I.Louis Libby was told today that he will not be allowed to stay out of jail while he appeals his case. He will report to prison in four to six weeks. His wife cried a little but the Scoot remained stoic. Probably because he knows he will not spend one night behind bars.

Czar W will pardon him. It's not like it will effect his sweeping popularity with rich white people, or poor, white, religious morons. Short of abdicating his throne nothing he can do will change how most Americans feel about him. Redneck Criminal.

Ever since his convictions of obstruction and making false statements there has been the cries of "Pardon Scooter". "What is the underlying crime?" they ask. "A witch hunt", and "perjury trap" were some of the pharases yelped by Libby supporters. Oddly enough, alot of these same people were solidly behind the impeachment of Clinton on those same grounds. Of course, what do you want from republics. All Scooter did was out a covert CIA agent who was engaged in counter nuclear proliferation and then lie under oath about it. Clinton got a blow job and lied. I wonder which is worse. According to H.W. Bush, outing a covert agent should be considered treason. But a blow job. That really effects the safety of America.

These fucking hypocritical republic Americans. The right is wrong.
They lie, cheat, and steal then cry politics when they are caught. In twenty years, when all the crimes, debts, and policy blunders come home to roost, our children will pay for America laying down to fascism. They will ask us "How could you have let this happen to our Democracy?" Of course they will be asking in Chinese.

The republics and religious right selling America and it's values for profit. I would say shame on you, but as you have proven, you have no shame.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Love those lapel pins.

Watching the party become the government,

theblaast,
citizen

Please read the whole thing.

An Excerpt from:

The Gulf War: A First Assessment

Featuring Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense
Soref Symposium 1991

The Difficulties Encountered in the Gulf Crisis


Success of our Military

There has been a great deal of talk and speculation since the war itself as to why we prevailed from a military standpoint. A couple of points need to be made; one reason we prevailed, of course, was the decision by the President last October to double the size of the force. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, it's useful to look back and to remember that at the time he decided to land the 7th Corps out of Germany and another Army division from Kansas and another Marine division, as well as the six aircraft carrier battle groups, there was a lot of criticism that that was unwise, that it was far too large a commitment of force, that we should give sanctions a chance, and so forth.

It triggered a spate of hearings on Capitol Hill and a lot of analyses around the country, and a fair amount of criticism. But I am personally persuaded that there are thousands of Americans home with their families today, and more on the way home who would not be coming home at all, if it hadn't been for the President's decision to double the force when he did last November to make certain that we could prevail in the shortest possible time and at the lowest possible cost.

One of the lessons of this operation, I think, is the willingness of the American people to support a resort to force when it's appropriate, when you have a clear-cut objective; that the nation, contrary to some of the expectations early on, responded overwhelmingly to the decision to commit forces. I am convinced that calling up a quarter of a million reservists played a very significant role in all of that as well; that it served not only to give us the capability we needed to undertake the deployment, but also triggered support all around the country, because every community, every state, and millions of families were affected by that decision to commit the forces, and they understood immediately what was at stake.

There was concern that the coalition would never hold. Last fall, we were often regaled with the prediction that if you did anything more aggressive than economic sanctions, if the United States undertook really aggressive action, if we used military force in a meaningful way, that the coalition would come apart. Exactly the reverse was true. What our coalition partners wanted to know, more than anything else, was that we were in fact determined to STAY THE COURSE, and that we were dedicated to achieving our objectives, and that we would not waffle or vacillate or retreat from the stated goal and objective of getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. And as long as it was clear that the President meant business, that he was indeed prepared to go forward as aggressively as he did, the allies were with us all the way. They never vacillated at all. So our assumptions that an aggressive U.S. posture would break up the coalition clearly did not come to pass.

Did We Go Far Enough?

There have been significant discussions since the war ended about the proposition of whether or not we went far enough. Should we, perhaps, have gone in to Baghdad? Should we have gotten involved to a greater extent then we did? Did we leave the job in some respects unfinished? I think the answer is a resounding "no."

One of the reasons we were successful from a military perspective was because we had very clear-cut military objectives. The President gave us an assignment that could be achieved by the application of military force. He said, "Liberate Kuwait." He said, "Destroy Saddam Hussein's offensive capability," his capacity to threaten his neighbors -- both definable military objectives. You give me that kind of an assignment, I can go put together, as the Chiefs, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf masterfully did, a battle plan to do exactly that. And as soon as we had achieved those objectives, we stopped hostilities, on the grounds that we had in fact fulfilled our objective.

Now, the notion that we should have somehow continued for another day to two is, I think, fallacious. At the time that we made the decision to stop hostilities, it was the unanimous recommendation of the President's military advisors, senior advisors, that we had indeed achieved our objectives, and therefore it was time to stop the killing and the destruction.

Some have suggested that if we had spent another day in combat in the Kuwait theater, we would have changed the outcome of the subsequent conflict between the Shi'a, and the Kurds in the north, against Iraq. I do not believe that is the case. I think it is important to remember that Saddam had better than 60 divisions when the war started; that we destroyed or rendered combat ineffective in military terms about two-thirds of that force, roughly 40 divisions in the Kuwaiti theater. But he had some 20 divisions deployed in Iraq that never were engaged in the conflict. They were up along the border with Turkey, along the border with Iran, but they were never committed to the theater. And they were never there for the target of U.S. military operations. It is that residual force, plus what small force he was able to get out of the theater at the end of the war, that he ultimately used to deal with the Kurds and the Shi'a, but I do not believe one more day in Kuwait would have made that much difference.

