Who's the better coalition builder? George W. Bush or Barack Hussein Obama?

Let's see here.... George W. Bush built a coalition of about 43 countries to support the invasion of Iraq. Whether you approve of the Iraq war or not, Bush got literally DOZENS of countries to support him. And that was for a much larger, riskier, longer and more drawn out war.

Barack Obama isn't doing so well. So far, he's got what, ONE country, France to support him? And that's for what Obama promises will be a short, no boots on the ground operation. Yet virtually no one will get on board with him.

It seems pretty clear that Obama is nowhere nearly as skilled at building international support as Bush was.

Now what happened to liberals who used to talk about "going it alone", getting UN approval, Congressional approval, etc?

Why the new standard???????

Please feel free to tell me, with facts and logic to support your position, why I am wrong or what I am missing.

 

If i were a diabolical genius i would put a couple clowns in the spotlight so you can discuss them and direct your energy at them as i go about my business.

 

France is fine. Good chance to rebuild that relationship.

He doesn't need a coalition for an air strike, he shouldn't even have asked. It makes us look weak to ask and be rejected and this is all supposed to be an operation to shore up our credibility.

 

No it makes the president look weak, which is good, because we are not a dictatorship, in theory. Just like how we are humans, not tools, again in theory.

 

Umm... that's pretty much what I've done. Oh, that's the point. Gotcha.

 

Interesting points. However, I am looking at this through the liberal lens. The way it used to work was that Bush was a moron, Obama a genius, Bush went it alone, should have done more with the UN, etc.

Looking at it through the liberal perspective, Bush is far superior.

 

The flaw in your liberal perspective exercise is Bush is Satan, Obamma is God. Keep that at the forefront of your musings and you'll understand the perspective.

 

It's not the same thing, the world was shocked by 9/11 and supported the Iraq war even knowing it was suspicious from the beginning.

President Obama is ruling under times where heads are cooler, so it's hard to get military support.

 

Or to put it differently Obama is the only leader in the world that doesn't have a cool head. Got it.

 

Bush didn't form anything it was his cabinet who did all of the leg work.

 

Are you talking about bush senior or dubya? Because when we invade Iraq, we still had a world wondering why we didn't strike at SOMETHING concerning 9/11. That hysteria was a good portion of the reason we had support...our coalition were cheerleaders for us because they, I suppose, saw 'daddy got punched by a thug, he should kick someone's ass for that'. In the end, though, we went after the wrong guy, whom we propped up just a decade before on false pretenses. And we got support for that. Then people wised up and what you're seeing now is that people aren't so quick to buy tickets to our ballgame anymore. We gotta prove ourselves. So it's more or less Bush's fault there's no coalition but at the same time, it's a good thing there's little support because there's still that little thing people forget about which is evidence of who really is the war criminal in Syria concerning the chemical warfare.