NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been hearing that John Kerry "I'll fight a more sensitive war on terror," a lot on the news and I've begun seeing it pop up on the boards. Specifically I saw Formal Dances bring it up in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki thread, which prompted me to bring it up here, as it would have been inappropriate to discuss this issue in that thread. My question to the people that would continually bring this up: Can you people just not see through the painfully obvious spin?

What John Kerry said 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."

To paraphrase Jon Stewart: "More effective, more thoughtfuly, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive...Guess which one Dick Cheney focused on." If you said "sensitive", you get a cookie. Yes the Vice President decided to focus on this one word in Kerry's speech, saying that:
"A 'sensitive war' will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans," he said. "The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity."
Maybe the effective, thoughtful, stategic, and proactive parts of John Kerry's War on Terror will bring these people to justice, Mr. Vice President, seeing as how your War on Terror has failed to bring justice to any of the men you mentioned in your quote.

The terriblely funny part of all this is that the day after John Kerry made this remark, President Bush had said nearly the exact same thing:
"[America should be] sensitive about expressing our power and influence."

And so I am forced to ask: Do the people that would repeat Mr. Kerry's remark out of context simply not see the obvious spin the Bush Administration is placing on it?

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/080804.htm#081304

October 31, 2001
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Interview with Al Jazeera

Q: …you consider it also a political decision that the consequences of continuing [military operations] through Ramadan with your troops in Pakistan, where people would be outraged or other places in the Muslim and Arab world.

Of course, you know that President Mubarak and others called for this kind of a truce.

MYERS: Right. And I would just say that we are, I think, very culturally sensitive.

We go to the leaders at the political level and at the military level, and ask for their advice.

So actions we will take I think will be consistent with that advice.

But we're not unaware and we're not insensitive. These are important issues.

November 19, 2003
Stakeout on Capitol Hill After U.S. Senate Briefing

Q: …can you address this question about the military utility and the risks that are inherent in going after targets, the more intensified bombing, the risk increases of collateral damage despite all the care that goes into that.

MYERS: ...The commanders on the ground are responsible for the tactics.

They are very sensitive to the balance between appropriate military action and not trying to turn the average Iraqi against the coalition.

So they work this very hard.

They have taken great steps to minimize collateral damage and I think they’ve done a superb job as I understand it.

Nov. 9, 2001
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Radio Networks

Q: ...can I pick up on the Ramadan issue? We know that you and your colleagues have said there's no question of a pause in the terrorist campaign and I understand that.

We understand you can't say what you're going to do in advance.

But are you nevertheless open to some sort of gesture? We noticed for example that you did not bomb on the first Friday of the campaign.

Is it still possible, bearing in mind enormous sensitivity in the Muslim world, that something might be possible, can you give us a hint that you might be --

WOLFOWITZ: 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.

We're not going to write a blueprint for the Taliban or al Qaeda or the people that we're after to say oh, now you not only know that mosques are safe but these other sanctuaries are sanctuaries you can operate in.

But we will be sensitive.

I saw that episode. It made me laugh.

...a lot

...cause it was funny

the daily show....

"[mr bush,] i think the vice president just called you a pussy"

some days i just hate politics

Heh, I think someone ought to tell Cheney that not everyone in the world is the 'enemy.'

"Sensitivity? Sounds unmanly. America should be manly about this."

*snrk.* :)

So this is a thread (a collection of words) about a word (sensitivity) which is applied to another word (war)? It gets even worse when people start replying, because now its words about words about a word applied to a word. And then when someone replies to that . . .
Well you can guess.
IT'S MADNESS, MADNESS I TELL YOU!

Anyways, I think we should be sensitive about war. We should invite all our enemies over for some tea, biscuits, and a chat about the weather.
No I'm actually serious here. No joke at all. Don't beleive me?
Well thats because I forgot to mention the liberal dose of arsenic added to their tea (or coffee if they prefer, can't be too inconsiderate, y'know?).

lol yeah I think sensitive was the wrong word to use....

better words: conscious or understanding maybe

There you go world, us Americans are a bunch of "sensitive" sissies. lol