Cheney Mocks Kerry's 'Sensitive' War on Terror

[Evilmav2]

Cheney Mocks Kerry's 'Sensitive' War on Terror

Aug 12, 4:50 PM (ET)

By Scott Elliott
DAYTON, Ohio (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney mocked Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Thursday for pledging to wage a more "sensitive" war against terrorism.

Cheney's speech in the campaign battleground state of Ohio extended a week of Republican attacks on Kerry's security credentials. Kerry's camp said it showed desperation in President Bush's campaign over losing a perceived edge on security issues.

"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.

"Those that threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively, they need to be destroyed," he said.

Cheney accented some form of the word "sensitive" a half-dozen times and drew laughter from the partisan crowd. He said Kerry had a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the world.

Kerry had told a meeting of minority journalists last week that he could do a better job than Bush of cultivating allies in the war on terrorism. "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," he said.

Campaigning in California on Thursday, Kerry brushed off Cheney's remarks. "It's sad that they can only be negative. They have nothing to say about the future vision of America. I think Americans want a positive vision for the future," he said.

Kerry' campaign went farther and said Cheney had reached a "new low" by launching "desperate misleading attacks."

"This vice president's lack of sensitivity is precisely what led this administration to ignore the advice of the professional military and rush to war (in Iraq)," Kerry spokesman David Wade said. "We can't afford another four years of their failed insensitive foreign policy."

He contrasted the vice president's lack of military service in the 1960s with Kerry's record as a decorated Vietnam veteran.

Kerry's campaign also pointed to previous remarks by Bush and Cheney that the United States had to be "sensitive" in its use of power.

SECURITY CREDENTIALS

The Bush campaign this week has trained its sights on Kerry's security credentials and launched a new ad touting Bush's leadership against terrorism.

Polls show Bush is vulnerable on Iraq, where U.S. soldiers die daily fighting an unrelenting insurgency, and the economy. However, he is perceived as stronger than Kerry in fighting terrorism.

Bush on Wednesday said Kerry's pledge to bring large numbers of troops home from Iraq within a year would jeopardize the U.S. mission. A day earlier, he accused Kerry of shifting positions on whether the Iraq war was necessary.

Cheney said Kerry "views the world as if we had never been attacked on Sept. 11."

"He has even said that by using our strength, we are creating terrorists and placing ourselves in greater danger," Cheney said. "But that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world we are living in works. Terrorist attacks are not caused by use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness."

Cheney reeled off a list of U.S. war leaders. "President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive warfare, nor did President Roosevelt, nor Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur," he said.

[Mavdog]

Cheney just doesn't get it.
Lincoln was against Reconstruction, so he was "sensitive" to the affect of war on the South.
Roosevelt worked very, very hard to avoid the counterproductive reparations on the Axis powers, so he too was "sensitive".

I guess Cheney can't grasp the concept that violence begets violence. Militarism isn't the answer to the question of how to win the minds of those who could be your enemy.

[FishForLunch]

So Cheney does not it, sure but Kerry with so many positions on Iraq gets it. I guess you want to US to behave like the sensitive EU. Their coddling of Syria, Iran and Palestinians.

Exactly how do you convince a Wahabi that all the religions can co-exist. I for one dont want to become a Wahabi like Osma wants.

[Evilmav2]

Lincoln was against Reconstruction, so he was "sensitive" to the affect of war on the South.

You are simplifying a very, very contentious historical point here Mavdog...

Because Old Abe was assasinated before any post-Civil War national process of healing and reconstitution could take place, we really don't know how Lincoln would have tackled the myriad problems of reconstruction. Whereas his 1863 reconstruction plan (rejected by congress) advocated the a very lenient process of reconstitution (barring former rebel leaders from political office, granting amnesty to citizens who swore loyalty to the Union, and allowing the formation of state governments once 1/10th of the state's population had sworn those oaths), this was a wartime measure that was principally intended to encourage the border states to break away from the deep-South core of the Confederacy, and help speed the end of the war.

Ever the pragmatist, the lenient terms advocated undere the 1/10th plan would have made a lot of sense to Lincoln in 1863, but things might have been much different in 1965 as Confederate hold-outs continued to fight in some areas, as some Southerners strongly resisted federal efforts to register Black voters, and as difficult issues of land reform caused simmering tensions to boil over throughout the conquered South.

