What We Haven't Heard at the DNC

Polipundit summarizes what we haven't heard at the DNC in the last few days and it is something that concerns me greatly.  Simultaneously with all the talk about how "strong" and "decisive" Mr. Kerry is supposed to be regarding our national security if he becomes president, there is extremely little mention of 1) Al Quaeda; 2) Osama Bin Laden; 3) Terrorism; 4) Iraq; 5) Iran; 6) etc.  So, what are we supposed to make of this?  Teddy Kennedy stated explicitly, "the only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush!"  Does this mean that the basis of Kerry's national security policy is winning the election?  This disparity in what the Democrats are saying and what they intend to do is  is quite pronounced and is scary. Are there really people out there who believe that the only thing we have to fear is George Bush? (see my previous posts here and here about the psychological underpinnings of such a belief--. denial and projection).  How can we take the Democratic Party seriously when they can't even seem to understand the most serious issue of our time?  How can we take Kerry as a candidate seriously, when his entire career has been one of appeasement and delayed action.  Mr. Kerry talks a good game, but when the time comes to act, he has always dithered. Watch the video about Kerry and Iraq, if you have any doubts about this.

Somehow, some part of the Democratic psyche must know that we are in danger from someone. Otherwise, why the extreme security at the convention?  Otherwise, why talk about implementing  the 9/11 Commission recommendations (as Kerry did yesterday)?  It is, of course, typical that Kerry plans to implement the recommendations within 18 months.  Bush is already working to implement some of the recommendations immediately.   When it comes right down to it, ask yourself who you really trust to protect the American people, and who you can trust only to talk about protecting the American people.    Now, don't get me wrong. While I think we are much safer now than we were in 2001; I have no illusions about the persistance and ingenuity of our enemy.  I fear that there is no doubt that there will be another attack on this country (the odds seem to me to be on a nuclear attack of some kind). I fervently hope I am seriously incorrect.  But I think I am not.  Because the truth is that no matter what you do, there will always be some way for a dedicated evil-doer to make something bad happen.  Just take a look at Israel, who has had years of terrorism to deal with. Noone doubts their security and I wish them well with the "Wall" (which has significantly reduced the terror attacks on their people). Yet, the attacks do continue and innocents are killed, no matter what they do.  We must not doubt the intensity and conviction of our enemies, and we must be vigilant in our homeland. And even more than that, we must take the battle to them and keep them so occupied with their own survival that they don't have the time to plan the "big attack" on us.  As the current administration reminds us: "The terrorists only have to be right once; we have to be right 100 % of the time."  Democratic dithering is not what our country needs to be safe.  Putting our destiny in the hands of the impotent, sidekic- of-evil U.N. is not what our country needs to be safe.  Getting the approval of decadent European countries like France is not what our country needs to be safe; and electing someone who can't decide what he believes until the polls come in is most certainly not what our country needs to be safe. Having said this, I am interested to hear what John Kerry has to say tonight when he accepts his party's nomination.