'A More Sensitive War on Terror'

I find this whole thing very frustrating. If you actually read what he said:

we need to 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.'

It is very clear what he is saying. I think it is ridiculous to take the statement out of context and to start trying to assign a different meaning to it. If people want to debate the statement above, then fine -- but to make judgements based on a sound bite seized upon by **** Cheney is to diminish the real issues that we are facing as a country and to argue over semantics.

---

Posted by lesleyw

I find this whole thing very frustrating. If you actually read what he said:

we need to 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.'

It is very clear what he is saying. I think it is ridiculous to take the statement out of context and to start trying to assign a different meaning to it. If people want to debate the statement above, then fine -- but to make judgements based on a sound bite seized upon by **** Cheney is to diminish the real issues that we are facing as a country and to argue over semantics.

---

---

Posted by lesleyw

If people want to debate the statement above, then fine -- but to make judgements based on a sound bite seized upon by **** Cheney is to diminish the real issues that we are facing as a country and to argue over semantics.

---

Whoops...Meant to add, that I like this!

I don't think that he what he said was 'very clear.' In fact, his policy on counterrorism has never been clearly stated...just some general platitudes that don't give any real insight into where his mind is or what policies he intends to implement if he becomes commander in chief. So, I don't believe we are arguing 'semantics.' I think his use of the word 'sensitive' was an odd choice given the subject and people can and should call him out on it without being called 'damn stupid.'
'You know some Kerry handlers cringed when the word 'sensitive' slipped out of Kerry's mouth. 'Sensitive' isn't one of the adjectives most people want describing America's war on terrorism.' This sentence is a quote from the below article, which I thought made some good points re: Kerry's policy on the war on terrorism.


All Allies, All the Time
Kerry puts the cart before the horse.
Jonah Goldberg

In one of my favorite episodes of M*A*S*H, Hawkeye and Trapper John were desperate to procure a medical incubator. They found their way to a corrupt supply sergeant who had three. The sergeant explained that he couldn't give the docs one of his incubators because, if he did, then he wouldn't have three anymore. He'd only have two, and two is worse than three.

This seems like the perfect metaphor for the 'Kerry Doctrine.' With the constant promises from almost every speaker at the Democratic convention that a President Kerry would create 'strong alliances' as his backdrop, John Kerry declared this week that he will pursue a 'more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side.'

You know some Kerry handlers cringed when the word 'sensitive' slipped out of Kerry's mouth. 'Sensitive' isn't one of the adjectives most people want describing America's war on terrorism. It's like promising weapons systems 'softer than a baby's bottom.'

Regardless, for Kerry the vital issue is playing nicely with others. The New Republic's Peter Beinart recently wrote, 'Intellectually, Kerry knows he must show he'd go after the terrorists with a vengeance. But that's not where his heart lies. The topic that arouses his greatest passion — the one that has guided his entire career — is improving America's relations with the world.' In his 1997 book, Kerry called for the creation of an 'entirely new, multilateral code of behavior.' In 1993, during the confirmation hearings for Warren Christopher, Kerry called for 'an all-out effort to strengthen international institutions.' Two years later, Kerry broke with many Senate Democrats and voted against lifting the Bosnian arms embargo, mostly because he wanted Europeans to like us. The Washington Post reported that when Bill Clinton called America the 'indispensable nation' in his second inaugural address, Kerry lamented Clinton's 'arrogant, obnoxious tone.'

And, Beinart notes, 'even the 1991 Gulf war, which Kerry's aides now cite as a model of multilateral cooperation, struck him as suspiciously unilateral at the time.' Back then, Kerry said, the anti-Saddam coalition 'lacks a true United Nations collective security effort, with the full measure of international cooperation and burden-sharing.'

This is all consistent with liberal rhetoric for the last three years. How many times have we been told that George W. Bush 'squandered' the good will of the world 'community' after 9/11? The assumption behind all of this seemed to be that anything which cost America the support of allies like France or Germany was, in effect, too costly. In other words, the means — 'strong alliances' — are more important than the ends — winning the war on terror, toppling Saddam, and so forth. Listening to these folks, one gets the sense that America's greatest foreign-policy triumph was to get sucker-punched on 9/11 because it resulted in sympathetic newspaper headlines in Paris and Berlin.

Consider Kerry's seemingly final explanation for why he voted for a war he now condemns Bush for waging. He says he wanted Bush to have the authority to go to war in order to build up a mighty coalition to oust Saddam. But he says he didn't think Bush should actually go to war without such a coalition. Now that we know there weren't any obvious, imminently usable stockpiles of WMDs, that case looks better today than it did then. But Kerry deserves little credit on that score, since he too was certain that Saddam had such weapons.

