Bush is a hero

[Stoner]

This is the best article I have seen yet on Bush.Â*Â*Great read.



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.

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 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."


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.

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.

It won't be easy to implement this proposal. But President Bush has courage.

Now is the time to use it.

Click link for complete article.

http://vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60457367.phtml

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

A well written article. It's not easy to have courage and do what is right when the weaker people are blaming you for their own weakness.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But history will prove that The President did all the right things.
2. But seeing the Liberals have so many anti American politicians in office.
3. We have to endure and suffer as a Nation, because these folks who attack the policy of The Country, in general.
4. Americans on average want to fight Islam.
5. They want it to be beat down, and ruined, in order to preserve ourselves.
6. If ever the Liberal Party realises that they are just as much a target of Islam, then perhaps then they will join the Republican Party.
7. It is hard to understand how misguided a huge part of this Nation are blind to this simple fact.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[piratemonkey]

Appeasement never works. The wolves always come back for more and more, and when we have nothing left to give, they come for us.


So when Reagan signed treaties with the Soviet Union, he wasn't appeasing them? Or was it appeasing that actually worked in the end?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So when Reagan signed treaties with the Soviet Union, he wasn't appeasing them?



No, he wasn't. He was seeking a political advantage over them, learn some history.

[piratemonkey]

So when Reagan signed treaties with the Soviet Union, he wasn't appeasing them?Â*Â*



No, he wasn't. He was seeking a political advantage over them, learn some history.


So why couldn't we negotiate with Iran and Syria to "seek political advantage over them?"

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

It doesn't always work, look how badly Clinton failed in negotiation with North Korea.

It's all about knowing your enemy. Knowing what will work and what won't.

[Wraith]

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.


What of radical America (the world police) and its terrorist agenda?

[BoogyMan]

Appeasement never works. The wolves always come back for more and more, and when we have nothing left to give, they come for us.


So when Reagan signed treaties with the Soviet Union, he wasn't appeasing them? Or was it appeasing that actually worked in the end?


Are you equating the cold war era Soviet Union with terrorist entities that we currently face?

[piratemonkey]

Are you equating the cold war era Soviet Union with terrorist entities that we currently face?


No, I'm saying that negotiation/=appeasement.

Negotiation with people we disagree with is all about getting us where we want to be.
Ignoring them does nothing to get us where we want to be.

Look at what not negotiating with Cuba has gotten us in 40 years.
Look at what negotiating with the Soviets did get us.

Does negotiation always get us what we want? No. But not negotiating almost never gets us what we want.

[ECW]

STOP! Your point makes too much sense, piratemonkey. You're confusing the neocons.

The Bush plan of not talking to our enemies humiliates them and leaves them to sit in the corner like chastised little children until they grow up and see things our way. Don't you get it, PM?

[BoogyMan]

So when Reagan signed treaties with the Soviet Union, he wasn't appeasing them?



No, he wasn't. He was seeking a political advantage over them, learn some history.


So why couldn't we negotiate with Iran and Syria to "seek political advantage over them?"


We were not actively engaged in dealing with insurgent forces sent by Russia against us in a war at the time Pirate.

No one here has made a valid argument yet for negotiating with Syria and Iran. I have heard argumentation framed along the lines of "well the ISG study group says we should," but there has been little valid discussion of why that would be an appropriate step to take.

[ECW]

No one here has made a valid argument yet for negotiating with Syria and Iran.Â*Â*I have heard argumentation framed along the lines of "well the ISG study group says we should," but there has been little valid discussion of why that would be an appropriate step to take.


I've made the argument before on this board but no one took up the challenge.

Syria and Iran are mostly Shia countries while the rest of the Muslim world is Sunni. As Iraq's neighbors, they have been shown to be instigators to a lot of the trouble that is going on in country. Talking to them and convincing them that stirring up trouble in Iraq could spill over into their countries if other Sunni nations get involved to prevent Sunnis from being massacred in Iraq is in their best interests.

These sects have been fighting for centuries. Talking to the Shia side (that we are propping up in Iraq) and convincing them to respect the national borders so that a solution could be brokered in-house without more bloodshed is in everyone's best interests only the neocon Bush doesn't think so. He prefers a military solution that HE can control rather than a negotiated one that he cannot. (The parallels between how he deals with this and how he dealt with the Democrats for six years domestically are nothing short of amazing.)

[Wraith]

I've made the argument before on this board but no one took up the challenge.


It's definitely your intimidating signature.

[BoogyMan]

I've made the argument before on this board but no one took up the challenge.

