Turns out, Bush. And this is after Cheney's sniping has been playing all day on the news. Hey, Dick, the Democrats know how to use Google.

"The [Kerry Campaign] statement also pointed out that Bush had spoken of the need for American sensitivity at the same conference, called "Unity: Journalists of Color," the day after Kerry's address.

In response to a question on how to balance the pursuit of terrorists with preserving the civil liberties of Arab Americans and Muslims, Bush said, "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."

In 2001, the Kerry campaign statement noted, Bush had said, "Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself." Bush pledged that in dealings with other nations, "we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength."


Gee, they can't even be snide with any skill.

One must be sensative after all he is now all for colleges "acting affirmatively" to bring greater diversity. But he is against affirmative action.

So you have to be sensative to freedoms while actively pursuing a course of action that limits freedom.

One must therefore pursue a strong position of peace even if it means having to make war occasionally to prove your peaceful intentions.

To save the trees we must cut them all down.

In order to lift the poor from squalor it is necessary to give tax breaks to the rich.

We must protect free trade by ensuring that prescriptions can only be bought in this country and this country alone.

We must protect consumer costs, supply and demand and compitition by making it impossible to negotiate prices with said drug companies.

We must meet our needs of the 21st century by repairing our infrastructure investing in education, banking, industry, roads, power grids of Iraq.

"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."

... Bush had said, "Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, ...

More parsing of words? Bush was talking about being sensitive to civil liberties in prosecuting this war on terror (profiling, surveillance, forcing our will on others, etc.). He did not say he would be sensitive when it came time to put the hammer down, i.e. actually fight the war on terror.

Kerry said, "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror ..." Not quite the same.

What kind of fool would lead us into this boondoggle in the first place?

More parsing of words? Bush was talking about being sensitive to civil liberties in prosecuting this war on terror (profiling, surveillance, forcing our will on others, etc.). He did not say he would be sensitive when it came time to put the hammer down, i.e. actually fight the war on terror.

Kerry said, "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror ..." Not quite the same.

Maybe Kerry is referring to this poor SOB...The highlights since you are required to sign up the the NY Times.

"Mr. Joseph is a refugee from Haiti who is seeking asylum in the United States. He is not a terrorist, and no one has even suggested that he is a threat to anyone. And yet he's been in federal custody for nearly two years."

"He was fleeing persecution,'' said Selena Mendy Singleton, a vice president of TransAfrica Forum, a research and policy group that is among several organizations supporting Mr. Joseph's request for asylum. "He is not a threat to the community. He is not a terrorist. And he meets the criteria to be released on bond. David needs to be let out."

"On April 17 of last year," said Mr. Specter, "an issue came before you where there was a young Haitian refugee where there had not been any showing of a problem with respect to terrorism. And you overruled both the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Mr. Ashcroft was unmoved. He told Senator Specter: "Sometimes individual treatment is important. Sometimes it's important to make a statement about groups of people that come."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/opinion/13herb.html

Now that is sensitive. Baby soft...

Maybe Kerry is referring to this poor SOB...The highlights since you are required to sign up the the NY Times.

"Mr. Joseph is a refugee from Haiti who is seeking asylum in the United States. He is not a terrorist, and no one has even suggested that he is a threat to anyone. And yet he's been in federal custody for nearly two years."

"He was fleeing persecution,'' said Selena Mendy Singleton, a vice president of TransAfrica Forum, a research and policy group that is among several organizations supporting Mr. Joseph's request for asylum. "He is not a threat to the community. He is not a terrorist. And he meets the criteria to be released on bond. David needs to be let out."

"On April 17 of last year," said Mr. Specter, "an issue came before you where there was a young Haitian refugee where there had not been any showing of a problem with respect to terrorism. And you overruled both the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Mr. Ashcroft was unmoved. He told Senator Specter: "Sometimes individual treatment is important. Sometimes it's important to make a statement about groups of people that come."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/opinion/13herb.html

Now that is sensitive. Baby soft...

I wonder if Mr. Herbert had anything to say about these folks...

