image stats
date added
previous votes
log in


indent register
indent recover

Bad Opponents

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
Bad Opponents

Comments for: Bad Opponents
ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: July 04, 2008 04:20PM

Thats right demo-fags and you flamboyant cock sucking liberals...four more years fer the republicans..hell yeah!thumbs

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2008 04:21PM by ORLANDO399.
Reality Check Report This Comment
Date: July 04, 2008 06:24PM

Orlando, you must live in Canada because anyone with a brain knows that the U.S. is FAR worse shape after 8 years of the Bush administration. The economy is in a shambles. Unemployment is approaching record highs. There is no end in sight in Iraq - despite the fact that Saddam Hussein is long dead and we never found any weapons of mass destruction. Gas prices are spiraling out of control, and there is no meaningful pursuit of viable alternative energy sources. Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose, and the international community hates our guts.

But hey -- Bill Clinton got a blowjob, right?

How about taking a look at the issues and ideas for a change instead of voting straight ticket Repulican just because that's what daddy always did. The Republican party ain't what it used to be. Anyone who thinks that it is is completely clueless and out of touch with reality.
pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: July 04, 2008 06:38PM

^^^agree 100% with you reality check...
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: July 04, 2008 06:51PM

When you see people like Orlando399 supporting you, you know you're fucked! Talk about the blind leading the blind.
zxz555 Report This Comment
Date: July 04, 2008 10:13PM

Totally agree with reality check too, but I have to point out that the record high oil price is not harming the president of the united states who is a major investor in the oil industry. America may be fucked, but the people running america are sorted.
ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: July 05, 2008 02:44AM

Clinton was too busy playing golf, chasing skirts and prepping for photo ops to be bothered with defending our nation.

What haunted me more than anything else was that [President Clinton] refused to make a decision. Human lives were at stake – the lives of American service members and the lives of our allies who opposed Saddam at our behest and were now under attack. At a time when America’s honor and grander principles were being challenged and the world was watching our every move… the president was watching golf. ...I approached the president and said, “Sir, our aircraft are ready, bombs loaded, and waiting for your command…His reply destroyed my faith in him as commander-in-chief and convinced me that the greatest security risk to the United States was none other than…the president himself.
— Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, USAF (Ret.), author of “Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America’s National Security,” recalling his three different attempts to pull Clinton away from watching the Presidents’ Cup long enough to give the go-ahead to bomb Iraq on Sept. 13, 1996. With lives hanging in the balance, Clinton, all three times, replied that he would deal with it later.

Even as the second anniversary of September 11 arrives, the Left is still tirelessly re-scripting this ultimate legacy of the Clinton-Gore Administration: The gross negligence and complete dereliction of duty of Bill Clinton in preventing the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on American soil. For this reason, Clinton’s role on September 11, and why he must be held accountable for his blood-guiltiness, can never be overemphasized.

Undoubtedly, our nation has paid a heavy price for Clinton’s backing down in response to murderous despots during his own criminal reign. In other words, during his calamitous tenure as president of the greatest country in the world, Clinton had shown that national security was never his top priority.

In fact, more terrorist attacks occurred on Clinton’s watch, both inside and outside of U.S. borders, than during any other presidential administration in U.S. history:

-- The 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and injured 1,000
-- The 1993 Mogadishu firefight that killed 18 U.S. soldiers
-- The 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist attack on the federal building by American extremists that killed 168, wounding several hundred others
-- The 1995 Saudi Arabia car bomb that killed 5 U.S. military personnel
-- The 1996 Khobal Towers bombing that killed 19 U.S. soldiers, wounding 515
-- The 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 231 citizens, 12 Americans and injured 5,000
-- The 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. sailors, wounding 39

With each terrorist attack, Clinton went before the American people and promised that “those responsible would be hunted down and punished.” However, we now know that nothing came of Clinton’s empty promises but spineless, politically driven, Wag-the-Dog diversions.

In all – including Clinton’s culpability in opening the door to Sept. 11, 2001 when he turned down three offers to have Usama bin Laden arrested as well as several other deliberate national security bungles – global terrorists murdered over 3,000 of our own citizens (which includes the Sept. 11 atrocities) during the Clinton-Gore years.

According to a Wall Street Journal’s September 9 editorial, the 3,000+ people killed to date as a result of Clinton’s recklessness is nearly eight times the number of those who have died fighting back in Iraq.

In reality, during the September 11 attacks, Clinton gave 19 barbaric hijackers over two years to plan these atrocities, when they illegally slipped into the U.S. under Clinton and Gore’s much-relaxed airport security and immigration policies. Because when it came to fighting terrorism and keeping his vows to protect us, Clinton was too busy playing golf, chasing skirts and prepping for photo ops to be bothered.

