Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Sue the terrorists? Is that what sKerry meant when he said he'd wage a "more sensitive" war on terror?
Actually he was just backing up your leaders:
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: …
SPECIAL FORCES STATE NEED TO FIGHT "SENSITIVE WAR ON TERRORISM": …
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY SAYS MILITARY MUST NOT BE INSENSITIVE: …
RUMSFELD STRESSES NEED TO BE "SENSITIVE" IN THE WAR: …
GEN. RICHARD MYERS SAYS MILITARY NEEDS TO BE "SENSITIVE" IN WAR: …
GEN. TOMMY FRANKS SAID THE WHITE HOUSE MADE SURE TO BE "SENSITIVE": …
ASHCROFT CLAIMS THE ADMINISTRATION IS BEING "SENSITIVE" IN WAR ON TERROR: …
CHENEY & LOTT URGE MILITARY TO BE SENSITIVE IN CONDUCTING WAR: …
CHENEY SAYS PENTAGON MUST BE "SENSITIVE" IN DEVELOPING WEAPONS: …
WOLFOWITZ SAYS MILITARY MUST BE "SENSITIVE" IN WAR ON TERROR: …
