Zell Miller’s Speech

The liberals quickly spoke up and called Miller’s speech ‘mean’ and over-the-top. When did telling the truth become defined as mean? Personally, I find it to be refreshing and something that should occur more often.

I knew Zell’s speech was going to be great! He speaks for millions of conservative Democrats who feel that party has left them for the marxists in the party.

Politicians say things based on their audience? GASP.
I’ll still give the flip-flop award to Kerry, as well as the raging distortion of truth award to him as well.
While I trust no politician implicitly, there are some like Kerry and Kennedy, that I only trust to be untrustworthy.

>> And there is no need to define socialism.
On the contrary. If you do what Humpty-Dumpty did, words cease to have any meaning. A welfare system, even a bloated one, is not marxism. When I hear Kerry advocating that workers should own and control the means of production I’ll take the socialist charge seriously.

And Miller hasn’t just changed his mind over decades. It doesn’t take long with Google to come up with these ringing endoresements of Kerry from 2001: “”My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation’s authentic heroes, one of this party’s best-known and greatest leaders — and a good friend.”
“In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment.”

Factcheck.org has some useful information on Kerry’s voting record, which played quite a large part in Miller’s rhetoric.

I’ll accept the “nitpicking discontent” label when you offer anything that looks (to a socialist) anything that looks vaguely like socialism in Kerry’s political programme.

Miller still directly praised Kerry’s voting record, suggesting that he agreed with his ideals.

‘I would think that a lot of these types of things were going on because it was a different political scene since 9/11 hadn’t occured yet.’

This has nothing to do with Kerry’s voting record.

This Miller guy doesnt convince me at all. People often say Kerry’s platform revolves around the ‘vote for me, im not the other guy’ theory. Miller’s speech seemed to be a bit of a home goal, as he seemed to be using that tactic.

I too watched Zell Miller on Hannity and Colmes and Lorie presents an accurate portrayal of how Zell Miller responded to the question by Alan.

As he puts it, he was given a bio to read on John Kerry by John Kerry’s staff, and being a Democrat and not at the point of making the major break from his party, he read the bio. Perhaps this was a mistake on Miller’s part. Perhaps he should have done his homework and been more informed. The obvious answer is that Senator Miller isn’t running for President of the United States.

Furthermore, you have to understand Miller’s and many others’ rationale on Kerry and his lack of support for the US military and the defense of the country. No one doubts Senator Kerry’s patriotism (despite John Kerry claiming that’s all the Republicans are doing), and no one doubts John Kerry’s statements that if America is attacked, he would respond.

In the era of the waning days of the Cold War and after the fall of the Soviet Union, John Kerry’s defense philosophy is not nearly as catastrophic as it is now in a post September 11 world. This is why Senator Miller “changed” so much following 9-11; America was attacked, and the country required defending, yet the Democrats turned into the anti-war party even after war had already come to us.

There has still been no response as to the substance of what ought to be the central subject of the presidential campaign: how will each candidate handle terrorism, and who is the best option in this respect?

The President has told you why you should choose him over Senator Kerry using reasonable arguments and analysis as to the policy and actions necessary against terrorism. Senator Kerry has resorted to name calling and as of yet a complete avoidance of the substance of the debate.

La Shawn, good blog. I loved Zell’s speech too. Especially knowing the fact that he is a Democrat. I actually liked all the prime time speeches (McCain’s, Juliani’s, Pataki’s, Arnold’s, Laura’s, Cheney’s, and Bush’s) for various degrees compared with everything that came out of the Fleetcenter. Absolutely night and day, in terms of content, delivery, manner, grace, effect, and help to the respective campaign. The worst prime time speech at the Rep conference is better than the best dem speech (Obama’s?).

And good point, Frank Zavisca.

“The man probably never spoke truer words.” Um, no. “Everything Miller said about Ted Kennedy and John Kerry was true.” No, actually, none of it was, at least the part about the weapons. Look a href=”http://slate.msn.com/id/2106119/”>here and here. Kerry couldn’t have voted against any of the named weapons systems, because none ever came up for a vote. Funding for weapons systems are embedded in huge defense appropriations bills; senators vote up or down on the entire bill. As Fred Kaplan explains: “This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely.”

