Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
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 ]


Occasional Series