Zell Miller Speaks From the Heart

Great Debates
261

I don’t care about the retraction. I’m willing to accept every word on the tape as genuine, and to allow every fair inference from that tape. (I might add that this is a far cry from the rigor required in an actual criminal prosecution, in which his retraction is as much evidence as his original accusation).

So even with every word on the tape true, the MOST we can conclude is that some unnamed person or persons offered him $100,000 for his vote. We have absolutely no evidence linking any particular person to this crime. Indeed, even on the tape he exonerates Thompson and Hastert. So we are left with nothing more than speculation. You say it was the “leadership” - who?

You cannot credibly accuse “high-level officials” without saying who they are. That tactic hearkens back to Joe McCarthy and his “I have a list here…” approach to fact-finding.

You said that high-level officials HAD COMMITTED A CRIME. Not that they were accused, not that someone alleges. You said they had. And this is the proof you offer. It is woefully insufficient to substantiate your charge.

How low will you go, Shayna, to serve the “good cause” of getting rid of Bush?

It really amazes me. I support Bush, yes, but I also acknowledge that he has failures, and I acknowledge that his opponent is a good man, one who is absolutely qualified for the office he seeks.

You, on the other hand, will seemingly stop at no accusation, no matter how flimsy, to support your cause.

  • Rick
262

I said a crime has been committed because Smith attests to a crime – bribery and threats. By “leadership.” By the “majority.” In response to how he communicated with the president.

There is no other reading of his statement. “Leadership” in the “majority” attempted to bribe, and then threatened Congressman Smith. He said so, and I believe him, especially given how damning it was to his own party (or did you forget that Smith is a Republican, so these allegations aren’t coming from the opposition as some kind of smear tactic).

I didn’t name names because I have no names to name, but that doesn’t make the allegation any less credible, seeing as how it didn’t orginate with me, out of whole cloth (which you imply and I resent), but it came directly from Republican Representative Smith.

263

And for the record, an official Press Release by Congressman John Conyers makes the allegation:

Note: “GOP pressure.” Note: “High ranking Republicans.” So don’t dare accuse me of making “flimsy accusations” in a “low” attempt to get rid of Bush. It’s offensive in the extreme.

264

I suppose Shayna can fight her own battles. But, I can’t help comment on the complete sophistry that Shodan resorts to when he is backed into a corner.

We never moved the goalposts. There was never any doubt that the Iraq war would achieve its objective if that objective were merely the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. (In fact, the ease with which that was accomplished is evidence of how little credible threat Saddam posed and how silly the conservatives’ comparisons to Hitler and Chamberlain were, just as we pointed out beforehand.) There was a little more doubt about whether or not he would eventually be captured but it seemed likely. (As they said on The Daily Show when he was caught, “No matter how you slice it, we caught the guy who had absolutely nothing to do with September 11th.”)

No, what those of us against the war questioned is whether the war would result in a safer world for us, whether Iraq would be stable in the aftermath, and whether the war was necessary and worse the cost in terms of dollars, lives, and lost respect on the international stage. In terms of most of these measures, the war has failed more than my worst imaginings. I didn’t realize it would cost over $100 billion and rising. I didn’t expect that over 1000 U.S. troops would be killed. I never even dreamed that the sort of prisoner abuses that happened would happen and how that, along with everything else, would serve as such a wonderful recruitment tool for Osama Bin Laden. I didn’t realize how unstable Iraq would still be well over a year after major hostilities had ended. I expected that we would have at least found some WMDs to provide a flimsy justification for our invasion (although not enough to provide what I would consider a realistic justification for the invasion). I also never dreamed that the U.S. would do such an apparently poor job of securing potential WMD sites that we are in fact lucky that there were not WMDs since if there were we probably would have vastly increased the chances of them falling into the hands of terrorists.

Well, I would say that soldiers dying at the rate of several a day constitutes a certain lack of control.

We never found any evidence that they were still trying to develop nukes. They hadn’t touched Kuwait in over 10 years. And, I also might remind you that we now know that their supposed non-cooperation with the inspection regime was in large part due to the fact that they could not produce the weapons we believed they had because they did not have them. (And, as far as I know, we haven’t found documents documenting their destruction either which we were asking them to produce.) All we found were some “weapons of mass destruction program-related activities”.

So basically your argument consists of various things they are no longer doing that they weren’t even doing before we invaded.

And, your arguments as a whole here just consist of creating straw men of your opponents’ arguments and refusing to read and comprehend anything that they say.

265

Thanks, jshore, you Rock!

More on the Smith bribery attempt:

But I’m being “low.”

266

Who, then? It’s an impossible accusation to refute. If I say, “Well, it couldn’t have been Hastert… the C-SPAN camera shows him clear on the other side of the chamber during the vote talking to Jack Johnson,” you have merely to reply, “OK, it wasn’t Hastert, it was some OTHER high-ranking official.”

