« Former counsel to the President urges Kerry to sue SwiftVets for defamation | Main | Occupiers versus liberators »
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Kerry-Edwards counterspin on Zell Miller's keynote address
Jim Geraghty's Kerry Spot offers the instant Democratic counterspin to Zell Miller's keynote address at the RNC tonight (bracketed portion in original):
BUT ZELL PRAISED KERRY'S 16 YEAR RECORD OF LEADERSHIP JUST 3 YEARS AGO
FACT: Zell Miller Lauded John Kerry as an Authentic American Hero
Miller: "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. He was once a lieutenant governor — but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984. — U.S. Senator Zell Miller [Remarks to the Democratic Party of Georgia Jefferson Jackson Dinner 2001]
Thanks for the careful sourcing, Kerry-Edwards 2004 Campaign! The same speech is on Sen. Miller's website, in fact! You guys coulda linked it!
Funny thing is, though, that on Sen. Miller's website, you'll also find the rest of the date for that speech — March 1, 2001.
I'm guessing the headquarters of the KE2004 counterspin team is in the bar at the Windows on the World atop the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Great view from there.
The NYPD cop who spoke to Roger L. Simon before the convention had it so right.
Posted by Beldar at 12:21 AM in Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Kerry-Edwards counterspin on Zell Miller's keynote address and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
Comments
(1) mcg made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 1:26:12 AM | Permalink
I assume you mean Roger Simon, not Roger Miller :)
(2) Beldar made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 2:09:15 AM | Permalink
Fixed! Thanks! Zell Miller's speech was obviously hypnotic. I blush, and hope Roger's too busy convention blogging to have seen my mistake. ("Trailer for sale or rent, room to let, 50 cents!")
(3) Dan S made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 8:46:22 AM | Permalink
Gee, Beldar, are you suggesting something happened in 2001, post-March 1, that caused Zell to change his opinion of Kerry? Something, like, yanked a blindfold off his face so he could see the real Kerry?
Now, what could that be? I didn't hear anything of the sort mentioned at the DNC.
(4) quieti made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 10:23:03 AM | Permalink
I knew as soon as I saw the imprecision of the date ("2001") that the speech had to have been given pre-9/11. They don't get it. Even after 3 days of the RNC's best hammering at the point, they still don't get that 9/11 changed the world, and we must change our response to it.
(5) LazyMF made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 11:17:19 AM | Permalink
This post seems to be more hyperbole than logic.
What in Miller's staement of March 1, 2001 would have changed after 9/11? Was Kerry less of a friend or leader because of 9/11?
What is the dig about the counter-spin team at the World Trade Center? How does that advance any discourse?
(6) Beldar made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 11:39:22 AM | Permalink
Lazy, my friend, always good to have your input!
Let's take at face value the flawed assumption of the KE2004 spinners that Miller saying nice things about Kerry at a celebration dinner is an implied endorsement of his fitness to be President. It's not, but we have to pretend that it is for it to be legitimate "impeachment" of Miller's address last night as a prior, supposedly inconsistent statement. (I know that as a brother lawyer, you understand that evidentiary concept, even if it's inside-baseball mumbo-jumbo to some of my other readers.)
Kerry might have sufficed as Commander in Chief based on the demands of that post on March 1, 2001, or on September 10, 2001. On September 11, 2001, and from that day forward, we've needed a wartime President. And while I don't presume to speak for Sen. Miller, I suspect that if asked, he'd say that even his March 1, 2001, assessment of Kerry was far too generous given Kerry's own inconsistencies and flip-flopping on Global War on Terror issues since September 11, 2001.
(7) Chris made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 11:54:56 AM | Permalink
"On September 11, 2001, and from that day forward, we've needed a wartime President."
WHERE'S OSAMA?
Are we sure he's not in Iraq? Because maybe then we could put some forces back in Afghanistan/Kashmir and concentrate on finding him. Just a thought.
What exactly constitutes "a wartime president"? Someone who is eager to go to war? Someone who is stubborn and consistent in the face of failed foreign policy?
(8) Dan S made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 12:45:14 PM | Permalink
Chris,
Haven't you heard? Osama is in a cell in an undisclosed location (Cheney is leading his interrogation) until late October. The week before the election he'll be brought out, flown to D.C. and paraded around the mall in chains.
At least that's what it says right here on page 666 of my Great Right-Wing Cospiracy Guide to Managing Elections.
(9) ed made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 1:29:05 PM | Permalink
Hmmm.
