After the Tsunami: PR Snowjob about the "generous" USA & Its "Humanitarian" Military

January 1 / 2, 2005

The Petulant and the Petty
Bush and the Tsunami
By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

He never fails, does he? Never fails, that is, to reduce world catastrophes and international dramas to the lowest common denominators of petty petulance, malevolence and spite. I write of the latest efforts by Bush to smear a public figure; in this case Mr Jan Egeland, of the United Nations. Being a senior UN official naturally makes him an attractive and even mandatory target for the spleen of Bush, but this instance of senseless insult highlights the ethos of the Bush regime : in any circumstances in which it is imagined there might be the slightest criticism implied of the mighty Emperor, ignore the moral imperatives and go for the weakest jugular you can find. Then get the media to state what you said over and over again until the original comment is lost in the fetid muck of Bush propaganda.

What Mr Egeland said about international aid for disasters was that rich nations had become stingy in helping poor nations in times of calamity, which, for most of them, is all the time. As the records show, he was absolutely right. Sudan's Darfur is but one example, and one finds it difficult to list all the southern African countries that are hell holes of disease, poverty, corruption, hideous violence and atrocious squalor. Bush talks a good Aid-to-Africa line, even if little is happening to alleviate the horrors of the region, as not a dollar of the $5 billion pledged in the so-called Millennium Challenge Account for development assistance has actually been committed. But it doesn't matter that Mr Egeland was right, because the most important thing for the Bush Empire is that nobody other than Bush is permitted to be right about anything. If it even appears as if a person is criticizing George W Bush in the slightest degree, he or she must be attacked and destroyed.

The Bush administration's initial reaction to the tsunami disaster was to pledge $15 million for relief aid. At about the same time Mr Egeland stated that rich nations were 'stingy'. But the Bush conscience (such as that might be) was obviously, if belatedly, pricking him down at the ranch, because after a couple of days of relaxation he got round to announcing that the amount would be increased to $35 million and pronounced that "the person who made that statement [about rich nations being stingy] was very misguided and ill-informed". (You've got to laugh, sometimes, even in the blackest moments, at the man's silly petulance.)

The sequence of decision and comment is interesting. There is no doubt that the US package was announced as $15 million by poor, limping, discredited Powell. Here is Barry Schweid of Associated Press : "The United States dispatched disaster teams today and prepared a $15 million aid package to the Asian countries hit by a massive earthquake and tsunamis". Certainly, Powell said that long-term projects would be put in place for rebuilding projects , but make no mistake: the money on the table was $15 million. At the same time, Reuters reported the assistant administrator of the US Agency for International Development, Ed Fox, as saying "At this point, we don't know exactly how much of that will be in terms of cash to be disbursed, or whether it'll be commodities. But we anticipate that our initial reaction to this is going to be in the neighborhood of $15 million. That may increase, it may change". No decision had been made, obviously, although there might be a decision to get rid of Mr Fox for not being supportive enough of the Emperor.

Following this, the ranch-dwelling, brush-cutting Bush used his favorite word, yet again : "We will prevail over this destruction", he intoned, and announced that the aid package would be $35 million. And he became emotional and petulant about Mr Egeland's comment, over which he also decided to prevail.

This would be a storm in a teacup but for the fact that the Bush reaction was not just petty and malignant, but pathetically self-righteous and amazingly tiny-minded. Whatever happens in the world, according to the Bush Empiricists (Empiricons?), must in some way be used to demonstrate the all-seeing wisdom and untiring (if ranch-dwelling) benevolence of Emperor George, who has at his disposal the mightiest misinformation and disinformation machine the world has ever known.

Herr Dr Goebbels, the master propagandist of the German Reich, would be in ecstasies about the effectiveness and ruthless efficiency of the Bush mind-benders. The cult of personality, as indulged in by Stalin, Chairman Mao, and, nowadays, Kim Jong Il, the "peerless leader" of North Korea, pales in comparison with Washington's portrayal of Emperor George as the omnipotent, far-sighted, "war-president" whose compassion for the people of the world is, well . . . peerless. It's hocus-pocus, of course, but it plays well with the Bible-thumpers and contributes to the massive and massively dangerous superiority complex of the dimwitted Bush.

