Friday, August 13, 2004 - Apache Junction, Arizona, USA
SENSITIVITY 101
So many things to talk about today – which should I bring up? First there’s the Court decision in California - who didn’t realize that was coming? This has been covered very well in a lot of other journals though so I think I’ll pass on that for a couple of days. Then there’s the ‘retirement’ of New Jersey’s now out of the closet gay governor. I think I’ll hang on to this one until the smoke clears. No, today I think I’ll talk about Vice President Cheney’s disparaging remarks about John Kerry. I always enjoy it when the Bushie administration buries itself in pig shit up to his pointed big ears.
I’ll bring you up to date in case you haven’t been paying attention with all the goings on lately. Last week at a Kerry conference with minority journalists the Demo candidate 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.”
Mr. Cheney immediately jumped at the remark stating as only Mr. Cheney can, “America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed. President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive wars. Nor did President Roosevelt or Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. As our opponents see it, the problem isn't the thugs and murderers that we face, but our attitude. We, the American people, know better.”
Yes, Mr. Cheney, we, the American people, DO know better. We know that sensitive means being capable of being stimulated by external agents, such as CIA Director George Tenant’s report to President Bush entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which warned that al Qaida might be planning to hijack airplanes. A li’l sensitivity might have been a big help there, no?
We also know that sensitivity means being delicately aware of the attitudes and feelings of others, for instance our NATO partners, and those Middle East countries that helped us in the last Iraqi war. Had President Bush and Mr. Cheney been a bit more sensitive, we might not have had to go it alone in Iraq this time.
Being sensitive would allow one to be capable of indicating minute differences, such as if our intelligence sources showed there were really weapons of mass destruction or not. Being capable of that might have kept us out of the Iraqi mess totally. But it’s hard to be sensitive when you’re so cock-sure that you’ll read anything you want into intelligence sources to prove your own misdirected point.
Also, Mr. Cheney, we Americans know our history a bit better than you give us credit for. We know that President Roosevelt was sensitive enough to the wishes of the American people to keep us out of WWII until we were attacked by the Japanese and had war declared upon us by the Germans. General Eisenhower had to be super sensitive so as not to offend any of his Allies. Case in point – choosing Montgomery over Patton in some cases to quell British anxieties. Yes, and General MacArthur. Wasn’t he the one who wanted to nuke the North Koreans? How many millions of people would that have destroyed? And would Russia have retaliated as soon as they could? Thank God Truman was sensitive.
As for Abe, he had to be sensitive enough to balance the need to reunite the Union with the opposition to the draft. Not all northerners wanted to fight for the black man. There were riots in New York and other northern cities against Mr. Lincoln’s war. How easy would it have been to be insensitive and just let the South have it’s own way? And Grant was much more sensitive than say, General Sheridan, who’s insensitivity during his march through the South after it was all but defeated caused the destruction of property, lives, and morale that probably set back the reconstruction of the Union for years. Grant never allowed such tactics in his Army of the Potomac.
So Mr. Cheny, we Americans would much rather have sensitive leaders than insensitive ones like we have now. The world would be a safer place, the economy would be in much better shape, and Americans wouldn’t be torn apart by fear motivated ideals wrongfully labeled as “Christian.”
In the words of John Kerry’s wife, Teresa – "SHOVE IT."
©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre
So many things to talk about today – which should I bring up? First there’s the Court decision in California - who didn’t realize that was coming? This has been covered very well in a lot of other journals though so I think I’ll pass on that for a couple of days. Then there’s the ‘retirement’ of New Jersey’s now out of the closet gay governor. I think I’ll hang on to this one until the smoke clears. No, today I think I’ll talk about Vice President Cheney’s disparaging remarks about John Kerry. I always enjoy it when the Bushie administration buries itself in pig shit up to his pointed big ears.
I’ll bring you up to date in case you haven’t been paying attention with all the goings on lately. Last week at a Kerry conference with minority journalists the Demo candidate 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.”
Mr. Cheney immediately jumped at the remark stating as only Mr. Cheney can, “America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed. President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive wars. Nor did President Roosevelt or Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. As our opponents see it, the problem isn't the thugs and murderers that we face, but our attitude. We, the American people, know better.”
Yes, Mr. Cheney, we, the American people, DO know better. We know that sensitive means being capable of being stimulated by external agents, such as CIA Director George Tenant’s report to President Bush entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which warned that al Qaida might be planning to hijack airplanes. A li’l sensitivity might have been a big help there, no?
We also know that sensitivity means being delicately aware of the attitudes and feelings of others, for instance our NATO partners, and those Middle East countries that helped us in the last Iraqi war. Had President Bush and Mr. Cheney been a bit more sensitive, we might not have had to go it alone in Iraq this time.
Being sensitive would allow one to be capable of indicating minute differences, such as if our intelligence sources showed there were really weapons of mass destruction or not. Being capable of that might have kept us out of the Iraqi mess totally. But it’s hard to be sensitive when you’re so cock-sure that you’ll read anything you want into intelligence sources to prove your own misdirected point.
Also, Mr. Cheney, we Americans know our history a bit better than you give us credit for. We know that President Roosevelt was sensitive enough to the wishes of the American people to keep us out of WWII until we were attacked by the Japanese and had war declared upon us by the Germans. General Eisenhower had to be super sensitive so as not to offend any of his Allies. Case in point – choosing Montgomery over Patton in some cases to quell British anxieties. Yes, and General MacArthur. Wasn’t he the one who wanted to nuke the North Koreans? How many millions of people would that have destroyed? And would Russia have retaliated as soon as they could? Thank God Truman was sensitive.
As for Abe, he had to be sensitive enough to balance the need to reunite the Union with the opposition to the draft. Not all northerners wanted to fight for the black man. There were riots in New York and other northern cities against Mr. Lincoln’s war. How easy would it have been to be insensitive and just let the South have it’s own way? And Grant was much more sensitive than say, General Sheridan, who’s insensitivity during his march through the South after it was all but defeated caused the destruction of property, lives, and morale that probably set back the reconstruction of the Union for years. Grant never allowed such tactics in his Army of the Potomac.
So Mr. Cheny, we Americans would much rather have sensitive leaders than insensitive ones like we have now. The world would be a safer place, the economy would be in much better shape, and Americans wouldn’t be torn apart by fear motivated ideals wrongfully labeled as “Christian.”
In the words of John Kerry’s wife, Teresa – "SHOVE IT."
©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre
Comments:
Not that I want to vote for bush (intentionally left without capitalization of the first letter), but I don't see why he would choose cheyney (again lack of the capitalization) again. cheyney can't be president as he claims. What cheyney realistically can be is a turd about to be flushed.
LOL You must be my only reader, Vlad. Thanks for stopping by again. :) I don't think the Bush Cheney team will be with us much longer either. Thanks!!
Post a Comment
.
![[ Registered ]](http://www.ardeon.org/happy/journals/button.jpg)
