Zell Miller proves he's an idiot once again

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-03-31 08:00pm

Our favorite DINO using year-old right wing slander

Sen. Miller: Sept. 11 investigation energizes terrorists

The Associated Press - WASHINGTON

U.S. Sen. Zell Miller is questioning the usefulness of a panel investigating the terrorist attacks of 2001, arguing its public quarrels with the Bush administration could "energize our enemies and demoralize our troops."

Miller, a Georgian who is the Senate's lone Democrat to endorse Bush for re-election, saved his most heated rhetoric for former Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke. Clarke depicted Bush as obsessed with Iraq and slow to act against al-Qaida in a best-selling book, an interview on CBS' 60 Minutes and testimony before the Sept. 11 commission.

"The vindictive Clarke has now had his revenge, but what kind of hell has he, his CBS publisher, and his ax-to-grind advocates unleashed?" Miller said in a Senate floor speech Tuesday evening.

Miller, who has backed Bush on practically every major foreign and domestic initiative, said if there were intelligence breakdowns, Clarke was most to blame because he was in the "catbird seat" for a decade.

"It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps _ the wimps and the warriors," Miller said. "The ones who want to argue and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies and kill them before they kill us. And in case you haven't figured it out, I proudly belong to the latter."

Pure, unoriginal, freeper-incarnate scum. Like every other fuckwit these past weeks, he hits Clarke with appeal to motive attacks. And like every other dipshit, Zell says people who argued against the war are appeasers. Has the right wing attack machine had a single, original thing to say since the war was announced to take place?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-03-31 08:13pm

I say we arm Miller to the teeth, parachute him into Fallejuh, and let him carry the fight to the enemy.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-03-31 09:01pm

Amen. If you're going to toss shit around like that, you gotta be willing to put your own ass on the line.

Bring it on, Zell.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-03-31 09:45pm

Georgia. Why I am I not surprised?

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-03-31 10:44pm

Amen. If you're going to toss shit around like that, you gotta be willing to put your own ass on the line.

Bring it on, Zell.

That is what soldiers are for. They do what civilians don't have to do.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-03-31 10:52pm

I've seen alot of this sort of 'debate' on Fox (heheheh). Um, the irritating tabloid guy (I'm Australian, I forget) responds to anything about Clark by saying 'He's just saying that because of blah. Oh and he said something nice about Bush once, so he's a dirty traitor now'. And you guys have all the nukes.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-03-31 10:55pm

Tabloid guy? O'reilly?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-03-31 11:03pm

That is what soldiers are for. They do what civilians don't have to do.

Yeah, but if you're going to make ridiculously overblown statements like Zell does, expect to back them up. He could have said "We're committed to America's defense," or something like that, but no, that doesn't sound half as fiery/idiotic as "I proudly want to carry the fight to the enemy and kill them before they kill us."

Also, Zell just pisses me off. Anyone pulling that "liberals hate America" shit pisses me off.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-31 11:09pm

Cornelius wrote:That is what soldiers are for. They do what civilians don't have to do.

Did you thoroughly read that last paragraph? Let me repeat it for you:

Idiot dipshit blowhard wrote:"It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps _ the wimps and the warriors," Miller said. "The ones who want to argue and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies and kill them before they kill us. And in case you haven't figured it out, I proudly belong to the latter."

So he "proudly belongs" to the group that wants to "carry this fight to our enemies", whereas everybody else is a "wimp" because they want to assess and "appease" before blindly leaping into action? Don't you like the way he ties "assess and appease" together as if assessment before action is somehow a bad thing? I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that a fucktard like this put his money where his flapping lips are.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2004-03-31 11:14pm

Hell, he'd probably call our military 'wimps' because they kind of like to "assess" situations before they gratuitously invade places.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-31 11:14pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Tabloid guy? O'reilly?

Probably Hannity. Fuck I hate that smarmy fucker.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-03-31 11:35pm

I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that a fucktard like this put his money where his flapping lips are.

Just curios, does his voluntary tour of duty in the marine corps count (as I recall that would have been in 1953)?

