Zell Miller

[Larry Gude]

For everyone with their panties in a wad...

...over 'vicious Zell' and his hate speach, a timely reminder of what the administration has been absorbing for over a year:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inpolitics.htm


'Fascist' Bush

Rep. Major R. Owens, New York Democrat, warned a crowd of feminist protesters in New York that the Bush administration is taking America "into a snake pit of fascism," Marc Morano reports for Cybercast News Service (www.CNSNews.com).

Mr. Owens also said, during the Wednesday night rally at Central Park by the National Organization for Women, that the Bush administration "spits on democracy" and is leading the country down a path reminiscent of "Nazi Germany."

Mr. Owens, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the nation is at a "pivotal point" in its history, and he called the upcoming election the most important one in 50 years.

"I am right on the spot there in Washington, and I tell you our country will either go forward or down the drain into a snake pit of fascism," Mr. Owens declared to loud cheers from a crowd numbering about 1,000 people.
Immediately after his speech, CNSNews.com asked Mr. Owens whom he blamed for America's supposed descent into fascism.

"George Bush, [Attorney General] John Ashcroft , [Vice President] Dick Cheney, the Halliburton firms," Mr. Owens responded. "We are going in the same direction as Nazi Germany in terms of we have a ruthless group of people who make bold decisions. They spit on democracy."

Mr. Owens said the Bush administration is fascist because it "has contempt for democracy and uses power — military power, money power, all power — to override the wishes of those who are governed."


As you know, this is nothing new. You may now go back to pretending Zell and Dick are blue meanies.

 

[Penn]

...over 'vicious Zell' and his hate speach, a timely reminder of what the administration has been absorbing for over a year:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inpolitics.htm


'Fascist' Bush

Rep. Major R. Owens, New York Democrat, warned a crowd of feminist protesters in New York that the Bush administration is taking America "into a snake pit of fascism," Marc Morano reports for Cybercast News Service (www.CNSNews.com).

Mr. Owens also said, during the Wednesday night rally at Central Park by the National Organization for Women, that the Bush administration "spits on democracy" and is leading the country down a path reminiscent of "Nazi Germany."

Mr. Owens, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the nation is at a "pivotal point" in its history, and he called the upcoming election the most important one in 50 years.

"I am right on the spot there in Washington, and I tell you our country will either go forward or down the drain into a snake pit of fascism," Mr. Owens declared to loud cheers from a crowd numbering about 1,000 people.
Immediately after his speech, CNSNews.com asked Mr. Owens whom he blamed for America's supposed descent into fascism.

"George Bush, [Attorney General] John Ashcroft , [Vice President] Dick Cheney, the Halliburton firms," Mr. Owens responded. "We are going in the same direction as Nazi Germany in terms of we have a ruthless group of people who make bold decisions. They spit on democracy."

Mr. Owens said the Bush administration is fascist because it "has contempt for democracy and uses power — military power, money power, all power — to override the wishes of those who are governed."


As you know, this is nothing new. You may now go back to pretending Zell and Dick are blue meanies.

Great post Larry. It coincides with Ophrah Winfrey's description of the president at a Kerry fundraising party recently.

These people can be grouped together - all under one tent - "BUSH HATERS"
sign up here"!

Of course there are people on this very board who will reply with "spin": "it's no worse that what you all say!". Yeah, uh-huh, right!

 

[Steve]

Typical republican BS. They always think there is a strict dividing line between working hard, and wanting hand outs. Your own attempt at working hard is fruitless if there is no one there to pay the bill for your services.

Exactly what do you mean by "fruitless...no one there to pay the bill"? What services have you provided that you remain uncompensated for, ST? And what do you mean by "typical Republican BS"? How is what I posted BS? It was a statement of my personal viewpoint, a testament of what I have found to be true for me. Again, has your experience been different? Have you worked hard only to get the shaft? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Steve]

First line in new commercial development and housing starts is the infrastructure. New streets, water lines, sewer lines, power and communication line construction is up.

Quick aside to this one, Kyle, because I've noticed the increase in infrastructure development here in St. Mary's recently. I sum it up to it being an election year, and those in office are making a show of it. People have short term memories, and they'll vote on their perceptions as easily as on their convictions. The recent scurry of Public Works improvements are swaying that perception factor. JMHO. I'd do the same thing, BTW, if I were in office, although that doesn't make it justifiable.