Some have suggested that if we had gotten involved just a little bit -- for example, if we had shot down a few helicopters -- it would have changed the outcome of the conflict. Again, I think that is a misguided notion. One of the lessons that comes out of all of this is we should not ask our military personnel to engage "a little bit" in a war. If you are going to go to war, let's send the whole group; let's make certain that we've got a force of sufficient size, as we did when we went into Kuwait, so that we do not suffer any more casualties than are absolutely necessary.

Now, if you're going to deal with the effort to change the military balance inside Iraq, if you want to really neutralize the Iraqi Army, you have to deal not only with helicopters but also with artillery, with tanks and armored personnel carriers, and with the infantry units that clearly make the Iraqi government -- even today with a two-thirds smaller army than they had a few months ago -- significantly an overwhelming presence vis-a-vis the insurgents that exist inside the country.

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

Good Points, Dick. What changed? Oh yeah, we want their oil. Scumbag.

Notice he said "Stay The Course".

Learning how to cut and paste,

theblaast,
citizen

What would it take for the last of Bush's supporters to to leave him? They only represent about 28% of Americans. Does W have to go to each of their houses and pull the head off of a cute little kitten right in front of them? I doubt even that would disuade them from their blind faith. Sure, no one wants to see a kitten get it's head ripped off, but King George could just stammer, twitch and explain how ripping that kitten's head off has made us safer. He could go on to enlighten the loyally stupid that, anyone who doesn't rip a kitten's head off is wrong, and obviously doesn't support the troops. If there is anyone who still questions whether or not manually removing the head of a kitten is the only way to truly be patriotic, he's got three words for them. September thee eleventh.

He hears the roar of the hand picked crowd. He's got them and he knows it. He smiles to himself thinking of all the furry little felines who will be decapitated. A warmth engulfs his entire body. His aides can see it from the stage wings. He's going to go off script. An audible "NO!" is heard from somewhere behind and to the right of the Decider. Then the sound of a scuffle. W was oblivious. He's basking in the glow of bleeting sheep. He clears his throat and says "In Iraq, we will winnefye and give Middle Earth it's first democracy!" His voice rising to a fevered pitch he exclaims, "Vote against your best interest and we shall percy-veer..ifye!"
A thunderous roar from the flock. He stands at the podium satisfied with his performance. He still has one more thing to add. With great reverence he looks into the collective eye of the crowd and utters three words. "God is American." He waves a few times and takes his leave of the adoring mass.

An extraordinary amount of headless kittens were found all over the south.

Solidly in the 70% Minority,

theblaast
citizen

Bill O'Reilly is perhaps America's greatest warrior. I don't mean he fought in real wars or battles. During his generation's war, Vietnam, he has said on the radio factor that he was too busy analyzing the situation. However, as he told another caller, he did participate in a couple of fire fights in Central and South America.
Armed with only a pen. Man, that guy is tough.

It takes a brave man to lie as much as he does, yet still remain incredulous when those lies are exposed. It takes big balls to call up a producer, his employee, and try to seduce her with words like "boobs" and phrases like "I killed on GMA", while his wife is at home. No man without the courage of Bill O'Reilly could attack Jeremy Glick for challenging the Republic/Fox point of view on 9/11, even though Jeremy's dad had perished in the attack. Finally, no mere mortal could Boycott France because they wanted nothing to do with Iraq. Man, that guy is tough.

Bill O'Reilly, a renaissance man of stupidity. A dogmatic propagandist who knows how to operate a loofa, at least while he sexually harasses an employee. Morons think he's smart.

That guy...well...he's tough.

I had better stop there. I don't want Fox security knocking on my door. Even worse, what if Bill somehow confronted me himself? The horror!. His dainty, hairy little finger pointed right at me, his blotchy face six inches from mine, how would I survive? Parish the thought. He's too tough...in his own mind. Everyone who's ever dealt with a bully knows what he is. A blowhard with a little penis. Oh yeah, and a great punter.

I wish Geraldo would have kicked his ass when they had that lovers quarrel a month or so back. I bet the make up sex was like Normandy. Go ahead and open my vault BIIIILLLL!

Go get him tough guy.

Lookin out for you,

theblaast
citizen

Hey Now!

Artie Lange has been on Stern for about six years,I think. He's talented and he makes me laugh sometimes. He says he's leaving. Well no offense Artie, see ya. You will still make your living doing what you love, which is rare, so you will be fine. You have acknowledged how being on the show has shot your profile up and given you opportunities. Good luck with them. Salude.

Now what should Howard do after Artie leaves? Give the chair back to Jackie. Not that Jackie was necessarily that funny, but tooling on Jack in his own voice is fucking hilarious. Sure he only laughed heartily at his own jokes and is obviously ruled by money. But what a well of material. The Jackie Puppet alone would be worth the price. Fred's killer wit, Robin's sometimes raw hatred, and Howard invalidating every thing he does. All in their own demented version of Jackie's own voice. Billy West will be missed, but someone else could do the puppet.

Sometimes You Can Go Back, Howard.

Ah...um...the biavians,

theblaast
citizen