BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Our new head of homeland security: Oprah

14 comments on Our new head of homeland security: Oprah

Our new head of homeland security: Oprah

: This is getting absurd. First, John Kerry makes this numbnutty statement on terrorism that was the perfect Daily Show punchline: “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.” Proactive is bad enough. Sensitive is just plain laughable.

So then Dick Cheney laughed. Hell, so did Jon Stewart. So did I. Sensitive? Come on! Said the Veep:

Senator Kerry has also said that if he were in charge he would fight a “more sensitive” war on terror. (Laughter.) America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was ever won by being “sensitive.” (Applause.) President Abraham Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive wars. President Roosevelt and Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur did not wage a sensitive war. A “sensitive war” will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans on the morning of 9/11, and who now seek chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more. The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity. (Applause.) As our opponents see it, the problem isn’t the thugs and the murderers we face, but it is somehow our attitude. Well, the American people know better. They know that we are in a fight to preserve our freedom and our way of life, and that we are on the side of right and justice in this battle. Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed. (Applause.)

It should have ended there: You say something stupid. It passes. But now John Edwards is defending Kerry’s Birkenstock moment: “He took that word and distorted and tried to use it to argue John Kerry will not keep the American people safe,” Edwards said. “He’s talking about a man who still carries shrapnel in his body. He’s talking about a man who spilled his blood for the United States of America.”

So now he’s playing the shrapnel card? That not only draws attention again to the dumb Kerry quote, it keeps playing Vietnam.

I’d rather see both sides outdoing each other with how they’re going to go get Bin Laden and islamofascists: I’d hunt ’em down…. Well, I’d bomb ’em… Well, I’d nuke ’em… That’s what I want to hear.

14 responses to “Our new head of homeland security: Oprah”

  1. drew Avatar
    drew

    The first two definitions of sensitive, according to Dictionary.com:
    1. Capable of perceiving with a sense or senses.
    2. Responsive to external conditions or stimulation.
    Why are either of these bad and/or laughable? Regardless of party, I always prefer people in charge to use a full range of sensivity. It certainly makes for a better decision-making process than tunnel-vision, no?

  2. anne.elk Avatar
    anne.elk

    “I’d rather see both sides outdoing each other with how they’re going to go get Bin Laden and islamofascists:”
    And yeah, Jeff, that’s exactly what Kerry did do, except you’ve closed your mind to that possibility. And since you’re a blogger, I know you’ve seen Oliver’s and Atrios’ link to Media Matters showing Cheney himself declaring himself a sensitive warrior too. So why the snark, just another slow Saturday night?
    Here’s what Kerry has said. Seems to be just what you want to hear.
    Kerry: “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”
    and in his acceptance speech:
    Kerry: “As President, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: “I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm’s way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent.” So lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war.
    And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.
    I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
    Here is the reality: that won’t happen until we have a president who restores America’s respect and leadership — so we don’t have to go it alone in the world.
    And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.
    I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.
    We will add 40,000 active duty troops – not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives – and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists.
    To all who serve in our armed forces today, I say, help is on the way.
    As President, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower.
    In these dangerous days there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security, I know the reach of our power and I know the power of our ideals.
    We need to make America once again a beacon in the world. We need to be looked up to and not just feared.
    We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation – to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world.
    We need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. The future doesn’t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.
    And the front lines of this battle are not just far away – they’re right here on our shores, at our airports, and potentially in any town or city. Today, our national security begins with homeland security. The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families. As President, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn’t be letting ninety-five percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn’t be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn’t be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America.
    And tonight, we have an important message for those who question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction for our country. Before wrapping themselves in the flag and shutting their eyes and ears to the truth, they should remember what America is really all about. They should remember the great idea of freedom for which so many have given their lives. Our purpose now is to reclaim democracy itself. We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism.
    You see that flag up there. We call her Old Glory. The stars and stripes forever. I fought under that flag, as did so many of you here and all across our country. That flag flew from the gun turret right behind my head. It was shot through and through and tattered, but it never ceased to wave in the wind. It draped the caskets of men I served with and friends I grew up with. For us, that flag is the most powerful symbol of who we are and what we believe in. Our strength. Our diversity. Our love of country. All that makes America both great and good.
    That flag doesn’t belong to any president. It doesn’t belong to any ideology and it doesn’t belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people. ”

  3. Holly Avatar
    Holly

    Jeff, once again you say what I mean, only more eloquently than I ever could. Thanks.
    Drew: For the love of Christ, man. Just admit it. That was Dukak- I mean, Kerry’s, most idiotic statement thus far. Everyone knew what Kerry meant. According to my Webster’s college dictionary, a dork is a whale’s penis. Does that mean I’m talking about Kerry’s package when I say that “sensitive war” was a dorky statement? NO. Sheesh. BTW, I’m an undecided voter leaning towards holding my nose and voting for Not Bush, not some rabid conservative. I consider myself a Jarvis Democrat, actually – a liberal hawk. (You’ve heard of Reagan Democrats, Jeff?) ;-)

  4. Gene Zitver Avatar
    Gene Zitver

    Jeff,
    The Bush administration has had its share of “sensitive” moments too.

