Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsMax)   Bush farked up by naming names in 'Axis of Terror' speech   ( ) divider line 68
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

5209 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2002 at 8:36 AM (13 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

68 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
2002-02-02 08:59:11 AM  
So what if we call them an axis? Big whoop.
2002-02-02 09:01:25 AM  
Does anyone care what "Adolph" Buchanan thinks? Newsflash... he wanted to be president himself but was soundly beaten. He should go back to his KKK meeting now.
2002-02-02 09:02:02 AM  
So who wants to join my Farxis of Terror then?
2002-02-02 09:07:33 AM  
Oh great, Newsmax on the weekend.
2002-02-02 09:13:10 AM  
That "Hilary in 2004" gif scared me.
2002-02-02 09:19:16 AM  
The headline should have added 'as told by Pat Buchanan'...that way I could've skipped right the hell over it
2002-02-02 09:23:27 AM  
Hmmm, back to fighting for isolationism. Isolationism with a big stick. I like the sound of it.

Second, Buchanan never wanted to be president. He hijacked the Reform party and flew it into a mountain with his ultra-right politics, thus removing another conservative voting option from the nation's voters, and leaving Bush the only choice. If memory serves me right (now I say it in Japanese) the other nominee for the Reform party was actually a fairly moderate, rational conservative...I would have voted for him, if I could, but of course, that is all snow that fell last year (as the Norwegians say).
2002-02-02 09:28:46 AM  
Who you kidding? Voting for the reform party is throwing your vote away.
2002-02-02 09:42:19 AM  
Could this possibly be because he is an incredibly stupid puppet, run by the Senate?
2002-02-02 09:47:04 AM  
Goatman, he's not an incredibly stupid puppet.

Just a moderately stupid puppet.
2002-02-02 09:48:41 AM  
Yes, I was implying that Goatman264. I really don't think he ever left the Republican party, but instead is just out there to be so insanely right-wing that he makes Bush and most other Republicans seem pretty tame...even if they aren't.

Trust me, I still like Republicans more than Democrats, but it is really just time to get the radicals on both sides out of government and stick with the moderates that 90% of Americans want.
2002-02-02 10:05:49 AM  
I can't stand Buchanan (I voted Nader), but in this case I would have to agree with what he said.

It's not News...It's news TO THE MAX....DUDE!!!!!
[image from too old to be available]
2002-02-02 10:10:44 AM  
Why did they ask some fanatical nut-job for his opinion? They could have found hundreds of pundits to say the same things... but then I don't think that would be quite as amusing.

I like this quote:

Secondly, he said we should "get serious" about weeding out any illegal alien who has been "ordered deported and comes from an al-Qaeda country."

- And after that can we proceed to kick out any illegal alien that came from Marlbro country? They're almost as dangerous...
2002-02-02 10:11:28 AM  
I love it that Buchanan is still beating the old illigal imagrants are taking jobs from working Americans bullshiat. I mean how many legal residents would work as a migrant worker, or in a sweat shop, if those jobs were "available"? You can make more money for less work by working at a fast food place.
2002-02-02 10:34:46 AM  
Anyone who take Buchanan or anything he says seriously has a very short memory. I remember seeing him on TV in late September. He said and I quote, "when we start dropping bombs on Afghanistan the population of that country will arm and they will fight us." As usual he was wrong. Listening to him is like reading Nostradamus. Out of all his writings he mentioned a specific name or a specific date some 200 plus times and was never right, just entertaining.
2002-02-02 10:50:13 AM  
I think Buch was just insulted that the new Axis powers didn't contain enough Aryans like the ones he enjoyed in the good old days.
Also, reading at the bottom, where Pat is talking about Liz Dole, zipping his pants and saying, "She's no Jesse Helms."
2002-02-02 11:14:03 AM  
I don't see what the problem is. It's no secret how these nations and the United states feel about one another. Bush was just stating the obvious in my opinion. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
2002-02-02 11:23:50 AM  
I saw Buchanan make these statements yesterday on CNN. At first I thought it might be the first time I've agreed with anything this ass trumpet has had to say. But the State of the Union speech doesn't come off the top of the head of the President. They analyze the crap out of the speech before it's given. Without question there was a specific, hidden agenda in calling out those countries. Since everything else they've said has worked out pretty well, I'm willing to give the administration a free pass. I'm thinking that maybe the White House staffers know some things we don't. Maybe the idea is to taunt those countries into making international mistakes that coalesce the world against them. Or maybe the point is to give them fair warning -- get your shiat together or we're coming for you with the big guns. Or maybe the point was to have other, unmentioned countries get *their* shiat together. We just don't know.
2002-02-02 11:28:48 AM  
He basically ruled out America making any attempts to make peace, though. It's either they come to us, or we come to them sometime and carpet bomb 'em.

