Alan Keyes comes out in support of President Bush, denounces Democrats, "our survival is at stake!"

SEAN HANNITY: John Kerry came up a big winner last night, he won five out of seven state contests, but can Edwards or Clark start gaining on him? Joining us now from Washington, former presidential candidate in his own right, our good friend Alan Keyes. Ambassador, how are you?

HANNITY: Well, we're always glad to have you back. It's been a while. Good to see you, my friend.

I think, at the end of the day, beyond getting into "he's a Massachusetts liberal" and his extensive Ted Kennedy-like liberal voting record, I think there are two questions here that John Kerry's going to have to answer: will you continue to seek out terrorists where they are, and track them down, and go after states that harbor them--and how many months a year should Americans pay taxes? How much should we give them, four months of our income, five months?

KEYES: Well, I think that the first one is going to be the most critical. I find it hard to believe that the American people will easily trust a Democrat with our national security, in the midst of a war on terror that, after all, was partly the result of the vulnerabilities that we were left with after the Clinton years. I think that they have a president who has shown himself to have the fortitude, the resolve, to make head against our enemies--and I'm not sure they're going to turn the reigns over to a party that has, to be quite frank about it, a record that is pretty well anti-security. They're uncomfortable with these issues, and they're especially uncomfortable with the necessity of fighting back against an insidious enemy like this.

HANNITY: Well, what is going to be the best strategy? Democrats are on attack now, and some Republicans call me and they're nervous 'cause they think--the Republicans, I think, have not yet begun to fight, and I think they will. Will it be more effective to tie his record to Kennedy? Will it be more effective to point out his voting record, his years of proposal to cut the intelligence community? Will it be his desire to cancel 27 weapons systems, including the MX, the Trident, the Patriot Missile, the F15, the F16, the M1-tank, the Pershing II Missile--will that be the big issue?

KEYES: I would have to say I think that the most effective thing that can be done is not much to focus on the question of whether this man's going to be president of the United States. I, frankly, believe at this time that someone like this is not qualified--not just because of his liberalism, but because he comes from a party, from background, with a record that does not have the kind of mindset that will pursue our national security aggressively during this time when our very survival is at stake.

And I think that his liberalism, of course, on economic and fiscal issues will certainly help to consolidate the core Republicans in support of the effort against him.

But overriding everything, I think, is going to be the concern not to change horses in the middle of the stream when we're in the midst of a war.

HANNITY: In a few minutes, we're going to be joined by Hillary Rodham Clinton's former campaign manager/spokesman and Howard Wilson's going to join us, and we're going to talk about this AWOL issue that is, quote, the "big issue" of the Dems. I think John Kerry's war record is admirable. I think he deserves credit--but it's where he's been the last twenty years. He's been on the wrong side of history in the Cold War, on building up defense, building up intelligence. But as I look at his record, it gets complicated inasmuch as it's not a short, snappy sound bite that you can give to the American people. How does . . . .

KEYES: Well, see, I think it is, though. He dares to suggest that as an individual G. W. Bush was AWOL, when we are dealing with a record and a party that have been AWOL on the issues of American national security (for, what, two decades now?), helped to gut our national intelligence, helped to put us in a situation where we didn't even have the interpreters needed to deal with the situation in the Islamic world? You've got to be kidding that they would come forward now and suggest that they should replace G. W. Bush.

COLMES: Alan, you know, it's really an outrageous lie to accuse a whole party of all the things you've just said. We know the problems with the CIA are systemic. I can tell by the hysteria now, the way people are going after Kerry, how truly concerned they are about him.

And, by the way, answer this: how is it, then, that we're still basically a 50/50 nation, and polls now are showing Kerry ahead of Bush, if the American public really doesn't at all trust Democrats, and one can't get elected?

KEYES: Two things. First of all, I am not lying about this. I was present during the Reagan years, when we followed after Carter and his disastrous destruction of America's national intelligence capabilities. I watched as Clinton followed in the same path, preparing the terrible disaster that we faced then on 9/11.

It's not to say that there's not blame to be spread around, but, excuse me, the Democrats do not have a record that, on this subject, would lead one to trust them to the kind of consistency and aggressiveness that's needed to defend our very lives in the midst of a war. And I think that part of the reason right now things haven't consolidated [is that] people always pay half attention right now. There's only a contest on the Democrats' side. It gets most of the attention. I think that the Republicans haven't yet begun to fight this election. Once the Democrat nominee is clear, we will, and then I think it's really not going to be a contest.