Syria and Iran are mostly Shia countries while the rest of the Muslim world is Sunni. As Iraq's neighbors, they have been shown to be instigators to a lot of the trouble that is going on in country. Talking to them and convincing them that stirring up trouble in Iraq could spill over into their countries if other Sunni nations get involved to prevent Sunnis from being massacred in Iraq is in their best interests.

ECW, you missed my point. I said no one here had made a valid point of reason about why we should negotiate with Iran and Syria. To say that "talking to them and convincing them that stirring up trouble in Iraq could spill over into their countries" is just wishful thinking and doesn't address the reality of the day. How do we negotiate with Ahmadinejad? I would like you to tell me exactly how we are going to negotiate a peace with a man who constantly spouts radical ideology and death to other nations?

Lay it out for me ECW and I will listen.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Does negotiation always get us what we want? No. But not negotiating almost never gets us what we want.

So how do we "negotiate" islamofascism away?

[underdawg]

I think where Stoner sees courage in Bush, I see stubborness, arrogance, and a foolish inability to listen to views other than his own. I think that courage can be both a good and a bad thing. Courage can be good if you risk your own life to save others, but it is bad if for example you decide to be a suicide bomber or stick to a course that leads to disaster against the better advice of others.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

or stick to a course that leads to disaster against the better advice of others.


But in Bush it is a good thing, the courage to face islamo-fascists instead of doing the easy, cowardly thing like Clinton did, wait for future generations to deal with a much larger problem.

[lily]

I've made the argument before on this board but no one took up the challenge.

Syria and Iran are mostly Shia countries while the rest of the Muslim world is Sunni. As Iraq's neighbors, they have been shown to be instigators to a lot of the trouble that is going on in country. Talking to them and convincing them that stirring up trouble in Iraq could spill over into their countries if other Sunni nations get involved to prevent Sunnis from being massacred in Iraq is in their best interests.

ECW, you missed my point.Â*Â*I said no one here had made a valid point of reason about why we should negotiate with Iran and Syria.Â*Â*To say that "talking to them and convincing them that stirring up trouble in Iraq could spill over into their countries" is just wishful thinking and doesn't address the reality of the day.Â*Â*How do we negotiate with Ahmadinejad?Â*Â*I would like you to tell me exactly how we are going to negotiate a peace with a man who constantly spouts radical ideology and death to other nations?

Lay it out for me ECW and I will listen.


.....and what makes ECW's post not a valid point? Makes perfect sense to me. Just because Bush doesn't want to? He refuses to even try, how do we know what will happen? Every thing he said in his post is true. You dismiss the ISG like it's nothing. It is in everybody's best interst to talk........and we better do it while the youth in Iran is still on our side.

Keep in mind, that it was this administration that got Ahmadinejad in power, to keep their country safe from being invaded. He is not well liked by the youth in the country, nor the religious leaders. IMO he is only there, because of Bush.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Does negotiation always get us what we want? No. But not negotiating almost never gets us what we want.

So how do we "negotiate" islamofascism away?


Still wondering just how we negotiate with islamofascists?

[ECW]

I've made the argument before on this board but no one took up the challenge.

Syria and Iran are mostly Shia countries while the rest of the Muslim world is Sunni. As Iraq's neighbors, they have been shown to be instigators to a lot of the trouble that is going on in country. Talking to them and convincing them that stirring up trouble in Iraq could spill over into their countries if other Sunni nations get involved to prevent Sunnis from being massacred in Iraq is in their best interests.

ECW, you missed my point.Â*Â*I said no one here had made a valid point of reason about why we should negotiate with Iran and Syria.Â*Â*To say that "talking to them and convincing them that stirring up trouble in Iraq could spill over into their countries" is just wishful thinking and doesn't address the reality of the day.Â*Â*How do we negotiate with Ahmadinejad?Â*Â*I would like you to tell me exactly how we are going to negotiate a peace with a man who constantly spouts radical ideology and death to other nations?

Lay it out for me ECW and I will listen.


Well, to begin with, they used to say the same crap about Khadafy in Libya. What do we hear of him now? Nothing. He is still in power. How did he suddenly change his mind? People started talking to him, behind the scenes, until slowly but surely, he came around. He made amends for his support of terrorism and made peace with his neighbors. All done because he was talked to, treated like he was a member of the world community instead of being looked down on by the High And Mighty White House. Talking does not equal appeasement like the neocons would have you believe. Talking equals talking. The only catch is you have to have the brain power to do it and maybe THAT'S why this administration is not talking to Iran and Syria.

Whipping Bushite cowboy bluster on folks does not encourage them to want to come and talk to you. Throwing out crap like Axis Of Evil just makes nations defensive and even less likely to talk to you. You rightwingers have laid a cyber bitchslap on Jimmy Carter on this board yet that "wimpy little president" got two enternal enemies to talk, Egypt and Israel, and the result is a peace treaty that has not been broken once in 25 years. Let me repeat that so you can see how important talking is: the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt has not been broken even once in 25 years. If Carter can do it, what's stopping Bush? Pride. Arrogance. Self-righteousness. Ignorance. Neocon idealism.

