# Zell Miller Speaks From the Heart **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2004, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700 "2004-09-02T02:20:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/221 "2004-09-07T19:56:08Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Not so. The spurious WMD claims were the reason given for our **haste** to go to war. If not for those spurious claims, we could have taken our time to bring our allies along instead of rushing ahead without them. And if we ultimately did go to war without our traditional allies, we could have done so without gratuitously insulting them as Cheney and Rumsfeld did repeatedly. Our headstrong to-hell-with-Europe approach was a costly failure of diplomacy that has harmed our standing in the international community (and put us in a bad position now that we could use Europe’s help in rebuilding Iraq). I don’t regard the result as a costly failure of diplomacy. I think this was a situation that called for quick military action, not diplomacy. Diplomacy was overrated when doves called for diplomatic solutions in response to Saddam’s repeated violations of the no-fly zone. Diplomacy was not the answer in this case. We simply place different premiums on the value of support from France, Germany, and Russia. I regard the value of their support as slight. I don’t see it as any kind of a meaningful loss to have proceeded without that support. > [@](#): > > Even if you see good reasons for going to war with Iraq apart from WMD, Bush and company went about it the wrong way. No, I don’t agree. > [@Knorf](#): > > You assume that prompt action and getting support for allies are mutually eclusively. That isn’t necessarily true generally speaking, although it apparently it is in the current administration since Bush does not appreciate the importance of building real coalitions of powerful allies. This “go it alone” attitude is not tenable in the long term, and has already proven to carry a horrendous cost in the short term. On the contrary: even when we had the support of our allies, we shouldered the lion’s share of the cost and the effort. It is unclear to me under what rationale Russia, France or Germany seek to be treated as equal partners in making a decision like this. They are not. It’s true that in the UN Security Council, of course, they are members – Russia and France permanantly so, and Germany until the end of this year. But I don’t regard as wise the thought that we grant the UN a veto over our military action in this instance. > [@](#): > > If our allies were reluctant to go along with preemptive action, perhaps it is worth considering whether such action was as necessary. Regardless, Bush did a horrible job of persuading our allies that such a course was valid or essential. No, and no. The action was necessary. The refusal of our putative allies to agree does not change that. > [@](#): > > By the way, I don’t think it’s fair to call Bricker a blind Bush supporter, lacking nuance in his position. His support for Bush is backed up with some fairly well considered assumptions about what he thinks is important, and he obviously keeps up on current events. I personally diagree with many of those assumptions, and his interpretation of those events, but that’s another story. Thank you. I agree that what this comes down to is exactly what you say: assumptions about what priority to place on military action, and what interpretation you give to these events. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/222 "2004-09-07T19:57:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t want bin Laden caught; that’s a false dilemna. I do want bin Laden caught, but I feel that Bush’s plans were the best approach given what we knew at the time. … In other words, hindsight is 20-20 – I believe our actions were prudent, given what we knew at the time. Okay, then, Osama is still out there, and the troops who were looking for him got sent to Iraq. Is what Bush is doing in Afghanistan/Pakistan \*today \* “the best approach”? Why not? > [@](#): > > Sure. I believe Kerry would have used military might later than BUsh, or not at all. Am I wrong? Kerry would have tried to build a more international consensus. I don’t agree that was the right thing to do. It wasn’t? Can you offer a reason why we shouldn’t want to spread the cost and bloodshed among more of those who are allegedly benefiting? Or why it’s a good thing to let those whose hearts and minds we’re allegedly trying to win over think we’re imperialist bullies only after their oil instead? > [@](#): > > (Re the Iraq invasion being connected to “national defense”) It did, even though the original rationale advanced by the administration was incorrect. Please expound. In what way that we know now is factual, and that Bush had reason to know then was factual, was Iraq a threat to the US? None of this “Well, he wanted to, and Rumsfeld’d sent him some stuff to use against Iran, and he gassed his own people” stuff, now - in what way was Iraq a threat to the US? > [@](#): > > I don’t agree with that characterization of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. That’s nice. Wanna try to convince anybody else? > [@](#): > > Are you contending that if Kerry had been in charge, bin Laden would have been captured? Obviously not, only that the odds would be much better. He would most certainly have \*kept \* looking, and \*kept \* up the pressure on Pakistan to do something serious with their own forces. That isn’t a special virtue of Kerry’s, btw, it’s just something any non-arrogant non-fuckup non-ideologue would do. > [@](#): > > I don’t think any approach could have brought a complete end to al Qaeda. And if their hatred of the US before any of this happened was sufficient to sponsor 9-11, I’m not pursuaded that they can hate us MORE now. Not even Bush is talking about a “complete end” to Al Qaeda consistently now (and the stream of strawmen is not helping you, either). Is the threat from them lower now because of Bush’s manliness, or long-term is it even _increased_ as a result of our actions both in Iraq and in unqualified support of Sharon? I’d like to dismiss that possibility, but you know as well as I that it’s pretty plausible. > [@](#): > > Of course. I’ve said that the intel failures were terrible, for instance. 