"Democrat" Zell Miller to Honour Swift Boat Vets?!!

[ElvisL1ves]

Bricker, mind explaining why this:

@Zell Miller

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.

impressed you more than this:

@George W. Bush

Of course they don’t like being occupied. I wouldn’t like being occupied either.

?

How does the Kool-Aid taste?

[Little_Nemo]

If Zell Miller really was acting from the heart, he’d follow his convictions and register as a Republican. But then he’d be just another Republican in the crowd and a late-comer at that. Instead he’s following his head and sees that being a “Democrat” works out a lot better for him.

[pravnik]

Zell Miller:

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 Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

You tell 'em, Zell.

We decided to move away from the “two major theater war” construct for sizing our forces, an approach that called for maintaining two massive occupation forces capable of marching on and occupying capitals of two aggressors at the same time and changing their regimes.

-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

U.S. Department of Defense

The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30th, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and will not be replaced. The occupation will end, and Iraqis will govern their own affairs.

-President George W. Bush

Briefing Room | The White House

[you_with_the_face]

@elucidator

He promotes ignorance, and promotes hate born of ignorance. And you damn well know it! And yet here you offer it, with admiring tones about its being “heartfelt”. **Yes, I suppose it was heartfelt, I remember his dewlaps and venom sacs shaking with emotion, his black chicken eyes glowing with malice. **

Plus there was a lot of spittle. The whitish grayish kind that collects in the corner of a senile man’s mouth when his dentures keep slipping.

[pravnik]

Zell Miller:

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 Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War.

The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64…I forced the Army to make choices. I said, “You can’t have all three. We don’t have the money for all three.” So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out.

-Vice President Dick Cheney, Senate testimony 8/13/89

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh090204.shtml

Zell Miller:

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Let there be no mistake:…I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.

-Senator John Kerry, 7/29/04

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh090204.shtml

[pravnik]

Zell Miller:

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein’s command post in Iraq.

Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with Imperial Communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own, because they are the right thing to do.

After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based missiles. We will stop all production of the peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles.

President George Herbert Walker Bush, state of the Union address, 1992

http://www.janda.org/politxts/State%20of%20Union%20Addresses/1989-1992%20Bush/bush.92.html

[AskNott]

Zell Miller said:
"…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."

Maybe somebody can explain to those countries why the “liberators, not occupiers” are still there half a century later. That look a wee bit like occupation to me.

[Bricker]

@gobear

Gosh, Bricker, I’d think tha thte Bush regime’s principle that they can lock up americans and hold them without access to counsel would be quite enough.

And who, specifically, has been locked up without access to counsel for the crime of vocal dissent?

[Bricker]

@elucidator

My Goddess! Campus newspapers stolen! I had no idea! I am crushed with shame and remorse, I only hope I can wipe away the tears sufficiently so that I can see well enough to fill out this Republican Party registration form! Campus hijinks and skullduggery! Oh, the horror! The horror!

Such are the tactics of leftists without power to pass laws. You aren’t horrified, because you think what they did was just peachy.

In comparison, such trivia as poisonous slander of a candidate’s patriotism pales to nothing. Why didn’t you tell us about this ghastly scandal sooner, I should have rushed right out to publicly declare my undying loyalty to the Shining One, had I but known of such. Probably those lefty-hippy college professors again.

Big difference between saying your piece and letting the other side say theirs - even if your piece is slanderous - and preventing your opponent from having his say.

But let me put it to you straight: do you really believe that Sen Kerry voted as he did with the intent of denying Our Heroes armor, weapons and ammunition? Are you truly this brain-dead, or do you merely suspend your critical facilities in service of a noble cause?

No. And I don’t see that Miller said that was Kerry’s intent either.

But that was arguably the potential result of Kerry’s votes. I believe Kerry was and is a patriot. He loves his country. His intended approach is unwise.

[Katriona]

[QUOTE=annaplurabelleWhy wasn’t he just kicked, by someone, anyone?[/QUOTE]

Me, me, oh please let it be me???

[elucidator]

Shades of difference. Europe’s occupation had, for the most part, the cooperation and approval of the Europeans. Having the option of the USA or Stalin, they made the sensible choice. They continued to permit US forces on their soil because, sensibly enough, it was cheaper than supporting your own army and we had nukes. Nukes are very persuasive. The big difference, of course, is that in the case of Europe, “liberation” is a meaningful description, whereas in the case of Iraq it is a smokescreen.

Korea is very, very different. After we won the stalemate (no, I don’t understand, but that’s what they told me in high school…) we happily installed and supported one of the most brutal and repressive regimes ever outside of Central America. But they were anti-Communist. Boy, were they anti-Communist! Like Eichmann was anti-Semitic, they were anti-Communist. Which, like the Blood of the Lamb, washed away all sins.

So, to be fair, we did liberate Europe. Whether delivering S. Korea into the hands of some of the meanest mofos who ever walked is “liberation”, that’s another question.

[Bricker]

@Zell MIller

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

@John Kerry

Let there be no mistake:…I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security.

Wow, what an unambiguous lie that Miller told.

@John Kerry

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

No nation will have a veto, but we would have to pass the global test and prove to the world we had legitimate reasons.

I see.

[Otto]

@Bricker

And who, specifically, has been locked up without access to counsel for the crime of vocal dissent?

What the fuck kind of chicken shit weasel is this?