Still, I agree that a mightier coalition than the one we had would have been nice. Indeed, if President Bush could have enlisted that indestructible ghost army from the third Lord of the Rings movie to do our fighting for us, that would have been really great. But, in the real world, Kerry's position puts the cart before the horse. Was the goal to topple Saddam and secure the WMDs, or was the goal to get a bunch of folks to do it with us? Indeed, Kerry thought the first Gulf War Coalition couldn't meet Kerry's standard.

Now, there is one caveat to the Kerry Doctrine of international hand-holding. If America is attacked, he says he wouldn't hesitate to respond with force. That's nice, I guess. But what else is he going to say? 'If America is attacked, I promise to play Boggle in the Oval Office!' He makes it sound like he's the first president to have the courage to commit to a policy of retaliation to attacks. Has any president actually rejected such a policy?

Kerry promises 'I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.' Again, great. But no major candidate has ever promised to do otherwise. More importantly, the U.N. wouldn't need to have a veto over our national security with a President Kerry in office, since no situation obviously meets his standards for force except a direct attack. Kerry's like the sergeant from M*A*S*H who doesn't care what the incubators are supposed to be used for, so long as they're never used. For Kerry, no goal is worth losing allies, because keeping allies is Kerry's only goal.

Copyright (c) 2004 Tribune Media Services

---

Posted by 121502

---

Posted by BMD'sPeanut

Sigh...

My bottom line is:
1) I think it's a damn tough job running the USA...
2) I'm not sure any citizen is really, truly up to the task...

---

This is totally off topic...but I just have to laugh when I read your posts because I picture you talking with that bow hat on your head The picture is adorable!

---

i picture that too!!!!

too funny!!

---

Posted by Bride626

I don't think that he what he said was 'very clear.' In fact, his policy on counterrorism has never been clearly stated...just some general platitudes that don't give any real insight into where his mind is or what policies he intends to implement if he becomes commander in chief. So, I don't believe we are arguing 'semantics.' I think his use of the word 'sensitive' was an odd choice given the subject and people can and should call him out on it without being called 'damn stupid.'
'You know some Kerry handlers cringed when the word 'sensitive' slipped out of Kerry's mouth. 'Sensitive' isn't one of the adjectives most people want describing America's war on terrorism.' This sentence is a quote from the below article, which I thought made some good points re: Kerry's policy on the war on terrorism.


All Allies, All the Time
Kerry puts the cart before the horse.
Jonah Goldberg

In one of my favorite episodes of M*A*S*H, Hawkeye and Trapper John were desperate to procure a medical incubator. They found their way to a corrupt supply sergeant who had three. The sergeant explained that he couldn't give the docs one of his incubators because, if he did, then he wouldn't have three anymore. He'd only have two, and two is worse than three.

This seems like the perfect metaphor for the 'Kerry Doctrine.' With the constant promises from almost every speaker at the Democratic convention that a President Kerry would create 'strong alliances' as his backdrop, John Kerry declared this week that he will pursue a 'more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side.'

You know some Kerry handlers cringed when the word 'sensitive' slipped out of Kerry's mouth. 'Sensitive' isn't one of the adjectives most people want describing America's war on terrorism. It's like promising weapons systems 'softer than a baby's bottom.'

Regardless, for Kerry the vital issue is playing nicely with others. The New Republic's Peter Beinart recently wrote, 'Intellectually, Kerry knows he must show he'd go after the terrorists with a vengeance. But that's not where his heart lies. The topic that arouses his greatest passion — the one that has guided his entire career — is improving America's relations with the world.' In his 1997 book, Kerry called for the creation of an 'entirely new, multilateral code of behavior.' In 1993, during the confirmation hearings for Warren Christopher, Kerry called for 'an all-out effort to strengthen international institutions.' Two years later, Kerry broke with many Senate Democrats and voted against lifting the Bosnian arms embargo, mostly because he wanted Europeans to like us. The Washington Post reported that when Bill Clinton called America the 'indispensable nation' in his second inaugural address, Kerry lamented Clinton's 'arrogant, obnoxious tone.'

And, Beinart notes, 'even the 1991 Gulf war, which Kerry's aides now cite as a model of multilateral cooperation, struck him as suspiciously unilateral at the time.' Back then, Kerry said, the anti-Saddam coalition 'lacks a true United Nations collective security effort, with the full measure of international cooperation and burden-sharing.'

