Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Libby Trial: No Scooter, No Cheney

From my "Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com....

The news in the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby perjury trial on Tuesday came as court was shutting down because of a slight snowfall in Washington: neither the defendant nor his onetime boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, will testify in the case. Ted Wells, Libby's lead lawyer, told federal district court Judge Reggie Walton in the afternoon that Team Libby had released Cheney as a potential witness and that Wells had recommended to Libby that they rest their case after the defense calls three minor witnesses on Wednesday (if the judge rules they can appear) and perhaps brings back Meet the Press host Tim Russert. Judge Walton asked Libby if he had accepted his lawyer's advice and did waive his right to testify. Libby stood up in court and replied, "Yes, sir."

The trial will end with a whimper, not a bang. The jurors will not hear the defendant defend his statements to the FBI and the grand jury that investigated the leak that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer. They will not hear him claim that he honestly misremembered facts or that his recollections (as opposed to those of all the prosecution witnesses) are accurate. They will not hear Libby maintain that he was the victim of a--take-your-pick--CIA plot, State Department plot, White House plot or NBC News plot (as Wells has variously suggested throughout the trial). They will not hear Cheney vouch for the integrity of the man whom he recently called "one of the most honest men I know."

Libby's attorneys will argue Libby's innocence (or lack of guilt) by attacking the credibility of Fitzgerald's witnesses, by suggesting Libby was too busy to recall accurately such a minor matter as Valerie Wilson's CIA employment, by maintaining that Libby might have done no worse than confused a couple of phone calls, by contending that because Libby did not leak information on Valerie Wilson to some of the reporters he spoke with, he did not leak it to Judith Miller, then of The New York Times, and Matt Cooper, then of Time.

With the decision not to testify, Libby spares himself the obligation of explaining the convoluted explanation he provided the FBI and grand jury. He told the investigators that although Cheney in early June 2003 had told him that Valerie Wilson worked at the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, he (Libby) totally forgot this and then on July 11 learned it "anew" when Russert said to him that "all the reporters" knew that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee. In Libby's telling, Russert conversation had not reminded him of what Cheney previously told him. Libby essentially claimed he had been struck by total amnesia on this one fact. This was an important point because Libby asserted that when he spoke to Miller and Cooper on July 12, 2003, and mentioned Valerie Wilson and her CIA connection, he was only passing along gossip he had received from Russert--not official (and classified) information he had obtained from Cheney.

Moreover, Libby told the grand juror that he didn't even know at the time of the leak that Wilson had a wife. Yet Fitzgerald has presented several past and present government officials who testified that in the weeks before the leak they provided official information about Wilson's wife to Libby. And former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer testified that Libby had told him about Wilson's wife a week before the leak became public in Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column.

How could Libby clarify his FBI and grand jury statements? How could he have testified that he hadn't even known Wilson had a wife? Well, now he won't have to explain. When his lawyers present their closing argument, they will attack the credibility and memory of each prosecution witness and toss out evidence-free speculation about what was really happening behind the scenes regarding the CIA leak--all to confuse, or raise a reasonable doubt. Wells also has suggested he might argue that Russert--contrary to Russert's testimony--did know about Wilson's wife and might have indeed shared this tidbit with Libby.

Cheney is off the hook, too. At the start of the trial, the defense raised the dramatic prospect of the vice president on the stand, but such a move always was problematic. Would Cheney have any credibility as a witness? ("You can trust me: Scooter was so busy helping me run the Iraq war that he failed to testify accurately.") And could Cheney withstand a cross-examination from Fitzgerald, who might have been able to ask Cheney about Cheney's own efforts to gather information on Joseph and Valerie Wilson and to question him about the curious conversations that occurred when Cheney (according to Libby) told Libby that Libby did not have to inform Cheney about Libby's full involvement in the leak episode.

The trial jurors spent three days listening to audio tapes of Libby's grand jury testimony and hearing (in Libby's own voice) what Fitzgerald has claimed to be lies. Many on the jury would probably prefer to hear directly from Libby. Yet his lawyers have concluded that the vice president's former chief of staff cannot be a strong witness in his own defense. It's his right not to testify. And defense attorneys routinely keep clients off the stand. Nevertheless, Libby's decision to remain mute and not submit himself to cross-examination is not without symbolic content.

