BTW, I do not drink alcoholic beverages.
FYI Bushbot, I have posted these images dozens of times on Free Republic.
I deal in fact. Not fantasy. I also have a right, as an American citizen, to disagree with my President's policies.
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.
That would make a great documentary. I hope that the MSM will make it soon and show it often ;)
GREAT POST !!
Show me in my original post where I made ANY reference to polls.
I have no problem with someone responding to an implication, when I'm implying.
I didn't mean to imply that President Bush was a dictator, only that if ANY President was to go off on their own and ignore the will of those who elected them without good cause (as in information the public wasn't privy to), they could be compared with a dictator.
What is the 'evidence' if it isn't a poll? Just curious.
You seem to be dancing around what you were implying in your posts, both about what the people want, and who you're calling a 'dictator.'
It helps to say what you mean if you don't want to be misunderstood.
I covered that, If you want to call people contacting the White House directly a poll, so be it.
As for dancing around the what I was implying, I said that any President that made decisions rejected by the American people without good cause could be compared with a dictator. This includes President Bush just as much as any former or future President.
Now the question is whether or not President Bush meets that standard. My answer to that is, "No". President Bush is not a dictator.
JaJ, until I know otherwise, I credit you with meaning well, but your "dictator vs. a representative of the people comments" require a response.
Any U.S. President is elected by all the people, but he is elected to be the Chief Executive of America and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Once he is there, his duties do not include: to follow (You prefer "rethink"...how do you know he hasn't?) what polls, call ins, chatter, demonstrations, emails, letters or whatever say he should do.
Or else deserve to be called a dictator.
Words such as dictator have very specific meanings.
Any duly elected government official does not become "a dictator" by disregarding or going against public opinion when making good faith judgements in their capacities as elected officials. Such is totally within the scope of their legal duties.
It's when they go outside the scope of their legal duties that they could become a dictator. Suppose they were committing crimes, whether felonies or against the Constitution, in doing what they decide. Suppose they refuse to concede an election if they lose one, and try to stay in office. Suppose they give illegal or unconstituional orders to subordinates, whether civilian or military. etc.
They could turn into dictators, by the specific meaning of that word, by those acts, but never by disregarding public opinion.
I think you might have in mind a loose meaning of dictator, in that a person might have an arrogant and authoritarian mindset, to such a point that you might say, that man is a "dictatorial type", not meaning it literally, but a figure of speech.
Conceding that limited point, I reiterate that the literal meaning of calling a nation's leader "a dictator" for proceeding against public opinion does not square with the specific meaning of that word.
The Walk on Water Conservatives think that marching lockstep with the last man in the brigade.
Pray for W and Our Troops
The Walk on Water Conservatives think that Leadership is marching lockstep with the last man in the brigade.
Pray for W and Our Troops
What a relief.
ME TOO!!!
AMEN!!!
I agree with rangerette here. I also believe that a president has a cabinet of trusted people to help him make crucial decisions. Most people who contact their government could be led by malicious media and not have all the info when they let their voice be heard. The time for the people to be heard is at the polls (obviously).
It is my opinion that an elected official could, with the right circumstances, become a dictator, literally. Whether benevolent or not matters not.
What a relief.
I know, I've been relieved so far with every President since I've been old enough to think for myself.
That doesn't mean I quit keeping an eye out.
BTW, I do not drink alcoholic beverages.
FYI Bushbot, I have posted these images dozens of times on Free Republic.
I deal in fact. Not fantasy. I also have a right, as an American citizen, to disagree with my President's policies.
You statements make about as much sense as those coming from this person:
fyi, i'm from CAMP COUNTY.
free dixie,sw
Of course any official could become a dictator but it isn't because he doesn't follow what he considers to be current public opinion. It's because he goes outside the law and the Constitution and brings power to bear that he actually does not have. And benevolent (as you mentioned0 or malignant has nothing to do with it.
Originally, Ft Worth.
Now, Abilene.
Camp County eh?? Deep East Texas. We're a bit "fur" apart...
Abilene is a "fur piece for shore" from Pittsburg.
but having gone to KJC, i'd bet you're one of the FEW FReepers, who can tell anyone where Pittsburg is w/o consulting a map!!!
free dixie,sw
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.