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, doing what he believes to be in the best interest of the United States, notwithstanding daily criticism.

The defeat he 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 ally in this war against the forces of darkness, Great Britain, is still being led by an outstanding prime minister, Tony Blair. He will soon be leaving and Great Britain will leave our side, joining France, Germany, Spain and other countries that foolishly believe they can tame the wolf at the door, converting 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. 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. We permitted 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. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, made up of Sunni Arabs, know that for them, the wolves who are the radical Shia are already at their door. The Times reported on December 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, 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 Qaeda, 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, 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 “suggest[ed] 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.”

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 where we are headed, notwithstanding the President’s opposition. Simply getting out and not making an attempt to bring our allies in is supported by a majority of Americans. 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 that 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, North Carolina.

It won’t be easy to implement this proposal. But President Bush has courage. Now is the time to use it.

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch can be heard every Friday at 6pm on Bloomberg Radio.

The U.S. government told the Iraqi leaders that it needed to achieve 18 goals. Our administration’s recent report to the U.S. Congress on how close the Iraqis have come to achieving those goals states that eight have been achieved, no progress has been made on eight others, and two have had mixed results.

With regard to the most important goals, which include bringing the Sunni population into the government with the Shia by removing the bans against those (primarily Sunnis) who had served in the prior Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, the grade was zero.

The Iraqi government similarly received a zero for failing to enact legislation that would equitably divide the oil income it receives among the three ethnic regions of Kurds, Sunni and Shia. Currently the Kurds and Shia share the oil revenues and have no problem doing so because the oil fields are located in the areas they control. The Sunni areas have very few oil fields.

For well over a year, I have urged the administration to issue an ultimatum to our Muslim allies of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and Kuwait, all Sunni nations and our NATO allies in Europe. Unless they joined us with boots on the ground and contributed to the ongoing cost of the war against Al Qaeda and the insurgency in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we would leave.

In September, our new commanding general on the ground, David Petraeus, will report on whether the military surge is working.

The American people no longer support our presence in Iraq. They made that clear in the 2006 congressional election when the majority in both Houses of Congress shifted to the Democrats. My own position has been that we were better off fighting Islamic terrorism in Iraq than abandoning and having that battle shift to American soil, which I am certain will happen when we depart Iraq. But my support for remaining in Iraq was conditioned on our allies joining us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sadly, very few have done so. Instead, many of those same allies criticize us for staying in Iraq.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki stated over the weekend, “We say with confidence that we are capable, God willing, of taking full responsibility for the security file if the international forces withdraw in any time they wish.”

The civil war escalates. This week alone, on a single day more than 100 Iraqi civilians were killed and near 200 injured in two car bombings in the ongoing civil war. Our soldiers cannot end the civil war for them. Their soldiers have to do that.

I propose that we do what the British did when they withdrew their troops from the historic Palestine Mandate they had assumed in 1922. They simply notified the United Nations that they would be gone by May 15, 1948, and they were, leaving the U.N. to find a solution to the ongoing civil war.

I believe we can be out of Iraq in a few months if we want to leave, departing by way of Turkey in the north and via Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan in the south and west.

We should prepare for the battles that will take place on American soil by the Islamic forces of terror that are engaged in a war that will be waged by them against Western civilization for at least the next 30 years. They must be defeated for if, God forbid, they defeat us they will put us, the infidels, to the sword. They refer to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and other Muslims they disagree with religiously as infidels.

Remember the words of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after he killed Danny Pearl on February 1, 2002: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the City of Karachi, Pakistan.” He is the same Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that CNN referred to as “the suspected mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.” He is now in American custody.

Remember, they have threatened to kill Pope Benedict XVI. Remember also how we refused to take seriously the threats Adolf Hitler made in his book, Mein Kampf. There were only 80 million Germans at the start of World War II. There are now 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide. There is still not yet a majority who subscribe to the Wahabist fundamentalist belief popular in Saudi Arabia that they have a duty to kill the infidel who will not convert or pay tribute, but there are tens of millions of Muslim fanatics, including English doctors and their supporters, who believe that is their sacred duty. Wake up, America.

