Don't get hung up on the puffery dispute the facts.

How can a Kerry supporter even show his face in public?

Text of speech by Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia as prepared for delivery Wednesday at the Republican National Convention:

---

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 8-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Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America ``all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger.''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 bipartisanship 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 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?

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 20 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 protester, 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

Zell Miller did a great job showing the incredible contrast between Kerry and Bush. The pacifist Kerry is in the crowd that made it so easy for the terrorists to make so many advances pre-Bush. I think electing Kerry would invite more terror.

A Critique of Miller

THE MILLER MOMENT: Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude.

THE "OCCUPATION" CANARD: Miller first framed his support for Bush as a defense of his own family. The notion that individuals deserve respect regardless of their family is not Miller's core value. And the implication was that if the Democrats win in November, his own family would not be physically safe. How's that for subtlety? Miller's subsequent assertion was that any dissent from aspects of the war on terror is equivalent to treason. He accused all war critics of essentially attacking the very troops of the United States. He conflated the ranting of Michael Moore with the leaders of the Democrats. He said the following:
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.
That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents. But the term "occupation," of course, need not mean the opposite of liberation. I have used the term myself and I deeply believe that coalition troops have indeed liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. By claiming that the Democrats were the enemies of the troops, traitors, quislings and wimps, Miller did exactly what he had the audacity to claim the Democrats were doing: making national security a partisan matter. I'm not easy to offend, but this speech was gob-smackingly vile.

OPPONENTS OR ENEMIES?: Here's another slur:
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.
Yes, that describes some on the left, but it is a calumny against Democrats who voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq and whose sincerity, as John McCain urged, should not be in question. I have never heard Kerry say that 9/11 was America's fault; if I had, it would be inconceivable to consider supporting him. And so this was, in truth, another lie, another cheap, faux-patriotic smear. Miller has absolutely every right to lambaste John Kerry's record on defense in the Senate. It's ripe for criticism, and, for my part, I disagree with almost all of it (and as a pro-Reagan, pro-Contra, pro-SDI, pro-Gulf War conservative, I find Kerry's record deeply troubling). But that doesn't mean he's a traitor or hates America's troops or believes that the U.S. is responsible for global terror. And the attempt to say so is a despicable attempt to smear someone's very patriotism.

THE FOREIGN AGENT: Another lie: "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." Miller might have found some shred of ancient rhetoric that will give him cover on this, but in Kerry's very acceptance speech, he declared the opposite conviction - that he would never seek permission to defend this country. Another lie: "John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war." Kerry didn't want to do that. Yes, he used his military service in the campaign - but it was his opponents who decided to dredge up the divisions of the Vietnam war in order to describe Kerry as a Commie-loving traitor who faked his own medals. 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.

Unfortunately for Kerry, he has let the likes of Zel Miller be the 1st to define his record in the Senate and has been conspicuously silent on this topic. At the Dem convention, they made a point not to lower themselves to this level of partisan attacks.

The article above by AM points to the fact that Miller went over the line, undid the notion that the Republicans are giving a positive message and the dems negative. It's time for the Republicans to speak about their record, what they're going to do next term, and bring something substantive to the plate other than bashing Kerry.

Why would I hide my face when Zell is hiding his whole head?

Kind of makes you feel sorry for Miller, doesn't it? He came off as an angry old man headed for retirement. And he's angry because he misses the old Strom Thurmond Democratic party. He's still stuck in his old separatist ways. Truly sad. But he does epitomize the GOP, so being keynote speaker was plausible.

I counted no fewer than a dozen boos during the Miller-Cheney schtick. Nice mature decorum. Way to stay positive. Why is it that no one can speak for Bouche, but only against his opponents?

It's also obvious that Miller doesn't consult Snopes or Factcheck.org when writing his speeches. Miller gave a wonderful sock-puppet rendition of the "facts" as GOP chooses to believe them.

Goharley,

In the speech Zell Miller gave at the RNC that he addressed to the entire Nation--what facts he that he recited are untrue?

GH,
You pretty good with spitwads?

