Can Ed Koch's Endorsement of Bush Swing Florida Votes?

[loseyourname]

By former New York City mayor Ed Koch:

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

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/21/152331.shtml

 

[selfAdjoint]

And the way he goes about it means it'll take forever. The US is less safe than it was on 9/11; al Qaeda has metastatized in Iraq into a lot of fresh well organized terrorist groups. Just wait.

 

[loseyourname]

This could spell a lot of trouble for Kerry if his opposition to Bush's middle east policy means that more prominent Jews, like Koch, turn their support to Bush.

 

[russ_watters]

And the way he goes about it means it'll take forever. The US is less safe than it was on 9/11; al Qaeda has metastatized in Iraq into a lot of fresh well organized terrorist groups. Just wait.

Unless being in Iraq means Al Queda isn't here. Being former military, I can assure you that the members of our armed forces would rather die in Iraq than have our civilians dying here. I still consider that "safer."

Also, Iraq wasn't it for the "war on terrorism." It started with Afghanistan and that part definitely left us safer.

Terrorism is a double-edge sword for Bush. If another 9/11 happened a month before the election, would it help or hurt? Most of my friends who didn't vote for Bush said after 9/11 they were glad he was in office rather than Gore. When times call for war, the vast majority of Americans want a gun-toting-Texan-Republican in office. So would another 9/11 mean we still need him or mean he didn't do his job in preventing it? I honestly don't know.

 

[JohnDubYa]

And the way he goes about it means it'll take forever. The US is less safe than it was on 9/11; al Qaeda has metastatized in Iraq into a lot of fresh well organized terrorist groups. Just wait.

They call this "Truth by Prophecy."

No one knows if we are safer or not. Although there are possibly more people who want to hurt the US, we have effectively knocked off many opportunities for them to find state sponsorship. And without major bucks they will have a hard time doing significant damage.

IMO, it is better to take away state sponsorship opportunities at the expense of angering individuals.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think the war was wrong in principle so much as in method. Based on many interpretations I hear from Middle East experts, the war in Iraq helped terrorism. I don't know if I buy this, but I doubt the war really helped other than to divert attention from the real issues like securing our harbors, making aircraft truly safe, coordinating intelligence information effectively, tracking down the gazillion aliens in violation of their Visa's in one way or another, fund local law enforcement and FBI operations that surveilled suspected terrorists but who were never paid, and who were forced to cancel the anti-terror activities, for starters. We hunt down this guy or that guy, giving Bush a clear political focal point, but we allow 95% of all cargo to enter the US without inspection. Sure, that makes sense. I think the prioreties were all wrong. First we secure the borders, then we can take on the rest of the world. These guys were chomping at the bit to get Saddam and at the least, they lost perpsective.

Now Bush wants to blame faulty intelligence for the errors. I guess someone forgot to tell him how it works when you're the CNC: You are responsible President Bush. To claim any less shows a complete lack of character. A true leader would assume responsibility and still expect loyalty. It is beyond him to handle this in a dignified manner. This is exactly the kind of behavior that I expect from a Bush. Clinton was a scoundrel. Bush is transparent. Don’t know about Kerry yet but I’ll take my chances. I consider Bush nearly a worst case scenario.

 

[Gokul43201]

The US (to be fair, this is true of many countries) doesn't really fight the forces of international terrorism, unless these forces try to "mess with the United States of America".

Until 9/11, the US was writing out paychecks to members of the Taliban - in gratitude to kicking the Soviets out, I guess. In the early 80's the US was a strong "supporter" of Saddam Hussein. Even today, the closest Asian allies of the US are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two hotbeds of terrorist recruitment and proliferation.

 

[Dissident Dan]

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

Am I the only one who finds the highlighted disturbing? At all costs?!. To think that there is no cost too high is irrational. The fact that he's talking about not caring "how long it takes" just makes me think of 1984. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about resolve, but this sounds like rhetoric to accomplish an erosion to a police state.

