Let's hear it for a Democrat who exibits
uncommon good sense.
Democratic
Defection
By Edward I. 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.
Edward I. Koch, who served as mayor of New York City from
1978 to 1989, is a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave.
