Sensitivity Training

Desperate for any opening to attack John Kerry, Bush-Cheney have now worked a new angle.  They're now starting to attack a quote Kerry made at last week's minority journalist conference (you remember, the one where Bush so helpfully explained to us the meaning of the word sovereignty).  This is what 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," he said.

Despite the fact that Kerry was obviously using sensitive in terms of dealing with our allies, Bush-Cheney decided to take the word completely out fo context and use it as a hammer:

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.

"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.

He accused the Massachusetts senator of having a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the world.

"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.

He accented some form of the word "sensitive" a half-dozen times in his speech and drew laughter from the partisan crowd.

The Kerry camp quickly fought back, explaining (properly) that Cheney was taking the word "sensitive" completely out of context.  The reckless and arrogant foreign policy this Administration has charted over the last four years was the context of the "sensitive" comment, not that we should be asking terrorists about their feelings.

What the campaign has not pursued too much is the utter hypocrisy of bashing Kerry over using the word sensitive when Bush-Cheney has used it, in theory and practice, over the last four years.  There is one quote far down in the Reuters article that hints at this:

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.

But what about denying press outlets to show photographs of the coffins of soldiers coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan?  Wasn't the rationale that "we have to be sensitive to the families of the victims?"  I thought you couldn't be sensitive in war.  And what about what is going on right now, in Najaf, Iraq?  The US has launched major operations inside the city, but they will not strike the Imam Ali Mosque, one of the holiest Shiite sites in the country.  This is despite the fact that Medhi Army militia is apparently seeking refuge in the mosque, which under international laws concerning war and cultural heritage property, makes it perfectly legal for us to use it as a target.  For some insane reason, US forces are wary of using force against the mosque!  They aren't being... sensitive to Shiite cultural history, are they?  In fact, this Radio Free Europe report claims that...

(UNESCO official) Del Corral says UNESCO gave the U.S.-led coalition a list of sensitive sites prior to the start of war in March 2003, including the Imam Ali Mosque. With the exception of the unchecked looting at Iraqi museums last year, she says the coalition has taken "maximum care" to protect important cultural sites: "Of course, in a conflict like that you cannot pretend that everything will be untouched but [the coalition] asked and obtained the necessary information, and they tried to respect it the best they could."

But that doesn't make sense!  The Bush-Cheney team doesn't fight wars using sensitivity!  "President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive warfare, nor did President Roosevelt, nor Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur," Cheney said.  Then why aren't you blowing up the Imam Ali Mosque?  Isn't that where these insurgents are hiding?  Isn't it a base of operations?

Every time this Administration finds an attack point in this election campaign, they prove their own ignorance of history, foreign policy, even themselves.