Ultimately, Clinton, who probably thought he, too, could get 72 virgins by appeasing bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, failed miserably in his phony wars against terrorism.

From allowing the slaughter of nearly one million people in Rwanda and over 2,000 in Kosovo, to permitting 150 bin Laden supporters to board planes en route to Quatar, the fact remains that September 11, 2001 will always be what collectively defines the legacy of Bill Clinton, whose treacherous policies allowed Hussein and bin Laden to rise to power.

While the leftists in the media continue to show endless joy in tallying the daily deaths of our troops in Iraq under the Bush Administration, they have willfully whitewashed the many intelligence and security breaches that Clinton wrought on our nation.

In fact, for the past 10 years, while Clinton’s blatant treason has been thoroughly documented and accurately catalogued by some of the most respected national security experts and former Clinton officials, the leftist media to this day still refuse to hold Clinton personally responsible for the murders of our own countrymen two years ago.

What’s more, while the Bush Administration has taken a strong stance against global terrorism and has systematically thwarted over 100 known Al-Qaeda-plotted attacks from reaching American soil, Bill Clinton still enjoys the free ride the leftist media have given him for eight years of national defense negligence.

Although Clinton even partially admitted his guilt, saying, “It was the worst mistake of my presidency” in letting bin Laden go, the leftist media still look the other way.

To further illustrate Clinton’s culpability for the September 11 terrorist attacks, United Press International reported on September 17, 2001 that Clinton hushed up a 1994 Federal Report warning of hijack attacks.

In an exclusive story written just six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the 1994 federal report (called “Terror 2000”) warned of possible terrorist strikes, including how hijackers could use airliners to hit landmarks such as the Pentagon or White House.

UPI reporter Pam Hess reported that the Clinton administration never released “Terror 2000” to the public, “purportedly because of concerns in the State Department it would cause panic.”

In fact, Hess wrote that the report not only “outlined the changing face of terrorism but also seemed to predict the scope and timing of the attacks carried out against the World Trade Center and Pentagon." “Targets such as the World Trade Center not only provide the requisite casualties but because of their symbolic nature provide more bang for the buck,” Hess wrote. “In order to maximize their odds for success, terrorist groups will likely consider mounting multiple, simultaneous operations with the aim of overtaxing a government’s ability to respond, as well as to demonstrate their professionalism and reach."

In a related matter involving Clinton’s complete willingness to appease terrorists rather than confront them, according to reporter Paul Sperry, Clinton exported NSA-ducking phone, high-tech encryption devices to Syria, which has been a hotbed for international terrorist networks. Sperry reported that the 19 Islamic terrorists who plotted to strike at America’s nerve centers in New York and Washington “spent months, if not years, researching, planning and coordinating the surprise attacks,” all on Clinton’s watch.

In fact, Peter M. Leitner, a senior strategic trade adviser at the Defense Department, who reviews commercial license applications for exports of some of the most sophisticated military-related technology, told Sperry the day after the terrorist attacks: “The technology that would allow these terrorists to mask their communications was given away, hand over fist, by the Clinton administration.”

Still another example of Clinton’s compromise with our nation’s security infrastructure occurred in October 1997 when the Clinton administration falsely certified the People’s Republic of China as a nuclear nonproliferator, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. “Clinton officials went so far, sources say,” wrote Insight magazine’s Scott Wheeler on Aug. 25, “as threatening to fire a senior defense analyst unless he changed his analysis, which was based on the overwhelming preponderance of all available intelligence sources that Beijing was proliferating nuclear technology and materials to rogue nations.”

In fact, these recent revelations concerning the Clinton “false certification” come on the heels of the incessant Democrat attacks on President Bush for allegedly manipulating intelligence to support the war in Iraq (and what Clinton deliberately did in 1998).

But, Wheeler wrote, a senior Department of Defense analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “Since the Clinton administration ignored intelligence warnings and issued the 'false certification' of China as a nonproliferating nation, “there has been undeniable evidence of transfers of nuclear technology from the People’s Republic of China to North Korea and Iran.” "Both North Korea and Iran are considered by the Bush administration to be rogue nations already in possession of nuclear weapons or on the brink of having them.”

According to a 1999 Newsweek report, CIA sources said “terrorists received money and passports from Iran and that Iranian agents were casing American facilities in 1995.”

In addition, Newsweek also reported that despite the evidence, lawmakers were concerned that Iran will go unpunished. “My big fear,” said Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, “is we won’t pursue it because of some rapprochement with Iran.” Obviously, Clinton knew about the NSA intercept and never said a word. “Here it was the Saudis and [President] Clinton who protected Iran from the fury of American citizens,” Newsweek reported.

Indeed, Clinton left the door wide open to global terrorism because he was too cowardly and self-absorbed to care about protecting this country.