I'm in Paris, so was able to read the print version of The International Herald Tribune first thing on December 30. The IHT published Bush's announcement that "I felt like the person who made that statement was very misguided and ill-informed" in a bold type box on Page 1 at the top right ; in the text of the lead story on Page 1 ; again in a prominent box on Page 4 ; and in the body of a major piece on the same page titled "US to give long-range aid in Asia ; Bush reacts angrily to the label of 'stingy'." The features were taken from the New York Times and were interesting in their adulation of the peerless leader whom they reported as stating that "our government" provided $2.4 billion for disaster relief last year to help the desperate plight of millions.

$2.4 billion is a great deal of US taxpayers' (or "government") money : it is the cost of about 3 weeks' military occupation of Iraq and not all that much less than the $2.7 billion that Bush gave Sharon last year to help the desperate plight of Israelis.

Neither can $35 million be disregarded. It is, after all, only a fraction less than a quarter of the cost of the 2004 Republican Convention in New York ($166 million, including $7,000 for coffee and donuts for the media and $50 million for 'security'), and will no doubt go a long way to help the desperate plight of millions in Asia. But the amount was misreported by the New York Times/IHT as "the initial American contribution of $35 million".

No ; it wasn't the initial contribution. The initial contribution was $15 million which was increased to $35 million when Bush's advisers decided he must get more PR mileage than was coming his way. This is all part of the disinformation process. Now I'm not blaming the reporter altogether, because there are deadlines to be met, and the inaccuracy might seem to be trivial. But it is not trivial, because it assists the Bush administration in its psychological operations against the public, domestically and internationally. The world has been given to believe that Bush's first and instant reaction was to open the coffers for $35 million, which it wasn't, and that Mr Egeland had the bad taste and temerity to criticize the Emperor, the 'war president' himself, for being personally 'stingy', which he didn't.

Bush and his minions cannot abide the truth. Neither do they wish to permit the Peerless Leader and War President to be displayed to the public in other than a rosy glow of sycophantic adoration. It worked for Stalin and Mao, and it seems to work for the nutcase Korean Kim, so why shouldn't it work for Emperor George?

In the long run it won't work for him because some of the media eventually wakes up and tells it like it is. In this case the New York Times swung into action with an editorial that put things on an even keel. It stated that "Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities" - and so on. So the initial reportage of the debacle was certainly overcome. But as all those who practice psyops know, it is the initial story that counts : and this is where the White House is brilliant. It disseminates its propaganda without caring about essential truth. The message is given to the world. The impression is made. And all the later sage comment and even direct retractions will not eradicate that critical first impression.

Bush is a petulant ass whose interest in global matters begins and ends with his own image. His instinct is to be confrontational and malevolent, and to insult and if possible destroy those who do not agree with whatever line he is peddling. The only honest people in his administration have either quit or been dismissed, and the operations of his vile adherents have destroyed the careers many other, such as Valerie Plame.

People who dare contradict or criticize the Bush regime are dealt with by being publicly vilified, as has happened in the case of the honorable Mr Egeland. With a bit of luck, he will survive the attentions of the Bush jackals and will be allowed to continue to perform his UN duties in the devoted fashion for which he is well-known around the world (but not in Bush Washington). Bush the petulant president has struck again, but this time the arrow has rebounded and he has been revealed to be the silly little man that he is. Let's hope that the arrows aimed at Messrs Annan, ElBaradei and so many others have the same effect.

Brian Cloughley writes on military and political affairs. He can be reached through his website www.briancloughley.com





www.counterpunch.org/cloughley01012005.html

*************************

December 31, 2004

Waves of Hypocrisy
The Tsunami and the Corporate Media
By PETER PHILLIPS

The terrible earthquake/tsunami disaster, along coastlines of the Indian Ocean, left tens of thousands dead and many times more people homeless and weakened. Front pages news stories swept the US corporate media "12,000 dead, 40,000, 60,000 and 100,000 made progressive day by day headlines. Twenty-four hour TV news provided minute by minute updates with added photos and live aerial shots of the effected regions. As the days after unfolded, personal stories of survival and loss were added to the overall coverage. Unique stories such as the 20 day old miracle baby found floating on a mattress, and the eight year old who lost both parents and later found by her uncle, were human interest features. Individualized reports from Americans caught in the catastrophe made national news and numbers of Europeans, and North Americans involved were a key part of the continuing story. US embassies set up hotlines for relatives of possible victims to seek information. Quickly added into the corporate media mix was coverage on how the US was responding with relief aid and dollars. In Crawford, Texas President Bush announced that he had formed an international coalition to respond to the massive tsunami disaster.