'Scuse me - the failures of the CIA and FBI, or of Bush’s use of them? I refer you to the OSP saga, for instance. > [@](#): > > No, I still contend the SDMB is less friendly to conservatives than to liberals. And maybe someday you’ll provide an example instead of a whine. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/223 "2004-09-07T20:07:03Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > By the way, I don’t think it’s fair to call Bricker a blind Bush supporter, lacking nuance in his position. His support for Bush is backed up with some fairly well considered assumptions about what he thinks is important, and he obviously keeps up on current events. I personally diagree with many of those assumptions, and his interpretation of those events, but that’s another story. Then I wish he’d start to explain how he reached the often-stated, never-expounded positions right above that: > [@Bricker](#): > > I think this was a situation that called for quick military action, not diplomacy. There \*was \* no need for “quick” (a.k.a. hasty, unprepared) military action, _and we know now that Bush knew it then._ > [@Bricker](#): > > The action was necessary. The refusal of our putative allies to agree does not change that. As I pointed out already, that’s assuming the conclusion, which is certainly interpretable as “blind support” if the evidence is virtually all to the contrary - as it is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/224 "2004-09-07T20:14:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Okay, then, Osama is still out there, and the troops who were looking for him got sent to Iraq. Is what Bush is doing in Afghanistan/Pakistan \*today \* “the best approach”? Why not? Yes, it is the best approach. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t? Can you offer a reason why we shouldn’t want to spread the cost and bloodshed among more of those who are allegedly benefiting? Or why it’s a good thing to let those whose hearts and minds we’re allegedly trying to win over think we’re imperialist bullies only after their oil instead? Because we would still end up paying the lion’s share of the cost, and surrendering our autonomy for insufficient recompense. And regardless of the presence of other troops, I think those disposed to view our presence unfavorably would do so anyway. I don’t agree that we’ve got a good shot at winning the hearts and minds of all Iraqis. > [@](#): > > Please expound. In what way that we know now is factual, and that Bush had reason to know then was factual, was Iraq a threat to the US? None of this “Well, he wanted to, and Rumsfeld’d sent him some stuff to use against Iran, and he gassed his own people” stuff, now - in what way was Iraq a threat to the US? As a nation headed by a brutal dictator rentlessly unsympathetic to the US, Iraq was a potential friendly staging area for terrorists. In addition, Iraq was headed by a brutal dictator, and the people of Iraq are better off without him than with him. The threat offered by Iraq was not immediate. But it was a potential that was better off neutralized, and the Iraqi people were better off that we neutralized Saddam. > [@](#): > > That’s nice. Wanna try to convince anybody else? I’m offering my own reasons for why Zell Miller’s speech resonated with me. If those reasons convince others, fine. If not, then I stand alone in my reaction. > [@](#): > > Not even Bush is talking about a “complete end” to Al Qaeda consistently now (and the stream of strawmen is not helping you, either). Is the threat from them lower now because of Bush’s manliness, or long-term is it even _increased_ as a result of our actions both in Iraq and in unqualified support of Sharon? I’d like to dismiss that possibility, but you know as well as I that it’s pretty plausible. I think the threat from al Qaeda is lessened now due to Bush’s actions. > [@](#): > > 'Scuse me - the failures of the CIA and FBI, or of Bush’s use of them? I refer you to the OSP saga, for instance. Both. The intel services failed, and the administration heard what it wanted to hear. > [@](#): > > And maybe someday you’ll provide an example instead of a whine. I did. An established poster just suggested above that conservatives are less welcome here because the board’s mission is fighting ignorance, and he did so in a forum where such attacks are supposedly _verboten_. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/225 "2004-09-07T20:36:35Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Kerry was right to vote against the 1st Gulf War. > > Saddam Hussein showed no designs whatever that he was going to expand his “sphere of influence” in the Arab world, nor would it have been any of our business if he had. Sweet heavens above. So you don’t consider _invading another Arab country_ as a demonstration that Saddam “was going to expand his sphere of influence in the Arab world”? I assume you would also deny that the invasion of Poland showed any desire by Hitler to expand his sphere of influence in Europe. At some statements from the further extremes of the Left, the mind simply boggles. