Ed Koch: Is Bush's Campaign 'Un-American'? (Great Read!)

Last Saturday, The New York Times, which has not yet formally endorsed a presidential candidate, published an editorial that could have passed for a piece of Kerry campaign literature.

The editorial was titled “An Un-American Way to Campaign.” The last paragraph summed up The Times' attack on Bush and its support for Kerry: “We think that anyone who attempts to portray sincere critics as dangerous to the safety of the nation is wrong. It reflects badly on the president's character that in this instance, he's putting his own ambition ahead of the national good.”

The editorial does not quote President Bush, but it does quote Vice President Cheney, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senator Orrin Hatch.

Cheney is quoted as saying that “electing Mr. Kerry would create a danger that we’ll get hit again.” Hastert, according to The Times, “said recently on television that al-Qaeda would do better under a Kerry presidency,” and, wrote The Times, “Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has announced that the terrorists are going to do everything they can do between now and November ‘to try to elect Kerry.’”

Are any of these statements beyond the pale of political discourse or un-American? I don’t think so.

The Times editorial went on to say that “It is absolutely not all right for anyone on [President Bush’s] team to suggest that Mr. Kerry is the favored candidate of the terrorists.” But shouldn't the real question be "Do terrorists in fact prefer one candidate over another?"

No one is suggesting that Islamic terrorists approve of any American presidential candidate, all of whom are Christians. According to Bernard Lewis, America's foremost scholar on Islam, “The Wahhabi demand, as far as I know, is not that Christians and Jews convert to Islam, but that they accept the supremacy of Islam and the rule of the Muslim state. On that condition, they may continue in the practice of their religion.”

But just as I and millions of Americans believe Kerry and Bush differ in their approaches to international terrorism, you can be certain that bin Laden, al-Zarqawi and other Islamic terrorists recognize these differences. Surely they know which presidential candidate would be more likely to wage war against them and the countries that harbor them, with or without United Nations support, and pursue them until they are defeated.

Kerry apparently believes we should never have waged war to liberate Iraq in the first place, and that we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible, preferably within a year. Indeed, Kerry and 46 other U.S. senators, including Senator Ted Kennedy, voted against the Gulf War of 1991. Remember, the U.S. responded to an attack by Iraq on Kuwait and a threatened attack by Iraq on Saudi Arabia. Kerry still has not explained his opposition to waging war against Iraq on that occasion.

In Gulf War II, he has flipped-flopped: voting for it, then opposing it. Bush’s statement, “We'll get the job done as quickly as possible and then we'll bring our troops home – not one day longer than necessary," evinces a commitment to get the job done.

Kerry’s supporters, especially the so-called "Deaniac" delegates, believe we should have been out of Iraq yesterday, and Kerry has donned the mantle of Howard Dean as the anti-war candidate. Is it unreasonable to think that the Iraqi insurgents, Jihadists and terrorists would prefer a president whose policies seem most likely to give radical Islam the ultimate victory? If they didn’t, they would be stupid, and stupid they are not.

The terrorists who blew up the commuter trains in Madrid a few days before the Spanish elections in March 2004 timed their attacks to influence the outcome of those elections. The attacks had their intended effect. The 200 deaths and 1,400 casualties caused a Spanish government committed to the war against terrorism and a military commitment to assist us in Iraq to topple.

Similarly, the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11 may have hoped to undermine U.S. resolve. If a person with less steel in his spine than George W. Bush had been in the White House, our resolve might have crumbled in the face of that horrific terrorist act.

There are five weeks left to the campaign. Kerry supporters in large part realize the country is headed in a direction different than where he and The Times would take us. I predict a margin of victory approaching 8 points for President Bush.

Adding to Kerry’s problems is the fact that he stirs no passion among his supporters. Contrast that with the deep passion Bush supporters have for their candidate. Many of Kerry’s current followers can be persuaded to switch to Bush. Many more may stay home on November 2. I fear that Kerry will drag many moderate Democrats down to defeat.

For The Times to attack the president’s character is truly injurious to the nation. Referring to his campaign as un-American is ludicrous.

