Another Democratic defection to Bush

[TitanTiger 21,238]

This time, it's former NYC Mayor Ed Koch:

Democratic Defection

By Edward I. Koch

January 12, 2004

I am a lifelong Democrat. I was elected to New York's City Council, Congress and three terms as mayor of New York City on the Democratic Party line. I believe in the values of the Democratic Party as articulated by Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and by Senators Hubert Humphrey, Henry "Scoop" Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Our philosophy is: "If you need a helping hand, we will provide it." The Republican Party's philosophy, on the other hand, can be summed up as: "If I made it on my own, you will have to do the same."

Nevertheless, I intend to vote in 2004 to reelect President Bush. I will do so despite the fact that I do not agree with him on any major domestic issue, from tax policy to the recently enacted prescription drug law. These issues, however, pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation. President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism.

The Democratic presidential contenders, unfortunately, inspire no such confidence. With the exception of Senator Joseph Lieberman, who has no chance of winning, the Democrats have decided that in order to get their party's nomination, they must pander to its radical left wing. As a result, the Democratic candidates, even those who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, have attacked the Bush administration for its successful effort to remove a regime that was a sponsor of terrorism and a threat to world peace.

The Democrat now leading in the race, former governor Howard Dean, is a disgrace. His willingness to publicly entertain the slander that President Bush had advance warning of the September 11 attacks and his statement that America is no safer as a result of the capture of Saddam Hussein should have been sufficient to end his candidacy. But the radicals who dominate the primaries love the red meat that is thrown to them, even when it comes from a mad cow.

In contrast, President Bush has confronted the terrorist threat head on. Immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the president presented the core principle of what has become known as the Bush Doctrine, an articulation of American foreign policy that rivals in importance the Monroe Doctrine, which barred foreign imperialism from the Western Hemisphere, and the Truman Doctrine, which sought to contain communism around the world. The Bush Doctrine, simply stated by the president, is: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

President Bush has lived up to that credo. Under his leadership, Afghanistan was liberated from Al Qaeda's patron, the Taliban. The president also has demonstrated, through the liberation of Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, that he is willing to wage a preemptive war when he believes the national interests of the United States are endangered.

Even if we never find weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq — though I think that we will — our military campaign for regime change was justified. If the bodies of a quarter-million Iraqi dissenters killed by Saddam, some tortured with their eyes gouged and tongues cut out, is not proof enough, there is still Saddam's undisputed use of weapons of mass destruction against his own people and Iran. That record is why Congress overwhelmingly voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

It is not only in Afghanistan and Iraq that President Bush has risen to meet challenges presented by our increasingly dangerous world. When the president labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea an "axis of evil," many commentators mocked him. When he threatened Syria, Iran and Libya with serious consequences if they continued to support terrorist groups, there were those who denounced him for being too bellicose. Now, however, it appears that the president's hard line has begun to pay off. Recently, Libya agreed to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs and allow in international inspectors. There are even indications that Iran and possibly North Korea may permit international inspection of their nuclear programs.

Nor have the president's critics stopped him from standing up for American interests. Many of those who oppose the Bush Doctrine also criticize the president's opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court and his decision to withdraw the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. These actions, however, are well-grounded.

President Bush was correct to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. The treaty would have exempted China and India, which have a combined population of more than 2 billion and are among the world's largest polluters.

As for the new International Criminal Court, it would be downright irresponsible to give this new tribunal the right to indict and try our military personnel for war crimes, given all the enmity directed at the United States nowadays. Instead we should continue to rely on our military justice system, which has an excellent reputation.

President Bush also was right to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. That treaty would have prevented the United States from deploying a shield against nuclear missiles that could be launched by rogue states or terrorists. The president's critics can pontificate about the importance of international institutions all they want, but we have to face facts. North Korea has nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Pakistan not only has nuclear weapons, but is suspected of having provided nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. The two recent assassination attempts against President Pervez Musharraf highlight the dangers we face. Should Musharraf be removed or killed, no one knows who will ultimately control Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It would have been negligent for President Bush to allow our hands to remain tied at a time when we need to be exploring every option to defend ourselves.

This record and the Democratic candidates' irresponsible rhetoric are the reasons why I will vote for a second term for President Bush. This does not mean, however, that I have given up on my party and its principles. To the contrary, I will continue to fight against the president's domestic agenda. I also hope to support the Democratic effort to take back the presidency in 2008, but it is up to the Democratic Party to show that it can be entrusted with our nation's security.

Edward I. Koch, who served as mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, is a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i guess this makes ole eddie a 'house democrat'....

sorry TA...couldn't resist.

ct

[Tiger Al 0]

i guess this makes ole eddie a 'house democrat'....

sorry TA...couldn't resist.

ct

I don't mind. You have no animosity in making that remark. It's all good!!!

