Hey ron I live in New York, Take the 7 train (subway) to Grand Central to go to work. Any idea what it's been like the last two weeks here?
No, they are not stretches. And for the record Kerry said: "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." Not: "...he would fight a 'more sensitive' war on terror. Guess you and Dick didn't do too well on those reading comprehension parts of the SAT, huh?
RR, they are stretches. People know that Kerry is a weakling on terror. Sensitivity and war have about as much in common as Prada shoes and flip flops (Kerry reference there...it's not a flip-flop, it's "nuanced.") What liberal has ever fought a war with some cojones? It sure as hell was not LBJ with his bombing halts. Postwar studies showed that if we had bombed the beejesus out of the North early in the conflict like we did under Nixon (too little, too late), the North would have capitulated to our demands to leave the South alone....and millions of innocents would not have died. But LBJ was so afraid of "escalation." There is no try...there is do or do not. Clinton sure did not, either in the Mog or the Balkans. We take a few casualties in a place (thanks to the media caterwalling and the weakness of the elder Bush) where we did not belong and we run away like cowards, emboldening Al Quaeda. In the Balkans, we are still there and if we leave, the whole area disintergrates into fighting amongst various stupid ethnic groups who hate each other. Carter.....all he did was pull us out of the Olympics. Need I add the constant leftist attempts to prop up dictatorships throughout the world, like the Sandinistas and others? The left has a sorry record on national defense and Kerry would be no different. We don't need "nuance," we need ass kicking and we have gotten that under Bush. If you can't see that, you are either not paying attention or in need of a brain.
Anyone with half a brain knows Kerry is referencing allies, not terrorists, hence the phrase "that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history." To deny that's what Bush is saying as well is ridiculous. sensitive: 5.having or showing keen sensibilities;highly perceptive or responsive intellecually, aesthetically, etc. also perhaps... sensitive: 10.designating, of or dealing with highly secret or delicate government matters. Out of 10 definitions of sensitive, I'm shocked Cheney picked one of the 8 that had nothing to do with what Kerry was talking about. Also, you missed the memo where Bush is now the "Peace President" and not the "War President."
Yep, I took that train two days ago. Not that much of a hassle IMO... What seems to be the problem for you with the 7 to that subway stop?
Would you rather have warnings at times when it turns out that there's really nothing to worry about, or have them fail to warn us when something is really up? I recognize that the ideal is to warn only when there's a verified, legitimate threat, but we've had trouble getting the bad guys to put us on their email notification list. Despite the conspiracy theories, I suspect most people involved in homeland security are just trying to make us safer. Anyone here want the job of making the call when to warn and when not to warn? I certainly don't, because there's no way you can win. Somebody is always going to have a problem.
