John Kerry Validates the "Axis of Evil"
 

He may not like the phrase, and he has yet to explicitly approve of it, but yesterday, John Kerry validated the "Axis of Evil."

Remember when the "Axis of Evil" was first mentioned? Many people responded with disbelief that these three nations were named.

Well, yesterday, John Kerry made a speech about American defense policy under a Kerry administration. Which three nations did he focus on? Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

Hardly surprises me that he said this, since he's infamous for saying what people want to hear. To be honest, I'm glad someone said something about N. Korea. God forbid we forget that they actually have nukes.

Who hasn't said anything about N. Korea? And what hasn't been done about N. Korea that you so believe should be done??

-Rudey

Kerry wants to start talks with North Korea to get North Korea to disarm according to his speach. Some of the republicans in reaction to it said Kerry wants to get in bed with North Korea. Is disarming bad and invasion the only good thing?

You really do present things in such an unusual way. Have there been talks with N. Korea this year and last year under a Republican administration? Do you always feel the need to get creative with what you leave out and how you present information? Because it gets annoying.

-Rudey

No one, in a position of power, has proposed invading North Korea. It would be a great idea to invade North Korea, if South Korea wouldn't get hit hard by the North. This would be one of those rare occasions (like Iraq) where fewer civilians would die as a result of a war, than as a result of the status quo.

North Koreans would have to consent to being disarmed, and it would have to be verifiable. The Clinton administration's approach to North Korea could have been scripted by Neville Chamberlain, and now they have nukes. John Kerry has only proposed dialogue. Big deal. He has no credible plan.

Have there been talks in the last year or so? Hmm I need to research that and see if there hae been so I can be "more informed". Any idea what site would provide me that informantion? Thanks.

Only way we'd even consider invading the DANKs (Dumb Assed North Koreans) is if we nuke 'em into oblivion first. Hopefully before they drop one of their nukes in the South.

Unfortunately, you'd piss off China, Russia and Japan to all hell with the resulting fallout from the impromptu urban renewal... :rolleyes:

Actually, China might stand up and cheer. I don't think they're entirely comfortable with the North Koreans right now.

Why was my post deleted? I can easily repost. Nobody insulted anyone at all. One of the questions at the bottom has to be true.

Fact: You find a bunch of useless articles to post on this website. They are often actually in sections of publications called "useless". This means you do search the net for news.

Fact: There have been many talks with N. Korea.

Fact: You present half truths and lies about the Republican administration and have done so repeatedly.

Question: Are you ignorant?

Question: Do you lack intelligence?

Question: Are you deceptive?

-Rudey
--Every time we play the delete Rudey posts, you lose.

China isn't there to play sides. Neither is America. Everyone is there to cover their own ass and to take care of their own interests. The only reason the Chinese bend is for money.

-Rudey

lol

Does that mean you support the Bush administration for negotiating with Kadafi to dismantle Libya's WMDs?

Yes and I agree with their stance on Afghanistan. If Bush could do the same with North Korea I would support that as well.

Qadaffi is one strange mo-fo....

Yeah, especially after he skated a near miss from OUR definition of LIBYA in 1986:

Lakenheath
Is
Bombing
Your
Ass!

:D

He has the coolest bodyguards :D

There is a whole thing some guy wrote about them along with pictures if you're interested.

-Rudey

Tell that to Vincent Foster and the other mysterious suicides that took place during the Clinton administration!

Wow you solved it Clinton murdered him because he lied about sex. lol

It's been fun swaping propaganda but I am off to bed.

Notice that I was talking about the "Clinton administration" as a whole, not just the Monica scandal as you where referring to. :p

Rwanda. 9-11.

Clinton lied about Rwanda? I definately would like to hear about this.

And what did Clinton lie about when it came to 9/11?

People blame Clinton and Bush for not doing enough but what did he lie about?

He completely misrepresented the severity of the genocide, and refused to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to advance the case. So, yes. He was completely dishonest, and that led to far more deaths than have occurred in the Afghani and Iraqi theaters combined. He lied. 900,000 died.