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/226 "2004-09-07T20:49:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As a nation headed by a brutal dictator rentlessly unsympathetic to the US, Iraq was a potential friendly staging area for terrorists. Well, I am glad we got rid of that “potential”. Maybe next time though, we might pursue a policy that gets rid of potential staging areas for terrorists in a way other than turning them into actual staging areas for terrorists. It also seems a little hard to explain how this “potential friendly staging area for terrorists” seems to have functioned much less as a staging area for terrorists than supposedly friendly regimes in say Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, … ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/227 "2004-09-07T20:51:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Since “strong on defense” or having a “good” record on defense is a slippery standard, far from rigorous, I’m going to withdraw it. I could easily defend “what I meant” but since I was foolish enough to post something that was utterly resistant to rigorous analysis, the better track is to withdraw it and substitute a clearer statement. As Shayna cogently argues, it’s difficult to compare nineteen years in the Senate, years in which the political world climate was different than now, with Mr. Bush’s relatively short tenure on the national political stage. Mr. Kerry started his political life with views that were different than he holds now. I don’t think it’s accurate to look at votes his freshman year in the Senate and try to extrapolate his fitness for the Presidency based on those. Thank you for the retraction. One correction, though… you’ve made the mistake (which I believe is a mistake Zell Miller hopes people will make) of referring to John Kerry’s _voting_ in his freshman year in the Senate, in reference to how he’s changed his stance over the years. The fact remains that John Kerry may have had some bold ideas _before_ he was elected to the Senate, but he did _not_, in fact, vote in that fashion for at least the next 4 years. His first vote against the B-2 Stealth Bomber wasn’t until 1989, and 3 years later, Bush Sr. was also calling for its cancellation. > [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, it would have been better if our allies had joined us. > > But since they were not inclined to do so, I think a more accurate question is: would it have been better to wait until our former allies’ support could be secured, or go the distance alone? And I feel that the decision to act unilaterally was the better one. Zell Miller’s hyperbolic claim that Kerry wants Paris to decide if we use American military force has its roots in this decision. Kerry never said that, of course, but the idea being conveyed is that Kerry would not have unilaterally acted in these circumstances; he would have waited to secure support from a coalition of allies. I argue that prompt action was better, and more in line with what I want from the President. After the September 11th attacks on our nation, we had the broad support of pretty much the entire world. We also had the support of our allies for going into Afghanistan to capture the ringleader responsible for those attacks. I don’t believe for a moment that John Kerry would have waited one second longer than Bush did wrt Afghanistan, as he wouldn’t have _had_ to – we already _had_ the support that he keeps reminding us is vital in winning our worldwide battles. What he’s saying he would’ve done differently in Afghanistan is _not_ that he would’ve waited, but in how he would’ve executed it once there; how he would have utilized our assets differently in order to actually capture the man we went in there after in the first place. **John Kerry to the American Legion Convention:** _“I would have relied on **American troops** in Tora Bora when we had Bin Laden in our sights. I never would have diverted resources so quickly from Afghanistan before finishing the job.”_ I also disagree that we would’ve had to wait _that much_ longer than we did to go into Iraq (IF a legitimate reason existed for doing so, and one could’ve been proven at the time), merely to get coalition approval that you seem to feel would not have been forthcoming. Quite the contrary. I believe that had John Kerry been President, he would have _secured_ coalition agreement in advance of our even needing to go in. When his (controversial, I know) fitreps called him a “polished diplomat,” it wasn’t merely lip service – his history and the facts have borne that out. Read [this article](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-kerryprofile16jan16,1,6534260.story?coll=la-news-elect2004) to get a better idea of just _how good_ John Kerry is at negotiations. Some excerpts: > [@](#): > > “This is when he becomes a peacemaker, not just an antiwar advocate,” says Thomas Vallely, director of the Vietnam Program at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. "He switches gears and says, ‘I am not going to be just against something. I am going to deal with the people who are against me and I am going to work this out.’ " > > … > > When some claimed that Americans might still be imprisoned in the catacombs beneath the tomb of Vietnamese Communist Party founder Ho Chi Minh, **Kerry insisted that he be allowed inside, and that he be able to bring Smith along**. > > The Vietnamese blanched at the visit to the sacred shrine. To them, as one committee member explained it later, it was like “another country asking if they could take a look around under [President] Kennedy’s tomb, to see if there were something down there.” > > **But Kerry talked his way in** with the promise — among other things — that the visit would not be publicly disclosed. > > … > > “ **Kerry always made a point of bringing calm and order and civility to the room** ,” said Virginia Foote, president of the U.S.-Vietnam Trade Council. > > **Kerry’s chairmanship of the committee came to be characterized by a willingness to take quick action.** > > The committee had negotiated permission to drop in on any prison with little notice, to assure that there would be no time to move Americans or hide evidence. At the very first prison drop-in, however, the warden had not gotten word of the policy. American senators and a bevy of journalists were stranded outside. > > “Anybody who wanted to build a conspiracy would have said, ‘See, they are hiding something,’ if we hadn’t gotten it cleared up rapidly,” Kerry said. > > **He called Vietnam’s foreign minister and, after a half-hour negotiation, got the prison doors opened.