"Despite all of this stupid bull---- that the Republican National Committee, or whatever the f--- they call them, that they were saying that they’re all angry about how two of these ads were comparing Bush to Hitler? I mean, out of thousands of submissions, they find two. They’re like f---ing looking for Hitler in a haystack. You know? I mean, George Bush is not Hitler. He would be if he f---ing applied himself. (big, extended applause) I mean he just isn’t."

Since Clinton was impeached, liberals have been trapped in a time warp. They just can't seem to "move on." Books retelling Clinton's side of impeachment--only since the decadent buffoon left office--include: Joe Conason and Gene Lyons' The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton (endorsed by America's most famous liar!), David Brock's Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, Sidney Blumenthal's The Clinton Wars, Joe Eszterhas's American Rhapsody, Joe Klein's The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton's Living History, and now, the master himself weighs in with My Life.

As far as I know, conservatives have produced one book touching on Bill Clinton's impeachment in this time: In 2003, National Review's Rich Lowry decided it was finally safe to attack Clinton and thereupon produced the only Regnery book (Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years) with Bill Clinton's mug on the cover that did not make The New York Times' best-sellers list. That's how obsessed the Clinton-haters are.

Now there's even a documentary version of liberals' Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy fantasy, The Hunting of the President. O.J. had more dignity.

If we're so obsessed with it, why do they keep bringing it up? OK, uncle. You win, Mr. President. If I buy a copy of your book, will you just shut up once and for all, go away, and never come back?

MR. BOUCHER: We felt the draft renewal that we had presented met the needs of all of the members and was consistent with what the members of the council had stated in passing the resolution before. At the same time, we found that members didn’t agree. So we have decided not to proceed with further consideration of the resolution, the ICC resolution, or action on the draft at this time. We want to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate in the council. We will have to take into account the lack of this resolution, as we look at our various obligations, and the way we proceed overseas. We’ll be doing that in the coming days.

QUESTION: It sounds like you came to the conclusion for sake of not taking too much time, occupying too much time. But you haven’t changed your position, have you?
MR. BOUCHER: We have not changed our position, and in fact, we believe that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court needs to be -- can’t be established over nationals of states that are not party to the Rome statute and that, therefore, that Americans and others who are not members of the Rome statute, who participate in UN peacekeeping, need to be protected from some kind of misguided prosecution because of actions they might undertake while participating in those operations. We have, I think, demonstrated that in the very unfortunate situation, terrible situation that developed at Abu Ghraib, that the United States does stand for justice and will itself impose justice on any members of our services who might undertake things that constitute international crimes.

QUESTION: It’s a matter for national --
MR. BOUCHER: But it’s a matter for us to take care of and not for some other court with some other jurisdiction that we’re not a party to. We also note, as I think we pointed out before, that some of the ICC states, some of the members of the Rome Treaty have used within that treaty statutes that can get them a delay in the application of the court to their members.

QUESTION: Right.
MR. BOUCHER: So we saw nothing inconsistent with the statute, the Rome Treaty, or with the actions of other members, people who are party to the treaty, in passing this resolution. Obviously, that wasn’t the view that was held strong enough in the council to pass this.

QUESTION: Richard, will this make it harder for the United States to vote for or to participate in peacekeeping missions in the future?
MR. BOUCHER: We will have to examine each of these missions case by case, both in terms of the voting for a peacekeeping mission. We do have, I think, 90, now, Article 98 agreements that, with individual nations, that might be a factor when we come to considering particular missions. We also will have to look at it in terms of staffing and providing Americans to participate in peacekeeping missions, what the risk might be of prosecution by a court to which we’re not party.

QUESTION: Two years ago July, I think -- can I just -- two years ago July, I think there were eight missions that the U.S. was considering abandoning. So I don’t know if this is a larger reconsideration. And I don’t know if it’s a matter of principle or you’re going to be selective to the -- selective as to which operations U.S. personnel might be most vulnerable to international prosecution.
MR. BOUCHER: I think -- we’ll have to -- I’m not even sure that decision has been made, whether we’ll have to pull them all or do it selectively. But we’re going to have to look at the consequences of not having this resolution --

QUESTION: All right.
MR. BOUCHER: -- in terms of the different operations that we participate in, and we’ll make our decisions. I’m not sure if we’ll make it as a batch or individually.

QUESTION: Okay. But you’re not willing to say now that you not -- you won’t participate in any mission where your troops would be at risk of prosecution by the ICC?
MR. BOUCHER: I’m not able to say blanket, one way or the other, what the implications would be for our participation in peacekeeping. We’ll have to look at each of these that we have now, and as per your earlier question, each of them is, as they come along, we’ll examine the impact on our ability to participate and we’ll have to take that into account.

(2004-06-25) -- The controversial Michael Moore film ’Fahrenheit 9/11’ spurred controversy again today according to a news release from Michael Moore, the producer of the controversial Bush-bashing film.

"I’m being muzzled by the Bush administration," said the controversial Oscar-winning documentarist through his publicist. "They got my film rated ’R’ to make it more controversial. I’m just a simple journalist trying to make a meaningful documentary, and the rightwingers keep forcing me into the limelight."

In opening-night screenings in New York, the film was greeted with enthusiastic applause. However, Mr. Moore’s web site claims that Bush administration "infiltrated the theaters with people who clapped in an arrhythmic manner".

"The Republican traitors were too cowardly to actually boo my film," wrote Mr. Moore, "But they tried to throw off the clapping rhythm of those who truly loved it. Again Bush is introducing controversy into this simple, truthful documentary. I never meant for it to spark the kind of controversy that it has."