Sorry, I messed up my code above, I meant to say “Look here and here.”

La Shawn, Thanks for backing me up.

Miller has already explained his comments for Kerry from 12 years ago. He said something to the effect of “I was a new senator and didn’t know the party and Kerry like I do now.”

Seeing how the democrats like Michael Moore so much, maybe you should look into Moore’s politics, which are SOCIALIST and when he goes overseas he calls it socialism vs capitalism. What kind of school do you think your kids go to? Capitalist schools? What did you thing Hillarycare was? Capitalist health care???

James, You think they are using scare tactics? Did you forget about 9-11 already? What kind of scare tactic was that, who implemented it and who is currently protecting us from it happening again? Scare ‘tactics’ implies that there is no danger and those implementing them are using a ‘chicken little’ argument. No, my friend, these dangers are real and not imagined. Scare tactics would be environmentalists warning us of global cooling in the 70s only to start warning us about global warming in the 90s.

I personally find people like Zell and his brand of fire and brimstone hard to swallow, because it’s all style and no substance. He does his speech and gives post-speech interviews armed with 2 double-sided pieces of paper to back up his facts, and then challenges a reporter to a duel. Now, if we were to look up a few of the assertions he made in his speech and find that he is wrong, then I’d really like to see what is written on those 2 double-sided pieces of paper he carries around with him. Of course, it’s now been well documented that many of the assertions in his speech are wrong and/or seriously misleading. If I were in Zell’s position, retiring a rich man after many years of public service, I’d not want to be remembered as the raving lunatic liar at the RNC. But that’s just me.

To James Lamb, Jr. –

You said, “No reasonable American could believe that … a person like John Kerry could reasonably care so little about defending his nation that he’d leave our national safety up to spitballs.” (The part of the sentence I elided contains praise for Kerry’s Vietnam service).

As someone who considers himself a reasonable American, I’d take issue with your statement. Kerry’s voting record in the Senate is much more relevant to this than his Vietnam service. In Vietnam, he served as just one more soldier, with no decision-making power. In the Senate, he had about as much decision-making power as it is possible to have short of being President. Therefore, his Senate record over the past twenty years is a much better way to predict his future behavior as President than his actions as a soldier over four months.

Kerry’s voting record, BTW, can be found over at Project Vote Smart, a site I’d highly recommend for digging up the facts on any politician’s record.

Looking through the “Defense Issues” category:

In 1988, Kerry voted for aid to the Nicaraguan contras, limiting the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal, and reducing funding for SDI (the so-called “Star Wars” missile defense program).

In 1991, Kerry voted for using defense dollars to help the Soviet Union dismantle its nuclear arsenal, discontinuing the B-2 bomber, and allowing women pilots to fly combat missions. He also voted for an amendment (to a bill, not to the Constitution) that would specify that the U.S. goal was to maintain strategic stability with the Soviet Union.

In 1992, Kerry voted for reducing defense spending by $8.8 billion, funding a second and third Seawolf nuclear submarine (he voted against a bill to cut its funding), putting an end to nuclear testing, funding SDI to the tune of $3.3 billion (the administration had requested $5.4 billion and the committee’s bill suggested $4.3 billion), and cutting $2.6 billion from the funding of the B-2 bomber (thus limiting production to 15 planes instead of 20).

In 1993, Kerry voted for cutting the funding for the ballistic missile defense program from $3.4 billion to $3 billion; he voted against postponing the closing of military bases; he voted for ending the draft; he voted for funding for the third Seawolf submarine (voted against a bill to kill the funding); he voted against withdrawing troops from Somalia; and voted for disclosing the total amount of money spent on intelligence activities.

In 1994, Kerry voted for cutting $150 million from funding for more B-2 bombers, and voted to eliminate funding for Trident II submarines.

