Weird how Kevin Drum launches into a several-paragraph screed ("making demented statements" etc) against Gingrich, without having taken the trouble to read what Gingrich actually said.

It is a pretty bizarre post of the sort I would typically expect to see at Kev's grrlfriend's blog.

The highly variable quality of his statements is explained as follows:

That which was good was not original, that which was original was not good.

My grandfather was a Republican and the Chair of the county party, before the R's went collectively insane. 1994 killed him. It was the last ballot he cast, and he voted straight Democratic. He never stayed up past 9:00 unless the World Series was on TV, and he never made long-distance phone calls. That night he called three times before I got home from Glickman headquarters (stinging with defeat) He stayed up and kept calling until I finally answered the phone so he could tell me so.

Three days after the Power Rangers stood with Newt in the well of the People's House he passed away.

Here is Kevin Drum's normal routine:

(1) find some article or blog posting on Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Newt/McCain;

(2) link to that article or blog posting; then,

(3) spend several paragraphs on how horrible Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Newt/McCain are.

Half the time he lifts comments out of context or twists them to make them mean something else.

Frequency! Good to see you!

Shall I fetch the link list?

Actually, FK, I almost never talk about Halliburton. Guilty as charged on the rest, though.

Well, since you mention it, Kev, feel free to talk about Halliburton more. The sons of bitches have been getting a free pass in general lately...

Yes, FK, he is pretty fantastic, isn't he? I don't know what we would do without him.

I admit it, I saw it. I'm zonked out on cold medication but from what I remember the OxBlogger is fairly accurate. This time the raving lunacy was not in the content of what he said so much as the odd little smile and twinkle in the eye, which I'm sure was meant to be charming.

His plans for Iraq would have been good if they had started 3 years ago. It is a little late now for a huge state department build-up and nation building exercise.

He did have one howler that made me spit-take my tea, but I can't remember what it was at the moment...sorry....

Ken D. - We would be relegated to the less esoteric discussions at AMERICABlog.

"Newt being Newt."

So, like "Manny being Manny," we should just let it go?

Looks like nobody else saw the show either. Does anyone actually know what Newt said?

Transcript.

Gingrich, in this softball interview, proved himself to be a moral and intellectual coward who tried to blame a debacle which he fully supported (and acted as a consultant, directly engaging as an operative for Rummie in the "less troops" run around Shinskeki, et. al.) on everybody else - in particular the State Department, despite their clearly having had little or nothing to do with the strategy for Iraq, having been edged out by the Cheney/Rumsfeld faction, for which Gingrich served as a cheerleader. Check the transcript and video on MTP's website.

The guy's slick, but ultimately it's all about him and CYA for a multitude of sins. His strongest suit is truly masterful false humility.

Unfortunately, Newt turned out to be, in fact, the future of American Politics...

In the interview Newt argued that if we are "defeated" in Iraq (and withdrawal equals defeat) then our embassies all over the world will come under attack.

I'd say that qualifies as a pretty stupid statement.

Then he put the onus on Democrats to line up behind Bush on a war that even he admits is a failure so that the world knows that this isn't "Bush's war, it's America's war" -- because apparently "the world" is that easily fooled and the onus to redeem failed wars is on parties who neither began nor prosecuted them.

And if Democrats won't do that and we're defeated in Iraq did I mention that our embassies all over the world will come under attack and it will be the Democrats' fault and not the fault of the person who began and prosecuted this admitted failure of a war with every tool he requested at his disposal?

In other news, Colin Powell also admitted today that we are losing the war in Iraq.

Speaking of Haliburton, did anyone catch the relaxing of corporate oversight by DoJ last week?

But it's crucially important that Kerry/Gore/___ flubbed a joke, even though it's entirely clear what they meant!

It's lame of Taylor to claim that Newt said five seriously dumb things in a half hour interview and then not name them. But it would surprise me if Gingrich didn't say five seriously dumb/dishonest things in half an hour. He's a monstrously vain, monstrously ambititious hypocrite. Fortunately, it seems that Republicans can't stand him either.

Rereading the transcript of the interview I think that Newt's remarks can best be summed up this way:

Democrats need to find a workable solution to the mess Bush created in Iraq and Bush needs to stop being "stubborn" and go along with them.

If Democrats are unwilling or unable to get Bush on board and/or accomplish in Iraq what no one else has been able to do -- then defeat it Iraq is all their fault.

Oh, and the State Department is to blame, too.