 

[Steve]

Also check out the job growth numbers Bush touts. Many are low wage jobs of people in places like McDonalds. Sorry, those types of jobs are not what helps keep the economy going.

I would disagree with this ST. Low wage earners do not deep-six their pay check into a black hole, never to be seen again. They spend their money just like everyone else, thus generating increased revenues for the Wal-Marts, the Pizza Huts, the Pier Ones, etc. Their wages refuel the economy, and left unchecked, lead to inflation, just like all income does. If services jobs are increasing, then the economy will improve over all; consider it a "trickle-up" effect. The difference is that Johnny Burgerflipper should be focusing on bettering his skills, not hoping that Mickey-D's will raise his salary to $35.00 an hour! The burden of self-improvement, and thus better wages, rests on the individual, not the government. Hand-outs and Federal programs lead to sloth. THAT is what is not good for the economy.

 

[Ken King]

Sorry guys this is going to be long, but you should know by now that when I offer my two cents I get my money’s worth.

Actually Rraley, I saw his speech as being very positive and in my opinion I would say it could be more closely characterized as witnessing a man having an epiphany that shook his sole to the roots. Granted he was passionate, understandably so as he is fed up with the politics as usual from his party and the lack of unity and support from those that govern while we have troops in harm’s way and our populace is at risk from terrorist acts. He is distraught at his party’s singular goal of destroying George Bush at all cost simply because he obtained the office that they feel their man was cheated out of (though we all know that isn’t true). The bitterness of that loss and not getting beyond it has poisoned the Democratic Party resulting in a vile and unadulterated hate that has moved Democrats onto a path of shallow ugliness and exclusion instead of embracing the freedom of difference and inclusion that once were the major characteristics of what used to be known as the people’s party.

Zell explained his action and reason for what might be referred to as jumping ship. He personalized his reason when he emphatically stated that his major concern, at this time and in today’s world, is the protection and safety of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, in other words our nation’s posterity.

That is something that can and should have connected with the entirety of our citizenry, or at least those that bothered to listen to what he had to say or have since become aware of it. I know it hit home for me, Zell said exactly how I feel we need to act and what the Constitution demands of our elected leaders as they conduct the business of the USA. We don’t need a person at the helm that will over analyze every single action to the point of not being able to act. We need strength and conviction at this point in time and a person that will act to protect us and our way of life. I just don’t see Kerry as being able to provide that, just as Zell does and it is nothing but a positive act to communicate that to our populace. Anything less would be a disservice to Americans.

Since 9/11/01 we have been living in a world that we have not been accustomed to. We have had war brought to our shores and major devastation inflicted upon our peace loving society and people. We can no longer sit back, fat, dumb, and happy and wait for international consensus before taking action. Zell, like President Bush, understands the government’s fundamental duty and they have made it clear that we can’t “outsource” our security or be hindered by a requirement to obtain permission from the international community when we are at risk or in peril and need to act for our self protection.

The one lesson of 9/11/01 that we must not let slip by is that we can no longer sit by and act only after we have been struck. We painfully learned that doing so will result in considerable loss of lives and we simply cannot devalue and place at risk the lives of our citizens nor can we take our safety and security for granted as we once were able to do.

Also a couple of small points of fact that I would like to bring to your attention, Kerry did not vote in the affirmative for the 2004 Defense Appropriations Act, matter of fact neither did Edwards, they didn’t vote at all on the final bill. Also, with the exception of SDI, I believe that all of the weapon systems that Kerry voted against were employed by our forces in our recent military conflicts and without them you can bet that our losses would be significantly greater and a lot more painful to the nation then what we already have suffered.

Don’t you think that as someone seeking to be the Commander-in-Chief of our military forces that person would want to have and demand the best equipment available to minimize our losses while assuring our success when we must use them? Since Kerry refused to support those systems that directly enabled our forces to be decidedly superior I will stand in agreement with Zell and say that Kerry does not have the necessary understanding or skills to be entrusted with the job as the President of the United States of America.