The US corporate media coverage of the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster, for most Americans, was shocking, and emotional. Empathic Americans, with the knowledge that a terrible natural disaster of huge significant to hundreds of thousands people had occurred, wanted to help in any way they could. Church groups held prayer sessions for the victims, and the Red Cross received an upsurge of donations.

The US corporate media coverage of the tsunami disaster exposes a huge hypocrisy in the US press. Left uncovered this past year was the massive disaster that has befell Iraqi civilians. Over 100,000 civilians have died since the beginning of the US invasion and hundreds of thousands more are homeless and weakened. In late October 2004 the British Lancet medical journal published a scientific survey of households in Iraq that calculated over 100,000 civilians, mostly women and children, have died from war related causes. The study, formulated and conducted by researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at the Johns Hopkins University and the College of Medicine at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, involved a complex process of sampling households across Iraq to compare the numbers and causes of deaths before and after the invasion in March 2003. The mortality rate in these families worked out to 5 per 1,000 before the invasion and 12.3 per 1,000 after the invasion. Extrapolate the latter figure to the 22 million population of Iraq, and you end up with 100,000 total civilian deaths. The most common cause of death was aerial bombing followed by strokes and heart attacks. Recent civilian deaths in Fallujah would undoubtedly add significantly to the total.

The Iraqi word for disaster is museeba. Surly the lose of life from war in Iraq is as significant a meseeba as the Indian Ocean tsunami, yet where is the US corporate media coverage of thousands of dead and homeless? Where are the live aerial TV shots of the disaster zones and the up-close photos of the victims? Where are the survivor stories " the miracle child who lived thought a building collapsed by US bombs and rescued by neighbors? Where are the government official's press releases of regret and sorrow? Where is the international coalition for relief of civilians in Iraq and the upsurge in donations for Red Cross intervention? Would not Americans, if they knew, be just as caring about Iraqi deaths as they are for the victims of the tsunami?

The US corporate media has published Pentagon statements on civilian deaths in Iraq as unknown and dismissed the Lancet Medical Journal study. It seems US media concerns are for victims of natural disasters, while the man-made disasters, such as the deliberate invasion of another country by the US, are better left unreported.

Peter Phillips is a professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and director of Project Censored a media research organization.


www.counterpunch.org/phillips12312004.html


*****************************

December 31, 2004

Putting It in Perspective
War and the Tsunami
By CHRISTOPHER DELISO

With a death toll rising above 120,000, and large affected areas still inaccessible to rescuers, the Asian tsunami disaster has become a truly global crisis. Millions from all over the world have been affected, whole industries, villages, even tribes destroyed in an instant. Although the human casualties alone are so far of the magnitude of about 40 9/11's, the US government's initial reaction was sluggish at best. It took the scathing "stingy" comment from UN official Jan Egeland to provoke the Bush Administration into taking "the lead," as they are saying now. Perhaps they will. But the question remains, why was it a full 3 days into the catastrophe before they took the initiative?

The US government initially offered $15 million, but after the Egeland comment increased it to $35 million. The New York Times quite rightly pointed out that the latter was still a "miserly drop in the bucket" from the world's wealthiest nation. The newspaper put the initial offering in perspective, dismissing $15 million as less than what the Republicans will shell out for George W. Bush's inaugural ceremony -a vestigial formality if ever there was one - alone.

It is all too obvious that the US's relative disinterest in the disaster has to do with its cause: a random act of nature. Absent a human actor who can easily be held up to blame, an act of natural terror is not interesting for the powers that be, because it does not allow a reaction of the order of regime change or "shock and awe" bombardment. Really, who wants to feed the people who are starving for food, when it's so much more satisfying to feed those who seem to be starving for democracy? When there's no one to punish, no perceived political wrong to right, the US tends to ignore the crisis. Or, as with the devastating Bam earthquake in Iran, which killed over 20,000 and occurred exactly one year to the day before the tsunami, the government grudgingly pledged to help out with some relief - and then immediately started baying for Iranian blood once again. However, as the Times pointed out, the aid for Iran "still has not been delivered." We shouldn't hold our breath.

As everyone knows, wars and regime change cost a lot of money. In other words, well-connected individuals and corporations make a lot of money from them. Sure, relief agencies have always been marred by corruption charges, but a similar capacity for profiteering does not exist here, and the work is hardly as sexy. And, at least sometimes, such agencies do get the job done - as Eric Garris points out with Medecins Sans Frontieres.