The New York Times, which has not yet formally endorsed a presidential candidate, published an editorial that could have passed for a piece of Kerry campaign literature.

Memo to Ed Koch: I realize that supporting a Republican is a new experience for you, but you should realize that the entire New York Slimes has basically been an unofficial DNC publication 365 days a year for the better part of a century.

That is a great read! Koch gets it. I also like his point that lots of dems are lukewarm to Kerry, while President Bush's supporters are more passionate about him.

The NYT is definitely on the side of the DNC, as I am sure Koch knows. He also knows that for the war against terrorists, we need President Bush.

Exactly - We all know who the NY Times, NY Daily News, Washngton Post and other liberal papers are going to endorse. Koch is a nice guy. I remember when I was a kid he was mayor of NYC and he was always friendly to people on the street.

Kerry : Help is on the way!
Hanoi Jane Partners with MoveOn.Org
Click Here

John F. Kerry
Timeline of a traitor.
Click Here

READ THIS INTERVIEW THAT KERRY GAVE in 1970
KERRY GAVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE VIET CONG

Harvard Crimson : Kerry refused order to destroy Viet Cong village

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=352185

Published on Wednesday, February 18, 1970
John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress

By SAMUEL Z. GOLDHABER

Crimson Staff Writer

"...One time Kerry was ordered to destroy a Viet Cong village
but disobeyed orders and suggested that the Navy Command
simply send in a Psychological Warfare team to be
friend the villagers with food, hospital supplies,
and better educational facilities."

Free online version of
Kerry's "The New Soldier"
You can read it online right now.

Cheney... "electing Mr. Kerry would create a danger that we’ll get hit again." Hastert... "al-Qaeda would do better under a Kerry presidency,"...[Orrin Hatch]... has announced that the terrorists are going to do everything they can do between now and November ‘to try to elect Kerry.’"

These are all true statements, and everybody but the loony Left knows it.

For decades, the Left has been the hate-America party. All my adult life, liberals have taken an obvious emotional satisfaction from blaming America for every problem the world faces. Suddenly they're forced to look in a mirror. And when they don't like what they see, they blame the mirror.

Last Saturday, The New York Times, which has not yet formally endorsed a presidential candidate...

This is a misprint. What it should read is, "Last Saturday, The New York Times, which has not yet formally endorsed whatever Democrat happens to be running for president..."

Ed Koch is definitely a stand up guy. He gets it. He does not agree with many of Bush's social policies but he realizes we are at War with terrorist and there is only one candidate with the strength, resolve, character and commitment to go after these terrorists and defeat them. That man is President George W. Bush.

All other issues pale in comparison to the fight for survival. America and the free world needs President George W. Bush as our leader.

Kerry has his self stated he is the preferred candidate of foreign leaders... the implied foreign leaders Kerry is referring to is the old Europe of France, Germany, Russia, and of course other UN "moderate" countries

The question is if the terrorist prefer the old Europe & UN "moderates" appeasement approach... they therefor logical must prefer Kerry too over Bush...

Kerry whole point is he seem to think he make the terrorist hates us less/love us more... of cource the only way to do that is to give them something they want

One of the 9/11 widows for Kerry was on the radio a week or so ago insisting that kerry would be much less aggressive and more sensitive in dealing with terrorists.

Tell me that didn't warm the hearts of the murdering beheading monsters.

Last Saturday, The New York Times, which has not yet formally endorsed a presidential candidate, published an editorial that could have passed for a piece of Kerry campaign literature.

I will take this opportunity to plug the 100^th thread that I have posted on Free Republic.

L.A. Times May Break Tradition, Make Choice for President

The Times editorial went on to say that “It is absolutely not all right for anyone on [President Bush’s] team to suggest that Mr. Kerry is the favored candidate of the terrorists.” But shouldn't the real question be "Do terrorists in fact prefer one candidate over another?"
Yeah, just because Arab Media websites have posted that Iran supports Kerry for president and other such postings have endorsed him, such as North Koreans having parades "Kerry for President", etc. ......
And just because Kerry himself said he has been in contact with 'Foreign Leaders' .....

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.