A Tale of Two Countries: How Bush Helped Make the Flu Crisis

Published on October 19, 2004 By blogic In Politics

Bush supporters have tried to argue that the Bush administration bears no responsiblity for this year's critical shortage of flu vaccine.

This is from Medical News Today:

Last August UK officials, with the same information the US officials had, decided something had to be done in case the Chiron supplies, 14% of UK supplies, went belly up. The US officials decided to believe Chiron and gamble 48% of their supplies on an assurance that everything would turn out fine despite some worrying set backs.

When October 5th arrived, the British authorities pulled the plug on the Chiron, Liverpool, supplies. US authorities were caught out - nothing had been done in advance, the country had allowed itself to get into this situation.

[snip]

Even without this crisis, the UK authorities have always had a situation where they can fall back on six or seven suppliers that have been pre-approved by UK authorities. The US, on the other hand, only has two - one of which has let them down. Had the US had more pre-approved suppliers, had the US started to do something about this problem last August when alarm bells were ringing, had the US…….? This is what many Americans are now starting to ask.

The American Health Dept saw no reason last August to do anything, says their spokesman Tony Jewell. Americans hear him and ask, so why did the British have a reason, you both worked on the same information, didn't you?

America's only other supplier, Aventis, may have upped supplies if they had been asked in advance - say last August - said an Aventis spokesman. But no one from the US approached them on this matter, not till after Oct 5.

That really sums things up. Two governments were working with the same information -- that there were potential problems with the flu vaccine supply. One government handled it well, while the Bush administration displayed incompetence. As they have done on the Iraq quagmire, you can see the Bush administration refusing to take responsibility for this, blaming everybody but themselves for the choices made by the Bush adminstration. As flu season approaches, we can only hope seniors and children won't die because of this administration's poor judgment.

Comments (Page 4)

blogic

on Oct 21, 2004

Sure: Cheney doesn't think Kerry could handle 'the ultimate threat'.

drmiler

on Oct 21, 2004

Reply #46 By: blogic - 10/21/2004 12:46:05 AM
Sure: Cheney doesn't think Kerry could handle 'the ultimate threat'.

Sorry but that dog don't hunt! NOTHING on the link provided backup for what your claiming.

The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us -- biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans," the vice president said.

"That's the ultimate threat. For us to have a strategy that's capable of defeating that threat, you've got to get your mind around that concept," Cheney said.

Cheney, speaking to an invitation-only crowd as he began a bus tour through Ohio, said Kerry is trying to convince voters he would be the same type of "tough, aggressive" leader as President Bush.

"I don't believe it," Cheney said.

Where in there did Cheney say that American cities were more likely to get nuked if Kerry won the election? I don't see it.

blogic

on Oct 21, 2004

Hi dmiller,

If you look at my comment, you'll see I said "implied."

Here's another edit of the same AP story:

CARROLL, Ohio -- Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday evoked the possibility of terrorists bombing U.S. cities with nuclear weapons and questioned whether Sen. John Kerry could combat such a threat, which the vice president called a concept "you've got to get your mind around."

"The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us -- biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans," Cheney said.

"That's the ultimate threat. For us to have a strategy that's capable of defeating that threat, you've got to get your mind around that concept," Cheney said.

Cheney, speaking to an invitation-only crowd as he began a bus tour through Republican strongholds in Ohio, said Kerry is trying to convince voters he would be the same type of "tough, aggressive" leader as Bush in the fight against terrorism.

"I don't believe it," the vice president said. "I don't think there's any evidence to support the proposition that he would, in fact, do it."

Translation: A Bush administration would effectively combat the threat of cities getting nuked. A Kerry administration wouldn't.

As I said, "implied."

drmiler

on Oct 21, 2004

Reply #48 By: blogic - 10/21/2004 1:39:41 AM
Hi dmiller,

If you look at my comment, you'll see I said "implied."

Show me in the link provided by you where he even implied such a thing.

ly #48 By: blogic - 10/21/2004 1:39:41 AM
Hi dmiller,

If you look at my comment, you'll see I said "implied."

Here's another edit of the same AP story:
CARROLL, Ohio -- Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday evoked the possibility of terrorists bombing U.S. cities with nuclear weapons and questioned whether Sen. John Kerry could combat such a threat, which the vice president called a concept "you've got to get your mind around."

"The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us -- biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans," Cheney said.

"That's the ultimate threat. For us to have a strategy that's capable of defeating that threat, you've got to get your mind around that concept," Cheney said.

Cheney, speaking to an invitation-only crowd as he began a bus tour through Republican strongholds in Ohio, said Kerry is trying to convince voters he would be the same type of "tough, aggressive" leader as Bush in the fight against terrorism.

"I don't believe it," the vice president said. "I don't think there's any evidence to support the proposition that he would, in fact, do it."
Translation: A Bush administration would effectively combat the threat of cities getting nuked. A Kerry administration wouldn't.

As I said, "implied."

Here is your original quote. You stated that Cheney "implied" that American cities were more likely to get nuked if Kerry was elected. Sorry but he didn't even imply that.

Finally, of course both campaigns are dramatizing what will happen if the other guy is elected. That said, I think you're being a little hard on Kerry when on the same day Cheney implied that American cities were more likely to get nuked if Kerry won the election.

Translation: A Bush administration would effectively combat the threat of cities getting nuked. A Kerry administration wouldn't. As I said, "implied."

This is not what you "implied" at first, now is it?

blogic

on Oct 21, 2004

drmiller,

You're joking, right?

