Was Kerry's "Sensitive War" comment a mistake or not?

[KoKo]

If it was a mistake to use that word, then why did he use it and who is advising him? Coming out of the Convention where he seems to have convinced many Americans that he was more capable or as cabable as George Bush why would he "throw meat to the Repug attack dogs" (as commentator Roger Simon said on MTP)

Do his Campaign Operatives not understand what we are dealing with here? Sensitive War?

Or, is his comment a good one, meant to reassure the "anti-Iraq Invasion " Dems that we can trust him not to be like the Bushies? But was it worth it to give the Repugs a comment like that, to reassure those of us who are against the "Doctrine of Pre-Emptive war." :shrug:

Ugh...correcting typo's. My post read like freep junk...fingers just aren't working this a.m....

[LittleApple81]

1. But many comentators (the eeeewww media) have said it would be

a GOOD idea to be more sensitive. On George Step. today, Zacharias said it was taken out of context but it actually would have been necessary in this war... it might have avoided thousands of unnecessary deaths, pain, and suffering.

[rocktivity]

2. I hope Kerry uses his time off to do some "house cleaning"

From being photographed in a powder blue jumpsuit to issuing a statement instead of a press release that his daughter won a scholarship, Kerry has pulled off no less than four gaffes that his media advisors should have seen coming. It's time for him to start firing people.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Catch22Dem]

3. Not sure why the Bush campaign thinks so...Bush said it too. n/t

[rocktivity]

9. The Bush campaign isn't the one that the media is laughing at

They hate Kerry as much as the GOP does, and he MUST start dealing with them with that in mind. And if Bush used the word "sensitive" too, the Kerry camp should have pointed that out BEFORE The Daily Show did!

:headbang:
rocknation

[jean]

4. I think Kerry used it purposely to draw the warmongers in so they

choke on their own words.

Bush gave that speech saying we must be more sensitive and careful so we don't alienate the rest of the world (paraphrasing) - now that can be used to slap him up and kick him to the curb.

Please, let's see a 527 ad - then and now, Bush's thought on sensitivity in waging war.

[librechik]

5. Cheney said "sensitive" twice after mocking Kerry for using it

Check out this interview excerpt from the Hugh Hewitt show
(via Atrios--)

" HH: Vice President Dick Cheney, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show.

VP: It is good to be on here.

HH: Today you brought attention to John Kerry's plan to wage a more 'sensitive'
war on terror. What do you think John Kerry meant when he said 'sensitive,' Mr.
Vice President?

VP: Well, I'm not sure what he meant (laughing). Ah, it strikes me the two words
don't really go together, sensitive and war. If you look at our history, I don't
think any of the wars we've won, were won by us being quote sensitive. I think
of Abraham Lincoln and General Grant, they didn't wage sensitive war. Neither
did Roosevelt, neither did Eisenhower or MacArthur in World War II. A sensitive
war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans, and who seek
chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more....


...later...


HH: Will the Najaf offensive continue until that city is subdued even if that
means a siege of the Imam Ali shrine?

VP: Well, from the standpoint of the shrine, obviously it is a sensitive area,
and we are very much aware of its sensitivity. On the other hand, a lot of
people who worship there feel like Moqtada Sadr is the one who has defiled the
shrine, if you will, and I would expect folks on the scene there, including U.S.
commanders, will work very carefully with the Iraqis so that we minimize the
extent to which the U.S. is involved in any operation that might involve the
shrine itself."


Guess it's only bad when Kerry does it!

[rocktivity]

16. Did Hewitt ask Cheney what BUSH meant by "sensitive" war?

I doubt it. This why Kerry needs to think about what he does and says, and be as spin-retardant as possible.

:headbang:
rocknation

[iamjoy]

6. We're Falling For Repug Spin

I thought it was stupid too. Then I was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and he was talking about how Cheney criticized Kerry on the sensitive comment. Thing is, Dubya was also talking about how we needed to use sensitivity.

