‘The Axis of Idiots’

[namvet]

by J. D. Pendry - Sergeant Major, USMC, Retired


Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the U.S.S. Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam .. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq .. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam .. You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq , like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

...

You are America ’s ‘AXIS OF IDIOTS.’ Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam … If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.
...
source (source)

[Gaffer]

He says what I have said all along. He just writes it better. Good find.

[gabosaurus]

I thought this was going to be a thread about you, gaffer and Glock. :p

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

I thought this was going to be a thread about you, gaffer and Glock. :p :poke: When I saw the title I figured it was about Joe Steel Manfrommaine and you

[namvet]

He says what I have said all along. He just writes it better. Good find.

ill put in some of russ vaughn's poetry. its for Americans. not turd eatin' liberals. he and I swift boated kerrys ass together...........

[Gaffer]

I thought this was going to be a thread about you, gaffer and Glock. :p

If you mean its a thread about us thinking like this, then your correct.

[ranger]

I can't help but notice that none of the libs responding deny they're an axis of idiots........

[midcan5]

Most people forget Beirut and Reagan's response. And the first attack on the WTC happened right after Clinton got in office, notice he didn't condemn Reagan and Bush Sr. And 911 happened on Bush Jr watch after he had been warned. And Jimmy Carter is a free man who served this nation, more than can be said for Bush/Cheney/Rove/Limbaugh etc.

[midcan5]

For a review of the real idiot.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200409u/int2004-09-20

"The military became committed in a way that both foreclosed other options and, more important, made the limits of American power evident in ways they hadn't been since Vietnam. The military has been overused and in some ways abused because of the nature of this war. The problem was not simply the decision to make Iraq the singular focus of the war on terror, but also the way the war and its aftermath were carried out. That goes back to the pattern I mentioned in an earlier article, "Blind into Baghdad," about how focusing on Iraq, without fully committing the resources to see it through, ended up being uniquely harmful for the military and the country.

Now we face worse nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea than ever existed in Iraq, but we're in a weaker position to deal with them..."

[Gaffer]

Most people forget Beirut and Reagan's response. And the first attack on the WTC happened right after Clinton got in office, notice he didn't condemn Reagan and Bush Sr. And 911 happened on Bush Jr watch after he had been warned. And Jimmy Carter is a free man who served this nation, more than can be said for Bush/Cheney/Rove/Limbaugh etc.

More liberal tripe. Historical facts trumps liberal bullshit and blind Bush hatred every time. You can't argue the facts so you try to spin it in another direction.

[Silver]

Most people forget Beirut and Reagan's response. And the first attack on the WTC happened right after Clinton got in office, notice he didn't condemn Reagan and Bush Sr. And 911 happened on Bush Jr watch after he had been warned. And Jimmy Carter is a free man who served this nation, more than can be said for Bush/Cheney/Rove/Limbaugh etc.

Or Obama and Clinton for that matter....

but then...only one REAL draft dodger in the fuckin' lot...

[Kathianne]

Most people forget Beirut and Reagan's response. And the first attack on the WTC happened right after Clinton got in office, notice he didn't condemn Reagan and Bush Sr. And 911 happened on Bush Jr watch after he had been warned. And Jimmy Carter is a free man who served this nation, more than can be said for Bush/Cheney/Rove/Limbaugh etc.

Right:

http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/01/09/clinton/index.html




Jan 9, 2002 | To raise the question of former President Bill Clinton's record on terrorism in the wake of Sept. 11 is to invite a chorus of disapproval. For bringing the subject up, you will be accused of pathological "Clinton hatred," a vendetta, and so on and so forth. Whatever. Let's just go to the tape, shall we? What follows is a chronology of Bill Clinton's response to terrorism, as reported and compiled by major news organizations, in particular the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Sunday Times and the New Yorker. I cite nothing here that isn't already in the public record. Any defense of Clinton has to deal with these facts. So deal with them.

