In 2004, Ed Koch spoke at the Republican National Convention, saying that he’d vote for George Bush that year while encouraging other national security Democrats join him. Now he’s written a column titled History Will Redeem Bush that’s sure to upset people like Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Herer’s what he says about President Bush and his support of him:

Anyone who knows me is aware that I am a proud American and a proud Jew who, while not religiously observant, fiercely loves and defends his faith. It has become fashionable for Americans in general, Jew and gentile, to hold President George W. Bush up to derision. As I believe many readers and listeners of my commentaries know, I crossed party lines in 2004 to support the President’s reelection, saying at the time that I did not agree with him on a single domestic issue, but I did believe he was the only one running who appreciated the threat of Islamic terrorism to American values and Western civilization and was prepared to wage a war to defend those values.

I have no regrets for having made that decision and helping the President to win a second term. Today, according to the most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, “71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as President, an all-time high in polling.” His position can be compared with that of Harry Truman who left Washington unpopular and alone in 1953. Today, with the passage of time, most historians and certainly the American people, see Truman in a different light, primarily for his willingness to stand firm against Soviet aggression, whether against Greece or South Korea, and proclaim the Truman Doctrine, effectively defending the free world from Soviet efforts to expand their hegemony. (continue reading post »)

Joe Lieberman’s op-ed in this morning’s WSJ is a study in contrasts. Sen. Lieberman’s op-ed starts with him alluding to the muscular foreign policy of FDR, Truman and JFK. Here’s what Sen. Lieberman said about those men’s foreign policy credentials:

This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.

This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that “it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.”

And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom.”

It’s unfortunate that the Democratic Party doesn’t stand for those principles anymore. JFK’s “we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom” has been replaced by ‘The war is lost’, “there is no military solution” and let’s talk with Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinejad‘. Sen. Lieberman pinpoints when things started going downhill for the Democratic Party:

This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and “inordinate fear of communism” represented the real threat to world peace. (continue reading post »)

Most of Barack Obama’s success in the early primaries is attributable to his selling the notion that he would step beyond the partisan politics practiced by mere mortals. He would be a uniter of all people, causing racism and poverty to disappear. Now that the bloom is off that rose, facts are contradicting that image. The Detroit Free Press is reporting that Sen. Obama met with one of the most anti-semitic Muslim clerics in America during his recent visit to Michigan. Here’s some of the details:

Imam Hassan Qazwini, head of the Islamic Center of America, said in an email that he met with Obama at Macomb Community College. A mosque spokesman, Eide Alawan, confirmed that the meeting took place. During the meeting, the two discussed the Presidential election, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Iraq war, according to Qazwini.

As usual, Debbie Schlussel asked the most important question:

Barack Obama claims he’s against HAMAS and Hezbollah and is offended by President Bush’s speech in Israel about Obama’s ethos of “appeasement.” So why is he meeting with one of Hezbollah’s most important imams and agents in America, Imam Hassan Qazwini? And why is this open anti-Semite and supporter of Israel’s annihilation getting to discuss “the Arab-Israeli conflict” in a private one-on-one meeting with Obama? What was said? I think we can do the math.

This week, Sen. Obama took offense at being called an appeaser, then spent the rest of the week distancing himself from his statement at the YouTube debate. (continue reading post »)

Thursday, Susan Rice, the Obama campaign’s senior foreign policy advisor, appeared on America’s Election HQ on Fox News, ostensibly to clean up Obama’s mess and to spin President Bush’s remarks. Today, the Obama campaign sent out John Brennan to do more backfilling and spinning. to say that these Obama mouthpieces’ story is evolving is a gentle way of putting it. In this post, I pointed out what’s on Obama’s campaign website:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Based on the Obama website, the official Obama position on Iran was President Obama meeting with President Ahmadinejad. He was scolded by Hillary and Sen. Edwards when he initially mouthed that policy in the YouTube debate.

Today’s position, as mouthed by John Brennan, is that an Obama administration would reach out to the Iranian moderates, not Ahmadinejad:

Brennan: Also, I think the concern that Sen. Obama has is that his position is being misrepresented & mischaracterized by the President & Sen. McCain.
MK: Tell us how precisely.
Brennan: We, he’s not in any way advocating appeasement. He has said repeatedly that we need to maintain a very strong foreign policy posture as far as protecting national security interests. But at the same time, he is not going to eliminate the possibility of sitting down with our enemies to make sure we have an understanding of what their issues & their concerns are. (continue reading post »)

Yesterday, Barack Obama had a snit fit over being called an appeaser of terrorists. According to Marc Ambinder’s post, the real target of President Bush’s speech was Jimmy Carter. Here’s what Ed Gillespie told reporters:

“We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words….There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. That was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it.”

