On CNBC, they showed Bush on a safari. I don't know exactly where he was(Uganda) but I could not believe he was driving around in a open roof truck with all the locals around and apparently few US military or security people in the truck. Doesn't he have a team of Special forces with him or something when he goes there? btw I found it funny that he made all these comments praising the fight against AIDS in Uganda knowing his AIDS/teenage pregancy prevention policy in the US , didn't he cut drastically US funds destined to fight AIDS in Africa? Aah Dubya be careful don't get run over by a bunch of elephants in heat!
Actually he pushed a big increase in African aids funding, to the dismay of many in his party. Bob Geldorf famously remarked that Bush has done much more than Clinton in this regard.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to Bush's plan for AIDS funding in congress. Remember that nobody's remembered for proposals, only solutions, and unless congress passes the 15 billion, Bush will be viewed as a $$$ tease in Africa. At least we can prove that the money would go to fight a real problem and not some made up cause to further our oil interests. Now, who wants to make the tie between this funding and African oil??? Alfonso, MSFE, etc.... there's the open door. And just to stay on topic for a moment, the security isn't seen, but believe me, it's there. The secret service, FBI, CIA, and NSA case a location for weeks before any diplomatic arrival. Especially the Pres. Plus, I'm sure that every "local" that you see is being covered by an automatic weapon or at least being spied by a secret service agent. Remember, the magic of TV can make Bush look like he's in the middle of nowhere... just look at the behind the scenes footage and you'll see the truth.
Oil shocked A desire to loosen Opec's stranglehold on petroleum prices lies behind Bush's interest in Africa and his plans for Iraq, writes Randeep Ramesh Friday July 11, 2003 America's new world order appears founded on a declaration of independence. George Bush, an oil man from an oil state, wants America to wean itself off a dangerous addiction to faraway hydrocarbons. As the president's national energy plan puts it, this is "a condition of increased dependency on foreign powers that do not always have American interests at heart". Although admirably blunt, this statement has haunted the Bush administration since it was made in May 2001 - months before the attacks of September 11. America's war on terrorism is often viewed as a scramble for black gold. There is a logic to this. Getting gas out of the Caspian is a lot easier if you are faced with a pliant Afghanistan. If Iraq is not run by a dictator determined to use oil as a weapon of war - as Dick Cheney said "[to] seek domination of the entire Middle East" - then Americans could sleep easier. So no surprise that when Mr Bush landed in Africa, whose western coast floats above rich oil-bearing sea beds, the image is of the president as plunderer of a continent's mineral wealth rather than provider of American benevolence. Oil is not scarce - but most of it lies under the sands of the Middle East. Since 1973, when Arab nations imposed an embargo on oil exports to the US, US presidents have been promising to end America's reliance on energy from potentially unfriendly sources. Mr Bush may succeed where his predecessors failed. The reason is simply this: America is moving swiftly from influencing the affairs of other nations to controlling them. This shift sees the dovetailing of two strategic imperatives: energy security and terrorism. The hatred and contempt of America is undoubtedly fed by US high-handedness but it can also be funded by oil revenues. So oil-rich states that have turned a blind eye to militant anti-Americanism will pay a heavy price. Any that seek to use their wealth to buy weapons of mass destruction will also be threatened with American military might. Viewed from such a perspective, it is easy to see why Iran has been targeted by the Bush administration. Unlike the imperialists of the British empire who sought control of the Middle East's vast oil reserves by owning them, America's approach is more subtle. Getting oil from many different sources - Africa's share of US imports could replace the Middle East's this decade - is not enough of an answer. It is the price of oil that can bring the American economy to its knees. To see just how destructive oil price shocks can be, it is worth noting that they have cost America $7 trillion dollars (£4.2 trillion) in the past 30 years. Oil is a fungible commodity, worth nothing until sold. How can America ensure that the price of oil is stable - low enough for its citizens to afford but high enough for producers to recoup investment costs and make tidy profits? The answer is to tame unruly regions and coax friendly oil-rich nations to pump more oil on to the world markets. Neither is easy especially given that, as populous nations such as China and India grow, the demand for energy will rise, putting upward pressure on the oil price in decades to come. From such a vantage point, it is easier to understand how America's interests are served by occupying Iraq. Sitting on top of the globe's second largest oil reserves, Iraq has the potential to become one of the world's biggest petrol pumps. Installing a US-friendly administration in Baghdad would not only serve foreign policy objectives - securing an ally in a troubled region - but also the American economy. America aspires to having the same relationship with Iraq as it had, before September 11, with Saudi Arabia. In this future scenario, Baghdad would displace Riyadh as America's friendly swing producer - able to flood the market if there was any attempt to send oil prices skyward by cutting back on production. Of course this will require massive investment and a sustained nation-building effort, but as Mr Bush puts it America is in for the long haul. All this points to the US's latent intent: to finish the oil cartel Opec. It will be interesting to see whether Mr Bush can convince Nigeria that its interests lie in an alliance with Washington not with the Middle East. If Lagos were to leave Opec or even argue America's case, then Mr Bush's African expedition would have yielded a significant gain for America. Another triumph would be if Mexico, whose president is in political trouble, allowed foreign investment into its inefficient, state-owned petrol industry. Helping Mexico to pump more oil will help loosen the grip that Opec has on the current oil price. Perhaps the most interesting American advance is that which is least talked about. US oil companies are reckoned to have brought rights to almost 75% of the oil and gas output from the Caspian, which potentially contains tens of billions of barrels of oil. The region's powers - Iran, China and Russia - all are wary of a growing US military presence in central Asia. But seen from Capitol Hill, it makes sense to have troops around to secure American investment and the route of potential pipelines in the face of rival powers. If America's attempt to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan is not ground to dust by the warlordism and chaos that threatens both countries, Washington may reap a significant future peace dividend in the shape of lower oil prices. Oil was not the reason for going to war, but it appears a good enough reason to win the peace.
Ahh - but the actual FUNDING has been cut in appropriations committee (run by his party). And much of the longer term funds are in the form of matching grants that require $2 of foreign contribution for each $1 in US matching funds - and those foreign funds cannot be designated for programs that actively promote birth control (condoms) as a method for fighting AIDS. In fact this administration is actually spending LESS than previous administrations. More of the same.
I knew I could count on you It's actually a very interesting argument, and in this case I think that there is an actual strategy behind it (build stronger nations to buy oil from... shore up the supply). Even though the number ($15 billion) is very substantial, Tater is correct. It doesn't matter what the number is if the problem isn't targeted. Since the final plan hasn't been approved, we'll just have to wait and see what comes out of committee and congress. The way things have been lately, I wouldn't be surprised if media coverage completely stops on the issue as soon as Bush leaves African airspace and the issue is dropped in committee. It's almost like Bush is setting himself up for failure. He messed up on Iraq, and continues to, by not including a substantial enough force or asking the international community for help. The AIDS issue will be highlighted by the Dems, as will the intelligence snafus, the oil/energy meetings, etc. in the next election. I think he's spreading himself too thin. We're in Afghanistan, Iraq, soon to be Liberia, the economy is in the crapper, our currency is weak, and he's talking about an AIDS policy that may never happen. As if we need the international community to think less of our promises than they already do!