September 29, 2004
Do Terrorists Prefer One Candidate Over Another?
By Ed Koch
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, 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 eight 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 2nd. 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.
Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York and a partner in the law firm Bryan Cave LLP.