Clinton got his warning about Islamist terrorism very early on. Almost as soon as he got into office, terrorists struck at the World Trade Center in New York. Six people were killed and hundreds injured. Although the investigation found links to Osama bin Laden and a burgeoning network of Islamist terrorists, no commensurate response from the United States was unearthed by any of the major newspapers investigating the record. Was the danger conveyed to the president? "Clinton was aware of the threat and sometimes he would mention it," Leon Panetta told the New York Times. The president preferred to focus on the economy. "In retrospect, the wake-up call should have been the 1993 World Trade Center bombing," Michael Sheehan, counter-terrorism coordinator at the Clinton State Department, conceded to the New York Times. Some immigration laws were tightened marginally. But that was it. Why wasn't the threat taken more seriously? According to George Stephanopoulos, the White House ignored the implications of the first WTC attack because "it wasn't a successful bombing." Clinton never even paid a visit to the site.

If six dead and hundreds more injured were not enough to galvanize the new commander in chief, neither was the murder of 18 American soldiers in Somalia shortly afterward. The State Department confirmed that bin Laden had helped train the terrorists who killed these soldiers and dragged the body of one through the streets of Mogadishu. Clinton did nothing to retaliate after the incident, blamed Gen. Colin Powell privately for the mess and, indeed, according to administration sources, learned from the fracas only the importance of staying out of dangerous foreign entanglements. For his part, bin Laden learned that the United States was not serious about countering the public murder of its own soldiers abroad or civilians at home.

By the end of Clinton's first term, the government began to stir. The CIA finally set up a special unit to monitor al-Qaida. In the years since 1993, the network had gained traction and organization in its African client state of Sudan. Then the administration got an amazingly lucky break. The Sudanese government offered to hand over bin Laden to the United States, just as it had handed over Carlos the Jackal to the French in 1994. The Sudanese also offered to provide the United States with a massive intelligence file on al-Qaida's operations in Sudan and around the world. Astonishingly, the Clinton administration turned the offer down. They argued that there was no solid legal proof to indict bin Laden in the United States. This was despite the fact that internal government documents had fingered bin Laden for ties to the first WTC bombing, the murders in Mogadishu and the 1992 bombing of a hotel in Aden, Yemen. For all this, the administration still viewed al-Qaida as a matter for domestic civil and criminal law enforcement. Instead of seizing the terrorist, the administration wanted Saudi Arabia or some other third party to seize him. The Saudis demurred. "In the end they said, 'Just ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to Somalia,'" a Sudanese negotiator told the Washington Post. "We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they said, 'Let him.'" The administration didn't even use the negotiations with the Sudanese to disable bin Laden's financial assets in the Sudan. He was able to transfer them to his new base, where he used them essentially to buy the Taliban regime.

Within a month, al-Qaida struck again in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American soldiers with a 5,000-pound bomb. Even senior Clinton officials concede that allowing bin Laden to go free was a massive mistake. "Had we been able to roll up bin Laden then, it would have made a significant difference," a "U.S. government official with responsibilities, then and now, in counterterrorism," told the Washington Post last October. "We probably never would have seen a Sept. 11." Read that sentence again: We probably never would have seen a Sept. 11. That's from someone working in the Clinton administration.

...

[retiredman]

"They argued that there was no solid legal proof to indict bin Laden in the United States. This was despite the fact that internal government documents had fingered bin Laden for ties to the first WTC bombing, the murders in Mogadishu and the 1992 bombing of a hotel in Aden, Yemen."

I have never seen any indication that we had anything on Osama prior to May of 1995 that would justify taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil. Do you have a link, other than an op-ed piece, that would prove this statement.

[midcan5]

More liberal tripe. Historical facts trumps liberal bullshit and blind Bush hatred every time. You can't argue the facts so you try to spin it in another direction.

Read that over - maybe I missed a reply?

[midcan5]

Kathianne, but then one has to look at Reagan and Bush Sr who obviously were asleep at the wheel. If you are going to point fingers make sure they are fair fingers.

