Prominent Democrat speaks out on the President's leadership

[fintstone]

October 11, 2005
A New Proposal For Iraq
By Ed Koch

On October 6th, President Bush delivered a superb speech on international terrorism. It is because our President has been willing to stand up to international terrorism and so many leaders in the Democratic Party have not been willing to do so, that caused me and millions of others to cross party lines and support him in the last presidential election and cheer his victory; notwithstanding that I did not then, nor do I now, agree with him on a single domestic issue, ranging from his proposals to reform Social Security and to changing our tax structure. For me, the single most important issue the world faced in 2001 and now, trumping all other issues, is international terrorism. President Bush’s willingness in the face of all the attacks, so many unfair and ad hominen, to continue to stand up and exhort the world to continue the ongoing battle against international terrorism is why I admire and respect him so much. Would that my party produced such a leader that I could similarly follow. I know that will happen someday.

The President’s recent speech on international terrorism was magnificent. The text of the President’s entire speech, delivered at the National Endowment for Democracy on October 6th, can be obtained from the White House.

The New York Times in two foolish editorials published on the next day, October 7, 2005, sought to denigrate the President instead of trying to add to our security by strengthening him in his leadership when he has taken on the ferocious, often insane, Islamic terrorists who believe they have the right to kill every infidel -- Christians, Jews, Hindus, et.al. The terrorists want to reestablish the Caliphate from Spain to Indonesia and impose militant aggressive Islam on the world. Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, wrote a 6,000 word letter, not intended for public consumption, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Queda’s leader in Iraq, the latter having earlier called for the killing of civilian Shiittes in Iraq and the killing of Christians and Jews worldwide.

Shouldn’t the Times editorials have referred to those terrorist dangers and, in particular, the grand plan of bin Laden which the letter describes. The Times news article quoting the official who provided the briefing to the Times, reports the letter was a “comprehensive and chilling strategic vision for Qaeda.”

The editorials, instead of highlighting the terrorist’s letter, chose to criticize the President. The lead editorial hectored, “The president’s inability to grow beyond his big moment in 2001 is unnerving. But the fact that his handlers continue to encourage him to milk 9/11 is infuriating.” The second editorial denounced him for “talk[ing] so menacingly about Syria and Iran. It was also maddening to listen to him describe the perils that Iraq poses while denying that his policies set them in motion.”

In his letter, according to the Times news story, Zawahiri wrote that “Iraq had become ‘the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era,’” but that it was “only a stepping stone toward a broader victory for militant Islam across the Middle East.” The letter “includes a four-state battle plan, beginning with the American military’s expulsion, followed by the establishment of a militant Islamic caliphate across Iraq before moving to Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. The final step would be a battle against Israel.”

Both the President’s speech and the letter from Zawahiri telling the world what is in store for it if the terrorists win were available on the same day, October 6th. The Times’ two editorials chose to attack President Bush, remaining silent on bin Laden, Zawahiri and Zarqawi. The President’s speech should have been praised by the Times, not denigrated. I believe that if Tony Blair had made it, The Times would have at the very least praised its eloquence.

The President honestly and directly described what is at stake in the war on terrorism, stating:

“Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.”

“ we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.”

I disagree with the President’s decision to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan while our allies overwhelmingly decline to provide combat troops and pay their fair share of the costs of a war which threatens them even more than it threatens us in the immediate future. But my disagreement relates to tactics, not the strategic outcome.

In Afghanistan, we, with other countries, are present under a UN mandate, yet we are the only country performing military operations against the Taliban and enemies of the Afghan government chosen in an election monitored by the UN. Other countries provide military assistance to the Afghan government, but do not participate in combat. This is unfair and unacceptable. In Iraq, the situation is even worse. These countries participating, albeit in a limited fashion in Afghanistan, e.g., France and Germany, do not participate at all in Iraq, leaving the dying and suffering primarily to us and the British. This too is manifestly unfair.

The Wall Street Journal reported on October 7th that terrorist attacks against Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia are on the rise, placing those countries in jeopardy.