Before Wells announced that Libby and Cheney would not testify, Libby's defense called to the stand John Hannah, who succeeded Libby as Cheney's national security adviser. And the following exchange--paraphrased because a transcript is not yet available--occurred:

Q: How would you evaluate Scooter Libby's memory?

A: On certain things, Scooter just had an awful memory. There were times too many to count when in the morning we would discuss policy issues, analyses and recommendations and then later in the day he would repeat back to me the same analyses and recommendations and have no idea I had mentioned them to him.

Libby's lawyers and his out-of-court defenders have long suggested that Libby's statements to the FBI and the grand jury were not deliberately deceptive (as Fitzgerald has charged) but merely the result of imperfect recollections held by a fellow consumed with pressing national security matters. Consequently, it was odd that when Libby's attorneys finally had the chance to present a witness who could back up this explanation, there was little punch to the memory defense. Hannah, who was one of Libby's deputies on national security issues at the time of the CIA leak, said little to support his assertion that Libby's memory was occasionally "awful" other than to depict an apparently routine scenario that made it seem like his boss was stealing his ideas.

Hannah was more persuasive on the other front: that Libby was a damn busy man. Under the careful prompting of John Cline, a Libby lawyer, Hannah described Libby's usual day when he was Cheney's Cheney. Libby had to manage a "very heavy" information flow, with memos and material coming to him from ten to twelve special advisers on national security in the vice president's office. He had several person-sized safes filled top to bottom with classified material. He had to prepare for meetings with other government officials and foreign officials; he had to prepare Cheney for meetings with other government officials and foreign officials. His work days began with an early morning intelligence briefing with Cheney and typically did not conclude until 8:00 or 9:00 at night. The job was challenging, Hannah said.

And there were so many weighty affairs of state for Libby to process. Cline walked Hannah through a list of topics previously cleared for public discussion by Judge Walton and government agencies, and he asked Hannah if each subject had been a matter of concern for Libby during the period of May 2003 to March 2004 (from when the Wilson affair started until Libby testified to the grand jury). Was Libby fretting about the proper role and size of Iraqi security forces in post-invasion Iraq and the composition of the government there? Yes, Hannah said: "It was a very important issue for us." Was he worried that the plans of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad for the buildup of the Iraqi police and security forces were insufficient? "Sounds right," Hannah replied. He noted that Libby was a "leader" in the effort to create more robust security plans for Iraq.

Libby was occupied with far more than Iraq, Hannah noted in response to Cline's questions. In June and July 2003, he was monitoring student protests in Iran and Iran's detention and possible harboring of al Qaeda suspects. Not to mention Tehran's nuclear ambitions. He was tracking developments in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Most important, he was doing what he could to defend the United States against al Qaeda and terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. Hannah said that senior administration officials, including Libby, were "concerned" that al Qaeda was developing biological weapons and pursuing nuclear weapons. Libby believed, Hannah said, that the US government's contingency plans to defend against WMD attacks were inadequate, and Libby pressed for more action. Libby, according to Hannah, was also deeply immersed in crafting the administration's responses to two foreign policy crises: the arrest of Turkish soldiers in northern Iraq and the rise of unrest in Liberia.

Libby, Hannah testified, managed all these knotty national security matters while serving as Cheney's chief of staff and handling domestic policy issues as well. After Hannah left the stand, Cline told the judge, "We want to paint a picture of a person who was overloaded, who was overwhelmed, who had a full plate."
Fitzgerald's questioning of Hannah was brief. If Cheney's integrity regarding the rationale for the Iraq war was publicly challenged, the prosecutor asked, would it have been important for Libby to respond? "It would be important to push back on those kinds" of attacks," Hannah answered. And, Fitzgerald asked, during the second week in July 2003, when Libby was burdened with the Turkey and Liberia crises and all else that Hannah had mentioned, would it have been easy for Hannah to have had a morning coffee with Libby for an hour to discuss these issues? "It would be harder," Hannah responded. It was obvious what Fitzgerald had in mind: on July 8, 2003, Libby held a morning meeting lasting over an hour with Judith Miller, during which he shared with her White House arguments to back up the administration's case for war and (according to Miller) told her that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. In other words, Libby was not too busy protecting America from terrorists that morning to chat confidentially with a reporter who could help him and Cheney conduct damage control.