Scraping-fetus-off-the-wheel: yeah, can you believe that people still think Fark has a liberal slant?
2002-02-02 11:31:19 AM  
>>>>Publikwerks: Who you kidding? Voting for the reform party is throwing your vote away.

OTOH, it can be argued that voting Demoblican or Republocrat is throwing your vote away. Your vote becomes just one amone millions, and the politicians can safely ignore your particular wants and desires.

If you vote for any of the third parties, however, your individual vote has more weight vis-a-vis everyone else's vote (in that party), and you therefore have more "pull".

For example, if I go to the Demoblican convention, the chance of my being able to speak and/or otherwise have some impact on the party platform is zip, nada, zero.

But if I go to the Libertarian convention, the chance of my being able to speak and/or otherwise have some impact on the party platform is significantly greater.

In addition, every vote for the Republocarat Party has only a very tiny incremental effect of their national standing vis-a-vis the other parties, whereas a vote for the Libertarian Party has a much larger impact on their national standing.

If an additional 100,000 people vote Demoblican, who the hell cares? The increase is a blip in the statistics, and no one notices.

If an additional 100,000 people vote Libertarian, that is REALLY BIG news, with a MAJOR impact on the national statistics, and the major parties suddenly take notice and - incrementally - start trying to co-opt Libertarian platforms and positions.

This is one important way that political change happens: the fringe parties affect the positions of the major parties by performing well in elections; the major parties then adjust their stances accordingly.

Vote Libertarian.
2002-02-02 11:37:09 AM  
[image from too old to be available]
2002-02-02 11:46:38 AM  
Yeah, if you thought the republicans gave away this country to the corporations, wait until you see what the libertarians have in mind.

I support their views on personal liberties, which is why I vote libertarian for local elections (state, county), but there is no way i'm going to vote for a libertarian president.
2002-02-02 11:48:44 AM  
I think this hits the nail right on the head:


Enron might be getting all the press, but there is another Congressional investigation revving up that promises to be far more treacherous for the Bush Administration. Over the course of the past several weeks, heads of both the House and Senate intelligence committees have been meeting to plan a bipartisan House-Senate investigation into the events of September 11. While revelations from the Enron probe could be embarrassing to the White House, revelations concerning the terrorist attack could prove to be devastating.

Thanks to the saturation coverage by the corporate media, the public is already well versed in the basic facts likely to be uncovered in the various Enron hearings. Will anyone really be surprised to learn that Enron executives had unprecedented access to White House officials as they formulated their energy plan? Will anyone be shocked if it turns out that the energy plan was heavily tilted towards the interests of corporate energy concerns, or that it favored the unregulated markets that made energy companies rich over the public power that kept the lights on in LA, while blackouts rolled across the rest of California?

The fact is, the Enron cat is already out of the bag. The public already understands that the Bush administration was letting the crooks at Enron write federal energy policy, right up until the time they ran Enron into the ground. The public also understands that when Enron's own criminal conduct eventually caught up to it, the Bush administration realized their good friends had become toxic waste, cut their ties, and let the implosion run its course. Given what is already known, the Enron hearings aren't likely to cause any damage to the Bush administration that hasn't already happened. So why are Bush and Cheney both so eager to fight the lawsuit looming with the GAO, seeking records of their contacts with Enron?

It can't be because they perceive some political benefit. They read the polls. They understand that the American public believes they are hiding something. They know that the longer they fight to keep their records secret, the more guilty they look. They understand that in the long run, the "principle" they are pushing on the Sunday talk shows; that congressional oversight is an unwarranted intrusion into their right to make public policy unfettered by any accountability to the public, isn't going to hold water. So why is the White House so willing to take the slings and arrows for Enron, when the damage from the scandal has already been done?

Perhaps they are simply laying the groundwork for fighting off a larger scandal.

The American public remains blissfully unaware the Bush administration's policies concerning Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden just prior to September 11. Few Americans understand the organizational effort to fight Osama bin Laden and his Al Queda network that was put in place under Clinton, and how changes by the incoming Bush administration impacted that effort. At the same time, a series of very serious allegations concerning changes to these policies have been widely reported in Europe. With a few exceptions, the US corporate media has so far provided very little coverage of these reports. Hearings into these events could change that coverage dramatically.