This is getting long, so I’ll stop here. The rest of Kerry’s voting record on defense and other issues is available to anyone who wants to see it at the link I provided above. To summarize:

Kerry’s voting record in the Senate, at least during his first term, isn’t one that I 100% dislike. (It would have been surprising if it was). I agree with him on at least a couple of those votes, like ending the draft, and keeping troops in Somalia. On the subject of military defense:

Voted for Seawolf subs.

Voted against B-2 bomber, SDI, and Trident II subs.

Not quite “spitballs” — but not a record that I would read as strong on military defense, either.

By the way, La Shawn, I apologize if this comment is overly long. I get wordy like that…

Robin, I have no doubt that there are many Iraqis who are glad of the US presence. There are also many who are not. Which is the larger category? It’s hard to say for sure. The results from the few attempts at systematic opinion polling aren’t encouraging, however. While the majority of Iraqis are glad Saddam’s gone, a huge majority — 80-90% of those polled, if I recall correctly — want US troops to leave now. Moreover, surely you admit that the general attitude of Iraqis toward the occupation is a far cry from the flowers-and-kisses scenario confidently predicted by neoconservative intellectuals and policymakers. (We paleos were far more suspicious.)

However, the quip I quoted wasn’t referring primarily to Iraqis, but to radicals eleswhere in the Islamic world. Bin Laden repeatedly and consistently said that he hated the US for three specific policies: (1) having our troops stationed in Muslim territory (i.e., Saudi Arabia and Kuwait), (2) our unconditional support for Israeli hard-liners, and (3) our leadership of the sanctions regime against Iraq in the 1990s, which he claimed (and neutral observers also claim) led to the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. If this is correct — who knows, he could be lying through his teeth, and really hates us for Budweiser and knee-length skirts, as Bush claims — the invading another Muslim country, and in all likelihood having US troops stationed there indefinitely, is exactly the wrong thing to do.

One of my colleagues has a picture on her wall of Bin Laden with the line “Nine of ten terrorists agree, vote Kerry/Edwards” or something like that. Cute, to be sure, but in my view completely wrong. Bush might just be the best thing that could have happened to Osama.

AWB, you didn’t read my post closely enough. I never said the current Administration is responsible for all those policies. I said this is why Bin Laden hates the US,, not why he hates GWB. However, GWB has greatly exacerbated the problem by invading and occupying Iraq (and, to a lesser degree, by giving Sharon a blank check).

Incidentally, I have no desire to get into a pissing match with you over the details, but I disagree strongly with many of your factual statements. “Islamofascists wouldn’t claim that the U.S. had stopped supporting ‘Israeli hardliners’ unless we nuked Israel ourselves (and even then they’d likely say it was ‘just a good start’).” Yes, I see you’re an astute student of Middle Eastern history and politics. The sanctions against Iraq was by U.N. resolution; if the U.S. is going to be blamed for them, then a lot of other countries would have to be lumped in with us. Yes, of course, and Bin Laden also blames those countries. But the US has always been the strongest proponent of those sanctions. Remember when Madeleine Albright was asked by Dianne Sawyer about estimates that 500,000 Iraqi children died because they didn’t have medicine and clean water, because we (delberately) bombed their water and sewage systems during Gulf War I, then put water purification equipment and chemicals on the banned list during the sanctions regime? Was it worth it, Dianne asked? Yes, Mad Madeleine intoned solemnly. I think it was. Also, the bit about pleasure palaces is silly. The oil-for-food program, even if administrered exactly as designed, would never have come close to providing basic needs, even if an angel were running Iraq.

Islamofascists attack America because it is not an exclusively Islamic state, and they attack other countries for the same reason (even France, which has tried to maintain friendly relations with Hamas, the PLO, and other terrorist organizations is finding itself in the crosshairs). This is the claim that neoconservatives and Bush repeat ad nauseam. But saying it over and over again doesn’t make it true. I’ve never seen one shred of evidence — documentary, historical, theological — supporting it. Nobody blows himself up because he hates the fact that someone else, in a land far away, enjoys freedom. This simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

I’ll address your last comment, Peter. You responded to the comment that “Islamofascists attack America [and other countries] because it is not an exclusively Islamic state,” saying that you’ve never seen one shred of evidence to support that statement.