COLMES: You've got a very energized populous now, as seen by the number of people. More than most years have turned out for these primaries. You also have places where the president is vulnerable. We see the Taliban is now regrouping in Afghanistan. We have seen warlords regrouping in Afghanistan. There is still great debate in this country about whether going to Iraq diverted attention away from where we should have been focused--Osama Bin Laden is still at large, and the idea that intelligence reports and David Kay's message is that, what we were told was the reason for going has not panned out. That's not sitting well thus far with the American people, Alan.

KEYES: Frankly, I think that it's not sitting well, and I think that we need to look into it--but that's a question of the competence and professionalism of our intelligence community and the national security apparatus, in terms of the information they gave to the president. It's not a question about the soundness of the judgment he made based on that intelligence.

It would have been irresponsible in him not to act against a threat that was outlined in the intelligence estimates that he had.

And that's part of the problem here. The Democrats talk as if they would have faced that situation and not made the same decision based on the intelligence he had. How can you trust them, then, when they won't do what is preemptively necessary to keep the terrorists from getting weapons of mass destruction?

COLMES: Well, there's no proof that preemptively going into Iraq had anything to do with making us safer. I don't think there was any dispute about going to Afghanistan. The country was united, the world was united. That is not the issue. The issue is about what the president did, and whether or not the reasons he gave to go to war actually panned out--and it hurts our credibility.

KEYES: After the fact, asking questions about whether the intelligence estimates were accurate is important to improve our intelligence capabilities. It does not, however, raise a question about the soundness of the president's judgment based on that intelligence.

HANNITY: All right. Alan, hang on one second. Gotta take a break. We'll continue more with Alan Keyes right after the break.

COLMES: We continue with Alan Keyes. Ambassador Keyes, as a fiscal conservative, as a true conservative yourself, do you have some problems with the spending of this administration?

KEYES: Oh, I sure do--and I wouldn't want to give the impression that I don't have other problems with this administration on some areas where I think that the president has fallen short of the kinds of things that I really think are needed in some areas.

But I also wouldn't want to give the impression that I think that anything can be more decisive for the American people right now than the question of our national survival in the face of the most insidious threat this nation has ever faced.

In the face of that, I think a lot of us are going to be putting our other issues behind those issues that have to do with the survival of this nation in wartime.

COLMES: Are you saying there's only one issue in this campaign, that other issues don't matter? Because, if you look at what the American people are saying, a lot of issues do matter, and to many conservatives, the president's not measuring up on those issues.

KEYES: Well, see, I think that the one problem--and the media, I think, is looking at all these other things because they've got to have stories. When people get into that voting booth and confront the reality of our situation, as we have had to confront it now since the terrible events in 2001, I think a lot of people are going to find that they are reminded of who they are and how they felt at that moment when we confronted the abyss and knew that we had to measure up. That is still our situation, and when they finally get to the voting booth, I think that's going to be the one that decides their minds.

COLMES: Do we really feel safer now than we were four years ago? We've had orange alert, we now have a ricin issue, we've been on alert a number of times, American interests have been attacked all over the world. Many Americans are--I think that's a fair question, if we're really safer now.

KEYES: You know, we can't control whether people who are inimical to us, out of the kind of fanatical hatred we encounter in these terrorists, are going to attack us. We can control whether we're going to be prepared for those attacks, whether we're going to act to eliminate the cadre of people who are aiming those attacks against us, whether we're going to preempt states and groups that are aiming to kill Americans with weapons of mass destruction. I think we have a responsibility to deal with this issue first, because we're not going to be around to deal with the others if we mess with this one.

HANNITY: Ambassador, I couldn't agree with you more. You know what I find amazing--and I guess this is all part of this political process--is the very same liberals who lead the charge to cut defense, who attacked the intelligence community, render it impotent in the 1990's the way they did, the ones that gave us the worst deal imaginable under Clinton in North Korea, didn't finish the job with Saddam, oh, and passed on Osama, are now lecturing the administration on how to deal with defense issues. It's somewhat humorous, if it weren't so scary.

KEYES: If it weren't so serious, it might be funny--but it is very serious. And I think that when you look back on that record, when you look back, to be quite frank about it, there has been a record of hostility, not to say contempt, for the requirements of our national security, for the military and what's involved in sustaining it--especially, by the way, for our national intelligence apparatus, where they seem to be more afraid of rogue American actions than they were of the rogues who are trying to kill and destroy us.

