No, he did not. Prior to 9/11/2001, he did use the word sensitive in terms with dealing with our allies.

I guess I am a simple man who prefers simple solutions. I liked the Israeli solution to the Iraq nuclear reactor, for example.

I don't think that Sen Kerry said "sensitive" with relation to the war on terrorism, meaning be sensitive to the terrorists. Of course, this is the one word that the GOP has grabbed onto, VP Cheney in particular. Anyone who takes even three seconds to think this through knows that Sen Kerry meant a more sensitive policy regarding other countries in the world, whcih is not such a bad thing to at least consider, sincethe offensive portion of this "war" is fought almost exclusively on foreign soil.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I agree with your interpretation of what Kerry meant. Still, only someone with a pacifist mindset could formulate the phrase "more sensitive war on terror."

I agree that this is gotcha politics, but politics is about communication, and such a phrase sticks to Kerry because it is not so far off from the substance of his historical policies.

In 1971 testimony he opined that we couldn't fight communism all over the world. Wrong. We could. We did. We won. They lost.

I agree that Sen Kerry's speech writers probably could have done a better job with that, as could Pres. Bush when he said that we can't win the war on terrorism the other day. Again, people didn't bother to think about the meaning behind the words. I can take any speech, take it out of context and turn it all around. Unfortunately, it's the Pres and VP that are latching onto this, instead of taking the 3 secs, figuring out what he actually meant, and then debating the actual viewpoint.

As for communism, some of our biggest foreign policy concerns are with China and N. Korea, two decidedly communist countries so I don't know that we can say we've beaten it just yet.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

People who are more concerned about gay marriage and stem cell research are living in a dream world.

And where do people who only think there can be one serious problem at a time live?

Do you really believe that Islamic terrorism is the biggest, most immediate threat we face? And if you do, how does that lead you to the conclusion that it's the only issue worth focusing on right now? Are we that awful at multi-tasking?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yes to what?

You think Islamic terrorism is the biggest and most immediate threat we face? Why? Exactly what danger does it pose to us in the short term? For now, all they can do is hope to kill some of us. They don't yet pose a threat to our way of life, or the survival of our nation. That day is coming, but it ain't tomorrow.

Or yes, you think Islamic terrorism is the only threat worth focusing on right now? There's a phrase for that- target fixation. It can be disastorous.

Or yes, you think we're really awful at multi-tasking, and therefore only capable of focusing on one threat at a time? If that's the case, we're in heading for a world of hurt. Real life just doesn't usually work that way.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Vitus, I am not saying there can be only be one serious problem, not at all, I think we have a long list of them! I am not saying we can only address one at a time either, obviously that is not the case, just prioritize.

I am saying that Islamic terror is among the highest threats and issues we have and if we ignore it then we will be very, very sorry. I would include other serious threats on the horizon as well including NK, Iran and China. Our security is the most important to me, without it there is not much. I am not interested in fighting about other issues to the expense of security.

I am fine with debating other issues and they should still be discussed because, they too, will not just go away and there are many that need to be resolved soon like, borders and immigration, health care, social security or lack of, and tax reform etc. but I personally believe that many people are focusing on things that, although deserve discussion, are not worth the attention they are given.

For example, I think marriage is between a man and a single woman and would like it to stay that way but in the end it doesn't really matter that much if they are allowed to marry.

In the end it does matter if we let someone come across the border and infilct another 3,000 deaths. Before 9/11 we were hated and they plotted but we had been lucky, not much damage and most of it was military. On 9/11 they raised the stakes exponentially to kill 3,000 civilians and do major damage to our economy and I am not realy looking forward to seeing the next escalation.

Do you feel that what happens with gay marriage and stem cell research (or other issues) will impact your life to the degree that decisions about how our country deals with gathering threats will?

Do you feel that what happens with gay marriage and stem cell research (or other issues) will impact your life to the degree that decisions about how our country deals with gathering threats will?

OK, let's look at gay marriage and North Korea.

Gay marriage isn't going to directly affect my life at all. However, it stands to exert a far greater change on American society than North Korea ever will, and the debate is happening now. If you have some magic pixie dust to spread around that will put the issue in stasis for the next few generations, cool, but I don't think it's possible.

Does that mean we shouldn't be talking about North Korea? Of course not. We should be talking about that more than we are.

I am not interested in fighting about other issues to the expense of security.

I reject the underlying assumptions in that statement. Particularly the assumption that talking about other issues is necessarily at the expense of security. Also the assumption that the security risks we face in the short term are more serious than the other issues you mentioned.

Do you really believe that our nation's efforts to fight terror have been hampered by a lack of attention? It's damn near all we hear about. I can't remember the last day I've spent awake without hearing and reading multiple stories about the Iraq war, or al Quaeda, or radical Islam, etc. So it bugs me that everytime another issue is brought up, people refuse to address it, on the grounds that we just can't afford to be distracted from our security needs. It's a red herring.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

It's great to see democracy at work. Some of us take it for granted.

I read a blurb news story the other day, which was not covered by the main stream media. Several Afghan women were gunned down by terrorists as they lined up to get their voting cards for the upcoming elections. What do you think happened next? 10 times as many women got in line the next day for their cards. 10,000,000 people have registered to vote.

