Friday, October 22, 2004

The Friend of My Enemy is My Enemy

I liked Zell Miller's speech at the R.N.C.; an honest man speaking with eloquence. But then he got off on that Wendell Willkie thing. Do you Remember? Miller said his greatest hero was Wendell Willkie??? - the guy who ran against FDR during WWII and lost! It seemed inexplicable; but Miller explained. Willkie chose his country and the lives of his countrymen over his chance to be President of the United States. He did not exploit the difficuities of the World War for political gain. The vote was close, less than five million votes separated the victor from the loser, but Wendel Willkie would not attack his country to destroy a political rival. I think I know what Zell was up to. He was asking John Kerry to be a great man, to put America and the lives of her soldiers ahead of his own ambitions. Instead, John Kerry phoned Bill Clinton; reajusted his strategy, and politicized the war in Iraq. John Kerry abandoned greatness to buy his way to power with blood.

The other day,Russian President Vladimir Putin said what everybody knows; that Kerry's election will be a great victory for terrorism. Mike Moore is not the only America hater who rejoices in and profits from America's problems in Iraq. Yassar Arafat, who's Nobel Peace Prize oozes blood, has come out for Kerry. The government of France offers Kerry POLITICAL support though vowing to withhold any other kind, "no matter who wins the election". The Murders in Bagdad and Fallujah "worked hard" to chalk up a 1000 dead American soldiers for Kerry's stump speech, and he eagerly accepted their gruesome gift. I imagine Osama in his cave. If the al-Qaida king is not plastered to his Tora Bora wall, a Kerry/Edwards bumpersticker is. The pro-Kerry media, which sadly includes all major American networks as well as al Jazeera, cheer on al-Qaida and al Zarqawi while deriding and refusing to air the evidence presented by the Vietnam Vets who could tell the truth about John Kerry's political drive.

John Kerry's allies, past and present, know him well. His picture hangs in a place of honor in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City. The Communist murders who slaughtered our heros and enslave the people of Vietnam today, claim John Kerry as their War Hero. They know what Kerry's self-serving attacks on America and her military got them. Kerry also knows how the deal works. As Kerry grabs for greater political power he turns once again to his friends, America's enemies - within and without. Kerry race-baits to stir up hate between Americans of different color, he talks down the American economy to exacerbate class warfare and turn worker against employer, the poor against the rich, those who want against those who have. Kerry lies about abortion to drive women to fear the policies which would serve their needs. Kerry turns the young against the old with falsehoods about taxes and Social Security. Kerry even claims belief in God is an ominous threat to civil liberties. And now the flu is his friend. The flu virus and the other infections of the world are his best hope. Muslim murderers hang the bodies of our warrior heros on the bridges of Bagdad, Mike Moore hangs them on the movie screens of America, and John Kerry hangs them on George Bush. Terrorists seek to destroy the West, Moore grabs for money, and John Kerry wants the White House. These "friends" obtain their goals by tearing down America; nothing is more important. They are all our enemies.

Since I had no idea how to spell Wendell Willkie's name I had to look it up. It wasn't in the index of my history book, so I took a shortcut and looked up FDR. There Willkie was, a name on a chart. Not much more than a footnote in History; Wendell Willkie will always be a great man. Wendell Willkei will always be my hero. John Kerry may well become President of the United States. He may well obtain the prize he has wasted such precious treasure to seize, but he will never be a great man and he will always be our enemy.

From Aeschylus' Agamemnon

A merchant in gold is Ares, and the bodies of men are his gold: in battle he holdeth his scale.
He sends from Ilium dust out of his fire, a heavy gold to weeping love, powder that once was a man, now pressed into the compass of a jar.


Silver Lining said...

I have a question that pertains somewhat to this post. I watched Richard Holbrooke discussing John Kerry's concept of using premptive war. The part I was most interested in was his explanation of why John Kerry voted against Gulf War I when there was a UN resolution to go into Iraq and get them out of Kuwait but did approve of the Clinton strikes in Bosnia. I honestly did not understand what Ambassador Holbrooke was saying, and I am not stupid. I am most sincere in asking if anyone can explain to me the honest differences in the situations and, preferably, why John Kerry supported one and not the other. I am not being flippant. I have a lot on my plate, and research will have to wait. If one of the people who visits here has an answer, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

Aeneas said...