The allegation of committing a criminal act is very serious. You cannot throw it around in this slipshod and careless manner.

I wanted Clinton impeached – not because of oral sex in the Oval Office, but because he lied under oath – a crime. If credible evidence developed that Bush commited a crime, either by personally offering a bribe or by instructing his subordinates to do so – I will not only not vote for him, but I’ll call for his resignation or impeachment, because committing a crime as President is a serious matter indeed.

You don’t have any evidence except that unnamed someones may have offered a bribe. Even Smith’s own words don’t say that: they say that the prestige of the leadership was at stake.

The first “they” appears to refer to Congress, as you infer. The second “they” refers to… who? The third and fourth?

This statement is not a model of cognecy. If it were presented to a Grand Jury, they could not return an indictment.

You have accused elected officials of the United States of committing a crime on evidence that could not, as a matter of law, convince a Grand Jury to indict… and all a GJ needs is probable cause.

A fair-minded person would have characterized this as “alleged,” and mentioned the “allegations” of misconduct. Not you. You flatly asserted that it happened.

What do you make of the subsequent retraction? In the classic prosecutorial line, was Smith lying then or is he lying now? Given his willingness to lie, why are you so convinced he was telling the turth then and lying now? Is it because what he said then fits in with what you desperately wish to believe, and what he says now does not?

267

Shayna, I think I see the problem here.

Quiz:

Congressman Ecks says to Congressman Wye: “Ecks, old buddy, if you vote for the bill that’s coming up on the floor right now, I promise my full support and vote for federal funding of the dam in your state next month. If you vote against it, not only will I vote against your dam bill, but I will ensure that the national leadership funds your opponent in the primary in the next election.”

Was a law broken?

  • Rick
268

I do not accuse anyone of anything – Representative Nick Smith makes the accusation. He said it. He wrote of it that it was “bribes and special deals.” His words, not mine.

First of all, quit with the characterizations. I don’t “desperately wish to believe” anything but the damn truth. I’m getting tired of your accusations and insinuations.

I make of the subsequent retraction a fearful effort to obfuscate the truth in order that his son not suffer the career consequences of his father getting “high ranking Republicans” sent to prison on criminal charges of bribery. First he tried to say he never said it. Then he tried to say he said something different from what he’d said. Then when they showed him his own words in writing and got him on tape, he spun it so he wouldn’t get his party in scalding hot water and destroy his son’s chance at a political career. There is no doubt in my mind, given his actual words, as well as the witness statements from fellow Republicans, that he was offered a bribe (his and their words, not mine). And there is no doubt in my mind that he’s scared shitless of the power these guys hold over his son’s political future. That is the most plausible explanation for the backing off from the use (numerous times, in interviews, casual conversation and in writing) of the word “bribes.”

This explanation makes infinitely more sense than believing that he lied, repeatedly, in numerous forums, and now all of a sudden when he realizes the consequences of his words, is now telling the truth.

I also believe this answers your 2nd post. Your “hypothetical” is how Smith would now like to paint it. That is not how he characterized it in his written article, in his casual conversation amongst fellow Republicans, in an interview with Slate, confirming that Robert Novak’s report (repeating Smith’s allegation of bribery and threats) was “basically accurate,” or during his radio interview. Nick Smith has been around Congress long enough to know the difference between a situation like your hypothetical and an actual “bribe,” or “threat.” I’m sure he’s participated in many conversations much like you describe, and yet never referred to them as “bribes,” as he did this one. “Bribery and threats.” That’s what he said. More than once. More than twice. In numerous settings. To numerous people. Verbally and in writing. And I believe that’s exactly what he meant, each and every time he said it. His friends say, “If Nick Smith said it happened, it happened.” I believe them, and I believe Nick Smith’s original statements.

And I would appreciate a retraction of your nasty accusation that I am “low” and that I would “stop at no accusation, no matter how flimsy, to support [my] cause.” It was rude and uncalled-for.

269

And you know, the more I think about this, the more pissed off it makes me.

A Republican has leveled a charge of bribery against members of his own party. Several other Republicans attest to his statements and to his credibility.

I, a Democrat, take them all at their word. Republicans.

And yet you would characterize me for doing so, as “desperate… to believe.”

The absurdaty of that accusation speaks for itself.

270

Perhaps rude, not most certainly NOT uncalled for. If you cannot credibly attach a name to the accusation, it is impossible to disprove. It is merely an allegation.

And your subsequent rationale doesn’t help. If what you surmise is true, surely Smith knew that he was placing his son’s political career in jeopardy. Yet

Evidently without fear. Then, suddenly, he realized he was

That doesn’t seem too plausible to me.

When I, a nominal Republican, took the word of Democrat Zell Miller, you fairly fell out of your seat to suggest I shouldn’t do that. But now that you, a Democrat, are taking the word of a Republican, I should admire this as evidence of openmindedness?

Sorry. A fair-minded person would NOT behave as you are, unquestioningly accepting vague and inchoate accusations against unnamed “high-ranking officials.”

