That leads us to that "Your either for us or agin us" BS we had from the village idiot we elected from Crawford.
How is "for us or against us" not true?
You see someone beating the snot out of another person. You go help the victim and you are for him. If you help the attacker then you are against him.... the beaten. If you walk by and do nothing, that is also against the beaten one.
Jerry your example is a bit simplistic, but my point out.
I'm severely disabled, if someone is beating the snot out of someone else, I don't agree with the instigator, but I'm not likely to get physically involved because it's doubtful I could be of any assistance. I might walk away and call the police. In the meantime I would appear to anyone thoughtless and small-minded enough not to think beyond their on point of view to be "against" the victim
The world is a bit more nuanced than a simplistic 'for or against' doctrine allows. Bush's meaning was clearly 'you either contribute arms, men, or money to our particular flavor of anti-terrorism, or you yourself and your entire law-abiding, civilized, otherwise good to the world and peaceable nation are going to be considered our enemy'.
There are LOTS of reasons why countries may not agree with or want to contribute to our war on terror, that does not make them terrorists.
Open your mind a bit and consider the fact that not everybody's priorities are the same as ours.
They may actually want to expend some of their resources ( which by the way tend to be far more limited than our own) on things like education, infrastructure, healthcare, science research, social security, and (God forbid) the arts. That doesn't make them bad people.