How much does war cost, and what uses could that money be put to instead? Costofwar.com answers both questions, displaying a running counter of the cost of fighting the war in Iraq, along with a comparative study beneath of such worthy causes as health, education, college scholarships, immunizations, AIDS and world hunger. The amount comparisons are astonishing, and should provoke some serious thought about America's priorities.

The same logic certainly applies to the Tsunami relief, which although being shared by the UN and numerous foreign countries and bodies could certainly benefit from the generosity of Uncle Sam. After all, it could have been us ('us' is anyone who happens to live near a coastline with similar geographic dynamics in play, not just Americans). And if the US government is indeed so eager to display its alleged benevolence, this would be a good opportunity to make the most of of a horrendous situation.

The government is not entirely insensitive to charges of profligacy when it comes to wars. But here it tends to revel in its own deceptive language, as with today's New York Times story that announces Pentagon "budget cuts" in "the billions." While officials trumpet a $60 billion cut (over the next 6 years), part of this amount seems to be represented by the perceived value of an old aircraft carrier which is set to be mothballed - hardly an unexpected or sudden decision. The other parts of the "cuts" just mean not buying in the future - actually, just putting off the purchase of - some F/A-22 fighters for the Air Force and a new Navy destroyer.

The Times states that since 9/11 Pentagon spending has gotten a healthy 41 percent boost, "to about $420 billion this year." In other words, far from offering $60 billion "cuts," the Pentagon got a mere $360 billion increase - and that's even ignoring the fuzzy logic behind the deceptive language.

It is a shame that the US government has chosen to display its military's flawless technology, logistical depth and manpower through killing tens of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, all for no good reason and with no logical justification. They talk about winning "hearts and minds" in the outside world - and even believe that they can do it through war. But if the US really wanted to "shock and awe" the rest of the world, it would have immediately directed its available forces in the region to provide tsunami relief. In light of the tragedy, it could have even called a halt (if even a temporary one) to offensive actions in Iraq. As it stands, the incongruity between the US pledging to save lives in one corner of the world even as it stamps them out in another can only be seen as grotesque.

By the way, in the 90 minutes it took to write this article, the cost of the war in Iraq jumped from $147,561,500,303 to $147,571,322,304. That's a difference of almost 10 million dollars or, in other terms, the better half of the Bush inaugural.

Yet right now, every passing moment is critical for tsunami survivors left without homes, possessions, families and food. Time is of the essence: the UN is warning that epidemics may break out soon, and increasing looting and violence indicate the poorest and weakest victims may be trampled underfoot. Nevertheless, it appears that securing Iraq's show elections and transformation into a Jeffersonian democracy outweigh these problems.

Christopher Deliso is a Balkan-based journalist, travel writer and critic of interventionist foreign policy. Over the past few years, Mr. Deliso's writing for Antiwar.com, UPI, various American newspapers, websites and European strategic analysis firms has taken him everywhere from the shores of the Adriatic to the top of the Caucasus Mountains. He holds a master's degree with distinction in Byzantine Studies from Oxford University, and also manages the Balkan-interest news and analysis website, Balkanalysis.com.



www.counterpunch.org/deliso12312004.html



****************************



December 31, 2004

The Duplicity of the Media
Iraq vs. Tsunami
By MIKE WHITNEY

The American media has descended on the Asian tsunami with all the fervor of feral animals in a meat locker. The newspapers and TV's are plastered with bodies drifting out to sea, battered carcasses strewn along the beach and bloated babies lying in rows. Every aspect of the suffering is being scrutinized with microscopic intensity by the predatory lens of the media.

This is where the western press really excels; in the celebratory atmosphere of human catastrophe. Their penchant for misery is only surpassed by their appetite for profits.

Where was this "free press" in Iraq when the death toll was skyrocketing towards 100,000? So far, we we,ve seen nothing of the devastation in Falluja where more than 6,000 were killed and where corpses were lined along the city's streets for weeks on end. Is death less photogenic in Iraq? Or, are there political motives behind the coverage?

Wasn't Ted Koppel commenting just days ago, that the media was restricting its coverage of Iraq to show sensitivity for the squeamishness of its audience? He reiterated the mantra that filming dead Iraqis was "in bad taste" and that his American audience would be repelled by such images? How many times have we heard the same rubbish from Brokaw, Jennings and the rest of their ilk?

