Viva la ZELL!

[Saffron]

Hmmm, interesting article. It says both Laura Bush and John McCain are backing away from his speech. And Miller has been removed from the box seats for tonight's event, no reason given.

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't know anything about this guy. What I saw last night from him was anger, lots of anger. Lots of anger aimed not only at Kerry, but anyone that thinks differently than him. He just looked angry and sounded angry. You guys who like him can have him.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by bsears
GOP backs away from Miller’s blast
Democratic ‘speaking for himself,’ Bush aide says


After gauging the harsh reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike to Sen. Zell Miller’s keynote address at the Republican National Convention, the Bush campaign — led by the first lady — backed away Thursday from Miller’s savage attack on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, insisting that the estranged Democrat was speaking only for himself.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897622/

I also amusingly watched Laura Bush do the 1-2-sidestep in regards to Miller's speech. Maybe the Republicans are starting to realize Miller's speech was so riddled with inaccuracies, half-truths, and outright lies, that he probably put another nail in Bush's political coffin.

Some highlights from Zell:

1) "And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators".

Geez, I wonder if ole Zell told Bush how mad he was when Bush referred to American troops in Iraq as occupiers.

2) "Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending."

May ole Zell can tell us when Kerry said that.

3) "As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far-away."

I wonder if ole Zell was bothered by the fact his Commander in Chief sent 40,000 troops overseas without body armor and without armored humvees.

4) "John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges."

I wonder if ole Zell realizes George Bush is fighting the old enemy Iraq using retreads such as Cheney and Rumsfeld to run that war while the new enemies, such as Osama Bin Laden, are still walking around.

5) "George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip."

Really? Somebody ought to tell ole Zell Osama Bin Laden is very much alive and before George Bush can grab a terrorist by the throat, he has to catch him first.

Why go on and on. Gee, I wonder if the Republicans are going to give more air timle to ole Give 'Em Hell Zell.

As someone on the other side of the aisle, it would be like a gift from above.

 

[palmtreegirl]

I don't like Pataki's speech at all, maybe it's just the delivery but he's coming off so wishy-washy to me.

 

[Loftus]

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
During a time of war, your main purpose on a Disney World message board is to bring down the leader of the armed forces.

Isn't this, for one side of the political fence, the purpose of the election

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Loftus
Isn't this, for one side of the political fence, the purpose of the election

Maybe you could explain to me how being in office during wartime puts a politician above criticism and gives them a right to an election victory? You really aren't suggesting the old Republican canard that those opposed to Bush are somehow unpatriotic?

FYI, most of us opposed to Bush are opposed to him because we feel he's done a lousy job. Many of us feel Iraq is a costly mistake and a war that did not have to be fought.

George Bush has bungled the war on terror.

The Taliban are back in Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden is somewhere in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and the Shiite population in Iraq are not taking their queues from a returnee to Iraq but a Shiite cleric.

While all of this is going on, and our armed forces are stretched razor thin, Iran is starting up their nuclear program and North Korea can look across the DMZ and see 12500 fewer American troops protecting South Korea.

The incompetence and stupidity of the Bush administration has put this nation at risk. "Wanted Dead or Alive" and "Bring it on" are not part of the strategic thinking needed to fight this war.

No one, under any circumstances, is entitled to a victory in an election simply because they're in the right place at the right time. The British people voted Winston Churchill out of office (actually his party), and he was a real leader who knew what he was doing.

We know George Bush and he's no Winston Churchill.

 

[AirForceRocks]

and North Korea can look across the DMZ and see 12500 fewer American troops protecting South Korea.

This is simply not true.

 

[Loftus]

Sorry, my confused smiley has obviously given my post an inflection I never intended.

The response was the point I had intended to make.

 

[bsears]

Text of an email that was being circulated:

Sen. John Kerry

Democrat from Massachusetts
HE says he is strongest
Presidential Candidate on National Defense!

He said Check the Record..
We Did !

Here is what we learned.

