I submit that the premise is wrong.

[Better Today]

There seems to be some concern that some of us aren't thrilled and are instead, perhaps, downright enraged that W is getting a face front on the Haitian relief effort. So as one of those that's outraged, enraged about it.

I have to ask you, when you make claims that we don't care about aid to Haiti if we don't support W bringing in more donations.

Here's the question:

Do you honestly believe that there are people who weren't going to contribute/donate who will now that W is a part of it? Really?

You're starting from an entirely bogus premise, one that suggests that W's involvement will change anyone's mind about giving, or will bring in bigger contributions? I just don't buy that. And as hated as he is internationally, it could very much hurt international giving when they know the liar and crook and war criminal is involved in handling their donations.
Just my two cents. Flame away.

[gateley]

1. A question, not a reply: Has he agreed to this? All I'd heard was that he

was asked to do it, hadn't heard anything further.

I say, take the money where you can get it. If he can help, then he should. He owes it to the people of the world.

[tekisui]

2. I hate bush as much or more than the next guy.

I don't like seeing him get any respect or recognition.

BUT, I don't give a shit where the money and help comes from. I don't accept the notion that his presence will cause people to withhold donations. He has access to the fattest of the cats, and their money is desperately needed at this time.

[StarfarerBill]

28. +1

[Warpy]

3. The country still has an abundance of dreadful people

who still love Stupid and his policies. If he can squeeze a few bucks out of them for the suffering Haitians, it's all good. We know appealing to their consciences won't work.

[EFerrari]

5. Do you think for a minute that the money he squeezes out of them

won't be picked up by his corrupt contracting cronies?

He's not going to be tossing dollar bills out of an airplane.

[Warpy]

9. Those corrupt cronies won't waste time circling overhead

unless someone is shoving an air drop of supplies out of the door.

[EFerrari]

12. They started drawing up proposals before the ground stopped shaking,

I'd bet on it. :shrug:

[zipplewrath]

19. After Katrina

We heard alot about how Barbara Bush had donated money to the Katrina relief fund. It came out later that the money was "ear marked" for one of her sons commercial teaching programs (Some book or audio tapes or something). One can make the argument that involving the Bushes just makes it possible for them to direct the money towards their friends and away from their enemies.

[EFerrari]

23. Exactly. Anything a Bush gets close to becomes a scam. n/t

[Better Today]

20. See you get what I'm worrying I'm concerned about, even if it

doesn't happen, there is so much proof that it might.

[EFerrari]

24. I would be willing to bet on it.

Past behavior is a strong predictor. :shrug:

[Recursion]

4. Yes

Do you honestly believe that there are people who weren't going to contribute/donate who will now that W is a part of it? Really?

Yes. Next question?

[blondeatlast]

11. Oops, sorry, misread your post. nt

[EFerrari]

17. Wow, I don't. Not only that, but the corruptibility of the relief effort

just increased by a factor of brazillion.

[rucky]

6. Yes, I honestly believe that.

People like that can raise tens of thousands with a single phone call.

[KittyWampus]

7. Yes, some people who want to get in good with the Bush Cartel will donate for that reason.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. Yes, I do believe that some people who hate Obama and hate Clinton will be more likely to donate to

W.

[JohnnyLib2]

18. Yup.

[DevonRex]

10. Yes. And anybody who refuses to donate to relief organizations just

because W is asking his rich friends to chip in some money is just disgusting.

[Better Today]

16. I never have nor ever will suggest it as a reason to boycott,

just that the outrage is reasonable from my perspective.

[blondeatlast]

21. Doubt I can understand, but outrage about asking a political "leader"

to lend his hand is, well, overwrought, IMHO.

[Better Today]

29. Asking a known war criminal, liar, cronie supporter at the cost of the poor

and middle class. Madoff was a financial leader, should we ask his help? "Political leader" is in and of itself not the only thing that should be considered. Would we want say, Adolph, or Kim Jung, being offered at place at the front of this table?

[Better Today]

13. I see that many of you believe he will. I'm surprised. I don't so

I guess we see the root of the disagreements. And that actually helps.

I just have a real hard time with a person we are all enraged hasn't been charged with war crimes as the co-face of this type of relief effort. Surely HWBush, or crap even Sarah Palin would be a better choice.

[JohnnyLib2]

25. Involving Palin would have huge political implications.

Asking the predecessor is more or less SOP. I see it as effective leadership, regardless of my (our) low, low opinion of Ol' George.

[blondeatlast]

26. Exactly. Not to mention,

it's another of those clever little jabs at georgie. If he refuses, the media will be all over it (well, I HOPE so, anyway).

[Better Today]

27. But if donations are the purpose and not politics as many are

suggesting, then Palin would be a better choice.

[JohnnyLib2]

31. That would make a fascinating thread.

this one is pretty good as is, though. :hi:

[blondeatlast]

14. Yes, I believe that and I probably know some who will now. nt

[blondeatlast]

15. Yes, I believe that and I probably know some who will now. nt

[Parker CA]

22. Yes. I think there are many who will associate giving help to helping Obama, and many don't want to

help Obama with anything. I believe a simple thing like changing the face of the person asking for support to be sent will garner more contributions. Sad, but I think it's true.

[Bluerthanblue]

30. the fact that the 'us' against 'them' thinking gets between suffering

people and who is being asked to help answers your question for you.

When Katrina happened, it wasn't at all important in my mind WHO was asked to help- the important thing was to get people involved. To emphasize our connectedness, not to deepen our division.

Pres. Obama has asked Bush to help- If Mr. Bush does some actual good, then what is WRONG with that? If he doesn't, he can hardly claim that he "wasn't asked" to help- (not that anyone should NEED to be asked.)

We are all citizens of this earth- denying someone a chance to help, isn't very helpful :shrug:. Our justifiable anger and dislike (understatement) for Mr.Bush should be able to take a back-seat don't you think- people are suffering and dying, and the chance that he might do something to help is not worth our indignation?