politics, history and the war on terror
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Are They Serious? 

Editor's Note: I planned to look deeper into the platform discussed at the Democratic National Convention, but due to time constraints I focused the discussion related to terrorism, al Qaeda and radical Islam. I apologize about the format of the table below & will improve on this, time permitting.

The leadership of the Democrat party has spoken and it looks like the War on Terror is not worth much of a mention. In a search of the speeches of the party leadership there is very little mention of the threat of al Qaeda, terrorism or the Islamist ideology that threatens the safety of America.

The following table lists the speaker with a link to the speech and the number of time they mentioned terror/terrorism, al Qaeda, and Islam:

Clinton - 11, 0, 0
Gore - 3, 2, 0
Kennedy - 3, 1, 0
Obama - 0, 0, 0
Carter - 3, 0, 0
Hillary - 1, 0, 0
Teresa - 0, 0, 0
Gephardt - 2, 0, 0
Daschle - 2, 0, 0
Dean - 0, 0, 0
Edwards - 4, 1, 0
Kerry - 2, 0, 0

Totals - 30, 4, 0

Averages - 2.5, .33, 0

Former Vice President Al Gore mentioned al Qaeda twice in his speech, but both references are couched in negative terms towards President Bush. Al Qaeda is used as a rhetorical tool to fault the Bush Administration's actions in Iraq:

But in order to protect our people, shouldn't we focus on the real source of this threat: the group that attacked us and is trying to attack us again -- al Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden? Wouldn't we be safer with a President who didn't insist on confusing al Qaeda with Iraq?

Senator Kennedy, like Al Gore, mentioned al Qaeda only to attack President Bush.

They have made it harder to win the real war on terrorism, the war against
Al Qaeda.

Barack Obama is hailed as the future of the Democratic party and yet he cannot bring himself to mention either al Qaeda or terrorism. Senator Edward rhetoric was by far the strongest, and yet he mentioned al Qaeda once and terrorism four times. Senator Kerry failed to mention al Qaeda at all, and terrorism only twice. In fact, over one third (11) of the mentions of terrorism were made by one man, President Clinton.

The word Islam did not appear in any of the twelve speeches listed above. The party leadership made no attempt to define the origins of the terrorist threat we are currently fighting - the radical Islamist ideology bent on the destruction of Western civilization. Nor was there a serious discussion of a strategy to defeat it.

There is no doubt that after 9-11, the greatest dangers facing America are the web of international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and rogue nations that are willing to support terrorist or the spread of WMD. The security of this nation is the primary responsibility of the President of the United States, which is clearly outlined by Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, the oath of office:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If the leadership of the Democratic Party is unable discuss the current dangers facing America, it is reasonable to question their presidential candidate's willingness and ability to protect and defend America.


Posted by bill roggio @ 12:02 AM

|