My accusation against YOU stands.

  • Rick
271

Bullshit. I suggested no such thing. I proved to you, with factual evidence, why accepting anyone’s word, Republican or Democrat, that John Kerry was weak on defense, was wrong and baseless. That’s not even remotely the same as suggesting you shouldn’t believe Zell Miller for no reason other than that he’s a Democrat.

You, on the other hand, cannot do the same.

I have taken someone’s first person account of what happened to himself at his own word. Yet I am “desperate… to believe.”

You’re just desperate, period. Your boy’s a liar and corrupt. And you’re so “desperate not to believe that,” that you won’t even accept the first person testimony of someone from your own party.

Bullshit again. There’s nothing vague about the charge of bribery and threats. I do not question his first accounts because he has more reason to lie now than he did when he was speaking carelessly and without regard to the consequences. He got called on it by Novak, realized the seriousness of what he’d said, and immediately began the backpeddaling.

As House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said, “Nick has learned that words do matter, and they need to be both thoughtful and accurate.”

Sounds like they taught him a lesson, but good, about speaking out, huh? Jesus, it sounds like the damn mob!

And you would saddle us with this corrupt administration for another term. It makes me ill.

272

But only at the time of your choosing. You choose not to beleive his later retraction.

You choose not to take John Gardner at his word, yet insist that he lies when he says the boat he served on never left the dock without him on it, and they never went into Cambodia.

You choose not to take Zell Miller at his word. You choose to take Kerry at his. You choose not to take Bush at his word for any number of things.
We all have in us a tendency to take in those things at face value that serve our purposes and reject those that do not.

Are you attempting to use the same standard on all these people? If so, exactly what is the criteria that you use to evaluate a true statement from a false one?

273

The very simple answer, Scylla, is it goes to credibility. I examined the Swift Veterans testimony and found each and every one of them NOT credible. They’ve contradicted themselves and each other, not to mention numerous other witnesses and the written record. I don’t believe liars.

Nick Smith, on the other hand, IS a credible witness. He has a clean record in Congress and an excellent reputation amongst his peers. They say of him, “If Nick Smith said it happened, it happened.” I do not believe he’s lying in his original statements because I cannot fathom a reason he would wage a claim that severe if it were false, especially given the circumstances. There is no motive for him to falsify such a claim, but a very clear motive for him to be retracting it now.

CREDIBILITY, Scylla. Credibility.

274

I would agree that credibility is a good criteria.

Smith later contradicts himself, does he not? You take the original statement as credible and the retraction as not.

This leaves us several possibilities:

  1. One of the statements is a lie, in which case we don’t belieive either, right.

  2. He misspoke, originally, and corrected it in his second statement.
    But, if your criteria is credibility and you do not beleive liars, than there is simply no logical way that you can accept his first statement… unless I’m missing something.

275

No, you are missing an important point here. It is not that we aren’t taking Zell or Bush at their word. It is that we are pointing out that what they are saying is demonstrably false. That’s a fundamental difference.

Zell said things that were lies. Perhaps from his warped perspective, he believes them to be true but that doesn’t mean we should.

The same goes for Bush. On Iraq, whether he believes he knows things for certain that he doesn’t (and is willing to “bet the farm” on them) or whether he is lying about what he knows is largely irrelevant. What we know is what he did. As SimonX says, “Mendacity or incompetence…We report, you decide.”

(On so many other things though, this Administration has lied and deceived and I just can’t believe they possibly believe all of these things. Some are quite obviously very careful ploys at deception.)

276

Of course, then there is Cheney. I am beginning to think he is just a psychopath. He certainly doesn’t seem to be troubled by anything resembling a conscience. But, hey, my training is in physics, not psychology.

277

Or, perhaps the word I am looking for is “sociopath”.

278
  1. The idea that we control Iraq is too laughable for words. (Fallujah. Nuff said.) Will we ever control Iraq? Maybe. Anything is possible, after all. I might win the lottery someday too. But I’m not counting on it. And I wouldn’t risk my life on it, and certainly not my son’s life, which is the same thing as saying it’s not worth the risk of a single citizen of this republic’s life, much less a thousand.
  2. For Shayna and jshore: Debating with someone who thinks Kerry is a traitor (you know who I’m talking about) is a waste of time and annoys the hamsters. If a person has shown a demonstrable lack of respect for the principle of liberty, there’s no reason to address that person for any reason ever on anything. That’s a rule I live by, both here and in real life.
  3. Also, I want Shayna to have my babies. Well, OK, maybe not, if only because my wife might have an objection or two. But ma’am, you are truly amazing. Allow me to send you a virtual bow and a kiss on the hand.
279

Cutting one’s mind off from dissent is equivalent to cutting off the blood from one’s brain. The end result is vegatitive either way.

Some though prefer the company of carrots.

280

Certainly preferable to your company, God knows.