George W. Bush is a hero.

[Drbio]

George Bush Is a Hero

Edward I. Koch
Thursday, Dec. 28, 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.

Edward I. Koch, author, lawyer, and talk-radio host, was a member of the U.S. Congress and, for 12 years, the 105th mayor of New York City.

[dude1394]

Courage will win out in the long viewing eye of history.

[Murphy3]

Isn't saying that George W Bush is a hero kinda like ....stating the obvious?

[Drbio]

absolutely.

[Nemesis]

I guess the definition of a hero has many interpretations. For me, I reserve the word hero for those that have died for our countries liberty and peace. I think Bush is a good man, but not a hero.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

I guess the definition of a hero has many interpretations. For me, I reserve the word hero for those that have died for our countries liberty and peace. I think Bush is a good man, but not a hero.

Holding the living to that standard there would be no heros. I certainly agree about your definition being of a heroic standard however. There is no doubt about the status of those who have fallen in defense of liberty.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Where's Mavdog?

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Where's Mavdog?

He hasn't posted since Saddam got the noose. Coincidence?

[Big Shot Rob]

Does that mean that Dick Cheney is a hero as well?

[Big Shot Rob]

Drubio--where did you get your Phd's and in what subject--your posts are so well written I am guessing that one is either in English or Education.

[Drbio]

Not English nor Education so I reserve the right to make type-o's.

Check your pm.

[Astroholic]

Great man, I support George W. Bush. Sad he has so many huge things going on in the world that he has to deal with in his term(s).

[Mavdog]

george bush a "hero" because he has the courage to stick to his beliefs?

you have got to be kidding me!

I would agree that george bush is a honourable man, that he has given of himself to our country, that he does have strong convictions.

yet those are not the characteristics that define a "hero".

[Nemesis]

edit: died and fought for our liberty and peace.

[Big Shot Rob]

Here are photos of some of my heroes:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/200612...ACES_TAB1.html

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

george bush a "hero" because he has the courage to stick to his beliefs?

you have got to be kidding me!

I would agree that george bush is a honourable man, that he has given of himself to our country, that he does have strong convictions.

yet those are not the characteristics that define a "hero".

Cone on Mavdog you already know that bush is a hero because he had a plan and stuck to it. Now irregardless if it was a bad or harmful to our country's long term interests he deserves the hero label.. Kind of lowering the bar now isn't it.. I guess the remaining 30 or percent who still support him need something to praise bush about ..why not label him a hero?

[Hitman]

George Bush's legacy will be the Iraq War- a completely illogical and insanely stupid decision.

Please, please, please- give me the argument that invading Iraq was a good decision.

Yes, GWB is a hero. He has done so much good for the world.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Yes, GWB is a hero. He has done so much good for the world.

Agreed.

[Hitman]

Best case scenario in Iraq in the next 2 years?

Lets hear it.

Everybody with half a brain knows it is a lost cause.

[Drbio]

Let's see....Iraqi's are no longer rounded up and executed by Saddam. Sounds much better.

But your half a brain is of course incapable of seeing past your biases and understanding that Bush will be remember historically as one of our finest ever. We get it mental midget.

[Hitman]

Your half a brain can't seem to grasp the fact that the Sunni's and the Shi'as have been fighting for 1,500 years and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

There will be no democracy in Iraq for as long as either of us live.

You know it and I know it.

[dude1394]

Well actually there is democracy in iraq. However the government is not strong enough or the people law-abiding enough to keep each other from killing each other. Sorta like crips/bloods.

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Your half a brain can't seem to grasp the fact that the Sunni's and the Shi'as have been fighting for 1,500 years and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

There will be no democracy in Iraq for as long as either of us live.

You know it and I know it.

There will be no democracy in Iraq for as long as either of us live.

[Drbio]

Wrong and I hope you die soon to prove it.

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Bush will be remember historically as one of our finest ever.

"Remembered" is the correct tense.

And, um...no he won't.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Hitman

There will be no democracy in Iraq for as long as either of us live.