He voted to kill the B-1 Bomber
He voted to kill the B-2 Stealth Bomber
He voted to kill the F-14
He voted to kill the F-15 Strike Eagle
He voted to kill the F-16
He voted to kill the AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff and Landing Jet Fighter
He voted to kill the AH-64 Apache Helicopter
He voted to kill the Patriot Anti-Missile System
He voted to kill the Aegis Anti-Aircraft System
He voted to kill the Trident Missile System
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the Tomahawk Cruise Missile

In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs.






Substitute clubs for spitballs, and Zell was repeating an email hoax, almost word for word.

According to Snopes: "all the citations stem from votes on three Congressional bills, none of which were about a specific weapons system or group of weapons systems." All three votes were appropriations bills, voted as a package, and Congressmen vote yes or no on, and in many instances support alternatvie appropriations packages which contain the same or even more weapons systems -- or even because they think the bills should allocate more dollars for defense. As Snopes explains:

Senators and Representatives might vote against a defense appropriations bill for any numbers of reasons — because they object to the presence or absence of a particular item, because they feel that the government is proposing to spend too much or too little money on defense, or anything in-between. Maintaining, as is the case here, that a Senator who voted "nay" on one year's defense appropriations bill therefore voted to "kill" a variety of specific weapons systems is like claiming that any Congressman who has ever voted against a defense appropriations bill has therefore also voted to abolish the U.S. military.

In other words, Zell's accusations are a complete and total lie, and either he is too dishonest to admit it, or too big a rube to see it.

Making Zell's attack even more insane is the fact that both Dick Cheney and President Bush I actually spoke specifically in favor of spiking some of the very same weapons systems Miller falsely claims Kerry tried to kill. Cheney, for example, complained about Congress "forcing" him to buy more F-14s and F-15s, two systems Zell accuses Kerry of opposing. As Snopes points out, Secretary of Defense Cheney himself testified before Congress that he favored cutting the Apache Helicopter program:

"So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years."

http://martinirepublic.com/item/zell-miller-s-speech-based-on-email-hoax

 

[Saffron]

Uh oh! The guy is sounding stranger and stranger to me! Are you guys sure you want him on your side! To kind of twist a line from Henny Youngman, "Take my Democrat ... please!"

 

[jrydberg]

Snopes needs to check their facts better. The truth, of course, is neither.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147

The record isn't nearly as bad as the Republicans make it out to be (and most of the votes against weapon systems are prior to 1996). But to call it a complete and total lie is just as bad.

 

[WillyJ]

The truth, of course, is that some pro-Bush people talk self-righteously about "taking the high road" and how they disapprove of disingenuous attacks because of their superior values and nonpartisan point of view and how they abhor "childish insults" when anti-Bush remarks are made. .


And then when the angriest, lowest, most disingenous speech of the political season is given on Bush's behalf, complete with childish insults, they can't come on here fast enough to say how great it was. .


Kudos Sen. Miller; thank you for making that speech!! It certainly puts an end to that phony, self-rightous nonsense. .

 

[jjskribs]

Well said Willy.........

 

[jrydberg]

Since you seem to have missed it, I'll recap for you. I have not made a single statement praising Miller's speech. My only statement on it indicated that it seemed to score some points with a small focus group of independents but that I thought it was a bit harsh.

Your obssession with portraying me in a bad light is rather baffling to me since it seems to be entirely based on what other people say, not what I say

I would appreciate it if you would leave your apparent personal animosity for me off these boards.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
This is simply not true.

Oh pardon me. That should've read Bush is planning to remove 12,500 troops from South Korea and deploy them elsewhere.

With the Republican convention going on, I didn't think accuracy was of the utmost importance and telling half truths was acceptable.

So sorry.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Oh pardon me. That should've read Bush is planning to remove 12,500 troops from South Korea and deploy them elsewhere.

With the Republican convention going on, I didn't think accuracy was of the utmost importance and telling half truths was acceptable.

So sorry.

Apology accepted.

Speaking of half-truths, you might want to flip over to one of the cable news networks...I think that Senators Kerry and Edwards are having a rally.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Loftus
Sorry, my confused smiley has obviously given my post an inflection I never intended.

