quote:Last week at a minority journalists’ convention Kerry 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.”
In resopnse, Cheney argued, “America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive.... A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans. ... The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity.... Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed”
Would American voters perceive Kerry's call for sensitivity as weakness or wisdom?
If you have been complaining about the lack of differences between Kerry and Bush on foreign policy, well, here you go. Clearly the Vice President believes there is a difference.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Cheney can continue to spin it as he did, instead of what Kerry likely meant, then yes, the American people may see it as weakness. If Kerry can correct the mischaracterization, then it won't.
But without specifics, it's still a meaningless description of his policy - it's goals, not methods.
posted
Well, I think some specifics can be extrapolated from those broad statements.
Based on his call for sensitivity, I'm guessing Kerry wouldn't be calling for any "crusades"; labeling any countries as "axis of evil"; making statements such as "you are either with us or against us"; or challenging his enemies to "bring it on."
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Will Kerry continue to try and destroy those who attempt to destroy us?
I think he will.
We all agree the ones who wish to kill us need to have their states changed.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
It's the thing that made september 11th 2001 so grotesque. It was a sneak attack on innocent people, only a sick evil creature plots such a heartless crime.
It is totally different from attacking the u.s. cole.
Battleships are OK in the rules of War, Women and Civilians are not.
You're a warrior if you attack a battleship, you are a scummy little piece of shit if you attack women and civilians.
We all want the scummy pieces of shit rendered to harmless.
<<<THOR>>>
[ August 13, 2004, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: The Silverblue Sun ]
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My God, this is almost worse than Bushisms. Unfortunately Kerry sometimes sounds moderately intelligent, which makes you believe his word choice was actually intentional. Sensitive war indeed Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
A "sensitive" war? Exsqueeze me? What the hell are we going to do, use harsh language?
I agree some of the actions taken in the "war" on terrorism have been less than practical or pragmatic, but c'mon - I don't know what his speech writers were smoking, but it couldn't have been legal.
quote: Would American voters perceive Kerry's call for sensitivity as weakness or wisdom?
Maybe not the most effective choice of words to motivate the voters, but I think I like what he is trying to say and do not see it as "weak" myself.
It's like all the good advice you hear of "don't work harder, work smarter". It sounds like he thinks he could run the war better than Bush. That is a valid point to convince America of and can be effective if he is specific about what he means.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got to tell you, the more I hear from Senator Kerry, the less I like him (and I wasn't voting for him unless it's really close in PA anyway), but this doesn't seem to me to be a bad way of expressing it. A sensitive war suggests to me using a lot more soft power as opposed to the "shock and awe" tactics that we tried and, in my opinion, failed with. Fighting terrorism inside the conventional military context doesn't work that well. I'm willing to bet, based on what I read on Kerry's comments, that this is the way that he was using it. Of course, I don't actually trust him to go through with it, but only stick with it as long as it polls well.
I'm getting even more disgusted with the PR nature of this election. It's like, "Hey, I've got a sound bite thta I can make the other person look bad with, even though I know that this isn't what they meant. So let's focus on that, and even when they've laid out a cogent explanation of what they meant, I'm going to ignore it in favor of calling them names." I really dug Bill Clinton's speech at the DNC convention specifically because he tried to get things onto an "Here's actually what we stand for, here's actually what they stand for. You choose between them." standing.
Let's face it, President Bush's people are freaking weasels when it comes to PR stuff. Their last campaign ran on PR and not issues and this one os shaping up to be the same. Senator Kerry is constantly disappointing me because he seems to be unwilling to actually talk about the issues that divide him from Bush too. I get it, you fought in Vietnam. I know around 25 other people who did too and they're not George Bush either, but I'm also not going to vote for them for President.
There's been a lot of condescension lately about the "Rock the Vote" voters who are supposedly basing their decisions on what their favorite celebrity tells them to vote for. I've read a few pieces talking about how they should just let "informed voters" do the voting and stay home and listen to their CDs. My whole thing is, are the people who are listening to the candidates any better informed about what matters than the "Rote the Vote" kiddies? George Bush has already shown that what he says and what he does (Compassionate conservatism, No Child Left Behind, AmeriCorps, fiscal responsibility, etc.) are two different things. John Kerry has provided little of substance and some of that seems blatantly aimed towards being the "electible" candidate.
