Got this email this morning, care to help me reply?

[bobbyboucher]

From Today’s WSJ

You might think that having watched workers leap to their deaths from the Twin Towers, nothing about Islamic terror could shock us.

We thought so too. But even in the midst of a bloody battle for civilization itself, the images that converged on America yesterday scream out: The photograph of the dead girl hanging out the window of a suicide-bombed Israeli bus on newspaper front pages; the Web footage of a Nepalese worker in Iraq having his throat slit, one of 12 hostages killed; and the Russian children who at this writing are being used as human shields by terrorists (presumed to be Chechens) who stormed their school, killed some people and are threatening to kill 50 children for any member of their group harmed.

An Israeli girl. A group of Nepalese guestworkers. Russian schoolchildren, their parents and teachers. What unites them is not simply that they were all murdered in the name of some Islamic cause but that they all define innocence. Maybe it is possible to believe, as many of those protesting outside the Republican convention apparently do, that even in the face of such crimes the threats to world peace are President Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton.

We say: Look at the pictures. Look at the children who die not because they are collateral damage but because they are targets. And ask yourself the uncomfortable but defining question of this campaign: Is this the kind of enemy that requires a "more sensitive" war?

[RobertSeattle]

1. There are plenty of example of Bush Admin Officals using the "Sensitive"

Media Matters had articles on this BS

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408190014

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408130003

[TheRovingGourmet]

2. Forward it to the Kerry campaign. Let them answer it.

[MissB]

3. Have the Israelis made progress on their

Palestinian problem? Does it not bother (you, as in the idiot who sent the email) that terrorism has increased since we started the so-called "war on terrorism"?

If we do not get to the root causes of terrorism, then we will only create more terrorist and see more terrorism. Bombing the shit out of them does not solve the problem of terrorism - that process merely creates more terrorists.

Bush has failed at his attempt to fight the war on terrorism. It is time for a new leader.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Don't repond

unless it's friend or family. Otherwise just delete the propaganda.

If you respond they know they have an active account

[bobbyboucher]

5. It's afriend. A kool-aid drinking

friend.

[nyhuskyfan]

6. Then why Iraq?

The problems with Islamic terrorism could be traced back to almost every Middle Eastern country except Iraq. Iraq was secular, led by an iron-fisted Dictator (admittedly a jerk) who didn't trust Islamic extremists.

We diverted all of our resources into a country that had very little to do with the spread of Islamic terrorism. Now, we've opened the door for more terrorists and more hatred of our country. And that money that went into invading Iraq could have gone a long way to securing our ports, nuclear and chemical facilities, airports, etc., and increasing the funding for first responders -- while our troops could have been used to continue the pursuit of Al Qaeda.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. tell him one definition of insanity

Is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

The Israelis have been fighting terror but getting nowhere, why?

The Russians have bombed the Chechnians bach to the stone age, yet this happened. Why?

Ther can be no peace without justice.

[noamnety]

7. Sensitive does not mean weak

Sensitive means that we look at the causes of terrorism, and address those, rather than ignoring them and relying ONLY on brute strength to overpower the enemy.

Short term, we have the military power and the resources to overcome any foe. Long term, we need more than body counts to combat terrorism. If you look at Israel and Palestine, that is a classic example of how brute force does not create peace; all it does is escalate violence.

I say look at the children who die because they are collateral damage or because they are targets. And ask yourself the uncomfortable but defining question of this campaign: Is this war doing anything at all to win the peace?

[donkeyotay]

8. a more sensible war, not sensitive

The examples of bloodshed given support the position that current strategies have not been very effective. Doesn't make sense to do more of what hasn't' worked. A sensible war, ie., one that uses more options than killing everyone until they agree. Has this person seen the demographics on the age and size of the Muslim population?

[CBHagman]

9. Kerry was talking about building and strengthening alliances.

The Bush administration has alienated the hell out of even people on our own side. Ask how close Bush can get to the British or the Irish, for crying out loud. With Clinton in either country, it's a hundred thousand welcomes. When Bush visits the U.K., it's a hundred thousand protesters.

Bush has created MORE hatred against the U.S. in the Arab world, not less. Check out how many billions (billions, not millions) of dollars we give to Egypt, and yet the Egyptians' view of the U.S. has worsened the last few years, on Bush's watch.

If Bush was winning the hearts and minds of the world, he would talking to cheering crowds and shaking hands throughout the world. Instead, he's behind closed doors. He barely deals with the press. Even Bush's ally Jose Maria Aznar, the former president of Spain, admitted that Bush was more wildly unpopular ihn Spain than even Ronald Reagan.

[bobbyboucher]

10. I got the "sensitive" part covered, the monumental hypocrisy

is the last line about collateral damage.

[AP]

12. If one thinks misery and terror like this just started appearing in the...

...world after September 2001, you need to get out a little more.

There has never been a time in the world when the sort of leadership John Kerry offers -- one organized around the same Democratic principles that motivated Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK and Clinton -- are less valuable than the Bush's. You can't fight fascism with fascism.