How much have you studied the general principles of Islam? If you’ve made a detailed study, then what I’m about to say will be repeating stuff you already know. But if you’ve never studied it, then this may be new information to you.

Before I start, I should point out that I am not a Muslim. I am a Christian. But from here on out I’ll be writing from the perspective of Islam as best I understand it. For clarity’s sake, I’m not going to put “according to the teachings of Islam” into every sentence, but just read it as there, OK?

The word “islam”, in Arabic, means “submission” — submission to the will of God (Allah), as revealed through Muhammed, the final prophet. Islam acknowledges Moses and Jesus as prophets, and acknowledges the Bible as a holy book, but says that later revelation (such as the Qu’ran) trumps earlier revelation like the Bible. Where the Qu’ran contradicts the Bible, the Qu’ran is to be followed, because it came after the Bible. And within the Qu’ran, the later surahs trump the earlier surahs. (Later in chronological order, that is.) This can be tricky for non-Muslims to figure out, because the Qu’ran is not arranged in chronological order, but rather in length order, with the lengthier surahs first and the shorter ones last.

The basic world view of Islam is that the world is divided into two parts: the Dar al-Islam (”house of submission”), where Islam rules (which usually is interpreted to mean that the government is run along Qu’ranic principles); and the Dar al-Harb (”house of war”), where Islam does not yet rule. Note the word “yet” in the previous sentence. It is the ultimate destiny of Islam to bring the entire world into submission to itself, and the means to do so is through jihad, “holy struggle”. Note that the term “jihad” does not necessarily mean “holy war”, and many Muslims interpret jihad to mean the struggle of persuading non-Muslims to follow the principles of Islam. But there is a strong strain of Islam which interprets jihad to mean “holy war”, and there is plenty of evidence in the Qu’ran to support that. I won’t go into all of it here; over at http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/jihad.html, you can find a very detailed analysis of the word “jihad” in Islamic tradition.

Finally, the concept of martyrdom. From the same page: “Those who…fought in the path of God have the hope of the mercy of God…” (02:215). “Those that…fought and died for My cause shall be forgiven their sins and admitted to gardens watered by running streams…” (03:194). I have not been able to find any Qu’ranic support for the claim that those who become martyrs in jihad will be granted seventy-two women as wives in Paradise; but that the claim exists and is widely believed is quite clear. Look, for example, at the case several months ago of a mentally-retarded teenager who had been recruited as a suicide bomber. (This was either in Iraq or Israel; I forget which). He was caught by the guards at a checkpoint and disarmed without being killed. When questioned about why he did it, part of his answer was “Nobody would want me to marry their daughter; so martyrdom is the only way I’ll ever get to experience sex.”

Besides the obvious benefits of Paradise for those who die in the cause of jihad, there is another benefit that may not be obvious to non-Muslims until it is pointed out. While the Qu’ran lists a whole lot of things one must do in order to be allowed into Paradise (give alms, pray five times a day, etc.), there is no guarantee that such things will be sufficient! There is a certain guarantee of hell for those who do not follow the teachings of Islam, or for those who slack off in their duty. But if you follow Islam all your life, you will still be questioning and wondering: “Did I do enough? Did I live a good enough life? Or when I get to Paradise, will I discover that I didn’t quite measure up becasue I skipped early-morning prayers every now and then?” The only guaranteed way to get to Paradise (and this guarantee is right there in the Qu’ran) is to die a holy martyr in the cause of jihad.

OK, enough talking from an Islamic perspective. Back to being me again.