SOOOO -
it seems as if the Republicans are going to pounce on anything Kerry says and blow it out of context, and the media is more than willing to play along.

Another example of this is I was watching CNN last nite, and the announcer was talking with Mark Foley, a Republican who represents some of the areas hardest hit by Hurricane Charley. She said Kerry announced he wasn't going to visit Florida because he didn't want to politicize the tragedy/disaster. Did Foley think Bush going was politicizing it? So of course Foley responds that Presidents always visit disaster areas and "Mr. Kerry" was out of line. What Kerry was really saying was he wouldn't go to Florida because *he* didn't want to politicize it. President Bush going isn't necessarily politicizing it (although knowing this administration's talent for such things...), but for Kerry to go would be out of line.

Just an example of how the media is playing into the administration's talent for spin.

[liveoaktx]

12. Yup, here's a video clip (Bush used it at Unity Conf)

Sensitive

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. mistake or not?

Only if you listen to people twist the meaning of it. A sensible thinking person can derive the wisdom of his words.

[Union Thug]

8. NOT A MISTAKE!

In fact, it shows that Kerry has a more realistic grasp on the subtleties and nuances of international relations, unlike the club fisted, jack-booted, homo-erectus assholes in the Bush administration

[Proud liberal Kat]

10. I don't think so at all

When your read the whole sentence it is extremely good policy, both Cheney and Bush have used sensitive in the same sort of context (of course is words only). I think the bad move came in Cheney pouncing on it like a raw steak, I have seen it debunked on boards I go to by ladies who aren't that politically active, don't do much research. It in my opinion made Cheney look much worse and drew people into seeing more of Kerry's thoughts on the War and a chance to see why he would be a better CIC.
Kathy

[gollygee]

11. It wasn't a mistake - it was 100% correct

When we saw the GOP talk about it, my husband and I looked at each other and said, "of COURSE we need to be sensitive." It seems incredibly obvious to me that we need to think carefully about what we do.

[dogman]

13. It was not a mistake.

The mistake is when Kerry spokesmen attempt to explain it instead of pointing out the many times B$$$co have used it because it is obviously required in world affairs.

[chuck555]

14. I don't think so.

You can't trust him. Vote for Bush.

[delhurgo]

15. It was cleary a mistake.

Who keeps using it as an issue, and who's on the defensive about it? Pretty obvious.

Whoever put that into his speech should be fired, or at least severely punished. Sensitive? That goes against everything Kerry tried to establish with the convention, that he can be as tough as Bush. This makes him look weak, exactly what the Bush campaign is trying to argue. And although it's just one word, it sticks - its easy to remember.

It doesn't matter what he actually meant by it: reaching out to allies, etc... Most voters won't find out about any of that; they just hear in sound bites, and what they'll hear is that Kerry wants to wage a 'sensitive war' on terror.

And even if they did hear about what he actually meant, I don't think most would like that either. We shouldn't be 'sensitive' to our allies, that still seems kinda wimpy - its not the right word. Something like 'respect' would have been better.

You just don't set yourself up to be clobbered like that; it was stupid.

[Proud liberal Kat]

18. I disagree

On major news outlets I have heard Kerry's remark and then they put up remarks showing Bush using the same exact word in the same sort of context.

I think to the average voter when shown this and then Cheney salivating at the mouth to pounce on and then distort Kerry's words it makes Cheney look like an asshole! The mistake came from the other side not Kerry's in this one.

And good lord if the speech writer is going to be fired for using the word sensitive ever in reference to the War on Terror...Kerry will never be able to speak the truth. Because we do need to be more sensitive to people who live outside of our borders if we ever expect respect or peace in our lifetimes.
Kathy

[delhurgo]

23. That may help a little,

but that statement by Bush came before 911, and it doesn't resonate with Bush - nobody can reasonably call him sensitive (weak) - like the way it does with Kerry. It plays into the stereotype of the wimpy, anti-war liberal.