The answer to your question is simple, Kerry did not support Gulf War I because a republican was in the White House. Kerry did support the Bosnian War because at that time, a democrat was in the White House. Today, Kerry again does not support the current conflict because once again a republican is in the White House.

The Friend of My Enemy is My Enemy:

I too liked Zell Miller's speech during the RNC. Unfortunately, Zell Miller is a dying breed. He comes from the old school democrats who "mostly" believed that politics should end at U.S. shores. The democratic party is now made of basically two main groups, with few exceptions, (1) those who don't mind taking America down the road to socialism and (2) those who still think the domocratic party is the party of FDR. Zell Miller is an exception and a political breed apart. Unfortuately, his kind of clear thinking democrat is dwindling.

RealFruitBeverage said...

On a personal note I'm glad Zell Miller will not be running for office again. I find him to be dangerous. His speach at the RNC was inflamitory and focused not on issues but emotion. It's one thing to use issues and ideals to create emotion, but it's another to use emotion to create issues and ideals. A prime example would be Anrold and Ruddy vs our wonderful Zell. When Arnold spoke he used the ideals of what he believed in to create a sense of emotion. I liked that. Zell on the other hand was a demigoger from the start. When one says Kerry would arm our troops with spit wads; I personally felt that he was not there to share ideas but to envoke emotion to cloud issues. His message was this "I hate Kerry, and I'm a Democrate! You should hate him to."

Another thing I don't agree with, politics end where our shores do statement. What do you think Zell was doing when he said Kerry would get more of our troops killed? Yeah he was dangeling the lives of our soilders as a political device. I think if we take an objective look at things, we can see that both parties use war and our troops in political debates/attacks. I don't think this is a bad thing. I want my politicians to discuse what is happening to our sevice men. I want my politican to say what their party's stance is on it, and what they believe the consequences of the other party's stance is. Saying we shouldn't use the difficulties of war for political gain, to me, shows a lack of faith in the citizens of the USA. I'm an optimits; I believe the people of this country will make the right decision. Granted we have made the wrong ones from time to time, but our record isn't bad. Also when our canidates use the difficulties of war as a political too it allows us to ask the question, how much are we willing to pay? When that question is asked some people will have to find out what we are actually buying with all of our blood.

I also want to express a concern over the statement, "but he will never be a great man and he will always be our enemy." Yeah I will grant Kerry being a great man will be slim to none. But making a statement of prejudgement on a person that could be controlling policy I think is dangerous. This kind of mentality shifts the debate from what policy is best to what is the worth of Kerry. Sometimes Kerry's worth might be an issue. However, I think it important to keep our ey on the issues.

On the issue of Kerry's Gulf War stance vs his stance on Bosinia and the like I have an explanation. I don't know if my explination is the case, but I think an alternate veiw point is always health when trying to sort things out. When the Gulf War happened it was the first war of its kind. George Bush (the better of the two, well it's three) did something that never happened before. He was in essance creating a "New World Order". If George's son was as talented as his father I don't think we would be in Iraq right now, I think Iraq would have overthrown Sadam already on it's own. But back to the point. There was no precident as to how this Gulf War was going to turn out. If you have any doubt read some of the news stories pre Gulf War. Thanks to Bush(sr) we saw how effective military intervention could be once backed by the UN. After that a precident had been set that we could model the behavior after. Thus when Slick Willy followed that sucessful precedent, Kerry was much more willing to go along. In many ways that makes Kerry much more conservative than liberal. Like I said I don't know if this was what really happened but I think it is a reasonable interpetation. For those looking for an alternate view, or looking for the differances in the two situations.

My view of the Democratic party is very diffrent than Aeneas. First both the Demies and Ribbies are in flux. Both parties are tackeling a new world and new problems. No matter what the parties say they are both in the dark as to what they stand for. There seem to be two factions in the Dem party; the Bill Clinton leftovers, and the old school. The old school is mostly composed of people like Dick Gephart. I really don't know of any reasonable liberals who like this faction. The rest are the Demies that had to live under the yoke of fiscal conservity brought about by the republican revolution. This group tends to be pro free trade, welfare restraints, and social liberals. I find this group to be the future of the Dem party. But as seen objectively I think both parties are filled with whores that sell the well being of the nation as a whole for the well being of their constituancy. Who would have thought that Demies would rant about the good old days when Newt was in charge.

Rumpole said...