And, if President Bush stays true to form, the only face-to-face confrontation over the issues we're going to see is going to be restricted to a 25 minute stop-over in St. Villa Maria middle school where he and John Kerry will answer questions solely though quoting their favorite songs and movies.
- "Mr. President: Stem cell research. Wierd Science or She blinded me with science?" - "Neither. Jesus Crist Superstar." - "Mr. President, that's been your answer to the last five questions."
I've seen high school student council campaigns that have been conducted with more substance and less PR labeling. What's next, commercials that just repeat "Kerry, Kerry, wussyberry"?
posted
Yes, I am. If more people did and didn't just say "Oh, they're politicians." and leave it at that, we might see some actual changes. Instead, we get to chose being getting hit in the groin with a football and having it shoved up our poo...err nose.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I am a naively foolish dreamer, but I hope and wish for the day when we have politicians that campaign by explaining themselves intelligently and telling us what they think is important and what they will do about it rather than wasting time trying to tell you how rotten and awful the other candidate is.
But if they are going to attack the other side, let it be for legitimate reasons and not pettiness!
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Snicker. I wasn't being sarcastic. Well, maybe just a little bit.
But as much as I enjoy wallowing in my pessimism if only for the fact I am so rarely proven wrong - someone has to keep the flicker of hope and optimism alive.
quote:And, if President Bush stays true to form, the only face-to-face confrontation over the issues we're going to see is going to be restricted to a 25 minute stop-over in St. Villa Maria middle school where he and John Kerry will answer questions solely though quoting their favorite songs and movies.
The Democrats have obviously decided that the best way to win this election is the "NOT BUSH" platform.
The less Kerry says, the less people he will offend. He just have to look pretty and look presidential. This strategy worked wonders for the Republicans during the last election.
Al Gore was all about policy specifics, that obviously didn't help him that much.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trevor, See, my problem with characterizing it like that is that it's like responding to a girl who's said "I'm going to find a guy who doesn't beat me." with "Wow, you're such an optimist."
My honest opinion is that both of these guys are going to screw up the country. And, when we elect one of them, it's going to set it up for a choice between two other people who are going to screw up the country, etc. I'm pretty sure maybe 9 out of 10 of the people reading this basically agree with my assessment that neither are going to make a good President. To turn it around, if you actually care about the health of the country, you are throwing your vote away by voting for either of the two major parties. You give the crappy way they've been running things your support. The only way to put an end to this is to withdraw your support, even if it hurts you in the short run. I thought we learned the hard lessons about appeasement in World War II, but they're playing themselves out again in contemporary American politics.
It's not a matter of optimism really. It's a matter of the current state of things being intolerable. I don't so much really believe that things are going to change as much as I'm very scared that if they don't our country is heading for a major crash.
I'm not going to go back to my abusive boyfriend because there is somebody out there who will treat me worse. I'm not going to forgive him just because he said he loves me. When given a choice between someone who's going to break my arm as opposed to someone that's just going to give me a black eye , I'm not going to settle for either choice. It's sad that so many people do settle, and then semi-convince themselves that they get treated good because he buys them flowers every once in a while.
posted
On the contrary, MrSquicky, not voting for one of the two candidates who have a chance of winning is throwing away your vote. Though admittedly even voting for any third candidate is far far FAR better than not voting at all.
So the choice is very clear: Vote for Dubya who has a clear record of what he will do as President; and tell the politicians that you are happy with the direction that this current Administration is taking the country. Vote for a third candidate to tell the politicians that you are willing to put up with the status quo. Vote for Kerry who has no Presidential record; to inform the politicians that even mere hope is better that "the devil you know". Or don't vote; which tells the politicians that you don't care what they do to your family, friends, and neighbors.
The choice is yours. Just don't make it naively, to maintain your ideological "chastity": effective politics ain't for virgins.
*searches for softer words to use in expressing the gloom and disappointment that permeate yet another election based on speculative bu*lsh*t - if only to be a little more PC and therefore socially acceptable*
*wonders when the masses will unplug their headphones and rise up in righteous anger*
posted
I agree with his the comment concerning a "sensitive war." We can't kill all of our enemies, and killing the wrong ones only produces ten more in their place. Haven't we learned anything from watching Israel for the last 25 years?
I can't be the only one who believes that Kerry is talking sense, and that Bush would have been better off with a more sensitive approach. This means keeping Saddam in the box we had him in and combing through Afghanistan bolstering their economy and hunting down terrorists. The only countries Bush is overly sensitive with are Saudi Arabia and the American upper class.
posted
Perhaps "sensible war" would have been a better choice of words for Mr. Kerry than "sensitive".
But hey, Kerry is working at running on the "anyone but Bush" groundswell that may be more Hollywood Hype than actual support. He often looks and acts like his win is a lock and, in truth, it is far from it.
The "sensitive" comment just gave his opponent tons of ammunition and the GOP machine will get every inch of mileage out of it they can. They are saavy and such opportunities make their faithful cheer. What's more important is that they can spin it easily to sway a few of the swing voters (and there are reams of them this time around).
And it's going to be those swing voters that make this next election. The party faithful that turn out to bang the drums and cast a party-wide ballots are about even for the Dems and Republicans.
Kerry had better smarten up about this or he'll lose the whole shooting match.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have any of you considered what an insensitive "War on Terror" means? Would you want to use a bomb-sniffing dog with an insensitive nose? How about metal detectors insensitive to guns and knives? Maybe an AttorneyGeneral so insensitive to FBI search warrant requests that he places them at the bottom of his priorities, like Ashcroft did before 9/11? Or a NationalSecurityAdvisor so insensitive to intelligence operations that she blows the cover of a very important anti-terrorist sting operation just to play politics with the American public.
posted
aspectre, I think you are taking a very cynical world view of politics and elections. One of your tacit assumptions is that 2 parties will always be good enough; I don't know that this can be proved.
Also, a vote in an election not only has a direct effect in that election, it _also_ has implications for future elections. In the case of the third party vote, these latter considerations can be more important than the immediate election result. This is especially true for third parties, since it helps them to get or stay on ballots for future elections, gain recognition for funding, and just general legitimacy.
If you look at a vote solely in the microcosm of the the specific election, your stance has merit, but I think it ignores that there are side effects to your vote that also give concrete results, even if they are not immediate. So it comes down to how important you feel a third party candidate represents your views and priorities. The only criticism at that point of the 3rd-party vote that I can think of would be that you shouldn't vote your political ideals; I think that's rather ghastly.
posted
I'd have to agree with Bok, whole-heartedly. If a third party candidate most closely reflects your beliefs and ideals, then NOT voting for them would truly be throwing your vote away.
Would a third party candidate win the next presidential election? No way. How about the next? Maybe, who knows. But if no one turns out to vote for them because they'd "be throwing away their votes" then those dreams and ideals wither away and die.
Perot had the best shot in the last 20 years as an independent and I thought that the party structure that was being put together would have had a shot, eventually. Too much emphasis was placed on the man (both by the media and opposing political parties) and when he was no longer viable, the whole thing fell through.
Will we someday have a three party system? Maybe, but only transitionally as one of the two big parties fades out.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is a vote for a third party considered wasted? Well, it is because the major two parties have forced it to be. To open up elections and waste no one's vote, there needs to be a runoff between the top two vote getters in any election that has no one getting > 50% votes.
Now the problem with this is that it would only work well if we had a national election without the use of the electoral college. I guess we could have runoffs in individual states... but that would be ugly.
Why don't we have runoffs? My guess is that neither the Dems or Reps want them.
posted
Following up on this thread... folks have gone back through Bush Administration speeches and found lots of times when Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al used "sensitive" in describing their war aims...
[QUOTE]PRESIDENT BUSH STRESSES NEED TO BE "SENSITIVE" IN MILTARY AFFAIRS: On 3/4/01, President Bush stressed the need to be "sensitive" in conducting military affairs, stating, "because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence." And just last week, President Bush said, "In terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that."
SPECIAL FORCES STATE NEED TO FIGHT "SENSITIVE WAR ON TERRORISM": The Bush campaign's latest salvo, while aimed at Kerry, also is an attack on the military's top special forces commanders. On 7/20/04, the Bush administration sent one of the Air Force's top special forces officers to Capitol Hill to assuage concerns about tactics being used in the War on Terror. In his testimony, Chief Master Sgt. Robert Martens reassured Republican Chairman Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) that "our special operators offer a seasoned, culturally sensitive war on terrorism."
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY SAYS MILITARY MUST NOT BE INSENSITIVE: On 4/13/04, Cheney said the Bush administration was focused on conducting sensitive military operations. He stated, "We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We're not insensitive to that. We work almost on a continual basis with the local officials to remove points of friction and reduce the extent to which problems arise in terms of those relationships."
RUMSFELD STRESSES NEED TO BE "SENSITIVE" IN THE WAR: In the lead up to the Iraq war and afterwards, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised the Pentagon would be "sensitive." On 2/5/03, he said "we have to be sensitive, to the extent the world thinks the United States is focused on the problems in Iraq, it's conceivable that someone could make a mistake and believe that that's an opportunity for them to take an action which they otherwise would have avoided." On 7/9/03, he reassured the public that his department was being "sensitive" to troop needs during the war. He said U.S. commanders are "sensitive to the importance of troops knowing what the rotation plan will be so they have some degree of certainty in their lives. And [they] are sensitive to the importance of the quality of their lives."
GEN. RICHARD MYERS SAYS MILITARY NEEDS TO BE "SENSITIVE" IN WAR: On 10/31/01, Gen. Richard Myers, Bush's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about whether the military would be "sensitive" to religious issues in prosecuting the War on Terror. He said "We are, I think, very culturally sensitive." On 1/7/03, Myers touted the Army's ability to be "sensitive." He said "we can ask of our troops to go out there and be, on the one hand, very sensitive to cultural issues, on the other hand, be ready to respond in self-defense to a very ticklish situation, all at the same time." On 11/19/03, Myers said U.S. troops "are very sensitive to the balance between appropriate military action and not trying to turn the average Iraqi against the coalition."
GEN. TOMMY FRANKS SAID THE WHITE HOUSE MADE SURE TO BE "SENSITIVE": On 7/10/03, Gen. Tommy Franks went to Capitol Hill to answer questions about the War on Terror. He said the Bush administration explicitly understood the "sensitive" need for the U.S. to continue pursuing al Qaeda in Afghanistan, instead of appearing like it was solely focused on Iraq. Franks said, "Everyone from the president to Secretary Rumsfeld right through me were very sensitive, to be sure, that our operations moved ahead in Afghanistan in parallel with what we were doing in Iraq."
ASHCROFT CLAIMS THE ADMINISTRATION IS BEING "SENSITIVE" IN WAR ON TERROR: Attorney General John Ashcroft has repeatedly stressed the need for the Bush administration to be "sensitive" in fighting the War on Terror. On 4/28/03, just a month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Ashcroft said, "The United States is very sensitive about interfering in the internal politics of other countries." On 3/20/02, he said the Justice Department was making sure to be "sensitive" in hunting down terrorists. He said, "The agents and officers who conducted the interviews did so in a sensitive manner, showing full respect for the rights and dignity of the individuals being interviewed."
CHENEY & LOTT URGE MILITARY TO BE SENSITIVE IN CONDUCTING WAR: In conducting the first war in Iraq, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney repeatedly stressed the need for America to fight a "sensitive" war. On 9/11/90, Cheney told Congress that he "was very concerned about…the clash of cultures" brought on by U.S. troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, and that the U.S. must "try to be sensitive." Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) concurred, saying, "I would agree to that. I think [the Saudis] are sensitive, but we also are sensitive."
CHENEY SAYS PENTAGON MUST BE "SENSITIVE" IN DEVELOPING WEAPONS: On 2/7/90, Cheney told Congress that the Pentagon must be "sensitive" in developing weapons. He said that he understood the need for the Pentagon to explore civilian uses of weapons-related technology, saying, "I think we need to be very sensitive to that as a department."
WOLFOWITZ SAYS MILITARY MUST BE "SENSITIVE" IN WAR ON TERROR: On 11/9/01, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a key hawk on military issues, said the armed forces must be "sensitive" to religious issues surrounding the War on Terror. He said, "I think we've made it clear we're going to be sensitive to the fact that Ramadan is the holiest month on the Muslim calendar and we will have that in mind."
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was wonderin if anyone was gonna bring out Bush and Co.'s use of the word Sensitive. Guess some were too busy slamming Kerry to think about him not having the corner on that word.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
