Posted on 12/27/2006 6:26:37 PM PST by RetiredArmy
George Bush Is a Hero
By: Edward I. Koch
Wednesday, Dec. 27, 2006
President George W. Bush, vilified by many, supported by some, is a hero to me.
Why do I say that? It's not because I agree with the president's domestic agenda. It's not because I think he's done a perfect job in the White House.
George Bush is a hero to me because he has courage.
The president does what he believes to be in the best interest of the United States. He sticks with his beliefs, no matter how intense the criticism and invective that are directed against him every day.
The enormous defeat President Bush suffered with the loss of both Houses of Congress has not caused him to retreat from his position that the U.S. alone now stands between a radical Islamic takeover of many of the world's governments in the next 30 or more years. If that takeover occurs, we will suffer an enslavement that will threaten our personal freedoms and take much of the world back into the Dark Ages.
Our major ally in this war against the forces of darkness, Great Britain, is still being led by an outstanding prime minister, Tony Blair. However, Blair will soon be set out to pasture, which means Great Britain will leave our side and join France, Germany, Spain, and other countries that foolishly believe they can tame the wolf at the door and convert it into a domestic pet that will live in peace with them.
These dreamers naively believe that if we feed the wolves what they demand, they will go away. But that won't happen.
Appeasement never works. The wolves always come back for more and more, and when we have nothing left to give, they come for us.
Radical Islamists are very much aware that we have shown fear. For example, we have allowed the people of Darfur — dark skinned Africans — to be terrorized, killed, raped, and taken as slaves by the supporters of the Sudanese government, radical Islamists.
The countries surrounding Iraq — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan — made up of Sunni Arabs, know that for them, the wolves who are the radical Shia are already at their door. The New York Times reported on Dec. 13, 2006, "Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq's Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats . . .
"The Saudis have argued strenuously against an American pullout from Iraq, citing fears that Iraq's minority Sunni Arab population would be massacred . . . The Bush administration is also working on a way to form a coalition of Sunni Arab nations and a moderate Shiite government in Iraq, along with the United States and Europe, to stand against ‘Iran, Syria and the terrorists."
This Saudi response will take place notwithstanding that until now, according to the Times, "The Saudis have been wary of supporting Sunnis in Iraq because their insurgency there has been led by extremists of al-Qaida, who are opposed to the kingdom's monarchy. But if Iraq's sectarian war worsened, the Saudis would line up with Sunni tribal leaders."
The Times article went on to state the opinion of an Arab expert, Nawaf Obaid, who was recently fired by the Saudi foreign minister after Obaid wrote an op ed in The Washington Post asserting that the Saudis were prepared in the event of an American pullout to engage in a "massive intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."
Obaid went on "suggest[ing] that Saudi Arabia could cut world oil prices in half…a move that would be devastating to Iran."
The Times reported, "Arab diplomats . . . said that Mr. Obaid's column reflected the view of the Saudi government." When writing about affairs of state in distant places, unless you are on the scene talking to knowledgeable participants, the most reliable sources to support conjecture with "facts" are the superb reporters of the great international newspapers like The New York Times.
Surely this turn of events in Saudi Arabia undoubtedly replicated in other Sunni-dominated countries — Sunnis are 80 percent of the world's Muslim population. This will give support to my proposal, advanced nearly a year ago, that we tell our allies, regional and NATO, that we are getting out of Iraq unless they come in.
That may well work, and they will come in, in large part and share the casualties of combat and the financial costs of war.
Doing what I suggest is far better than simply pulling out, which is the direction in which we are headed, notwithstanding the president's opposition. I think at the moment simply getting out and not making an attempt to bring our allies in is supported by a majority of Americans and would be supported by a majority of Democrats in the Congress.
For me, staying is clearly preferable, provided we are not alone and are joined by our regional and NATO allies, aggressively taking on the difficult but necessary task of destroying radical Islam and its terrorist agenda if we don't want to see radical Islam destroy the Western world and moderate Arab states over the next generation, or as long as it takes for them to succeed.
Two other requirements are needed to bring the war in Iraq to a successful conclusion: First, require the Iraqi government to allow greater autonomy for the three regions — Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. The second requirement is that the national Iraqi government enact legislation that will divide all oil and natural gas revenues in a way similar to that of our own state of Alaska.
The Alaskan state government takes from those revenues all it will need to finance government and provide services and the balance is divided among the population of Alaska, in a profit sharing program. That would settle the major Sunni problem which has been being cut out of oil revenues because the country's oil is located only in Kurdish and Shiite areas.