I was disappointed to read that Tom Rathke had made the decision to no longer participate at the Agora. Ten readers seemed like such an important number to Lysis, and to see that number of readers fall back to nine was more than I could bear; I was, therefore, spurred on to become that all important tenth participant. Well, here goes . . .

Please allow me the opportunity to respond to some thoughts put forth by RealFruitBeverage.

Certainly we can agree that emotion has no part in ruling the decision-making process. Emotional decisions typically (though not always) lead to errors. Where I become inconsistent is with a speech like Zell Miller's. It was very powerful emotionally and I thoroughly enjoyed it! In order to re-establish consistency after such an emotional appeal would be to remove the emotion from the content and simply look for the truths that lie underneath.

For example, the statement, "politics end where our shores begin". Though Mr. Miller may have tied too much emotion to this statement with commenting that Kerry would get more of our troops killed, his analogy with Wendell Willkie was a great one. Though certainly others may be able, I cannot comprehend a statement from the Kerry Camp to the effect that "I support the troops but I don't support the war". To me, the two are inseperable.

Finally, to suggest that if George II's lack of talent compared to George I was the cause of the Iraq conflict isn't accurate. WMD's and terroristic threats aside, we returned to Iraq because George I did not finish. I am not suggesting that George II's plan was premeditated as an agenda before his first term. However, if George I had completed the task this entire discussion would be moot.

Further, after Desert Storm, parties within Iraq (during George I's term) were encouraged to overthrow Saddam. The backing George I suggested would exist never materialized; hence, we saw the reluctance of the Iraqi people to celebrate after the initial thrust to Bahgdad was complete.

This probably been (in my speculation), the greatest reason why George II has with great pain tried to truely do what he says he will do. There was a credibility gap with the Iraqi going in.

George II also has the support of the international community. Over thirty countries backed his decision to go into Iraq. If we define the international community as the U.N., I guess it is accurate to say he did not have support, or the talent that his father possessed. That doesn't bother me. In both instances (George I and George II) I do not advocate turning over our soverignty to the U.N.

Thanks again for indulging me as "Number Ten"

Bryan Hickman said...

This is not going to be so much an argument as a personal attack of RFB.

Now, I personally can understand the benefit both intellectually of not being tied to any specific political party or labeled ideology. I'm not a Republican (though I often vote that way) and I'm not comfortable being labeled as such.

However, there is absolutely nothing inherently praiseworthy about taking the exact middle position on EVERY issue. This is something that I know you don't do with your personal beliefs...but something you have a tendancy of doing while trolling the blogosphere.

In many situations, one side or the other right and the other wrong. Certainly, condemning (or praising) both sides equally is generally the route taken by people who want everyone to like them (see: John McCain) or those who want to appear smarter than everyone by not letting themselves be lumped in with the common folk (see: Bill O'Reilly). I'm not sure which of these characterizations is fitting for you...but I can guess.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "pick a party and defend it always." But, occasionally, you should be able to say this party is more guilty of ________ than the other party.

I'll help you with some examples from the above post:

The Democrats are more guilty of emotion based rhetoric and demagoguery than the Republicans.

John Kerry's positions on national security issues are more politically based (and therefore, based less in principle) than George W. Bush's (or...really...anyone's for that matter).

Heck, you could go straight left and argue pro-abortion, anti-gun, socialized medicine, class warfare, and hug-a-terrorist-into-submission policies (kinda like John Kerry) and it would be far less annoying than your sick tendancy of swinging both ways (politically).

That's my 2 cents...and yer mom.

Rapps said...

Hi I am a new blogger, and I want all that read this to come to my blog at this would be great thanks.

RealFruitBeverage said...

Dear Bryan,

First get a hair cut hippy.

Second sure I'll endores a party. I'm a Republican. Problem is that all the issues discussed on this blog and your blog (which is awsome)are those which I think have little to do with my party affiliation on the issues.

Third I think I'm a defense attorney at heart. Meaning when I see one side attack another I have a tendency to try and formulate a good defense. I believe that it only strenghens the argument by having the oppisite side fully expressed. Yes I have played Devils advocate on a lot of my posts. Just to be honest if this was a strongly liberal readership, I'd probably do more arguing for the conservative side.

Fourth I'm both McCain and Reily. I want everyone to like me and I want to show how I'm not like the common folk.