Now I will move on to your comments regarding Cheney when he served as the Secretary of Defense and try to be brief. The Sec. Def. job is completely different then the one he holds now as VP. There is no comparison between them other then they are at the highest level of the Executive Branch. As the Sec. Def., Cheney was charged with creating significant savings and reductions because his budget requests were being strictly scrutinized and he was not getting everything that each service desired and requested.

Cheney was forced into a position of making choices to maintain operationally readiness for the current force structure and obtaining enhancements where he could get the best bang for the dollar. Some of these programs had greater value and more immediate need then others so he prioritized them sacrificing those that weren’t needed as much as others.

On top of this he was battling with the Congress over those he felt that the services could do without but many of these were of significant importance to specific representatives serving on the appropriations committee that were motivated by protecting jobs for their constituents. If I recall, the reductions during this period were driven by the fall of the Soviet Union and the draw down associated with the end of the cold war. Operational requirements changed and he was accordingly directed to modify the force composition related to that change in threat. We didn't need the quantity of certain forces any longer and it made sense to have these reductions at that point in time. Things have since changed and we are facing a whole new threat.

In my opinion John Kerry has never been a friend of the military, his motives for voting against these programs were not the same as Cheney’s and the fact that many of the programs Kerry tried to kill ended up as being recommended for the DOD chopping block is more then likely due to the shear number of programs that he was trying to kill. I don’t think that Kerry understands that we must be ever vigilant and capable of repelling threats and attacks directed towards us. He just doesn't get it and I don't think he ever will.

 

[ylexot]

The burden of self-improvement, and thus better wages, rests on the individual, not the government. Hand-outs and Federal programs lead to sloth. THAT is what is not good for the economy.

Very well said Steve.

 

[ylexot]

Oh, and one more thing about Zell...he's retiring this year. Short-timers have a luxury of speaking their minds and, for that reason, I trust their opinions a little more than someone who has their job at stake.

 

[Penn]

Lasting views from the left: "He Zelled Us Out"

I came across this piece just now, and it shows just how pathetic the liberals have become.

 

[itsbob]

Historic night tonight. A member of the opposite party giving the keynote address and just flat laying it bare.

Gulp.

Just read an article in the Army Times that mentions something I haven't heard to date. Did you know that John Kerry's picture hangs in the Vietnam War Museum in VIETNAM, and lists him as a hero of VIETNAM?? Shouldn't this man be serving time in prison, or do we hang people for treason still??

 

[vraiblonde]

do we hang people for treason still??

If we still cared about treason, Bill Clinton's heart problem would be the least of his worries.

 

[BuddyLee]

Just read an article in the Army Times that mentions something I haven't heard to date. Did you know that John Kerry's picture hangs in the Vietnam War Museum in VIETNAM, and lists him as a hero of VIETNAM?? Shouldn't this man be serving time in prison, or do we hang people for treason still??

Prison? Treason? Whatever are you talking about?

 

[BuddyLee]

This is my take on Kerry and Viet Nam. His goal was to become an elected official. He knew VN was an unpopular war. He went with the sole intention of using it for political gain. How many other guys took their own video camera? Used every scratch as an excuse for a purple heart and got himself back stateside ASAP. Promptly began his political career on the foundation of his experience in Nam. War hero running for elect in liberal left new england on an anti-war platform against an evil Republican Presidency...

On the other hand we have Bush. Also a Brahma, a child of privilege. He used his family's political clout to get an easy stint in the national guard. Not the slightest chance of ending up in harm's way. He's not the only one who did it. He's just the only one who is currently the President.

Then of course there is Bill Clinton...

I give them all a D- on their military service and integrity.

Laugh if you will, but if they managed to change the Constitution in time, I would vote for Arnold. He is a true American hero and success story. Child immigrant, comes here alone with no $$$ in search of the American Dream. Works his butt off and makes it big time. As dirty as the California Recall election was, the worst they managed to get on him was that he smoked pot 20 years ago and made some Manly-man comments to some undercover feminists on a movie set. Despite cheap shots about his pronunciation of Cal-eee-fornia, he continues to pronunce it Cal-eee-fornia. Despite Liberal rage over use of "girly-men" in reference to CA legislators, uses same term in KeyNote speech at RNC on National TV.

