Armed With What?? Spitballs??
Zell Miller delivered a devastating speech at the convention last night. Devastating for the Democrats, that is. I spoke to my Dad about it earlier this morning, and he said to me, “Lisa, you’re too young to remember this, but back in the 60’s – those were the type of speeches that you heard at conventions all the time. The kind of speeches that get you up out of your chair and cheering. Those kind of speeches moved you into action – that’s the kind of speeches we’re hearing this week – and it’s great!”
He’s right – that is exactly how I felt last night when watching Senator Miller deliver his speech. What meant even more in that speech is the source it came from. He delivered more than one zinger as he spoke of John Kerry’s record in the Senate – - most especially when speaking of his record on national defense, the military and national security:
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today’s Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.
Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.
Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don’t just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.
For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.
No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn’t believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.
But don’t waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.
They don’t believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.
It is not their patriotism – it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter’s pacifism would lead to peace.
They were wrong.
They claimed Reagan’s defense buildup would lead to war.
They were wrong.
And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.
Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.
The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein’s command post in Iraq.
The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi’s Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.
The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation’s Capital and this very city after 9/11.
I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein’s scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.
This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?
U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?
Spitballs?? That was classic!
The one and only thing that I have to say about this speech was the way Zell Miller started it out – - talking about his family and about the future of the generations. His point was that while he is a Democrat politician – - he realizes the importance of national security and it’s relevance to the future of his family. He is a man of correct priorities… “For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man’s name is George Bush.”
September 2, 2004 - 10:42 AM on September 2nd, 2004
Zell focused the whole election squarely where the question should be, the well being of your family. The Kerry Kool-aid drinkers shiloh, canuck, and dg, will respond from Kerry campaign talking points because none of them understand where Miller and the rest of the country is coming from.
The fact that these Kerry idiots are here speaking their half truths and veiled lies are proof that they are safe and feel safe to be the turds they are.
September 2, 2004 - 11:01 AM on September 2nd, 2004
Senator Miller’s speech affected me the most so far. I’m trying to start a family of my own and that has been my biggest concern about this election. What kind of future are we securing for our children? I’ve been trying to explain to my friends that aren’t really involved with politics that it’s not about the laundry list of things they would have you believe are the major points of this election, but about who they feel in their heart of hearts would be the best person to ensure not only our safety now, but the safety of our children. To me, the other issues really don’t matter if we experience another 9/11.
September 2, 2004 - 11:28 AM on September 2nd, 2004
Sounds like seanator miller has hit the nail on the head these darn demacrats are more interested in a one world goverment(socialism)under the UN itss good to hear someone bring up the coruption of the demacratic party:razz::roll::cool:
September 2, 2004 - 11:56 AM on September 2nd, 2004
“It is unbelievable. It is unreal. It is a shame and a disgrace. This is the same Zell Miller who said 40 years ago that President Lyndon Johnson had sold his soul when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the same Zell Miller who was elected by the working people of Georgia-the teachers, the union members, the farmers, and both black and white voters in the state. And this is the same Zell Miller who was a keynoter at the Democratic Convention in 1992. I do not understand what he is so angry about, but apparently he has lost his way. He could be simply reverting back to his roots.”
Congressman John Lewis – Georgia 5th district
September 2, 2004 - 12:22 PM on September 2nd, 2004
Oh I don’t think he has lost his way shiloh. On the contrary he sees the world as it is and knows what American has to do. His speech was great and he came across as a very concerned leader himself.
September 2, 2004 - 12:29 PM on September 2nd, 2004
bonbon,
to me, the red meat bellicosity of his remarks, peppered as they were with untruths and rancor towards the people who supported him all his life was perhaps a flipflop of historical proportions.
his racist roots have come home to roost in a different kind of hatred.
September 2, 2004 - 12:39 PM on September 2nd, 2004
shiloh, opening another of the brown files you got from the Kerry campaign? My what a little liar you are, boy. You said you weren’t connected to Kerry, but you are mainlining all the smears he dug up. Why can’t you tell the truth of who you are and what you are really doing here?
September 2, 2004 - 12:44 PM on September 2nd, 2004
What about Miller’s message? Is there anything of substance his detractors would like to challenge?
John Lewis would probably have nothing but glowing praise for Miller if he had raised the roof like that as a speaker at the DemCon. But since Lewis, Edwards, McAuliffe, and all the usual suspects can’t respond to Miller talking about things that they’d rather not (Kerry’s voting record being one of them), out comes those little darlings: Hate & Anger.
“That was hateful.”
“I can’t understand why he’s so angry.”
“He’s so full of hate and anger”
Don’t worry, Congressman. You’ll always have Democrat Senator Robert “KKK” Byrd to speak for you.
September 2, 2004 - 12:56 PM on September 2nd, 2004
Miller & Cheney both lied and distorted during their speeches. maybe Cheney had ‘other priorities’ than serving his country with honor and honesty last night.