"REAGAN’S LOUSY RECORD ON TERRORISM

It’s often forgotten, but Reagan’s eight years in office witnessed a marked increase in acts of international terrorism. In fact, terrorists killed far more Americans during the 1980s than during the 1990s. In 1983, Hezbollah suicide bombers attacked the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63. Later that year, in October, a 12,000-pound bomb destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans–the most deadly terrorist strike against the United States until September 11."

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20040621&s=lizza062104

http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/20/hannitys-reagan-myth-blown-to-pieces/

[Kathianne]

Kathianne, but then one has to look at Reagan and Bush Sr who obviously were asleep at the wheel. If you are going to point fingers make sure they are fair fingers.

"REAGAN’S LOUSY RECORD ON TERRORISM

It’s often forgotten, but Reagan’s eight years in office witnessed a marked increase in acts of international terrorism. In fact, terrorists killed far more Americans during the 1980s than during the 1990s. In 1983, Hezbollah suicide bombers attacked the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63. Later that year, in October, a 12,000-pound bomb destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans–the most deadly terrorist strike against the United States until September 11."

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20040621&s=lizza062104

http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/20/hannitys-reagan-myth-blown-to-pieces/

I'm not going back, but your post reminds one of how the left deals with the problems of THEIR making. The Right acknowledges the problems encompassed with Reagan, Bush I, and the current administration, to the Nth degree. The left is silent reagarding Carter, Clinton, or the current crop of front runners. Then again, they may wish for the annhilation or serious hits of US.

[Silver]

"They argued that there was no solid legal proof to indict bin Laden in the United States. This was despite the fact that internal government documents had fingered bin Laden for ties to the first WTC bombing, the murders in Mogadishu and the 1992 bombing of a hotel in Aden, Yemen."

I have never seen any indication that we had anything on Osama prior to May of 1995 that would justify taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil. Do you have a link, other than an op-ed piece, that would prove this statement.

no solid legal proof to indict bin Laden in the United States...Really?

despite the fact that internal government documents had fingered bin Laden for ties to the first WTC bombing.....Really????

Are you a grown up with the mind of a child?
Are you really a goodie goodie two shoes?
Are you really naive to the danger of international terrorism?
Are you really too braindead to realize your country has been attacked ...?
Is reality over your head ?

OBL should have been killed at the earliest opportunity by Billy boy...
NOT arrested...NOT indicted....
HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED....quietly but surely.....

Do you think we are playing some kind of game with terrorists ??? That we have to follow the rules on the bottom of the game box ?
Don't your brain comprehend that Islamic fanatics are willing to kill us ....anywhere and everywhere, anytime....

[retiredman]

no solid legal proof to indict bin Laden in the United States...Really?

despite the fact that internal government documents had fingered bin Laden for ties to the first WTC bombing.....Really????

Are you a grown up with the mind of a child?
Are you really a goodie goodie two shoes?
Are you really naive to the danger of international terrorism?
Are you really too braindead to realize your country has been attacked ...?
Is reality over your head ?

OBL should have been killed at the earliest opportunity by Billy boy...
NOT arrested...NOT indicted....
HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED....quietly but surely.....

Do you think we are playing some kind of game with terrorists ???
Don't you brain comprehend that Islamic fanatics are willing to kill us ....anywhere and everywhere

I have never seen these "internal documents" of which you speak, nor seen the dates on them. Have you?

And I am glad to see that your promise of cordial debate was so long lived.

[Silver]

I have never seen these "internal documents" of which you speak, nor seen the dates on them. Have you?

And I am glad to see that your promise of cordial debate was so long lived.

The "internal documents" came from your post...I just repeated them....

I'm sorry for the strong words but I can't possibly express how serious these issues must be taken....
I didn't directly call you out...each was in the form of a question....

Don't you realize that if Clinton what the fuckin' balls to KILL this OBL asshole when he had an opportunity, the issues that seperate us today would not exist....
INDICT HIM ?, ARREST HIM ?...thats a freekin cops and robbers game...thats not protecting the country from terrorism....
No wonder he was a draft dodger....he has the mind of a school yard punk instead of the leader of nation....