The reports indicate that, prior to September 11, the Bush administration was eager to do business with the Taliban. Specifically, the Bush administration wanted to see an oil pipeline built across Afghanistan, unlocking the vast oil and gas reserves surrounding the Caspian Sea. In their zeal to open these reserves, reports indicate that the Bush administration impeded the ongoing FBI manhunt for Osama bin Laden, who the US had been agressively targeting in the wake of the attacks on the USS Cole. The reports further indicate that just prior to the attacks, the Taliban were given an ultimatum; the US was either going to give them a "carpet of gold, or a carpet of bombs." Shortly thereafter, the talks are said to have broken down, and the events of September 11 unfolded.

If these allegations are aired in Congressional hearings on CSPAN, the Bush administration will have a much bigger scandal on its hands than Enron. If these allegations are proven to be true, the Bush energy policy was much more than crony capitalism and a massive payback to the multi-national corporations that paid for Bush's ascension to the White House. If true, these allegations would show that Bush's energy policy led directly and predictably to the most devastating terrorist attack in history, an attack that caused billions in property damage and cost thousands of innocent Americans their lives.

So when President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, there was a lot more at stake than a corrupt company that ripped off its employees. And when Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey called for a broad and far reaching investigation, saying "We do not meet our responsibilities to the American people if we do not take an honest look at the federal government and all of its agencies and let the country know what went wrong. The best assurance that there's not another terrorist attack on the United States is not simply to hire more federal agents or spend more money. It's to take an honest look at what went wrong. Who or what failed? There's an explanation owed to the American people;" the stakes became astronomical.

In the end, the Bush administration's decision to fight the GAO ensures that the limits of Congress' power to investigate both the Enron debacle, and the events leading up to September 11, will be decided by the Supreme Court. At a minimum, this will buy the Bush administration time. It also means that the ultimate arbiters of what information, if any, the Bush administration must make public will be decided by the same five jurists who put Bush in the White House, holding that the very act of counting American ballots would have caused Bush "irreparable harm." Perhaps this Court, the Bush administration's ace in the hole, is what makes them think the fight is worth it.
2002-02-02 12:08:11 PM  
Pat Buchannan is a poo poo head.
2002-02-02 12:43:19 PM  
The Daily Brew, another example of biased liberal reporting. To quote those communists.

It also means that the ultimate arbiters of what information, if any, the Bush administration must make public will be decided by the same five jurists who put Bush in the White House, holding that the very act of counting American ballots would have caused Bush "irreparable harm."

Of course they wanted to see their "man", Comrade Gore, steal the presidency with a nerve that would make Stalin, Mao, and Lenin proud.

That one statement makes all their other statements idiotic liberal lies, they are biased. (Yet they dare call Bill O'Reilly biased, O'Reilly isn't biased, he just doesn't fall for your liberal lies)

The American public doesn't care about the business dealings of a President, they know the claims of liberals are total lies brought forth to bring in a Leftist Communist dictatorship and establish the New World Order over all of our lifes, taking guns and freedom.

If you want to hear about betraying America, what about Roosevelt allowing the Japanese to attack so he can enter into war to save the Soviet Union.

As for Buchanan, I voted for him, since my state was going to Bush. Buchanan has more of a backbone than Bush, Bush is too much of a sissy who comprimises with the traitors that want to destroy him. (Daschle)

2002-02-02 12:44:08 PM  
"obvious" tag. No, no, there is no bias here.

In some things I agree with Buchanan. Regardless of those of you who actually KNOW jack shiat about him but still spew rhetoric, his latest book makes some excellent points.

Still, on this he is dead wrong.
2002-02-02 12:44:23 PM  

Made Afree Laugh Award
2002-02-02 12:50:49 PM  
Astrocat: Actually, Most Intelligent Americans knew that Bush was cozying up to the Taliban for a while.
2002-02-02 12:59:25 PM  
Buchanan said: "If he intends to go to war against these countries, he should go to Congress and get the authority to go to war, as his father did in 1991."

Wow.. his memory is fading faster than Reagan's! We never declared war on Iraq.

What a lune!
2002-02-02 01:48:46 PM  
Bold As Love
[image from too old to be available]
2002-02-02 01:49:24 PM  
With all due respect to Helms' would-be successor, Elizabeth Dole, Buchanan said, "She's no Jesse Helms."

No! she's much hotter.

