Latest Kerry Humor

[bsears]

Originally posted by Patch'sD
I guess It’s time to wage Sensitive Wars against Terrorists

TERRORISM
Cheney's 'Sensitive' Hypocrisy
In yet another effort to put politics over substance, Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday blasted Sen. John Kerry (D) for his comments earlier this week insisting that America must be more "sensitive" to allies and American citizens' concerns in the "war on terror." Cheney's retort: "America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive." He went on: "A 'sensitive war' will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more." Cheney's attack could have been leveled at himself and others in the Bush administration, both of whom have frequently used the "s" word. See these other examples of how Cheney's cheap political attack contradicts his own stated positions on military affairs and social issues.

PRESIDENT BUSH STRESSES NEED TO BE "SENSITIVE" IN MILTARY AFFAIRS: On 3/4/01, President Bush stressed the need to be "sensitive" in conducting military affairs, stating, "because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence." And just last week, President Bush said, "In terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that."

SPECIAL FORCES STATE NEED TO FIGHT "SENSITIVE WAR ON TERRORISM": The Bush campaign's latest salvo, while aimed at Kerry, also is an attack on the military's top special forces commanders. On 7/20/04, the Bush administration sent one of the Air Force's top special forces officers to Capitol Hill to assuage concerns about tactics being used in the War on Terror. In his testimony, Chief Master Sgt. Robert Martens reassured Republican Chairman Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) that "our special operators offer a seasoned, culturally sensitive war on terrorism."

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY SAYS MILITARY MUST NOT BE INSENSITIVE: On 4/13/04, Cheney said the Bush administration was focused on conducting sensitive military operations. He stated, "We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We're not insensitive to that. We work almost on a continual basis with the local officials to remove points of friction and reduce the extent to which problems arise in terms of those relationships."

RUMSFELD STRESSES NEED TO BE "SENSITIVE" IN THE WAR: In the lead up to the Iraq war and afterwards, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised the Pentagon would be "sensitive." On 2/5/03, he said "we have to be sensitive, to the extent the world thinks the United States is focused on the problems in Iraq, it's conceivable that someone could make a mistake and believe that that's an opportunity for them to take an action which they otherwise would have avoided." On 7/9/03, he reassured the public that his department was being "sensitive" to troop needs during the war. He said U.S. commanders are "sensitive to the importance of troops knowing what the rotation plan will be so they have some degree of certainty in their lives. And are sensitive to the importance of the quality of their lives."

GEN. RICHARD MYERS SAYS MILITARY NEEDS TO BE "SENSITIVE" IN WAR: On 10/31/01, Gen. Richard Myers, Bush's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about whether the military would be "sensitive" to religious issues in prosecuting the War on Terror. He said "We are, I think, very culturally sensitive." On 1/7/03, Myers touted the Army's ability to be "sensitive." He said "we can ask of our troops to go out there and be, on the one hand, very sensitive to cultural issues, on the other hand, be ready to respond in self-defense to a very ticklish situation, all at the same time." On 11/19/03, Myers said U.S. troops "are very sensitive to the balance between appropriate military action and not trying to turn the average Iraqi against the coalition."

GEN. TOMMY FRANKS SAID THE WHITE HOUSE MADE SURE TO BE "SENSITIVE": On 7/10/03, Gen. Tommy Franks went to Capitol Hill to answer questions about the War on Terror. He said the Bush administration explicitly understood the "sensitive" need for the U.S. to continue pursuing al Qaeda in Afghanistan, instead of appearing like it was solely focused on Iraq. Franks said, "Everyone from the president to Secretary Rumsfeld right through me were very sensitive, to be sure, that our operations moved ahead in Afghanistan in parallel with what we were doing in Iraq."

