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.
No argument with you in principle. Just lacking your fear.
The Constitution is strong enough to have survived William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
I'd say that's a pretty solid test of its resilience against personal corruption and guile.
So go build a statue to yourself for doing entry level jobs like the rest of us have done. This is a great Country and some of us don't fear Mexicans joining the workforce. Rather have Mexi-beaners than Mooselimbs.
We would rather have them managed than evicted or waste big gummit money on them. Heck, some people make a buck on them, big deal. That is what GW offered and why he was crucified for trying to find a solution.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Exactly, unfortunately places like this are breeding grounds for the bombshelter crowd. Pukeannan has built a nice little following with his protectionist dogma. How do you argue, just enforce the laws? Guaranteed to stop all discussion with jingoistic slogans.
I think your dad was well grounded.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Tighten the borders, loosten immig requirements, profile (with ample regrets, LOL), normalize those who are here after an initial screening, courtesy of Latin American legitimate cooperation.
As usual, we buy them off, as a result. That's how the Third World works. Better yet, extend the Bush Doctrine to Latin America. Chile seems to be a fine example, and Argentina seems to be doing okay.
Like your about page.
Just booked marked it for all the great references.
Prost Eins!
FRiend, you make an assumption or two, there:
Why are all immigrants subject to failure? Not to completely discount your premise, but the Human Condition is, well, fluid.
It doesn't matter anymore, the Dems are going to decide this. I could care less about the voter registration it is strictly an economic issue. They live in a Turd world Country next to the land of opportunity. Guess what the law of supply and demand says about that?
Pray for W and Our Troops
Exactly right.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Oh my... and I guess the violence in the Middle East is recent. Not. It's all about fear and economic entanglements.
I can't let you stand alone. I agree with you.
Ed Koch is right to admire the president's courage, but wrong to demand that the president now propose to cut and run from Iraq unless those unwilling to help us so far now do so. It's just a Murtha plan with a modified hang-out.
Reminds me of an old story. They asked one of Ma Barker's boys 'why he robbed banks'. He replied, "Cause that's where the money's at".
We have the same thing here. A prosperous nation next to a corrupt Narco-cracy. The working class knows they have no chance of a decent life in Mexico. The corruption and lack of rule of law, even their culture won't permit it.
So they go to Plan 'B', walk across the border, bringing their diseased and corrupt culture with them.
Are they stupid?
I think not.
Their ancestors were plotting star charts while mine were painting themselves blue and stealing cattle from each other or the English during that time frame.
They know Mexico is hopelessly corrupt and suspect we are too. They base this on the fact that their government goes to great lengths to keep illegals out to preserve jobs for Mexicans. They know their here as somebody is paying off someone else (You should hear the stories the Guatemalans have told me)
Like a battered woman who loves the one who assaults her, they certainly love Mexico.
To stop being Mexicans, or whatever would be the ultimate betrayal. Many, if not all of them associate wealth with corruption and nefarious acts, it's what they grow up with.
So they look around and see what we have here. (Best place on earth if ya axe me.) By taking in 10 to 20 to 60 million, we'll never be able to Americanize that many. Just ain't gonna happen!
Now here comes the Democrats with their theory of 'victimization'. It's like Jelly meets Peanut butter, George meets Gracie, Abbot meets Costello. They certainly know which Party will supply goodies for them. Many, about a third I'd say, realize voting for a Democrat is in effect supporting abortion, so they will vote Republican or avoid voting all together.
But most, about 70% have the attitude, "If God didn't want me to vote for the Abortion Party, then He would have made me a rich man".
Heard that myself while doing precinct walks for Republican candidates.
Should anyone want to throw the RACE Card on me, I'll just remind them I got thirty (30 count 'em) days on the bricks when I petitioned the Court for clemency for a little old Mexican man in a homicide case I worked. I knew it was the right thing to do, I took my oath seriously,unlike what some Greatly Worshiped Bourgeois people do.
(I'll take that statue now LOL)
We are all subject to failure, I certainly don't believe that these 'new citizens' are going to fail.
In fact, with the free medical and schooling and affirmative action, they are ahead of the game now. As you may know, it's been estimated by experts that 40% of the workforce in Los Angeles is 'off the books'.
Success?
They control 90% of the dope dealing in the county I live in. And they manage their money real well too. Even the local busboy has ATV's, Sno-mobils, and a almost new Ford Expedition in his yard. Ya gotta remember I worked in a county where after the five year waiting period was up, had to build five (5) new welfare check centers plus lease a former K-Mart building just to churn out the checks, after the last Amnesty.
But, it's just govenment money so it's OK.
He wants to be loved by his fellow dems.
However, Mexico would have a revolution of immense consequence if we closed the border completely. The thought of a Chavez clone on our border might bring an oil embargo that would devestate our economy.
Much as we are stuck supporting Saudi Arabia because the fall of the royal family might bring an OBL clone with devestating consequences.
There are no simple answers. Much as people would like a reversal overnight, it simply cannot be done at once.
free dixie,sw
Fine by me.
If true that Great Great Grandpa Cox was a Ranger, it had to be very early I would think. He was an elderly man...not sure how old though...when my mom was a child, and my mom is 84.
I've often wondered how far back any records might go.
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.