't mean I don't believe that condoms work; they do. However, your overly simplified assessment that everything was going great until those bad old Christians you so despise showed up is utter nonsense.
I suppose the fact that AIDS increased throughout the 90's had much to do with the lack of money offered by our government during that time?
Maybe Bush's inititative did save lives and abstinence programs did contribute or just maybe millions of people engaging in this kind of risky behavior just died off. Whatever, the scourge of that continent has pretty much stabilized since 2003. Fact is Bush's inititative was the first response of this type to this horrible plague and I for one, non-liberal, am glad he did it.
Maybe not.
Actually you are right. The lack of money during the 90s (Clinton administration) to address the global problem of AIDS was a major failure of the US and the global community. Instead of raising funds, Clinton sent Al Gore to South Africa to defend America's pharmaceutical companies.
I'm not really sure I care what liberals were or were not praising Bush. To be honest, I think the only praise or criticism that matters comes from those living with the disease.
Which brings us to the really important question. If you were living with AIDS, who did more for you? Bush or Clinton?
Clinton sends Gore to South Africa in 2000, warning the South Africans against purchasing anything but American antiretrovirals (which at the time cost $1,000 per month).
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/gore-cn.htm
Bush provides antiretrovirals for 2 million people. Your choice. You are living with AIDS. Who did more for you?
But the hate toward Bush is so intense by some of the partisan members of the left, whatever Bush does good he is attacked by these haters.
I pray everynight Obama is not subjected to the vicious hate machine that went after Bush and Clinton.
This hate is the enemy of our democracy,
Gee, good thing the hate gets taken out with the rest of the WH trash come Tuesday, pal.
Gimme a break. He broke into the place, trashed it, burned it to the ground and you want me to give him a pass because he did a bit of weeding in the flowerbed by the front door.
Take a hike.
No I do not want to give him a pass, I don't want the future President dealing with this same vicious cycle.
Hey up yours !!
dempsey dumpster for you, friend.
Go cheney yourself, chump. The schmuck screwed up in every possible way a President can screw up and you shrub shillin' gopologists are still makin' excuses for him.
This program is a success, eh? Compared to what, no program at all?
Enjoy the last weekend of the 43rd reich, little fella because come Tuesday, our long national nightmare will finally be over.
Interesting that your response seems based on nothing but anger. Do you care to try and make a logical argument about the issue (PEPFAR) without personally attacking other bloggers or GWB? The issue is PEPFAR and whether ir worked. I don't see anything in your response that it any way contributes to this debate.
No bush is the enemy of our democracy.
Agree.. The only thing is that Bush #43 ruined our country, and Clinton ruined his reputation that is sort of a big difference.
OMG only in your twisted mind.
Bush is "one of the greatest presidents this nation has ever had"? Is that why he is leaving office with America in such wonderful shape? You must me a retard.
Must be a retard is a little harsh. How about must be a towering idiot. There, that's nicer.
Randy
How very true indeed! You forgot to mention: ".....if you exclude ALL of the other presidents".
Abstinence education is a failure here, it is a failure in Africa. Telling people to just side line their biological urges because the Lord says so is the sort of pray-and-hope governence that got us into Iraq. Abstinence only demonizes sex out of wedlock, as if wedlock is some sort of magic wand that makes sex "clean". Funny but states with abstinence PLUS education have a lower rate of teen pregnancy. Texas, an abstinence only state, is 49th in that category, as in second worst. So what made this Chimp president think that transplanting a bad idea to Africa would work is all part of the empty, fatuous, silly, patently stupid magical thinking that define the Bush years.
Randy
Actually Randy you are only partially right, at least from the most recent study on teen abstinence. A recent study says that taking "virginity pledges" has no affect whatsoever on the age of sexual debut. However, this was based on comparing those who take a "virginity pledge" with other religiously conservative teens (both started having sex at 21 years of age). If you compare the religously conservative teens with those who aren't, you see a huge difference in age at first sex (21 vs. 17 years old).
I would tend to agree based on this type of data that "virginity pledges" don't work, because they are "one-off" activities which occur during religious retreats or otherwise very emotional times in a teens life. However, the data from the same study seems to suggest that coming from a religiously conservative family where abstinence or delayed sexual onset is promoted has a huge impact in delaying sexual debut. It has been argued that this kind of shift in age at sexual debut in Ugandan girls was at least partly responsible for the rapid reduction in HIV prevalence in that country.