Ok Chris.
President Bush's plan to defeat terrorism is by fighting, and killing, the terrorists and simultaneously remove the forces that create them. Poverty, despair, ignorance, hate, etc etc etc.
So what's your plan? How would you fight the WoT? Military? Law enforcement? How. Provide details.
(10) Joshua Chamberlain made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 1:41:38 PM | Permalink
"I'm guessing the headquarters of the KE2004 counterspin team is in the bar at the Windows on the World atop the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Great view from there."
Devastating!
(11) Joshua Chamberlain made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 1:44:05 PM | Permalink
Ed, we already know what Chris wants to do" whatever Am'r Mussa and the other corrupt grandees at the Arab League want done, which is nothing other than lean on the Israelis. But we'll be oh so popular!
(12) Al made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 1:51:38 PM | Permalink
Chris, I'll speak slow.
A wartime president is simply someone capable of understanding that there _are_ people who _are_ in a declared war with us.
John F. Kerry sees "The War on Terror" as a law enforcement problem. He's stated this several times.
Bill Clinton saw this same phenomena as a law enforcement problem. The 1993 WTC bombers were tried and convicted - but their unindicted _foreign_ coconspirators were not hunted down by anyone but the FBI. We didn't catch up to anyone until we stopped treating it as a _law_enforcement_ problem. The FBI had never had very good reach inside Iraq or Pakistan for some odd reason. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, person-of-interest in both 1993 WTC and 9/11 would never had been caught if we weren't seriously leaning on Pakistan.
If our relations with Pakistan is a failed foreign policy to you, then I feel for you. In 2000 they were ramping up for war with India, I at least am pretty happy about where Pakistan has moved since then.
(13) LazyMF made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 2:25:44 PM | Permalink
Beldar:
Sen. Millers' comments of March 1, 2001 and last night were both given at political events. For impeachment purposes they must be treated equally. Either they can both be treated as BS because they were only "political," or they are both sincere, indicating a flip-flop. The flip-flop can be for political purposes (which I suspect) or for genuine beliefs (which you believe). Only time will tell. I smell another Dem to GOP defection a la Phil Gramm.
(14) Chris made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 2:50:06 PM | Permalink
"President Bush's plan to defeat terrorism is by fighting, and killing, the terrorists and simultaneously remove the forces that create them. Poverty, despair, ignorance, hate, etc etc etc."
Actually, the second part is precisely what Bush isn't doing. By rushing into Iraq without much help or a post-war plan, he's created more ignorance, more hate, more despair, and more poverty. In Afghanistan, it's generally gone better, but the conflict has left a power stuggle that threatens to create more of the same.
Many of you are foolish enough to assume your opponents hold beliefs that are the opposite of your own. It's time to sit down and look at this objectively.
"Chris, I'll speak slow."
Why, do you have trouble doing it faster?
"Bill Clinton saw this same phenomena as a law enforcement problem. The 1993 WTC bombers were tried and convicted - but their unindicted _foreign_ coconspirators were not hunted down by anyone but the FBI. We didn't catch up to anyone until we stopped treating it as a _law_enforcement_ problem. The FBI had never had very good reach inside Iraq or Pakistan for some odd reason."
Last time I checked, 9/11 happened well into Bush's term. If you want to drag Clinton into this, make sure you mention how vital information was ignored during the transfer of power.
Bush's War on Terror was a kneejerk response to 9/11, when it could have been an extension and strengthening of existing, well-planned and researched efforts. Instead, we now have an ill-planned war that actually creates more terrorism than it eliminates. Conservatives have evoked Iraq on issues across the board, because the fact is no one really knows why we fought the war. Humanitarian reasons? WMDs? Harboring terrorists? As a cause for war, none of these hold up. Bush's repsonse to 9/11 is a jumbled mess that does absolutely nothing to prevent terrorism. In fact, it's increased. End of story.
(15) Chris made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 2:51:56 PM | Permalink
In the last para, when I say "as a cause for war," I mean "as Bush's cause for war."
(16) John Hansen made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 3:19:14 PM | Permalink
"By rushing into Iraq without much help or a post-war plan, he's created more ignorance, more hate, more despair, and more poverty"
Rushing into Iraq? Without much help? No post-war plan? More ignorance? More hate? More despair? More poverty?
