I like the president but not his policies

Wednesday's Telegraph published a couple of interesting letters to Viewpoints. I speak, specifically, to the letters about the Congress in opposition to the President Bush's policies. Those of us who oppose these policies are accused of hating the president. Anyone who knows me will attest to my opposition of most of Bush's policies.

I can say with certainty that I, along with most people of similar opposition, do not hate President Bush. I admire him for his moral standing and his recovery in his battle with the demons of addiction from alcohol and drugs. I admire his magnificent funding support of the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I even supported him in the Dubia ports deal.

I admire his support of faith-based actions toward the betterment of disadvantaged segments of society. I could go on with a list of things I support this good man has proposed. Unfortunately, being a good man does not relieve him from criticism for many of his other policies.

President Bush pretty much projects the embodiment of the Peter Principle. Few who hold with my analysis would venture to say that the man is an intellectual giant. His process that led us into the Iraq war was flawed beyond comprehension. I knew the day that Secretary of State Colin Powell made the speech at the United Nations that the whole process was built on supposition and faulty information supporting the march to war.

How many of us remember the drawings of the alleged biological plant and mobile labs? It was obvious that with the technology that existed at the time, pictures would have been used rather than drawings. The list of erroneous assertions need not be reiterated. President Bush simply is not sufficiently endowed with the intellect nor experience in foreign affairs to lead the greatest nation and recognized most powerful country on the planet.

The Congress is a co-equal branch of government (thanks to the amazing work of the founders). As such, it has the responsibility to act as the people's servant, pursuing the will of the electorate that was, clearly manifested in the 2006 election. The majority spoke and demanded an end to this illegal and mismanaged war.

Recently, the president said that attempts to bring the military home would result in longer stays for those already there and would cause many back home to face additional hardships with their loved ones having to return too soon. What part of bringing them home does this president not understand? If they are coming home the ones there will come home and the ones here will not have to go!

Diplomacy is an intellectual process devoid of bluster and macho posturing. Talking to our adversaries is not weakness, it is foundation of conflict resolution. As far as the war is concerned, I am afraid we must continue to be assailed by a president whose limitations are clearly espoused by Jonathan Swift when he said, "It is useless to attempt to reason with a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

Bill P. Northenor is a resident of Warner Robins.

We need to do at least one thing right in Iraq: Leave

President Bush has to be feeling like Stan Laurel listening to Oliver Hardy say, "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten us into," when it comes to Iraq.

Thursday, in the face of a threatened veto, the Senate echoed the House vote to - on the one hand, fund almost $100 million for the Iraq war - while on the other, call for a withdrawal of American forces. Democratic senators, aided by two Republicans and an independent, did the House one better by calling for the withdrawal to start 120 days after the bill's passage, and complete by March 31, 2008. The House gave the president until Sept. 2008 to withdraw troops.

To say this is an exercise in political gamesmanship is an understatement. No matter how far and in what direction the president and Democrats push, the troops in the field will not be appreciably affected. Both bills' withdrawal clauses are nonbinding and each bill is also, as lawmakers are want to do, filled with about $30 million to fund pet projects.

The real agenda for the Democrats is not to withdraw American forces but to tighten the noose around Republican necks in respect to the war. Democrats want the president to veto the measure once House and Senate versions are reconciled. They know they don't have the votes to override a Bush veto, but it will place his party directly in the crosshairs when the 2008 elections roll around. That's when a when a new president, 33 senators and the entire House of Representatives, is chosen.

Our representative form of government is the best in the world, but even it has its drawbacks. The lawmakers are probably reflecting the public's sentiment toward the war. After five years there is ample evidence that we are refereeing a civil war of our own creation. That said, it is unconscionable that we would take our marbles and head home under the guidelines of a predetermined deadline. Even if the president's surge idea and the new leadership of Gen. David Petraeus fails, hitting an arbitrary mark for withdrawal gives the insurgents a wait-until-they-leave tool that could plunge the entire region into chaos. When and if we withdraw there must be an infrastructure that makes sure the Iraqis have a hope of being able to govern themselves.

We have, at the cost of 3,200 deaths and a half-trillion dollars, found out that we understand little about the Middle East and its culture. We have emboldened Iran and others to thumb their noses at us. Even our so-called allies, the Saudis, have called our incursion into Iraq, according to The New York Times, an "illegal foreign occupation." While we all want our troops out of Iraq, our withdrawal, if it ever happens, should be the one thing we plan correctly in this war full of missteps and mistakes.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/opinion/17002995.htm
Posted on Mon, Apr. 02, 2007

Moses brought new laws and new regulations for his people. Moses (peace be upon him) not only gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, but a very comprehensive ceremonial law for the guidance of his people.

As regards to Jesus (peace be upon him) he took a strong stand to assure the Jews that he had not come with a new religion or new regulations different from what Moses brought to the world. Jesus was quoted in the gospel of Matthew 5:17-18 saying "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Mohammad (peace be upon him) took the pains to assure what Jesus had assured before him to the world. Mohammad also came to fulfill not to deny or destroy what Moses had established and what Jesus confirmed.

You can read in the Holy Quran chapter 2 verse 62 "Those who believe in the Quran, and those who follow the Jewish scriptures and the Christians and the Sabians, and any who believe in God and the last day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; On them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

Muslims have been warned many times in the Quran not to discriminate against any previous laws or scriptures that were revealed upon Abraham, Moses and Jesus and all must be believed in and must be admitted throughout Muslim behavior. The Quran stated in chapter 2, verse 136 "Say you: We believe in God, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ishmail, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to all prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them, and we bow to God in peace."

That is why there has never been quoted any statement by a Muslim against the person of Abraham, Moses or Jesus. It always has and always will be, one law and one message from the Lord of Universe to the mankind.

Ahmed Yousef is a resident of Macon.
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/editorial/letters/17002920.htm
Posted on Mon, Apr. 02, 2007