The Case for Bush: Safety in Freedom

By Kenneth Bialkin

Published October 22, 2004, issue of October 22, 2004.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Every member of an ethnic, racial or religious minority in the United States understands the power and value of freedom and democracy. Americans understand that the right to vote ensures the equality of every person; democracy is a powerful force that commands respect for the rights of others and insists on the application of the rule of law.

President Bush has advocated democracy as a powerful force to defeat terrorism. He has done so out of the conviction that when liberty and personal rights take hold in the Middle East, terrorism will subside and the world will be safer.

Bush’s decision to depose Saddam Hussein was taken not only to liberate the Iraqi people, but also to enhance the safety of America and the world by destroying a despot whose past and present activities were a clear threat. Having won the war, the president is now fighting to win the peace, starting at the ballot box.

The historic introduction of open voting for men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan — however imperfectly implemented — can change the landscape in those Muslim lands. The unexpectedly robust voting of more than 10 million Afghans and the determination of the Iraqi interim government to conduct free elections, despite the daily butchery of the insurgents who would block the march of freedom, should be hailed by all as unprecedented heroism and a gallant striving for freedom and peace.

We do not yet know whether Bush’s bold and startling effort will fully succeed, but we do know that if it does, the Middle East and the world will be safer. That is the real Bush Doctrine. There are many examples in history in which freedom, once unleashed, has become a powerful force.

Senator John Kerry does not agree that deposing Saddam and neutralizing Iraq were an integral part of the war against terrorism. And he seizes upon the intelligence failures that led the United States, England and everyone else to assume the existence of weapons of mass destruction as an example of deception by the administration.

Despite the absence of weapons of mass destruction, it is clear that Iraq has aided and abetted terrorism for more than 20 years and could be relied on to continue in that role if it were not stopped. The secret effort to develop nuclear arms, which was destroyed by Israel in 1981; the use of poison gas in its war on Iran and on its own subjects; its war against Kuwait; the threats to control Middle East oil sources in 1990; the evasion of international sanctions, corruption and bribery to acquire funds — with the aid of France, Russia, China and others — by cheating in the United Nations oil-for-food program; contacts with known terrorists, and providing funds, shelter and protection to terrorist fugitives, including cash to Palestinian terrorists and families of suicide bombers, leave little doubt about what Saddam would be doing today in support of Islamic terrorists if he were still in operation.

Critics of Bush’s resolute stand against Saddam need look no further than the recent report of the top American arms inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, which revealed that Iraq intended to reacquire weapons of mass destruction after the lifting of U.N. sanctions.

How puzzling, therefore, is the skepticism of the Kerry campaign and its supporters about the wisdom of deposing Saddam and the historic effort to spread freedom in the cause of safety. Is it merely the difference between optimism and conviction on one side, and a dour and pessimistic — even hopeless — attitude on the other?

Why hasn’t Kerry seen the great hope and promise of the spread of liberty, instead of attacking Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi for lack of credibility in proclaiming his brave intention to proceed with elections? Why does he not stand with the millions of intrepid Afghan men and women who dared to vote for the first time, instead of only lamenting the continued influence of local warlords? Does the partisan desire to win an election justify Kerry turning his back on the force and spirit of freedom and liberty, however primitive and imperfect, which has been the character and hallmark of America for our entire existence? Or does he believe the effort is futile, perhaps quixotic?

The American people are entitled to know where John Kerry stands on freedom as a weapon for peace.

Kenneth Bialkin, a New York-based lawyer, is chairman of the American Jewish Historical Society and a former chairman of the Conference of President of Major American Jewish Organizations.






Find us on Facebook!
  • "If you want my advice: more Palestinians, more checkpoints, just more reality." What do you think?
  • Happy birthday Barbra Streisand! Our favorite Funny Girl turns 72 today.
  • Clueless parenting advice from the star of "Clueless."
  • Why won't the city give an answer?
  • BREAKING NEWS: Israel has officially suspended peace talks with the Palestinians.
  • Can you guess what the most boring job in the army is?
  • What the foolish rabbi of Chelm teaches us about Israel and the Palestinian unity deal:
  • Mazel tov to Idina Menzel on making Variety "Power of Women" cover! http://jd.fo/f3Mms
  • "How much should I expect him and/or ask him to participate? Is it enough to have one parent reciting the prayers and observing the holidays?" What do you think?
  • New York and Montreal have been at odds for far too long. Stop the bagel wars, sign our bagel peace treaty!
  • Really, can you blame them?
  • “How I Stopped Hating Women of the Wall and Started Talking to My Mother.” Will you see it?
  • Taglit-Birthright Israel is redefining who they consider "Jewish" after a 17% drop in registration from 2011-2013. Is the "propaganda tag" keeping young people away?
  • Happy birthday William Shakespeare! Turns out, the Bard knew quite a bit about Jews.
  • Would you get to know racists on a first-name basis if you thought it might help you prevent them from going on rampages, like the recent shooting in Kansas City?
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.