Fifth on the issues where I do take a strong side I think I'm very clear as to what my position is. Abortion, capital punishment, minimum wage, free trade, immigration, my approach to NKorea, deficit spending, are some of the issues I have a clear stance on and I'll fully endorse the party that has what I consider the right stance. So let me make a quick assosiation: abortion (Bush), capital punishment (Kerry), minimum wage (Kerry, well more Dems), free trade (Bush), immigration (Bush by a landslide), NKorea (Bush by a landslide), deficit spending (well I gota love Newt).

Sixth, I'll endorse a canidate right now. I say vote for Kerry. Why? Well when evaluating the two I think Bush is the better canidate, but not by much. It is in the best interest of the Republican party to have a Bush defeat. We need to have a second Republican revolution, and well it's not going to happen with a supply side president or Mr. Delay running things. And I think the core of the Republican philosophy is the best way to run this country. Unfortuantly the current leadership of the party has gotten away from the core and truned into a bunch of ear marking whores.

And seventh, does my lack of a strick political (side) position take anything away from the force of the agruments?

And lastly, yer mom.

Silver Lining said...


Thanks for the attempted explanation. I must say I found myself feeling dizzy as I attempted to read it. Then, I realized, that was approximately how I felt listening to Richard Holbrook. If John Kerry learned from Gulf War I that he should vote for a similar situation, and that allowed him to support Bosnia, which had a different situation with the UN, why did he approve this war? We had no UN resolution, nor were we shying away from leading the whole operation. I have to conclude that after considering all possibilities and explanations to this point that much of what John Kerry does is simply out of political expediency. He is, I am afraid, one of your aforementioned political whores.

Rumpole, thanks for the explanation. It was most enjoyable.

RFB, on your post regarding a revolution in the Republican party.... I think you are seeing that with or without a second Bush Presidency. The most up and coming Republicans at the moment are Rudy, Arnold, and John McCain. I will argue that a second Bush Presidency, knowing that Dick Cheney has no aspirations to run in 2008, makes for a much more exciting political landscape and experience in four years having someone fresh, if you will, from both parties. If Kerry is elected, I think you will see stalling in both parties, and you will definately see a Kerry bid for re-election and then an Edwards bid for election in 2012. I don't know that I am looking for a revolution, but I think you will achieve it more effectively with another Bush Presidency than having both parties dig their heels in in anger, protest, disgust, take your pick.

Silver Lining said...

A late comment on any post in this blog risks never being read. I will take that risk to post something I think is worth saying.

The pure emotion of Zell Miller’s speech was discussed in Lysis’ latest post. RFB has criticized it, as have many others. My first instinct was to say that Zell’s emotion was the point of his speech. Both conventions have emotional speakers. It is part of raising the spirits, the passion, of those attending. At the Democratic National Convention, that role was largely served by the venomous speeches of Al Gore and Ted Kennedy to a point. I now feel, as I launch, emotionally and passionately into the post below, that emotion like Zell Miller’s is inevitable in some points. How far do you let something go before righteous indignation kicks in? How long do you look at something that you feel strongly about and try and choke it down before you let it out? Zell Miller was incensed at the actions of some in his party. I am now beyond that with some of the major U.S. media.

Yesterday, Kerry ran with the story that was straight from the front page of The New York Times. The story, as I am sure all of you know, stated that the military (Kerry specifically blames Bush) let over 400,000 tons of highly explosive material remain unguarded. It has now, according to The New York Times and Senator John Kerry, been looted by insurgents to kill Americans with. I, like everyone else, shook my head at this terrible thing and felt nauseous as Kerry claimed it was Bush and not at all the military that made this decision. Today we find out that there are gaping holes in the evidence behind this story. NBC reporters who were with military convoys that were at that exact site visited the weapons site the day after Bhagdad fell. There were weapons to be sure but nothing considered highly explosive. Inspectors there in May of last year found nothing as well. The belief, which can’t be proven, is that Sadaam Hussein had the weapons moved before the start of the war. He certainly had ample warning that war was coming.