If the Iraqi government refuses our demands, our reply should be "Goodbye. You're on your own." This proposal was suggested to me by Mike Sheppard in Chapel Hill, N.C.
It won't be easy to implement this proposal. But President Bush has courage.
Now is the time to use it.
A salute to the CIC and a nod to Ed Koch for his clear thinking.
Fuuny you said that because the Israeli governement and politicians on both sides of the spectrum there say he is the best ally Israel has ever had in the US governement. If GW caved on Israel, I would like to see your expressions for all the other presidents that have done less.
ping
"The day will come, when even Democrats will miss having President G.W. Bush in the oval office."
Unfortunately, for the Democrats that day will probably be when the same announcement is made about him as was made about Gerald Ford today. Hopefully in another 40-50 years after he and Laura have had a magnificent retirement in Crawford while the Dems and their media allies are still bellyaching about his successors.
Actually he is much more than that. He is a good family man, a good Christian, an excellent CIC, a fighter pilot, a Harvard MBA, the former Governor of Texas and the present POTUS.
In addition he is a man of his word. He supported what he campaigned for and he opposed what he campaigned against whether we agreed with him or not.
In addition Iraq, Afghanistan and jihadism in general were and are our concern, Mr. Adams not withstanding.
Blame the stupid uniformed voters who could not see Victory as a must in an international war and the Quisling media who actually wants W to fail here to punish any attempt at any conservPub again to run this nation, go to war for any reason and try to cut taxes. W has made many many mistakes. He is not a coward and is the last hope to stand against Iran as well as the Islamofascists in the ME. I fear for our future in the hands of the Quisling Dems and I see not end to their rule for years. Unless of course they blow it by really betraying the nation somehow in the near future.
As are many others I imagine. I'm not doubting the man is good, far from it. I do believe he is a good man. But not a hero. A politician
In addition Iraq, Afghanistan and jihadism in general were and are our concern, Mr. Adams not withstanding
Yes, continuing the cleanup from Mr. Wilson's foray into 'spreading democracy'. And only 85 years later. How about that...
It worked in Japan, S. Korea, Germany, Italy, Phillipines, Nicaragua, El Salvador, not to mention eastern Europe and many former USSR territories. So gunbarrel democracy aint a bad thing, especially when you consider the alternatives.
It would have worked in Vietnam had the dems not pulled the rug out from under that war.
Does Saudi Arabia really have that kind of excess capacity? Anybody know?
Finally the root cause for jihadism, Woodrow Wilson! Who knew?
George Bush is a hero to me because he has courage
I hold it that his (George W. Bush) moral resolve, stamps him as one of the greatest leaders to emerge in the last 100 years.
For anyone that takes the time to study American history, there are examples. The courage of President Ford in giving a pardon to former President Richard Nixon is one.
He recognized that the vicious detractors of Nixon and the spiteful press, had exaggerated the faults of Nixon ten fold. We are told it cost Ford the Presidency.
I notice that it is being said that President Ford was the only un-elected President. (CNN et al). Another man was President Andrew Johnson, he succeeded President Lincoln. I stand corrected but that he too, was never elected.
Again, this man stood for what he believed in. The vilification and hatred for him, brought about an impeachment attempt. One lone vote saved him. It cost him the chance at the next Presidential election. He stood strong. History has judged him kindly. I quote something I read on the internet . George W. Bush will go down in history as a man, yes, a man with faults, but a man.
Yes, it sounded like the Gay Peace Movement's Platform for Total Grooviness.
I know. People actually determining their own fate?!? My God, the absolute terror of it all. Oh wait, that's what this nation did isn't it? So it's good enough for us but contrary to the Framers we have to make sure it's good enough for everybody else too. It is not only unfeasible, it is impossible to make a lasting change by the barrel of a gun. Many of the nations you mentioned that democracy still exists in today had already made forays into that form of government or relations with countries that had western forms of government before US forces 'introduced' it.
It would have worked in Vietnam had the dems not pulled the rug out from under that war.
I know. Can you imagine it? Vietnam as one of the capitalistic leaders of Southeast Asia. What kind of economy that would have been....oh wait, that's happening now isn't it? Where were Bush and Blair recently? And without one gun.....Guess Johnson and his 'dominoes' were full of it.
Bush is scum for trying to force amnesty on the American people. Bush cares more about illegal aliens than he does about Americans.
Bump.
Now here's a GREAT former mayor speaking up for a GREAT president.
And the libs won't give a damn. They'll just say that it's Bush's fault because Bush pissed off the terrorists.
Stop your whining. There's a difference in disagreeing with the Prez and being a boot-licker.
No man is God.
great stuff!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.