Kerry won't be able to make any hay out of that poor statement by Bush because no one believes that Bush is soft on terrrorism. Kerry's problem is that those poor statements of his reinforce existing doubts about him. They will stick despite the fact that the statements themselves are justifiable in context.

I am not sure North Korea really qualifies as Communist any more. It is just another paranoid, dysfunctional dictatorship.

They will stick despite the fact that the statements themselves are justifiable in context.

Guilty of playing the same political game you accuse the media of, Art.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Good points and you are right, we have not lost sight of security at the expense or other issues. I guess my point is that for some people these causes have become all they think about, Ron Reagan Jr. comes to mind. I just find their priorities hard to understand. My original comment was the result of thinking that many people concentrate on these issues because they believe there is not a threat to us and that we are safeEven taking security out of the conversation, it seems to me that some people are focused on things that don't matter that much as a whole to our country.

I am fine with debates happening now and I didn't mean to say they should all be stopped, just that there is a ton of energy on some issues that don't need it. I don't want to debate gay marriage, but how do you figure it will have a far greater change on America than NK ever will? You could very well be right, but unless you can see the future how can you be sure? If NK shoots a nuke at one of it's neighbors, say SK, you don't think that would impact our lives more?

I agree with you Vitus, the discussions need to be addressed and discussed and we shouldn't set them aside for a single focus of security just see them in the appropriate context and importance.

I don't think so. I don't see your point.

Kerry can't explain away statements like "I actually voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." Despite the fact that the opposing votes are intellectually justifiable, sound bites like this reinforce the image of Kerry as a flip flopper. That image has substance, which is why a sound bite like that is so damaging to him. Bush could explain away a statement like that since few think of him as inconsistent; Kerry can not.

Bush could get away with the explanation that he voted against the measure in its final form in order to force a different version of the appropriation that actually dealt with the economic realities of how to pay for the $87 billion, rather than just engage in more deficit spending. Kerry can not get away with this explanation since people are concerned that he is anti military based on a 33 year record and because he has never shown any interest in restraining deficit spending except when it comes to military spending. Though the sound bite is arguably just gotcha politics, you will continue to hear it, and it will continue to be effective against Kerry because his credibility on such issues is poor.

I don't want to debate gay marriage, but how do you figure it will have a far greater change on America than NK ever will?

I really don't want to go round about gay marriage again, either. However. . .

What fundamental impact do you think North Korea is likely to have on America? They're crazy, the possibility that they might kill a good number of us one day has to be taken seriously. But I really do not think that they threaten our survival, or that even if they did attack us, they would alter the face of American society. We would fight, win, and move on. (I don't mean that as flippantly as it may sound.)

Gay marriage, on the other hand, represents a fundamental shift in how we think about one of the building blocks of any society. You simply cannot radically alter an institution as fundamental as marriage without impacting society, for good or ill.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the impact these various staements will have. I just wish that our top two guys (Pres and Veep) weren't engaging in the continuation of those fairly transparent tactics. If you have an issue with a man's politcs or record, by all means, debate it. But VP Cheney really likes to use that "sensitive" quote with a half a sneer on his face, and that is pretty weak. I expect more from the men supposedly leading the free world.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Bush used the same words the next day after Cheney attacked Kerry for using the word. It was a big joke on The Daily Show. They showed Kerry saying it. Showed Cheney making fun, then Bush using the same words. It was hilarious!!!!!!

I believe there is still communism in the world. I wouldnt be claiming "mission Accomplished" just yet.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In 1971 testimony he opined that we couldn't fight communism all over the world. Wrong. We could. We did. We won. They lost.

Taking your last comment first, I agree completely. "Gay marriage, on the other hand, represents a fundamental shift in how we think about one of the building blocks of any society. You simply cannot radically alter an institution as fundamental as marriage without impacting society, for good or ill."

I understand your point and you are right but I believe that, like many issues we face, people have already made their decisions on the issue and are very committed to them and will not change. People who oppose it always will (and the opposite is true), so while someone may be legally married they will not be taken seriously by those who oppose their marriage. I don't argue that it wouldn't cause a change in our culture but I still think that the threats we face from the outside, inculding open boarders, have the potential to make bigger, faster and more painful decisions. Look at the changes one day in September brought. I guess we are both correct in a sense and both issues bring important changes, I just see one as a cataclysmic change and the other more like glacial change.

The continued portrayal of Kerry as a flip-flopper is hypocritical. If Bush had an extended record, 20+ years, he'd probably have flip-flopped on as many issues as Kerry has. I can think of a few in the last year off the top of my head, resisting the formation of the 9/11 comission, then changing his mind when the 9/11 families got pissed. Now he embraces it like it was his idea all along (please). Flip flop, flip flop. Wouldn't let Condi testify, then changed his mind. Flip flop, flip flop. Bush claims he wouldn't politicize 9/11, but uses it in commercials and speeches constantly...flip flop, flip flop. I'm sure I could come up with a dozen more if I had the time (I don't) to do it.

Don't all politicians do this? Is there anyone in Washington who can stand up and say they've never changed their position on an issue before?