Had Lincoln lived, it is highly likely that he would not have been vindictive in dealing with the South, but he certainly would not have failed to respond to the disorders that wracked parts of the South in the early years of reconstruction in a very firm, if not ruthless way (His suspension of habeus corpus and forcible suppression of the Maryland legislature in 1861 is a good example of just how ruthless Old Abe could be). He certainly would have responded much more harshly than the buffoon Andrew Jackson did to the manifest Southern flouting of federal dictates that marked the early years of reconstruction (before Charles Sumner, Thad Stevens, Lyman Trumbull and all of their other "radical republican" friends responded to these Southern outrages by politically destroying Johnson, and crushing the uncooperative South by instituting a draconian regime of military rule over the conquered states).

Anyway, I am rambling, but I will say that had Lincoln lived past 1864, it would be very, very hard to imagine that he would have subscribed to some kind of wishy-washy "sensitive" policy of weakly dealing with a conquered South just to be a nice humanitarian. If the South had cooperated with his federal mandates, I have no doubt that Lincoln would have effected a very benign reconstruction that would have seen the South reenter the Union as strong, unhumiliated partner states much earlier than actually transpired...

However, considering the many, many ways that much of the South worked to subvert and undermine federal authority in the short years before hard, federal military rule was established by Congress, I tend to think that as much a Lincoln might have wished otherwise, he would not have had the opportunity to "play nice" with the conquered South. My gut feeling is that Lincoln would have responded more wisely, but no less harshly, to Southern attempts to undermine federal rule after the end of the Civil War, and that in doing so he would have exhibited the kind of strong, pragmatic leadership that Cheney touched upon in the above cited speech...

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Evilmav2

You are simplifying a very, very contentious historical point here Mavdog...

Because Old Abe was assasinated before any post-Civil War national process of healing and reconstitution could take place, we really don't know how Lincoln would have tackled the myriad problems of reconstruction. Whereas his 1863 reconstruction plan (rejected by congress) advocated the a very lenient process of reconstitution (barring former rebel leaders from political office, granting amnesty to citizens who swore loyalty to the Union, and allowing the formation of state governments once 1/10th of the state's population had sworn those oaths), this was a wartime measure that was principally intended to encourage the border states to break away from the deep-South core of the Confederacy, and help speed the end of the war.

Ever the pragmatist, the lenient terms advocated undere the 1/10th plan would have made a lot of sense to Lincoln in 1863, but things might have been much different in 1965 as Confederate hold-outs continued to fight in some areas, as some Southerners strongly resisted federal efforts to register Black voters, and as difficult issues of land reform caused simmering tensions to boil over throughout the conquered South.

Had Lincoln lived, it is highly likely that he would not have been vindictive in dealing with the South, but he certainly would not have failed to respond to the disorders that wracked parts of the South in the early years of reconstruction in a very firm, if not ruthless way (His suspension of habeus corpus and forcible suppression of the Maryland legislature in 1861 is a good example of just how ruthless Old Abe could be). He certainly would have responded much more harshly than the buffoon Andrew Jackson did to the manifest Southern flouting of federal dictates that marked the early years of reconstruction (before Charles Sumner, Thad Stevens, Lyman Trumbull and all of their other "radical republican" friends responded to these Southern outrages by politically destroying Johnson, and crushing the uncooperative South by instituting a draconian regime of military rule over the conquered states).

Anyway, I am rambling, but I will say that had Lincoln lived past 1864, it would be very, very hard to imagine that he would have subscribed to some kind of wishy-washy "sensitive" policy of weakly dealing with a conquered South just to be a nice humanitarian. If the South had cooperated with his federal mandates, I have no doubt that Lincoln would have effected a very benign reconstruction that would have seen the South reenter the Union as strong, unhumiliated partner states much earlier than actually transpired...

However, considering the many, many ways that much of the South worked to subvert and undermine federal authority in the short years before hard, federal military rule was established by Congress, I tend to think that as much a Lincoln might have wished otherwise, he would not have had the opportunity to "play nice" with the conquered South. My gut feeling is that Lincoln would have responded more wisely, but no less harshly, to Southern attempts to undermine federal rule after the end of the Civil War, and that in doing so he would have exhibited the kind of strong, pragmatic leadership that Cheney touched upon in the above cited speech...

Attempting to predict what Abe would have done when faced with the Southern "gentlemen" who resisted the dismantling of the confederate social structures is problematic at best. What we do know is that Lincoln did propose a much more "sensitive" framework in the '63 submittal. It is also fair to say that the draconian policies of the radical republicans, whose power and influence were greater due to Abe's absence, pushed some southerners to view the north as opportunists and greedy "carpetbaggers."

