"With all due respect to the senator, it just sounded so foolish," she said. "I can't imagine that al Qaeda will be impressed by sensitivity."
She went on to say Kerry's comment was an expression of an "extreme left" idea that Americans bear responsibility for the terrorism now threatening them.
"'If we'll just adjust our attitude' seems to be the idea," she said. "This is the kind of left-wing foolishness that certainly isn't appropriate for someone who would seek to be commander-in-chief."
The Kerry campaign Thursday said that the senator's comment was being "taken out of context" and the "meaning twisted" by the Bush/Cheney campaign.

Would anyone care to put into proper context what sensibilities were in question?

Well, I’d guess that by “sensitive” he meant sensitive to the broader effects and consequences of the decisions to be made – not sensitive to terrorists themselves.

So ridiculously complex, that Kerry fellow.

K

Would that be
"sensitive to the broader effects and consequences of the decisions to be made" that led to the US being stabbed in the back by our said allies when we asked them to help enforce UN resolutions and a peace treaty? or was that our arrogance again?

Hmm; I dunno. Your question is more confusing than the original statement.

I'm just taking a guess at what Kerry meant when he used the word "sensitive." Might not have been the best word to use, but only because people like Cheney insist on feigning bewilderment and offense instead of being honest and saying: "We understand what Senator Kerry is saying, but we think he misunderstands how the War on Terror realistically works, and he needs to be more specific." (Or something along those lines, rather than "Extreme left foolish Leftist liberal nonsense SENSITIVE TO TERRORISTS who is this Leftist leftie kidding this man is unfit for command he sounds silly.")

K

So you think that
was not implied?

This shows what a bunch of diengenious liars Bush and his supporters are. Kerry used the word "sensitive" to mean "careful"... and I think most Americans would agree that we should be careful in executing the war on terror (so we don't - oh, say INVADE THE WRONG COUNTRY).

But Bush and his little "Hoorah For Big Government!" cretin X-height are trying to portray it as if Kerry meant "sensitive" in an Alan Alda / Deepak Chopra sense. And they know damn well that isn't the context he was speaking in.

But hey! The truth has never mattered to Bush (or X-height, for that matter).

It was taken out of context, I challenge X-Height to find the whole statement and put it up in this thread, since he brought it up. The statement that Kerry made, not the snippet that Cheney whored out this morning.

Does it matter in the broader context of the election? Of course not, but the dishonesty and disingenuousness of the current administration is pissing me off.

And it's pissing a lot of others off too, as you'll see in just a few weeks, when Bush and Cheney are the "moot points".

But Xheight needs to bring us up to speed on what the exact quote is, since he posted an out of context reference to it. I know I'm not looking for it, because I think it's all republican spin and lies anyway, one which paints Xheight in it's cynical swath otherwise.

Vaguely. I mean, I could say "I think X-Height is a big fat turd," and "I think his criticism makes no sense" would certainly be implied. But I still think A and B are two different things. (And, that's just an example; I do not think you're a big fat turd.)

I do think this is Cheney cherry-picking one lone word and using her willful misunderstanding of its context as an excuse to mock the Left while misrepresenting Kerry's overall statement, though.

K

PS - Jack, the full quote was: "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." I'd look up the full speech but I've gotta run.

Do we or I know any such thing? Perhaps if we took it as prima face as you do that the Dems and Kerry in particular represented a party that put principle first and perceptions second then this would not resonate as fully as it does. Rather Dems are identified as the party of PC Alan Alda types and the full quote and context does nothing in particular to suggest otherwise.
Kerry spokesman Phil Singer told CNN the Democratic candidate was referring to cooperation with allies. President Bush himself, Singer said, used the word "sensitive" in a similar context in March 2001, when he said the United States should be "sensitive about expressing our power and influence."
Cheney was referring to Kerry's statement last week at a minority journalists' convention, where he 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."
So yes I think Cheney was implying that "we think he misunderstands how the War on Terror realistically works" by this very statement and that it is correct because the hurt feeling of the world are and were a front for other motives.
Point being if he intended careful why not say careful instead of a code word that Bush hurts people's feelings and that prosecuting the war has hurt people's feelings.

So when Phil Singer says that we have acted with arrogance it gets my blood up as in insult - I would like to know why people have taken sides with the Europeans over the exercise of American power. It proved to me that their 9/11 sympathies were a sham or worse that they can only respect an America that is weak and vulnerable.