Put all this together. The world not controlled by Islam is the Dar al-Harb (”house of war”). Jihad is the holy struggle against non-believers. Becoming a martyr in the cause of jihad is the only way to know for certain that you’ll reach Paradise, says Islam — and the promise of Paradise is a pretty nice one indeed. Is it any surprise at all, then, that a rational Muslim will deliberately choose martyrdom? If you believe all this, then martyrdom is suddenly not the act of a crazed fanatic at all, but the right choice based on a very rational cost-reward analysis. Suicide bombings, piloting planes into buildings, whatever: the means are many, but the end is the same. They want to become martyrs in the process of killing infidels, because that’s the way to get into Paradise. America, Israel, whoever. Doesn’t matter. They’re all part of the Dar al-Harb; they’re all infidels.

How’s that as evidence for the claim that “Islamofascists attack America [and other countries] because it is not an exclusively Islamic state”?

As a guy who was actually raised as a Muslim, (Im not now) i think i have a right to correct a few things here. Robin, you clearly have a good knowledge on the subject, but i think you have interpreted a few things wrongly.

‘Islam acknowledges Moses and Jesus as prophets, and acknowledges the Bible as a holy book, but says that later revelation (such as the Qu’ran) trumps earlier revelation like the Bible.’

This is true. Islam recognises previous prophets, but does not recognise Jesus as a ’son of God.’ Islam is heavily tied to Judaism and Christianity.

‘Note that the term “jihad” does not necessarily mean “holy war”, and many Muslims interpret jihad to mean the struggle of persuading non-Muslims to follow the principles of Islam. But there is a strong strain of Islam which interprets jihad to mean “holy war”, and there is plenty of evidence in the Qu’ran to support that.’

Western definitions of Jihads are usually pretty flawed. Jihad simply means ’struggle.’ Jihad can be both offensive and defensive, but only in the right situations. This is what the Qu’ran says.

” Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love the transgressors” (Qur’an 2:190).

‘I have not been able to find any Qu’ranic support for the claim that those who become martyrs in jihad will be granted seventy-two women as wives in Paradise;’

In terms of the Qu’ran, this doesnt exist. This is an interpretation, like Christian interpretations of heaven.

‘But if you follow Islam all your life, you will still be questioning and wondering: “Did I do enough? Did I live a good enough life? Or when I get to Paradise, will I discover that I didn’t quite measure up becasue I skipped early-morning prayers every now and then?” ‘

The Qu’ran teaches there are several levels of paradise, each beyond human logic.

I disagree with the assumption fundamentalist attacks are made just because the people are not Muslim.
In Iraq, extremists have been known to kill people who are Muslim to achieve their goals. Islam recognises that Christians and Jews are ‘people of the book,’ and should be tolerated. In Medieval times, Muslims accepted Jews and Christians, albeit they made the pay a special tax. This didnt happen in Christian countries. Those of other religions, and even Christians who didnt follow the Pope were ruthlessly hunted down.

‘”Surely the believers and the Jews, Christians and Sabians [Middle East groups traditionally recognised by Islam as having a monotheistic orientation], whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and whoever does right, shall have his reward with his Lord and will neither have fear nor regret” (2:62).

Islam does not teach forced conversion.

I just noticed that there was one more comment in Omar’s post that I had meant to respond to:

“Islam does not teach forced conversion.”

Its early history suggests otherwise. Muhammed was a war leader, and his immediate successors carried on his tradition. Islam’s early spread was primarily through conquest. The non-violent spread of Islam is a much more recent phenomenon.

A few questions for Robin. If Al Qaeda targets those nations that are part of the Dar al-Harb, why the U.S. in particular? While the U.S. is obviously not a Muslim state, it’s faily tolerant towards Muslims — much more so than, say, China or India, where Muslims are persecuted. Why not crash airliners into downtown Beijing? If they hate us because we’re free, why not attack, say Switzerland, where citizens enjoy even more freedom? Finally, why now? Why were there no Muslim terorist attacks and U.S. soil prior to the 1990s? Did we suddenly becomen apostates then?

In other words, do you really think U.S. policies in the Middle East have nothing to do with any of this?

I don’t think the U.S. is being singled out in particular. Ask France, Spain, and Russia if they think the U.S. is being singled out.