[retiredman]

The "internal documents" came from your post...I just repeated them....

I'm sorry for the strong words but I can't possible express how serious these issues must be taken....
I didn't directly call you out...each was in the form of a question....

Don't you realize that if Clinton what the fuckin' balls to KILL this OBL asshole when he had an opportunity, the issues that seperate us today would not exist....
INDICT HIM ?, ARREST HIM ?...thats a freekin cops and robbers game...thats not protecting the country from terrorism....
No wonder he was a draft dodger....he has the mind of a school yard punk instead of the leader of nation....

I suggest that, in May of 1995, we did not know enough about this fellow named Osama bin Laden to warrant us taking custody of him.

and of course, your insults to me were not really to me...and you are being an upstanding internet debater and I have a reputation for being an asshole. I understand completely. You really are blameless and would never toss the first insult. Of course.

[Gaffer]

In the 80's Reagan was dealing with the soviet threat. There were few attacks by muslims outside the middle east. Most terrorist activity was communist inspired. Even when carter was in office the take over of iran was a communist inspired move. komanhi jumped in and took advantage of it. He then executed all the communist. carter sold out the shah to allow the russians to get iran. They both lost that one.

Bush 1 screwed up by not completing what he started out to do in iraq. clinton did absolutely nothing for eight years except hamstring the fbi and cia and cut the military.

Gore lost the election and you libs went nuts with Bush hatred. In sixty years of presidents I have never seen such venomous hatred for a president as I have over the past 7 and a half years.

We are in the middle of a long war that started in 1979. A lot of presidents made a lot of wrong decisions. There will be a lot more presidents and a lot more wrong decisions before its over. There are real enemies out there that deserve your venom. Stop the war against Bush and concentrate on the war with islam who really does want to take away your rights and freedoms.

[Silver]

OK...I;m out of line.....
]
My point is that if our intell connected OBL to terrorism he should have dealt with ... not indicted, not arrested...he should have been terminated.....
Bombing the WTC was not a move in a game ...its serious business....
if the intell even suspected he was involved....hes dead....

Try this on for a reality check....WAR HAS NO RULES.....

We don't say that in public and don't advertise it, but that is the reality...
you kill you enemy .... it doesn't matter how...
you dont' kill him humanly ... you kill him, period...

[retiredman]

OK...I;m out of line.....
]
My point is that if our intell connected OBL to terrorism he should have dealt with ... not indicted, not arrested...he should have been terminated.....
Bombing the WTC was not a move in a game ...its serious business....
if the intell even suspected he was involved....hes dead....

Try this on for a reality check....WAR HAS NO RULES.....

We don't say that in public and don't advertise it, but that is the reality...
you kill you enemy .... it doesn't matter how...
you dont' kill him humanly ... you kill him, period...


of course you are not out of line...and neither are any of my other antagonists on this or any other board.... you all, no doubt, have perfectly good reasons to retaliate for some insult of mine. maineman MUST have been the initial perpetrator. that goes without saying, doesn't it?

My point was that, in May of 95, we did not know enough about OBL to take custody of him...

and post 9/11 hindsight is really piercingly clear, isn't it? Much better than 20/20.... unfortunately, it is still hindsight.

hindsight should also tell us that Reagan made a TERRIBLE error by running away from Beirut after the marine barracks was bombed, but oddly enough, those "visionaries" on the right never see those sorts of things quite so clearly.

[Silver]

of course you are not out of line...and neither are any of my other antagonists on this or any other board.... you all, no doubt, have perfectly good reasons to retaliate for some insult of mine. maineman MUST have been the initial perpetrator. that goes without saying, doesn't it?

My point was that, in May of 95, we did not know enough about OBL to take custody of him...

and post 9/11 hindsight is really piercingly clear, isn't it? Much better than 20/20.... unfortunately, it is still hindsight.

hindsight should also tell us that Reagan made a TERRIBLE error by running away from Beirut after the marine barracks was bombed, but oddly enough, those "visionaries" on the right never see those sorts of things quite so clearly.

