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.
And anyone who knows history is aware of that.
Those who say otherwise only reveal their ignorance.
With all due respect to you, my FRiend, Israel is its own nation and their voters need to elect Benjamin Netanyahu if they're serious about national security.
Blaming President Bush and Secretary Rice doesn't fly.
Dam, this is refreshing. I usually avoid these kind of posts because they are just more Bush-bash. W has done many things correct, and a little credit doesn't hurt.
This is refreshingly mild, IMO.
Wouldn't it be nice if every thread about the President were at least respectful, and not vile?
There might be more decent people on this forum, and less good people in hiding.....
Me, too, "varina davis", me too!
DITTO!
DEFINITELY!!!
I was not referring to Koch as the bootlicker. It was the poster that accused anyone of criticizing President Bush that I was calling a bootlicker. Read the post.
Koch needs to give our allies a face-saving pass on Iraq. Bush has them all fighting in Afghanistan in the very first fighting mission of NATO. Even the French are there, though they puled a wine and cheese detail in Kabul. They are also peacekeeping in Lebanon and Italy may send troops to Palestine. Nonetheless dems whine about our position in the world, eventhough Bush is on very good terms with the essential Europeans and Arabs.
And I don't whine. Liberals whine. BTW, read my homepage.
Wow, that's really powerful, especially coming from a Democrat.
:-)
A person can be both a politician and a hero, if he is a man of character and conviction before he is a politician, as President Bush is.
It is a form of elitism to say that no politician can ever be a hero.
I am sure there is. I am also sure that Ed Koch disagrees with the Prez on many things, yet he is respectful of the Prez (unlike other Dems).
I'm both a mother and a teacher. I know whining when I see it.
I could hear the nasal twang in your voice when you said 'No man is God.'
It was a ridiculous and pointless whiny comment considering the substance of this article.
So I'll say it again.......stop whining.
President Bush IS a hero. Maybe some day even you will see that.
What a concept!
bttt
I think Pres. Bush has made critical mistakes in his presidency, especially in regards to Iraq and immigration, but I still admire him for being one of the most honest politicians we've ever had. Tony Blair is waaaay to the left of me, but I admire him greatly for the same reason. Both do what they think is right and are daily villified as lying monsters. I wouldn't have their jobs for anything. Yet they take their jobs seriously (as Clinton did not), and are confident in their decisions. I can respect that.
AMEN!!! Yes, especially since he is morally upright and a man and a president we can be proud of; i.e., keeps his zipper closed up in the Oval Office at all times; is faithful and loving to his wife and a good example to his daughters; has not been an obstructer of justice, a perjurer, one who commits high crimes and misdemeanors, a liar, a rapist, a felon, traitor, etc. ad nauseum. He is a leader we can be proud of here and throughout the entire world.
And I am very, very proud to state that he is MY President!!
Nancee
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.