It's like the time I broke our Mom's favorite antique vase and my sister didn't take the blame or fix it. Lazy insolent bitch.

Interesting, isn't it, that folks still think interviews by television personalites of political figures (and others) are the real thing. They're not. Newt Gingrich or most any other political figure never, never would appear for a television interview unless a deal had been cut beforehand by themselves or their staff. The deal would include the subjects to be discussed, the general tenor of the questions (no surprises), and NO FOLLOW UPS. More often than not the questions are supplied ahead of time and answers are worked out between the interviewee and staff and the interviewer's staff. No rough stuff at all. And a nice kiss-up thank you at the end from all parties. Otherwise, the political figure will not appear. And should the television interviewer break the rules, then he or she goes on the blackball list and the big names avoid the show like a plague. As far Tim Russert, he's no different than any of the others, though his hype tells us he is a such a rough, tough interviewer. Bull. Remember, folks, television is all show. It's show business. The presenters are actors and actresses, many of whom were created basically out of whole cloth -- here's a guy who looks good, who talks good, who can remember his lines, let's make him into a property, hair style, makeup, clothes, lighting, camera angle and lots of publicity. Give him a staff, which includes scriptwriters, a script and watch him go. Of course, there are a few who have journalistic credentials, but, believe me, they don't put them to use under the klieg lights. Follow up questions, forget it, unless the interviewee knows about them in advance, etc., etc., etc. The best you can get from the political figures interviewed is the party line for that day, the talking points, etc. All this is one of the reasons why blogs are getting such a big play these days. Sure, scripted people blog, but they're apparent and are easily ignored. And once in a while, someone comes on who actually knows what is happening, inserts themself amidst the plethora of snappy one liners and jaunty riposts and lets it be known. But television? Forget it. Television is Hollywood, folks; hard-line news reporters were replaced years ago by actors and actresses and scriptwriters. (And by the by, if the skirts on some of the Fox News women presenters get any shorter, the network risks being cautioned to apply for a rating.)

It's like the time I broke our Mom's favorite antique vase and my sister didn't take the blame or fix it. Lazy insolent bitch.

I'm not sure but I thought I heard Newt implicate her in the Iraq debacle as well.

trex - can I import your Newt comments into a post I wrote about the bloviating gas-bag? Credit due will be credit given, or course.

At least he isn't blaming me this time.

ps - trex - you could just come visit me...

By all means, globe.

Transcript link

By all means, Globe.

I saw Newton Leroy Gingrich on Meet the Press this morning and I discussed it in the Wingnut Watch thread below. However, all of the comments seem to have mysteriously disappeared, so here are my thoughts (again):

Gingrich doesn't understand the Bill of Rights at all. He thinks allowing corporations to donate to political candidates is the equivalent of private citizens being able to say what they want. WRONG. The Bill of Rights lays out those "inalienable" rights of private citizens that government shall not infringe on. Corporate campaign contributions are determined by legislative fiat. Newton doesn't get that. He also thinks everyone in government except George W. Bush is responsible for the fiasco in Iraq, which is interesting, since the State Department and every other department he mentioned are part of the Executive branch. For a man who has spent most of his sickening adult life in government, he sure doesn't understand much about it. Of course, he had to imply that it is the Democrats who have "decided we are defeated in Iraq", as if this conclusion was independent of the the conditions on the ground. The man is delusional and has the biggest ego outside of Donald Trump.

Newton Leroy did have some complimentary words for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, mainly to call them "formidable adversaries". One farcical moment occurred when Newton Leroy explained that Bill Clinton deserved impeachment for "lying to the American people", conveniently ignoring the current occupant of the Oval Office and his endless prevarications.

Newton also noted that he isn't really running for president so much as sowing his brilliant ideas in the rich earth of the American public where they will bloom into a movement to declare him our fearless leader by unanimous acclimation (or something like that).

He is a sick, egotistical pervert.

Posts are impossible to complete, and previous comments all disappeared. Life is difficult!

I don't know why its so hard to believe, Kevin. You make 15 to 20 outlandish or asinine remarks in every day's postings, and I still read you.

I agree with ox's reaction. I was surprised by how much I found myself agreeing with Newt Ginrich.

Then he went into a tirade about how the ACLU is "suicidal" and the gov't should appoint a three-judge panel (have to be veteran judges) to decide which "jihadist" Web sites must be shut down.

on issues that are generally non-partisan, he seemed like he knew what he was talking about. But when partisan stuff came out, I remembered why he's Newt.