Right, the mistake came from the other side, thats why Kerry's on the defensive about it. *rolls eyes*

I didn't mean literally fire him, but it was a boneheaded thing for a campaign speech writer to do - if one actually did. If it was something Kerry said off-the-cuff then its more understandable.

[Proud liberal Kat]

27. From what I see in my limited circles

The response is more negative to Cheney/Bush than towards Kerry and that is even among Bush supporters. The supporters aren't annoyed enough to change their votes or anything but they concede that it was innapropriate and negative of Bush...I just don't see Kerry as being on the defensive on this:shrug:
kathy

[delhurgo]

28. You sound like Pauline Kael,

who after a big republican win (I believe it was Reagan) said that she couldn't understand it, that nobody she knows voted for him. Heh.

Maybe you're right though, we'll see if the Bush campaign drops it - I'm sure the Kerry campaign hopes that they would.

[blondeatlast]

17. NO> The word was misinterpreted. That isn't his fault. nt

[gratuitous]

19. Why did he use it?

Because he was giving a long, off-the-cuff answer to a difficult question. Well, we all know that THAT is the defining moment of every campaign, and Kerry should resign immediately, even though his answer was thoughtful and correct, because some slopehead in East Bumblefuck, Alabama might get confused by the "S" word.

I'll bet anyone here a $50 donation to DU that this "horrible mistake" is totally forgotten by Labor Day. Any takers?

[HEFFA]

20. "Hello, kettle? This is the pot. You're black."

If you subscribe to "The Daily Mis-lead", then you know that Cheney is an unbelievable hypocrite on this one. He's referred to the need for greater "sensitivity" in Iraq and also the region before! To use it as a wedge against Kerry is hypocrisy at its finest and exactly what I would expect from this administration.

Check out the link below for more.

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1286600&l=50429

[Kahuna]

21. Yep!

It doesn't matter that chimpy regurgitated Kerry's remarks the very next day. These people are lowlifes. 2000 taught me that they will do the same that you do, they poke fun at you.

[Crunchy Frog]

22. I don't think it was.

I think he's absolutely right, the sledgehammer approach is not an effective one in fighting terrorism.

That said, I think he needs to clarify what he meant by the remark and vigorously defend it.

[wurzel]

24. Hitler and Stalin weren't "sensitive" about war either!

Cheney's unbelievably stupid remark should have been "meat" for journalists! They just don't know how do their job. Cheney clearly used what Kerry said totally out of context. He is also a draft dodger talking about a war hero. It was Simon's job to explain that. He utterly failed to do so. If Kerry must pick and choose his words to suit the Rightwing in this country he will end up like Gore.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. Don't for an instant be shy about using the word sensitive

Another Disingenuous Attack From Dick Cheney
Bush’s Attack Dog Tries Once Again To Divert Attention From The Bush Administration’s Failed Policies
For Immediate Release

“Dick Cheney’s desperate misleading attacks now have him criticizing George Bush’s own words, who called for America to be “sensitive about expressing our power and influence.” Dick Cheney doesn’t understand that arrogance isn’t a virtue, especially when our country is in danger. Alienating allies makes it harder to hunt terrorists and bring them to justice. If Dick Cheney learned this lesson instead of spending his time distorting John Kerry’s words, this country would be a safer place,” Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said.