I propose that we put the UN Security Council on notice that we will leave Iraq by the end of this year. My belief is that the UN, particularly France, Germany and Russia, knowing we will leave, will have a greater interest in maintaining peace in Iraq than we have, either a regional interest, e.g., Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan; or a commercial interest -- oil and vendor contracts with Iraq -- e.g., Germany and France. They will then understand that it is in their interest to have us remain with them proportionately providing troops and sharing the costs of war. We should provide them with these choices. Indeed, whether they come in or not as a result of our threat of withdrawal, we will be strengthened on another front. As a result of our being in Iraq to the extent that the largest number of our worldwide forces -- 149,000 American soldiers -- are tied down, we are unable to be a vital threat to North Korea, Iran and Syria. Those countries believe that, because we are in Iraq and bereft of allies, we are a paper tiger whose demands and threats can be ignored with impunity.

The president in his speech stated, “today, there are more than 80 Iraqi Army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces.” That may be true. But according to The New York Times of September 30th, “In Washington on Thursday, the senior American military commander in Iraq told Congress that only one Iraqi Army battalion was capable of fighting without help from Untied States armed forces. But the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., was joined by the Pentagon’s senior civilian and military leaders in stressing that growing numbers of Iraqi police and Army forces are increasingly able to provide security in their country.”

Clearly, it will be a long time before the Iraqi Army can stand up on its own, so as to permit the U.S. Army, in the words of the President in an earlier speech, to “stand down.” It is simply unacceptable that the Iraqi Army under the direction of the Iraqi government two years after the end of hostilities is still not able to fight the insurgents on their own. Indeed, the insurgents appear to be growing in capability. They are suspected by the British, as stated by Tony Blair, of receiving improved explosives from Iran which permit them to kill larger numbers of British troops.

The same arguments apply to our being required to assume a heavier burden in Afghanistan than is fair. If the American public believes we are not being helped by our allies in our efforts to prevent a victory for the Islamist terrorists threatening the whole world, the numbers of those tiring of the war will increase. I urge the President to consider my proposal. But he should also know that I stand with him and extol his courage and willingness to stand up for the U.S. and all peaceful nations.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.

[rrpjr]

Excellent. Of course it is all "infuriating" to the NY Times -- they are invested in failure. They cannot see past their hatred for Bush to the obvious threat of Islamofascism to everything in the world once championed by liberalism (art, truth, science, beauty, freedom of speech, human dignity) -- before it was co-opted by reactionary leftism. One thing from Zawahiri's letter Koch does not mention -- the terrorist's multiple and direct references to Vietnam, to the media's demoralization of the populace.

[pwd72s]

There is a reason that Ed Koch is the former mayor of NYC. Read and heed if RoninLB chooses to weigh in here. IMHO, Ed Koch is a perfect example of failed liberalism...

[fintstone]

Yes, he is a liberal. On the other hand, unlike most of his party, he apparently prefers to stand behind his nation, its military, and his president instead of shamelessly backing the enemy for political puposes.

The enemy has learned well from the left and does not hesitate to repeat the propaganda.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by fintstone
he apparently prefers to stand behind his nation...and his president instead of shamelessly backing the enemy for political puposes.

Do we have to stand behind this guy too?

http://www.hhs.gov/about/bios/asphep.html

[creaturecat]

questioning Bush = "shamelessly backing the enemy" - get a grip fintstone

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by rrpjr
One thing from Zawahiri's letter Koch does not mention -- the terrorist's multiple and direct references to Vietnam, to the media's demoralization of the populace.

This is where the American left and al qaeda are in perfect harmony...Divide and conquer...In this case the tactic has been translated from media English to terrorrist Arabic.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by nostatic
Do we have to stand behind this guy too?

http://www.hhs.gov/about/bios/asphep.html

Face it, most political appointees are managers and not technicians. That is not reason enough to defame their character because they were appointed by someone with different politics. Most appointees are shored up by lots of experienced careerists. Heck, Jimmy carter was a peanut farmer and Bill Clinton was a ???slut?? becore they took office. You liked their performances.

Judge them on what they do...or don't do.

[pwd72s]

Flint, I'd be careful of cozying up with Ed Koch if I were you...sleep with dogs, you might get fleas, despite the fact that politics make for strange bedfellows..As far as defending Bush...it's difficult for this fiscal conservative to get around the fact that Bush is spending the taxpayer's money as if he were Ted Kennedy...