[Tigermike 3,711]

[Tigermike 3,711]

If Edward I. Koch is voting for President George Bush to be re-elected, what does that say about the demo candidates?

President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism.

The Democratic presidential contenders, unfortunately, inspire no such confidence.

Edward Koch is honest enough to call the war what it IS war against terrorism.

Mr. Koch has chosen honesty and integerity over the democratic party line and the rhetoric of Dean and most of the other democrats.

[Donutboy 0]

Edward Koch is honest enough to call the war what it IS war against terrorism.

Mr. Koch has chosen honesty and integerity over the democratic party line and the rhetoric of Dean and most of the other democrats.

Honest enough? Colin Powell is the honest one, or perhaps he's trying to salvage his political future.

Colin Powell: No Proof To Link Iraq And Al Qeada

In a Jan 9, 2004 New York Times article Secretary of State Colin L. Powell admits that he had no "smoking gun" evidence of a link between Saddam and terrorist of Al Qeada

[Tigermike 3,711]

Honest enough? Colin Powell is the honest one, or perhaps he's trying to salvage his political future.

Colin Powell: No Proof To Link Iraq And Al Qeada

In a Jan 9, 2004 New York Times article Secretary of State Colin L. Powell admits that he had no "smoking gun" evidence of a link between Saddam and terrorist of Al Qeada

Are you hijacking your own thread?

[Donutboy 0]

Honest enough? Colin Powell is the honest one, or perhaps he's trying to salvage his political future.

Colin Powell: No Proof To Link Iraq And Al Qeada

In a Jan 9, 2004 New York Times article Secretary of State Colin L. Powell admits that he had no "smoking gun" evidence of a link between Saddam and terrorist of Al Qeada

Are you hijacking your own thread?

No. I was responding directly to a position that you took in your post. I think it was YOU who strayed from the original topic. I don't blame you for wanting to avoid the pre-war lies of the Bush administration though. It's nowhere near as enthralling as the Ed Koch :yawn: thread!!

[Tiger Al 0]

Tigermike, I never have had a problem with 'war on terror'. Iraq was a sidestreet diversion that didn't need to take US resources (troops, equipment, money) away from the war on terror in Afghanistan. I'm sure we could've found more legitimate terrorist targets than Iraq. If the things that were said about pre-war Iraq were true then we'd be wholly justified in doing things the way they were done. Those things have been shown to have been 99% false.

[Tigermike 3,711]

Iraq was a sidestreet diversion that didn't need to take US resources (troops, equipment, money) away from the war on terror in Afghanistan.

The war on terror is not limited to Afghanistan.

Edward I. Koch said:

These issues, however, pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation. President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism.

In contrast, President Bush has confronted the terrorist threat head on.

Good for him!

The Bush Doctrine, simply stated by the president, is: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

Maybe that is why Lybia, Iran and Syria are wanting to talk now. Maybe that is why Pakistan & India are on the verge of ending of 30 year old hosilities.

President Bush has lived up to that credo. Under his leadership, Afghanistan was liberated from Al Qaeda's patron, the Taliban. The president also has demonstrated, through the liberation of Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, that he is willing to wage a preemptive war when he believes the national interests of the United States are endangered.

But according to Dean and Clark we should be under the control of the UN now.

Even if we never find weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq — though I think that we will — our military campaign for regime change was justified.

Even a life long Democrat can say that and feel good.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I'm sure we could've found more legitimate terrorist targets than Iraq.

Good old Ed. I have always liked him, party affiliation notwithstanding. He always speaks his mind and you know where you stand with him.

The Bush Doctrine, simply stated by the president, is: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

There are other terror groups out there besides Al Queda - remember this?

PALESTINIAN TERRORIST CAPTURED IN BAGHDAD

U.S. forces captured the leader of a Palestinian terror group accused of masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the Italian Achille Lauro cruise ship, during which an American was murdered.

U.S. Special Forces captured Abu Abbas, along with several other terror suspects, in a raid on a private home in the southern outskirts of Baghdad Monday night local time. He is now in U.S. military custody in Iraq, Central Command officials said on Wednesday. The raid on Abbas' hideout also uncovered weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades, as well as passports from Yemen and Lebanon and other documents, military officials said.

Abbas, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Front during the 1980's and 90's, has been living in Baghdad under the protection of Saddam Hussein's government.

Under the terms of the Bush doctrine, Iraq harboured terrorists, therefor, they meet the same fate as those terrorists.

That is why I don't understand how Dean can say that we are no safer with Saddam gone - his downfall means that terrorists have one less country to hide in. Yes, before you libs say it, I know that there is still terrorist and guerilla activity going on in Iraq now - but it is surely without the support of the country's government!!!! "Nowhere to run to, baby..."