Fight slavery. Vote libertarian.
2002-02-02 01:58:38 PM  

Those allegations you speak of ARE true! No one ever said they weren't. How do you think that you found out about them? It's public kowledge. There is no secret or scandal that Conocal was trying to build a pipeline through afghanistan. BP just built one through Uzbehkistan and it was a complete success. It was great news for the people there. The deal in Afghanistan for the pipeline was in the works for 10 years. The Clinton administration made moves to let the Taliban become the "official" entity in Afghanistan in order that the pipeline deal could be set up. But Burkha-bashing feminists in the USA whined about the Taliban, so Clinton couldn't do much about getting that deal in the works. In fact, the deal was just about dead.

But then Bush came along and to his great credit fought to revive the deal. Nothing could bring this region into the modern world like this pipeline. It would bring great wealth to the people and be an enormous benefit to them. Since Bush wasn't beholden to the feminazis he was freed up to pursue the pro-business agenda that actually helps people with jobs. The Taliban bascially f'd themselves because their country was going to get the goods from USA anyways.

What's the scandal, Astrocat? That Bush actually wanted to help people with jobs? You are so wrong to say Clinton fought against this pipeline deal or the Taliban with any true vigor. I can't believe you hate the people of Afghanistan SO MUCH that you would rather they have no jobs or wealth than suffer the taint of corporate activity.

And furthermore, isn't is liberals like you who always biatch about the sanctions on Iraq? And yet doing business with Sadamm is THE SAME as trying to hook up the pipeline in Talibna Afghanistan. Doing business with the Taliban seems exactly in line with the END SANCTIONS NOW liberals like yourself. Show some consitency.
2002-02-02 02:00:33 PM  
Emeril, what in the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to be commical? Because if so, good job, you're a funny guy. If not, you're mastering the art of contradicting yourself in one paragraph. Do you idiots listen to yourself? You're talking about "liberal lies", and then you spew all this stuff about the "New World Order"? You have no brain. You're as stupid as the moron liberals still biatching about coverups in the last presidential election (face it, when elections are that close, there is ALWAYS going to be controversy... and when it's that close, who really cares who wins? A shiatload of people voted for both of them... remember, democracy is a tyranny of the masses).

What the fark happened to using your god damned brain?
2002-02-02 02:06:16 PM  
Bold As Love
Jimi Hendrix

Anger he smiles, towering in shiny metallic purple armour
Queen Jealousy, envy waits behind him
Her fiery green gown sneers at the grassy ground

Blue are the life-giving waters taken for granted,
They quietly understand
Once happy turquoise armies lay opposite ready,
But wonder why the fight is on
But they're all bold as love, yes, they're all bold as love
Yeah, they're all bold as love
Just ask the axis

My red is so confident that he flashes trophies of war and
ribbons of euphoria
Orange is young, full of daring,
But very unsteady for the first go round
My yellow in this case is not so mellow
In fact I'm trying to say it's frightened like me
And all these emotions of mine keep holding me from, eh,
Giving my life to a rainbow like you
But, I'm eh , yeah, I'm bold as love
Yeah, yeah
Well I'm bold, bold as love (hear me talking, girl)
I'm bold as love
Just ask the axis (he knows everything)
Yeah, yeah, yeah
2002-02-02 02:07:38 PM  
MorticianBaby, you're a damned fool if you think that the common Afghani would benefit from a pipeline running through their country... about 200 rich and powerful Afghanis would get more rich and powerful...

Again, does anyone out there actually use their brain?
2002-02-02 02:11:28 PM  
The American public doesn't care about the business dealings of a President, they know the claims of liberals are total lies brought forth to bring in a Leftist Communist dictatorship and establish the New World Order over all of our lifes, taking guns and freedom.

Denial is such a hard thing...
2002-02-02 02:18:11 PM  
Well Nerme,

We can only look to other examples. The BP pipeline in Uzbekhistan was definately a success for the people there. So perhaps you should study up on it, rather than insist blindly that it couldn't work.

As some of you may know, Uzbekhistan and Afgahnistan are located along the old Silk Road. When BP went into UZbekhistan, they consulted with countless archaeologists and committed themselves to massive excavations of all of the sites that they would uncover through the pipeline effort. Thusly, COUNTLESS artifacts were uncovered. The archeaolgical community couldn't be happier. What they have discovered is of great cultural import to the country and to the pride of those people. The roads that get built, the archaeology that is preserved, the jobs that building bring - these are all benefits to the people. SUre, in any autocratic situation, some will benefit more than others, but to simply hate any progress is an appalling lack of brain use, imo.