** > > “It wound up becoming a benefit [because] it was so patently clear they didn’t know we were coming,” Kerry said. “They were surprised. And not only did we go in where we had been authorized, we went everywhere.” > > **The same sort of diplomacy was needed** on a subsequent trip, when jailers weren’t going to let McCain down a hallway to see the cell where he had been held at Hao Lo, the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.” > > **Again, Kerry talked his way past the guards**. **“He is just really a good diplomat,”** said Mark Salter, McCain’s chief of staff, who was on the trip. > > In front of the bare cement enclosure where McCain had been held, the two former combatants shared a moment, as others on the trip hung back. > > “It just sort of bowled me over with a sense of awe about the human spirit, how strong it can be and how strong he and all those other guys were,” Kerry recalled. Perhaps you might be interested to know, if you don’t already, that the man who designed the attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq, [Retired Army General Tommy Franks](http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/t/to/tommy_franks.html), believes that [“Kerry is “absolutely” qualified to be commander in chief.”](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5650062/) > [@Bricker](#): > > But since the result, even without those claims, should have been invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam from power, I regard the overall effect of that failure as negligble. Well, we disagree on whether the United States has any right to unilaterally decide to remove the leader of a sovereign nation from power – I don’t. Nor do I believe that an all-out _war_ against an entire nation would even be the way to go about doing so, even if I agreed it was necessary. Far too many innocent Iraqi civilian lives were lost in order to get rid of one, single man. I think it’s a crying shame. > [@Bricker](#): > > I agree that if the right thing to do was subsume our own interests in getting international cooperation, for example, then Kerry (or Gore) would have done a better job. I believe that both of those men would have tried to secure broad international alliances before proceeding. I beliebe that would have been an error, since those alliances would not have materialized. Again, I don’t believe that gaining international acceptance and/or cooperation “subsumed” our own interests. Nor do I believe that we would have had to _wait_ for it – I think Kerry would’ve had it secured and in the bag, long before Bush even considered and rejected the idea. Nor do I agree that it wouldn’t have materialized, simply because it _didn’t_ materialize under Bush’s leadership. Again, I believe the exact opposite is true. I think international cooperation didn’t materialize precisely _because_ Bush does not have the diplomatic skills necessary in order to have secured it. > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Or if the Iraq invasion really had anything substantive at all to do with “national defense”? > > It did, even though the original rationale advanced by the administration was incorrect. Might I ask, in what way you feel we are “more secure” as a nation than we were before we took out Saddam Hussein? _Exactly_ what threat did he pose to us that has now been thwarted? > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Or why the true major sponsors of terrorism and WMD’s in the area, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, were made allies by the President whose actions you consider “correct”, apparently flatly and without qualification? > > I don’t agree with that characterization of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Your denial of Saudi terrorist activity is an odd one, given that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. > [@](#): > > Abdulaziz Alomari > Age: Unknown. > Nationality: Saudi. > > Satam M.A. Al Suqami > Age: 25. > Nationality: Saudi. > > Wail M. Alshehri > Age: 28. > Nationality: Saudi. > > Waleed M. Alshehri > Age: 22. > Nationality: Saudi. > > Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad > Age: 28. > Nationality: Saudi. > > Ahmed Alghamdi > Age: 21. > Nationality: Saudi. > > Hamza Alghamdi > Age: 20. > Nationality: Saudi. > > Hani Hanjour, pilot and group leader > Age: 29. > Nationality: Saudi. > > Salem Alhazmi > Age: Uknown. > Nationality: Saudi. > > Saeed Alghamdi > Age: 25. > Nationality: Saudi. > > Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi > Age: 20. > Nationality: Saudi. > > Ahmed Alnami > Age: 23. > Nationality: Saudi. And the Department of Homeland Security seems to have some concerns about Pakistan: > [@](#): > > [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE\_ID=39252](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39252) > > Posted: July 2, 2004 > > … > > The Department of Homeland Security has ordered immigration inspectors at six of the nation’s busiest airports, including Washington Dulles International, to check all passengers of Pakistani descent – including naturalized U.S. citizens – for minor wounds possibly received while training at terrorist camps in Pakistan. > > U.S. authorities fear Pakistanis trained at such camps are determined to carry out terrorist activities in the U.S. before the November elections. > > … > > The new action is detailed in a closely held two-page bulletin circulated among U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials at major airports. WorldNetDaily obtained a copy of the official bulletin. Citing recent terrorist activities in other parts of the world, it warns that “persons of Pakistani descent are increasingly being identified with many of these extremist activities, including supporting [and] protecting the operations of terrorist training camps in Pakistan.” > > The FBI recently issued a be-on-the-lookout alert for a Pakistani woman, Aafia Siddiqui, who it suspects may be an al-Qaida “facilitator” for U.S. operations. Authorities say the U.S.