Full Context Shows Kerry Will Wage Strong War on Terror With Strong Alliances. Kerry: “The first part focuses on security. I will fight this war on terror with the lessons I learned in war. I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president of the United States. 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 lay out a strategy to strengthen our military, to build and lead strong alliances and reform our intelligence system. I set out a path to win the peace in Iraq and to get the terrorists wherever they may be before they get us.” (Kerry, 8/5/04)

Cheney Launches Disingenuous Attacks

Cheney’s Most Recent Disingenuous Attack. “Vice President Dick Cheney is criticizing John Kerry's call for a ‘more sensitive’ war on terror, saying it won't impress the Sept. 11 terrorists or the Islamic militants who have beheaded U.S. citizens. ‘America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive,’ Cheney said in remarks prepared for delivery Thursday.” (AP, 8/12/04)

Cheney Attacks Bush’s Own Words. Bush: “We help fulfill that promise not by lecturing the world, but by leading it. Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself. We pursue our goals, we will listen to others. We want strong friends to join us, not weak neighbors to dominate. In all our dealings with other nations, we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength.” (Bush Remarks at USS Regan Ceremony, 3/4/01)

Bush: “Now, in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that.” (Bush Delivers Remarks at the Unity, Journalists of Color Conference, 8/6/04)
MORE: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0812b.html


Edwards said his GOP rival was trying to tear down the Democratic presidential nominee — a decorated Vietnam veteran — to avoid talking about the issues that matter to voters in economically troubled states such as Michigan, calling it "an effort to distract."

Cheney told voters in Ohio on Thursday that Kerry had called for a "more sensitive" war on terror and mocked that notion as something that won't impress the Sept. 11 terrorists or the Islamic militants who have beheaded U.S. citizens. The comment Cheney referred to was more complex. At a minority journalists' convention last week, 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."

Edwards, returning to the campaign after a three-day break, told a rally in Flint that Cheney "took that word and distorted it and tried to use it to argue John Kerry will not keep the American people safe. ... He's talking about a man who still carries shrapnel in his body. He's talking about a man who spilled his blood for the United States of America. To try to argue that he's not tough is just a ridiculous argument," Edwards said after the rally. "It's exactly what the American people are sick of."

The North Carolina senator on Friday also discussed his 2002 vote to give President Bush the military authority to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "I think it was correct to give the president the authority that he was given," Edwards said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think the president has misused and abused the authority he was given. ... And the American people, our troops, the American taxpayers have paid dearly as a result."
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-17/109241724539400.xml



President Bush said Friday that he was "getting the job done" on the economy and more. Not so, said Sen. John Kerry, criticizing administration tax cuts as insensitive to the middle class as he ended a 22-state tour.

"Don't for an instant be shy about using the word sensitive," the Democratic presidential nominee told one questioner, referring to criticism a day earlier from Vice President Dick Cheney.

"If you don't speak you mind, you shouldn't be the president of the United States. And I intend to speak my mind," Kerry said.

<snip>

Kerry told his rally that he would roll back the Bush-era tax cuts on the top 2 percent of all income earners and use the money for health care, education and other programs.

"John Edwards and I know that we can restore fundamental fairness to America," Kerry said.
http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/170253-5680-010.html

[rocktivity]

26. Kerry seems to have agressiveness confused with negativity

He made TWO mistakes--the statement, and not immediately defending it. I think he's so wrapped up in running a "positive" campaign--which is obviously working--that he equates defending himself against the Bush camp with "stooping" to their negative level. Pointing out that Bush used the same language wouldn't have been negative, it would have been factual and spin-proof. His rapid response team isn't being rapid enough, and it isn't enough just to put things on his "blog." What he should be doing is issuing immediate, concise, fact-based public statements, and THEN letting the reponse team do their thing. He's going to have people wondering if he has self-esteem problems!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. You seem to be ignoring the facts

see my post above.

[rocktivity]

33. It's the MEDIA who are ignoring the facts

and the Kerry camp must stop ignoring that! See post #5 above, and my response to it (#16).

:headbang:
rocknatiuon

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. You can't blame the media, you are the one who said:

He made TWO mistakes--the statement, and not immediately defending it.

That is your statement, your error, your mistake, your false claim contrary to the facts, and you can't blame it on anyone else.

[rocktivity]

37. Okay--maybe I should have been more precise

"Kerry made TWO mistakes--THEY WAY IN WHICH HE MADE THE STATEMENT KNOWING HOW THE MEDIA WOULD REACT, and not immediately defending it."