The too-swamped-with-saving-the-world argument has other problems. In his grand jury testimony, Libby described how he spent considerable time dealing with the Wilson imbroglio and the controversy concerning the administration's prewar use of the allegation that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. And a CIA briefer testified earlier in the trial that Libby had met with actor Tom Cruise in June 2003 to discuss Germany's treatment of Scientologists. So Fitzgerald can argue that no matter how overwhelmed Libby was by the big stuff he still found time to fight back on the Wilson matter and talk about Scientology with a Hollywood star.

Closing arguments are now scheduled for Tuesday. Fitzgerald will sum up his narrow case: Libby told investigators he knew nothing certain or official about Wilson's wife at the time of the leak and only shared scuttlebutt with reporters, but the testimony of three journalists and five past and present government officials disputes that. Wells will do all he can to slice and dice the witnesses. He will likely suggest--but not prove--alternative narratives that cast Libby as a victim or bystander. He will not rely on what Libby or Cheney could have told the jury. The two apparently have not much to say that can help Libby.

Posted by David Corn at February 13, 2007 05:07 PM


David B. Benson said...

No Darth Cheney to cross-examine under oath. Too bad, so sad...

capt said...

Blame it on Iran!!!

Five minutes of Keith Olberman and Juan Cole.

capt said...

What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core: Hannah Arendt - Political philosopher, was born in Hanover, Germany, in 1906

"When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind,as to suscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe;he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime."~Thomas Paine"The Age of Reason" 1793

"The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.": Alexander Solzhenitsyn
(1918- ) Russian writer, Soviet dissident, imprisoned for 8 years for critizing Stalin in a personal letter, Nobel Prize for Literature, 1970



ICHBLOG.EU without the bells and whistles. Click here for text only version of the site (great for dialup users)!



Read this newsletter online http://tinyurl.com/dy6yy

Thanks ICH Newsletter!

capt said...

It is snowing like crazy AGAIN here in the ABQ?

I love the cool and cold weather - it is very odd to have it snow as much as it has.


capt said...

Habit is necessary; it is the habit of having habits, of turning a trail into a rut, that must be incessantly fought against if one is to remain alive.
Edith Wharton (1862 - 1937)

Use your imagination not to scare yourself to death but to inspire yourself to life.
Adele Brookman

Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem more afraid of life than death.
James F. Byrnes (1879 - 1972)

It's being here now that's important. There's no past and there's no future. Time is a very misleading thing. All there is ever, is the now. We can gain experience from the past, but we can't relive it; and we can hope for the future, but we don't know if there is one.
George Harrison (1943 - 2001)

capt said...

Today's Headlines


Robert Novak says Karl Rove confirmed Plame's CIA position 2-13

Multiple Bush Officials Pushed Plame To Reporters 2-13

The audiotape of Richard Armitage leaking the identity of Valerie Plame to Bob Woodward was released yesterday 2-13

Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) to introduce bill to restore habeus corpus rights, ban torture and uphold the Geneva Conventions. 2-13

New Congressional Bill would require ISPs to track and retain all their customers' online activity. But it's for the children. (Section 6) 2-13

CIA agent sues Bush Admin for firing him when he wouldn't fake WMD evidence 2-13

Veterans face consecutive budget cuts 2-13

In a refreshing display of honesty, Republican Mitt Romney announces presidential bid from museum commemorating noted fascist sympathizer 2-13

POAC merchandise featuring our award-winning graphics can be found in the POAC store

For some reason, people don't believe George W. Bush when he says he is not planning to attack Iran 2-13

capt said...

