whytemyke said:
And I feel I don't have to qualify mine, either.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
But because I do feel we can come to an agreement I want to say one thing:
I wish we lived in a world where lending a helping hand was not questioned and looked at with a raised eyebrow. With all my heart I wish this. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Actions, events, and the like... everything must be considered before taking action.
On the outset, a promotion of aid *seems* like a wonderful thing. But taken at extremes (perhaps comparing it to whether one would accept aid from, say, Bin Laden, or Hussein) it might be easier to grasp why Bush (and his elected/appointed officials) find it proper not to accept aid... especially aid which might be "loaded" in nature (which was mentioned in a prior post).
Aid... in this instance... is not the same no matter where it comes from. A fact that we have to deal with, unfortunately.
Edit: A response to your edit...
It was not meant to be a BASH at all... maybe a little jab. I respect Raoul and have enjoyed many of his posts in the past. But, simply basing on that fact alone... does not dictate that he cannot (and this is how I feel) make a mistake in a statement/post/title. When I read the topic title... I fealt angry and confused... when I read the post itself... I understood why President Bush rejected the aid and, thusly, disagreed with Raoul and his topic title.
As far as the NYT statement goes... I think you are taking me a bit too broadly... it was a light joke poking at a history that the NYT is known to have (and this is coming from a native NYer... not that that means anything). The NYT also has a history of misleading articles as well... so... I simply juxtaposed the two. Idiotic? I think not. Incorrect? Perhaps... but that's up to opinion.
I would have been better off by saying: "I disagree with you Raoul." But this is GAF and we all (maybe?) try to stick a little joke or reference in as many times as we can.