Zell Miller should do his research

[Todd33]

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 percent 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?

From factcheck, covers the same points from a misleading Bush-cheney ad:

Kerry did not, in fact, vote specifically against "13 weapons systems" as the ad claims. The bills shown on screen are actually Pentagon appropriations bills Kerry voted against in 1990 (H.R. 5803, S. 3189) and 1995 (H.R. 2126 ). Of course, voting against overall military spending bills does amount to voting against everything in them, but even so it isn't quite the same as voting to eliminate specific weapons. We've addressed similar attacks by the Bush campaign in earlier articles, Feb. 26, March 16 and April 26 .

PFA's ad also fails to mention that Kerry voted for Pentagon money bills in 16 of his 19 years in the Senate. By that measure, Kerry was much more a supporter of "weapons systems our troops depend on" than he was an opponent.

Furthermore, Bush's own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing. In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined $10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. . . . And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles." So if Kerry opposed weapons "our troops depend on," so did Cheney and the elder President Bush.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209

Also, http://www.senate.gov/legislat...ssion=1&vote=00579

McCain voted against it too. So, I guess anything to win? Lie, lie, and lie until the public throws up their hands and gives up. I hope Bush and cheney have to defend this crap in the debates.

 

[CycloWizard]

How many 'the Bush campaign is misleading' threads can you start? You could just bump an existing one, as there are at least three others just from the last few days.

 

[Infohawk]

More lies equals more threads. I think it's a good idea to have a different thread for each particular set of lies.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How many 'the Bush campaign is misleading' threads can you start? You could just bump an existing one, as there are at least three others just from the last few days.

Well, try to put an end to the thread by debunking it.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Well, try to put an end to the thread by debunking it.

:thumbsup:

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How many 'the Bush campaign is misleading' threads can you start? You could just bump an existing one, as there are at least three others just from the last few days.

It's about a speech last night. Maybe you should go to class and stop trying to police the forums.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How many 'the Bush campaign is misleading' threads can you start? You could just bump an existing one, as there are at least three others just from the last few days.

Well, try to put an end to the thread by debunking it.

Unfortunately, it's not debunkable - it's fact. I've said my piece on the same thing in the other threads - politics are designed to mislead. Kerry misleads, Bush misleads. I just can't understand why it's such a big deal every time it happens - are you really surprised by it?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How many 'the Bush campaign is misleading' threads can you start? You could just bump an existing one, as there are at least three others just from the last few days.

Well, try to put an end to the thread by debunking it.

Unfortunately, it's not debunkable - it's fact. I've said my piece on the same thing in the other threads - politics are designed to mislead. Kerry misleads, Bush misleads. I just can't understand why it's such a big deal every time it happens - are you really surprised by it?

Of course I'm not surprised. What I don't appreciate is the constant apologist attitudes. (Not talking about this particular thread, per se)

 

[Hugenstein]

Can you give us an example of a Kerry ad that "misleads" us about Bush? For that matter how about a Bush ad that isn't misleading?

 

[Todd33]

Maybe those in the forums want the truth and facts so they can pass them on? Not everyone has the facts, infact...

You have repeated the following misleading info: Kerry wanted a $.50 gas tax and Kerry voted against body armor. So you either know the facts and mislead on purpose or you, like the rest of us, need to be exposed to facts once in a while.

 

[Infohawk]

The claims in the response to Miller's claims seem to be verifiable. They don't seem like vague statements to me:

Kerry did not, in fact, vote specifically against "13 weapons systems" as the ad claims.

True or not?

 

[Infohawk]

Zell Miller said he wished he could challenge Chris Matthews to a dual!!! What a psycho. After getting questions from Matthews, he says, "get out of my face." Sounds like the neocons on P&N.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Zell Miller said he wished he could challenge Chris Matthews to a dual!!! What a psycho. After getting questions from Matthews, he says, "get out of my face." Sounds like the neocons on P&N.

Miller = Rip? :Q

I kid, I kid. :laugh:

 

[Shockwave]

Kerry shouldnt be elected because Klintoon had an affair while in office. I mean, if he did it Kerry will right?

Thats the SAME logic as this "Furthermore, Bush's own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing."

 

[Crimson]

Whats the liberal argument on everything? 'THEY'RE LIARS!!!!!!' Is there not ONE Republican who doesn't lie? And what about the democrats? If EVERY Republican lies, is it possible that EVERY democrat does as well?

