Is this why we’re in Iraq, Uncle Dick? To fight a ‘sensitive war’? Because we sure ain’t finding any of those “evil men” there. The “evil men” are mostly still on the loose (unless you count the taxi drivers, shepherds, and errand boys still in Camp X-Ray). Maybe Rumsfeld knows exactly where they are, like he knew the exact locations of Saddam’s WMD. Do the “evil men” even exist? I mean, the over-hyped, color-coded terror alerts did seem to stop after the last election…

You might want to open your eyes to the fact that terrorism isn’t something that just the US is fighting, many other countries are doing much more globally than the US (I know, you’re now totally shocked).

Most other countries realized, however, that fighting terrorism isn’t a “war”, its a military action that requires precision and thought, something the Iraq Invasion and Occupation never had.

I don’t know, your president is the one that said he would confront any country harboring terrorists. Since the US doesn’t attack Waziristan, because they want to accomodate the dictator Musharref, I read that as another flip-flop.

Kind of funny that the US is all about “spreading democracy” to Iraq, but a dictator next door, harboring a terrorist who murdered 3,000 of our citizens, is off limits. Then again, Saddam was off limits also in the 1980′s when Reagan/Bush were selling them chemical weapons, and Bin Laden was off limits in the same period as he fought the Soviets.

Poor analogies do not sound analysis make, young Jedi.

If you’d re-read the statements that Oliver attempts to use as evidence supporting his point, you’ll see that they are not analogous. One is a domestic intelligence gathering comment, the other an internationalist wish which doesn’t reflect reality.

What sense would an invasion of Pakistan make when Musharref is accomadating U.S. requests?

Speaking of lies, this: “Dick Cheney and George Bush urged sensitivity in the global war on terrororism.” fits the bill.

I remember Bunnypants talking about us confronting any country that harbors terrorists, but still, no invasion of Pakistan, which is where most agree that OBL is.

If you want to know what the cons are really doing, find out what they are accusing liberals of doing.

What he seems to be ignoring is that it will make it easier for us and/or our allies to do so. Then again, I think it’s hardly surprisng that the Vice President didn’t have any kind words for the proposed strategy of his political rivals. But that’s politics. It’s not like we’ve seen too many partisan Democrats offering much in the way of positive opinions on the Administration’s successes, or even honestly admit that they exist, period.

I don’t think the man’dve made a great Commander in Chief, but when taken in context, his comment on a “sensitive” war on terror is entirely justifiable.

and John Kerry making this one?:
“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.”

The first, is a consideration of the possibility of unjustly convicting members of the local communities.

The second, by contrast, speaks of reaching out to nations not aligned with the U.S. in the war on terror.

How is it that these two statements are analogous?

The link you provide for a Dick Cheney quote, via the Washinton Post simply says:
Cheney said in Dayton. “President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive warfare — nor did President Roosevelt, nor Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. A ‘sensitive war’ will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more.”

You might want to read the links you post before you make incorrect claims about statements the President and Dick Cheney had made about the war on terror.

Oh Oliver. Is that kryptonite burning you yet?

OK, I agree, just exposing things isn’t enough.

It is easy to say what won’t work. What will work? I assume you aren’t suggesting lowering ourselves to their level in terms of dishonesty.

And Rove wants to tell us his team thought of it?

Go for it, Karl.

I hardly think that lying as the right wingers do is the right thing to do.

There must be a way to expose all their distortions without resorting to their tactics.