  5. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    The “allies” we have who tried to protect their business contracts with the former government of Iraq don’t need sensitivity – they need ignoring. Which thankfully, this administration gave them.
    I can already hear the sensitive comment being thrown around in a future debate. Outstanding – between his transfixed vision of himself in Vietnam and his Kum Ba Yah moments, he’s digging his own hole – even with his own supporters.
    If he’s that good with people who like him, how will he be on a world stage if he’s president?

  6. Andrew | BB Avatar
    Andrew | BB

    Jeff’s hack moment of the day. I’m sure he purposefully left out Bush’s & Cheney’s similar comments because he wanted us to think for him.

  7. charliecantchewgum Avatar
    charliecantchewgum

    So I guess you want a president to fight a war without his senses. Oh, wait…
    Just shows how desperate the white house is getting. Can’t defend the record so attack and distort the opposition’s language. But not his ideas.

  8. Swopa Avatar
    Swopa

    I’m not sure if Jeff really wants the president to “fight a war” or not. He just wants the candidates to talk tough about it.
    It’s kind of like porn for him, I guess.

  9. well Avatar
    well

    You obviously didn’t catch Jon Stewart. He didn’t mock Kerry, he mocked Cheney for quoting Kerry out of context, and picking up on that one word out of Kerry’s entire speech. Then he mocked Cheney some more, as Bush said, a day earlier, about how “sensitive” he was being, as an earlier commenter pointed out.
    Jeff, you’re doing the same thing Cheney is doing — picking up on one word, as opposed to looking at Kerry has been saying as a whole.
    Reducing public debate even further.. thanks.

  10. Sandy P Avatar
    Sandy P

    –And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.
    —
    Well, he’s had time to plan to win the peace. Must be a secret plan he can only put in place w/the power of the presidency behind him.
    Or – keep bombing us, we’ll respond when we have a peace plan.
    That breed confidence. Or a recipe for doing nothing.
    What was the peace plan in Kosovo?
    Whoever thought it up didn’t do a good job.

  11. Jeff B. Avatar
    Jeff B.

    Ahahaha. I have to laugh at those who are citing “sensitive” remarks by Bush/Cheney. Of course, you all know you’re intentionally omitting one crucial fact: those remarks came BEFORE 9/11, after which everything changed. Half a year before 9/11, in the case of Bush. And Cheney didn’t even say “sensitive,” he said “insensitive,” and in a completely different context and meaning. He said “we’re not insensitive to [that point],” simply meaning that “we understand what you’re saying.” He didn’t promise a more caring, touchy-feely war on terror, which is what Kerry said. For him nothing has changed – he’s a 9/10 sort of guy. That point is salient and extremely relevant, and the fact that you all attempted to argue it….well, I don’t forsake intellectual honesty merely because I’ve decided I’m a reluctant Bush supporter – why should you?
    It’s a shame I have to sit here and parse words (it all seems so petty), but the calculated dishonesty of folks who are posting opposition “gotchas” force me to do this. Give it up, por favor.

  12. Andi Avatar
    Andi

    Cheney and the others pounced on the word “sensitive” because it is emblematic of Kerry’s perceived weakness.
    Political rhetoric has so distorted language that it is the memorable sound-bite or image that wins or loses elections. It is the word or moment that crystallizes the character of the candidate in the voters’ minds that make the difference.
    The Willy Horton ad was effective because it fit the public’s perception of Dukakis’ weakness, not because of racist feelings in the nation.
    Kerry’s problem is that most of the voters are to the right of his “sensitive” comment. If that were not true there would not be so many of Kerry’s supporters getting defensive about it–they would let it stand.

  13. Gene Zitver Avatar
    Gene Zitver

    Ahahaha. I have to laugh at those who are citing “sensitive” remarks by Bush/Cheney. Of course, you all know you’re intentionally omitting one crucial fact: those remarks came BEFORE 9/11, after which everything changed.
    Actually all but three of them were post-9/11.

  14. Andi Avatar
    Andi

    Kerry did not just use the word “sensitive,” he gave it an absurd context: “more sensitive war…”
    Please compare this to the less absurd context used by Bush and Cheney.
    Oh, BTW I voted for Gore and Clinton and I wish that many Democrats would stop behaving so shamefully so I could consider voting for their candidate.
    Both parties have their loony fringe, and I fear that Kerry is closer to the Democrats’ Moore/Dean wing than Bush is to the Republicans’ Robertson/Falwell wing…