"Likewise, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) wrote an opinion piece for CNN, arguing that Bush's legacy includes having 'saved 10 million lives' through his efforts to combat AIDS."

10 million lives? Where did this number come from? It's a nice round number, and I can't help but think that it was pulled out of thin air.

It's a nice round number, and I can't help but think that it was pulled out of thin air.

It was not! It was a diagnosis by videotape, if you must know.

I can't help but think that it was pulled out of thin air. - CJ

Do I have to remind you that 54.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Still, my understanding is that Bush's reputation in Africa far exceeds that of his own continent. Let's give a *little* credit where a little credit is due.

"...Bush's reputation in Africa far exceeds that of his own continent. Let's give a little credit where a little credit is due."

Okay.

Andisheh Nouraee: "In late 2006, the United States and Ethiopia invaded Somalia. Ethiopia supplied the manpower, while the U.S. provided money, weapons, logistics and special forces.

The apparent goal of the invasion was the removal from power of the so-called Union of Islamic Courts. The UIC is an Islamist group that, for all of its awfulness, was the closest thing southern Somalia has had to a functioning government since 1991.

Instead of replacing the UIC with something better, the U.S.-Ethiopian forces merely started a civil war. The result: One of the worst places on Earth became the absolute worst place on Earth.

Refugees International calls Somalia 'the world's worst humanitarian crisis,' noting that 1.7 million Somalis have been forced from their homes. They're sick, desperate and starving people. Forty percent of Somalis now rely on international aid agencies for food...

Ethiopian troops recently began a retreat back across the border. And they're leaving large parts of the country in the hands of Islamists who appear quite a bit nastier than the UIC.

In other words, it's a Bush-sponsored invasion that strengthened the very people we supposedly wanted to weaken..."

Just giving credit where credit is due.

No, they were the only ones financially able to participate in the maHvelous Hospital Corporation of America health plans. Frist handled their finanicial triage. He would know.

I can't seem to find an article on it right now, but IIRC, right after the London train bombings, Bush pledged some huge amount for aid to Africa. Then he came back to DC and told Congress to focus on fiscal responsibility. Another point for photo-op compassion.

Frist, who bid farewell to his political career when he said that Terry Schiavo wasn't brain damaged without actually examining her, is now a CNN talking head on medical issues, joining Bill Bennett on morality and James Carville on politics and, well, morality. Look for the all-plane-crash network to extend its crash coverage to its own journalism. Or not, of course.

Not as good as it could be, but still good. Very good.

So the Bush & Co AIDS work was another way to politicize, inevitably cripple, and spin an issue that is at heart a matter of science and study, life and death. Why am I not surprised?

It's important to remember the Republican legacy in Africa. If you remember, Reagan refused to allow birth control and any family planning and really helped exacerbate what became a huge crisis. There is no credit for Bush or Reagan there--it is a legacy where ideology caused needless suffering. The Clinton years undid this dreadful legacy in large part, but damage had been done. The recent program is merely a weaker version of Clinton's initiatives.

I caught an interview on NPR maybe six months ago about Bush's african aid project. The interviewee was an african aids expert ngo person. She said that the story is really one of two programs.

The program which had good success was the AIDS treatment program. Funding for it was dramatically increased and average lifespans with infection jumped significantly (something like 5-10 years).

The other program was the prevention program. Funding for it was dramatically increased but the spread of the disease was at best unaffected. Many existing effective prevention programs were defunded and ideologically suitable programs were funded. The ideological programs are less effective both because of their refusal to use methods like condoms that are known to work and because they are often run by relatively inexperienced (in africa anyway) religious aid workers.

Most people, whether liberal or conservative, miss the main issue with PEPFAR. The program, in the main, is a commodity program. 100s of millions has been spent on ARVs (anti-retrovirals)for African HIV positives. This has been a pure welfare program. With the exception of a few places (Botswana in particular), the minute our money runs out or we stop buying the ARVs, patients start to die. And the US will be partially held to blame. We haven't developed all that much. The conservative criticism of aid as not leaving behind much in countries we work will apply to this program. So GWB kept more alive during his time as President. But to keep those people alive they will be dependent on the US taxpayer for the rest of their lives.

10 million lives? Where did this number come from? It's a nice round number, and I can't help but think that it was pulled out of thin air.

Incorrect. It was accurately divined by the Rev. Dr. Jayzus Izcoming of the Office of Faith Based Statistics using the scientifically proved method of opening the King James Bible (Old Testament) and dowsing the pages for numbers with a crucifix.

This is a Bush legacy that was FORCED on him.

How quickly people, especially Bushies, forget that after the U.S. committed it's resources, Congress had to increase Bush's desired contribution because it was too little. So, Bush gets credit for a larger contribution than he himself sought.

If I remember correctly, and I don't, the total U.S. contribution was to be $15 Billion. Does anyone know if we spent the whole 15b, or did King George short his "legacy(LOL)"!

Yes, Bush should get credit for increasing US contribution to address AIDS globally. It is really a disgrace that Clinton largely ignored this while in office (although 10-1 says Bush ignores this when he leaves office, unlike Clinton who has made this a major focus of his philanthropy).

BUT, there really has been a lot of lost opportunity (and money and lives) spent focusing on abstinence and refusing to fund needle-exchange programs or work with sex workers (instead of requiring organizations to sign pledges opposing prostitution).

Under Bush, as has been pointed out, treatment programs got off the ground and drugs flowed. But many more people became newly infected with HIV than were put on treatment, so how many NET lives were 'saved'?

And, domestic AIDS has been totally neglected - the US sadly doesn't even have a national AIDS plan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-amon/the-bush-policy-on-aids_b_58042.html?view=screen

Bush has always been a healer. Usually any trained dog is also a healer. Isn't that what you meant?

I'd say it was a wash.

For every African "saved" another human has been killed.

How does that make Bush a healer?

"The bottom line is: George Bush is a heel," Frist said.

That's the proper transcription.
(Those Southren accents do take getting used to.)

10 million lives? where did this number come from? it's a nice round number, and i can't help but think that it was pulled out of thin air.

it wasn't 'thin air' that it was pulled out of.

It's kind of like "The Patriot Act."

The Orwellian titling of these projects fools media idiots into thinking they are actually accomplishing what they say they are.

If they called it "Imposing Christianity on People with Perfectly Good Religions of Their Own Under the Guise of Preventing AIDS" perhaps the mediabots would get a clue.