But overall, I was struck by how natural and calm he seemed. Like a pro. Like a candidate.

'wisdom' vs. 'intelligence'

Cpan is known to re-broadcast the Sunday Talk Shows, including Meet the Press.
Newt is all caught up in bluster and braggadocio, vain boasting, and pretension-- a self-styled master mason. I would think the republicans in the 90's might have held Newt responsible for the loss of the election to the democrats? There was definitely hypocrisy with his ethics violations, given how he tortured the president at the time over a simple consensual affair--most people do lie about affairs. It's a personal matter. I think the public was really turned off and this narrow-minded nebbishness will stay associated with Newt in 2007- 2008

Re. conservative deflator's very apt post above.

It is self-evident that if there is indeed an objective set of moral values the lies that lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of people and displacement of hundreds of thousands are infinitely more egregious than the prevarications about a blow job even though the latter were under oath.

So how come there is no condemnation of GWB on purely moral grounds, neither from the right, which constantly clubs everyone about morality, nor from the left?

I didn't see the show. I do think that it's OK to forgive 5 dumb things in a half-hour discussion, particularly since "dumb" really means "things I don't agree with."

Those of us who have changed our political beliefs are particularly willing to concede that intelligent people of good will can nevertheless be wrong about some key issues.

Drumb:

"Did anyone see the show? I didn't. I'm just taking Taylor's word for it that Newt fired off a series of crackpot suggestions. What did he say?"

Jesus man.

I didn't know it was possible to jump the shark and fuck the pooch simultaneously...

New Rule:

Don't bloviate about blowhards until you got at least half the facts.

Fair enough?

Newton also noted that he isn't really running for president so much as sowing his brilliant ideas in the rich earth of the American public where they will bloom into a movement to declare him our fearless leader by unanimous acclimation (or something like that).

He is a sick, egotistical pervert.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on December 17, 2006 at 5:35 PM

Agreed. I have heard that Newt isn't seriously running for President. He is just trying to introduce his next generation crack pot ideas. Question for all the media executives. Do you really have time for an unserious crack pot when there are serious Republicans and serious Democrats busting their chops trying to attract attention. Just what has Newt got that the other guys and gals don't.

Newt was actually really GOOD on Meet the Press. No really. He talked about wanting to foster new ideas from both sides of the aisle, and sounded actually genuine about it. Now, yes, the dude's crazy, but he seems to say what he means at least some of the time, and in this political climate that's close enough to actual integrity.

RM

es-liberal: "dumb" really means "things I don't agree with."

No. Sometimes a word really can mean just what it purports to mean. Dum-dee-dum-dumb.

And the world is full of smart people who push dumb ideas, usually dumb because they show a jawdropping lack of perspective - ie. they lack wisdom And the older I get, the more I would trade a pound of intelligence for an ounce of wisdom.

Well in your case snicker-snack, that trade would take you well into the negatives.

Newtie's just too ahead of the curve for you people.

Kevin doesn't need any specific cites to call Newt unhinged or crazy. We all know he is.

I loved the part where Newt said that many branches of the executive government didn't work, and could not understand why we listened to him and Reagan when they said the problem with government was government. But that after 25 years of slowing, piece by piece, tearing down the systems that Americans had spent 200 years building, now we should listen to them when they say we should increase the size of government (specifically the State dept. and others) because it is so important. Whaaaaat?

And then he said that we should all work together, Dems and Repubs, because the American people are so tired of partisanship. Whaaaaaaat?

And then he said that he was a "gadfly", i.e., that he has no principles and stands for nothing. So that his comments then made perfect sense.

I love that idea that if Democrats don't solve Bush's problem then defeat is all their fault.

OK. Here's the way it needs to work. Bush and Cheney need to resign as soon as Pelosi becomes Speaker so that she can become president. THEN Democrats will own the war and what happens next.

Bush and Republicans beat Democrats over the head with waging the war. They can go frell themselves if they think that losing the war should go the same way.

For those who not see the "show", you can click on at the MSNBC site - As the hackers appeared to be doing their "gremlin" roles at PA, I wasted a half hour and watched the first segment - Turned off before Brooks and Friedman did their Kabuki dance.

As to Newt's first comments about establishing an Iraqi CCC Corps, ala FDR, how many troops are going to accompany these boys as they perform their work around Baghdad.

