Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

john kerry, | 8.25.04 | Mia T, Ed Koch

Posted on 08/25/2004 5:49:07 AM PDT by Mia T



Sunday, August 22, 2004

Ed Koch: I'm voting for Bush
New York Democrat: Kerry doesn't have stomach to go after terrorists

Posted: August 22, 2004
7:02 p.m. Eastern


By Aaron Klein

© 2004


Former New York City Mayor Edward Koch, a Democrat, will for the first time in his life vote for a Republican presidential candidate this year because he feels Kerry "doesn't have the stomach" to fight terrorism, Koch told WorldNetDaily.

"While I don't agree with Bush on a single domestic issue, they are all trumped by the issue of terrorism, where he has enunciated the Bush Doctrine and proven his ability to fight this war," said Koch. "The Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to go after terrorists."


Koch, now a partner in a Manhattan law firm, was mayor of New York from 1978-89, and served for nine years as a U.S. congressman until 1977. He's known for his liberal views on various issues, including his staunch support of same-sex marriage and leftist ideas for the economy and environment.

While he has in the past deviated from conventional liberal thinking, strongly supporting the death penalty and taking a hard line on "quality of life" issues, Koch has always supported Democratic presidential candidates.

But the former mayor says he was sickened by what he witnessed at the Democratic National Convention last month and now feels the Democratic Party is moving in the wrong direction.

"I saw Kerry surrounded by radical politicians like [former President Jimmy] Carter and [Sen. Ted] Kennedy. ... I know Kerry will succumb to their pressure if elected. They are with Kerry not because they like him, but because their true candidate Howard Dean couldn't get elected, and they wanted someone who they can have elected and dominate," charged Koch.

"As long as Kennedy and Robert Byrd are considered major leaders of the Democratic Party, and while we're seeing radical candidates like Howard Dean, whose radical-left supporters have been described by the press as 'Deaniacs,' the Democratic Party will be limited in its ability to serve the country well in times of crisis and war like we face now."

Koch thinks Kerry is putting on a facade by campaigning as tough on terrorism, and worries the Democratic nominee plans to pull American troops from Iraq prematurely, signaling to al-Qaida and terror-supporting Mideast dictators that the U.S. doesn't have the will to fight terrorism.

"Kerry says now that he'd stay in Iraq, but the people who support him would get out tomorrow. If he's president, they would pressure him to do that," Koch said. "They don't care what Kerry says now. They believe he is saying things simply to ingratiate himself with mainstream Democrats and some Republicans."

Koch has been impressed with Bush's response to the Sept. 11 attacks, and says terrorism must rank as the most important issue for voters in the November elections.

He says he supports Bush because "I think the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption is crucial. Bush says 'We will go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them.' And he has demonstrated that he means it by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, both threats to their regions and to the U.S."

The security of Israel is another major issue for Koch, who is proud of his Jewish heritage and says he is frightened by the "prospects of disaster" in the Middle East if Kerry is elected president. Koch says he "cannot understand why Jews who care about Israel would vote Democrat this year."

"Look at what Kerry said before the Council on Foreign Relations, where he made his foreign-affairs positions known. He said if he were president, he'd select James Baker and Jimmy Carter as emissaries to Israel. They are two of the most hostile politicians toward Israel! These are the last people you'd send if you cared about the Jewish state and the Middle East.

"And when Kerry was accosted by Jewish leaders for saying that, he claimed he hadn't seen that part in his speech, that it was inserted at the last minute by staff people. Now as a politician, I know you read this kind of speech dozens of times. He knew it was in there. So Kerry doesn't tell the truth, either."

Many Jews feel Carter and Baker have taken a consistently pro-Palestinian line, and some were worried by Carter's comments at the convention, where he linked the Bush administration's policy toward Israel to anti-American sentiment.

"Violence has gripped the Holy Land, with the region increasingly swept by anti-American passions," Carter told the convention in a prime-time speech many Democrats said marked his revival as a central figure in the party.

Koch says he found it "both interesting and disturbing" that Kerry omitted any reference to Israel during his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention.

"But I am convinced that President Bush will never trade Israel's special relationship with the U.S. for political support, be it domestic or international. Bush is probably the most supportive of Israel of any U.S. president in history. I doubt John Kerry and the Deaniacs who now embrace him would have the same resolve."

Koch points to Bush's isolation of Arafat, and his viewing of Israel as a strategic partner in the war on terror as positive foreign-policy elements.

Koch says he plans to campaign for Bush among the Jews of New York and South Florida in the coming two months. He says he will write a flurry of op-eds in Jewish newspapers, and has already started hitting the airwaves, talking to several Jewish radio shows, including Israel's Tovia Singer Radio Show, which many American Jews follow online.

"You see, I was elected mayor because New Yorkers trusted my insights and common sense," explains Koch. "And I believe they still do. They and the rest of America must realize Islamic terrorists want to destroy us, and there are hundreds of millions of them. I want a president who is willing to go after them before they have the chance to kill us."


