Zell Miller vs. Chris Matthews

[Praxus]

http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?pre...tvideo_topnews

[Confed999]

http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?pre...tvideo_topnews

Nice one...

2004 Republican National Convention Speech - Senator Zell Miller

Transcript


Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also.

Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is

George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an eight-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley.

Our country was not yet at war but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940 Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man.

He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom", he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

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 Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

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 B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

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

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

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

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than twenty years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military.

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.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

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. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

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

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man.

I am moved by the respect he shows the First Lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted, self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

[turnagainarm]

Zell Miller should not be considered a democrat. His values are so conservative. He should just quit democratic party and join the Republicans. That's where he belongs.

[Confed999]

Zell Miller should not be considered a democrat. His values are so conservative. He should just quit democratic party and join the Republicans. That's where he belongs.

When he started, that's who the Democrats were, it's not his fault they've gone so far left they can't even see center anymore.

[TruthSpeak]

Yeah, he has always been a conservative democrat. But these days, the democratic party is practically socialist. I can't blame him.

I thought his speech was absolutely amazing. It made me proud to be an American, and I don't think any real american can vote Kerry after hearing that speech.

[jjacobs43]

Yeah, he has always been a conservative democrat. But these days, the democratic party is practically socialist. I can't blame him.

I thought his speech was absolutely amazing. It made me proud to be an American, and I don't think any real american can vote Kerry after hearing that speech.

No real American, watching that speech, with nothing else to base Zell's views on would vote for Kerry. Unfortunately, the real Americans that CAN see through the Bullshit that was thrown about during that speech just saw Zell make an ass of himself. And an even bigger ass of himself on Chris Matthews. God forbid if you have to back up your bullshit.

[Praxus]

How about you backup your bull shit?

[jjacobs43]

How about you backup your bull shit?

Well the quote that said his speech was amazing didn't really back it up with anything so I just posted my opinion towards the speech. I consider myself a 'Real' american yet I didn't have any uncontrollable urges to find a flag to salute after Zell's speech.

But, anyway, here's an interesting little excerpt from an article way back when...

From Fox News...
Given the critical need, the Administration strongly opposes the Senate provision that would convert a portion of this assistance to a loan mechanism. If this provision is not removed, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. Including a loan mechanism slows efforts to stabilize the region and to relieve pressure on our troops, raises questions about our commitment to building a democratic and self-governing Iraq, and impairs our ability to encourage other nations to provide badly needed assistance without saddling Iraq with additional debt. The sooner freedom and democracy take root in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sooner these countries will cease to be havens for terror groups and the safer America and the world will be.

Both the House and the Senate versions of the bill contain provisions that are not directly related to on-going military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere or relief and reconstruction activities. The Administration strongly opposes these provisions, including Senate provisions that would allocate an additional $1.3 billion for VA medical care and the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE program.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html;


So the Bush administration threatens to Veto the $87 billion bill for the troops in part because he doesn't want 1.3 billion to go to veterans medical care. I guess he doesn't believe in defense either (or verterans for that matter). Zell forgets to mention this part.

Everybody is so gung ho to believe that Kerry would have us defend ourselves with 'spitballs' that they are blinded to logic. And Zell with some of the ugliest face contortions I've even seen just threw red meat into the Republican delegate crowd.

[Confed999]

Well the quote

#1 How does any of your post prove anything Zell said was BS?
#2 Bush didn't veto the bill...

Kerry would have us defend ourselves with 'spitballs'

Going by his voting record it wouldn't be spitballs, it would be Vietnam vintage equipment and training. Sadly we can't go by his campaign position on this, or any subject, he changes it too much. That reminds me, he's saying 4 years for troops out of Iraq now, but still no info on how...

[jjacobs43]

#1 How does any of your post prove anything Zell said was BS?
#2 Bush didn't veto the bill...

Going by his voting record it wouldn't be spitballs, it would be Vietnam vintage equipment and training. Sadly we can't go by his campaign position on this, or any subject, he changes it too much. That reminds me, he's saying 4 years for troops out of Iraq now, but still no info on how...

#1- Because he's purposely misleading people. I refuse to believe that a politician doesn't understand how the system works. He knows he's misleading and if he had a solid, logical basis for his argument he wouldn't have to be challenging Chris Matthews to a duo when he's questioned abou it.

#2- The only reason Bush didn't veto the bill is because the Republicans had more power to get it passed the way they wanted to. If it was in the form the Democrats wanted, he would have vetoed the bill. That would not mean that he isn't for defense or that he is against supporting our troops. It also wouldn't mean he's a flip flopper because he voted for the war and then voted not to support the troops. The arguments are ridiculous in light of all the facts on that vote.

Ahhh...but that doesn't fit into the Republican talking points now does it?

[Confed999]

#1- Because he's purposely misleading people.

Kerry didn't vote "no" on the bill? It seems to me he did. "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 see no lie, no misleading there, Kerry made the vote. You can guess his reasons if you wish, and the reasons for his votes against everything else military and inteligence related, but I'm going to look at the record, because it's all I have that is 100% true.

[jjacobs43]

Kerry didn't vote "no" on the bill? It seems to me he did. "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 see no lie, no misleading there, Kerry made the vote. You can guess his reasons if you wish, and the reasons for his votes against everything else military and inteligence related, but I'm going to look at the record, because it's all I have that is 100% true.

It's not all you have to go by. There are documents like the link I posted earlier that shows the mindset of the politicians before the vote. The Bush administration was ready to veto the bill.

What would happen if the bill failed? Another one would have taken it's place to get the funding to Iraq. If we all know this, why do we have to pretend to be naive about what a "no" vote really means in the big scheme of things?

[Confed999]

It's not all you have to go by. There are documents like the link I posted earlier that shows the mindset of the politicians before the vote

That could have been made up, I have no idea if it's true, partly true, or entirely false.

why do we have to pretend to be naive about what a "no" vote really means in the big scheme of things?

How many others voted "no"?

[Confed999]

contain provisions that are not directly related to on-going military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere or relief and reconstruction activities. The Administration strongly opposes these provisions

There's your reason for the "Administration" opposition, and it seems a viable reason too. What was Kerry's reason for the "no" vote, and just creating a new bill to take the place of the parts that he wanted and didn't get? Why vote "no" on something that gets the job started?

[jjacobs43]

There's your reason for the "Administration" opposition, and it seems a viable reason too. What was Kerry's reason for the "no" vote, and just creating a new bill to take the place of the parts that he wanted and didn't get? Why vote "no" on something that gets the job started?

Well, according to your logic, there are no viable reasons for vetoing the bill. You either voted for it or against it. Yes or No. That's it...end of story.

Bush threatened to veto funding for our troops and for $1.3 million to go to the veterans. Boooo!!!! :)