Congress Racing to Spend $1 Trillion on Iraq

Two weeks ago I discussed how Congress and the administration use our fiat money system to literally create some of the funds needed to prosecute our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've already spent more than $500 billion in Iraq, mostly through supplemental spending bills that are not part of the normal appropriations and budget process. But with costs soaring and no end to the war in sight, yet another supplemental spending bill must be passed soon – and both parties in Congress are only too willing to provide the money under the guise of supporting the troops.

Never mind that the American people showed their dissatisfaction with the war in the fall elections. Congress lacks the political will to stand up to the administration and assert its power over the purse strings, and too many vested interests in the defense sector benefit from the supplemental bills. A cynic might even suggest that many Democrats want the war to drag on, despite their supposed opposition, to damage the president politically and benefit them in 2008. But whatever the reason, the money for war keeps flowing.

Defense Department officials will ask Congress for the next supplemental bill in coming weeks. The amount requested is likely to be at least $140 billion. If we stay in Iraq beyond 2007 – and the administration has made it clear that we will – the bill to American taxpayers easily could top one trillion dollars in another year or two.

I doubt very seriously that most Americans think the war in Iraq is worth one trillion dollars. Even those who do must face the reality that the federal government simply doesn't have the money. Congress continues to spend more than the Treasury raises in taxes year after year, by borrowing money abroad or simply printing it. Paying for war with credit is reckless and stupid, but paying for war by depreciating our currency is criminal.

Even the most modest suggestions for controlling spending in Iraq have been rejected. Some in Congress argued that reconstruction money should be paid back when Iraq's huge oil reserves resume operation. Another idea was to find dollar-for-dollar offsets in the rest of the federal budget for every dollar spent in Iraq. But the administration adamantly opposed both ideas. Budget cuts are unpopular, and the profits from Iraqi oil will never compensate American taxpayers.

The mentality in Washington is simple: avoid hard choices at all costs; spend money at will; ignore deficits; inflate the money supply as needed; and trust that the whole mess somehow will be taken care of by unprecedented economic growth in the future.

We have embarked on the most expensive nation-building experiment in history. We seek nothing less than to rebuild Iraq's judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down – all with hundreds of billion of U.S. tax dollars. We will pay to provide job training for Iraqis; we will pay to secure Iraq's borders; we will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq. In doing so, we will saddle future generations of Americans with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one Congress should answer now – by refusing another nickel for supplemental spending bills.


*****end of clip*****

" by refusing another nickel for supplemental spending bills"

Seems reasonable to me - as long as refusing another nickel has not been taken off the table.


Saladin said...

Had they testified it would most likely have been under the same terms as the 9/11 testimony for bush/cheney was, no oath taking, no recording of ANY kind and holding each others hands. They wouldn't have even had to cross their fingers behind their backs since they weren't making any promises to tell the truth.
Capt, they better crank up those printing presses, when they start talking money by the TON there will be overtime involved!

capt said...

Happy Valentines Day!

capt said...

US's smoking gun on Iran misfires

WASHINGTON - The first major effort by the administration of US President George W Bush to substantiate its case that the Iranian government has been providing weapons to Iraqi Shi'ites who oppose the occupation undermines the administration's political line by showing that it has been unable to find any real evidence of an Iranian government role.

Contradicting recent claims by both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that US intelligence had proof of Iranian government responsibility for the supply of such weapons, the unnamed officials who briefed the media on Sunday admitted that the claim is merely "an inference" rather than based on a trail of evidence.

Although it was clearly not the intention, moreover, the briefing revealed for the first time that the Iranians and Iraqis detained by US forces in recent months did not provide any evidence implicating either the Iranian government or the Islamic Revolutionary Guards in the acquisition of armor-piercing explosive devices and other weapons by Iraqi Shi'ite groups.

In the end, the administration presentation suggested that there could be no other explanation for the presence of Iranian-made weapons than official government sponsorship of smuggling them into Iraq. But in doing so, they had to ignore a well-known reality: most weapons, including armor-piercing projectiles, can be purchased by anyone through intermediaries in the Middle East.

*****end of clip*****

I saw a picture of one of the so-called "Iranian bomb's" - seemed a bit off "Iran" and a few numbers were printed on the bomb itself in English and the numbers were also from OUR character set? I guess the manufacturer wanted us to be able to understand.