September 2, 2004 - 12:58 PM on September 2nd, 2004
President Bush was absolutely right when he said it was impossible to win a war against terrorism – it’s like announcing we can win a war against violence. Terrorism can only be minimized and controlled, and that can be done only with a worldwide strategy, joined by all of the world’s sensible and peaceful nations. We hope that when Mr. Bush accepts his party’s nomination for re-election tonight, he makes that argument.
The chances of a serious dialogue about terror took a blow, of course, when Mr. Bush retracted his completely sensible statement about terrorism after the Kerry-Edwards campaign attacked it. So far, this has been an election season of monumental simple-mindedness, in which the candidates start each day by telling us this is the most important election in the history of the planet, then devote the rest of their waking hours to meaningless sniping. But it’s certainly not too late to elevate the conversation.
since this is the closest forum dedicated to a flipflopper, Bush said we can’t win a war on terror (a noun) then he said he really meant we could. splain that, spinners.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/02/opinion/02thu1.html
September 2, 2004 - 12:59 PM on September 2nd, 2004
be specific, lying shiloh. What did Miller and Cheney lie about? Remember situational truths like you like to tell are lies.
September 2, 2004 - 01:01 PM on September 2nd, 2004
shiloh, the question Lauer asked was can you win the war on terror in 4 years. The answer is no, but you can make a good start on it. Maybe we ought to look for agents of Al Queda here at home, like shiloh.
September 2, 2004 - 02:12 PM on September 2nd, 2004
The speech hit home for a lot of people. Much has changed in this world since 1992 and Zell Miller is moving forward. Many democrats feel the same way and intend to vote for Bush.:!::!:
September 2, 2004 - 02:49 PM on September 2nd, 2004
peejz,
My boss was telling me about some panel MSNBC put together to watch the speech. He said 11 of the 17 said they changed their vote to Bush after Miller’s speech.
September 2, 2004 - 03:40 PM on September 2nd, 2004
Cheney had alot to do with the cuts that Miller talks about Apaches, M-1 Tanks along with many other cuts including active duty and reserve personelle. He also blantantly lied about Kerry’s stance on the UN. Could have been a nice speech if it held any truth.
September 2, 2004 - 03:43 PM on September 2nd, 2004
canuck, you can’t deflect the TRUTH that Kerry votes anti-military and anti-intelligence each and every time he could. That is a matter of record.
September 2, 2004 - 04:04 PM on September 2nd, 2004
No that is a right talking point. Not the truth.
Twenty years ago, as a candidate battling another liberal for the Democratic nomination for the Senate in Massachusetts Kerry advocated terminating many strategic and tactical weapons.
[Kerry 1984 Campaign Memo on Defense] In this 1984 campaign memo (which a Kerry spokesman confirms is genuine) the candidate called for cutting Ronald Reagan’s military budget by between $45 billion and $53 billion through (among other things) cancellation of the MX missile, B-1 bomber, anti-satellite weapons, and the “Star Wars” anti-missile program, along with several conventional weapons that have become mainstays of the present-day military, including the AH-64 Apache helicopter, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the F-14 and F-15 fighters. He also called for a 50% reduction in the Tomahawk cruise missile.
And during the same campaign, according to the Boston Globe, Kerry also advocated reductions in the M-1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the F-16 jet.
“No Excuse”
“There’s no excuse for casting even one vote for unnecessary weapons of destruction, and as your senator I will never do so,” Kerry said in the memo.
In 1985, Kerry’s first speech in the Senate was against President Reagan’s proposal to build MX ballistic missiles, and also in 1985 he introduced a “nuclear freeze” resolution calling on the President to negotiate a “verifiable” halt to testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons. It attracted no co-sponsors and died without a hearing in committee.
Throughout Kerry’s early Senate years he often voted against specific weapons systems and sometimes against the entire Pentagon budget. He voted repeatedly to cancel the B-2 Stealth bomber, for example, in 1989 , 1991 (twice ) and 1992 . He voted against the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile in 1994 and 1995. And he voted repeatedly to cut funds for the Strategic Defense Initiative (ballistic missile defense) in 1991, 1992, 1993 , 1995, and 1996. He also voted for across-the-board cuts in the military budget in 1991 and 1992, as Congress struggled to deal with mounting federal deficits and the former Soviet Union disintegrated.
Republicans shouldn’t make too much of these votes, however, since President Bush’s own father announced in his 1992 State of the Union address that he would be ceasing further production of B-2 bombers and MX missiles, and would cut military spending by 30 percent over several years.
Voting Against M-1 Tanks? Not Really.