Is it so hard to understand that the events that transpired over the UN involvement was the careful manipulation of euro leaders of their countries popular distaste for American power to buttress the intransigence that already had over Iraq based on their strategic and economic interests regardless of how or what Bush said or did.

Can someone honestly tell me that the harrumph over the Kyoto Accords is nothing more than a fig leaf for them putting their dick in our face.

Thanks to madget, and thanks to Xheight for pointing out what a fascist neocon dupe he really is.

See if that's the quote word for word, then Cheney should be held up to the light for the opportunist lying fuck he truly is.

We'll all see how this washes out anyway in November, won't we? I mean, if you think that those fascists are going to lie their way into four more years, then you are fucking stupider than they are.

Watch the "Daily Show" rerun this evening, and enjoy the videoclip of George W. Bush-- speaking to the same group at the same location 1 day earlier than Kerry did-- as he says that when it comes to gathering evidence and going after people, we need to be "sensitive."

The fact that someone mentioned Alan Alda shows how retarded this thread, and this 1-day non-issue is. Didn't "M*A*S*H" go off the air over 22 years ago?

So what allies stabbed the US in the back? Canada? Mexico? If the US truly feels this way, then why not put up and shut up and take your selves out of NAFTA and place trade embargos on 'em. Fair enough?

Your closest neighbour did not see any sense if fighting unjustified, unnecessary, ill-thought out, wars with a convient scapegoat.

The truth is that the UN inspections, despite obstacles, did it's job and UN resolutions were being observed. The proof is in the lack of WMD being found. Containment worked in Iraq. They haven't been a threat to the US or the Western world for over a decade.

Canada and Mexico are sovereign nations and we will respectfully disagree with US foreign policy in many cases. No one stabbed the US in the back except itself.

Many people are hearing the quote and thinking: Didn't Bush reach out to other nations and bring them on side to war? There's no difference.

What I think people forget is that the War in Iraq had nothing to do with any "War on Terror". The US allienated its traditional allies with the war in Iraq.

Remind me of when Canada and Mexico where on the Security Council?



After they said No we don't want to go and we don't want you to go either.

Is it that people disagree with the order of events that led up to the war?

Here is the way that I and number of people see it.

Bush made a decision to remove the threat that Iraq presented.

He and Powell went to the UN and said this is why and what we are going to do about it and we believe that under our treaty we have a right to do so...so will you help us do so.

We went and the world hates us for..

First off you weren't talking about the UN Security Council.

Second the US did not go to the UN with a resolution to invade Iraq at that specific time. It didn't attempt to get such a UN approval, because it didn't think it would pass. I think that says something about how the world thought of this unnecessary war. So the US had to fabricate it's own adhoc multinatinal force.

Let's see... the UN thought it was a bad idea, NATO thought it was a bad idea... So the US brought together a rag-tag bunch of nations to fight an illegal war. They used the banner of enforcing past UN resolutions as there vindication even when the invasion was not given the OK by a specific resolution.

Yes the world hates you (the U.S.) for fabricating evidence, bending intelligence to fit policy, out right lying, and endangering the citizens of other nations for the right-wing foreign policy of an elitist Acting American Administration. Did Powell ever go back on TV to show how they captured or found any of those mobile chemical labs they presented to the United Nations and the world? No, he didn't. They were fabricated. They didn't exist, much like the other invented reasons for going to war.

you know what animal - you are Canada so it really doesn't matter if you believe the US was



It makes me sorry that you jumped at these distortions but we will still be where we want to be tomorrow - in Iraq and kicking ass.

I hope that doesn't hurt your feelings.

YEAH, MAN! Alan Alda sucks! Colonel Flagg rules!

Speak for yourself, Exciteable. Not all US folks want to "be in Iraq, kicking ass"

You fucking fascist neocons make my nipples stiff, I swear to God.

Not all US folks want to "be in Iraq, kicking ass"

Then since I am only speaking for myself right now on what I believe are the aims of this administration (http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2393332) let’s have a vote on it. Come November I guess we will know where America stands on being in Iraq. Oh wait – Kerry is committed to Iraq too and that vote he made.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Petersen0814.htm

Here is what a Kerry spokesman said, in reference to the candidates’ military records: “Do the President and vice president really want a debate about who is more suited to fight the war in Iraq and the War on Terror? Do they really want a debate about which candidate has the toughness to make America stronger?”
Sounds like America already agrees…to me at least

jack - I hardly know you but I am glad the internet can provide you with such excitement.