Is President Bush a Uniter? or is he a divider?

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Some people would even say it happened like this: The dems tried working with Bush and ended up getting screwed. Hmmmm, two sides to every story I guess. But when it comes right down to it, you're saying Bush tried to be a uniter and failed? Wow, what a sad story that is . . . Oh brother. Sounds like a whole buttload of weak excuses to me Cad and very little personal responsibility . . .

Failure to unite someone who doesn't want to be "united" anymore isn't something that can be blamed on the one who tried to unite. But I suppose in your reverso world - someone who tries to aid a peace negotiation between two factions is to blame when fighting breaks out.

No Cad, I would call them a poor negotiator. Yes, Bush even tried to broker peace in between the Israelis and Palestinians but ultimately was a failure there too. I guess he shouldn't be calling himself a 'uniter' or a 'negotiator of the peace' when he so clearly failed in both regards.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genesys
im tired of all these "United the world against America" posts.

if the world is so united against us, how exactly do you explain the Coalition of the Willing?

I'm so glad you asked. I've posted this before, maybe even in response to one of your posts. Nonetheless, here it is again. I will keep posting it until the Bush apologists stop floating this "Coalition of the Willing" canard.

----------

The so-called Coalition of the Willing represents less than 20% of the world's population (including the U.S.). Even then, the people of the "willing" countries largely opposed the war. Excluding the U.S. and Britain, the "willing" represent about 20% of the world GDP. Only Britain and Australia offered more than a couple hundred troops. Many of the "willing" countries offered no support whatsoever beyond allowing their names to be listed. At least a couple of "willing" countries denied supporting the invasion at all.

Many of the "willing" are there because we either paid them directly, or threatened to withhold aid. Eight countries are there because they want into NATO; Bush said the U.S. would veto the memberships of any country that did not join the "willing". Outside of politics, that's usually called extortion.

More noteworthy is all of the major countries who are NOT on the list: Russia, France, Germany, China, India, Canada, Mexico, Belgium, Austria, Greece, South Africa along with most of the rest of Africa, Brazil along with most of Central and South America, and Saudi Arabia along with most of the Middle Eastern countries who did support the 1991 action. Turkey is listed as "willing" (after we offered billions of dollars), but their support was inconsistent to say the least. The "willing" does NOT include 11 of the 15 UN Security Council members.

No matter how much Bush tries to spin it, this was a US/UK invasion with an assortment of minor hangers-on offering their names in return for political favor. Pretending otherwise just damages your credibility. It would be better to acknowledge it for what it was and move on to other issues.

pwned