(preemptive disclaimer: this is not an attempt to say "it's Clinton's fault"! ;) )


"Chinese Refugees in the United States
By Pat Mc Ewen 1995
In June of 1993, three hundred Chinese people fleeing the one-child policy and its forced abortion and forced sterilization escaped from China by boat and landed in the New York Harbor. President Clinton, unlike previous administrations, denied them asylum and immediately imprisoned them in various U.S. prisons. During their three years of imprisonment, few have received asylum through their attempts in U.S. courts. Many have given up and returned to China. Punishments of severe beatings, imprisonments, and heavy fines equivalent of 20 to 30 years salary have been reported following their return.
The process to obtain legislation in the U.S. qualifying forced abortion and forced sterilization as grounds for asylum was attempted during this three year plight of these most desperate people.

Four of the refugees gave their testimonies before the U.S. House Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights for the benefit of this legislation. This occurred after many failed arrangements with the U.S. government to allow them to speak. Stories of a six-month old baby in the womb forcibly removed, hiding in caves to escape the family planning workers pursuing them for forced sterilization, retrieving an abandoned baby girl on the roadside while walking home from a clinic after receiving medical attention for an infection from a forced abortion, and many other details of struggle and hardship were heard and recorded relating to these atrocities. The legislation passed in both Houses of the Congress, was sent to the White House for the President's signature, but was vetoed by President Clinton.

Most of the women on the boat were initially imprisoned in one of the worst prison's in America known for abuse of its prison population. When the process of their repatriation to China began, they were taken to the Bakersfield prison in California. Through the efforts of Life Coalition International, nine of the women have received asylum in Ecuador and recently, additional nations have come forward to offer third country asylum.

At the time of this writing, President Clinton threatened trade sanctions with China over problems with copyrighting, but within days reported his intent to renew Most-Favored-Nation trade status with China for the "best interest of America." Three of the nine women in the Bakersfield Prison were deported back to China as President Clinton made these decisions. Harry Wu recently visited the York County Prison in York, Pennsylvania where one-hundred and forty of the men were held. They did not meet with Harry Wu for fear of even heavier penalties when they return to China. Of the fifty-nine men remaining in the York Prison over half of them will return to China soon. An International agreement with the United States and nations surrounding China is occurring to prevent any ships from leaving China with those trying to escape. "

http://www.lifecoalition.com/page12.html

Nice attempt at the deflection, but you would know if you read any of my posts that I think Clinton was a horse's ass as well. So where does that leave us. With my initial question of what the heck is John Ashcroft thinking?

More parsing of words? Bush was talking about being sensitive to civil liberties in prosecuting this war on terror (profiling, surveillance, forcing our will on others, etc.). He did not say he would be sensitive when it came time to put the hammer down, i.e. actually fight the war on terror.

Kerry said, "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror ..." Not quite the same.

Why not look at the whole quote?

"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."

So, it looks like Kerry was talking about being sensitive TO OUR ALLIES postions. Right?

How is that use of the term different than Bush's saying "Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. "

So, HouseMoney, did you buy into the snarky spin without looking further, or are you intentionally trying to distort the statement Kerry made?

Nice attempt at the deflection, but you would know if you read any of my posts that I think Clinton was a horse's ass as well. So where does that leave us. With my initial question of what the heck is John Ashcroft thinking?

Not trying for deflection, just offering some perspective.

I would have answered your question, but you didn't really ask one, did you? ;)

Concerning Ashcroft's decision, I don't have the faintest idea what he's thinking.

The Herbert article says:

"According to the attorney general, releasing this young Haitian would tend to encourage mass migration from Haiti, and might exacerbate the potential danger to national security of nefarious aliens from Pakistan and elsewhere who might be inclined to use Haiti as a staging area for migration to the U.S."

Just based on that, the reasoning really seems lame. I'm thinking there's more to it than that. But what do I (we) know? :rolleyes:

. . .on scooping the Daily Show with this one. Score another one for the internet over scheduled broadcasting.

. . .on scooping the Daily Show with this one. Score another one for the internet over scheduled broadcasting.

Nightly news. More quotes are appearing with admin officials officials talking about being sensitive.

And I just read it, I did not discover it. So no credit goes to me.

But the daily show did nail it on the head last night. The way they showed cheney, then cordry talking, THEN bush's quotes... very effective.

But the daily show did nail it on the head last night. The way they showed cheney, then cordry talking, THEN bush's quotes... very effective.
Indeed. That seemed like an unusually elaborate set-up for them.