What are the facts in the Libby case? The story begins when Robert Novak, a widely syndicated reporter, revealed in his newspaper column that a woman named Valerie Plame was a CIA covert operative. As we all know by now, a federal law makes such disclosure subject to criminal sanction under certain circumstances.

Novak was questioned by the special prosecutor before a grand jury, whose proceedings are secret. It is now known that the U.S. Attorney was told that the information did not come from the White House. The person who leaked the information to Novak was in fact former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a Clinton appointee.

Novak, in his column of July 5, 2007, wrote, “Even before he began his long investigation, Fitzgerald was aware that the leak to me that started the case was made by then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. No proponent of the Iraq intervention, Armitage did not neatly fit left-wing conspiracy theory about Iraq policy. Consequently, he disappeared from the Internet blather about the CIA leak constituting treason. Armitage was not indicted because the statute prohibiting the disclosure of an intelligence agent’s identity was not violated. But Fitzgerald ploughed ahead with an inquiry that produced obstruction of justice and perjury charges against Libby though there was no underlying crime.”

Libby, who had been chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney until his indictment, was interviewed by the FBI and was questioned before the grand jury. In both situations, he apparently stated that he first heard the name of Valerie Plame and her CIA connections from journalist Tim Russert of “Meet The Press” fame. Russert was called before the grand jury and apparently testified that he had done no such thing and did not know of Ms. Plame at the time of the alleged conversation with Libby.

Libby was indicted and convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for misleading law enforcement agencies seeking to ascertain who had leaked the information about Ms. Plame. Neither Robert Novak nor Richard Armitage was ever prosecuted in this matter, although Novak had published the material and Armitage had provided the information to him. The law is, apparently, extremely technical and proved too difficult to apply to either Novak or Armitage.

Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and received a sentence of 30 months in prison, 2 years probation and a $250,000 fine. President Bush has now commuted the prison time and left intact both the civil fine and probation. Unless he wins his appeal, Libby will also be disbarred as a lawyer. After all appeals have been exhausted, the President reserves his right to issue a full pardon.

My own belief is that when Libby answered the question by saying it was Russert who told him about Valerie Plame’s CIA status, he was providing information that he believed to be true. Surely, he knew Russert would be asked if that occurred. If Libby’s recollection failed, that would not be the basis for charging him with a crime. Only if he deliberately lied could he be accused of perjury.

Would anyone with an exemplary record of public service lie and deliberately misstate the facts where his testimony would be refuted by a popular television personality? It defies common sense. If he were deliberately lying, he would have said, “I can’t recall,” or “I think it was Tim Russert,” leaving the opportunity to admit error, and in neither case could he, I believe, have been indicted and convicted.

Why is there such an enormous furor, particularly in Democratic political circles, demanding that Libby go to prison? I believe it is the kind of mob rage that is regrettably dominating American politics.

Some will respond, “A jury found him guilty, how can you question their collective judgment.” Many of those people believe, as I do, that the jury that found O.J. Simpson not guilty was wrong and have no problem in questioning the verdict of that jury.

Regrettably, the politics of hatred rule the day. In this atmosphere of hysteria and rage, we should remember that the demons of yesterday—FDR, Truman, Clinton and Reagan—are hailed by many of their former critics as political saints of today.

Without a doubt, NYC is the world capital of commerce, culture, communications and finance. Regrettably, it is not the capital of the world with regard to human rights: Not until the New York State legislature legalizes same-sex marriage will New York be able to claim that distinction—Massachusetts now being the only state which does.

The first gay pride parade was held on June 28, 1970, commemorating the Stonewall riot with the parade starting in Greenwich Village and marching uptown on Sixth Avenue to Central Park. Each year the parade’s size has increased and finally authorized to use Fifth Avenue.

We now live in a city where a majority of citizens and most of its elected officials are supporters of gay rights. In fact, the Speaker of the City Council, Christine Quinn, is an open lesbian. Ms. Quinn is also perceived as a major candidate for mayor in the 2009 election. In my opinion, the battle to gain acceptance and permission to march in the St.