We've been so brainwashed into thinking that we have to elect one of two boobs from Party A or B we've given up hope of ever electing a real man.

Good post.

 

[Penn]

On the other hand we have Bush. Also a Brahma, a child of privilege. He used his family's political clout to get an easy stint in the national guard. Not the slightest chance of ending up in harm's way. He's not the only one who did it. He's just the only one who is currently the President.
_________________________________________________________________

I'm going to take an ever-so-slight issue with your commentary here: 70% of this is correct.

However, if you remember what Grandpa said somewhere in an earlier thread, the F-102, which GW qualified in, was a lousy dog-fight airplane. The Air Force/Pentagon knew that fact, and was not going to send that bird and/or pilots to VietNam, knowing they were sending an inferior craft to fight against the more agile Migs.
That appears to be the prime reason GW and his outfit w/F-102s didn't get rotated into the conflict. If he had qualified in an F-4, which was a few years later down the road, it would have been a different story.
Point is, that was not his faullt, unless you want to intimate that he knew all along about that, and played the game for all it was worth.
You've also forgotten a reply that I posted: During the same timeframe, Kerry had been in studies at Yale, was it(?), and wanted to extend those studies further in Europe, - where else, but in France.
He came under the same kind of draft orders as GW did, and was denied the opportunity to continue his higher education overseas, by the draft board.
He, subsequently enlisted in the US Navy Reserves, figuring his outfit would be the least likely to be sent to VietNam.

He figured wrong.

So, that's how he found himself with orders to ship out with a Swiftboat company, patrolling the rivers "in-country", as they used to say. The rest, as we know is history; he purchased an 8mm camera and "proceeded to make history".

I'm not trying to be a smart@$$, but please merge that into your commentary.

 

[BuddyLee]

On the other hand we have Bush. Also a Brahma, a child of privilege. He used his family's political clout to get an easy stint in the national guard. Not the slightest chance of ending up in harm's way. He's not the only one who did it. He's just the only one who is currently the President.
_________________________________________________________________

I'm going to take an ever-so-slight issue with your commentary here: 70% of this is correct.

However, if you remember what Grandpa said somewhere in an earlier thread, the F-102, which GW qualified in, was a lousy dog-fight airplane. The Air Force/Pentagon knew that fact, and was not going to send that bird and/or pilots to VietNam, knowing they were sending an inferior craft to fight against the more agile Migs.
That appears to be the prime reason GW and his outfit w/F-102s didn't get rotated into the conflict. If he had qualified in an F-4, which was a few years later down the road, it would have been a different story.
Point is, that was not his faullt, unless you want to intimate that he knew all along about that, and played the game for all it was worth.
You've also forgotten a reply that I posted: During the same timeframe, Kerry had been in studies at Yale, was it(?), and wanted to extend those studies further in Europe, - where else, but in France.
He came under the same kind of draft orders as GW did, and was denied the opportunity to continue his higher education overseas, by the draft board.
He, subsequently enlisted in the US Navy Reserves, figuring his outfit would be the least likely to be sent to VietNam.

He figured wrong.

So, that's how he found himself with orders to ship out with a Swiftboat company, patrolling the rivers "in-country", as they used to say. The rest, as we know is history; he purchased an 8mm camera and "proceeded to make history".

I'm not trying to be a smart@$$, but please merge that into your commentary.

Check out some stats on this site Penn.

http://25thaviation.org/id275.htm

In it you will find that 82% that actually saw heavy combat in the Vietnam war strongly believed that the war was lost because lack of political will. Nearly 75% of the population agreed with that (1993). This was an unpopular war and was not needed. John Kerry merely presented that when coming back.

9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the
Vietnam era (Aug. 5, 1964-May 7,1975).

National Guard: 6,140 served, 101 died.

George Bush's chances of being called into Vietnam...

....slim.

 

[Penn]

Check out some stats on this site Penn.

http://25thaviation.org/id275.htm

In it you will find that 82% that actually saw heavy combat in the Vietnam war strongly believed that the war was lost because lack of political will. Nearly 75% of the population agreed with that (1993). This was an unpopular war and was not needed. John Kerry merely presented that when coming back.