:headbang:
rocknation

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[creeksneakers2]

29. Kerry is conceding the whole issue

by letting Bush and the media define it. If this race is a contest to see who will resort to violence without giving it a second thought, there is no way Kerry can beat Bush.

Kerry needs to re-frame the issue in a neutral form. What are we going to do about terrorism in the next four years? Let Bush argue that war is the answer. Then Bush can explain how spending $200 billion and 900 lives to catch a handful of terrorists is the best strategy. Terrorists are in 60 countries. Are we going to spend $200 billion and 900 lives in all 60 countries? We've caught about 2,000 terrorists in 95 countries, many with law enforcement and intelligence and diplomacy. I've only been able to find five we've caught in Iraq. Does Bush have the better idea?

If Bush says war is not the answer, then this chest beating contest is over. Bush also would also to explain why he went to Iraq if war is not the answer.

[KoKo]

32. That's what's worrying me. Why is he doing this, letting the Media & Bush

define it. Well said...it's really upsetting to some of us who watched this going on with Gore. Seems like a repeat, and yet WE knew what they would do, why didn't Kerry and his Campaign Handlers?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. It's simply not true. See post 25

[KoKo]

43. The article still doesn't answer for me, why in the world Kerry would open

himself up to the Repug attack machine in this way. I'd rather him come out and say Bush Lied Congress into war based on lies...than use the word Sensitive about War when he had to know Cheney/RW Pundits, Editorialists, etc. would laugh him out of the room. It was the kind of statement Al Gore might have made and been trashed about.

How could he not know what he's up against. Media plays Cheney's statement over and over. Kerry and his Campaign handlers don't know that they are dealing with a "controlled media?" How come they don't know it, but most folks on the internet Democratic sites have long known this? :shrug: It boggles my mind...and I don't see where his using "Sensitive" gained him anything but attacks. So, why do it? Makes him look vulnerable...why does he need this?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. Kerry didn't 'open himself up' in any way. When Cheney makes a dishonest

attack, it makes no sense to pin the blame on Kerry.

[creeksneakers2]

52. #25 is a great response.

Its too long though. Kerry needs to redefine the issue one or two sentences at a time. He needs to keep repeating the same thing, asking for help to spread the message, until the media pays attention. The media is never going to run more than one line out of a press release anyway. Why not let Kerry be the one to choose it by only giving them one line?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. The media doesn't repeat Bush's lines because they're better lines

or more pithy. They repeat the Bush line because they are biased. That is the reality and thinking the media is going to give Kerry a fair shake if he just 'plays the game better' is, I'm sorry to say, a little naive.

It's up to us to bypass the media and take the truth directly to our friends, neighbors, acquantances, co-workers.

[AngryAmish]

31. Kerry does not make mistakes.

[thecrow]

36. It wasn't a mistake when Smirky, Rumsferatu, et all used it

just when Kerry said it

[Zhade]

38. Kerry was wrong to vote for war, but not wrong to make this comment.

I don't buy the comment as anything but an assurance for a "kinder, gentler" continuation of imperial policy, but if I believed we could actually fight a war on a fighting tactic (terrorism), and I saw Kerry's policies as a break from the status quo, I'd see the "sensitive" part of his comments as very intelligent and wise.

I still see them as intelligent, but with the kind of foreign policy advisors he's got around him, I worry that he will be led down the wrong path into continuing, or even advancing, American imperialism.

And, to be honest, at this point it wouldn't matter who was in charge - the empire is the empire, and no one man is going to dismantle it, not even a man like Kucinich. The empire is too entrenched to uproot. Someone like DK could take steps toward ending it, and Kerry could likewise do so, but I doubt that the elite really desire to make the smart decision that will enable the survival of the republic. Ironically enough, the traitors in office may be unwittingly taking steps to reduce our imperial reach by shifting troops from long-occupied areas such as Germany and South Korea!

