The S-word applies to Bush and Cheney, too

From HoustonChronicle.com
Aug. 19, 2004

By CLARENCE PAGE

A "more sensitive" war on terror? That's a joke, except when Team Bush wants to have one.

Such is the not-so-subtle message in Vice President Dick Cheney's ridicule of John Kerry's call for a "more sensitive" war on terror.

"America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive," Cheney told supporters in Dayton, Ohio, last Thursday. "A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans. ... The men who beheaded (U.S. citizens) Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity."

Cheney's implied message to a crowd heavy with men and women who, unlike Cheney, are military veterans was that war vet Kerry sounds like a wussy compared to the manly men and women of Team Bush. Was Cheney right about Kerry? Or, astonishing as it may be to comprehend, was he quoting Kerry out of context? I report; you decide:

Cheney was referring to Kerry's statement a week earlier at the UNITY Convention for journalists of color in Washington, D.C. In context, the Democratic presidential nominee 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 and lives up to American values in history."

Got that? Kerry called for a "more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive" war on terror, as well as more "sensitive," the adjective upon which Cheney chose to wail away.

"Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively," Cheney also said, triggering applause. "They need to be destroyed." Sage words from a man who said on national television that triumphant American troops would be greeted with flowers in the streets of Iraq. Our troops are still waiting for those flowers.

"As our opponents see it," Cheney said, "the problem isn't the thugs and murderers that we face, but our attitude. We, the American people, know better."

But Cheney's own superior doesn't seem to agree with him on the matter of sensitivity.

President Bush just happened to speak to the same UNITY Convention a day after Kerry and in answer to a question there, Bush said, "Now, in terms of, you know, the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice, obviously we need to be very sensitive on that," emphasizing the S-word.

Does Cheney not pay much attention to what his boss actually says about foreign policy?

Or, for that matter, does Cheney pay much attention to what Cheney says about foreign policy? I raise that question because Cheney himself spoke on conservative Hugh Hewitt's syndicated radio show regarding the siege of the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf, declaring that the shrine "is a sensitive area and we are very much aware of its sensitivity."

That's reassuring. As Kerry was trying to say, a little sensitivity goes a long way. In its hasty run-up to war with Iraq, U.S. missteps show a need for this nation to be more "sensitive," not to its enemies, but to its allies. Instead of throwing American might, money, men and women into battle alone or nearly alone against all threats, America needs the sort of leadership that brings other nations along with us as effective partners. That's how George Bush built a truly strong coalition to chase Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

As candidate Bush said during a debate with Vice President Al Gore in 2000, "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us, if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power and that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom."

I can hardly improve on that. America does not need to seek a "permission slip," as Bush more recently put it, from anyone, but we should seek the cooperation of everyone. Whether Bush or Kerry wins the November contest, it is not enough simply to show our neighbors, enemy and allies alike, how tough we are. Our neighbors have received that message, but we should not always expect them to love us for it.