9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the
Vietnam era (Aug. 5, 1964-May 7,1975).

National Guard: 6,140 served, 101 died.

George Bush's chances of being called into Vietnam...

....slim.

BuddyLee, I'm not arguing with you about how many people who entered the 'Guards back then actually made it into the VietNam conflict:The point I'm trying to make is that GW wasn't the only one who attempted to defer, or alter his chances of going into the war zone.

This is from an article I posted earlier from Townhall.com, the author is Mark Alexander written 8/27/04:
_________________________________________________________________
"Right about now, McAuliffe and Kerry are wishing they'd never fired that shot. Much to their surprise, several Vietnam veterans groups had the audacity to take a gander at Kerry's service record -- both his record of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" by slandering his fellow veterans while they were still fighting or captive in Vietnam, and his contrived record of heroic acts as evidenced by his impressive list of military decorations. By early May, those veterans were firing back at Kerry and his cadre.

Initially, Kerry took the defensive: "I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard...criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served." (Oops, another cheap shot at our National Guard and Reserve forces.)

Fortunately, President Bush can account for his service. He wanted to fly fighter jets, he earned his wings, and he logged many air defense hours in an F-102 Delta Dagger with the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG. Mr. Bush's unit was subject to rotation in Vietnam under the Palace Alert Program (in fact, 15 F-102s were lost in Vietnam). With American involvement in Vietnam de-escalating by 1972, Bush was honorably discharged from his service with the ANG.

Of course, as noted in The Patriot many times before, George Bush's most distinguished military service has been in his role as Commander-in-Chief since the 9/11 attack on our nation -- one of the most difficult and challenging periods for any president since World War II.
*********************************************************
Implicit in Kerry's warning, however, is the notion that he, himself, volunteered for service in Vietnam. Remember Bill Clinton's repetitive "Send me" paean at the Demo Convention? Try again. Kerry's anti-military sentiments were well known when he was a student at Yale. After graduating, Kerry petitioned his draft board for a student deferment so he could study in -- where else? -- Paris. His deferment denied, Kerry then calculated that he could avoid Vietnam by joining the Naval Reserves rather than getting drafted into the Army or Marines, where he would, likely, see combat. Kerry's service record indicates that on 18 February 1966 he enlisted in the USNR under "inactive" status -- and was activated when a slot opened for him in Officer Training School.

As fate would have it, Kerry's reserve unit was activated, while the Bush's ANG unit remained stateside -- yet both circumstances were far beyond the control of these two junior officers. As for Kerry's choice of Swift Boats, he told the Boston Globe last year, "I didn't really want to get involved in the war. When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling...." This puts the lie to any assertion that Kerry "volunteered" for dangerous swift boat duty while George W. Bush somehow slunk off to fly fighter-jets."

"Four months and a he was a hero."
**********************************************************
The Paragraphs between the asterisks, that I inserted, are what are important to this discussion.

 

[Ken King]

... the F-102, which GW qualified in, was a lousy dog-fight airplane. The Air Force/Pentagon knew that fact, and was not going to send that bird and/or pilots to VietNam, knowing they were sending an inferior craft to fight against the more agile Migs.

Actually F-102s were deployed to and used in South Vietnam. What I have found is that aircraft from the 590th Fighter Interceptor Squadron were transferred to Tan Son Nhut AFB near Saigon in March 1962 to provide air defense against the unlikely event that North Vietnamese aircraft would attack the South. F-102As continued to be based there and in Thailand throughout much of the war. F-102As also stood alert at Bien Hoa and Da Nang in South Vietnam and at Udorn and Don Muang in Thailand. The F-102A was finally withdrawn from Southeast Asia in December of 1969.

They also did some close support missions and because of their speed they would at times respond to downed aircraft providing cover, other additional duties that they would be used for was bomber escort. I also discovered that 14 or 15 “Deuces” were lost over there, two to ground fire (AAA), four during ground assaults by the VC, 8 to operational accidents (aircraft failure), and reportedly one during an air-to-air engagement with a Mig-21 in early 1968.