I agree that Reagan failed the test...he ran and thats the fact of the matter...I don't know what occurred behind the scenes...but certainly nothing occurred that the world could see...
My point is that its irrelevant if evidence proved OBL was involved to the degree that law required...
It ain't a cops and robbers game...if our intell was 50.1% in favor of OBL , he should have been killed at the earliest....war is not a game of proof and lawyers and trials.....

[retiredman]

I agree that Reagan failed the test...he ran and thats the fact of the matter...I don't know what occurred behind the scenes...but certainly nothing occurred that the world could see...
My point is that its irrelevant if evidence proved OBL was involved to the degree that law required...
It ain't a cops and robbers game...if our intell was 50.1% in favor of OBL , he should have been killed at the earliest....war is not a game of proof and lawyers and trials.....

and Clinton tried to get him and the republicans in congress wailed about "wag the dog", or did you forget.

again...hindsight is piercingly clear...but it is still hindsight...and applying post 9/11 hindsight to actions taken pre-9/11 is really not appropriate.

[Silver]

and Clinton tried to get him and the republicans in congress wailed about "wag the dog", or did you forget.

again...hindsight is piercingly clear...but it is still hindsight...and applying post 9/11 hindsight to actions taken pre-9/11 is really not appropriate.

Oh please ...you ain't gonna drag that old dog out are ya....
that was a farce even you can't deny with a straight face....Its
Not even worthy of a serous response....

[retiredman]

Oh please ...you ain't gonna drag that old dog out are ya....
that was a farce even you can't deny with a straight face....Its
Not even worthy of a serous response....

so the cruise missile attack on the AQ compound in Afghanistan is fictional? or was the republican response to it a figment of my imagination?

and AGAIN....using post 9/11 hindsight to denigrate pre-9/11 policy decisions is disingenuous.... but oh, so easy to do, isn't it?

[Silver]

so the cruise missile attack on the AQ compound in Afghanistan is fictional? or was the republican response to it a figment of my imagination?

and AGAIN....using post 9/11 hindsight to denigrate pre-9/11 policy decisions is disingenuous.... but oh, so easy to do, isn't it?

Fictional? No, I can't claim that...but the missile attack was fanciful in the extreem...
Remember when we actually had OBL in our sights in real time ....and Clinton wouldn't pull the trigger because of the lag time ... the missile wouldn't arrive until some hours later....
And you point to his "wag the dog" launch as a serious event....get real .....
But of course you want it both ways....

OBL should have been dead long, long before 9/11....not captured, not indicted, not arrested....but DEAD....

[Gaffer]

and Clinton tried to get him and the republicans in congress wailed about "wag the dog", or did you forget.

again...hindsight is piercingly clear...but it is still hindsight...and applying post 9/11 hindsight to actions taken pre-9/11 is really not appropriate.

So it's ok to use hind sight and blame Bush for not doing anything in nine months, but it's not ok to lay blame on the previous 8 years.

clinton played wag the dog with iraq, not bin laden.

[retiredman]

So it's ok to use hind sight and blame Bush for not doing anything in nine months, but it's not ok to lay blame on the previous 8 years.



you tell me. you seem to hold Bush blameless while putting the blame on Clinton. And Clinton's attack of the AQ compound in Afghanistan was criticized by republicans...

[retiredman]

OBL should have been dead long, long before 9/11....not captured, not indicted, not arrested....but DEAD....


and again...I believe you benefit from post-9/11 hindsight in making that assessment.... but maybe it's me who has the mind of a child or is braindead or naive on this matter.

[Silver]

you tell me. you seem to hold Bush blameless while putting the blame on Clinton. And Clinton's attack of the AQ compound in Afghanistan was criticized by republicans...

Not at all....Bush had 8 months....Clinton had 8 years.....both of them screwed up...:finger3: