I do know it was filled with distortions, half truths and outright lies.  
For example, Miller falsely claimed "Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations," when in fact Kerry said  "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required.  Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." That's the opposite of what Miller said Kerry "made clear."

Another example is that virtually all of the weapon systems Miller said Kerry was against were either recommended for elimination by Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney or were included in a pork laden Defense appropriation bill.

That is why when it happens, mainstream Democrats move quickly to denounce such statements and disassociate themselves from whoever makes the comparison.  On the other hand check out George Bush's website:

http://www.georgewbush.com/VideoAndAudio/Default.aspx

and play the video entitled "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed" and tell me which campaign is running ads comparing the opponent to Hitler.

Zell Miller is full of hate that is why. His delivery was angry and hateful, and is what I can only imagine what a KKK rally would be like.

Furthermore he wants to return to medieval times so he can duel with Chris Mathews. Zell Miller is IMO a hateful moron.

The Democrats never ran and ad comparing Bush to Hitler. The repubs however do have an ad with Hitler in it. And you are right, that is also hateful.

I am with you on getting their acts together. The problem is politicians lie, always have, always will.

"Sitting down and reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy or something." - Bush was asked to name something he isn't good at by Talk magazine, September 1999 issue.

Fait pas l'idiot!  Perhaps you have heard of Pork Barrel politics.  A renegade legislator who sucks up to the party in power is likely to get better terms on his pork items than a line toer.

I'll correct a lie that you've parroted: we don't know why Clinton lied. Perhaps he lied due to his complete anger with Ken Starr, who jailed one of his friends, Susan McDougal, with no charges for two years, because she wouldn't sign an afidavid which Starr falsified about Clinton. (I guess coercing a lie isn't a lie?)  Maybe he lied knowing that Monica Lewinsky's life would be ruined if he didn't. Or, perhaps he lied because he is a pathological liar?  My question is: oath aside, how many people don't lie about sex?  

Ken Starr ***lied*** in saying that his line of questioning had anything to do with Whitewater: the real estate case he was investigating.  How did this BJ in office have anything to do with this?  True, Starr wasn't under oath, he was outside of the reach of the law, nevertheless, he lied to set up Clinton.  Clinton called his bluff.

I applaude Clinton's balls in doing this, BTW.  He should have never been put in that position to begin with.  There is no argument about that. Who should have been questioned under oath here?

"Establishing a pattern of behavior?"  Starr up to that time had a staff of dozens, tens of millions of dollars, a paper trail, and years to work, and still, with all of that, he's putting his suspect under oath "to establish a pattern?"

I don't believe this for a second.  Starr wanted to assassinate Clinton, but Conservative Christians might been shocked by Starr using a rifle, so he used skullduggery instead, which they fall for unquestioningly every time, and you've obviously been sucked into that.    

/Zin

-- Modified on 9/7/2004 12:14:16 AM

The news I get, I read from the internet, from different sources.  For magazines, I read those hot sheets of liberal opinion, "The Economist," and "Foreign Affairs."  Television is a non-issue with me.  Take it to a different liberal, please.

You use three hypotheticals in setting up your case 1)"If Bush had been in Vietnam" (if only) 2) "If he had said... the things Kerry has said" and 3) if he had done the things Kerry had said. That is in an alternate universe with three degrees of separation from the real one. You might as well not get too angry when you think an unfair media in such a distant universe, because anything you say based upon this is nonsense.    

Besides the fact that it's fairly well established that not even Kerry did the things he said!  At least Kerry had a Vietnam career to exaggerate, and an imagination to exaggerate them with. Whereas Bush only had a prodigal upbringing and a failed love-affair with the bottle.

/Zin

-- Modified on 9/6/2004 10:25:22 PM

-- Modified on 9/6/2004 10:26:08 PM