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.
On the other hand, the left has demagogued the Iraq war issue with the help of the MSM, again making the prosecution of the war more dangerous for our troops by giving aid and comfort to an enemy that knows most are swayed by the media.
Despite being attacked by the Moveon.org crowd on the left and the hannity/levin/dobbs wing on the right, this man moves forward with the courage of his convictions. Thankfully, he has his faith to sustain him.
Evidently a third rate comedian should apologyze but our elected officials on the left who hurl every hatefilled invective at our President are to be given a pass?
Funny, I've never thought of Danny DeVito as even a third rate comedian!!
:-)
Too bad this guy supports Hillary.
Ed Koch is a NYC democrat. However, he does not live in denial about the dangers to the world from the islamofascist murderers.
I loved Ronald Reagan and I always will! And I love this good man, George W. Bush. I am grateful for both of them and their respective contributions for good!
Nancee
Ed Koch GETS IT!
BUMP!!!
The enemy has been named by President Bush. Your arabesque on this matter reveals you have either missed this; or are willfully ignoring such.
bookmark
I have always believed that President Bush will not leave office before pulverizing Iran's nuke and military capabilities. No invasion is required or necessary, IMO.
I really hate it when grown men whine like babies, and can't think of rational, relevant things to say, so resort to name-calling.
But I've come to expect that of you, Cobra.......especially when you post at night. (I'm beginning to think you may have a problem with sobriety).
Now that it's daylight again, I'll tell you what my point was.
You accused someone else of whining, when said poster was not whining any more than you were. You are the proverbial black pot, Cobra, and when someone calls you on it (like me, for instance), you go into irrational, delusional silliness.
But for the record, it's possible to admire someone and not worship that person. I pity those of you who are so self-centered and arrogant that admiration of George W. Bush is impossible. Sometime in the future you're going to admit what a great President he was...........but that won't be until you have someone else to despise because he doesn't do exactly what you demand of him either, just like you are doing with President Bush right now. Unfortunately, we may not ever have a President with the character and courage of George W. Bush again. Some of us have the wisdom to recognize that.
You 'purists' attacked Reagan and now treat him as a god. But now, you have thousands of witnesses to your similar attacks on Bush, and we will be around to remind you of your utter hypocrisy when you decide he wasn't so bad, and even change your now unbridled anger into fuzzy memories of perfection, as you have done with Reagan.
bttt
As am I, Nancee, as am I.....
And someday these angry 'perfectionists' will admit it too, when history has proven the prescience and vision of President Bush, and the complete truth of what he has done for America is evident.
BWAHAAHHHAAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
This guy needs to be a comedian!
I agree that President Bush has courage but let's remember that President Bush is also a representative of the people.
If there is evidence that the VAST majority of people oppose a step the President is taking, he should step back and reexamine whatever he is contemplating.
Humor is one weapon to use against them.
They are the most humorless gang of Eeyores I have ever encountered. It must stink to be them.
I don't think we can have it both ways, Joe.
That's exactly what he is doing. If we don't agree with his decisions, we can't fault him for not following the polls to make them, can we?
Yes it is - even if you sat at home - that's what you helped make happen. Now come back home and let's work together to graft a spine and a matched brass set onto the Republican Party once again, so our candidates in '08 don't all sound like the sort of mealy-mouthed, insincere, indecisive little worms that the present Republican leadership seems to love.
Just for the record, I'm a huge Bush supporter on the war who absolutely abhors his immigration policy (or lack thereof). The war is more important, although I wish the President could more clearly see the linkage between open borders and terrorism and stop pandering to foreign governments who don't really give a damn about either.
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.