The response was the point I had intended to make.

My apologies. After Ole Zell's speech, subtlety gets lost in the translantion.

Please, if there's a God in Heaven, give Ole Zell one more go round and don't let the Republicans hide him like they did Pat Buchanan after his "cultural war" speech in 1992. Please. Pretty please.

And for a walk down memory lane, here's an exerpt from Pat's 1992 speech:

"George Bush was 17 when they bombed Pearl Harbor. He left his high school class, walked down to the recruiting office, and signed up to become the youngest fighter pilot in the Pacific war. And Mr Clinton? When Bill Clinton's turn came in Vietnam, he sat up in a dormitory in Oxford, England, and figured out how to dodge the draft."

Anyone know what Pat's feelings are about Cheney's 5 deferments and Ashcroft's 7 deferments? Anybody know if he's called them draft dodgers?

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by WillyJ
The truth, of course, is that some pro-Bush people talk self-righteously about "taking the high road" and how they disapprove of disingenuous attacks because of their superior values and nonpartisan point of view and how they abhor "childish insults" when anti-Bush remarks are made. .


And then when the angriest, lowest, most disingenous speech of the political season is given on Bush's behalf, complete with childish insults, they can't come on here fast enough to say how great it was. .


Kudos Sen. Miller; thank you for making that speech!! It certainly puts an end to that phony, self-rightous nonsense. .

Hear, hear, Willy.

Don't you just love the smell of hypocrisy.

Do you think the Republicans can get Ole Zell for an encore? Performances like that are to be savored.

Something tells me the Republicans are going to be hoisted by their own petards. You and I both know someone, somewhere is going to remind Cheney of his defense cuts. Do ya think?

 

[rcyannacci]

Anyone catch The Daily Show tonight.? Jon Stewart (truly the funniest man alive) really put the "Zell on Earth" speech into perspective. He and Steven Colbert had a fantastic bit about a duel.

And, Chris Matthews will be his guest tomorrow night- not to be missed. MSNBC was re-running the interview today. All I can say is unbelievable. Stunningly unbelievable.

 

[LoraJ]

I am watching the Daily Show now. Zell is a bit off his rocker!

I love this show.

 

[WillyJ]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Since you seem to have missed it, I'll recap for you. I have not made a single statement praising Miller's speech. My only statement on it indicated that it seemed to score some points with a small focus group of independents but that I thought it was a bit harsh.

Your obssession with portraying me in a bad light is rather baffling to me since it seems to be entirely based on what other people say, not what I say

I would appreciate it if you would leave your apparent personal animosity for me off these boards.

Well thank you Jrydberg!! Your "recap" is quite creative and entertaining!



Now let me return the favor and give you a factual one:



On page one of this thread you posted this concerning Miller's speech:
________________________________________________

"I laughed. I cried. It was better than Cats. I'll see it again and again. "

________________________________________________

Looks like a positive comment on the speech to me; but then I'm not into musicals so maybe it wasn't. .

And my two subsequent posts in no way referenced yours; in fact they didn't even reference the speech since as I clearly stated I hadn't seen it yet; and was instead commenting on Miller's bizarre behavior with Chris Matthews afterwards.


But your second post, in additon to your "focus group" and "a little harsh" comments you clearly referenced mine:

"Labelling them as 'psychotic' or 'having mental problems' may make Democrats feel better, but it doesn't change the reality. The reality is they gave good, powerful speeches that have the potential to sway independents to the Republican ticket."

And if you go back to the other morning (I'll provide links if you need them) you will clearly see that both posts of mine you directly attacked had absolutely nothing in them directed at you. ., . in fact, I had no idea you even existed until you commented on them in a personal and pejorative way. .



So with the facts in front of us, it's plain to see who has the obsession and personal animosity for whom . . .


I'd ask you why, except I really couldn't care less. .. but rest assured that when you make a point of commenting on, or referencing to any of my posts then I will reply in kind.


Are you less confused now?