Despite criticism from arrogant, anti-American Democrats who have proven to be extremely soft on national defense, Bush is to be commended. But undeniably, at the same time Bush restored our U.S. military strength, Bush also inherited Clinton’s messes.

God forbid we should ever have another Bill Clinton – a spineless sycophant who easily cowers to global terrorists, at the expense of the safety and security of Americans.

That’s the difference between George W. Bush and Clinton: Bush will not back down nor relent to our enemies like Clinton and his worthless propagators in the liberal media have done.

As the Left manipulates the truth about September 11 as a deliberate attempt to make Americans forget Clinton’s culpability, this Thursday should be a reminder to those who are guilty of unleashing global despotism – the Clinton Administration.

To this day, the Left collectively refuses to criticize Clinton’s bogus, Wag-the-Dog bombings that went on without question from the liberal media hacks, as well as Clinton’s top military officials. For example, fellow traitor Gen. Clark, who proved to be a willing pawn in Clinton’s political PR games in order to further his own military career.

One of the many blaring examples of how the liberal media shielded Clinton from criticism in his spurious wars came during his address to the nation on Dec. 16, 1998, where CNN’s lack of fault-finding with Clinton’s military plan was always evident:

-- The president said Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
-- “Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,” Clinton said.
-- Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
-- “Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces,” Clinton said.
-- “Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,” said Clinton.
-- Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. 'Without delay, diplomacy or warning' (subhead)
-- The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way…

Now, compare that to CNN’s transparent hostility towards Bush’s dealings with Iraq in the following headlines (especially concerning the uranium controversy): CNN’s July 9, 2003 headline: “Storm over U.S. Iraq admission.”

The first three paragraphs read:

A political firestorm is erupting in the U.S. over President Bush’s assertion that Iraq sought to buy nuclear material from Africa.
The White House has admitted that assertion – made by Bush during the annual State of the Union address last January – was based on faulty information.
The chairman of the opposition Democratic Party is accusing the Bush administration of a cover up and senior Senate democrats are calling for a full investigation.

CNN not only refers to Clinton, in a citation, as “President Clinton,” the caption under Bush’s picture said that Bush “made the allegation about Iraq…” Also, no Democrat ever called for a full investigation of Clinton going to war on false intelligence.

• CNN’s July 10, 2003 headline: “Bush defends decision on Iraqi war.”
Subheading: Democrats want discredited uranium claim probed
• CNN’s July 12, 2003 headline: “Bush stands by CIA after Iraq mistake.” Subheading: Tenet admits error in agency’s approval of president’s speech

In the above CNN stories, not only did they discredit Bush, they also highlighted Saddam’s calls for revenge and the acid attacks leveled by imbecilic Democrats. To Clinton propagandists like CNN, Clinton’s wars were justified; Bush’s wars were not.

Despite Bush using the exact same arguments Clinton used to bomb Iraq in 1998, Bush has been attacked relentlessly just because Bush, a conservative Republican president, was willing to finish the job that Clinton should have seen through to the end. Only Clinton didn’t want the political fallout that the Left is trying to heap on Bush.

As a result, the disgraced, impeached, disbarred, accused rapist-felon, has never endured the fury from his fellow leftist pals in the media and down the political aisle. Instead, Clinton opted to let someone else take the fall – namely George W. Bush.

That being said, Clinton’s political and personal ambitions eventually trumped any and all concerns for our nation’s safety and security, which ultimately came at a terrible price. Unlike Clinton, Bush has the resolve to annihilate our enemies and keep them at bay.

Unlike Clinton, Bush has taken seriously the same presidential oath Clinton swore by in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Clearly, Clinton broke this sacred oath to “preserve, protect and defend” us when he allowed our enemies total access to our borders, infrastructure and monetary system.

Bush, on the other hand, has kept that promise, despite the acerbic attacks from anti-American war protesters and the equally treasonous Democratic Party, who brazenly hates this country and the Judeo-Christian values that have established it.

In the end, Clinton proved to be a paper tiger who practiced tough talk with no action. Instead of being proactive like Bush, Clinton was reactive and it eventually cost innocent lives. When he did launch his phony wars, Clinton, Gen. Wesley Clark and other administration officials ran with their tail between their legs; all without one peep of criticism from such leftist media enablers as CNN.

In fact, media leftists like CNN loved Clinton’s appeasement of our enemies. CNN should know: Their top news executive admitted in April to covering up 12 years of Iraqi atrocities in order to maintain a Baghdad bureau, while their own correspondents were being subjected to torture (which also went unreported). This should have sent up red flags as to what Clinton knew about the cover-up, since he’s a close friend of Ted Turner.

