when you hear the comments from those like rush and roberts and other members of the gop, it makes one wonder how we are truly one country. there is not now any countervailing argument that this is now other than ugly ugly racism not just because of the color of their skin, but of their poverty as well!

Rachel was just pointing out some facts.

Jon must be taking up the "fair and balanced" approach he displayed in his Crosstalk takedown, and no doubt Rachel is much less likely than the others to be personally offended.

But we should never forget just how callous our government became under the Bush/Cheney junta, and I'm glad Rachel reminds people of it. We aren't going to hear or see the word "Bush" in the MSM for a while, has anyone else noticed, there's a media blackout about all matters from that recent, sorry epoch in our history.

Those "revisionist historians" who want to clean up Bush's lousy image know it is way too early to try revising Bush's tainted image, and hopefully people like Rachel will continue to remind them of that reality.

I loved Jon's show last night but, I too thought he was off base about Rachel. She was simply stating a fact, which is something that could not be said for Limbaugh and Robertson.

Rachel Maddow is NOT "just pointing out the facts." She is ignoring the facts. Don't get me wrong: I detest Bush and Cheney. But Bush did use the military and USAID to respond to the Indian Ocean tsunami. Nothing was spared, and the effort was truly heroic. I was there in Aceh and I saw it. Bush did the right thing - one of the few times he did - and he could have easily ignored that terrible disaster so far from our shores, and with no obvious political gain to be made from doing it.

I may agree with Rachel Maddow on most issues, but she is just plain wrong this time. And her relentless holier-than-thou smarminess is grating and ultimately hurts the moderate and liberal cause.

Well, it will be interesting to see what, if any response Rachel has. If there really was a similar response from Bush, she's likely to discuss the two. I hope that Jon did his homework before making that statement last night. We shall see. Or, she may find that he was right and offer an apology. I don't believe she was referring to the way Bush handled the Tsunami. I assumed, since Haiti is so close to Florida, I thought she was comparing his response to Katrina. While Haiti isn't in the United States, it's much closer to us and many of the Haitian people commute back and forth visiting relatives. The people involved in the Tsunami were practically a world away.

Uh Oh?
From Buzzle.com
Bush Defends Us Response to Tsunami

"The US president, George Bush, today rejected accusations that the west had been "stingy" in its offers of aid for victims of the tsunami that wreaked havoc on coastal communities around the Indian Ocean.
The US president, George Bush, today rejected accusations that the west had been "stingy" in its offers of aid for victims of the tsunami that wreaked havoc on coastal communities around the Indian Ocean.

In his first comments, three days after the disaster that has taken more than 75,000 lives and made millions homeless, Mr Bush said the initial US grant of $35m (£18.2m) was "only the beginning of our help". But he did not announce an immediate increase in aid.

On Monday, Jan Egeland, the UN's emergency relief coordinator, said the west had generally been "stingy" in its aid to poor countries. Speaking from his Crawford ranch in Texas where he is on holiday, Mr Bush criticised Mr Egeland without naming him.

"I felt like the person who made that statement was very misguided and ill-informed," Mr Bush said. "In the year 2004, our government provided $2.4bn in food and cash and humanitarian relief ... that's 40% of all the relief aid given in the world last year."

On future US aid for the tsunami victims, Mr Bush said: "There will be an assessment of the damage so that the next tranche of the relief will be spent wisely ... our government is fully prepared to continue to provide assistance and help."

But the accusations of stinginess appeared to have hit home as the US initially announced a grant of $15m. By today, the amount had more than doubled.

"The United States will continue to stand with the affected governments as they care for the victims," Mr Bush said. "We will stand with them as they start to rebuild their communities. And together the world will cope with their loss. We will prevail over this destruction."

The president, who spoke to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, said: "I assure those leaders that this is just only the beginning of our help."

Mr Bush also said the US would consider all requests for aid, including a German proposal for a debt moratorium for Indonesia and Somalia. Earlier, the German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, said he would propose a moratorium for the two countries' existing Paris Club debt."

Hm?

I thought Jon exposed Yoo for the liar he is.

Jon Stewart wants so badly to be above partisan rancor that he is forced into these equivocations. Come back Jon! We liked you when you had an agenda!

By the way raising money for health fairs was not just a political action. It's also a humanitarian action.

(shrug) Pretty mild faux pas on Maddow's part. Pretty mild criticism from Stewart. No need for people to breathlessly jump to the stalwart defense of either.

He could have jabbed at Keith for trying to wrench the Haiti story into a question/comment about health care that even Weiner sort of rolled his eyes at.

I think his point is well taken. Any use of the current tragedy to push a political agenda is opportunistic. Even if you agree with the point being made and even if that point isn't as cruel and moronic as the ones being made by Rush and Robertson. Opportunism is opportunism and the left does it, too. I don't see the problem in Stewart calling it out.

These are desparate times. Any opportunity to smack down ReThuglicans must be taken. They WIN when we fail to fight them.

They have no morals and no qualms about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, even and ESPECIALLY when there IS NO fire.

It must be pointed out early and often what heartless, hypocritical scum they are.

I'm sick and tired of them being always being on offense and us always being on defense.