-educated Siddiqui returned to Pakistan shortly after 9-11 with her husband. The FBI is also seeking an American Muslim convert, Adam Gadahn, who is allegedly connected to al-Qaida. Authorities say Gadahn traveled to Pakistan to train at al-Qaida camps following his conversion. > > Suspected al-Qaida and Taliban detainees held at Guantanamo include 82 Pakistanis, the third largest nationality represented at the prison behind Saudis and Yemenis. > > … > [@Bricker](#): > > Because we haven’t caught him yet. Are you contending that if Kerry had been in charge, bin Laden would have been captured? Yes. Well, perhaps that’s a bit strong. Let me amend that to say, I’m more convinced that BinLaden would’ve been captured under a Kerry presidency than this Bush presidency, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/228 "2004-09-07T21:28:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The threat offered by Iraq was **not immediate**. But it was a potential that was better off neutralized, and the Iraqi people were better off that we neutralized Saddam. Now this is an interesting thing to say, after asserting that one of your primary concerns about a Kerry presidency is that he wouldn’t have acted _as immediately_ as George Bush did, and that you agree with Bush’s tactic. If there was _no immediate threat_, then why the call for _immediacy_ in handling it? I’m afraid that simply doesn’t make any sense. > [@Bricker](#): > > I’m offering my own reasons for why Zell Miller’s speech resonated with me. If those reasons convince others, fine. If not, then I stand alone in my reaction. Given that you’ve admitted that Miller’s speech was filled with “hyperbole” (which is actually a generous word for what he did) and “spurious claims,” I find that distressing. When I learn that someone has lied to me, I hold their opinion in a much lower light than I might once have. Zell Miller lied to the American public, yet what he said “still resonates with you.” That says a lot right there. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/229 "2004-09-07T21:33:00Z")
So, are we pretty close to a consensus about Zell’s speech, then? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/230 "2004-09-07T21:50:13Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Thank you for the retraction. One correction, though… you’ve made the mistake (which I believe is a mistake Zell Miller hopes people will make) of referring to John Kerry’s _voting_ in his freshman year in the Senate, in reference to how he’s changed his stance over the years. The fact remains that John Kerry may have had some bold ideas _before_ he was elected to the Senate, but he did _not_, in fact, vote in that fashion for at least the next 4 years. His first vote against the B-2 Stealth Bomber wasn’t until 1989, and 3 years later, Bush Sr. was also calling for its cancellation. Fair enough - my comment on Kerry’s freshman year was illustrative only – good or bad, it’s unfair to either credit or criticize him for stances he may have taken in a political climate vastly different from what obtains now. > [@](#): > > I believe that had John Kerry been President, he would have _secured_ coalition agreement in advance of our even needing to go in. When his (controversial, I know) fitreps called him a “polished diplomat,” it wasn’t merely lip service – his history and the facts have borne that out. We’ll agree to disagree. [quote] Retired Army General Tommy Franks believes that “Kerry is “absolutely” qualified to be commander in chief.”[/uquote] Well, we can add SDMB poster Bricker to that list. I, too, believe John Kerry is absolutely qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. A Senate veteran and Vietnam war hero who won broad Democratic party support, Kerry is a proven leader. I’m saying that I think George W. Bush is a better choice, not that Kerry is a disaster. Far from it. > [@](#): > > Well, we disagree on whether the United States has any right to unilaterally decide to remove the leader of a sovereign nation from power – I don’t. Nor do I believe that an all-out _war_ against an entire nation would even be the way to go about doing so, even if I agreed it was necessary. Far too many innocent Iraqi civilian lives were lost in order to get rid of one, single man. I think it’s a crying shame. Again, I don’t believe that gaining international acceptance and/or cooperation “subsumed” our own interests. Nor do I believe that we would have had to _wait_ for it – I think Kerry would’ve had it secured and in the bag, long before Bush even considered and rejected the idea. Nor do I agree that it wouldn’t have materialized, simply because it _didn’t_ materialize under Bush’s leadership. Again, I believe the exact opposite is true. I think international cooperation didn’t materialize precisely _because_ Bush does not have the diplomatic skills necessary in order to have secured it. I don’t agree with your conclusions here either. Kerry would have been just as stymied as Bush was – but I believe he would have chosen to wait and not act unilaterally. > [@](#): > > Might I ask, in what way you feel we are “more secure” as a nation than we were before we took out Saddam Hussein? _Exactly_ what threat did he pose to us that has now been thwarted? Your denial of Saudi terrorist activity is an odd one, given that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. bin Laden himself is a Saudi. What of it? The mere fact that they were Saudis is no reason to assume the Saudi government was friendly to their cause. Saddam’s threat to us was twofold: one, as a brutal dictator that hated the US, his country was ripe for use as a terrorist haven. More to the point: he was a brutal dictator that was killing his own people, and for that reason alone deserved removal. (By “us” I mean humanity, here, not simply the US.) > [@](#): > > Yes. Well, perhaps that’s a bit strong. Let me amend that to say, I’m more convinced that BinLaden would’ve been captured under a Kerry presidency than this Bush presidency, yes. Once again, we’ll agree to disagree. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/231 "2004-09-07T22:28:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree with your conclusions here either. Kerry would have been just as stymied as Bush was – but I believe he would have chosen to wait and not act unilaterally. What leads you to that conclusion? Recall that we’re talking about the man who, against all advice, even from within his own party, was the first whistleblower in the Iran/Contra scandal. A man who, for all intents and purposes, acted “unilaterally” in going forth with an investigation that blew that whole scandal wide open. [[Cite](http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml)] And let’s not forget, either, that he also forged ahead, against fierce opposition, on exposing and shutting down the terrorist money-laundering financial institution, BCCI. > [@](#): > > [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html) > > Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler’s check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world. > > **All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels.** Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed. > > … > > But legislation is only one facet of a senator’s record. As the BCCI investigation shows, Kerry developed a very different record of accomplishment–one often as vital, if not more so, than passage of bills. Kerry’s probe didn’t create any popular new governmental programs, reform the tax code, or eliminate bureaucratic waste and fraud. **Instead, he shrewdly used the Senate’s oversight powers to address the threat of terrorism well before it was in vogue, and dismantled a key terrorist weapon. In the process, observers saw a senator with tremendous fortitude, and a willingness to put the public good ahead of his own career.** Those qualities might be hard to communicate to voters via one-line sound bites, but they would surely aid Kerry as president in his attempts to battle the threat of terrorism. > > … > > The young senator from Massachusetts, thus, faced a difficult choice. Kerry could play ball with the establishment and back away from BCCI, or he could stay focused on the public interest and gamble his political reputation by pushing forward. > > BCCI and the bluebloods > > Kerry opted in 1989 to take the same information that had been coldly received at the Justice Department and bring it to New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who agreed to begin a criminal investigation of BCCI, based on Kerry’s leads. > > … > > **But Kerry refused to back off** , and his hearings began to expose the ways in which international terrorism was financed. **As _Kerry’s_ subcommittee discovered, BCCI catered to many of the most notorious tyrants and thugs of the late 20th century, including Iraqi dictator _Saddam Hussein_** , the heads of the Medellin cocaine cartel, and Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. According to the CIA, it also did business with those who went on to lead al Qaeda. > > … > > As the presidential campaign enters its final stretch, Kerry’s BCCI experience is important for two reasons. \*\*First, it reveals Kerry’s foresight in fighting terrorism \*\* that is critical for any president in this age of asymmetrical threats. As The Washington Post noted, “years before money laundering became a centerpiece of antiterrorist efforts…Kerry crusaded for controls on global money laundering in the name of national security.” > > Make no mistake about it, BCCI would have been a player. **A decade after Kerry helped shut the bank down, the CIA discovered Osama bin Laden was among those with accounts at the bank.** > > … > > Second, the BCCI affair showed Kerry to be a politician driven by a sense of mission, rather than expediency–even when it meant ruffling feathers. Perhaps Sen. Hank Brown, the ranking Republican on Kerry’s subcommittee, put it best. “John Kerry was willing to spearhead this difficult investigation,” Brown said. “Because many important members of his own party were involved in this scandal, it was a distasteful subject for other committee and subcommittee chairmen to investigate. They did not. John Kerry did.” John Kerry doesn’t strike me _at all_ as the kind of man who becomes “stymied” into non-action. I would love to know what you think George W. Bush has done in the last 3½ years in office, that makes him _better_ at fighting terrorism – with _actual, measurable results_, than what John Kerry has done, or would do. > [@Bricker](#): > > (Emphasis mine) > > More to the point: he was a brutal dictator that was killing his own people, and for that reason alone deserved removal. ( **By “us” I mean humanity, here, not simply the US.** ) Do you realize what you just said here? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/232 "2004-09-08T00:58:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > bin Laden himself is a Saudi. What of it? The mere fact that they were Saudis is no reason to assume the Saudi government was friendly to their cause. [9/11 hijackers tied to Saudi government, Graham says in book:](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/05/911_hijackers_tied_to_saudi_government_graham_says_in_book/) > [@](#): > > Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Senator Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday. > > … > > And in Graham’s book, “Intelligence Matters,” obtained by The Miami Herald yesterday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry’s final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees. And on another interesting but unrelated point, Graham also notes the ways in which the President’s obsession with Iraq diverted resources from the real war on terror in Afghanistan: > [@](#): > > Graham also disclosed that General Tommy Franks told him on Feb. 19, 2002, four months after the invasion of Afghanistan, that many important resources – including the Predator drone aircraft crucial to the search for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda leaders – were being shifted to prepare for a war against Iraq. [Here](http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm) is an article from several months ago on the same subject: > [@](#): > > In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures. > > The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered. > > Those were just two of the tradeoffs required because of what the Pentagon and CIA acknowledge is a shortage of key personnel to fight the war on terrorism. The question of how much those shifts prevented progress against al-Qaeda and other terrorists is putting the Bush administration on the defensive. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/233 "2004-09-08T01:47:04Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > What leads you to that conclusion? Recall that we’re talking about the man who, against all advice, even from within his own party, was the first whistleblower in the Iran/Contra scandal. A man who, for all intents and purposes, acted “unilaterally” in going forth with an investigation that blew that whole scandal wide open. [[Cite](http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml)] Because Kerry himself has said that he’d have done “everything differently” than Bush did. Since one of the key elements was acting alone, I assume Kerry means to say that he’d not have acted alone. > [@](#): > > George W. Bush wishes he and I had the same position on Iraq but wishing doesn’t make it so. > > “I have said repeatedly that when it comes to Iraq, I wouldn’t have done just one thing differently, I would have done almost everything differently.” From the Kerry campaign. On involving NATO: > [@](#): > > “The US will lead, but we must also listen,” Kerry said. “We must share responsibility and we must share authority. Needless to say, I don’t agree that we must share authority. > [@](#): > > And let’s not forget, either, that he also forged ahead, against fierce opposition, on exposing and shutting down the terrorist money-laundering financial institution, BCCI. John Kerry doesn’t strike me _at all_ as the kind of man who becomes “stymied” into non-action. Admirable, but chasing corporate bad guys is not the same as unilaterally going to war against the wishes of much of your core constituency. > [@](#): > > I would love to know what you think George W. Bush has done in the last 3½ years in office, that makes him _better_ at fighting terrorism – with _actual, measurable results_, than what John Kerry has done, or would do. > Do you realize what you just said here? It’s too soon to have actual, measurable results. In fact, it’s unclear to me how you might go about measuring results, no matter who was at the helm. All I can rely upon is a gut sense that Kerry would, as he’s constantly repeated, worked for a coaltion… when I am perfectly happy with Bush’s willingness to charge ahead and ACT. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/234 "2004-09-08T03:40:48Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Because Kerry himself has said that he’d have done “everything differently” than Bush did. Since one of the key elements was acting alone, I assume Kerry means to say that he’d not have acted alone. … All I can rely upon is a gut sense that Kerry would, as he’s constantly repeated, worked for a coaltion… when I am perfectly happy with Bush’s willingness to charge ahead and ACT. > [@John Kerry](#): > > “I have said repeatedly that when it comes to Iraq, I wouldn’t have done just one thing differently, I would have done **almost** everything differently.” Well “ALMOST everything” /= “Everything.” And based on what I know of both candidates, I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports the contention that John Kerry wouldn’t have also ACTED, yet ACTED with more sense, a better plan and more support, which is _not_ a bad thing. > [@Bricker](#): > > It’s too soon to have actual, measurable results. In fact, it’s unclear to me how you might go about measuring results, no matter who was at the helm. Oh, I don’t know, maybe like tangibly showing that you’ve cut off the terrorist’s finances, rendering them impotent to attack us even if they wanted to? And if Bush is so much “better” at ACTING than you think John Kerry would be, can you explain why Abu Mussab al Zarqawi is still at large, precisely due to Bush’s INaction in going after him, while trying to “build international support for action against Iraq?” [[Cite](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/zarqawi_030224.html)] Seems like my perception of him is accurate – he tried and _failed_ to gain international support. In fact, [this article](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/) indicates that the White House “killed” several Pentagon plans, in part because “the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.” And of course today, [Al-Zarqawi ‘killed 30’](http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1585159,00.html). ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/235 "2004-09-08T07:45:13Z")
