Skip to comments.Why I support George W. Bush/Why I support John Kerry
Posted on 11/01/2004 5:41:09 AM PST by SJackson
Why I support George W. Bush
Bush will fight terrorism
On November 3, when President George W. Bush awakens to read the final election results, I believe he may say to himself, "Thanks to the Jewish community, I won. They will never have cause to regret their confidence in me."
In other words, for all the president has done to combat international terrorism, I believe he deserves the support of Jewish voters.
As a volunteer for the Bush campaign, I have been addressing Jewish audiences in the political battleground states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. Jews comprise about two percent of the US voting population. However, in His wisdom, God placed disproportionately large numbers of us in the battleground states where this year's presidential election will be won or lost.
My first stop was Boca Raton, Florida, where I spoke to 150 senior citizens. It was immediately clear that the vast majority of Jewish seniors have a historic tie with the Democratic Party and president Franklin D. Roosevelt, as well as with traditionally liberal issues. They want to maintain their support of abortion, inexpensive prescription drugs, etc., by continuing to cast an existential vote for FDR.
Simply talking about voting for the president for supporting Israel and for repeatedly vetoing unfair UN Security Council resolutions would not be enough for such audiences. So I tell them that I have never voted for a Republican candidate for president, but I am doing so in this election. I explain that my decision, made two years ago, was strengthened when I heard Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, commenting on its final report, say, "They want to kill us."
Hamilton's reference was to the Islamic fanatics who dream of reestablishing the Caliphate with a single Islamic ruler exercising authority over all Muslim states. That would include states like Spain, ruled by Muslim Moors before 1492, and stretching from Cordova across north Africa to the Near East and on to Indonesia. They would allow Christians and Jews to exercise their religion so long as they recognized the supremacy of Islam. They would kill polytheists such as the Hindus if they did not convert to Islam.
I tell my mostly Jewish audiences, "We are in a war of civilizations." I also talk about the Bush Doctrine, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." I tell them that the Democratic Party and its candidate, Kerry, are the ideological heirs of George McGovern and his far-left agenda.
FOR MANY Kerry supporters, Israel is anathema. Kerry, in his "global test" of acceptability for American actions seeks to solicit the favor of the rest of the world, including the European Union and developing nations, before taking action on the world's stage. Kerry is capable of abandoning Israel; Bush is not. Bush is the most supportive president of Israel, followed by Ronald Reagan and then by Bill Clinton.
I point to the first speech on foreign affairs that Kerry delivered after he won the Democratic nomination. In that statement before the Council on Foreign Relations, he announced that he would appoint James Baker and Jimmy Carter as his envoys to the Middle East negotiations. Both of these men over the years have demonstrated their hostility to Israel.
When Kerry was criticized by supporters of Israel for his suggestion of Baker and Carter as his envoys, he said that their names had been inserted in the speech by his staff without his knowledge. How gullible does he think we are?
Kerry says that he will attract to our side the nations of the world that were with us in 1991 to fight the war in Iraq. Does he really believe that he can induce them to join in this effort? What would he say to persuade them? Perhaps he will repeat his current refrain, "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," adding, "but join me." Yet he might be successful if he threw Israel to the wolves, namely those who want to render it defenseless before the Muslim world in exchange for oil and other benefits.
When American civilian Eugene Armstrong was beheaded by four Islamic fanatics, one summed up the jihadis' true feelings and the nature of the war when referring to President Bush stating, "Oh you Christian dog, Bush, stop your arrogance."
John Kerry voted for Gulf War II but now regrets that decision since he has become the candidate of the radical left-wing of the Democratic Party. He still cannot explain why in 1991 with 44 other Democratic Senators he voted against the war in Iraq when it met all of his "global" conditions, in that after Iraq had invaded and occupied Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, the Security Council passed a resolution authorizing war and a grand coalition of nations joined the US to actually wage that war.
While I don't agree with George W. Bush on domestic issues, I am voting for him because of his determination to root out international terrorism. For me, that trumps all other issues.
In our system of government, 41 Democratic US Senators have the power to block, through the threat of filibuster, any legislation, cabinet appointment, or nominee to the Supreme Court to which they object. My advice to all is to vote for Bush for president in order to safeguard the US and its allies from Islamic terrorists. Then vote for Democrats in the Congress to protect and promote the liberal domestic policy agenda that they, and I, support.
The writer, an author, lawyer and talk radio host, was a member of the US Congress and, for 12 years, the 105th mayor of New York City.
Why I support John Kerry
STEVEN L. SPIEGEL
Kerry is best for Israel
John Kerry has been accused falsely of many sins in this campaign, but none is more unfair than the notion that he is not a true friend of Israel.
Before President George W. Bush even entered politics, Senator Kerry had already amassed a long history of defending Israel in the halls of the Capitol. In 1997, before Bush ever visited Israel, Kerry delivered a passionate speech at the annual conference of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, where he left no doubt about his views regarding the dangers Israel faces on a daily basis.