Democracy:
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well actually there is democracy in iraq. However the government is not strong enough or the people law-abiding enough to keep each other from killing each other. Sorta like crips/bloods.

Not sure about the crips/bloods thing but you are correct. It took us 200 years to get the nuances of democracy down. We are still working on it. Iraq has been democratic for a very short time. It will work but the mindless want immediate fixes. Fortunately OUR President is on the job and has strong moral and resolve.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Hitman

"Remembered" is the correct tense.

And, um...no he won't.

Let's check off the last presidents.

Carter - Bust
Reagan - Renaldous Maximux
Bush - Good
Clinton - Bust
Bush - TBD

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Hitman

"Remembered" is the correct tense.

And, um...no he won't.

Thank you Ms. Spell checker. You know, no matter how many times your weak ass mind says it to yourself that Bush will not be remembered by history as one of our best, you will certainly be wrong. *shocker*

He will be.

[Hitman]

I know you want have sex with GWB, but unforunately, you won't be able to.

Sorry, loser.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Hitman

I know you want have sex with GWB, but uunforunately, you won't be able to.

Sorry, loser.

Hitman.. You started the whole thing, you haven't said anything of substance except stupidity. What is your purpose, just to flap your gums?

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Hitman.. You started the whole thing, you haven't said anything of substance except stupidity. What is your purpose, just to flap your gums?

His forte....hit and run....cower and hide....

[rabbitproof]

Hero to some. Definitely not to all and not mine personally.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Hero to some. Definitely not to all and not mine personally.

Fair enough sir.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Wrong and I hope you die soon to prove it.

LOL!

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Hitman.. You started the whole thing, you haven't said anything of substance except stupidity. What is your purpose, just to flap your gums?

Dude-

GWB's legacy will be Iraq.

Invading Iraq, in hindsight, was such an atrocious decision it is ridiculous. Have you seen what is going on there? Have you studied the history? There is NO WAY this is going to end positively.

And it is not because GWB is a bad person, or because he had evil intents. He just made a stupid decision. Invading Iraq has made the world a much less stable place and you should be able to recognize this fact if you weren't so blinded by partisanship.

If the government is not strong enough .... then there is no democracy.

They are not ready for democracy.

The moment we leave, the smartest, evilest, most ruthless guy in Iraq will ascend to power and in 20 years we will be trying to kill him.

If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.

So no, GWB is not a hero. Wesley Autrey is a hero. The 3,000 men and women who have given their life with the intent of "liberating Iraq" are heros.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Hitman

So no, GWB is not a hero. Wesley Autrey is a hero. The 3,000 men and women who have given their life with the intent of "liberating Iraq" are heros.

It is not an either or thing no matter how hard you tryto make it that way and 100% of all of us would agree that Autrey and the 3,000 servicemen and women who have perished are worthy of hero status.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Invading Iraq, in hindsight, was such an atrocious decision it is ridiculous.

Invading iraq, in foresight, was a ridiculous idea -- we were not ignorant, we were foolish.

[Drbio]

Tell it to the tens of thousands who were murdered under Saddams rule.

[AxdemxO]

Tell it to the hundreds of thousands who are being murdered now because of the chaos the invasion of Iraq has caused...Damm people can be ignorant

And Bush a hero...pleaseee...He is sticking by his plans and ths respectable..but to call him a hero you must be crazy. He sticks to his plans for his own interest.

Iraq doesnt have a democracy and it wont....you say that it does but look at all the people that are dying anf that have died to supposedly make this democracy work...umm and how far have we goteen...nott too far in fact it went bakcwards and its worse now thatn it was under Saddam. You can denie that and come up with reasons, but ask the thousands that are dying now for no reason...If you believe that anything has been achieved in Iraq you are wrong and if you think that all these lives are worth the stuff that has been achieved(nothing) than you have no respect for human life. So you sit there at your comp and think you know what those people who lose their fathers, mothers, sisters,brothers and so on feel and think, dont you think thats just stupid and ignorant.