Posted on 01/08/2004 1:15:59 PM PST by RJCogburn
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
Whether he is or not, he happens to be telling the truth in this article. There isn't a current Leftist/Dem candidate, or even one on the horizon (HRC), who can be trusted with our national security. I know '08 will be up for grabs, although I doubt any better Dem will come along by then. But certainly in '04, the American people would have to be suicidal to say nothing of being completely ungrateful for all he's done to protect us since 9-11 to do anything but re-elect our Dubya.
I say this knowing full well that tens of millions of Americans will vote for the Dem no matter who their candidate is and about a million or so will vote for one of the minor parties. It's going to be up to those of us who do understand that the most important political divide of our times is not Left/Right, Dem/Rep, but pre/post 9-11, to work very, very hard to re-elect this President.
If only there were a few more sensible FReepers out there.
To take just the one issue that's been in the news the last couple of days, immigration reform, Dubya's proposals are tame and very moderate when compared to the then-radical, first-time-in-history blanket amnesty of conservative icon, President Ronald Reagan. Had FR been around in 1986, the same people on FR who claim to see him as a hero today would then have been just as virulently angry at him and would have called him a "liberal."
LOL!
Guess I read at least 50 (hey maybe 100) posts today from Freepers who said they'd never vote for Bush because of his domestic policy.
I wouldn't have believed Koch's definition of the Republicans - the bit about we made it so you should be able to also - was really true until I read today's threads.
Post after post exhorting the "illegals" to "do it legally", when I had first hand knowledge (my husband was a Canadian before he became naturalized) of the insurmountable obstacles that would be facing an uneducated, perhaps illiterate, person who was trying to enter this country legitimately.
It definitely reflected the "we made it, so you should too" attitude, except most posters really had no knowledge of what they were saying, since they had never had to deal with the INS and the paperwork/procedures involved in trying to enter this country legally.
We also like to have people help themselves. It is a Christian philosophy echoed in "Teach a man to fish..." I am surprised that so many blacks who are deeply religious, don't see this and connect with us.
Only in comparison to what the Democrats want is a $2,000,000,000,000.00 new entitlement not Liberal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.