I disagree sigma..I think he was in context & his message clear.
More sensitive means more sensitive to France & Germany, not more sensitive to terrorists, I understand. Its just that France and Germany were corrupt in the matter and France in additionally France in particular wants "power parity" with the U.S. & resents being a 2nd tier (military) nation. Kerry would be "sensitive" to France by providing consessions to France. Initially, the consessions would have been not to go to war as France risked being exposed as corrupt and losing billions. Now that THAT cat is out of the bag, conssesions means GIVING France (who shed no blood and infact aided the enemy) a portion of the control of the military presence in Iraq and lucative rebuilding contracts, as well as looking the other way on their corruption.
So personally, I favor LESS sensitivity in this matter...
To sum up priorities.. Kerry...#1 E.U. participation #2 Engage percieved threats Bush #1 Engage percieved threats #2 E.U. participation
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)