 

[Infohawk]

Crimson, at least Todd33 provided arguments in support for his critique of Miller. You just attack people's motives. Why don't you address the article?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Of course I'm not surprised. What I don't appreciate is the constant apologist attitudes. (Not talking about this particular thread, per se)

You don't appreciate my political stance? Cry me a river.

Originally posted by: Hugenstein
Can you give us an example of a Kerry ad that "misleads" us about Bush? For that matter how about a Bush ad that isn't misleading?

Do I have to do this, yet again? Will you remember this time? In about three seconds, I found one of each.

DNC Ad Says Bush Lost Manufacturing Jobs
Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attend...nce Committee Hearings
Kerry misleading, Bush not misleading.

 

[Crimson]

I also love the libs here going gaga over Ronald Reagan speaking at the Democratic Convention (A liberal speaking at a liberal convention).. but a DEMOCRAT speaking at the Republican convention is just simply a liar.. Imagine if Zell Miller spoke AGAINST Bush, the left in here would be taughting it as the 2nd coming of Christ.. 'See!!! A conservative is against Bush! Blah blah blah'..

 

[Infohawk]

Crimson, so you have any facts to refute the article's critiques or do you have more complaints about motives?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Of course I'm not surprised. What I don't appreciate is the constant apologist attitudes. (Not talking about this particular thread, per se)

You don't appreciate my political stance? Cry me a river.


I don't like the constant defense of immoral actions. I could give a sh*t less if you're a Democrat or Republican, but if your man is wrong, he's wrong. Stand up and admit it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Of course I'm not surprised. What I don't appreciate is the constant apologist attitudes. (Not talking about this particular thread, per se)

You don't appreciate my political stance? Cry me a river.


I don't like the constant defense of immoral actions. I could give a sh*t less if you're a Democrat or Republican, but if your man is wrong, he's wrong. Stand up and admit it.

I did admit that he's wrong. Now, to avoid hypocrisy in the extreme, please do likewise.

 

[f95toli]

Since this is a domestic issue I would normaly not get involved, but I noticed something in the orignal quote: The person who wrote it does not SEEM to know much about military hardware.

As far as I can tell most if the programs listed are failures in the sense that most of them are either too exive or was designed for the cold war.
The B1b and B2 are strategic bombers, they are extremely expensive (the price of a B2 is insane) and were never meant to be used in a "regular" war with conventional bombs.
The Apache is a very nice machine but was designed for service in wester Europe (west-Germany), sure you can use it in a desert but helicopters are much more efficient if they can find cover.

The F-14 is still a good aircraft but it is ancient.

And about the SDI: Is he serious? A program that AFAIK was only meant to scare the soviets, most of the techology has STILL not been developed (and some of the proposalt where Sci-fi at most)

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Of course I'm not surprised. What I don't appreciate is the constant apologist attitudes. (Not talking about this particular thread, per se)

You don't appreciate my political stance? Cry me a river.


I don't like the constant defense of immoral actions. I could give a sh*t less if you're a Democrat or Republican, but if your man is wrong, he's wrong. Stand up and admit it.

I did admit that he's wrong. Now, to avoid hypocrisy in the extreme, please do likewise.

Yes, that ad was wrong as well. If he said that overall jobs are down due to the Bush Adminsitration, that would hold more water.

 

[preslove]

Howard Kurtz shows that no one with any credibility consider's Zell's rants within the realm of good tast. Text

My favorite critique of Miller comes from the CONSERVATIVE Andrew Sullivan. Text

I like the last part of Sullivan's post:

What's remarkable about the Republicans is their utter indifference to fairness in their own attacks. Smearing opponents as traitors to their country, as unfit to be commander-in-chief, as agents of foreign powers (France) is now fair game. Appealing to the crudest form of patriotism and the easiest smears is wrong when it is performed by the lying Michael Moore and it is wrong when it is spat out by Zell Miller. Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat at a GOP Convention convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry old men like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Crimson
I also love the libs here going gaga over Ronald Reagan speaking at the Democratic Convention (A liberal speaking at a liberal convention).. but a DEMOCRAT speaking at the Republican convention is just simply a liar.. Imagine if Zell Miller spoke AGAINST Bush, the left in here would be taughting it as the 2nd coming of Christ.. 'See!!! A conservative is against Bush! Blah blah blah'..

I have absolutly no problem with Miller talking there, he is a conservative, his official party is not important. I had an issue with the content, espcially with Cheney talking after him. We all know the RNC has to approve and probably wrote the Miller speech, so it's the official party line to lie about Kerry and defense? That's the point I'm trying to make.