And I think that this is all going to come out in the wash during the election campaign.

HANNITY: I'm confident, as well--and I love the fact that we're having two very distinct visions, which is what I said initially to you, that this will come down to two questions: one, will you, John Kerry, continue the War on Terror, track down terrorists where they are, or not? Do you think the American people are overtaxed or undertaxed? Should we extend the deadline for taxes?

But one of the things--I take heart in the fact that they're out there saying the president's AWOL, that he started a war for political benefit, that we're not better off with[out] Saddam. Doesn't it show they're desperate?

KEYES: Well, I think that it shows that they don't have much of a grasp of the real situation if they think this election's going to be decided on the basis of base personal attacks, and that sort of thing. They have got to get out there and begin to articulate concerns that will strike at the heart of the real issues and dangers the country faces. They are not doing it right now, and that's why I think they'll fail.

Considering that George Will's column on Sunday last, echoed the things I have been pointing out for months, regarding Bushs' overall agenda for the transformation of the Domestic Agenda, (QUOTED IN MOST RELEVANT SECTION BELOW) coupled with Alan Keyes coming out 100% behind the President, there is no room to still be quibbling.

Both parties understand the political calculus: People dependent on government tend to vote for liberals promising to enlarge government. Hence the intensity of Democratic resistance to four facets of Bush's strong government conservatism: school standards and choice; medical savings accounts; choice in investing a portion of Social Security taxes; and cuts in individual income taxes.

Standards that measure schools' performances enable parents, exercising the right to choose, to differentiate education products. Medical savings accounts would empower individuals to pursue preferences and, by making individuals into price-sensitive shoppers, the accounts would serve medical cost-containment. Private investment of Social Security taxes would democratize access to wealth creation, reducing dependence on government-provided retirement security

But, there are none so deaf as......

Keyes: "But I also wouldn't want to give the impression that I think that anything can be more decisive for the American people right now than the question of our national survival in the face of the most insidious threat this nation has ever faced."

hobbes1: Well, If any of you Freepers, can consider yourselves, either more conservatively committted or more intelligent than Alan Keyes, Now is the time to make your argument.

Well, I don't know about more conservative or more intelligent. But I'd offer a few observations.

I think that historically Japan and Germany posed far more serious threats to our survival as a democratic maritime trading power. Certainly, Japan threatened American territory directly. Germany demonstrated an effective intent to interdict American and Britist access to sea lanes.

And I think that the Communist threat during the Cold War was a far more serious threat than Bin Laden is. The threat was ideological, both foreign and domestic, and military in its direct threat by massive armies and nuclear weapons against America and its democratic NATO allies.

Terrorism, by definition, is not national warfare with the objective of conquering and absorbing adjacent territories or garrisoning them under foreign control.

Keyes overstates the case, I think. We simply don't hear this same level of dire alarm from other voices in the GOP or national security establishment. I think it was statements of this kind which doomed his TV show.

I think that historically Japan and Germany ......
And I think that the Communist threat .....

Those are fair opinions I would suppose, However, were we to leave the realm of Opinion, and venture into the factual realm for a moment, we would then be forced to acknowledge the 16 Acre Crater in Lower Manhattan That took far less time than did Pearl Harbor and killed far more people.

We would also be forced to acknowledge that 2 of the three were not recruiting killers willing to die for their god while attacking innocents.

we would also be forced to acknowledge that the 3 aforementioned entities, being nation-states, were easily found, and held to account for their transgressions, which served as a fair check on any animosity they may have borne us......

As an Open society we are fairly easy prey should an organized effort to inflict organized mayhem be visited upon us.

We tend to gloss over the Israel situation, however, Exploding buses, and restaraunts are not that far removed a possibility.(And the Israelis are a heavily armed people.)

The threat cannot be overstated.

I'm pointing out the history of more dire threats to the republic.

And I still say that Keyes overstates the case. You don't hear this kind of remark from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, James Baker, Henry Kissinger, or anyone else.

And our open borders could allow thousands or tens of thousands of terrorists to enter our national territories to attack without warning. Safeguarding the skies is fine and going on the offense against terrorists in their enclaves abroad is sound enough. But it does not demonstrate that we face the "most insidious threat" to "our national survival" that we have "ever faced".

It's more a matter of hyperbole with Keyes' assertion. I'm certainly not suggesting there is no threat or that we should relent in pursuing terrorists. But I'd like to close those open borders. Not only because of the immigration invasion but because of the possibility that terrorists and/or terror weapons could easily be smuggled across them in large quantities. Even 20-30 terrorists slipping in and setting off OKC-style fertilizer bombs in our cities would be a preventable tragedy if we would close our borders.

