1
   

Who's the more sensitive, Kerry or Bush?

 
 
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 05:55 pm
The S-word applies to Bush and Cheney, too
By CLARENCE PAGE


A "more sensitive" war on terror? That's a joke, except when Team Bush wants to have one.


Such is the not-so-subtle message in Vice President Dick Cheney's ridicule of John Kerry's call for a "more sensitive" war on terror.

"America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive," Cheney told supporters in Dayton, Ohio, last Thursday. "A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans. ... The men who beheaded (U.S. citizens) Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity."

Cheney's implied message to a crowd heavy with men and women who, unlike Cheney, are military veterans was that war vet Kerry sounds like a wussy compared to the manly men and women of Team Bush. Was Cheney right about Kerry? Or, astonishing as it may be to comprehend, was he quoting Kerry out of context? I report; you decide:

Cheney was referring to Kerry's statement a week earlier at the UNITY Convention for journalists of color in Washington, D.C. In context, the Democratic presidential nominee said: "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."

Got that? Kerry called for a "more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive" war on terror, as well as more "sensitive," the adjective upon which Cheney chose to wail away.

"Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively," Cheney also said, triggering applause. "They need to be destroyed." Sage words from a man who said on national television that triumphant American troops would be greeted with flowers in the streets of Iraq. Our troops are still waiting for those flowers.

"As our opponents see it," Cheney said, "the problem isn't the thugs and murderers that we face, but our attitude. We, the American people, know better."

But Cheney's own superior doesn't seem to agree with him on the matter of sensitivity.

President Bush just happened to speak to the same UNITY Convention a day after Kerry and in answer to a question there, Bush said, "Now, in terms of, you know, the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice, obviously we need to be very sensitive on that," emphasizing the S-word.

Does Cheney not pay much attention to what his boss actually says about foreign policy?

Or, for that matter, does Cheney pay much attention to what Cheney says about foreign policy? I raise that question because Cheney himself spoke on conservative Hugh Hewitt's syndicated radio show regarding the siege of the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf, declaring that the shrine "is a sensitive area and we are very much aware of its sensitivity."

That's reassuring. As Kerry was trying to say, a little sensitivity goes a long way. In its hasty run-up to war with Iraq, U.S. missteps show a need for this nation to be more "sensitive," not to its enemies, but to its allies. Instead of throwing American might, money, men and women into battle alone or nearly alone against all threats, America needs the sort of leadership that brings other nations along with us as effective partners. That's how George Bush built a truly strong coalition to chase Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

As candidate Bush said during a debate with Vice President Al Gore in 2000, "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us, if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power and that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom."

I can hardly improve on that. America does not need to seek a "permission slip," as Bush more recently put it, from anyone, but we should seek the cooperation of everyone. Whether Bush or Kerry wins the November contest, it is not enough simply to show our neighbors, enemy and allies alike, how tough we are. Our neighbors have received that message, but we should not always expect them to love us for it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Page is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist specializing in urban issues. He is based in Washington, D.C. ([email protected])

Return to topSENSITIVE
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,374 • Replies: 24
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 05:25 pm
"Sensitive" used by Kerry ridiculed, while Republicans can use it anytime they wish.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 05:29 pm
Kerry is right now cuz his ass is hurtin'.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 05:37 pm
How is your statement germane to the topic?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 06:19 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
How is your statement germane to the topic?


Have you read this thread?

Is this ok for your liberal buddies to do? When someone from the other side does it, it is a problem?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 06:21 pm
In which way is that thread germane to my topic?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 06:24 pm
It isn't, but people have done it to another's thread and I see no complaint. I guess unless everyone decides to play fair all threads are fair play.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 06:31 pm
Since would-be detractors don't seem to have anything to actually detract from this article, I'll just say thanks for posting it, it makes good points.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 06:34 pm
Every memeber has the right to sidetrack a thread if they so choose. Have at it. But don't expect me to play.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 06:48 pm
sozobe wrote:
Since would-be detractors don't seem to have anything to actually detract from this article, I'll just say thanks for posting it, it makes good points.