[pravnik]

@Bricker

No. And I don’t see that Miller said that was Kerry’s intent either.

But that was arguably the potential result of Kerry’s votes.

But Zell didn’t say he voted against those weapons, only that he opposed them. Which he did, in a campaign memo, in 1984. Miller’s vitriolic characterization of Kerry’s voting record as it concerns military spending is wholly inaccurate. Kerry did vote to scrap the B-2 in 1989, 1991, and 1992, but by 1992 even former President Bush was in agreement, as stated above. Other than that, the only evidence of Kerry opposing any of those weapons are the three times he’s voted against the Pentagon budget in his 19 years in the Senate. Miller was combining this half truth with that half truth to intentionally mislead.

http://www.factcheck.org/article252.html

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

If your side had the power… then they would pass laws,…My side IS in power. We control both houses of Congress and the White House, and have for the past four years. What laws have we passed that stifle criticism.?

Why do you think nothing is real unless it’s a law? Oh yeah, we’ve gone over that.

Can you imagine “our side” (and it would help you to define it) ever saying this about “stifling criticism” while in power? Have “we” ever? Ever?

@White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer

It reminds all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that. There never is.

Howie Kurtz led a CNN discussion with Jonah Goldberg and Dana Milbank:

KURTZ: Jonah Goldberg, is it the role of the White House press secretary to urge people to curb their tongues?

GOLDBERG: I’m one of the only journalists I know that has absolutely no problem with what Ari Fleischer said. We’re not talking about repealing the First Amendment. He’s not talking about censoring anybody. He’s asking for people to be responsible in how they phrase things and what they say. And if that creates a climate where people think twice before they say stupid things, so be it. And that seems fine to me.

KURTZ: Ari Fleischer told me that, in fact, what he was trying to say, was that people ought to be thoughtful in this sensitive time. But, Dana Milbank, we’re in a climate now where columnist have actually gotten fired, one at “The Texas City Sun,” another at “The Daily Courier” in Grants Pass, Oregon, for the sin of criticizing President Bush in relatively mild language, I might add. Is criticism of the president now endangering job security?

MILBANK: Well, it is dangerous that this idea of what Ari was talking about could go further an extinguish all sorts of question asking. I mean, this is how we got into a big mess in Vietnam. People were afraid to ask questions. They felt it was unpatriotic to ask questions.

Even if you can remember history, you can still be forced to repeat it - as long as there are people with short memories or great gullibility. Example of such:

@Bricker

No. And I don’t see that Miller said that was Kerry’s intent either.

But that was arguably the potential result of Kerry’s votes. I believe Kerry was and is a patriot. He loves his country. His intended approach is unwise.

You know fucking well what Miller meant, and you know fucking well (by now, at least) that he was describing this administration’s approach in an obvious tu quoque. You have shown by your own example just how effective that approach is on those who want to believe it, facts be damned.

You describe those things as the results of Kerry’s votes, not the efforts of Rumsfeld or Cheney or Bush. Why? Are you that totally blinkered by partisanship?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

No nation will have a veto, but we would have to pass the global test and prove to the world we had legitimate reasons.

I see.

Is that to be taken as a defense of illegitimate reasons? What the hell else could it mean?

Remember the First Rule of Holes.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Such are the tactics of leftists without power to pass laws. You aren’t horrified, because you think what they did was just peachy…

Aww, c’mon. Get real! You going to seriously pretend there is some kind of parallel between this Animal House stupidity and the contest for Most Powerful Man on the Fuckin’ Planet? And be so kind as not to pretend to be a mind-reader. You want to know if I think something is “peachy” you need but ask, I am not stingy with my opinion.

…No. And I don’t see that Miller said that was Kerry’s intent either.

But that was arguably the potential result of Kerry’s votes. I believe Kerry was and is a patriot. He loves his country. His intended approach is unwise.

Ahem. The “spitballs” comment? Does that offer some other interpretation that has eluded me?

Kerry’s approach, as he has tirelessly and uselessly explained, had to do with how the appropriation was to be paid for. There was never any question that the appropriation would pass, it is not at all uncommon for Congresscreeps to vote against appopriations they generally favor in order to have standing to explain why, especially when they know for certain it will pass. His approach was politicly unwise, as it did not offer sufficient hypocrisy, a quality his opposition had in bountiful supply.

[pravnik]

@Bricker

Wow, what an unambiguous lie that Miller told.

No nation will have a veto, but we would have to pass the global test and prove to the world we had legitimate reasons.

I see.

Pretty weak stuff there. No response to the fact that the President and Secretary of Defense are clearly unworthy to command our liberation forces by Zell’s own definition? The best you can do is say that Kerry’s statement that we would not allow the UN to dictate our policy on going to war is undermined by a later statement that we should nevertheless seek global support in doing so? You offend me, sir! Pistols at dawn!

Seriously, though, Zell’s speech was far from a heartfelt cry of an honest man betrayed by his party. It was just a self-serving, calculated mischaracterization of one’s political opponent, run of the mill on both sides of the political fence.

[elucidator]

I don’t think a “global test” would have really applied, so long as the military action had the support of Sec. of State Fonda…

[elucidator]

@pravnik

…You offend me, sir! Pistols at dawn!..

Get real. You wouldn’t get up before dawn unless you were going fishing.

(An entirely sensible attitudue, of course…)