Well, it looks like Koppel and the others have quickly switched directions. The tsunami has turned into a 24 hour-a-day media frenzy of carnage and ruin; exploring every facet of human misery in agonizing detail. The festival of bloodshed is chugging ahead at full-throttle and it's bumping up ratings in the process.

Corporate media never fails to astound even the most jaded viewer. Just when it appears that they,ve hit rock-bottom, they manage to slip even deeper into the morass of sensationalism. The manipulation of calamity is particularly disturbing, especially when disaster is translated into a revenue windfall. Koppel may disparage "bad taste", but his boardroom bosses are more focused on the bottom line. Simply put, tragedy is good for business.

When it comes to Iraq, however, the whole paradigm shifts to the right. The dead and maimed are faithfully hidden from view. No station would dare show a dead Marine or even an Iraqi national mutilated by an errant American bomb. That might undermine the patriotic objectives of our mission; to democratize the natives and enter them into the global economic system. Besides, if Iraq was covered like the tsunami, public support would erode more quickly than the Thai coastline, and Americans would have to buy their oil rather than extracting it at gunpoint. What good would that do?

Looks like the media's got it right; carnage IS different in Iraq than Thailand, Indonesia or India. The Iraqi butchery is part of a much grander schema; a plan for conquest, subjugation and the theft of vital resources, the foundation blocks for maintaining white privilege into the next century.

The Iraq conflict is an illustration of how the media is governed by the political agenda of ownership. The media cherry-picks the news according to the requirements of the investor class; dumping footage (like dead American soldiers) that doesn't support their policies. That way, information can be fit into the appropriate doctrinal package; one that serves corporate interests. It's a matter of selectively excluding anything that compromises the broader, imperial objectives. Alternatively, the coverage of the Asian tsunami allows the media to whet the public's appetite for tragedy and feed the macabre preoccupation with misfortune. Both tendencies are an affront to honest journalism and to any reasonable commitment to an informed citizenry.

The uneven coverage (of Iraq and the tsunami) highlights an industry in meltdown.

Today's privately owned media may bury one story, and yet, manipulate another to boost ratings. They are just as likely to exploit the suffering of Asians, while ignoring the pain of Iraqis. Neither brings us closer to the truth. It's simply impossible to derive a coherent world view from the purveyors of soap suds and dog food. They,re more devoted to creating a compatible atmosphere for consumerism than conveying an objective account of events.

We need a media that is dedicated to straightforward standards of impartiality and excellence, not one that's rooted in commercialism, exploitation and hyperbole.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney (at) msn.com




*************************************


Published on Saturday, January 1, 2005 by the San Francisco Chronicle
Stung by Charges of Being Tightfisted and Slow to Respond, Bush Makes Tenfold Increase in Pledged Amount
by Zachary Coile

WASHINGTON -- The United States, which was heavily criticized for its response in the first days of the Asian tsunami disaster, substantially increased its pledge of aid to $350 million Friday.

The new pledge makes the United States the largest donor to the relief effort, followed by the World Bank, which has committed $250 million, and Great Britain, which is offering $95 million in aid.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, who will lead an American delegation touring the devastated region next week, said President Bush had agreed to boost U.S. relief aid from the $35 million previously announced after receiving new reports of the damage across southern Asia and parts of Africa.

"This tenfold increase is indicative of American generosity, but it also is indicative of the need," Powell said Friday after meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in New York. "The need is great and not just for immediate relief but for long-term reconstruction, rehabilitation, family support (and) economic support that's going to be needed for these countries to get back up on their feet."

Powell suggested the United States might be willing to give even more aid, saying, "I'm not sure $350 (million) is the end number. It's the number that we've settled on for now."

The administration has been reeling from complaints that the president was too slow to come before TV cameras to address the crisis and that the administration's initial offers of financial assistance were paltry.

Speaking at U.N. headquarters in New York, Annan sought to downplay the controversy, saying the United States and other donors had been generous in their support. More than $1.1 billion has been pledged by U.N. member nations, including the United States, as well as other major donors.

"On the question of fund-raising, I think that things are looking up," Annan told reporters Friday.

But Annan quickly added, "I will urge governments not only to contribute for the moment, but be prepared to continue the effort over the longer term."