I will say this, when you are in situations there is a time to be careful. Look at the battle in Najaf. According to the Army rules of engagement we could have gone in there and killed every one of those suckers but we didn't. We didn't want to destroy this "Holy place" and anger the Muslims. We should have done it anyways to show them that they can't play these cheap run and hide games. If you're going to fight then fight, don't hide in a "holy place".

When it comes to the War on terror in general we can't be sensitive. Clinton was sensitive and look where it got us. 9/11 happened along with about 4 other terrorists attacks that killed loads of people. I happen to think Kerry won't take this war as a real thing. He has already said that he won't wait for them to strike, but would strike first. What does he think 9/11 was?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 06:56 pm
So, that goes for Bush's comment, too, right?

Bush wrote:
"Now, in terms of, you know, the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice, obviously we need to be very sensitive on that,"


The point of this is that you can't have it both ways. It's a reasonable word to use -- and both Bush and Kerry used it -- or it's not a reasonable word to use -- and both Bush and Kerry used it.

So how come Cheney gets to lay into Kerry for using the same word, in the same sense, that his boss used it?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 07:09 pm
Kerry was speaking about his total war on terror. Bus was refering to bringing people down and the way in which you collect the intel to do so.

It's not my fault Kerry wants to hold hands with the terrorists and sing caring songs.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 07:13 pm
And who exactly is saying that Kerry wants to hold hands with the terrorists and sing caring songs? I could as easily say that Bush wants to hold hands with terrorist suspects and sing caring songs with them before interrogating them.

Bush was referring to bringing people down and the way in which you collect the intel to do so... as part of the war on terror. Which is the same context as Kerry was using it.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 07:32 pm
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 07:37 pm
sozobe wrote:
And who exactly is saying that Kerry wants to hold hands with the terrorists and sing caring songs? I could as easily say that Bush wants to hold hands with terrorist suspects and sing caring songs with them before interrogating them.

Bush was referring to bringing people down and the way in which you collect the intel to do so... as part of the war on terror. Which is the same context as Kerry was using it.
We know Bush doesn't want to hold their hands. From what you liberals think we are torturing every single person we have in custody. Bush has been effective and forward in this campaign against terrorists. He hasn't cut them any slack and it is working.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 07:42 pm
OK, "working" is debatable, but to avoid digression:

We know Kerry doesn't want to hold their hands, either. How come one gets to say "sensitive" and the other gets pilloried for it?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 07:45 pm
sozobe wrote:
OK, "working" is debatable, but to avoid digression:

We know Kerry doesn't want to hold their hands, either. How come one gets to say "sensitive" and the other gets pilloried for it?
It was the way in which it was used. We all know he isn't going to be tough on terror. I mean this is the same guy who sold his solider brothers out for some fame and a picture in the NV communist hall of fame. He made it so that our country had to pay money to the enemy. Do you call that tough by any sense of the word?
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 07:47 pm
Maybe the question should be: "Is it alright for any candidate to take another candidate's words out of context in order to make him or her look foolish?

To me, that's dirty politics.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 07:54 pm
I agree, Diane.

Yes, I call Kerry tough for a lot of reasons. For going to Vietnam when he could have cushied his way out like Bush. For going to war, and saving Rassman's life. But especially for standing up for what he believed in and doing what he could to end the war, once he was back. Everything I've read about his plans for what he wants to do once he takes office is as if not more tough than Bush (in terms of putting the 9/11 commission recommendations into effect, for example) -- it's just that "strength and wisdom are not opposing values."
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2004 09:15 pm
What Democrats are saying, in essence, is, Let's do this smarter. The Republicans take every choice of words Dems use to that effect, mangle them until they can be squeezed into a contemptuous put-down and then toss it out there to the public, repeating even the most ridiculous charges as whole truth. The media reports the distortions over and over, and the real issues get sidetracked. The most blatant non-issue created in this way is of the Swiftboats. It's a story that ought to have died a natural death in less than twenty four hours. Without the so-called liberal media it would have done so.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Who's the more sensitive, Kerry or Bush?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/13/2024 at 08:12:08