George W. Bush the Unifier? You Bet!
June 4th, 2007 by John W Lillpop
Satire
When George W. Bush first campaigned for the presidency, he boasted of being a big-league unifier, and claimed to a man capable of bringing widely divergent parties together for common good.
Compromisingly speaking, that is.
So has the president delivered on that campaign promise?
You bet, and with a gold star to boot! Clearly, George W. Bush is a "unifier" without equal.
Think about it: In the space of just six plus fleeting years, this president has united a billion Muslims, China, Russia, North Korea, all of the middle-east, and now Latin America, against the United States.
Add the "Blue States" and yellow Republicans to the list and you have unity not seen since the days of Richard M. Nixon.
History tells us that Nixon ultimately did the honorable thing by hijacking an Air Force helicopter on the lawn on the White House and flying off to la-la land.
Earth to Mr. Bush: Hint, hint!
Significantly, the repudiation of Bush crosses all racial, social, educational, economic, and political lines–he is an equal opportunity antagonist with remarkable unifying skills.
Only when one escapes earth's gravity does the anti-Bush fervor seem to diminish–and then only because our commander-in-chief has yet to launch a preemptive strike against a neighboring star.
But with several hours to kill during his plane ride to the G-8 conference, Bush is probably plotting a preemptive strike against a distant star, one that may be a threat to America's economy.
How about going after the sun, Mr. President?
After all, with the exception of Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and all the goofy environmental leftists, the sun is the most dangerous ball of hot gas in our solar system!
Why not use the bully pulpit at G-8 to announce a bold new approach for tackling global warming?
Call it "Operation Sun Down," or something clever like that, and announce that the U.S. will embark on a campaign of "Shock and Awe" against the sun to stop solar flares from screwing up earth's climate and, more importantly, America's GDP.
Only George W. Bush is capable of unifying the world on an important issue like global warming.
Just say the word, W, and the entire world will unite—against whatever you propose!
June 4th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I run a website that discusses global warming http://www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com so I feel that I have a handle on most of the pertinent issues.
In my opinion, Mr. Bush is simply giving into politics. This isn't surprising - he is a politician. With the elections coming up in about 18 months he needs to set up for a successor from the Republican party. He cannot allow the Democratic candidates to make global warming a huge issue so it only makes political sense to agree to some types of talks and discussions.
It is interesting though that when Mr. Bush acts as an administrator (the job he gets paid for) he has said that the science does not support dramatic changes in our economy - hence the US did not sign the Kyoto document.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Bush is indeed a political beast.
And going back a few years, we see that:
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[58][59] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".
Politics is nasty!
June 5th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[58][59] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".