I'm watching Zell Miller on Meet the Press. You know, the "democrat" from GA that will speak at the RNC?
He just said (correction - implied) Kerry is unpatriotic, and angrily said "how can you talk about Old Glory and at the same time vote several times against an amendment to keep people from burning it?" Indeed. I guess the only way would be to understand that the flag symbolizes the Constitution, and not the other way around. Can you imagine burning a flag NOT being political speech? Why else would anybody burn a flag other than to send a message? That message is disgusting to me, as a veteran who served under that flag, but I would fight to defend anybody's right to send their message, however offensive. See, Zell doesn't understand the difference between serving a flag and serving the Constitution. Kerry seems to. How unpatriotic of him.
He repeated the RNC party line criticizing Kerry for voting for war and then not supporting the troops by voting to give them body armor, etc. (the $87 billion). This is fast becoming conventional wisdom - that this is what Kerry did - but it is hogwash and he knows it. Congress voted to give the President authorization to invade Iraq only after Bush indicated he needed it to have credibility at the UN and would go to war only as a last resort. Kerry even gave a speech before the vote in which he called on the President to seek UN authorization and seek diplomatic solutions before resorting to force. He also voted that way based on the evidence presented by the administration. It was not a vote for war but a vote authorizing military force in the hope it would not be needed. Conventional wisdom now holds that Kerry and everybody else who voted for this resolution supported the idea of invading Iraq. That isn't true, but like our president most people don't do "nuance." Then, after the president invaded despite the pleas from military professionals that it was a mistake, the president wanted a bill providing $87 billion for the efforts there. Kerry and everybody else knew that it was needed, but the president insisted on keeping the tax cuts and borrowing the money to pay for it. Kerry sponsored a bill to provide $67 billion immediately in non-discretionary funds, and the remaining $20 billion that was discretionary be voted in a separate bill with more safeguards to ensure the money would be properly spent. His bill also required a repeal of the tax break on the richest 1% of Americans in order to pay for all of this. The Republicans voted against it and it didn't pass. Their bill then went forward and Kerry, after seeing it would pass anyway, had the courage to vote against it. So he did vote for it before he voted against it - an incredibly poor choice of words. Instead he should have asked why the republicans who speak so much about supporting the troops voted against funding the troops. They would answer they voted against it before they voted for it. See the deal? Everybody wanted to provide for the troops, but Kerry wanted to do it in a responsible manner that didn't require borrowing from our children so that rich people could buy another Lexus. BTW, the $20 billion that republicans swore was needed immediately for construction in Iraq? Less than half a billion has been spent.
Those who are intellectually honest with themselves should wonder why the Republicans need to lie to make their case (like WMDs), why after 3 1/2 years of a Bush administration the republicans don't run on their record but against Kerry - they don't talk about what they have done, but what he has done or hasn't done. And they twist the truth in doing it!
This president has made us weaker, has not gone after the terrorists, and is a miserable failure at a time our nation needs strength. Today in the paper ties b/w Iran and Al Queda are discussed. Let's say they are proven true. Let's assume that Iran says "We conrol Osama and we ordered 9/11." What would we do? Our army is tied down in Iraq unnecessarily, we have destroyed the international credibility and trust our nation built up over decades, we have alienated our allies, and we have a record deficit. What would we be able to do?
What pisses me off the most is that I have not forgotten or forgiven 9/11, and that is why I'm voting Kerry, yet the Bush camp claims successes in the war on terror that don't exist and constantly uses 9/11 as a refrain for why people should vote for Bush. They call Kerry weak on defense. And people lap it up.
I would rather have a guy by my side that knows how to shoot straight but is reluctant to pull the trigger than a guy by my side that is emptying a magazine in the wrong direction and causing friendly fire. Bush is dangerous and must be sent back to Texas.