I'm just curious because I have a mental picture of a 70 year old heading off to Iraq with an assualt rifle.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-31 11:43pm

tharkûn wrote:
I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that a fucktard like this put his money where his flapping lips are.
Just curios, does his voluntary tour of duty in the marine corps count (as I recall that would have been in 1953)?

Not unless it somehow validates this particular war or the notion of taking action without bothering to debate or assess the situation first.

I'm just curious because I have a mental picture of a 70 year old heading off to Iraq with an assualt rifle.

Perhaps he can "volunteer" his children and grandchildren, then.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-03-31 11:54pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Tabloid guy? O'reilly?

THATS THE GUY!! He's got his own SHOW, and he's such a greasy smarmy tabloid moron! He was whinging that there wasn't a good story in Pakistani army ops! Like, 'Its a shame there's no interesting story there. Shame its not worth talking about in America'. GAH!

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-01 12:04am

Stark wrote:
THATS THE GUY!! He's got his own SHOW, and he's such a greasy smarmy tabloid moron! He was whinging that there wasn't a good story in Pakistani army ops! Like, 'Its a shame there's no interesting story there. Shame its not worth talking about in America'. GAH!

You have no idea just how tabloid he is. Before Fox News, he was on "Hard Copy".

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-04-01 12:10am

Vympel wrote: You have no idea just how tabloid he is. Before Fox News, he was on "Hard Copy".

You know, when that was on and I was a kid, I thought that show was FICTIONAL.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-04-01 12:16am

Vympel wrote:
Stark wrote:
THATS THE GUY!! He's got his own SHOW, and he's such a greasy smarmy tabloid moron! He was whinging that there wasn't a good story in Pakistani army ops! Like, 'Its a shame there's no interesting story there. Shame its not worth talking about in America'. GAH!
You have no idea just how tabloid he is. Before Fox News, he was on "Hard Copy".

Plus he bragged about it, if you have read Franken's book. Kept talking about how upstandign the show was

, and how it had won Peabody's under him (actually, that story built up to this over repeated talks he gave) (actually it was a Poke award after he had left the show).

But that was my firs thought when I saw he was on Fox a while back. Wow, the Inside Edition guy...he's a prick (and an out and out jerk). [/code]

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-04-01 12:18am

Vympel wrote:You have no idea just how tabloid he is. Before Fox News, he was on "Hard Copy".

And he brags about that shit. When I read that, I was like..."who the hell..."

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-04-01 12:22am

Zell Miller is an odd one. He IS a democrat. But this is because he has been a party member for too long. Was it Strom or Helms who was also a demmy once? But this was all before the Dixiecrat business, and the Southern break from the demmies, etc. Many Southern demmies broke away and became reps, most that stayed were up for the changing party, Miller seems to be upset that the party isn't more Republican.

He IS really a Republican, he just can't admit he was left behind, and was wrong in thinking the more liberal positions were just fads (like Rock and Roll).

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-04-01 10:01am

Miller's purpose for still being a Democrat is basically so that conservatives can claim to have bipartisan support, even though the extent of their "bipartisan support" is a "Democrat" who consistently votes the Republican platform straight down.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-04-01 04:48pm

Can't the DNC forcibly kick him off the team? This is like Deuce taking the ball and sprinting for the Falcon's endzone.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-04-01 08:46pm

Miller should have gotten his walking papers long ago.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-04-01 08:53pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Can't the DNC forcibly kick him off the team? This is like Deuce taking the ball and sprinting for the Falcon's endzone.

He's supposed to be retiring from politics permanently after his term ends, so I guess they figure he won't be around long enough to hassle with him.

At least, Miller claims that he's going to quit. But if he really planned to stay and try for reelection, he would just switch to being a Republican and win in a landslide just because he had a R beside his name. So I think he'll return to being a hick in the mountains in a little while.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-04-02 01:41am

Isn't there something wrong with being a Democrat but really a Republican? Its betraying the trust and the voice of the people who elected you to power. You can't just switch positions like that, can you?

But that's just me.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-04-02 01:59am

Fire Fly wrote:Isn't there something wrong with being a Democrat but really a Republican? Its betraying the trust and the voice of the people who elected you to power. You can't just switch positions like that, can you?

But that's just me.

This is the state of Georgia we're talking about. Besides, he was appointed to the position.