Here’s what Dan Froomkin is reporting in today’s Washington Post:

Q. “Ed, can you talk to us a little bit about yesterday’s speech and how much the White House may or may not have anticipated the reaction that ultimately occurred, where people interpreted this as a reference to Barack Obama?” (continue reading post »)

Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has some explaining to do after it was revealed that he’s maintained strong ties with Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, aka FARC. I’m not an international law student but I’d have to think that supporting a terrorist organization whose sole intent is to overthrow the democratically elected government of another country is an act of war. Here’s what the AP is reporting:

Interpol on Thursday endorsed the authenticity of computer files seized in a rebel camp, announcing that Colombia did not tamper with documents indicating Chavez sought to finance and arm the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

Venezuelan officials set up contacts with Australian arms dealers and arranged for missile training in the Middle East, according to the documents, which were on computer hard drives seized by Colombia and obtained by the Washington Post.

Not surprisingly, Chavez responded disdainfully:

“Do you think we should waste time here on something so ridiculous?” he told reporters in Caracas.

Chavez has denied providing the FARC material support, but did not address the issue directly on Thursday. Instead, he called Interpol’s secretary general, Ronald Noble, “a tremendous actor,” “Mr. Ignoble” and an “immoral police officer who applauds killers.”

The answer to Chavez’ first question is simple: Yes. (continue reading post »)

This Washington Times editorial higlights the problems Barack Obama is having with Jewish voters. It’s bad enough that Sen. Obama has a problem with that voting block. What’s worse for Sen. Obama is that John McCain knows it and is exploiting the situation:

On Friday, Robert Malley, an Obama advisor, resigned from the senator’s campaign as reports surfaced that he had met with the terrorist group Hamas. Last month, Hamas political advisor Ahmad Yousef said on WABC Radio in New York that he hoped Mr. Obama would be elected president. Mr. McCain said Hamas would never want him to be president, “so if Mr. Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”

Mr. Obama sternly rejected the Hamas endorsement, but the latest Gallup polls suggest he has a significant and growing problem in keeping Jewish voters in the Democratic fold. The latest Gallup polls show that in a contest with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama would secure 61 percent of the Jewish vote to the Republican’s 32 percent. In 2004 and 2006 elections, by contrast, Jewish voters favored the Democratic Party by a 75 percent to 25 percent margin. This suggests that support for the Democratic Party standard-bearer among Jews could be approaching its lowest levels in decades. The Republicans’ best showing was achieved by Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he won 40 percent of the Jewish vote. (continue reading post »)

Dr. Susan Rice, one of Sen. Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, got caught telling a whopper today. LGF gets credit for catching this whopper:

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

Sen. Obama will want to distance himself from Dr. Rice’s comments. In most instances, Obama could say that Dr. Rice didn’t speak for him on this issue. This time, he can’t because Dr. Rice isn’t just another dime-a-dozen adviser. Dr. Rice served as Sen. Kerry’s foreign policy adviser during the 2004 campaign.

This transcript utterly refutes Dr. Rice’s statements:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

CLINTON: Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous. (continue reading post »)

According to this NY Times article, John McCain intends on painting Barack Obama as being soft on Hamas.

For his part, Mr. McCain has taken pride in the enmity with which he regards Hamas. “I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare,” he said late last month in a conference call with conservative bloggers.

Conversely, he has tried to portray Mr. Obama as sympathetic to Hamas.

“I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States,” Mr. McCain said to the bloggers. “If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”

It isn’t surprising that the NY Times is ‘reporting’ that Sen. McCain has implied Sen. Obama is “sympathetic to Hamas.” Sen. McCain is simply suggesting that Sen. Obama’s policies towards Hamas won’t be as effective as Sen. McCain’s will be.

Obama, meanwhile, will point out that he’s spoken out against Hamas in harsh terms. The problem for Sen. Obama is that he’s been less than harsh in dealing with Iran, which is training Hamas terrorists:

TEL AVIV, March 5 — The chief of Shin Bet, the Israeli internal security service, said Monday that the Islamic movement Hamas had sent dozens of men from Gaza to Iran for military training. (continue reading post »)

People have been talking about Sen. Obama’s wrapping up the Democratic nomination all day. That’s fair enough. That’s news. With his virtual clinching of the nomination, talk about his ties to Jeremiah Wright have temporarily subsided. The good news for Republicans is that Sen. Obama hasn’t left us with a shortage of things to ridicule him about. Let’s consider what he said in his victory speech last night:

The other side can label and name-call all they want, but I trust the American people to recognize that it is not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after Al Qaida’s leaders.

I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.

What on God’s green earth is Sen. Obama yapping about? When did Truman and FDR meet with Hitler or Tojo? I’ve heard about revisionist history before but this is ridiculous.

Only a blithering idiot would try justifying meeting with Ahmedinejad by saying that FDR met with that era’s equivalent of Ahmedinejad. Someone that’s either that intellectually dishonest or that intellectually vacant isn’t qualified to be the leader of the free world. (continue reading post »)