As to his first point (And why was he a consultant to DoD in the first place?), he said that he disagreed with Shinseki about the large number of troops needed to invade Iraq - But, then he said that when the Bremer administration took control, we needed those extra troops - How the hell were the additional 350,000 thousand troop going to suddenly be sent to Iraq? He really wants to micro manage revisionist history. "Hmmm, I would have had Superman fly backwards, and then all would have been well".

But, as Newt told Tim, he does not consider himself to be a leader, but more of an intellectual idea man prompting others to think.

Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttt.

RD, hit the return key once in a while, will ya?

Very High Troll to Democrat ratio.

As to Russert not asking pertinent followup questions, (of course Newt was not a Democrat) is this any different from others of the press/

As an aside - Yesterday, at Hood River, the press was assembled to ask questions of a Captain from the Oregon National Guard - News of the finding of the body of a missing climber had just been received. The Captain, obviously shaken by the news, said that he had not received any news about the identity of that climber. The questions started - Every other question asked him if he knew the identity of the climber. Someone even asked him if the family had been told, so they could rush to the three families and stick their mikes into their saddened faces.

Liberal press? Bull - Only Dumb and Dumber need apply to become a TV reporter. As Soleday Canyon said yesterday, "Has this become more clearER"

And now back to Newt's morphing into an Eft.

Newt is a total idiot. I hope he runs, and wins the repukeliscum nomination. It would be a lot of fun to run against him, since he could be trashed totally from about 30 different directions.

By the time we were through with him, all that would be left would a little pool of rendered fat.

Bush's brain: $0.01

The drugs for Bush's brain: $10,000,000,000

ex-liberal's hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty: priceless

thethirdPaul on December 18, 2006 at 10:15 AM

All valid points. I concur and I actually watched Newt on MTP. Just as kooky as ever, he was. A person could get whiplash following his flippity-floppity positions on Iraq. On MTP, he seemed to advocate a surge in troops if you account for all his qualifiers - "a context of a new strategy with a dramatically new commitment, with a bipartisan resolution in the Congress" - just the opposite of his call to "pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there" earlier this year.

Re: "intellectual gadfly"... I took the definition to mean that Newt is a know-nothing big mouth. Professor Gingrich has a lot in common with Professor Wolfowitz.

Apollo 13,

Thank you - Glad to see you posting again. Kind of did too much GC speed typing,TM., and inserted an extra thousand on that 350,000 figure.

However, Newt was correct in criticizing the arrogance of Bremer and crew, especially the tale of dismissing the Sheikhs in Anbar. The old "We know best - We run the show now, bucko".

Did you notice the Gale Sayers and Reggie Bush move on the question of his divorces? He even went into a Billy moment from "Chicago" - just razzle dazzle them on ethics while avoiding the scene at the sickbed.

thirdPaul: However, Newt was correct in criticizing the arrogance of Bremer and crew, especially the tale of dismissing the Sheikhs in Anbar.

Yep, no argument there. Newt's like a broken clock.

And yes, I did notice his dodging and weaving on his divorces and why I don't think Newt is a viable contender for prez. I read at Salon.com about how Newt invented the "blowjobs aren't sex" defense via his mistress Anne Manning so he could possibly say, "I did not have sex with that woman... Anne Manning." A snip from the Salon article:

For one thing, Gingrich pioneered a denial of adultery that some observers would later christen "the Newt Defense": Oral sex doesn't count. In a revealing psychological portrait of the "inner" Gingrich that appeared in Vanity Fair (September 1995), Gail Sheehy uncovered a woman, Anne Manning, who had an affair in Washington in 1977 with a married Gingrich.

"We had oral sex," Manning revealed. "He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'" She added that Gingrich threatened her: "If you ever tell anybody about this, I'll say you're lying."

From the transcript:

1
Newt: And so I think the administration shouldn’t just focus narrowly on Iraq, they should look, first of all, at the larger war, which does include Iran, it does include North Korea, it does include al-Qaeda.

So we are currently at war with Iran and North Korea? Wow. We’d better get that draft operational tout suite.

2
Newt: I believe a Franklin Delano Roosevelt civil conversation corps designed to mop up every young Iraqi male who’s unemployed would be as big a strategic step in Iraq towards victory as whether you have more troops or fewer troops.

Sure. It’s not like the insurgents can foil this plan by attacking crowds of young men lined up to enter this program.

3
Gingrich: The FBI now reports—and by the way, the local Muslim community thanked the FBI for trapping him, and the ACLU was worried that entrapment was involved. Just take those two standards. The local Muslims who are Americans and patriots and don’t want to be blown up in the mall thought it was terrific to arrest this guy for trying to buy hand grenades, and the ACLU thought there’s probably a real infringement of his legal right to be stupid.

