Zell Miller’s performance on Hardball is pretty damn close to as crazy as Keyes.
You’ll have to choose the Miller Interview. Larry Gatlin later was pretty classy heckling back at the crowd too.
And for goodness sakes–what does the MX,the B-1, the Apache or the biggest boondoggle and safety hazard to our troops, the Harrier have to do with keeping America safe now? Or even then?
The MX is now useless. The B-1 was useless within a few years of being operational, the Apache is an unreliable attack helicopter.
UPDATED: Removed bit about the Harrier–Xan points out I was confused with the Osprey. It was late.
But apparently the Harrier wasn’t much better–thanks Ralph
UPDATE 2: Actually, this reminds me that the Osprey was supposed to replace the Harrier–thus the votes to kill the Harrier were to usher in the next generation of jets.
Let’s not overlook Cheney’s record in slashing defense programs.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=209
“Republicans including Bush’s father and Vice President Cheney also proposed cuts or elimination in several of the same weapons at around the same time Kerry supposedly “voted against” them.” […]
“Furthermore, Bush’s own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing. In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined $10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney’s Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: “After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B – 2 bombers. . . . And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles.” So if Kerry opposed weapons “our troops depend on,” so did Cheney and the elder President Bush.”
Zell did look like a doddering old fool, didn’t he? I almost ALMOST felt sorry for the guy – but even while he’s getting played like a fiddle, he’s trying to sell his book to the extra chromosome set.
I especially enjoyed when he said he wished he could challenge Matthews to a dual.
Pistols at dawn, anyone?
Miller is lucky that Matthews didn’t challenge him to a battle of wits because it was clear that Miller was unarmed.
…just read the Zorn account. Seemed ol ZigZagZell was less incensed but much less informed on CNN.
Hey Arch, not to quibble but I think you mean the Osprey, not the Harrier, as the test-pilot-killing, death trap.
Harrier, besides being British, actually works pretty well.
Let’s not overlook that the B1 was such a debacle that despite being accepted for service in the mid 1980’s, it didn’t see combat until AFTER the Clinton adminstration authorized upgrades that made it effective (and paid for them). It’s first combat use was in Kosovo, and is still considered inferior to the B-52G.
No. The Harrier was a joint development between the US and the UK.
The Marines call it the widowmaker:
http://www.latimes.com/services/newspaper/mediacenter/la-mediacenter-2002-02.htmlstory
Actually, the Osprey is not at all related to the Harrier other than they are both VSTOL aircraft. (Vertical or Short Take Off and Landing).
The Osprey was supposed to deliver troops a platoon at a time from Aircraft Carriers.
The Harrier is a ground support aircraft with some weak anti-air capability.
The Osprey’s problem, which as far as I know have never been resolved, is that it’s wing swings 90degrees during take off and landing (like a helicopter). The swing-joint proved a weak point when the wing was horizontal (like an airplane).
I wonder how Kerry voted on the Stryker combat vehicle, a $60 million wheeled vehicle without bulletproof wheels.