Am I angry that Kerry ran with this story? A bit, but what I am beyond indignant about is the irresponsibility of much of the press. It turns out that CBS, specifically 6o Minutes, had been sitting on the same story and planned to run with it on Oct. 31st. The New York Times beat them to it. Thank goodness. Running that story on Oct. 31st would give the Bush Administration no real time to respond, and presumably, like the DUI story in 2000, his poll numbers would drop a good 5 points or more with no time to recover. That, I believe, is the whole point behind running it on October 31st. When did it become the job of the media to work to elect or unseat any person? Once upon a time in this nation we fought hard for a free press so that in a free market of ideas the truth would prevail. I have no doubt that the truth of this story will ultimately prevail, and it will show good and bad for both sides of the political fence. In the mean time, media outlets run irresponsibly with one-sided stories in an effort to sway the American electorate in a certain direction. I am tired of the view that the bulk of Americans are stupid sponges that will suck up any information that is fed them, and I am tired of feeling like I have to double check any story I hear from any media outlet before I can rely on the information. CBS, in particular, has abused the role of the press in my opinion and fits right into the category RFB mentioned of political whores. Before you start with me about publications like the Weekly Standard. At least I know what The Weekly Standard is. It is a conservative newsletter. The New York Times and CBS pretend to be pure objective news outlets. I have a hard time even typing that putrid nonsense.

You know, I asked a question on this post to give the benefit of the doubt to John Kerry that whether or not I agree with him, there is some reasoning behind the decisions he has made. I even found it interesting on the O’Reilly Factor in the almost Kerry interview to discover that his reason for voting against Gulf War I was that he felt sanctions needed more of a chance. I certainly don’t agree with that, but it was a reason. I am now loosing respect for him by the day. His quoting of new evidence against the Times story as unreliable seems completely transparent. What is remarkable is that there are media outlets working overtime to help elect him and yet he won’t sit down for an interview with anyone at the moment.

I write this to get out the frustration partially, but I also write it, because I have every intention after this election is over to research media appropriately and to attempt a grassroots referendum on the irresponsibility of the media. I would hope any who might read this could help refine my arguments with their own thinking, which is very likely, less passionately angry than my own at this moment.

Dan Simpson said...

Don't worry Silver Lining, I read your "late" post. I whole heartedly agree. Over the last couple years I have become less and less "informed", I don't mean that I don't know what is going on, but I am less up to the minute. I find that I don't like watching the news much, unless it is for a laugh.

As for RFB's opinion of Zell Miller, I wasn't a big fan of his speech, I just don't like pulpit pounding, saliva flying, freak outs. Is this an attack on the content, no, it is an indictment of the style. But, I would take Zell Miller any day over his counterpart at the DNC, Al Sharpton. If you were on the fence in this election one thing should sway you. Kerry referred to Al Sharpton as one of the "greatest" americans alive.

On a personal rage point, I have had enough of my congressional district race. I despise John Swallow. I cannot express it enough, he is the epitome of everything that is wrong with politics today.

Though there are a myriad of examples I could use I will only point to the most recent.

John Swallow is campaigning on the fact that he will back up Bush on everything, and Matheson doesn't. That is what all of his commercials have said. Yesterday I saw his new commercial. He is attacking Matheson for siding with big drug companies instead of seniors by voting for the medicare drug bill. I had to do a double take and see if this was a Kerry commercial slamming Bush. When did Swallow become a democrat and start trying to win elections by freaking out seniors. I have only voted for a democrat twice before, but I am totally voting for Matheson, and if that isn't a big enough endorsement, my wife (who has never voted for a democrat before), will also be voting for Matheson.

RealFruitBeverage said...


I agree with a lot of what you posted about media in the U.S. You could start your own blog. I don't know if you'd be into that but I'm sure I'd visit often. As I have no life and Agora, BWWA, and MMITB blogs occupy most of my time. I know that blogging if done right can really help clarity ideas, and make your arguments stronger.


As for Zell on a scale of 1-10 10 being the most distasteful I'd give Zell a 9 on style and a 6 on content. As for Al vs Zell, I'm inclined to agree with you. Al is a crook. He even tried to buy cocaine on video tape. Al is a strat up jerk face.

About Swallow, yeah he's a jerk to. I keep laughing when I see the commercials. I hope he loses by a landslide.

Silver Lining said...

I will eventually start a blog of my own, but I still feel helpless. I have already started working on that end too. When there is more information, I will take the time to put something together. In the mean time, I spend my time doing what would seem unimportant, but it matters to people who matter very much to me.

The real point of posting again here is only to say Al Sharpton is one of the single biggest racists I have ever seen or heard. Yes, a racist.

Dr. Health said...

The Communist murders who slaughtered our heros and enslave the people of Vietnam today, claim John Kerry as their War Hero.