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.
The President is not a man of courage. The absolute first test of courage is to tell the truth, and that is something this President refuses to do.
Unlike RR, who did not hesitate to tell the truth, despite great ridicule and hatred directed at him for doing so, this President has decided that being a poker player is the right approach to the presidency.
We will not win this war if even the President refuses to name our enemy. To do so would take a tremendous act of courage, literally death-defying courage. But until someone such as a President does it, we are bound to lose.
Even such brilliant men such as Edward Koch and Daniel Pipes and and Victor Hansen do not have the courage to name the enemy; they resort to absurd circumlocutions, made-up names, tokens of their fear.
I have no doubt the President is a well meaning man. He is just not a leader, or a man of principle.
"Courage?"
And he demonstrates this how?
By his steadfast support for his judicial nominees and Presidential appointees? (John Bolton being but the latest example)
By his staunch opposition to unConstitutional bills like McCain-Feingold?
By his fearless wielding of his veto power?
That would be, "No, no, and an emphatic 'No!'"
So when did just showing up become "courageous?"
For the very same reason (i.e., "courage") proffered by Koch, President Bush is my hero too! . . . I would add that President Bush is also a man of remarkable VISION and INTEGRITY!
onyx: Thank you for the link!!
That's because unlike them, Ed knows the facts and is unhampered by sickening biases, that preclude some here from accepting reality.
"Great piece, Ed Koch gets it. Thanks for posting."
I'm thinking he gets it, too.
It's high time for some GOOD NEWS like this. And it takes courage to say the current President has courage!!
But when it comes too Israel, he caves.
Great work and I appreciate it.
It takes courage to say anything good about President Bush on FR.
Pray for W and Our Troops
"Ed Koch is more pro-Bush than many here at Free Republic"
I think he's got the same ulterior motives as Lieberman when it comes to supporting this President's Iraq policy.
AMEN!
We are in for it come January. We will all need each other here once the 110th Congress gets underway...
You nailed it, EB. Of the three, the one that is most surprising to me is Dershowitz but hearing him speak on TV the last year or more has made me a believer.
Good Gosh. It takes a LIB like Ed Koch to say this. How sad.
Outside of his immigration stance, my opinion of the President has not changed one iota. I think he is the same person he was in those weeks after 9/11.
I trust Zell Miller on this one.
True leaders are NOT mouthy teens, who don't recognize that words have consequences.
"If you experience wood for four hours or longer, please consult your physician"
"If you experience wood for four hours or longer, please consult your physician"
Ditto!
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.