Saladin said...

Don't Do It, Mr. President

by Ron Paul

Before the U.S. House of Representatives February 6, 2007

It's a bad idea.

There's no need for it.

There's great danger in doing it.

America is against it, and Congress should be.

The United Nations is against it.

The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Pakistanis are against it.

The whole world is against it.

Our allies are against it.

Our enemies are against it.

The Arabs are against it.

The Europeans are against it.

The Muslims are against it.

We don't need to do this.

The threat is overblown.

The plan is an hysterical reaction to a problem that does not yet exist.

Hysteria is never a good basis for foreign policy.

Don't we ever learn?

Have we already forgotten Iraq?

The plan defies common sense.

If it's carried out, the Middle East, and possibly the world, will explode.

Oil will soar to over $100 a barrel, and gasoline will be over $5 a gallon.

Despite what some think, it won't serve the interests of Israel.

Besides – it's illegal.

It's unconstitutional.

And you have no moral authority to do it.

We don't need it.

We don't want it.

So, Mr. President, don't do it.

Don't bomb Iran!

The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don't have a nuke, we'll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we'll leave you alone. In fact, we'll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?

February 14, 2007
Happy V Day Capt!

Saladin said...

Capt, seems they prefer English to Farsi and our Christian calendar to their own? Idiots. Someone in the propaganda dept. is slacking, BIG time!

capt said...

Chrysler to cut 13,000 jobs

Troubled unit of DaimlerChrysler expects to cut 11,000 factory workers, 2,000 salaried jobs and close one assembly line after losses soar.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Chrysler Group, whose year-long slump has dragged it down to fourth place among U.S. automakers, announced plans Wednesday to cut 13,000 jobs through 2009 as it attempts to stem widening losses.

The cuts represent 16 percent of the staff at the North American unit of DaimlerChrysler (Charts), as it eliminates 9,000 U.S. factory workers and another 2,000 factory workers in Canada over the next three years. In addition, 2,000 salaried staff cuts will be spread over the next two years.

The company also said it will close the SUV Assembly line in Newark, Del., by 2009, after eliminating one of its two shifts later this year. It also plans to eliminate a shift at the Warren, Mich., truck plant later this year and a shift at the St. Louis South assembly plant in 2008.


Hajji said...


...Someone in the propaganda dept. is slacking, BIG time!

Or maybe someone's defecting!


Ivory Bill Woodpecker said...

Hi, y'all. A quick note before I have to go to bed before returning to the Ministry of Silly Walks tonight.

Y'all might want to visit Shakespeare's Sister [shakespearessister.blogspot.com] and check out the "Spartacus" list of blogs under "Wednesday Blogwhoring".

On sonafide.com, you can find some cute pictures of the blogmistress's niece. She and her peers are why we fight, after all.

Venceremos, amigos.

From the swamps of Arkansas, IBW--except today, "I am Spartacus."

capt said...

White House Opens Doors to Iraq Refugees

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration plans to allow about 7,000 Iraqi refugees to settle in the United States over the next year, a huge expansion at a time of mounting international pressure to help millions who have fled their homes in the nearly four-year-old war.

The United States has allowed only 463 Iraq refugees into the country since the war began in March 2003, even though some 3.8 million have been uprooted. A senior State Department official described the expanded program on condition of anonymity ahead of a formal announcement later Wednesday.

The administration also plans to pledge $18 million for a worldwide resettlement and relief program. The United Nations has asked for $60 million from nations around the world.


*****end of clip*****

Should be filed under "fighting them over there . . ."

I hope upon hope the potential neo-citizens are screened better than our astronauts or we might be in for a rough ride.(What does an astronaut were to a kidnapping? - depends)


Gerald said...

Both Libby and Cheney could not take the stand. They would have to swear under oath and be cross examined. That would spell doom for them. The fact that Hitler Cheney would not swear under oath reveals he is a liar. Only stupid people would defend Hitler Cheney's lies.

Libby will not take the stand because his lawyers have planted reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. Verdit: Not Guilty!!!

