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.
We'll see; won't we.......in the long run? I, for one think George Bush will yet do the right thing for Israel and to Iran!!
Nancee
Well, that's it. Koch will now be labeled a loonie-kazoonie.
Yes, I agree!!!
Nancee
bttt
I see it clearly, the blood of Jews is very cheap, you are holding on too a "Peace plan".
Muslims do want a peace plan, every Jew dead. DEAL WITH THAT.
People actually determining THEIR own fate huh? Oh for the days when every evil dictator was satisfied with oppressing his own people. That was probably the norm back in 7000 BC when it was too onerous to seek out the enslavement of the neighbors. Once horses were trained, seems the evil people had every intention of causing mischief as far as they could reach. Then chariots, ships, gunpowder, planes just added to it.
The history of the world has been a history of fight or be eaten. Nothing has changed, except that 230 years ago, the greatest country in the history of the world was formed. They threw off the shackles of colonialization and formed a more perfect union, that codified the inalienable rights of man.
Of those heroic individuals that you think so disdained any meddling (the meddling they disdained was choosing sides in the 1000 year on going battles between France, Spain, Prussia and England), George Washington cut his teeth fighting the French and Indians and did not hesitate to crush indian uprisings after independence, John Adams spent years in France and Holland with a tin cup for donations but managed to fight France on the high seas in the Quasi-War for two years, Thomas Jefferson - the father of "no entaglements" -jumped down the throats of the Barbary Pirates and Tripoli. Madison, father of the Constitution, sided with France leading to the War of 1812 and Andrew Jackson's fame. It goes on and on. From the Indian wars driven by manifest Destiny, to the Monroe Doctrine to the Mexican-American War.
We have become a great nation, despite all this meddling. And when you have islamo scum breathing down your neck, not crushing the ragheads is not only cowardly, its immoral.
Good column, but I almost choked on that line. I like the idea of putting "facts" in quotes, though. (NYT: All the news that Pinch wants to print.)
Great info in your reply. Thanks for posting that.
Nonsense. Israel has no stauncher ally than the USA under Bush's watch. Ohmert is the problem. America will stand at Israels side regardless of whether its a milqetoast like Ohlmert or a hawk like Bibi in charge.
I think you're right about this!!!
Nancee
:-)
Great post, pissant.
I just don't like looking ahead to the 110th Congress, nor to January 2009.
Who will lead the fight?
Olmert is a DUMB-ASS!!!
Thank you for posting this, RetiredArmy. It's especially important coming from someone like Ed Koch.
I dread the day when Pres. George W. Bush is no longer our president.
Thanks, onyx. What a refreshing article!
I posted the link on the Dose too.
It takes a person of character to recognize a person of character, I guess......
Stop your whining, Cobra. It isn't manly.
bttt
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.