Let's review once again what John Kerry said in a conference about "fighting a more sensitive war against terrorism":
"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.
I lay out a strategy to strengthen our military, to build and lead strong alliances and reform our intelligence system. I set out a path to win the peace in Iraq and to get the terrorists, wherever they may be, before they get us.
To strengthen our homeland security, we're going to do what we should've been doing for the last three years: protecting our ports, securing our chemical and nuclear power plants, and supporting our police officers, our firefighters and our EMTs."
Clear cut comments, indeed, no room for interpretation...(more)
But Cheney and the media blasted him because he uses the word "sensitive."
To this day I wonder why not a single of the "democratic strategists" ridiculed Cheney's remarks and the media's parroting of his talking points by using a simple tool. Like stating that the Senator "was refering to the concept of sensitive matters or sensitive intelligence, widely used withing the intelligence community. By using this concept, the Senator has demonstrated a great deal of understanding and experience on this field, on the other hand and after reading the VP's remarks we understand Mr. Cheney seems to lack that level of understanding."
"3. This goal is easy to state, but difficult to put into practice. I do not intend to limit the production of intelligence at high levels of classification that is primarily in support of decisionmakers, nor do I intend to hold back the production of extremely sensitive and restricted intelligence which is based directly upon sensitive intelligence sources. We will continue to provide this kind of intelligence to limited sets of cleared customers at high levels of classification."
Another example comes to mind. Chris Matthews mocking John Edward after the debate with Cheney:
"MATTHEWS (Tuesday evening, 10/5/04): I am stunned! I wish everybody would show an equal exclamation point after their thoughts here tonight! Dick Cheney was prepared! He was loaded for bear tonight! He was out on a hunting trip looking for squirrel!
MATTHEWS: And he found squirrel! Does anybody share that? Because I think the newspapers are going to share that tomorrow.
MATTHEWS (10/5/04): There it was, the big debate! It ran a bit over, about 10 minutes late, but let's talk about it right now. And I think we can come up with a jury decision rather quickly.
Andrea Mitchell, you are a straight reporter. You can't make political judgments. But what do you think the country's judgment will be as to who won this encounter?
MITCHELL: I think Dick Cheney did awfully well at, first of all, putting John Edwards in his place, saying that I have been presiding over the Senate and I didn't meet you until tonight. Talking about his not having been on the job was pretty devastating.
MATTHEWS: Not only is he new to politics. He is late to politics..."
All those "professional comments" were made by Matthews the "so-called former Carter speech-writer", A.K.A Democrat.
I find Matthews irrelevant at best, a sad character with non-existent professional qualifications but, where were the Democrats stating that basic truth the next day?
What's wrong with taking a guy like this to task for those insulting comments and demanding a retraction or an apology?
The absence of a quick reaction to such incidents is what I find really surprising on the "institutional" Democratic side.