ASHCROFT CLAIMS THE ADMINISTRATION IS BEING "SENSITIVE" IN WAR ON TERROR: Attorney General John Ashcroft has repeatedly stressed the need for the Bush administration to be "sensitive" in fighting the War on Terror. On 4/28/03, just a month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Ashcroft said, "The United States is very sensitive about interfering in the internal politics of other countries." On 3/20/02, he said the Justice Department was making sure to be "sensitive" in hunting down terrorists. He said, "The agents and officers who conducted the interviews did so in a sensitive manner, showing full respect for the rights and dignity of the individuals being interviewed."

CHENEY & LOTT URGE MILITARY TO BE SENSITIVE IN CONDUCTING WAR: In conducting the first war in Iraq, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney repeatedly stressed the need for America to fight a "sensitive" war. On 9/11/90, Cheney told Congress that he "was very concerned about…the clash of cultures" brought on by U.S. troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, and that the U.S. must "try to be sensitive." Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) concurred, saying, "I would agree to that. I think are sensitive, but we also are sensitive."

CHENEY SAYS PENTAGON MUST BE "SENSITIVE" IN DEVELOPING WEAPONS: On 2/7/90, Cheney told Congress that the Pentagon must be "sensitive" in developing weapons. He said that he understood the need for the Pentagon to explore civilian uses of weapons-related technology, saying, "I think we need to be very sensitive to that as a department."

WOLFOWITZ SAYS MILITARY MUST BE "SENSITIVE" IN WAR ON TERROR: On 11/9/01, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a key hawk on military issues, said the armed forces must be "sensitive" to religious issues surrounding the War on Terror. He said, "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."

 

[bsears]

And, by the way, senator Kerry used the word sensitive when responding to a question after his speech to the journalists of color convention.

When asked the same question when president Bush spoke to the same group, president Bush also used the word sensitive.

 

[Frank Babaganoush]

So kerry wants to be even more sensitive than that?

 

[bsears]

Originally posted by Frank Babaganoush
So kerry wants to be even more sensitive than that?

This response makes little sense. Cheney tried to make political hay out of the use of a word that the Bush administration has used repeatedly.

 

[Chicago526]

Originally posted by bsears
And, by the way, senator Kerry used the word sensitive when responding to a question after his speech to the journalists of color convention.

When asked the same question when president Bush spoke to the same group, president Bush also used the word sensitive.

To both of your posts!

 

[Frank Babaganoush]

The response makes perfect sense. Johns Kerry said he could fight a MORE SENSITIVE war than Bush. This admisnistration is being sensitive in this war but not so sensitive as to give unreasonable concessions to win support from other nations.

Personally, I think the administration is already too sensitive the last thing we need is to be MORE SENSITIVE in the war on terrorism.
It is one of the few areas I think GW is wrong.

 

[rcyannacci]

Just replying to the joke and not the politics...really, it's not that funny. Maybe a brief chuckle, like when you're reading the Sunday comics, but nothing you could tell at a bar and get a free drink out of.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Patch'sD
Al Gore to Wolf Blitzer March 1999 'During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet'

See, this is the problem when you only read the Republican talking points

Gore was talking about programs he helped move forward while in Congress. Trying to pass off his statement as if he was actually claiming to have invented the internet is nothing but political spin.

 

[Frank Babaganoush]

Maybe you misread the statement.

He said, "I took the initiative in creating the internet" not , "Congress created the environment that fostered the development of the Internet."

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Patch'sD
I guess It’s time to wage Sensitive Wars against Terrorists

Here we go again....Do Republicans really think the American people are stupid ? Kerry was NOT talking about "being sensitive to terrorists", as anybody that actually heard what he said could tell you. In fact, his remarks were nearly identical to comments that Bush made during his campaign in 2000 (another little fact Republicans like to ignore )

Kerry: "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.

Shrub in 2000: ...George Bush's own words, who called for America to be 'sensitive about expressing our power and influence,'"

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Frank Babaganoush
Sensitive? Do we really need France and Germany on our side that badly?

