8/13/2004 01:18:00 PM|||Joe|||Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself. We pursue our goals; we will listen to others; we want strong friends to join us, not weak neighbors to dominate. In all our dealings with other nations, we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength.
Ok, pop quiz. Who made that statement? Who said “… we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence”? Although I would really like to say it was Cheney, it was Bush. He said it on March 4, 2001.
Cheney's been mocking Kerry for using similar language. Sure, his comments play well to a certain crowd. But to the rest of us, Cheney is making himself look stupid. Not to mention kind of scummy.
But oh, I suppose that one could argue that Bush said this before 9/11. Well, last week Bush said: “Now, in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is — we need to be very sensitive on that.”
Kerry's comment: “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.”
There's a practice in philosophy of interpreting a person's arguments an assertions in the most charitable light possible. Interpreting something uncharitably is really not in the spirit of the pursuit of truth. And it's certainly scummy. What Cheney's doing is taking one word from one comment and uncharitably misinterpreting it. I think we all know that Kerry doesn't want to give terrorists foot massages.
Another example — in a previous post I joked about Bush's apparent assertion that he's trying to harm America. Did anyone take it seriously, despite the fact that that was what he said? Of course no one took it seriously.
But on to one of Cheney's comments: “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.” Of course, this has nothing to do with what Kerry said. But let's look at it anyway.
What is a “sensitive” war anyway? Assuming (for one absurd moment) that Kerry wants to wage a war that everyone would look at and say, “Dang, that's one sensitive war”, what would it be like? Anybody? Blowing kisses? I have no idea.
The problem is the carelessness with which we toss words like “war” around. World War II, the U.S. Civil War and the Korean War were all pretty much your standard wars. No one's going to argue that the Civil War was a quasi-war.
But what about the War on Drugs? The War on Poverty? And of course, the War on Terror? Are these really wars? In the way that Vietnam was a war? Sure, they have some things in common with traditional war. Sometimes guns are used, sometimes it involves other countries, etc.
Do I need to beat this into the ground?
Long story short — Kerry's talking about the delicate diplomatic problems involved in this “war on terror”. That's it. Cheney needs to stop acting like a damn idiot.|||109240588437043624|||Cheney Smacks Bush