|
By Ed Koch January, 12,2004
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.
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(71 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
