Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
by wchurchill: ... a somewhat bogus report about a British food offer ...


Bogus, huh? Nice try.

"The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

by Ritter on Tue Nov 8th, 2005 at 05:43:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
yes a somewhat bogus report,,,,,why are you snipping (not sure what that means) me?  I'm asking Jerome for what he is talking about--I assume he means a French offer.  And you don't know, I think, what I'm talking about--do you?
by wchurchill on Tue Nov 8th, 2005 at 06:07:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The UK food was burnt after arrival in the US. It were 40.000 ready - to - eat rations of the same sort eaten by NATO troops in Afghanistan. This includes US troops. German planes were not given permission to land and had to return half way over the Atlantic. I spoke to friends from RELEX/AIDCO in Brussels who were foaming because of their US FEMA colleagues reluctance to let them ship emergency aid over to the Gulf Coast states.

"The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819
by Ritter on Tue Nov 8th, 2005 at 06:43:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The reason for the delay is it contained, or might have contained, british beef which was banned due to mad cow disease.  Officials were implementing, they thought, US policy.  It was a bureaucratic snafu, but frankly in the bureaucracy of the US government, getting it fixed in 5 days is almost a miracle.  It did piss the Brits off because they busted their butts to help.  But it was delivered, and it was not a political insult.  Now maybe you want to argue that other governments are not as bureaucratic as the US,,,,????  But I don't think these things rise to the level of insults.  If they do, I've been insulted by a number of European countries a lot of times.Refer to story in the London Times

The story was covered with much less accuracy and much more vehemence in the tabloids 1 1/2 weeks after the problem was fixed.  I posted on another site at that time:

While there is some truth in the Daily Mirror story, it is a recycled story written on September 19 that is at least 9 days out of date.  For those of you not familiar with the Daily Mirror, it is a British tabloid, and I'll let you go to their website for yourself and draw you own conclusions.    http://www.mirror.co.uk/
I'm not sure what stories will be highlighted when you look, but some of you may enjoy "Dad killed mum,,,,but I've forgiven him" and "Rick Parfitt: My big mistakes on booze..I ended up in bed with an electrician called Nigel and his wife"

I find the London Times to be a much better source of news, and it was the only other source I found with the story.  Here is the url to their article written September 10:

So if you want to chastise US bureaucracy on this kind of basis, be my guest.
by wchurchill on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 01:08:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was not fixed in 5 days as you say.

Here is a BBC report from mid-October that tells the rest of the story. The offered rations were mostly kept on hold in Little Rock, and the US gov't is looking for an opportunity to send them elsewhere in the world where people are hungry but not protected by federal regulations against mad cow disease. Contributions by other European nations were also rejected in this way.

Your self-quote from "another site", btw, was also posted here on ET by one wchurchill on September 27 (see my comment above on dates). It was entitled Rubbish. Someone must have been using your nick?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 02:03:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
thanks for the BBC comment which I'll look at in a minute.  But I was sure I had posted this on ET, but when I checked my comments on my history, it wasn't there.  I actually wanted to refer to it.  How did you find it?  Obviously I'm missing an insight on our system--btw, it was also true that I posted it on another site, Daily Koz, and I found it there on their history.
by wchurchill on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 02:52:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
which supports my point:"US rejects British Katrina beef
 The US said meals were overlooked due to the chaos after Katrina
The US has blocked the distribution of around 350,000 packaged meals donated by Britain for victims of Hurricane Katrina, because of mad cow disease."

the US has decided, rightly or wrongly, that they don't want Brit beef.  so that is the issue, nothing about rudely turning down charity.

No takers'

"By the time our inspectors were on the ground, we had confirmed that there was no longer the emergency need," she said.

"It's critical to the story that our inspectors confirmed that the people were being fed before they held back any MREs (Meals Ready to Eat)."

Adam Ereli, deputy spokesman at the State Department, said Washington was looking at other countries to donate the food to, but had not yet found any takers.

"We are looking to use these MREs in the same spirit of charity and goodwill that they were provided to us.

"We would certainly hope that other countries in need, or other needy populations would be able to make use of them, and we certainly invite any countries that see a need to contact us," he said.

While I'm glad you referenced the article, it seems odd that your comments slanted the meaning of the article, don't you think?

by wchurchill on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 03:27:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't believe I slanted anything.

  1. I corrected your assertion that the "problem" was rapidly fixed.

  2. I doubt if many people will subscribe to the notion that the main point of the BBC article is the spin put on the incident by US spokesfolks. The contributions were rejected, and not as a result of bureaucratic incompetence. There's no slant in making that clear.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 04:33:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by wchurchill on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 04:44:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm glad you think it's funny.

It's your comments that are slanted. You began with Rubbish and you ended with extensive quotes from US post-facto damage-limitation spin.

You have been consistently wrong on this issue from A to Z. That is now clear. End of "joke".

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 06:18:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series