My impression is that Abe would have offered a "carrot and stick" approach to the south, which would have allowed the moderate southerners the ability to forge a middle and head off the influence of the dedicated defeated confederate aligned leaders who were active in undermining the changes that the federal government was forcing. Therefore he would be exhibiting the same "sensitive" type policy suggested by Kerry and which Cheney was so quick to erroneously belittle.

[Usually Lurkin]

how is a war against terrorists like reconstruction following a war between neighbors?

As far as I know, the southerners did not have as a fundamental religious precept the genocidal destruction of all the northerners.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Cheney just doesn't get it.
Lincoln was against Reconstruction, so he was "sensitive" to the affect of war on the South.
Roosevelt worked very, very hard to avoid the counterproductive reparations on the Axis powers, so he too was "sensitive".

I guess Cheney can't grasp the concept that violence begets violence. Militarism isn't the answer to the question of how to win the minds of those who could be your enemy.

Mavdog just doesn't get it. Lincoln waged the most horrific and American casualty filled war in this nations history and would accept nothing but unconditional surrender from the enemy. Lincoln dispensed with Habeaus Corpus and used harsh and firm measure to deal with what is generally regarded as this nations greatest crisis. BTW Lincoln also alienated most of Europe in his war. The Europeans by large supported the South.

Roosevelt also waged a war where nothing but absolute surrender by the enemy would be accepted. He placed thousands of US citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps solely based upon their ehtnicity. He sponsored the development of the most deadly and destructive weapon ever used in war, the atomic bomb. He would arguably have used the bomb to kill hunderds of thousands of civlians as did his successor Harry Truman. He agreed to the undiscriminate bombing of enemy cities resulting in the highlest civilian causalties in any war the US has fought in.

[Mavdog]

LRB misses the whole point of the Teheran and Yalta conferences held by Roosevelt prior to the end of WW2.

Just like Dick Cheney, he believes that their vision of "sensitive" prevails over the use by Kerry in his speech.

The irony of course is that Cheney's running mate George Bush said this the day before Kerry gave his speech:
"Now in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice, obviously we need to be very sensitive on that."

Guess it's OK for Dubya to speak of "sensitive" but not for Kerry.
or maybe this is just another "Bushism" that we need to laugh at and ignore.

[LRB]

Get a clue Mavdog, it is not the word sensitive that is in question, but the context that it was used in. You've presented a vastly different context for comparison. Perhaps if Mr. kerry would provide more specifics than vague generalities about what he meant by sensitive, then we could more easily clear up this issue. However Kerry's way is not to easily tie himself down to one position because that makes fense sitting more difficult.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
Get a clue Mavdog, it is not the word sensitive that is in question, but the context that it was used in. You've presented a vastly different context for comparison. Perhaps if Mr. kerry would provide more specifics than vague generalities about what he meant by sensitive, then we could more easily clear up this issue. However Kerry's way is not to easily tie himself down to one position because that makes fense sitting more difficult.

So LRB finally understands that it is the context that should be examined.
Is it "vastly different"? well, in many ways, just as the connotation of Cheney's use is different than what kerry said.
But that difference didn't stop the attack dog that is our VP.
Is Kerry saying that he will be more "sensitive" towards the terrorists such as Cheney equates in his speech?
Absolutely not.
Kerry is using the word "sensitive" to how he would work with the world in the battle against terrorism.
Any rational person can deduce that.
That however didn't stop Cheney.

[LRB]

Mavdog, Kerry used the word in at best a highly ambigous manner which could be taken to mean all sorts of things. For that alone he deserved to be taken to task. Let Kerry get specific instead of these broad fense sitting statements that he so loves to make. The fact that Kerry failed to adequately define the meaning in a prepared speach whose purpose was to define his position is not a legitimate excuse for not taking him at his revisionistic meaing. BTW Kerry's speach writer should be fired. They suck.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
Mavdog, Kerry used the word in at best a highly ambigous manner which could be taken to mean all sorts of things. For that alone he deserved to be taken to task. Let Kerry get specific instead of these broad fense sitting statements that he so loves to make. The fact that Kerry failed to adequately define the meaning in a prepared speach whose purpose was to define his position is not a legitimate excuse for not taking him at his revisionistic meaing. BTW Kerry's speach writer should be fired. They suck.

yeah, shame on Kerry for using a complete sentence. so hard to figure out the subject. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[veruca salt]

I took the "sensitive" comment as Kerry trying to say that they wouldn't have gone out of the
way to get so many allies off side during the war on terror. A more sensitive approach to the overall
war, not the battle against the terrorists.