Personally, I wish it were true, because he seems to be on the shy side of that equation, but in reality I think very few people ever line up 100% with any politician ever.
And for that matter, most in this country (and by far most in the world) never spend much time thinking about him. His view is based on only seeing people who came to see him, which is a small group.
Of course people are either going to be for or against. There’s only three ways about it; you agree with what he’s doing in general, you don’t agree in general, or you don’t care. Seeing as how he’s in charge of the world’s only superpower, most people who’ve heard of him are going to have an opinion.
I think the problem with what Bush says is that he means “you don’t agree with this particular aspect of what I do, therefore you reject me totally” which seems silly; no one judges someone or something by one characteristic only.
Cite?
I have no formal basis for this belief, other than talking with friends in Canada and the UK, but I think most of the world is against Bush. His biggest source of support would appear to be his waning home base here in the US.
I’ve always had Major Problems with people who take a “with me or against me” attitude. It is belligerant and is an attempt to force people to take sides. For me, it’s the surest way to turn me against someone. It is childish. It is ignorant.
Well, it’s true in a sense. It takes only one side’s efforts to start or maintain a conflict/dispute. Therefore, if Bush really believes it, it’s effectively true.
This past Sunday, former president Jimmy Carter was interviewed on CSPAN’s Book TV to talk about his latest book, “Our Endangered Values.” Mr. Carter is very concerned about the radical departure that G.W. has made in his administration, unlike any other: the merger of politics and religion - Fundamentalism.
Please keep in mind that Mr. Carter was speaking off the cuff, more or less quoting his book, but like all of us, his speech, as opposed to his writing, includes incomplete sentences, etc. So the quotes below are as verbatim as I could get them.
Mr Carter tells us that “Fundamentalism has two major components. One is that in religious circles it’s always a domination by men. It’s a male-dominated religious belief that encompasses not only the subservience of women, which is an integral part of Fundamentalism religion, but also superiority over others who disagree with your particular faith.”
“It’s a belief, very sincere, very devout. [Says the Fundamentalist] ‘I am close to God in my beliefs — political or social or otherwise. These are based on God’s premises and are superior. By definition, anyone who disagrees with me is therefore wrong.’ And the next step is, they are also inferior.”
“There’s another aspect of Fundamentalism and that is since I know that I’m right, there’s no reason for me ever to admit a mistake. And it’s a derogation or violation of my premises if I negotiate with others who disagree, or if I compromise my position.”
I think Mr Carter sums up Bush pretty accurately. So, yes. The world is either for or against Bush because that’s the way he sees perceives and interacts with his version of reality.
That’s odd, because Bush isn’t a fundamentalist. Not even close. He’s an evangelical, with beliefs much like Carter. But many people who don’t understand religion often confuse the two.
I guess that given Bush’s reluctance to appoint any women to positions of power might lead you to believe some that analysis. Oh wait… he hasn’t been reluctant to appoint women to positions of power.
As for the OP, you are misinterpretting what Bush said. He never said “with me or against me”. Besides, even if you took his statement to mean that, he was clearly speaking only in the context of the War on Terror*. So, if you want a serious debate, the question would be: Is it true that a country is either with the US (in the War on Terror) or against the US (in the War on Terror).
*and let’s not get into another debate about the War on Terror being a stupid expression.
First off, it’s “with us or against us.”
It’s not a popular idea, perhaps, at least in leftist circles. It’s condemned as being primitive, “simplistic,” childish, ignorant, etc.
It’s also true.
That’s because in the current crisis, unlike most previous ones (sometimes excluding portions of the Cold War), the enemy operates like a cancer. Extreme radical Islamist movements, with extremely violent overtones, oprate in groups from the US of A to the Phillipines. Not all of them are actively violent, but each one does a lot of talking, and some are, or more accurately were, headed for real violence a few years ago. Funded by Saudi money, Islamic extremists have a big leg up in recruiting. In Europe, they’ve been growing in some regions from disaffected muslims pissed-off at the welfare state. In poorer countries, they’ve grown off other segments. Generally, however, angry young muslim men feed it. Their anger doesn’t even have to be directed at anything rationally responsible for their predicament (in fact, it’s arguable that it’s fundamentally petulant and childish).
But, because of their rather tenacious hold on existence (nce they get recruits, those recruits have a bad habit of becoming fanatics), it is difficult to eradicate these groups, at least peacefully.
Moreover, they don’t need active help from the govenrment to thrive. What they need primarily is inaciton. While they are tenacious, they are also relatively weak, unpopular (even despised), and not all that bright (education is often lacking in these circles due to fanaticism and relative poverty). They can be beaten. However, a very great many governments had thrown in the towel before even getting onto the field. Witness the Phillipine, which has responded to outright guerrilla actions with, well, very little at all. Their general response has been to open pointless negotioations. These are pointless because the Islamic Facists’ goals are simply the eradication of all opposittion: no compromise is possible.