We'll cease being an empire by our own overstretch. Until then, the best I can hope for is a steady reduction in imperial aggression. I'm not certain we'll see that under Kerry, but then again I'm not certain we WON'T see it. There's simply no way to tell until he's in office.

But these comments were no mistake. If he means them, they make perfect sense.

[KoKo]

44. You and I might know what he meant. But average American seeing CNN

replay Cheney scoffing at him, might have another effect. If he's going for the "swing voters" and non RW Repugs, then how are they supposed to figure the hell out what a "Sensitive War" means?

Sounds to me like Bush's use of "Compassionate Conservative." And, look at where that got us....so I don't see his use of "Sensitive War" as anything but throwing something back in Bush's face which he and the RW use as red meat, but leaves some of the rest of us having to explain it for him...what he meant. Sheesh...he can do better than this.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. Is it some kind of revelation that CNN is an arm of the Bush campaign?

:wtf:

[KoKo]

49. Well "average Americans" don't know what we know about CNN, yet..

I don't get your point....:shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. My point is that it is our job to tell 'average Americans' the truth

and it is our obligation not to waste our energy playing the game on the terms that Rove wants us to.

No matter what Kerry says, it will be distorted and dishonestly attacked by the Bush campaign and their accomplices in the media.


Our job is to fight back, not to fight each other.

Some may feel they have the luxury to be a neutral observer, but not me, I am in campaign mode 24/7 till November 2nd.

[LisaL]

39. there is nothing wrong with the word sensitive

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using this word.
Bush had used it himself before, and amazingly, Cheney wasn't laughing at it then.

[KoKo]

46. Would it have worked with the Class Bully when you were in grammar school

and Bully was beating up on you? What would happen if you said: "Why don't we have a more "Sensitive Fight, here, buddy." Methinks it wouldn't have gone over very well...:eyes:

[jmowreader]

41. I really think it was

I can think of two ways to fight a "sensitive war." The first is to treat the war information as sensitive--instead of the shit Bush does, preannouncing the strikes against the terrorists and building up three-year-old information into Orange Alerts, you keep your damn mouth shut, ask the people you're warning to keep this on the QT, and actually catch some terrorists. (Then you try them in secret and throw them in jail in secret and get the terrorists wondering where the hell all their people are going. Terrorize them before they can terrorize us.)

The other is to not piss off the natives.

But I figure Glenn McCoy, who seems to be one of the more rabid anti-Kerry cartoonists, will draw Kerry as a prancing queen talking about how we need to be more "sensitive to the terrorists' feelings." (delivered in a lisp, of course) And Annthrax will do the same shit. Ditto Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly...

[SeekingTruth]

42. Shelf life concept...

I see his use of "sensitive" as a sort of Pyrrhic victory - yes, we all know Kerry was correct, but the shelf life of Cheney's rebuttal did more damage than good. But maybe in the long run it will come back to hurt Cheney/Bush instead.

What worries me is that too often it seems the Dem's and Kerry still do not understand the use of language, image and message like the red meat eaters do.

[KoKo]

48. yes...what you say is my worry. (n/t)

[napi21]

51. I don't think it was a mistake.

He could have used almost any word in the english language and the opposition would find a way to parse it into something else.

Even if he said "bring it on, I'll kill 'em", Cheney or shrub would find a way to make is sound like something else.

That's the job of strategists, to find one word or phrase and hammer the opposition with it.

I still think Kerry should try to stay abouve the fray and get the 527's or his collegues to do the nasty stuff.

People aren't a stupid as you think.

[dolstein]

54. The answer: OF COURSE IT WAS

Sure, it's been blown all out of proportion. But it was a stupid choice of words. No two ways about it. Kerry needs to be careful about the words he uses, because he knows by now that the GOP will twist everything he says if given the opportunity. He gave them the opportunity.