Pipelines for Afghanistan are still on the way, and thank god that some business people in the world care enough that when they do come to a place like Afghanistan they do so with great care for the land and the people.
2002-02-02 02:23:15 PM  
MorticianBaby, the possible scandal is that Bush interfered with the FBI. He may even have told them "don't go after Al-Queda so much." He may have been responcible for letting our guard down on 9/11. Did you notice how quickly the FBI picked up leads? Its not like they could not have done that BEFORE September. Picture this possible headline (if its all true):

"Bush orders FBI to turn back on Al-Queda, US gets stabbed"

Thats what the article is pointing out. If it is all true, this will be a BIG scandal.

Oh and Emeril, The American public doesn't care about the business dealings of a President

The American Public did not care about the President's sex life. And yet the Republicans took that all the way to impeachment... Hmmm... I think that maybe Bush is scared of the big "I" word.
2002-02-02 02:27:48 PM  
Well, lets see what the invesitgation uncovers. It's interesting, at least. I don't doubt that people knew about 9-11 before it happened. What can you do, even if you did know? You certainly couldn't have started talking down the airline industry or scaring everyone. If you know this kind of thing is coming, you pretty much just have to wait until it happens.

You talk of denial, but that is alot of denial to think that Bush, not Clinton, led us up to the events of 9-11
2002-02-02 02:27:59 PM  
MorticianBaby : BP = "BRITISH Petrolium"

'Nuff said.
2002-02-02 02:30:02 PM  
Why would it be Clinton's fault? (Besides the stardard "Blame Clinton" musical)
2002-02-02 02:37:33 PM  

It is not all about sex. Stop believing the propaganda of the Clinton regime. Clinton perjured himself on the stand, he was rightfully impeached and should have been removed from office to serve a prison term.

Clinton also sold our secrets to the Chinese, who gave those secrets to the Pakistanis, the Iranians, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Iraq and so on. Clinton's butt-kissing deals with China and his anti-Jewish views when dealing with Israel and Palestine caused the 9/11 attack. No matter what the Daily Brewer or whatever that red and yellow rag is called.

2002-02-02 02:38:38 PM  
Well Fredd,

I think a good case could be made that he was too loosy-goosy in his foregin policy ways. He promoted the viewpoint that America should be sorry for all of its injustices, real or imagined. He employed the same rhetoric as the terrorists, giving an American voice claims that America is a terrorist state. He walked from Somalia and established the precedent of toleration for Al Quaeda.

Trust me, Osama did not really want to topple those buildings all the way down. He wanted to get a good hit, then wait for a litte "america strikes back" action, and then continue on. This is the game he and Clinton played for 8 years. When the scope of the destruction was revealed it was apparent that real action would be taken this time, and that was not his plan. And Bush was not Clinton. So, there you go.

Clinton coddled terrorists, like Arafat, for god's sake. Arafat practically invented modern civilian suicide bombing and Clinton was sharing stogies with dude. Clinton, by both being soft on terrorism AND by employing political rhetoric that READ LIKE terrorist greivances gave power and enablment to the global anti-american movement.
2002-02-02 03:05:54 PM  
It's all Clinton's fault! It's Clinton's fault that Bush nammed the counties in the "Axis of Evil."

Seriously, if Clinton got impeached for getting his wee-wee waxed, then we would of had a real problem. If he was going to be impeached for lying, then wouldn't, rather, shouldn't every president have been impeached?
2002-02-02 03:19:59 PM  
no.. because every president didn't lie UNDER OATH while they were PRESIDENT.
2002-02-02 03:33:38 PM  
Who gives a sh:t that he coined a term to describe these fvcked up countries?!? Was it as if until then, people didn't know they were on a very short list?!? Of course not!

I've got a sore developing on my ballsack - just because I haven't figured out what it is, doesn't mean it's not there!

2002-02-02 03:54:06 PM  
Who gives a flying fark what anyone else thinks. We are the one and only Super Power and can say exactly what we think without having to hide behind diplomacy. If someone doesn't like it, so what?
2002-02-02 04:06:04 PM  
It's Pat Buchanan.

2002-02-02 04:08:07 PM  
if you ever disagree with a newsmax link, refrain from posting your comment opposing them in here, just post directly to the motherfarker that posts this shiat from newsmax. thank you.

because, we all already know that newsmax is a heavily biased conservative news site. that sucks. and sells farking reagan memorabilia.

get over it.
2002-02-02 04:22:19 PM  
hey Sgamer, How in the hell can they post directly to my profile. Hehehehe..

At least Newsmax is humorous, in a twisted manner.

Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

In Other Media

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.