Bush is horrible for national security. It befuddles me how people can think that being a world-class (literally) jerk makes a good leader or will help prevent future terrorism. He is just aggravating the problem. The USA and the world do not need a knee-jerk cowboy. They need an intellectual--someone who will think about the problem and calmly and rationally decide on a wise course of action.

I'm sure that bin laden will be happy if bush somehow manages to remain in Washington--we'll be that much closer to holy wars.

 

[Gokul43201]

Most of my friends who didn't vote for Bush said after 9/11 they were glad he was in office rather than Gore.

I tend to think that Gore would have taken a lot less than 7 minutes (or whatever it was) to realize that he should probably stop reading "My Pet Goat" and start figuring out what needs to be done next.

I tend to believe that Gore would also have called for the invasion of Afghanistan and the ousting of the Taliban. However, he probably would NOT have decided to go after Iraq before completing the job at home and in Afghanistan.

 

[the number 42]

Most of my friends who didn't vote for Bush said after 9/11 they were glad he was in office rather than Gore. When times call for war, the vast majority of Americans want a gun-toting-Texan-Republican in office

I have to admit that Gore didn't put up too much of a fight over Florida, but I am pretty certain that treating the world like a shoot-'em-up doesn't make anyone any safer either. The 'war on terrorism' isn't a 'hot war' as such; it requires a lot more cunning and patience to defeat. Overkill just creates sympathy for the terrorists, if not more terrorists.

'You pays your money' etc. but please remember: the forthcoming elections are going to effect people all over the world. We can only afford a wise and level-headed choice.

 

[JD]

I just wish he would stop grinning (even when he isn't he is) - I doubt whether he could care less but it presents a rather unpleasant aspect. Trust and respect are made harder.

 

[Marijn]

'You pays your money' etc. but please remember: the forthcoming elections are going to effect people all over the world. We can only afford a wise and level-headed choice.

Then don't alow the Us to have a president.
All of those presidents have "conflict of interest" written all over their head. :surprise:

 

[Adam]

Woohoo! Holy war! Righteous wrath! Manifest destiny!

 

[Njorl]

I have never heard any Gore supporter say they were glad Bush was in office for 9/11. I think he has done a terrible job, and I think most Americans are starting to catch on.

I think this sums it up well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/o...rials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul Krugman

The only things that he has done right are the things that could not possibly have been done another way.

Njorl

 

[JD]

I have never heard any Gore supporter say they were glad Bush was in office for 9/11. I think he has done a terrible job, and I think most Americans are starting to catch on.

Well it would be about time - the rest of the world has been hollering for ages. Mind you, there's always a lot of that.

I think this sums it up well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/o...rials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul Krugman

It does - we can only get in by providing personal details

The only things that he has done right are the things that could not possibly have been done another way.
Njorl

He once said that he was a follower of American politics

 

[member 5645]

I just wish he would stop grinning (even when he isn't he is) - I doubt whether he could care less but it presents a rather unpleasant aspect. Trust and respect are made harder.

Wow, you English sure do get your feathers ruffled over nothing.

 

[member 5645]

I have never heard any Gore supporter say they were glad Bush was in office for 9/11. I think he has done a terrible job, and I think most Americans are starting to catch on.

I think this sums it up well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/o...rials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul Krugman

The only things that he has done right are the things that could not possibly have been done another way.

Njorl

I wouldn't imagine you would. Let's be honest - you run with a very far left crowd.



Anyway around registration?



Opinon stated as fact without examples. Not a way to debate.

 

[JD]

Wow, you English sure do get your feathers ruffled over nothing.

Wouldn't be proper old bean without the old rigmarole. I say, dapper shooting jacket.

 

[russ_watters]

I think this sums it up well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/o...rials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul Krugman

For those who didn't want to register, its an op-ed piece - not a news article.

think the prioreties were all wrong. First we secure the borders, then we can take on the rest of the world.