Given their extreme dedication and recruiting techniques, the primary danger surrounding these terrorists is that they can “metastatize.” That is, once established in one area they can much more easily expand and infiltrate others. Inorder to fight them, one must hold the line and begin pushing back, as devastatingly as possible without breaking the world. Bush was and is correct. So, in fact, are you. It is belligerant, childish, and ignorant to force others to choose sides.
What you miss, however, is that Bush isn’t the one who forced people to choose sides. Al Quaeda, and other, similar groups throughout the world, did that. Buhs merely responded as it became neccesary to: with the recognition that inaction was now nearly dangerous as actually helping the new fascism.
Well, the thing that I like about the “two-valued” logic of Bush is that it is a hell of a lot of fun to parody. It’s kind of boring to ask a co-worker, “So, are you going with us to get ice cream or not?” when you can instead simplify it to the much more pithy, “So, are you with us or with the terrorists?”
The trouble with the phrase “you’re either with us or against us” is that it can be taken to apply to any position pretty much at the whim of the speaker.
When Bush originally used the phrase, he was saying only that all nations need to do something to fight terror, even if it doesn’t involve contributing troops, etc. However, it’s frequently been used since then in attempts to coerce support for particular policy positions, such as the invasion of Iraq.
Anybody who hears “you’re either with us or against us” needs to ask “With you in what, going where?” and push for a specific answer.
[In preview: Yes, the parody situation that jshore mentions illustrates exactly the sort of dangerously open-ended implication I’m talking about, taken to a ridiculous extreme of course.]
[QUOTE=John Mace]
That’s odd, because Bush isn’t a fundamentalist. Not even close. He’s an evangelical, with beliefs much like Carter.
Which goes to show that Bush can’t even get his religion right. 
I think that any attempt to “explain” someone (Bush or anyone) with one label is bound to fail. There are a lot of things that went into shaping Bush and making him who he is. Religion is one of those things, but only one.
I suspect “manipulative bastard” would work.
No, Bush is not a fundamentalist. He just plays one to get the votes.
Exactly. You cannot judge the whole of a person or situation by one label. Maths time!
Bush believes that A,the USA, “us” are against B, the terrorists, “them”. Fair enough.
Enter Country C. Bush believes that if C=A, then they are “us”. Fair also.
But, he seems to believe that if C does not equal A, then C=B. Oh dear.
Bush seems to say that ok, in the US, we’re going to fight the War on Terror. Here are the things we’re going to do; options against terrorism 1, 2, and 3. You, other country, are you also doing options against terrorism 1, 2, and 3? Yes? Good, you’re with us! You, other other country, are you doing options A.T. 1, 2 and 3? What? you’re doing options A.T. 1, 2 and 4? Well, you’re helping the terrorists! You’re them!
It seems we must fight his way, or we are the enemy ourselves. This is where I think he goes a bit nutso.
OK, you can’t judge the whole of a person or situation by a label. In that case, I reject the various labels Bush and his followers have used - liberal, America hater, understander of terrorists (translate that as spineless gutless wimp), traitor, bleeding heart, hand wringer. “We must fight the enemy his way, or we are the enemy ourselves” as Renenat said (translate as traitor). Thinking before acting (really is flip flopper).
Fuck it. He labels us, we get to label him. I don’t see him as religious, and I don’t think much of his claims that God tells him what to do. I also have plenty of my own labels that I can and do apply to him, none of them complimentary.
I just come from Cafe Society, where we’re discussing fantasy novels with a “good/evil” world view (like Tolkien) versus “shades of grey” novels like “A Song of Ice and Fire”. In general, I’m not fond of “good/evil” stories because they are so unrealistic – the real world doesn’t work that way. It is, for instance, possible to agree with someone’s goals but not their methods, or agree with some of their goals but not all, or not give a damn about their goals but support them publicly because you want to use their methods against some home grown problems.
I do think Bush’s “with us or against us” does him and US some harm, but that it’s negligible in the big picture of his and US’s actions.
smiling bandit, to take one real life example: Suppose someone living in a country which is an ally of US is suspected of leading a terrorist group which may have ties to Al Quaeda. Suppose he’s prosecuted for this in his country, but after a long investigation (during which, US is leaning heavily on the allied government), the case is dismissed due to insufficient evidence. One of the main reasons for this is that the main witnesses (helpfully supplied by US) have been tortured (by a third country), and their evidence thus can’t be used in court according to the laws of the ally.
Is the country in question with US or against US? And should I start digging a bomb shelter in my garden?
(I’m talking about mullah Krekar, in case anyone’s wondering.)