Gerald said...

capt, before too long we will have 7 million Iraqi refugees enter America as citizens. We have displaced them and now we will have to place them in our country.

Gerald said...

Are we feeling any safer as the devil incarnate country?

Saladin said...

Israeli Arab couple petitions High Court after residency denied

By Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent

An Israeli Arab couple petitioned the High Court of Justice this week, asking it to issue a temporary injunction that would allow them to live in the predominately Jewish town of Rakefet.

The couple, residents of Sakhnin, said they were denied residency in the town because they are Arab, but say that local authorities in Rakefet and officials at the Israel Lands Authority found an alternative way to keep them from moving into the town- by stating that according to a "suitability test," the couple are "not fit to live in the town."

The couple is being represented by Adalah, a non-profit organization which fights discrimination against Israeli Arabs. According to the organization, the couple was refused permission to settle in the town because they are Arab.


The couple is now requesting that the High Court instruct the Israel Land Authority and heads of the Misgav Regional council to ensure their rights to a residential plot in Rakefet.

The couple, Ahmed Zvidat and Fahina Avrik, graduates of the archaeology department at Jerusalem's Bezalel College, tried in 2006 to find a place to live in northern Israel. According to Zvidat, he had sought approval to build a house in a neighborhood of Sakhnin, but the land on which he wanted to build was reserved for agricultural purposes, and bordered the jurisdictional boundaries of Rakefet.

A short inquiry made to authorities at the Misgav Regional Council made it clear to Zvidat that changing the land's designation was not possible.

"They told me, 'just rent a house'," he told Haaretz this week.

After their plans to build in Sakhnin were denied, the couple made plans to move to Rakefet, a small agricultural community of 165 families. They looked forward to building a house, they said, and to enjoying the benefits of living in a smaller community.

In their request for a temporary injunction, they emphasized that at the time their plans to move to Rakefet were denied, the town was enlarging in order to accommodate new families.

Zvidat and Avrik met with representative from the Rakefet local committee, and requested that they be allowed to address the regional absorption committee of Misgav at a meeting that was also attended by a representative from the Jewish Agency and a representative from the absorption committee of Rakefet.

After the meetings, the couple requested a "suitability exam" at the Keinan-Sheffey institute, which came out in favor of Avrik.

"Fahina [Avrik] is an intelligent woman of high personal character, who aspires to great success", the committee's ruling stated. "She grew up in a home that stressed personal betterment and integrity, values that she has carried into adulthood. Also, she is someone who aspires to befriend and avoid conflict with those around her," the committee added.

Nonetheless, the committee came to the conclusion that Avrik is not suited to live in Rakefet.

"The impression is that she is an individualistic woman, and therefore, in the end, she is looking to advance her own goals, much more than she is concerned about the community in which she lives," the committee stated in its ruling.

Regarding Zvidat, the committee ruled he "is of a suitable personality, and looks to adapt himself to the norms, customs, and accepted rules of behavior." Nonetheless, the committee found Zvidat not suitable, since he "lacks sufficient knowledge of sophisticated interpersonal relations, and has problems fitting into the community." In the end, the "suitability test" ruled that "the couple's suitability level for acceptance into the community is low."

"We felt very insulted by the committee," Zvidat said. "I wonder what would happen if committee members or residents of Rakefet were forced to pass a suitability test? Would it rule that they are more intelligent than us, and more deserving of residence in Rakefet than us?"
Can you just imagine what would happen if African Americans or Hispanics were subjected to this "suitability" testing here in the states?? All HELL would break loose! But then, to dare criticize Israel for such overtly racist behavior makes you an anti-semite of the worst sort.

Gerald said...

Will our devil's disciples feel good in the nuking of Iran?

Will Americans feel very good as well with the sight of vaporized human bodies across the streets of Iran with our use of nuclear bombs and missiles?

Gerald said...

What is there not to love about our devil incarnate country???

Robert S. said...

Hi friends...check this out...comment #1!

Gerald said...

We have lunatics running our asylums!!!

capt said...


Good show, excellent post.

You have always been number one in our books.


capt said...

New thread