Like a conservative, I see it exactly the opposite: the US is a free country and to do those things, while making us more secure, they make us lose part of what it means to be an American. Better to go out and meet the threat to eliminate it than perpetually defend our borders against it - while disrupting the lives of our citizens.

edit: ironically, this is very similar to the argument made by liberals against the Patriot Act, which does not affect the daily lives of law-abiding citizens. This strengthens my opinion that liberals are more concerned with ideals than with realities.

Am I the only one who finds the highlighted disturbing? At all costs?!. To think that there is no cost too high is irrational.

Its a catchphrase meant to highlight the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on the issue. The Clinton-era mantra was 'any cost is too high (unless spent on social programs).'

I tend to think that Gore would have taken a lot less than 7 minutes (or whatever it was) to realize that he should probably stop reading "My Pet Goat" and start figuring out what needs to be done next.

I don't. And regardless, those 7 minutes didn't matter at all. The immediate problem was an inadequate repsponse system in place to handle such a threat.

I have never heard any Gore supporter say they were glad Bush was in office for 9/11. I think he has done a terrible job, and I think most Americans are starting to catch on.

Being a liberal, you likely never thought to ask the question that October. Being a conservative, I did.

 

[Gokul43201]

Njorl,

You're not going to sway the Right by throwing Krugman at them. They all despise Krugman and will not accept any of his arguments...especially not one titled "The Arabian Candidate".

 

[russ_watters]

Njorl,

You're not going to sway the Right by throwing Krugman at them. They all despise Krugman and will not accept any of his arguments...especially not one titled "The Arabian Candidate".

It really is a beautiful article. Even better than "Farenheit 9/11," the beauty is that by framing it as a hypothetical, he's completely eliminated the need for any of it to be factual, despite the obvious insinuations he's making.

But then, since he hasn't made any arguments, disagreeing with him is easy!

 

[selfAdjoint]

Unless being in Iraq means Al Queda isn't here. Being former military, I can assure you that the members of our armed forces would rather die in Iraq than have our civilians dying here. I still consider that "safer."

There's a thread on straw man arguments on the Logic forum. Perhaps you might want to contribute this as an example?

 

[Dissident Dan]

For those who didn't want to register, its an op-ed piece - not a news article. Like a conservative, I see it exactly the opposite: the US is a free country and to do those things, while making us more secure, they make us lose part of what it means to be an American. Better to go out and meet the threat to eliminate it than perpetually defend our borders against it - while disrupting the lives of our citizens.

edit: ironically, this is very similar to the argument made by liberals against the Patriot Act, which does not affect the daily lives of law-abiding citizens. This strengthens my opinion that liberals are more concerned with ideals than with realities.

How does securing ports interfere with typical Americans' lives? The PATRIOT Act has already been used to illegally detain people, and it is just one more step towards a police state. It is a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights, and when it is considered acceptable to discard the Constitution, what protections do we have?

If you want to talk about ideals and realities, liberals aren't the ones who believe in an "invisible hand" that will solve all economic problems and lead to a just system of trade. We don't hear the phrase "free trade" and automatically think that it must be god's gift to the world.

Its a catchphrase meant to highlight the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on the issue. The Clinton-era mantra was 'any cost is too high (unless spent on social programs).'

What? Where do you get this from? Clinton and his administration went after terrorists many times. But, anyway, this is not about Clinton. It annoys me how republicans will bring up irrelevant Clinton to bash in order to have a counter-argument. The choice is between bush and Kerry.

And regardless, those 7 minutes didn't matter at all. The immediate problem was an inadequate repsponse system in place to handle such a threat.

They might not have mattered in that particular situation. What that episode clearly demonstrates is that bush lacks leadership and ability to take swift, decisive action. It shows that he is a puppet who needs people to tell him what to say and do.

 

[the number 42]

The PATRIOT Act has already been used to illegally detain people, and it is just one more step towards a police state. It is a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights, and when it is considered acceptable to discard the Constitution, what protections do we have?

I guess some people would rather fight the good fight than be free.

 

[Njorl]

I wouldn't imagine you would. Let's be honest - you run with a very far left crowd.



Anyway around registration?



Opinon stated as fact without examples. Not a way to debate.

I really don't run with a far left crowd. I voted 3 times for a Republican for my representitive in congress. My two closest friends are an ex-JAG prosecuter who now is a patent attorney and an economist for an energy trader. I work, proudly, for the US Army.

I really don't understand the premise. Unlike Bush, Gore was not afraid to go to Vietnam. If he wasn't afraid to go himself, he certainly wouldn't be timid about waging a necessary war.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

It really is a beautiful article. Even better than "Farenheit 9/11," the beauty is that by framing it as a hypothetical, he's completely eliminated the need for any of it to be factual, despite the obvious insinuations he's making.

But then, since he hasn't made any arguments, disagreeing with him is easy!

It was designed to be thought provoking, not an ironclad argument. I found it so.

Other than overthrowing the Taliban, which anyone but Dennis Kucinich would have done, Bush has screwed up at every step.

He squandered bipartisan support for anti-terrorist actions in the elections of 2002.

He pulled vital special forces out of Afghanistan prematurely to chase imaginary scud missile launchers in the deserts of western Iraq.

He alienated most of our allies with a war based on false claims of WMDs.

He allowed the occupation of Iraq to devolve into chaos, a breeding ground for new terrorists, not a battleground for old ones.

He has allowed the nation to be tarred with the label of "Torturer".

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

This could spell a lot of trouble for Kerry if his opposition to Bush's middle east policy means that more prominent Jews, like Koch, turn their support to Bush.

I don't think of Ed Koch so much as a prominent Jew. I think of him more as a media-circus clown. It could hurt Kerry as far as garnering the clown vote though. I think the clown vote becomes more significant every election.

http://www.salon.com/media/1998/01/13media.html

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

There's a thread on straw man arguments on the Logic forum. Perhaps you might want to contribute this as an example?

Boy, did I strike a nerve! The "Unless" means that what follows is my opinion, not a critique of yours. Like someone else said, we won't really know if the country is safer now until we look back on this time period and see if there were any attacks. So far so good, though.

But if you want a critique of your opinion:

The US is less safe than it was on 9/11; al Qaeda has metastatized in Iraq into a lot of fresh well organized terrorist groups. Just wait.

The first part of your reason "al Qaeda has metastatized in Iraq into a lot of fresh well organized terrorist groups," I haven't seen any evidence for. There are a lot of insurgents, and they are arguably terrorists, but the types of things they are doing can't reach here. It doesn't appear to me to be their goal. I'd be very interested in seeing evidence of new plots planned for the US, who exactly planned them, and where they are operating out of. It is certainly possible that some groups moved form Afghanistan to Iraq in order to train for operations in the US - but I haven't seen any real evidence for it. Most seem to be going to Iraq because there are Americans there to fight.

The second part of your argument, "Just wait," was exactly my point. I don't think we have the evidence, nor the history to say with any veracity that we are significantly more or less safe due to our presence in Iraq. We'll just have to wait and see. Besides that, we're still working there.

Other than overthrowing the Taliban, which anyone but Dennis Kucinich would have done, Bush has screwed up at every step.

I don't agree with either part (absolutes are a b!tch to prove), and I've never heard of Dennis Kucinich.

 

[rick1138]

...ironically, this is very similar to the argument made by liberals against the Patriot Act, which does not affect the daily lives of law-abiding citizens.

Tell that to my friend whose house was stormed by machine gun toting federal agents in order to arrest him for a misdemeanor drug charge. He was held and questioned for hours at gunpoint without access to a lawer, or even any information on what he was being charged with.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Wouldn't be proper old bean without the old rigmarole. I say, dapper shooting jacket.

Egad, Terry Thomas has resurrected.