Some Democratic lawmakers and humanitarian officials had complained earlier this week about the White House's early commitments of aid. After first offering $4 million in assistance, the administration raised its pledge to $15 million and then $35 million.

But critics had noted that the United States' $35 million donation was smaller than those of several European nations and was not much bigger than contributions offered by some major corporations and relief organizations. For example, Baltimore-based Catholic Relief Services had pledged $25 million for emergency relief.

Drugmaker Pfizer is contributing $10 million in cash and $25 million worth of drugs to relief groups, while Coca-Cola has pledged $10 million in aid. Exxon Mobil is donating $5 million, while Citigroup, Merck, BP and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are donating $3 million each.

Powell spoke Friday morning with Andrew Natsios, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, who urged an increase in financial assistance based on reports from USAID representatives in the hardest-hit areas. Powell said he then called Bush, who approved the increase in aid from his Crawford, Texas, ranch.

In a prepared statement released by the White House Friday, Bush said: "Initial findings of American assessment teams on the ground indicate that the need for financial and other assistance will steadily increase in the days and weeks ahead. ... Our contributions will continue to be revised as the full effects of this terrible tragedy become clearer."

The president said that more than 20 U.S. aircraft were being used to transport supplies and that the Navy aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and an amphibious ship carrying a Marine expeditionary unit -- both capable of producing clean drinking water -- would soon be in place to help tsunami survivors.

Bush added, "Reports of strong charitable donations are also very encouraging and reflect the true generosity and compassion of the American people."

Relief organizations are reporting a surge of contributions this week. The American Red Cross said it had received $43.7 million in contributions from individuals and corporations as of 7 p.m. Thursday.

"The response and the outpouring of support from the public has been tremendous," Jacki CQ Flowers, a spokeswoman for the group in Washington, said Friday. "Americans are always very generous when there is a disaster, whether it's at home or abroad. We are just so grateful because we couldn't provide the relief without their help."

Relief groups also caution, however, that the needs in southern Asia are likely to grow. The U.N.'s World Health Organization is warning that 5 million people in Asia lack basic services, and health experts say there is serious risk of diarrhea-related diseases, malaria, respiratory infections and dengue fever for residents in areas affected by the tsunami.

Aid workers said the need for food, clean water, medicine and shelter may be greatest in Indonesia, where the death toll has now risen above 80,000, and Sri Lanka, where at least 28,000 people have been killed and 900,000 have been displaced.

Some humanitarian officials have expressed concern about the distribution of relief aid after reports from Indonesia Thursday that boxes of drinking water, food and blankets were sitting in an airport hangar in Medan, nearly 300 miles south of Banda Aceh, where emergency supplies are desperately needed.

Annan said Friday he was concerned about the bottleneck and had talked with Powell and other foreign leaders about ways to get more planes and helicopters to transport emergency supplies.

"The situation is very difficult, particularly in Aceh and Sumatra, and we need to get access," Annan said. "The initial phase is a race against time, and we are pressing ahead trying to do it as fast as we can."

At least one foreign government offered praise for the United States' latest pledge of financial assistance. The Indonesian ambassador to the United States, Soemadi Brotodiningrat, called the White House's offer of aid "very heartening."

"We ourselves, our government, also is being criticized for being rather slow in dealing with the disaster, but many people don't know how complicated it is to do that," Brotodiningrat said on CNN. "I don't see any lack of goodwill on the part of the U.S. government."


********************************************


December 29, 2004

Us, Stingy?
It's All Relative
By DAVE LINDORFF

Cost of one F-22 Raptor tactical fighter jet -- $225 million

Cost of the ongoing U.S. war in Iraq--$228 million/day

Amount spent by Kerry and Bush campaigns -- $400 million

U.S. aid to Yushenko camp in recent Ukrainian conflict -- $30+ million

Estimated cost of Bush's Second Inauguration and Ball -- $ 40+ million

Amount of U.S. tax cuts under Bush -- $1 trillion

Cost of the U.S. Iraq War in 2004 -- $147 billion

U.S. reconstruction aid budgeted for Iraq (though never spent!) -- $18 billion

Amount the U.S. initially in aid to Indian Ocean tsunami victims -- $ 10 million

Amount U.S. offered in tsunami aid after being chastised by UN official -- $35 million


Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His new book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" to be published this fall by Common Courage Press. Information about both books and other work by Lindorff can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net.

www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12292004.html

*******************************************