Agreed. I just get frustrated with people who believe ANYTHING said in a 30 second political ad. Kerry's message has been distorted, but the problem is that it is being deliberately distorted by the Bush campaign ads. Kerry has a strong platform, but the Bushies, RNC, and Faux News are doing a tremendous job distorting and lying about it right now. The day Bush doesn't say something stupid during a public speech will be a groundbreaking, newsworthy day. I don't think Bush CAN play to the middle since they are the very people Bush has been screwing for the last 3.5 years.
So to prove that what somebody said in a speech isn't a lie, you are refering to what the person than said additionally in a written speech shortly thereafter?? Makes perfect sense. Not to nit-pick on his points, cause I really don't know enough, but that is NOT the phrase I heard from GWB. In fact, I specifically heard one where GWB said that the American troops were going to "occupy" Iraq, or something along those lines, nowhere near the above.
Zell must have missed the press conference where Bush called us occupiers -- "I'd be unhappy if I was occupied, too" conference. He quoted something different. Zell was too busy being a reasonable democrat to watch the press conference. Daily Show took care of this the day after, but you know, its a comedy show, not a "no one in the media will call Bush's henchmen on their garbage so I guess we have to" show at all. Its not a legitimiate accountability-in-politics program at all. It's just comedy. Tee hee. And, again, not get on a tangent, but if 9/11 changed absolutely everything, as Zell -- and Cheney -- say, haven't the terrorists officially won? I mean, e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g is different now? Like, you can be held without charges being filed against you and with no access to legal counsel? 9/11 changed that? Anyone whose core beliefs on what is fair and just vs. what is not fair and just were shaken by 9/11 did not really have very solid fundamentals to begin with. 9/11 changed alot, but not everything. It scared people, and gave fearmongers some fuel for cramming through their agenda, but its like the Dot.Com Fear Markets. That bubble will burst. Hopefully before November, but soon if not now. By the way, you know Zell was appointed, not elected to his Senate seat, right? After Coverdell died in 2000. He won a 'special referendum vote of confidence' type thing to serve out the reamining years, but dude is an appointee, not elected Senator. Not that it matters that much, but technically, he's a fill in for a dead republican. It's not like my man spent years in faithful democratic service. He's sort of a successful political animal. Like Kerry, sort of a flip flopper. Trivia.
OK, Mulder, I think you have a bit of egg upon your face. Directly from your so-called Factcheck: Hmmmmm........ Sounds like he was quite dovish, which was Zell Miller's point: we don't need a dove at this point and time. Also I checked out that site and one of their leading researchers worked for.....Ted ****ing Kennedy. Yeah, that's real non-partisan. Oh, that's right. For you liberals, anything non-partisan is liberal leaning while anything "partisan" is right leaning. If you vote against those bills, you are voting against those weapons systems. Nice try.
Zell Miller shuts up his liberal weenie critics: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109503001031315813,00.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries Telling It Like It Is By ZELL MILLER September 13, 2004; Page A20 My critics in the national media are working overtime trying to paint me as an angry nut who got the facts all wrong in my speech to the Republican National Convention. Since there's not enough time to challenge all of these critics to a duel, let me set the record straight here and now. First, the anger. A lot has been said about my angry demeanor. I've made enough speeches to know that you're supposed to connect with the audience by telling a joke or a humorous anecdote or some amusing tale. It's a tried-and-true formula that I've used for most of my life. But this was not a normal speech in a normal time. Today, we are at the most serious moment of history that we may ever know, and I wanted to connect with the seriousness of this moment, not the audience. Now, about those facts. I charged that John Kerry is weak on national security, and I listed some of the many weapons systems he has opposed over the years. My critics tripped over themselves to point out that Dick Cheney opposed some of the same weapons systems when he was defense secretary. But, like with so many things in life, timing is everything. Mr. Kerry was proposing the cancellation of many of these weapons systems at the height of the Cold War -- the worst possible time to weaken our military strength. It would be comparable to a senator in 1943 proposing to scrap the B-29 Bomber or Sherman tank or Higgins landing craft. By contrast, Mr. Cheney waited until after we had won the Cold War to propose modernizing our forces and replacing older weapons systems. There's a huge difference. Whether it's the Cold War of yesterday or the war on terror today, Mr. Kerry has sought time and time again to weaken our military at the exact moment we need to show our strength. I also charged that John Kerry and his fellow Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator, and that nothing makes this old Marine madder. My critics pounced on that one, too. Aren't you aware, they sneered, that President Bush has used the term "occupiers"? Do they mean when the president said this in April? -- "As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power." Are the people of Iraq not liberated from a terrible dictator? Did we not transfer sovereignty over to the Iraqi people exactly when we said we would? John Kerry and his crowd derisively call American troops "occupiers" because it fits with their warped belief that America is the problem, not the solution. While more than 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq are enjoying freedom, Mr. Kerry is still fretting over whether the U.N. crowd likes us or not. The American people will not abide a commander in chief who gets squeamish over America's role as a liberating force in the world. And my critics love to point out that I had nice things to say about John Kerry when I introduced him to a Georgia Democratic dinner in 2001. That's true and I meant it. But, again, timing is everything. I made that introduction in March 2001 -- six months before terrorists attacked this country on Sept. 11. As I have said time and again, 9/11 changed everything. Everything, that is, except the national Democrats' shameful, manic obsession with bringing down a commander in chief. John Kerry has been wrong many times, but he's never been more wrong than in his failure to support our troops and our commander in chief in this war on terror. So, my critics can call me a psychopath and fire spitballs at me and froth at the mouth when an ex-president sends me a nasty letter. That's the freedom of speech they all enjoy, courtesy of the American soldier. But for David Gergen and this newspaper's Al Hunt, among others, to call me a racist was especially hurtful. For they know better. They know I worked for three governors in a row, not just one: Carl Sanders, Lester Maddox and Jimmy Carter. They knew I was the first governor to try to remove the Confederate emblem from the Georgia flag. And by the way, when I called each of Georgia's former governors to tell them what I was about to attempt, Jimmy Carter's first question to me was, "What are you doing that for?" Mr. Gergen and Mr. Hunt also know I appointed the only African-American attorney general in the country in the 1990s and more African Americans to the state judiciary than all the other governors of Georgia combined, including that one from Plains. So, they can call me names and ridicule my angry demeanor all day long. But facts are facts. And the fact is, John Kerry has a long record of proposals to weaken our national security in a time of war. And I would never put my family's safety in those hands. Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia.
TJ - Trying reading before posting. This has already been posted and is being discussed. As noted, he's even defending himself with the wrong references. You can't claim someone isn't a liar by referring to something he himself has written saying he isn't a liar.
It was so powerful, it needed repeating. The points in the article stand. And by the way, why are posters who I have never even heard of (not you bama) addressing me in such a casual tone? These people will address me as Sir. I will say this once and only once.
You mean the 1995 bill that Ed Gillespie keeps bring up? The one that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget? The one where the military, specifically the Air Force, had appropriated that money for a spy satellite that was never launched? The one where most of the Senate voted to take back the money? And are you talking about the 1990-91 cuts advocated by Pappa Bush and ol' Dick himself? link