[fintstone]

Originally posted by creaturecat
questioning Bush = "shamelessly backing the enemy" - get a grip fintstone

The left has gone far beyond questioning the President. Daily attempts are made to undermine him and the country. The character assasination goes from blatantly misquoting him to photoshopping his note about visiting the toilet...From forging military records to political witchunts of anyone that does not buy into the BS. Even things like your little "joke" thread where every ethnic, blond, or stupid joke is rewritten with the President's name as the fall guy must be really encouraging.

The enemy "gets it"...They have made that clear over and over....if you truly don't....I cannot imagine why.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by pwd72s
Flint, I'd be careful of cozying up with Ed Koch if I were you...sleep with dogs, you might get fleas, despite the fact that politics make for strange bedfellows..As far as defending Bush...it's difficult for this fiscal conservative to get around the fact that Bush is spending the taxpayer's money as if he were Ted Kennedy...

I have no trouble with examining the issues...spending is discouraging..however the circumstances certainly are not typical. Two wars. a recession, a significant increase in homeland security due to the attacks on our shores... and natural disaster after natural disaster are just expensive.

I more fault his stance on immigration than spending.

But the typical personal attacks are just BS.

[gavinlit]

"The enemy "gets it"...They have made that clear over and over"

The problem is the rest of the world gets it as well. He's a dill. It's that simple. Aside from his politics - he's just a dill. If he were the leader of my favourite political party in this country I'd still think he's lacking in the upstairs dept.

Edit - I still don't see how invading Iraq had anything to do with terrorism. But never mind - carry on.

[widebody911]

Joseph Göbbels would be proud of you, Fint. Get your resume together - when Karl Rove gets the boot, you're a shoo-in.

[gaijindabe]

“Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.” G.W. Bush

Guys, it all boils down to this. It is not that complex. You either think this is true or not. Good for Koch for rising above the partisan rancor.

[Seahawk]

“Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.” G.W. Bush

Guys, it all boils down to this. It is not that complex. You either think this is true or not. Good for Koch for rising above the partisan rancor.

You are right on the money...and no reference to Gobbels will suffice as an alternative discussion. I wish it were that easy.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by widebody911
Joseph Göbbels would be proud of you, Fint. Get your resume together - when Karl Rove gets the boot, you're a shoo-in.

I hear al qaeda is recruiting...I'll pay for your ticket.

[turbocarrera]

“Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence... ...like the CIA's successful putsch of Iran's legitimately elected President Mohammed Mossadeq as punishment for nationalizing his country's oil industry in 1953?

The new Shah not only hands Iran's oilfields to western corporations, he buys 18 billion in arms from the US in the next 30 years while the Iranian Secret Police(SAVAK) has what Amnesty Int. calls "the worst human rights record on the planet - beyond belief" - and lo, with nothing left to lose, the Iranian people rose up and overthrew the Shah. They got Ayatollah Khomeini. Well that all worked well wouldn't you say?

To beat the Ayatollah back you sell WMD to Saddam only to wage war on him a few years later. Genius.

Back to the speech - so ironic, your clothes will wrinkle no more.

We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.” G.W. Bush

Another Bush quote for ya..

"I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are." George H.W. Bush

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
This is where the American left and al qaeda are in perfect harmony...Divide and conquer...In this case the tactic has been translated from media English to terrorrist Arabic.

This is where the American Right and Al Quaeda are in perfect harmony. Tear down the very ideals that built this country from the inside out.

When are you guys on the right going to realize that this Country and our Constitution/Bill of Rights is bigger, much bigger, than the Presidency or a particular Party?

That's not a rhetorical question.

You guys who cheer on bush and all that he stands for are doing more to destroy this Country than AQ ever could. For example, AQ could never give a U.S. SC nominee a religious litmous test and assurances of her decision-making qualities based on her religion, yet that's exactly what the Taliban did.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
You guys who cheer on bush and all that he stands for are doing more to destroy this Country than AQ ever could. For example, AQ could never give a U.S. SC nominee a religious litmous test and assurances of her decision-making qualities based on her religion, yet that's exactly what the Taliban did.

But the American Taliban has bibles.........big difference.

[Seahawk]

This is where the American Right and Al Quaeda are in perfect harmony. Tear down the very ideals that built this country from the inside out.

You have no idea how odd and jejune your statement is. To equate the Taliban to conservatives or a Supreme Court nominee based on their religious beliefs is beyond the pale.
You either know better or suffer for it...but I doubt you know which.