Funny how not one post has dealt with the facts in Millers speech. Kerrys voting record is what?

CHECK THE RECORD

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle

He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank

He voted to kill every Aircraft Carrier since 1988

He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system

He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle

He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16

He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade

He voted to Kill the B-1

He voted to Kill the B-2

He voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missile system

He voted to Kill the FA-18

He voted to Kill the B-2

He voted to Kill the F117

He voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988, including a bill for battle armor for our troops.

He voted to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%,

He voted to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%,

He voted to cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.

THE BIG SUPRISE !!!!!!!
He voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800% !!

Maybe he thought the US having enough weaponry to blow up the world 20 times over was enough....to bad we do not know the reasons behind his votes, are those available?

It does not matter what the reasons are when you run around saying you will defend this country and your actions for the past 20 years are counter to that claim and even more specifically for the past 37 years.

Would you give your life savings to an investment advisor that had a history of stealing money from clients if he had a reason for doing it?

That's bullsh!t and you know it king! Each one of those original pieces of legislation probably had enough pork attached to feed the entire US military!

Who is it around here that's ALWAYS saying; "Let's see that in it's PROPER CONTEXT"? :p

4salt,

Does it matter when the net effect is that he voted against these? Or are you claiming that Kerry is against Pork in bills? Combine his voting record with his politics prior to this election and the picture is very clear.


Makes sense that Kerry would be against Pork. Al Queda would like that along with the sensative war on terror.

The only votes you need to look at to see Hanoi John Kerry for the hypocrit that he is are:


1.) After saying for months that you need to build a strong coalition of nations before you act militarily---look at that the way the hypocrit Filp-Flopper voted in 1991 after Saddam invaded Kuwait and Bush 41 built the LARGEST coalition of nations the world has ever seen and got UN authority to give Saddam the choice of removing his troops from Kuwait or have them removed---HE VOTED TO NOT GIVE THE PRESIDENT THE AUTHORITY TO LIBERATE KUWAIT!

and

2.) After saying on 'meet the press' that it would be unthinkable to vote to NOT fund the troops with 87 Billion dollars in addtional funding to help keep them safe while they're in harms way----then 3 weeks later and losing ground to the anti-war Howard Dean in the primaries he changed (flip-flopping) his position and voted to NOT fund 87 billion dollars to help keep our troops safe.

The vote against the 87 billion in military support because he was trying to take votes away from Dean ( who anti-war stance was gaining traction) is just another example of how Hanoi John puts his own political agenda before the safety and welfare of American troops.

Elvis, Krusty-

The votes on weapons systems has been covered in both snopes.com and factcheck.org. They've both been posted here in this forum numerous times.

His voting against the 87 Billion had nothing to do with Dean, it had to do with Bouche's tax cuts to the wealthy.

He may have voted against (or abstained) the particular pieces of legislation on your list, but in the end the military got all of those things, so where is your "net effect"?

The main point I'm trying to make is that John Kerry (or any of the other dissenters for that matter) DID NOT vote against those items out of malice or indifference toward our military and national defense, but more likely out of disagreement with some rider that was attached.

As you well know, the legislative procees is VERY complex and is wrought with continual compromise.
Partisanship makes it even harder to accomplish anything. Career politicians would have VERY short careers if they completely ignored the will of their constituencies.

So while it makes for good fun in an election year to bicker over which candidate is the most evil, in reality, the REAL reason why a politician may or may not have done something is an issue that the average American voter will probably never know.

4salt,

"DID NOT vote against those items out of malice or indifference toward our military and national defense"

I think you are wrong on that assumption. There has been a theme to Kerrys life since 1967 and it is anti war, anti military. To suggest that that pattern clearly shown for 37 years has some other reason is crazy talk.

Looks like his first hand experience in combat left a bad taste in his mouth.

Regardless the job he is seeking reqires keeping a strong militaryand contains the possibilty it may have to be used. One thing about management it requires you to think and take action based on the needs of the majority not your own needs,wants or desires.

kING

I am the majority

I trust, then, that you'll be voting Bouche out of office?