Ed Koch: "Why I'm Voting for Bush"

Former New York Mayor Ed Koch explains something worth understanding very clearly:

Why I'm Voting for Bush
by Edward I. Koch
Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2004

The presidential election is less than three weeks away. I have never voted for a Republican for president. However, on November 2, I will vote for George W. Bush.
What has propelled me to the side of President Bush is his resolute, uncompromising behavior and dedication to winning the war against terrorism. In last Friday's debate, the president summed up his philosophy in three sentences. He said: "And abroad we are at war. And it requires a president who is steadfast and strong and determined. I vowed to the American people after that fateful day of September the 11th that we would not rest nor tire until we're safe."

Churchill was more eloquent in describing the situation confronting England during World War II. He stated, "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. ..." I have no doubt that George W. Bush is just as resolute, if not as eloquent.

Senator John Kerry summed up his philosophy and lack of dedication to the fight in the first presidential debate when he called the war in Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," and "But if and when you do it, Jim [Lehrer], you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Many members of the New Labour Party in Britain would like to bring down Tony Blair because his philosophy and actions in support of the war in Iraq are in accord with those of President Bush. On this issue, Tony Blair's opponents are the intellectual descendants of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who, until the very end when Hitler marched into Poland, sought to placate the Nazi dictator, foolishly believing that negotiations could achieve peace with Germany, safety for the world and, in Chamberlain's words, "peace for our time." Now Chamberlain's name is a synonym for appeasement.

In Australia, a similar battle for the hearts and minds of Aussies over the war in Iraq and the approach to international terrorism ended with the re-election by a large majority of Prime Minister John Howard, a fervent supporter of the war in Iraq and an advocate of the Bush Doctrine, which targets the terrorists as well as those who harbor them.

If Senator John Kerry is elected, I have no doubt our determination to hunt down terrorists who threaten the security not only of the U.S. but also of our allies will diminish. Terrorists have had major successes in imposing their demands on nations like Spain, the Philippines and Turkey, all of which have given in to terrorist threats by removing military or civilian personnel from Iraq.

We are in a war with Islamic fanatics willing to sacrifice their lives in a way not seen since Japan sent Kamikaze pilots against the allies in World War II, except that the Kamikazes attacked only military targets. The Islamic fanatics' stated goal is the revival of the Islamic Caliphate that once ruled a major part of the world. They seek to destroy not only Western civilization, which they despise, but also moderate Muslim governments like those of Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan and even Saudi Arabia, because those countries want to maintain good relations with the U.S.

Senator Kerry continues to suggest that the U.S. could get greater support from European nations if they were given a role in our decision-making. We can be certain the first demand the European Union would make of him would be for the U.S. to abandon Israel and allow the European Union led by France to dictate the terms of a Middle East settlement, including the borders of Israel. Without the U.S. support provided by President Bush, Israel would quickly be devoured by these Europeans whose only interest is to expand their business relations with the Muslim world.

When I make these points to my fellow Democrats living in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio (the latter of which I will be visiting this week), they respond, "Yes, but we disagree with the president on so many domestic issues." I, too, disagree with the president on every major domestic issue, from taxes to Social Security. Yet I believe those issues are trumped by the overriding need to defeat international terrorism, the biggest threat to our freedom.

Fortunately, in the U.S., it is the Congress that decides all of these domestic issues, while the foreign policy of our country is largely the province of the president. So, my advice to my fellow Democrats is vote for your Democratic senators and representatives, knowing that even when it comes to the selection of U.S. Supreme Court justices, if the Democrats in the Senate retain 41 votes, no candidate they oppose can be confirmed.

It is my hope that history will record that in the year 2005, Western civilization soundly defeated the Islamist fanatics, as it did at the gates of Vienna in 1683.