A. American cities will get nuked unless that threat is effectively combated.
B. Cheney says only tough, aggressive war on terrorism can effectively combat threat of cities getting nuked.
C. Cheney says Bush will fight tough, aggressive war on terrorism.
D. Cheney says Kerry won't fight an tough, aggressive war on terrorism.
A + B + C = E. American Cities less likely to get nuked if Bush elected.
A + B + D = G. American cities more likely to get nuked if Kerry elected.

If you really don't follow this, I guess I can't convince you, and I surrender. I think most people would agree with me, but obviously I can't prove that. The news media interpreted in the same way I did, but you probably think that media is biased.

Thank you for your comments.

Lee1776

on Oct 21, 2004

Sorry for taking this off the origianal post but:

If Chaney said something like that before the debates, I would have said a statement like that is way across the line, but now no.

Kerry did publicly say that he would give Iran nuclear material.

With Kerry's threat of giving nuclear material to a coutry known for supporting terrorism, I would have to believe Chaney and agree with him.

You don't here Bush talking about giving Iran tech.

That's My Two Cents

blogic

on Oct 21, 2004

Hi Lee1776

Right, I think Bush has increased the flu threat, and you think Kerry would increase the chance that American cities will get nuked.

My point was that it was unfair to focus specifically on Kerry's words regarding the flu vaccine shortage, when the very same day Cheney was warning that a Kerry victory would make it more likely that cities would get nuked.

In my humble opinion, both candidates are using scare tactics -- they're drawing out exaggerated possible outcomes from real differences in policy views.

Castle

on Oct 23, 2004

Granted, both candidates are using scare tactics. What would an election be without them. Although, there does appear to be much more at stake in this particular election.
While we're on the subject of scare tactics.....
If the Bush administration was able to warn us of a possible terrorist attack on Sept 10, 2001, how would the left have received that? I'm guessing........no I'm quite sure they would have spun it into right wing scare tactics.
The Bush administration came out with the color coded threat levels making public more of the threat data they process every day. Of course, more scare tactics but we all want to know what they know exactly when they know it - even if most of the intel they wade thru is less than credible.
Heres my threat assessment:

Dammit Bush - you blew it on the flu vaccine. Guess I'll need another box of Alka Seltzer Plus.
Holy Crap Kerry - you'll give the Iranians nuclear materal for their "power plants" *cough* weapons plants *cough*. Wheres my 2 million SPF sun block.

messybuu

on Oct 24, 2004

Flus are worse than nukes.

Texas Wahine

on Oct 24, 2004

If flus are worse than nukes . . . are flukes the worst of all?

*that was lame, wasn't it?*

drmiler

on Oct 24, 2004

Reply #54 By: Messy Buu - 10/24/2004 12:01:35 AM
Flus are worse than nukes

How so? The flu *may kill* a couple of thousand people (which ain't cool). A nuke will *kill* a couple of hundred thousand (REALLY not cool.).

Castle

on Oct 24, 2004

drmiler
I'm guessing Messy was attempting the art of humor. If not, lets put it to the test. We'll take a bout of the flu and Messy a good dose of radiation. Who's more likely to be around next week.

texas - "flukes" LOL

Daiwa

on Oct 24, 2004

Scare tactics don't bother me, from either side, and their use is not disqualifying. I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I should be afraid of. In this case, a rampant flu epidemic is low on my list of fears.

Cheers,
Daiwa

blogic

on Oct 24, 2004

"How so? The flu *may kill* a couple of thousand people (which ain't cool). A nuke will *kill* a couple of hundred thousand (REALLY not cool.). "

Since the first terrorist attack on American territory, in 1993, nearly 3000 people Americans have died from terrorism. That's an awful loss. I live a mile or two from the World Trade Center site, and lived in Washington when we had to flee downtown DC because of the 9/11 attack.

According to the General Accounting Office, an average of 36,000 people die every year from flu, or complications coming from having the flu. That means that the flu has killed over four hundred thousand people since that first terrorist attack in 1993. For every man and woman who died on 9/11, twelve people die every year from flu.

The flu matters. When Bush ignores three and half years of warnings from his own government, that matters. Bush needs to stop passing the buck.

drmiler

on Oct 24, 2004

Reply #59 By: blogic - 10/24/2004 3:08:47 PM
"How so? The flu *may kill* a couple of thousand people (which ain't cool). A nuke will *kill* a couple of hundred thousand (REALLY not cool.). "

Since the first terrorist attack on American territory, in 1993, nearly 3000 people Americans have died from terrorism. That's an awful loss. I live a mile or two from the World Trade Center site, and lived in Washington when we had to flee downtown DC because of the 9/11 attack.

According to the General Accounting Office, an average of 36,000 people die every year from flu, or complications coming from having the flu. That means that the flu has killed over four hundred thousand people since that first terrorist attack in 1993. For every man and woman who died on 9/11, twelve people die every year from flu.

The flu matters. When Bush ignores three and half years of warnings from his own government, that matters. Bush needs to stop passing the buck.

If you bothered to take notice, I never said that the flu didn't matter. Now did I? No, I said (and truthfully) that a nuclear device would kill alot more! By you own statement you say 400,000 in 11 years killed by the flu. One nuke could very easily do twice that numer in less than 60 seconds. Please don't try to rationalize this, you can't! No matter how you slice this up, a nuke is far more dangerous than the flu. At least with the flu you might survive. Care to try the same experiment with a nuke?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!