Page 1 of 3

Carter & Clinton Join Anti-American Forces

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 1:41 am
by southerngale
I'm sure some of you won't like this, but he makes some excellent points.



Carter & Clinton Join Anti-American Forces

February 18, 2003


Jimmy Carter has joined the useful idiots of the UK's ultra-liberal Daily Mirror tabloid's "Not in My Name" campaign. He and Bill Clinton have gone to unprecedented lengths to bash Bush and America, giving appeasers like Chirac and Schroeder the cover they need to do the same thing. The anti-American protests around the world who oppose the liberation of Iraq (those among them who love America make up a very small percentage), help Saddam keep his own people enslaved.

The Mirror describes Carter as "the only U.S. president since 1945 never to order American soldiers into war." Why stop at '45? Why not include FDR and that little thing called WWII where we saved your Clymers? Carter said, "We want Saddam Hussein to disarm, but we want to achieve this through peaceful means." If the world were left to people like this, the Soviet Union would dominate the globe today - and our hostages would still be in Iran. There would be no freedom to protest the way we saw this weekend. We'd have had a 2.5 million-person Tiananmen Square massacre.


Carter & Clinton Vie for Title of Most Anti-American Ex-Prez



Jimmy Carter and his fellow failed president, Bill Clinton, are obviously competing to see who can be the most hostile to his own country in a time of war and who can attract bigger anti-American audiences in Europe. (I'm pretty confident Clinton is seeking the secretary generalship of the UN, or something like it.) In the audio link below, I review the twelve years of Carter-Clinton - and the failures therein that left us so open to the dangers we face today.

First off, you Democrats want to talk about a recession? Jimmy Carter would have brained someone with his hammer to have the economic growth and unemployment rates we have today. Carter destroyed the economy, and ushered in the current theocratic fundamentalist regime in Iran. Carter, with Clinton, joined forces to give Kim Jong-Il those two nuclear reactors to play with.

Clinton helped the Red Chinese - through big Democratic Party donor Loral Space - orbit ICBMs for the first time ever. Clinton turned down three separate offers to take custody of Osama bin Laden. Clinton bungled Somalia, sending the message to Osama that we were "a paper tiger." The bombings of the WTC, two African embassies, the Khobar barracks and the USS Cole were all ignored. Carter's response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and imperialism in Nicaragua? A boycott of the Olympics! Reagan cleaned up all Jimmy's messes, and now Dub's having to clean up Clinton's.

While it's hard to go back in time, Carter's track record helped me answer a caller's question about how Jimmy would've handled 9/11. He'd probably just have talked and yapped; he certainly wouldn't have struck back. The women of Afghanistan would still be in burquas, and Saddam would be continuing his development of nukes unbothered. You know, in the past, current and former U.S. presidents treated each other with respect. That age of civility is over. Now it's all "Bush is Hitler," and the former presidents do all they can to cut down their successors in an effort to rehab their own legacies.


Rush Limbaugh
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/weekend_sites/week_in_review_021703___022103/content/useful_idiot_alert.guest.html

Image

WTG Rush!

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:45 am
by j
I like it :)

The only thing I would change is :

Carter and Clinton LEAD the Anti-American Forces.

Both of them disgust me with their critisizing of our sitting President. There is an un-written law that Ex Presidents do NOT do this....but as expected, these 2 break that scared rule.

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:52 am
by chadtm80
Carter and Clinton both get the old eye roll from me. Its best if i just stick with the eyeroll instead of posting what i realy think about these jerks. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Not that we need reminding but...

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 9:21 am
by mf_dolphin
Jimmy Carter is the one who left Americans in captivity for 444 days in Iran. Only the threat of Ronald Reagan and decisive US action brought their freedom.

Bill Clinton had several chances to extradite Osama Bin Laden and chose not to. Even in the face of repeated attacks on US targets that only reaction he could manage was to send a few cruise missiles against a target that had already been abandoned.

These two are great examples of what an American President should NOT do.