Make that:

Yup the real tragedy here is 14 dead UN staffers, all right.

As much as I have faulted Rachel Maddow recently for being the Democratic shill she has become, she was correct last night about USAID. Let me help to explain, and JON LISTEN UP:

1. In past history, with royalty and empires, the actual people had no role in deciding to go to war and dominate other countries. They were simply ordered to join or face the consequences.

2. Since then, we have "democracies" all over the world. The average person does not take kindly to sending their chidren off to wars they do not want. So, VIOLA, the "false flag" operation was born, and is still used today, to take countries to unwanted wars (like 911 and "yellowcake").

3. But now, that excuse is running a little thin, due to the internet and such, so now the empires have a dilemma. How to control other countries assets, resources, oil, people and influence without seeming to be warmongers. This is where the "WTO" and the "world" banks, and the "world" insurance companies, the NAFTA CAFTA and other "trade" agreements come in, and, unfortunately, the UN "soldiers" (who have been occupying Haiti for a long time now) and other "AID"-type agencies, that are filled with political operatives, and YES, worldwide tax schemes forcing small countries to pay larger ones, that are exemplified in the "Climate Change Legislation" (formerly known as "global warming"). In otherwords, it is totally consistent with the Obama agenda, to exert undue influence over other countries with the proposal of "AID" You have to see what is being given up in exchange. Same agenda, different president.

BUT HERE'S THE BEST THING... Did anyone see Sanjay Gupta (CNN) on tv this morning? HE WAS WALKING THROUGH A HALLWAY POKING AND TOUCHING VICTIMS IN HAITI, SAYING THINGS LIKE, "Look at this person with a broken leg. The person treating him is not even a doctor! BUT SANJAY IS!!!, THAT IDIOT!!!! WHY IS HE WALKING THROUGH AND POKING PEOPLE WHO ARE ABOUT TO DIE WHEN HE IS A DOCTOR, JUST TO DO A STORY FOR CNN. HE COULD HAVE SET THAT LEG AND HELPED ABOUT A DOZEN PEOPLE DURING THE INTERVIEW... You gotta see it to believe it...

If that doesn't make it on the Daily Show, its off my tivo for good!

Jon Stewart had a point with Rachel (and I really, really like her too, but ...) I saw some of her other "coverage." She was in the studio and onsite in Haiti were Brian Williams and some other talking suit, although they weren't in suits. The thing is, it was mostly about them and most of what wasn't about them was about US, as in U.S. or United States. The President was sending ships, Marines were on the ground, blah blah and everything would be peachy now because America and the President are so good and courageous and generous and all we do is help these hapless, helpless, poverty-stricken people in this godforsaken hellhole. And if we can't help them, it's all their fault for being so poor and "chaotic." ALL of the "news" coverage is like that. Half the screen is taken up by the studio talking suit/haircut and half of the rest is "our so-and-so on the ground" talking about how "it's so awful seeing this; I just can't describe it." There is actually 1/4 of the screen showing anything. It is just totally about US and narcissistic babble. They just really cannot help themselves. What a pile of crap our "media" are.

Some people just can't handle the TRUTH..

Jon, as usual, done good. His "shot" at Rachel was nothing more than a mild chiding (and all it was was "not the right time"). It made his Robertson/Limbaugh thing much stronger.

I would like to know if Bush responded the very same day, the article referenced said "3 days after" so that would play into the right constantly bashing Obama for taking 3 days to respond to the Captain Underpants bomber and in this case Obama responded the very same day. It took Bush 6 days to officially respond to Katrina so my assumption is that Rachel was trying to shore up multiple arguments with her comment. One: Rush was implying that Obama cares more for Black folks than "Americans" by saying what he said since it took 3 days to respond to the attempted bomber. Bush took 6 days not only to respond to Katrina, where people did die, but 6 days to respond to the shoe bomber. Because of the outcry from the right over the length of time Obama took to respond and Rush's apparent outrage that Obama would respond so quickly to the disaster in Haiti, Rachel cleared the air and set the record straight.

As far as natural disasters goes, Obama has responded properly and Bush didn't. If Bush responded to the tsunami that day, I'd like to see the link. Otherwise the distinction is obvious. It isn't about the money it is about how long it takes to recognize and acknowledge the disaster to begin with.

Sounds like Rush is sharing his drug supply with Robertson or visa versa

First of all, this is a tempest in a tea pot. But I don't know, Jon. I see the point that politics can wait. But Rachel had a point about the value of USAID, and why it matters. That's a policy discussion, not merely a political one.

The mentality that gov't should do nothing and people should fend for themselves was on display during Katrina. This disaster is being handled in a different way, with active and coordinated govt involvement. I think it comes down to: "How do we handle huge disasters like this". And that's a question that New Orleans, Florida, California and others may face at any moment.

If not now, when? In a week, Americans will have forgotten all about it. Then when we get hit with one and have an uncoordinated response, we will be sorry.

I just made two $25.00 donations to help in Haiti. One to UNICEF in Pat Robertson’s name. One to help Haitian Animal Relief Fund in Rush Limbaugh's name. I recommend you all do the same. Now who at CNN should we send the receipts to? (Credit where credit is due.)