Now, Clinton, who was brought up last year on war crimes by the International Criminal Court – along with Gen. Wesley Clark (who actually had tanks pointed directly at our own unsuspecting U.S. troops), Madelyn Albright and 19 others, must answer for compromising our national security that could have prevented in the Sept. 11 atrocities.

With the willing assistance of the leftist media, Clinton and his willing derelicts have the innocent blood of over 3,000 of our citizens on their hands. It’s time they be held accountable for the real reason we had to win a just war – and why we had to fight the enemies Clinton refused to conquer.

Shortly after the devastation of Sept. 11, 2001, in his typical defiant mode, Clinton blamed America for the Sept. 11 attacks. Clinton claimed that Sept. 11 happened because America mistreated Native Americans and slaves “when we looked the other way,” and “are still paying a price.”

No, the price we are still paying is eight years of Clinton holding this nation hostage because he chose to look the other way by not stopping terrorism, which could have prevented the Sept. 11 atrocities from ever happening.

In the end, Clinton had the opportunity to stave off the bloodshed of September 11 but didn’t, which will always and forever be his ultimate legacy.

So this is the type of person you guys want at the helm of the us?These are facts unlike stooge anons riculous youtube videos.Looks to me more than getting his dick sucked...pathetic
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: July 05, 2008 03:40AM

Wow , Olando399 is retarted.......
Reality Check Report This Comment
Date: July 05, 2008 04:36AM

Wow, Orlando really knows how to cut and paste from conservative propaganda Web sites. It only proves my point that he only pursues one point of view. How much do you want to bet that he only watches Fox News and listens to Rush Limpdick, Bill (I'm a "progressive" not a conservative) O'Reilly, Anne (Cunt with a huge Adam's apple) Coulter and all the other conservative brain washers polluting our airwaves and print media.

If the Republican party was anything like what it used to be, I would support them too. But the party is so different than it was 20 years ago that it's unrecognizable.

Republican used to mean fiscal responsibility, smaller government and good family values. Under Bush, the party has become a big-government money-wasting bunch of idiots totally controlled by big business.

The worst thing about the Democrats is that they always raise taxes to high heaven. But then again, you can't spend money the way the Bush administration has without eventually writing a check to pay the bills.
ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: July 05, 2008 06:37AM

change change change....ideas ideas ideas..thats all i ever here from all the nonrepublican partys..all lies,and all it ever will be.I heard bill clinton tell us that fer eight years...To be truthful if the democrats or liberals would make nation security a high priority and keep our nations military strong,id prolly change my opinion,but unfortunately there hasnt been any one like that from the nonrepublican party since the 70s.disappointed smiley
zxz555 Report This Comment
Date: July 05, 2008 11:20AM

relaity check, you should register here thumbs
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 05, 2008 11:44AM

I will support anyone who will see the danger of radical Islam and will do something about it.
Placelowerplace Report This Comment
Date: July 05, 2008 06:03PM

I miss Ron Reagan. except the for the "just say "no"' program smoking
ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: July 05, 2008 08:37PM

Hey zxz ya wanna sniff his ass too?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2008 08:37PM by ORLANDO399.
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: July 05, 2008 11:22PM

Where in the hell is the beast when you need him!
zxz555 Report This Comment
Date: July 05, 2008 11:25PM

ORLANDO399 Wrote:
> Hey zxz ya wanna sniff his ass too?

Jow do you know it's a guy? And someone who has more of an opinion than the usual teenage mentality gets a welcome from me. You can fuck off though.
ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: July 06, 2008 01:36AM

Looks more like a dicksuck to me.Ive got a great idea especially since your not even from this country.Why dont you go worry about your countrys problems and stop worrying about ours.Thats if your through suckin stooge anons dick of course.As a matter of fact,i bet ya we even have army bases in your country dont we?Fuckin pussys,cant even protect yourselves can
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: July 06, 2008 01:48AM

Where is adcbeast? I think he is sucking Obama's cock somewhere..........
ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: July 06, 2008 02:06AM

Reality check prolly is the beast
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 06, 2008 11:14AM

A vote for Obama is a vote for a race war.
zxz555 Report This Comment
Date: July 07, 2008 09:41AM

Orlando. I'm Scottish so I can tell you outright we've been fighting a lot longer than you and we've been doing it without having to hide in camo holes with guns, so man for man we could probably win any fight coming our way, have done for centuries. I probably got into more fights in high school than you have done in the army against the "enemy". Plus I don't think that welcoming a new user to 613 deserves the ridicule you attempt to place upon it, it would save me from arguing with the same 7 people over and over. Plus it might be one more person to donate and keep the site alive when the crunch comes. Some advice: instead of sitting home on the net and thinking about dick sucking, just go out and get yourself a muscle mary, I won't hate you for it, while you are rimming that boy's aresehole it leaves more slutty american women for me. So go on son, get your sore arse out of the closet!