This is all consistent with liberal rhetoric for the last three years. How many times have we been told that George W. Bush 'squandered' the good will of the world 'community' after 9/11? The assumption behind all of this seemed to be that anything which cost America the support of allies like France or Germany was, in effect, too costly. In other words, the means — 'strong alliances' — are more important than the ends — winning the war on terror, toppling Saddam, and so forth. Listening to these folks, one gets the sense that America's greatest foreign-policy triumph was to get sucker-punched on 9/11 because it resulted in sympathetic newspaper headlines in Paris and Berlin.

Consider Kerry's seemingly final explanation for why he voted for a war he now condemns Bush for waging. He says he wanted Bush to have the authority to go to war in order to build up a mighty coalition to oust Saddam. But he says he didn't think Bush should actually go to war without such a coalition. Now that we know there weren't any obvious, imminently usable stockpiles of WMDs, that case looks better today than it did then. But Kerry deserves little credit on that score, since he too was certain that Saddam had such weapons.

Still, I agree that a mightier coalition than the one we had would have been nice. Indeed, if President Bush could have enlisted that indestructible ghost army from the third Lord of the Rings movie to do our fighting for us, that would have been really great. But, in the real world, Kerry's position puts the cart before the horse. Was the goal to topple Saddam and secure the WMDs, or was the goal to get a bunch of folks to do it with us? Indeed, Kerry thought the first Gulf War Coalition couldn't meet Kerry's standard.

Now, there is one caveat to the Kerry Doctrine of international hand-holding. If America is attacked, he says he wouldn't hesitate to respond with force. That's nice, I guess. But what else is he going to say? 'If America is attacked, I promise to play Boggle in the Oval Office!' He makes it sound like he's the first president to have the courage to commit to a policy of retaliation to attacks. Has any president actually rejected such a policy?

Kerry promises 'I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.' Again, great. But no major candidate has ever promised to do otherwise. More importantly, the U.N. wouldn't need to have a veto over our national security with a President Kerry in office, since no situation obviously meets his standards for force except a direct attack. Kerry's like the sergeant from M*A*S*H who doesn't care what the incubators are supposed to be used for, so long as they're never used. For Kerry, no goal is worth losing allies, because keeping allies is Kerry's only goal.

Copyright (c) 2004 Tribune Media Services

---

1) I am amazed that the writer from the New Republic knows anything of Kerry's heart- the New Republic is so Republican- it's practically fascist!
2) I think Kerry voted to go to war on evidence of WMD that was suspect- and I think as Bush was the one giving the proof for reasons for Congress to vote in the affirmative, it was up to him to provide concrete, reliable and confirmed evidence- which he did not.
3) I do not think keeping allies is Kerry's only goal, but I think he has a better understanding that we live in a global community ever shrinking by technology- and there are easier ways to make us safe as a nation- in a coalition- instead of going into Iraq and toppling Saddam which arguably has NOT made us any safer from terrorists.
4) winning the war on terror? Bush isn't winning- he's losing- he's spreading thin our millitary in Iraq basically leaving us open to other attacks.

and yes, I STILL think it's damn stupid for Lynn Cheney to say what she did- and I think she is a a-hole for letting her husband basically turn his back on the rights of his own GAY DAUGHTER- what type of father would do that.. gross.

What exactly are Kerry's goals in fighting the war on terror?? Oh yeah....besides being more sensitive, he's going to be more 'effective, thoughtful, strategic and proactive.' That is extremely helpful... a very concise, detailed and articulate policy for solving one of the country's most important issues. What a great idea....that clears up everything...vote for Kerry he is going to be more effective and thoughtful!!

Again, I think he is big on spewing empty platitudes and not concrete plans or visions for making the world a safer place.

And, yes, the world is becoming increasingly globalized. But, were 3,000 French murdered on 9/11? Is Al Qaeda out to devastate Cameroon, Germany, Mexico, Canada?

No, they are not. They are after us...and have been after us for years. (Think of the '93 bombing, the USS Cole, the embassies in Africa during the Clinton presidency.)

So, gaining an international consensus is neither necessary nor practical. (When has there ever been an international consensus on any topic?) The bottom line is that we need an administration that is proactive and strong...not one that is trying to win an international popularity contest.

One can debate the prudence of going to war with Iraq....I was never totally sold on the idea. But, I think on the basis of who would be a stronger leader in the war in terror...I just don't trust Kerry.

What exactly are Kerry's goals in fighting the war on terror?? Oh yeah....besides being more sensitive, he's going to be more 'effective, thoughtful, strategic and proactive.' That is extremely helpful... a very concise, detailed and articulate policy for solving one of the country's most important issues. What a great idea....that clears up everything...vote for Kerry he is going to be more effective and thoughtful!!

Again, I think he is big on spewing empty platitudes and not concrete plans or visions for making the world a safer place.