Standing side-by-side with then prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Kerry stated that, "Terrorism is an incontrovertible evil, and an unacceptable response and the idea that every bitter dispute between Israelis and the Palestinians can somehow justify Palestinian violence... or excuse the PLO's failure to rewrite its covenant - all of this reflects a moral blindness, a failure for courage that only encourages the cowards, the haters and the killers...."
Despite these words and Senator Kerry's strong pro-Israel record in the Senate, the Republican spin machine has worked tirelessly to instill fear within the American Jewish community and among supporters of Israel by casting doubt on Kerry's commitment to Israel and by characterizing Bush as the "best friend Israel ever had."
Not only has this strategy obscured the facts, but it has removed from the debate the question of which candidate's policies would best protect the security and well-being of Israel.
DESPITE THE conventional wisdom, during his first term in office Bush has no particular achievement on the Arab-Israeli front. Ironically, the president's Israel policy can best be described as one of disinterest. Bush looks deceptively good towards Israel because no one remembers any disputes, any ideas or any plans he tried to implement. However, there have been a series of critical missed opportunities - missed opportunities to end the violence, to pressure the Palestinian Authority to reform, and to improve Arab-Israeli relations.
As a result, Israel has been left to its own devices. Despite the heavy casualties Israel has sustained, it has done well in limiting suicide bombings and devising a new unilateral disengagement plan for Gaza. The Bush administration has done nothing practical to assist Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with his dramatic plan other than to pat him on the back. Indeed, Bush's passive policy makes it easier for Sharon's political opponents to openly oppose disengagement.
Supporters of President Bush have also argued that the war in Iraq has greatly enhanced Israel's overall security. Yet, experts have now begun to question the president's assertion that the war in Iraq is contributing to the global fight against terror. In fact, a leading Israeli strategic think tank, the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, recently stated in its annual report that on a strategic and operational level the war in Iraq is hurting the war on international terrorism and "has created momentum for many terrorist elements, but chiefly al-Qaida and its affiliates." Unfortunately, the bombings in Taba demonstrate the mounting threat that al-Qaida poses to Israel.
Let us be honest. Iraq spinning out of control threatens Israel in ways that cannot be balanced simply by mere pats on the back from Bush.
Not only has the Iraq war become a distraction from the fight against global terrorism, it has also diminished America's ability to check the growing nuclear threat posed by Iran. An Iranian nuclear force would directly threaten Israel, embolden Hizbullah and Syria, and encourage states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia to seek an Arab bomb.
Instead of aiding Israel, Bush's policies have the potential to significantly compromise Israel's security. The Bush campaign is trying to scare voters into believing that Kerry would pressure Israel to make dangerous compromises. As his longstanding support for Israel suggests, Kerry would not only maintain the pro-Israel rhetoric of the Bush administration but he would match his words with deeds. He would vigorously pursue efforts to implement Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan. And he would refocus US efforts to defeat al-Qaida, confront Saudi Arabia, increase and widen sanctions against Iran, pursue energy independence, and work to restore stability in Iraq.
In fact, Kerry's policies align neither with Bush's passivity nor Clinton's activism. Rather, Kerry's policy is a measured approach that adjusts to today's realities after four years of intifada since 2000. As Kerry National Security Adviser Rand Beers has said, "A lot has changed since then. You need to solve first the problem of violence and of Palestinian representation before you can go into any kind of negotiations."
John Kerry may or may not succeed in these endeavors, but we can be confident that he will not ignore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the way Bush has. The president's lack of attention has left Israel in a weaker position today than it was four years ago.
With more than 1,000 of its people dead and its economy in unprecedented decline for most of his administration, can supporters of Israel really afford four more years of George W. Bush's "friendship?"
The writer, a professor of political science at UCLA, is director of the Mideast Regional Security Program at the Burkle Center for International Relations.
President Bush has pretty much seriously whipped terrorist ass all over the world, much to the benefit of not only Isreal, but to the rest of society as well.
Kerry "delivered a passionate speech".
That pretty much says it all for me. That the Democrats can only offer that as evidence of Kerry's support for Isreal illustrates how weak their position really is.
BTW. I, for one, am tired of the derisively delivered "Bush" label from all corners. He's the President, and should be addressed in print and onscreen as President Bush. The media seems to have no problem according the same courtesy to (former) President Clinton. Why not for the current President?
Anyone who thinks Iraq is not a part of the global war on terror has never looked at a map of the middle east.
The second point, the pro-sKerry writer has not mentioned the one thing that has significantly save Jewish lives in Israel since Pres. Bush took office in 2000: the security fence. The pro-sKerry writer said that Bush has done nothing more than pat PM Sharon on the back. Maybe staying out of Sharon's way is the best thing Bush did as opposed to Clinton's "activism" which brought us the Oslo Accords and lots of body bags with Israeli's laying in them rather than Pali terrorists.
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.