Patrick’s Day parade—a long fought battle—has also been won. I’ve urged the leaders of the gay community to declare that every gay rights supporter—homosexual and heterosexual—should join the City Council members and march with the Speaker up Fifth Avenue. Regrettably, Quinn has declined my suggestion that she march in that parade. I hope next year she will march. If she does, I’ll march alongside her, and I have no doubt that many public officials from all over the country would join her.

Yes, we have come a long way since I signed an executive order in January of 1978 in my first 30 days as mayor prohibiting government discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and housing. We went even further in 1986 when the city council prohibited private sector discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered in employment and housing.

Governor Spitzer has announced that he supports a change in the state law to allow same-sex marriage. The State Assembly, with the concurrence of Speaker Sheldon Silver, has passed a same-sex marriage bill 85 to 61. Those supporting gay rights, including same-sex marriage—gay and straight alike—should try to persuade the majority leader of the State Senate, Joe Bruno, to pass a similar bill in the State Senate. Bruno was responsible for passing gay rights legislation in 2002 that protects all New Yorkers from discrimination in employment and housing—similar to that which we passed in NYC in 1986. I thanked Senator Bruno by letter on December 24, 2002, writing, “Over the years, we have discussed passage of the gay rights legislation. When you told me that your caucus opposed it and would not permit the bill to be brought to the floor for a vote, I must confess, I did not believe that could be possible. Yet, events established it was true, and it took your major efforts to secure the 13 Republican votes that ultimately were cast in support of the legislation. It would not have happened without you, and I hope that supporters of the legislation—in and out of the Legislature, Democrats and Republicans—give you full credit.”

Joe Bruno replied on January 2, 2003, writing, “Thank you for your very encouraging letter, and for all of the support that you have given the Republican Majority in the past. I am glad that we were able to recognize the importance of the gay rights legislation. It is unfortunate that it took so long to pass, but at least it is done now. The issue of gay rights is one which people often relate to politically, rather than objectively. You have been a staunch advocate of equality and anti-discrimination, which is very much a credit to you in your life.”

The progress we have witnessed and expect to witness on gay rights confirms the continuing validity of Victor Hugo’s observation in 1852, “An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.”

District Attorney Nifong was told of the results of the lab tests, according to the DNA specialist used by the District Attorney. The specialist testified at a hearing held this week by the North Carolina State Bar Association Disciplinary Panel. The criminal law in North Carolina and elsewhere requires that exculpatory evidence in the possession of the District Attorney be turned over expeditiously to the defense counsel. According to the June 14 edition of Newsday, “DNA specialist Brian Meehan said he did not include that evidence in a report that he gave to Nifong for use at a hearing in the case, even though they had discussed the evidence and it might have helped exonerate the defendants….‘It was poor judgment on my part,’ said Meehan. ‘But there was no specific reason or agenda.’” He also testified, according to Newsday, that “he found no DNA from any of the men charged in the case on the exotic dancer.”

According to the June 16 edition of The New York Times, the North Carolina State Bar which brought the complaint heard by the disciplinary panel charged Nifong with “systemic abuse of prosecutorial discretion” for “withholding evidence and making improper pretrial statements.” The most egregious pre-trial statement by Nifong was, “I am not going to let Durham’s view in the eyes of the world be a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl from Durham.” Nifong’s statements appear intended to inflame the black community, in particular seeking their support in the political campaign in which he was running for reelection.

The Disciplinary Panel found, according to The Times, that Nifong “had made inflammatory remarks, withheld DNA evidence and misled a judge in the case…” and disbarred him.

The parents of these young men are apparently considering their next steps. Personally, I hope they sue everyone involved in the DA’s office and not only Nifong for the gross negligence and possible criminal conduct committed by that office in violating the rules, laws and ethics to which they are subject. Duke University recently settled with the young men.