And Republicans go too far when they claim that Kerry voted against such mainstay weapons of today’s military as the M-1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Patriot missile. (See this Republican National Committee “fact sheet,” for example.) These claims are misleading because they rest on Kerry’s votes against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995. Kerry also voted against the Pentagon authorization bills (which provide authority to spend but not the actual money) in those years and also in 1996. But none of those were votes against specific weapons systems. Kerry’s critics might just as well say he was voting to fire the entire Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.
It is true as Republicans say that in 1993 (Bill Clinton’s first year as President) Kerry specifically proposed cutting the size of the military, including reductions in numbers of submarines, jet fighters and soldiers. But what Republicans fail to mention is that it was a very broad measure aimed at cutting federal spending by $85 billion at a time when the federal deficit was roughly $300 billion. Kerry’s measure — the “Budget Deficit Reduction Act of 1993″ — targeted not only military spending but also would have eliminated federal subsidies for cotton, wool and mohair production, eliminated the superconducting super collider and the space station, and raised fees for grazing or mining on public land. That bill died without a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee.
It is also true that Kerry proposed in 1995 another measure that — among other things — would have cut the US intelligence budget by $300 million per year for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Republicans fail to mention, however, that this was another broad, deficit-reduction measure that didn’t just target military spending. When he introduced it Sept. 29, 1995, Kerry said it would cut $90 billion in federal spending, of which $10 billion would come from defense spending, and $11 billion from terminating the international space station program.
Republicans also point to a 1996 bill Kerry introduced to cut $6.5 billion from defense spending. What Kerry’s critics fail to mention is that Kerry proposed to use the money to hire an additional 100,000 police officers (above the 100,000 President Clinton already was proposing to fund.) Kerry called it the Safer Streets Act of 1996.
Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, in a telephone conference call with reporters arranged by the Bush campaign Feb 21, went way over the top when he accused Kerry of “a 32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems.” That’s not possible since Kerry’s first vote was cast in 1985. It also implies that Kerry has continued to vote for cuts over his entire career, which isn’t true.
A “New Kerry?”
Since 1996, the John Kerry who once opposed the Apache helicopter and wanted to cut Tomahawk cruise-missile funds by 50% has evolved into a steady supporter of military budgets. Starting in 1997 Kerry voted for every regular Department of Defense appropriations bill and for every authorization bill as well.
September 2, 2004 - 04:05 PM on September 2nd, 2004
PCD under your logic then Cheney is anti military and intelligence too.
September 2, 2004 - 04:48 PM on September 2nd, 2004
PCD- I saw that and it all got down to security. There were 2 women that weren’t swayed, but they appeared to have an agenda. They seemed quite intelligent and I respected their answers. It was interesting to say the least.
September 2, 2004 - 06:34 PM on September 2nd, 2004
Zell Miller’s speech was right on!He expose the liberals for the ultimate fools they are.Like when he said it is our soldiers who give these assholes the freedom to burn the flag.There would be none of these freedoms if the liberals got their way.Liberals being soft on terrorism.What could be worse on our economy than more 9/11’s or even nuclear attack to which the likes of Kerry would do nothing about?If Kerry got in then the terrorists would have their way and a lot of businesses wouldn’t be around to get laid off from.All liberals can do is knitpick,bitch,and gripe.They never offer any valid solutions.
September 2, 2004 - 06:39 PM on September 2nd, 2004
Terry, i especially agree with you that FDR was a rel asshole liberal. all that welfare he started and never mind WW2 – he was a liberal pussy. right?
one valid solution i heard one asshole liberal offer is we shouldn’t have gone for a war of choice so Bush could extend his penis around the world.
the nerve!
September 2, 2004 - 08:15 PM on September 2nd, 2004
I think that was one of the single greatest speeches i ever heard in my life, Miller if he lived in my state would have my vote instantly, i think they should have more of this, not the whimpy little speeches that try to avoid hurting the feeling of the other side.
and you ever notice how much vile hateful things the left says like gore and his brown shirt comments, moveon.orgs hitler ads and the many many more..and yet Miller is hateful and it’s bad?
of course the double standard happens all the time, the 575 groups are bad for the right but ok for the left, the left can bring up an issue but if the right talks about it then they are running a negative mud slinging campaign (i’m thinking of kerry’s war record, he brought it, but it’s wrong for the right to question it or bring it up).
did anyoen see hardball with Miller after the speech? he didn’t let the host run over him like happens so much, he was in your face, he was not going to let him lead him around and try and trap him..i loved it.
of course the hardcore left are scared to death, a speech like this must be attacked quickly or they might lose a lot of voters, bush is ahead now and may get a huge bounce, kerry is in a hole he dug, miller is setting up the K.O punch..not a good time to be a kerry person!
September 4, 2004 - 11:25 AM on September 4th, 2004
Zell Miller! I was on my feet, giving him a standing O by the end of his speech. I can understand his anger, hey, dems and republicans may not agree with alot of issues at home but my god lets come together to protect our country!