Aaron Klein is WorldNetDaily's special Middle East correspondent, whose past interview subjects have included Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak, Shlomo Ben Ami and leaders of the Taliban.

UNFIT #19:

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)




getting kerry's goat
john kerry lacks presidential temperament

Two Psychologists on Kerry: Dangerous on National Security

YOO-HOO! . .

"bombastic ass" is not the antidote to "boorish ass"
(or why Keith Olbermann Cannot Do Cleanup for Chris Matthews)

UNFIT #19:


Kerry, NOT Bush, paralyzed by 9/11 attacks
Hear Kerry admit he could not think

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 3
UNFIT #10: 9/10 mindset

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 2

THE DEMOCRATS-ARE-GONNA-GET-US-KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES1

dox in sox on lummox in box on fox

(what Kerry's commanders and crewmates REALLY think of him--with transcripts)

Did John Kerry pick a running mate or hire a lawyer when he selected John Edwards?

THE MAN FROM HOPE: been there, done that

"Hope is on the way!" (the scoop)

all the usual suspects

A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists


taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief

taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief


UNFIT #6: The Deadly Kerry-Hollywood Axis

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#2-understanding the job description

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#3-sang-froid and the "nuclear" button

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists

sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation

"Loose Cannon" Kerry's AWOL/PURPLE-HEART FRAUD

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic



The Cycle of Violence:

the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans

bill clinton, boy "genius," unwittingly bares all on BBC

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"

vetting missus clinton...

The Parallel Universe of Jamie Gorelick

nepotism + tokenism = a nancy pelosi
(or a hillary clinton)

Kerry's Belated Condemnation Focuses on Process
Kerry Lacks Moral Authority to Condemn Content

"CRY BUSH" + Iraqi-Prisoner "Abuse"
What are the Dems up to?

(Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull')

The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance

What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?

giant sucking sound

Q ERTY6 utter failureBUMP

Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism

How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror

(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)

The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)

UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."




TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: Illinois; US: Massachusetts; US: New York; US: North Carolina; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: dems4bush; edkoch; gut; guts; johnkerry; kerrysgut; moresensitivewar; sensitivewaronterror

1 posted on 08/25/2004 5:49:08 AM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jla; All
Here's one written by koch:

Why Bush Must Be Re-elected
Edward I. Koch
Thursday, July 22, 2004

I support the re-election of President George W. Bush. Why? Because I believe one issue overwhelms all others: the presidentís strong commitment to fight the forces of international terrorism regardless of the cost or how long it takes to achieve victory.

I do not agree with President Bush on a single major domestic issue, but in my view those issues pale in comparison with the threat of international terrorism. Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the evil poster boys of mass murder, are revered and supported by millions of Muslims throughout the world. The stated goal of al-Qaida and its supporters is to kill or convert every infidel, and that means Jews, Christians, Buddhists and everyone else who will not accept Islamís supremacy.

These terrorists are convinced that non-Islamic nations do not have the will and courage to persevere in this ongoing struggle, which could last decades. They believe the democracies are weak-willed and will ultimately yield to whatever demands are made upon them.

By withdrawing their troops from Iraq in response to terrorist attacks, Spain and the Philippines have already shown that, tragically, terror tactics, including suicide attacks, car bombings and the beheading of innocent civilians, do work.

The terrorists also intend to destroy moderate Muslim governments that want to live in peace with countries that are not Islamic.

Shortly after 9/11, President Bush announced his commitment to the struggle against Islamic fanatics, who believe they can destroy the values of Western civilization and democratic governments everywhere. On entering this war against terrorism after 9/11, President Bush said, ìWe shall go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them.î

This Bush Doctrine rivals in importance the Monroe Doctrine, which limited the colonization efforts of foreign powers in the Western Hemisphere, and the Truman Doctrine, which contained the spread of Communism. President Bush has proven that he is prepared to keep to his commitment to fight terrorism.

If John Kerry were to win this presidential election, would he stand up to terrorism to the same extent as George Bush has? I donít think so. Regrettably, my party, the Democratic Party, now has a strong radical left wing whose members often dominate the party primaries. Those same left-wing radicals have an anti-Israel philosophy, reviling that democratic state which shares the values held by a majority of Americans.

Kerry is a patriotic American who performed heroically in the Vietnam War. Regrettably, he surrendered his philosophical independence to the left wing in the recent primaries in order to prevail over the original darling of the radicals, Howard Dean. Kerry owes his nomination in large part to the supporters of Dean and the support of Senator Ted Kennedy.

Kennedy sadly demonstrated his loss of any sense of decency with his crude attacks on President Bush using unacceptable, abusive language. The hatred deliberately stirred by Kennedy directed at President Bush is contemptible and dangerous. It encourages our terrorist enemies with whom we are at war, and it incites the crazies in our own country.