Don’t have time to read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned the rumors about Zell suffering from the early stages of Alzheimers? His mother died of it, evidently, and on Air America they were talking about speculation within the GOP, and how shameful some felt it was to exploit him in that way if it is true. Also, Carter wrote him a rip-snorting scold. Go, Jimmy! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/236 "2004-09-08T12:42:13Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Don’t have time to read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned the rumors about Zell suffering from the early stages of Alzheimers? No, you are the first to make this slimy and disgusting personal attack. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/237 "2004-09-08T12:48:09Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Well “ALMOST everything” /= “Everything.” And based on what I know of both candidates, I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports the contention that John Kerry wouldn’t have also ACTED, yet ACTED with more sense, a better plan and more support, which is _not_ a bad thing. I simply don’t agree. You place a premium on international cooperation; I contend in the long run that we are better off having handled this essentially alone, rather than subjecting ourselves to UN or NATO “leadership” that is anything but. > [@](#): > > Oh, I don’t know, maybe like tangibly showing that you’ve cut off the terrorist’s finances, rendering them impotent to attack us even if they wanted to? How much did the boxcutters cost? > [@](#): > > And if Bush is so much “better” at ACTING than you think John Kerry would be, can you explain why Abu Mussab al Zarqawi is still at large, precisely due to Bush’s INaction in going after him, while trying to “build international support for action against Iraq?” [[Cite](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/zarqawi_030224.html)] I would want to hear the administration’s response to the one side of the story that the cite you’ve provided gives before comment. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/238 "2004-09-08T14:24:07Z")
[Jimmy Carter rips Zell Miller a new one.](http://www.ajc.com/today/content/epaper/editions/today/opinion_14e3fa39c58de1d500fa.html) It’s not copyrighted of course, so here’s the text: > [@](#): > > To Sen. Zell Miller: > > You seem to have forgotten that loyal Democrats elected you as mayor [of Young Harris] and as state senator. Loyal Democrats, including members of my family and me, elected you as state senator, lieutenant governor and governor. It was a loyal Democrat, Lester Maddox, who assigned you to high positions in the state government when you were out of office. It was a loyal Democrat, Roy Barnes, who appointed you as U.S. senator when you were out of office. By your historically unprecedented disloyalty, you have betrayed our trust. > > Great Georgia Democrats who served in the past, including Walter George, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge and Sam Nunn, disagreed strongly with the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and me, but they remained loyal to the party in which they gained their public office. Other Democrats, because of philosophical differences or the race issue, like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond, at least had the decency to become Republicans. > > Everyone knows that you were chosen to speak at the Republican National Convention because of your being a “Democrat,” and it’s quite possible that your rabid speech damaged our party and paid the GOP some transient dividends. > > Perhaps more troublesome of all is seeing you adopt an established and very effective Republican campaign technique of destroying the character of opponents by wild and false allegations. The Bush campaign’s personal attacks on the character of John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 was a vivid example. The claim that war hero Max Cleland was a disloyal American and an ally of Osama bin Laden should have given you pause, but you have joined in this ploy by your bizarre claims that another war hero, John Kerry, would not defend the security of our nation except with spitballs. (This is the same man whom you described previously as “one of this nation’s authentic heroes, one of this party’s best-known and greatest leaders — and a good friend.”) > > I, myself, served in the Navy from 1942 to 1953, and, as president, greatly strengthened our military forces and protected our nation and its interests in every way. I don’t believe this warrants your referring to me as a pacifist. > > Zell, I have known you for 42 years and have, in the past, respected you as a trustworthy political leader and a personal friend. But now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral pre-emptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth, and the political technique of personal character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause. These are not the characteristics of great Democrats whose legacy you and I have inherited. > > Sincerely, and with deepest regrets, > > Jimmy Carter ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/239 "2004-09-08T14:40:53Z")
> [@Jimmy Carter](#): > > Great Georgia Democrats who served in the past, including Walter George, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge and Sam Nunn, disagreed strongly with the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and me, but they remained loyal to the party in which they gained their public office. Other Democrats, because of philosophical differences or the race issue, like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond, at least had the decency to become Republicans. So which is the honorable course if your party has adopted a position which you feel is untenable and dangerous to the security of the nation? Disagree strongly but remain loyal to the party? Leave the party? I agree with the latter, by the way. Mr. Miller should resign his seat and seek re-election as a Republican. This is, by the way, exactly what I said Jim Jeffords should do. I do not recall ANY DEMOCRATS ON THIS BOARD agreeing with me at that time. Why is that? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700/240 "2004-09-08T14:49:02Z")
Jimmy Carter is one of the architects of the new, emasculated Democratic Party. Everyone should remember his failed leadership in the 1970’s, and our reduced standing in the world during his tenure. Lately, his noteworthy achievements have been to make nice with every dictator he can find, no matter how anti-American they are. I wouldn’t consider his scorn a mark of dishonor. Much more the opposite, I’d say. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zell-miller-speaks-from-the-heart/262700.md?page=13)