Yes, we do....Do you think the terrorists are laying out their plans in Washington and New York ? No, they lay them out in places like Brussels and Paris, then commit them in Washington and New York. Thinking that we can go it alone is just plain ignorant of the actual realities of the "war on terror".

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Frank Babaganoush
Maybe you misread the statement.

He said, "I took the initiative in creating the internet" not , "Congress created the environment that fostered the development of the Internet."

And I thought the constant re-hashing of the Clinton/Lewinsky matter was ridiculous....

 

[bsears]

Originally posted by Frank Babaganoush
The response makes perfect sense. Johns Kerry said he could fight a MORE SENSITIVE war than Bush. This admisnistration is being sensitive in this war but not so sensitive as to give unreasonable concessions to win support from other nations.

Personally, I think the administration is already too sensitive the last thing we need is to be MORE SENSITIVE in the war on terrorism.
It is one of the few areas I think GW is wrong.

Fair enough. But I was not commenting on whether or not the war needed to be sensitive, but on the fact that Cheney's critisism of Kerry's use of the word was complete hypocrisy. The word is even used in the homeland security act almost two dozen times.

Either Cheney is completely forgetful, or he thinks we are too dumb to remember what was said. Oh wait....there is a third possibility: he is flip flopping.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsears
Fair enough. But I was not commenting on whether or not the war needed to be sensitive, but on the fact that Cheney's critisism of Kerry's use of the word was complete hypocrisy. The word is even used in the homeland security act almost two dozen times.

Either Cheney is completely forgetful, or he thinks we are too dumb to remember what was said. Oh wait....there is a third possibility: he is flip flopping.

Honestly, I think it's the second choice, they just think Americans are too dumb to notice....I mean, they've convinced people that Al Gore actually believes he invented the internet, so why wouldn't they think that we're all too dumb to notice ? Besides, they got their five second sound bite of Cheney blasting Kerry, and since that seems to be the average attention span of a lot of people, they don't have to worry about the actual truth showing their hypocrisy.

 

[Patch'sD]

Just as Bush was speaking on how his adminstration was working to protect the American people buy looking at ways Terrorists can harm us. It was taking out of context to make Bush look like a fool. So was the Invention of the Internet comment by Gore, taken out of Context

 

[shortbun]

very old joke

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Patch'sD
Just as Bush was speaking on how his adminstration was working to protect the American people buy looking at ways Terrorists can harm us. It was taking out of context to make Bush look like a fool. So was the Invention of the Internet comment by Gore, taken out of Context

Bush's comment wasn't taken out of context, it was a poorly constructed sentence...Just poor speaking skills on his part, nobody was trying to say that he was actually out to think of new ways of harming our country (which is EXACTLY what he said he was doing). It was a joke, not a serious political attack...

 

[bsears]

Originally posted by Patch'sD
Just as Bush was speaking on how his adminstration was working to protect the American people buy looking at ways Terrorists can harm us. It was taking out of context to make Bush look like a fool. So was the Invention of the Internet comment by Gore, taken out of Context

That was an example of poor speaking skills, not an insuation that he meant what he said. Completely different from the attacks on Gore.

 

[Patch'sD]

I guess Gore didn't mis-speak when he used the " I " word. So when Bush Speaks it's up for Grabs, When Kerry Speaks it's an attack or misunderstanding of his entire speach. Kerry is doing a great job on harming his own election campaign, I would love to know What he said when he had the "tiff "with his wife.

 

[Frank Babaganoush]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Yes, we do....Do you think the terrorists are laying out their plans in Washington and New York ? No, they lay them out in places like Brussels and Paris, then commit them in Washington and New York. Thinking that we can go it alone is just plain ignorant of the actual realities of the "war on terror".

Who said go it alone? We can certainly do it without France and Germany.

Since they foster the atmosphere where terrorist plan their acts maybe we should be focusing on them in ways other than trying to get them on our side.