The second part of this is the Arab-Israeli question. We are friends with Jordan and with Saudi Arabia. What is stopping us from bringing them in to talk to Syria? They are a neighbor of Israel as well and it would do them well to have peace in the region. Bush has come down so firmly on the Israeli side that he is no longer trusted to be impartial in dealing with the Arab neighbors of Israel. He has pissed in the water barrel and no one is drinking as a result. The Palestinian question needs a resolution, even a small resolution, for any kind of progress to be made elsewhere in the region. Saudi and Jordan can possibly bring Syria into the fold of making peace with Israel and, thus, pull them out of the Iranian sphere of influence. This would isolate Iran and show them that they are going down the wrong path; that they are going the wrong way on a one way street. With the right person talking to them they could bring some measure of peace in the region.

There is only one problem with this whole scenario: your president is not interested in talking to anyone and is only interested in finding a military solution to the area's problems. This will not work. It did not work for 30 years before Camp David and it has not worked in the 25+ years since Camp David. Maybe if he was reading more and brushing up on the history that he obviously did not take in college, we would not be in this fix.

I guess he was right when he said that troop levels are an issue for the NEXT president to deal with. So is peace.

[Nemo]

It seems unlikely that George W. Bush (unlike Jimmy Carter) will be a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Stoner]

It seems unlikely that George W. Bush (unlike Jimmy Carter) will be a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.


He already was a candidate. He was one of 156 candidates in 2002 when Carter won it.

[BoogyMan]

Well, to begin with, they used to say the same crap about Khadafy in Libya. What do we hear of him now? Nothing. He is still in power. How did he suddenly change his mind? People started talking to him, behind the scenes, until slowly but surely, he came around. He made amends for his support of terrorism and made peace with his neighbors. All done because he was talked to, treated like he was a member of the world community instead of being looked down on by the High And Mighty White House. Talking does not equal appeasement like the neocons would have you believe. Talking equals talking. The only catch is you have to have the brain power to do it and maybe THAT'S why this administration is not talking to Iran and Syria.

This is complete and total hogwash ECW!

Operation El Dorado Canyon which bombed tripoli was the changing point for Gaddafi.

[alias]

A lot of people feel like talking when they see an ally getting his regime run out of town.Â*Â*Terrorists and their allies only talk when a gun is pointed at them.Â*Â*That is not from appeasement, that is confronting evil with force.

[ECW]

Well, to begin with, they used to say the same crap about Khadafy in Libya. What do we hear of him now? Nothing. He is still in power. How did he suddenly change his mind? People started talking to him, behind the scenes, until slowly but surely, he came around. He made amends for his support of terrorism and made peace with his neighbors. All done because he was talked to, treated like he was a member of the world community instead of being looked down on by the High And Mighty White House. Talking does not equal appeasement like the neocons would have you believe. Talking equals talking. The only catch is you have to have the brain power to do it and maybe THAT'S why this administration is not talking to Iran and Syria.

This is complete and total hogwash ECW!

Operation El Dorado Canyon which bombed tripoli was the changing point for Gaddafi.


Revisionist history. All he did after that was sponsor the two terrorists who blew up the Pan American airliner over Scotland. I guess that attack by Reagan sure made him moderate his positions, huh?

It was the influence of Nelson Mandela that got him to moderate his positions. The UN sanctions were hurting him but not enough to change his mind until Mandela talked to him.

Through the intercession of South African President Nelson Mandela - who made a high-profile visit to Gaddafi in 1997 - and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Gaddafi agreed in 1999 to a compromise that involved handing over the defendants to the Netherlands for trial under Scottish law. U.N. sanctions were thereupon suspended, but U.S. sanctions against Libya remained in force.

Talking is what brought him around. Bombing him just pissed him off all the more and look at the destruction in lives that THAT caused. You counter points hold as much water as my kitchen sieve.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

A lot of people feel like talking when they see an ally getting his regime run out of town. Terrorists and their allies only talk when a gun is pointed at them. That is not from appeasement, that is confronting evil with force.



Exactly, it's insanity to think that negotiation will work with terrorists.

[Wraith]

Terrorists and their allies only talk when a gun is pointed at them. That is not from appeasement, that is confronting evil with force.


Exactly, it's insanity to think that negotiation will work with terrorists.


First of all, you're attaching morality to a group who is simply just another group with goals to achieve much like any other country just to prove your own point. Hell, why not accuse Iran and Korea of being evil so we can invade them too?