He lied about saying that he was doing everything possible.

He lied by refusing to classify it as a genocide because if the word genocide was used, then the US would be obligated to help.

-Rudey

I don't know if Clinton lied much about Somalia, but based on his track-record, it wouldn't suprise me.

Clinton refused to give the troops in Somalia heavy equipment and kick-ass weapons because he didn't want to turn it into a big incedent. Well it did, and many American troops died as a result of this in Mogadishu (spelling?).
This is even mentioned in the Movie "Black Hawk Down," when the troops refer to "Washington" not giving them the big weapons and stuff.

Nice try on trying to paint Bush as more of a "Waffler" then Kerry. Most of the things you talk about are legitamate changes of opinion and policy after major events, such as 9-11, not just "flip-flopping" on issues.

Kerry has waffled on everything from the war in Iraq, to abortion, to owning an SUV! I just can't get over how someone can't make a decision about whether or not they own an SUV!!!! Kerry generally tells whatever audience whatever he thinks they want to hear.

And lets not forget voting for the 87 billion before voting against it.

Actually, with Kerry in many of these cases, it's not "waffeling". It's simply telling complete lies in order to try to appeal to his immediate audience. I swear the guy has to have some sort of personality disorder.

Wow, people still can't get over Clinton.

Someone posted a picture about Clinton, thus those silly little Democrats just couldn't get over Clinton.

-Rudey

I can't get over Clinton because he is very responsible for 9-11, and that happened a half mile from my home. I had to breath that toxic air for months, but didn't complain because my family was unharmed. I don't blame Clinton for the first WTC bombing that occurred soon after he took office. He had almost 8 years to do something about it, and he didn't.

We're still living with Clinton's incompetence, so we're not over him yet.

But let's tie Clinton in with the "Axis of Evil" nations.

North Korea - His administration struck a deal with them to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. North Korea didn't follow the agreement, and now they have nukes. Thank you Bill Clinton for your incompetence.

Iraq - Allowed genocide to take place, and tolerated Iraq's repeated violations of UN Security Council resolutions. This reduced the credibility of the UN, and led to an emboldened Sadaam Husein who flooded radical Palestinian organizations with money, after 9-11, to further destabilize the region. Thank you Bill Clinton for your incompetence.

Iran - Basically did nothing. I can't say that Bush has been much better here, but we should have thown much more weight behind Iranian exiles who have started broadcasts into Iran, in much the same way of the Reagan funded broadcasts into the Warsaw Pact nations. Also, Iran's role as a state sponsor of terrorist organizations was not confronted. Nor was their nuclear capability confronted. Thank you Bill Clinton for your incompetence.

http://www.adl.org/learn/jttf/wtcb_jttf.asp

This article discusses the first WTC bombing in which numerous people were caught and convicted.

In reading an article on Tenet's resignation, I found this:
The CIA is expected to be harshly criticized in the final report due July 26 from the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. In a preliminary report, the panel found the CIA didn't even identify the al-Qaeda network until 1999 - 11 years after it was formed. Tenet did, however, issue repeated warnings about the threat posed by Osama bin Laden.

So, if the presence of the al-Qaeda network wasn't known until 1999, nobody could have done much about it. We can also be pretty sure that when/if we capture bin Laden, it won't be the end of al Qaeda. In fact, it will probably trigger more terror incidents. Not that we shouldn't go after bin Laden anyway, but they have said that the 9/11 incident was in the planning since 1996, so it's pretty tough to say that anybody could have prevented it.

Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11, not Bush, not Clinton, not Bush Sr., not anybody, but Al Qaeda. If they were determined to do a similar attack today, I doubt anybody would stop them, even now.

Dee

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?...24fr_archive03

That the Clinton administration wasn't aware of Al Qaeda until 1999 is just semantics. They were aware of the key players, and the potential danger that they represented, and they did next to nothing.

More to the point, Sudan offered the Clinton administration Osama bin laden. Three times. The Clinton administration declined. Three times.