I don't necessarily disagree with you about politicians in general, and Kerry in particular, often not saying anything. But it seems to me that it is better to 'spew platitudes' than to adopt the kind of counterproductive rhetoric (cf. 'axis of evil') we often here from the Bush administration.

And, yes, the world is becoming increasingly globalized. But, were 3,000 French murdered on 9/11? Is Al Qaeda out to devastate Cameroon, Germany, Mexico, Canada?

No, they are not. They are after us...and have been after us for years. (Think of the '93 bombing, the USS Cole, the embassies in Africa during the Clinton presidency.)

So, gaining an international consensus is neither necessary nor practical. (When has there ever been an international consensus on any topic?) The bottom line is that we need an administration that is proactive and strong...not one that is trying to win an international popularity contest.


Just because Al Qaeda was most successful in the US does not mean that we were their only target. Western countries in general - including France and Germany - are indeed Qaeda targets. But many of these countries have more effective counterterrorism strategies in place (as well as smaller countries) than we do.

Also, I disagree with your point about the utility of an international consensus (and, as an aside, there are many topics on which there has been an international consensus in the sense of most countries supporting a policy - Gulf War I, Kyoto protocols, ICC, etc.). One important point about globalization is that terrorists can be planning multiple, simultaneous attacks in or from multiple countries. It would be helpful, for example, to be able to have strong enough relations with these countries so that we had healthy and strong intelligence-sharing operations with them, rather than trying to bullying them into doing what we want. Being proactive and strong are not inherently good - power and initiative can be used wisely or dangerously, and I would argue that the Bush administration has acted in foolish ways that have endangered the country by, yes 'squandering goodwill' (Goldberg's article is patently silly, in my view) and, worse, engendering *more* ill-will among citizens of other countries and, further, increasing the recruiting pool for organizations like Al Qaeda.

With respect to relations with our allies and the current Iraq conflict, in addition to pre-war reports that I had seen, the fact that such long-standing allies refused to participate made me wonder about the quality and content of our intelligence at the time. If we really 'knew' about the WMD, why wouldn't we have shared that info with our allies in order to gain their support?

---

Posted by Bride626

What exactly are Kerry's goals in fighting the war on terror?? Oh yeah....besides being more sensitive, he's going to be more 'effective, thoughtful, strategic and proactive.' That is extremely helpful... a very concise, detailed and articulate policy for solving one of the country's most important issues. What a great idea....that clears up everything...vote for Kerry he is going to be more effective and thoughtful!!

Again, I think he is big on spewing empty platitudes and not concrete plans or visions for making the world a safer place.

And, yes, the world is becoming increasingly globalized. But, were 3,000 French murdered on 9/11? Is Al Qaeda out to devastate Cameroon, Germany, Mexico, Canada?

No, they are not. They are after us...and have been after us for years. (Think of the '93 bombing, the USS Cole, the embassies in Africa during the Clinton presidency.)

So, gaining an international consensus is neither necessary nor practical. (When has there ever been an international consensus on any topic?) The bottom line is that we need an administration that is proactive and strong...not one that is trying to win an international popularity contest.

One can debate the prudence of going to war with Iraq....I was never totally sold on the idea. But, I think on the basis of who would be a stronger leader in the war in terror...I just don't trust Kerry.

---

On 911 Americans were not the only people killed. The WTC employed an extremely diverse group of people. Just like NYC is a melting pot so were those buildings.

How exactly has Bush made us safer?By ignoring the advice of his advisors and focusing on Iraq instead of Afghanistan? Giving us a color code system ? Distributing money for homeland security so that South Dakota gets as much money as the red zones(DC, NYC,LA)? Going into a war that has made the rest of the world doubt us and our intentions. Not only making us even more hated abroad but also fueling the flames of the next Timothy McVay(sp?)? I don't feel safer. Actually, I feel more at risk and hated then ever.

It would be wonderful if we could go it alone, but the US is so dependent on other nations for so many things. If we follow the gung-ho, F$$K you attitude of our current President I fear that the US will totally isolate itself from the rest of the world. I agree with Kerry that you can be more sensitive to the needs of other nations and still be strong. I'm sorry, but I believe we need the rest of the world.

Wow. I think there are alot of powerful word floating around. Some based on truth as presented to the media which unfortunately is the main source of information to which we have to turn to to make an informed decision. I am soooooo skeptical about so much since left and right you can find information to support or bash one candidate or another.

I hear talks about WMD and honestly I cant condemn Pres. Bush as easily as some. Not defending him but not condemning either.
Just because the WMD have not been found does not mean that they do/did not exist. There are alot of things that people dont know about how governments truely operate..including how some countries get WMD..we may be surprised who the sources are.