I'm still annoyed by this. After Dick Cheney's sexual directive to Sen.Pat Leahy on the Senate floor in June, it was clear that he is not familiar with the term "sensitive." It is no surprise then that Dick criticized John Kerry's statement that he would "fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror" than the Bush administration has. It is also no surprise that Dick has taken Kerry's statement out of context and distorted it by saying, "America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive."
On the contrary, we have won wars by being "aware" of the situation on the ground, by being "responsive" to changing conditions, and "conscious" of the enemies being fought (all synonyms of the word "sensitive"). Is Dick suggesting that we wage an unaware, unresponsive, unconscious, and thus, insensitive war on terror? Or maybe this is why the situation in Iraq has gotten worse since Bush declared "mission accomplished", and why the "war on terra" is such a blunder?
Perhaps Dick should listen to Shrub who on August 6th told the Unity Conference, "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."
Why is it that The Daily Show can point this out, but the Post can't.