Secondly, you're generalising every terrorist on the planet by assuming that none of them can be negotiated with. Violence will result in retaliatory violence, and I'd like to see you annihilate every terrorist group. Especially those that are decentralised.

[BoogyMan]

Revisionist history. All he did after that was sponsor the two terrorists who blew up the Pan American airliner over Scotland. I guess that attack by Reagan sure made him moderate his positions, huh?

It was the influence of Nelson Mandela that got him to moderate his positions. The UN sanctions were hurting him but not enough to change his mind until Mandela talked to him.

Once again you assume too much. I said that was the changing point. After that his presence on the international stage was MUCH less prominent.

Had the ISG said that we needed to dance around on the border between Iraq and Iran wearing bunny ears the liberals would be screaming about us not doing so.

There is absolutely no reason in approaching a terrorist government from a position of equality. You only speak with terrorist governments from a position of power.

[Sherri]

If President Bush were such a hero, why would so many stalwart GOPers find themselves rethinking his foreign policies (Hagel, Voinovich, Collins, Warner, Powell, Brownback, Lugar), while former politicos like Santorum agree with him and he no longer works in The Senate ?

And if he had all of the answers, why would he find himself calling out for help from the hole he dug himself into ?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16611409/

[BoogyMan]

If President Bush were such a hero, why would so many stalwart GOPers find themselves rethinking his foreign policies (Hagel, Voinovich, Collins, Warner, Powell, Brownback, Lugar), while former politicos like Santorum agree with him and he no longer works in The Senate ?

And if he had all of the answers, why would he find himself calling out for help from the hole he dug himself into ?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16611409/


Hi Sherri,

This is pretty funny. Calling out for help? What he is doing is asking those who put politics ahead of country and who have consistently screamed defeatist garbage at every proposal to put up or or shut up.

Doing the right thing has NEVER been bound by doing the popular thing. I still don't get why liberals seem to consistently infer that the right thing must be whatever is most easily agreed upon.

[Sherri]

If President Bush were such a hero, why would so many stalwart GOPers find themselves rethinking his foreign policies (Hagel, Voinovich, Collins, Warner, Powell, Brownback, Lugar), while former politicos like Santorum agree with him and he no longer works in The Senate ?

And if he had all of the answers, why would he find himself calling out for help from the hole he dug himself into ?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16611409/


Hi Sherri,

This is pretty funny.Â*Â*Calling out for help?Â*Â*What he is doing is asking those who put politics ahead of country and who have consistently screamed defeatist garbage at every proposal to put up or or shut up.

Doing the right thing has NEVER been bound by doing the popular thing.Â*Â*I still don't get why liberals seem to consistently infer that the right thing must be whatever is most easily agreed upon.

Well, Hey Mr. Boogyman;

He can call out for help, but consider how he marginalized General Eric Shinseki, Colin Powell, and as a lame duck himself, he really has no reason to care about those who need to consider keeping their job or running for higher office. The only person who has not abandoned him on the Hill is McCain, and McCain is only seeking to pacify the RR of the GOP. I think it's fair to say The Straight Talk Express has become derailed, and that's sad because I used to have so much respect for John McCain.:(

[Sherri]

Keep in mind George Will is not really classified as a "Liberal".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201949.html

[lily]

And if he had all of the answers, why would he find himself calling out for help from the hole he dug himself into ?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16611409/


Sherri, I don't mean to butt in, but this article might help to prove your point that Bush is calling out for help from the hole he dug, from the very same people that tried to "serve" him and were told........ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/13/AR2007011301372.html?referrer=email)

[BoogyMan]

And if he had all of the answers, why would he find himself calling out for help from the hole he dug himself into ?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16611409/


Sherri, I don't mean to butt in, but this article might help to prove your point that Bush is calling out for help from the hole he dug, from the very same people that tried to "serve" him and were told........ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/13/AR2007011301372.html?referrer=email)


I could certainly come closer to seeing your point with the article Lily posted than the original one Sherri.

However, the picture you are trying to paint of Bush being completely abandoned except for McCain cannot be substantiated.

[ECW]

Had the ISG said that we needed to dance around on the border between Iraq and Iran wearing bunny ears the liberals would be screaming about us not doing so.Â*Â*

It would have been the one thing from the ISG that I could see Bush doing, sadly enough.

There is absolutely no reason in approaching a terrorist government from a position of equality.Â*Â*You only speak with terrorist governments from a position of power.

After the debacle in Iraq, that may be hard to do. But, wait, he's not going to talk to anyone anyway so the point is moot to begin with. My Bad.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

On Meet the Press today Lieberman was there supporting the new surge. Obviously there is bipartisan support from people who think clearly and/or don't let their agenda's drive their actions.