The terrorists are unlikely to strike us again via airliners. Our security measures are not foolproof but introduce a lot of uncertainty into such an attack and will likely deter future airliner attacks. They would choose other means, I think.

Our security measures are not foolproof but introduce a lot of uncertainty into such an attack and will likely deter future airliner attacks. They would choose other means, I think. They may.So far the most interesting scenario is by sea,and that particular item is being addressed. Now, Al Qaeda and several other of their Islamists buttbuddies have the problem of consistancy,so the airliner/airborne scenario is still quite a real possibility.

hey, look who is a pragmatist!!! great news!

This is good news.

I look at it this way: I'm voting for Bush again, based on simple math:
If a Dem gets in there is a 100% chance of an undesired outcome (taxes, judges, foreign policy, everything else).
With Bush (after 3+ years of watching the triangulating) there is only a 50% chance of undesired outcomes.

Simple risk avoidance tells you that 50% probability of the negative is way better than 100%. So the choice is clear to me, it's not inspiring to me nor does it give me great enthusiasm, but it is clear none the less.

in an ideal world, or in an idealist's world, you would be thrilled to cast your vote for the perfect candidate. that is where pragmatism comes into play. if your perfect candidate has a snowball's chance in hell and hence your vote will indirectly put an extremely UNDESIRABLE person in office,and you vote for them anyway, you are an idealist. pragmatists vote their conscience by voting for the best result POSSIBLE, not best result DESIRABLE. glad you and dr. keyes are pragmatic : )

Granted. The air threat is not gone by any means. But we recently demonstrated twice that we're watching the Air France and British flights to America very closely. It's like with criminals, raising the risk of being caught through greater vigilance offers significant deterrence.

I would suspect they would fly into Cuba or Venezuela and then into Mexico. Then cross the border unnoticed in the flood of Hispanic illegals. Just my guess.

if your perfect candidate has a snowball's chance in hell and hence your vote will indirectly put an extremely UNDESIRABLE person in office,and you vote for them anyway, you are an idealist

And sometime, and now is not the time IMO, that may be necessary. Think of Peggy Noonan's article today about the frog :-)

This is great to see. Hubby and I like Ambassador Keyes immensely. He is one of the finest speakers Republicans have. And to hear him get behind President Bush is heartening. Hubby and I have certainly had our problems with this admin. But we are going to do stick with the President this November.

The GOP has now controlled Congress for.. 9 years? and the entire elected government for 3.

If you only knew.... you may actually be dangerous. Do you remember the makeup of the Senate in Jan. 2001? 50/50... shared control. Then Jeffords jumped by mid year.... The Democrats controlled for the next 1 1/2 years... In Jan. 2003 the Republicans got a small majority . So at best the Republicans have controlled the Senate about one year of the time that President Bush has been in office... the rest was either shared or demorcat...

Thanks for the post, Jim.

I have plenty of concerns about the domestic policy of this administration, but, like Keyes, I will cheerfully vote for Bush this fall, and for the reason he advances in this discussion.

National security is job one for the executive branch, and Bush and his party are up to it.

The Democrats are not.

cheers,

Richard F.

Waxing eloquent as he does I have not read anything but the headline however Mr. Keyes is not only one of the MOST staunch conservatives around today it also seems he is pragmatic. The alternative to GW is what? Vote Libertarian and we remove ourselves from world affairs, dismantle the Military and all get stoned, or vote for a Democrat and expand Government control even faster then today, bow at the UN altar, and create a toothless CIA/FBI and Military.

We (I) have no choice but to vote for GW, hoping the last four years enjoy more conservatism then the previous 4.

The GOP has now controlled Congress for.. 9 years? and the entire elected government for 3.

More accurately 1 year. The Democrats controlled the senate from June 2001 to January 2003. A short period of time, but significant in terms of stifling momentum, especially when 35% or more of the population questioned the legitimacy of the president.

From a Breaking thread: In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq posed an imminent threat.

A long way from Keyes' "most insidious threat...[to]...national survival...ever faced" to this statement by Tenet.

Mr. Bush now speaking in SC on homeland defense. I'll watch to see if he is following Keyes' rhetoric about the most dire threat to national survival in our history.

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.

Alan Keyes on Hannity and Colmes Show - Feb 4, 2004