Sedition Act of 1918 needs to be extended

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:01 pm
by Derek Ortt
So these two idiots can be punished for aiding the enemy. Two of our worst presidents in history for precisely these reasons

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:07 pm
by chadtm80
Two of our worst presidents in history for precisely these reasons

WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO we agree on something. hehe

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:18 pm
by Skywatch_NC
You would think that Carter being a born-again Christian that he would do his Godly duty of fully supporting President Bush!!!

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:45 pm
by Stephanie
Oh, from Rush, huh? :roll:

Re: Not that we need reminding but...

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:46 pm
by sunny shine
mf_dolphin wrote:Jimmy Carter is the one who left Americans in captivity for 444 days in Iran. Only the threat of Ronald Reagan and decisive US action brought their freedom.

Bill Clinton had several chances to extradite Osama Bin Laden and chose not to. Even in the face of repeated attacks on US targets that only reaction he could manage was to send a few cruise missiles against a target that had already been abandoned.

These two are great examples of what an American President should NOT
do.


You said that right!!!! I second that opinion.

My two cents.

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:47 pm
by Guest
Can't believe they would go against the current president....where is their patriotism?

Guess they are like eveyone else - think of themselves only.

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 2:06 pm
by southerngale
chadtm80 wrote:
Carter and Clinton both get the old eye roll from me. Its best if i just stick with the eyeroll instead of posting what i realy think about these jerks.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:



Enlighten us...we want to know what you really think about these jerks! :wink:

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 2:15 pm
by southerngale
Sorry Stephanie, but it wouldn't have mattered who wrote it....the facts remain the same. :wink:

And regarding his opinions in the story, the facts seem to back him up. :wink:

Maybe you should listen to Rush, Stephanie...he makes a lot of sense! :D :D :D

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 2:24 pm
by mf_dolphin
I agree with you Southerngale! What does the source matter if the facts are right? In this case they are dead on! I was stationed at Ft Bragg during the Iranian hostage situation and on alret to go to IRAN. President Carter just didn't have the balls to send us! :grrr: There was no excuse for letting our people stay in captivity that long. An Embassy is the soveriegn territory of the country that occupies it. The seizure of the embassy was an act of war!

Please don't get me wrong, I think very highly of Jimmy Carter as a person. He is genuinely a descent, caring and God fearing man. He just didn't have any business being President of the US. As a former President he has a responsibility to support the current President or at least not to keep his mouth shut out of respect for the office. AT least the last part we know Clinton doesn't understand!

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 2:43 pm
by j
Hey Steph!!!

Perhaps you would like to dispute Rush's claims with some evidence perhaps from one of your respected Liberal Talk show hosts. Oh...I forgot...the Liberals don't have a respectable voice....but they wish they had one :)

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 5:11 pm
by JQ Public
Sorry to say, but although y'all think this is making Carter and Clinton look bad...its really doing a more worse job on Bush's Reputation.

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 5:18 pm
by mf_dolphin
J Q Public, only in the eyes of those that don't agree with Bush anyway. To those of us that do support our President it looks like a cheap and unprofessional thing for Clinton (BIG SURPRISE) and Carter (misguided IMO) to do.

Our enemies and opponents are taking a lot of pleasure out of it I assure you...

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:35 pm
by sunny shine
How is that possible JQ? By the facts, it seems that it is only making the Democratic Party look far more left wing than some of us actually thought. And it also looks like a Democratic political agenda. How convenient. :D

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:39 pm
by southerngale
Posted by JQPublic:
Sorry to say, but although y'all think this is making Carter and Clinton look bad...its really doing a more worse job on Bush's Reputation.


C'mon JQ...you can do better than that. Elaborate a little my friend. :wink:

clinton never went to the un for approval to use our troops

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 7:28 pm
by rainstorm
chadtm80 wrote:
Two of our worst presidents in history for precisely these reasons

WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO we agree on something. hehe


why does he insist bush do that now? we will be paying for clinton for along time

Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:23 pm
by Stephanie
Rush is nothing more than alot of hot air. One thing I can't stand is elitism. No matter who's in office, the "opposite side" will always try to bring the current President down. Yes, disagreeing with the manner of how things are handled is still patriotic. Not standing behind your President's views is one thing, but not standing behind the troops that are going in to serve their country is quite another in my opinion. They will always have my support, whether I agree with what's going on or not.