 

[Penn]

Actually F-102s were deployed to and used in South Vietnam. What I have found is that aircraft from the 590th Fighter Interceptor Squadron were transferred to Tan Son Nhut AFB near Saigon in March 1962 to provide air defense against the unlikely event that North Vietnamese aircraft would attack the South. F-102As continued to be based there and in Thailand throughout much of the war. F-102As also stood alert at Bien Hoa and Da Nang in South Vietnam and at Udorn and Don Muang in Thailand. The F-102A was finally withdrawn from Southeast Asia in December of 1969.

They also did some close support missions and because of their speed they would at times respond to downed aircraft providing cover, other additional duties that they would be used for was bomber escort. I also discovered that 14 or 15 “Deuces” were lost over there, two to ground fire (AAA), four during ground assaults by the VC, 8 to operational accidents (aircraft failure), and reportedly one during an air-to-air engagement with a Mig-21 in early 1968.

In my last post, if you look at the paragraph directly above the asterisks I inserted, the author states pretty much what you have just said, excepting the engagement with the Mig-21.
While there were F-102s in VietNam, their role as Air Defense assets were limited; the "deuce" was aimed at the heavy bomber threat from the Soviet Union, and I don't recall that we engaged that many over ther, did we?

One more item: If the F-102 was used in air-to-ground fire roles, it would had to use it's FFAR(2.75 folding fin aerial rockets) for assault, and we both know, or knew how accurate those puppies were! Eh, Ken?

 

[Ken King]

In my last post, if you look at the paragraph directly above the asterisks I inserted, the author states pretty much what you have just said, excepting the engagement with the Mig-21.
While there were F-102s in VietNam, their role as Air Defense assets were limited; the "deuce" was aimed at the heavy bomber threat from the Soviet Union, and I don't recall that we engaged that many over ther, did we?

One more item: If the F-102 was used in air-to-ground fire roles, it would had to use it's FFAR(2.75 folding fin aerial rockets) for assault, and we both know, or knew how accurate those puppies were! Eh, Ken?

I hadn't viewed that post prior to posting mine and I am unsure of actual air defense sorties that they carried out. My contention was that the "Deuce" was in fact used in 'Nam until we got better (and safer) aircraft. And yes the FFARs was all that they had for use while providing cover. It might not have been a very accurate weapon but they did the best they could with what they had.

 

[Penn]

I hadn't viewed that post prior to posting mine and I am unsure of actual air defense sorties that they carried out. My contention was that the "Deuce" was in fact used in 'Nam until we got better (and safer) aircraft. And yes the FFARs was all that they had for use while providing cover. It might not have been a very accurate weapon but they did the best they could with what they had.

I didn't mean to sound sarcastic about the "deuce", but let me tell you a story:
I was an Air Force Intercept Technician( assisted an Intercept Controller, playing live "war games" w/fighters) at the time in, oh, say 1970 at Hancock Field AFB, Syracuse NY. One of our fighter squadrons had F-102s as their Air Defense assets, came out of Boston, if I recall correctly..

It was a very serious situation, where a trainer airplane, usually a T-33 Lockheed Racer, or a B-57 Canberra, would tow this huge canvas "sock" (TARGET) behind it on supposedly a mile-long or so cable, and the F-102 pilots would line up in a row, 2 or 3 fighters, and try to shoot holes in the canvas target with their FFAR weapons.

As I said, a very serious mission here; you had to get permission to fire these 2.75 FFAR rockets at the target from two levels of command, run through a detailed checklist prior to that, and make darn sure the pilots had their best course "lined up" on the target.

Well, I know it's a long story, but we'd accomplish this mission, and then sit in with our controller, and monitor the Post Mission briefing, where we'd talk about what went right or what didn't go so well, and where we could do better, etc.

To hear the target pilot describing the results, well it normally scared the bejesus out of him, watching behind his airplane where the rockets were going, as it was quite a show. Most of the time they went straight; other times they did not.

Now, the fighter pilots told much the same story of the results of the mission, but I do recall now and then, that at least one pilot said the rockets leaving his F-102 "looked like a bunch of pizzed off bees jetting out of a beehive, and not neccesarily in a straight line!"

That's pretty telling, coming from a fighter pilot, if you know what I mean.