Each of these claims is completely lacking in foundation. Even Moore says Bush was planning on invading Iraq for years. How is that "rushing"? The US plainly has had a lot of help in the war, although not as much as we would have liked. The same can be said about every war the US has fought. There definitely was a post-war plan in place before the war began. It wasn't perfect but no post-war plan ever is. Iraqis are definitely less ignorant now that they are out from under Saddam's rule. While some Iraqis no doubt hate the US more it is also clear that many more Iraqis are overjoyed by the US intervention. War is always a sorrowful time so certainly some Iraqis are feeling more despair than before the war, but, again, you need only look at the Shiite pilgrims returning to shrines they've been barred from visiting for decades to see a huge reduction in despair amongst millions of Iraqis. And to argue that Bush has created more poverty by freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who kept his people living in abject poverty for decades is to simply ignore the facts. Freedom in Iraq will lead to less poverty. The only way that fails is if the Iraqi people allow foreign fighters and Saddam's bitter-enders to destroy the gift of freedom given them by the armed forces of the United States under President Bush's leadership.
John Hansen
(17) Dan S made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 3:26:33 PM | Permalink
"Last time I checked, 9/11 happened well into Bush's term. If you want to drag Clinton into this, make sure you mention how vital information was ignored during the transfer of power."
Chris,
Have you read the 9/11 Commission report?
What about the long list of terrorist incidents preceeding 9/11? 9/11 was the big one, and as such emphasized the reality of things, but there is an escalating trend obvious in hindsight. Earlier administrations, not excluding Bush Sr, treated it as a law enforcement issue.
And that vital information that you claim was ignored appears to exist mostly in the minds of certain Clinton-era former officials. The Commission was not impressed with their claims to have warned W's administration.
I disagree that the response was "knee-jerk," but at the same time I will point out that relexes are not necessaily bad things. They keep us alive in very dangerous situations. In times when we have to react quickly and decisively, knee-jerking is necessary. The key is to have someone in the top position the knee jerks in the right direction. In this case we needed a shot to the enemy's groin.
It isn't clear in what direction Kerry will knee-jerk. Or even that he will, or won't. The only pattern I can discern in my study of his background is this: he seems to prefer to do that which he thinks makes him look best, no matter the cost to those around him. But his judgment on what will make him look best is very faulty.
Zell doesn't care how he looks at this point. His dog in this hunt is his family's future, not his own career or reputation. If he was overly flattering in March of 2001 of Kerry, so what? That was politics then. He isn't running for President. Then came 9/11 and he apparently decided that politics was far too important to just play nice-nice games with other politicians for their mutual benefits. We call this sort of moment a conversion experience. When those towers went down, it was like the light on the road ro Damascus that smote down Saul for many of us. From that day forward Saul became Paul, and he did a 180 in his path into the future.
Bush also had that experience early. Memory is not wiped of the past, all that experience is retained to be employed in future comparison and decisoin making. But the motive has changed.
Kerry claimed such an experience too, his, he claimed, happened in Cambodia on Christmas Eve (or was it Christman Day?) of 1968. Except it didn't, because he wasn't there.
It takes that sort of conversion experience to convince most of use that someone has changed. That and the facts that their actions match their words when they claim such change.
Zell is showing actions to match his words. Bush has also.
Kerry hasn't ever repented of the words and actions that so many of us deplore. And when he speaks, he reverses himself, and his actions only match his words in the same way that a stopped clock tells time correctly twice a day.
Argh... here I go again, writing more on Beldar's comments than I do on my own blog!
(you suck, Beldar!)
(18) Bob made the following comment | Sep 2, 2004 3:37:31 PM | Permalink
John,
I have a son on the ground in Iraq (near Baghdad at first, in Kirkush now) and he has pointed out numerous times how the man-in-the-street is often likely to be friendly. He's sent us pictures of smiling children, kids talking to patrolling troops with no fear (one who dreams of moving to Texas one day - how'd he hear about Texas I wonder?), even one of a parent who brought his infant son out so he could have his picture taken. Oh yeah, they really, really hate us all right. The ugly truth about this war and mainstream media is that the American public does not know the truth and won't be able to find out easily.
Want to know the military's top secret trick for exposing hostile forces that might be hidden in the crowd? The GIs on patrol wave to people as they walk along. That's it, they smile and wave (at the men and kids - women, of course, are off limits). Anyone who waves back becomes less of a threat. Anyone who doesn't becomes an item of interest. Think about this for a second. How well would it work if everyone were angry at our guys?
Sadly, the depths of shame that should be felt by outlets like NYT, WaPo, etc. will go unplumbed.
The comments to this entry are closed.