Fortunately, the three young men came from families with sufficient wealth to hire able and diligent defense counsel—reportedly, each spent a million dollars apiece on legal costs. Had the three young men, black or white, not had the funds needed to hire superb lawyers and pay for the required investigation, in all probability, the students would not have been exonerated.

I believe that while great credit goes to the young men, their parents and their attorneys for the spectacular outcomes—exoneration for them and disbarment for Nifong—an even greater role was played by the national media for continuing to report on the matter.

The North Carolina State Bar disciplinary hearings that heard the case were open to the public and broadcast on television and radio. Every state in the Union, including New York, should change their rules where necessary to open the doors of disciplinary panels sitting in judgment of attorneys, doctors and other professionals. Nifong has lost his license to practice law and will now be liable for possible criminal proceedings and civil lawsuits, as he should be. The 88 Duke professors who signed a statement during the earlier proceedings condemning the lacrosse team students without allowing the students the opportunity to present their case should admit error and apologize to the students. Their statement said, “This is a social disaster. No one is really talking about how to keep the young woman herself central to this conversation. Regardless of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent everyday now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism.”

Every law school in the nation should show the disciplinary hearings to teach how prosecutorial injustice can destroy lives and how lawyers devoted to pursuing justice can perform near miracles, if given the resources to fight for their clients.

In a May 28 article, The New York Times provided a chilling report. The article begins, “When Muhammad al-Darsi got out of prison in Libya last year after serving time for militant activities, he had one goal: killing Americans in Iraq. A recruiter…told him he was not needed in Iraq. Instead, he was drafted into the war that is seeping out of Iraq. A team of militants from Iraq had traveled to Jordan, where they were preparing attacks on Americans and Jews…”

In other words, the terrorist jihad will continue and many of the terrorists will be those who are now fighting in Iraq. It cannot be stated often enough that the goal of Islamic terrorists is the destruction of Western civilization and the restoration of the caliphate. The caliphate would unite all Muslims in one theocratic state, running from and including Spain to Indonesia, encompassing nearly 1.4 billion Muslims.

A May 27 Times article reported, “A bare majority of Iraq’s 275-member parliament recently signed a petition promoted by Mr. Sadr that called for a timetable for American troops to depart. Even so, the petition said the Americans should not leave until Iraqi security forces were ready to take over the job.

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said recently, “I think that the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it.” The “surge,” an increase of 30,000 American soldiers on the ground, will be over by then.

The radical Democratic left inside the Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid and their supporters, believe that the U.S. should get out now and certainly no later than early next year. The Times reports in a May 26 article, “The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.”

Were it possible to remain in Iraq and accomplish the obvious goals of bringing true peace among the warring parties—Sunni, Shiite and Kurd—with a stable central government accepted by all, that would be ideal. But the Shiite majority does not want to forgive the Sunnis who oppressed them for so many years, and will not share government power or oil revenues with them. The Sunnis, who are 20 percent of the population, appear to be militarily more capable than the Shia and are primarily responsible for the car bombs and the improvised explosive devices that have killed American soldiers and Iraqis, both military personnel and civilians.

It is also devastating for American soldiers to learn that those serving in the Iraqi army, being trained by and fighting alongside American soldiers, cannot be trusted. A May 28 Times article reported on an incident in February “when [American] soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a Sergeant in the Iraqi army.” Kamber quotes an American soldier, “I thought, ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’…We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”

The administration should demand the Iraqi government pass the power and oil-sharing changes immediately, and if it doesn’t, we should get out immediately. Further, we should give our regional Arab and NATO allies an ultimatum that if they don’t come in now with troops, we will leave immediately.

Waiting for the Iraqi army to be battle-ready is like waiting for Godot. They seem to know how to kill U.S. soldiers and terrorize innocent civilians, but are unable to keep the peace.

The Times reported in an article of May 26 on a convicted terrorist who “in February 2003…urg[ed] his followers to kill Hindus, Christians, Jews and American citizens…He was also heard to promise teenage Muslim boys that their reward in paradise would be 72 virgins if they died as religious martyrs.”

You can’t make this stuff up. The terrorists want to kill us and apparently, many Americans don’t believe it.