On July 9, a Kerry-Edwards fund-raising concert was held at Radio City Music Hall. During that concert Hollywood comedienne Whoopi Goldberg engaged in unprintable, despicable, sexual references to the president and the vice president. She combined the presidentís family name with allusions to the female anatomy, and she made a sexual reference to Vice President Dick Cheneyís first name by referring to the male anatomy.

Even worse was Kerryís thank-you from the stage to all of the performers saying that they conveyed "the heart and soul of our country." Shameful.

Now a comment about the war in Iraq. Most Americans understand that few, if any, wars go smoothly. Just cast your mind back to the American Revolutionary War, during which New York City was occupied by enemy forces for seven years, or the American Civil War, in which Confederate armies won victory after victory on the battlefield, or even World War II, in which the Nazi menace was defeated at an enormous cost in human lives. Should we have gone to war with Iraq? I believe the answer is yes.

During a daily briefing after 9/11, then CIA Director George Tenet told the president that Iraq had the ability to wage chemical and biological war on the U.S. He referred to Iraqís possession of weapons of mass destruction as a "slam dunk." Had the president not engaged in the pre-emptive war against Saddam, and if this madman had subsequently released in the U.S. biological agents or poison gas, which he had already used against the Kurds and Iran, does anyone doubt that the president would have been impeached?

The security agencies of nearly every democratic nation provided to their president or prime minister the same description of Iraqís weapons-of-mass-destruction capability. The U.S. Congress had the same information and concurred with the presidentís decision. The U.N. Security Council unanimously concurred, passing Resolution 1441.

But it was President Bush who had the courage to take up arms in defense of the U.S. and our allies. That is what leadership is all about.

A poll released by the Washington Post on July 14, 2004, showed that "55 percent of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism" and "51 percent also said they trust Bush more than Kerry to deal with terrorism, while 42 percent prefer the Democrat."

We also should not forget that President Bush, in my opinion, has been the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House. At the U.N. Security Council and in the U.N. General Assembly, allies of the U.S. and others who are indifferent or hostile to our country have conveyed the view that if we end our alliance with Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, they would welcome back the U.S. into their circle. President Bush has refused to abandon our ally Israel.

In my opinion, the U.S. presidents who have been Israelís greatest friends are, in order, the current President Bush, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. This November, we Americans in the Jewish community should remember our friends. We should thank President Bush for his courage in the war against terrorism and for his strong and consistent support for Israel and democracy.

Edward I. Koch is the former mayor of New York City. His commentary for Bloomberg radio is republished here. You can hear his weekly radio show by going to


2 posted on 08/25/2004 5:56:33 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


by Mia T, 6.04.04


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)



The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.

Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.

To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Soros

eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.

Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation.

"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the

Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say) -Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct

its porcine manifestation.


Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:

  • its naivete about the War on Terror,
  • its preference for demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security,
  • its mindset, which is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].

But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.


What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country.

It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.


I think this administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling.

Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense.

My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each.

Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced.

When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.

Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

I'm a single-issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.

Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04




3 posted on 08/25/2004 6:00:06 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth; jla; Gail Wynand; Brian Allen; Wolverine; Lonesome in Massachussets; IVote2; ...


4 posted on 08/25/2004 6:01:17 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T


5 posted on 08/25/2004 6:02:46 AM PDT by kattracks (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Love this man, Ed Koch....even if he is a democrat! LOL! HE loves his nation enough to know EXACTLY what we need in a leader in order to run this war on terror with vigor and bravery and conviction!

His words must make the NY elites go ballistic!

6 posted on 08/25/2004 6:09:29 AM PDT by Republic (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mia T


7 posted on 08/25/2004 6:38:04 AM PDT by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T


8 posted on 08/25/2004 7:45:07 AM PDT by jla (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Thank you, Mia.

Stay focused!

Blessings -- Brian

9 posted on 08/25/2004 1:14:52 PM PDT by Brian Allen (I am, thank God, a hyphenated American -- An AMERICAN-American -- and A Dollar-a-Day FReeper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Another work of art. Thank you, Mia T.

10 posted on 08/25/2004 1:42:13 PM PDT by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Thanks for the ping

11 posted on 08/25/2004 3:53:51 PM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mia T


12 posted on 08/25/2004 5:25:05 PM PDT by jla (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
"I'm President George W. Bush
and I approve of Mia's message*"

*OK, Dubya didn't really approve of this.
(but that's only because he probably hasn't seen it)

13 posted on 08/26/2004 6:47:51 AM PDT by jla (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla


14 posted on 08/26/2004 7:42:18 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mia T


15 posted on 08/27/2004 8:33:25 AM PDT by jla (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Glad to see Koch's endorsement of President Bush. Koch fits nicely under the Big Tent of the Grand Old Party!

16 posted on 09/01/2004 2:06:20 PM PDT by Graewoulf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson