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.
What's with YOU? She disagrees with her President's policies too, when she needs to. She continues to respect him, and credit him for some great accomplishments. She admires the MAN (and his wife). You call that "fantasy" if you wish. I just called it what it is. NOW who's dealing in FACTS, my good fellow, and who isn't?? Nice pictures. But it's the thought behind them that counts...
I know where Pittsburgh is but I didn't go to KJC. My name comes from the fact that my great great Grandfather was a TX Ranger. But you couldn't have known that, and virtually everyone who knows about the KJC Rangerettes seems to think I not only went there but I was one. Alas, no.
there are NO rangerettes other than in TEXAS! (fyi, i dated a BUNCH of them 3-4 decades ago! KJC was GREAT hunting country for a young Texican male!)
also,my mother taught school with Gussie Nell (at Sulfur Springs HS)& was lifelong friends with her.
free dixie,sw
the TX Rangers are a particuliar interest of mine, especially the "Specials".
free dixie,sw
Last name was Cox. I cannot tell you his given names off the top of my head. It's all very dim to me. And I have only the proof of handed down family history, no literal proof. My mother knew him when she was a young child, before he died. She said he was a crack shot. That even older, with shaky hands, he could outshoot younger men and boys in the family. Those who acted amazed at his ability were always told that he had served with the Rangers. All I know about where he was from was Bell County, I believe.
I'll agree with that.
Perhaps it doesn't make sense to you because you're not paying enough attention to what's going on around here.
As for the fantasies..........I can't compete with yours, Cobra. You're the tops in the world of the imagination.
And if I didn't know that before, this ludicrous post proves it in spades. You're nuts.
The problem he has it that I don't react to it because his presumptious attacks are just plain dopey, and don't warrant a rise in emotion.
Between the two of us, only one has problems with emotional balance.........and it sure ain't me.
If not, on what do you base this rather odd fear of dictatorship.......especially from all the good men who have been President in your lifetime?
You're quite the Bushbot, Cobra. Shall I start calling you that just to try to make you angry, as you do to me?
It might work with you since you have a hairtrigger temper. It will never work with me, so you would be wise to stop wasting your time and energy by trying.
His main weakness is in vocalizing his many contributions to our society, if he could he would be held in near Reagan in esteem.
I used to work in NYC, and I really didn't like seeing the WTC in a pile of rubble.
Ready for more flaming....
I've seen Children strewn on the asphalt after an illegal alien hit the family's van.
Bush has been a failure on the border, face it, he has no interest in the security and safety of this nation's families.
But he has been effective in stopping attacks on the financial centers, so I'll give him a D- overall.
Thank you.
Ping
Stop whining, Cobra. You have to be brave enough to take the flames when you light the match of idiocy.
Please clarify the meaning of your post.
I'm only saying that children have died because Dubya has refused to enforce the law he swore to up hold. He knows or should know the number of citizens killed by illegals. By people that should have not been in the country to begin with.
So just why 5 years after 9-11 did he put the National Guard on the boarder, in a nominal role at that?
True, these victims of murder and vehicular homicide are 'nobodies', but they have families that loved them too.
But Fate did not make them makers and shakers of Wall Street so we have obviously developed a level of acceptable deaths?
Do you go to Church?
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.