I wouldn’t be too surprised to see India targeted by the Islamofascists, either. On the other hand, Pakistan is right next door. Maybe the reason they haven’t carried out terrorist attacks in India is because they’re diverting those resources towards preparing Pakistan for a conventional war.

China probably doesn’t register as a current threat to the Islamofascists, because they’re not doing much in the Middle East. Ditto Switzerland, etc.

Yes, I think U.S. actions in the Middle East probably have something to do with the Islamofascists’ hatred of the U.S. After all, our vision of democratic governments, carrying freedom of religion with them, is a major threat to the Islamofascists’ desire to spread the Dar al-Islam across the entire world. Bin Laden cited the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia as one of the reasons why he wanted to attack the U.S., although personally I think the combination of America’s high visibility and the “weak horse” theory was the largest factor in that decision. (”People will back the strong horse, and America is a weak horse” is how I remember Bin Laden’s words. He figured that America wouldn’t respond in a significant way to the September 11th attacks. He figured wrong.)

But you know what? I wholeheartedly oppose the Islamofascists’ goal! I think trying to appease them by picking foreign policy positions that please them would be a horrendous mistake, because their ultimate goal is nothing short of world domination. To push an analogy, we can’t just let them have the Sudetenland and hope they’ll be satisfied. They won’t. No matter what actions America takes, the Islamofascists will still come up with reasons to hate us and attack us. Therefore, I think a good rule of thumb for foreign policy decisions might well be, “Let’s figure out what would please the Islamofascists the most. Then let’s make sure to do the exact opposite.”

‘Its early history suggests otherwise. Muhammed was a war leader, and his immediate successors carried on his tradition. Islam’s early spread was primarily through conquest. ‘

Most civilisations in the past have used conquest as a means of spreading their religion. Christianity is no different. This does not mean Islam actually teaches this. Heres a piece from the Qu’ran supporting my point.

“Surely the believers and the Jews, Christians and Sabians [Middle East groups traditionally recognised by Islam as having a monotheistic orientation], whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and whoever does right, shall have his reward with his Lord and will neither have fear nor regret” (2:62).

‘China probably doesn’t register as a current threat to the Islamofascists, because they’re not doing much in the Middle East.’

China actually has problems with Islamic fundamentalism. Its estimated 15 to 40 million Muslims live in China. Most notably in the Xinjiang area, which was annexed along with Tibet. It has had problems with terrorism in the past.

‘Not because the people are not Muslim, but because the country is not Muslim. In Iraq, the hardliners who kill Muslims (usually accidentally, as they just happened to be near the explosion when the bomb went off)’

There is no accident about the killing of fellow Muslims in Iraq. Iraqi’s who have any association with the Coalition, or want to are the target of extremists. Note the suicide bombings against Iraqi muslims trying to join the police force.

‘It’s not the religion of the victims that matters, it’s the fact that the states involved were part of the Dar al-Harb.’

I disagree. Al Qaeda, maybe. But people like the Chechnyians, and terrorists within Iraq are fighting, chiefly a political war against occupation, and in the case of Chechnya for an independent state. Its important that Chechnya is not exclusively Muslim, Christians also fight for the separatist cause. Same in Palestine, Christian Palestinians fight alongside their Muslim countrymen.

‘would agree with Omar that jihad should be interpreted as peaceful struggle, there is a significant number who do not. In their interpretation, jihad means “holy war” and justifies just about anything.’

Good call. I agree with you here, im just saying that these terrorists use the term indiscriminatly, despite the fact the Qu’ran speaks against this. The purpose of Jihad, is not to take over the world for Islam, and the Qu’ran states this.

As for civil rights, I think Zell was on the wrong side for a long time based on the area of the country in which he live. He is, however, the Georgia Govenor who finally got rid of the Confederate emblem on the Georgia state flag. We tend to accept the prejudices of our family and community until we begin to explore our own reasons for thoughts. I think then we can change. I think Zell changed.

I find the discussions about islam very interesting and civil thank you. The post was about zell miller, his speech was an appeal to Reagan Democrats to vote for Bush. if his speech worked it will clearly lock up the south for Bush.