Shorter Gingrich: It’s wrong to even worry about whether an American’s legal rights were violated. You’re stupid if you even think we should have rights anymore, now that the terrorists have succeeded in eliminating them.

4
Gingrich: So second, the, the FBI now reports that this jihadist almost certainly became a jihadist—he’s an American living in Illinois, and he’s getting on the Internet and he’s reading hate and he’s reading recruitment and he’s reading how to be a jihadist. Now, why would you tolerate that? I mean, in a free society that’s trying to survive? You know...

You close down any Web site that is jihadist.

OK. Gingrich proposes appointing a panel of three federal judges who have served in combat to make the calls. Presumably they’d also have to speak Arabic. I’m sure this distinguished group would enjoy web-surfing for jihadi sites all day. But we couldn’t single out Muslim sites only. Sites featuring white supremacists, or extremists of any kind advocating violence would have to be shut down too. That’s going to be a swell new bureaucracy.

On the practical side, would you shut down a site where a few posters advocated jihad and the site master argues against them? Maybe only if his arguments weren’t good. Would we try to shut down sites hosted outside the country? Or would we do like China and put controls in place to try to limit the access of Americans to the internet? Traditionally Americans don’t enjoy that kind of nannying.

5 & 6
Gingrich: And part of it, I think I’ve, I’ve reacted—again, we’re all creatures of, of the world we’ve lived in. I’m now a grandfather, I have two grandchildren who are five and seven, and I think you, you think differently about time when you think about your grandchildren’s future, and you think about, “What kind of country am I going to leave them?� And I also think the country’s at a point where it—where, where the negativity has gotten to the point, whether it was right or wrong in ‘94, it has now gotten to the point where it’s pathological.

Isn’t that wonderful? Gingrich had to become a grandfather before he could think four years into the future. That’s the guy for president all right. Maybe it explains why Bush is so completely blinkered when it comes to diplomacy, environmental issues and problems with health insurance. It’s all because the Bush twins failed in their duty to provide the perspective-changing grandchildren.

And Gingrich goes on to say what a great guy he is at figuring out what America should do, even though he knew America needed all his negativity in 1994 and that led us down a path to the point where the negativity is pathological. Bad call, eh, Newt?

There were more.

I think Gingrich is correct in this observation: The problem was we had a perfect strategy for a fast war, and then converted to deciding we were an American occupation.

He doesn’t go on to observe that following either strategy consistently would have failed also. When we got to Baghdad, Saddam was still at large. Could we leave without taking him into custody? I don’t think so. So even if we hadn’t planned to be an occupation, we would have become one. Nor could Bush have gotten support from either Congress or the average citizen for the kind of army it would have taken to carry out a successful occupation. He couldn’t have sold the draft and the obvious up-front cost.

Gingrich says that the civilians overruled the original, military plan to integrate with traditional, local power structures to keep the peace. Considering that the first symptom of chaos, the looting in Baghdad, started instantly, I question whether the military plan could have worked. Could we have relied on the Iraqis to keep order and stand by while we did what was necessary to get Saddam? Members of Saddam’s army did better under Saddam than they were likely to do in the future under a democratic government. Would they have dutifully gone after the foreign fighters while we took the steps needed to destroy their way of life?

We'll never know now, but just like it's hard to argue against success, it's hard to argue for failure.

cowalker:

Isn’t that wonderful? Gingrich had to become a grandfather before he could think four years into the future. That’s the guy for president all right.

I say we should wait until he's a great grandfather, and can see eight years into the future.

The whole thing is on four YouTube videos. Search Gingrich, then click "date added."

Key comment: "This can’t be Bush’s war. This is an American commitment to victory, or it is a defeat. If the Democrats decide it’s a defeat, then fine, let’s withdraw."

In other words, the Republicans have had total control of the presidency and the Congress for the almost four years of this adventure, have screwed it up royally, but if the US "loses" now, it’s the Democrat’s fault. I thought Gingrich was a cut above the Tom Delay crowd…but I'm not so sure now.

Newt:

"This country has every right to defend itself, and you saw the same thing recently on this U.S. Airlines provocation, where you had six people go way out of their way to cause trouble, and then claim they were infringed upon. And I think, frankly, the president should invite that U.S. Airlines crew to the White House and thank them, because we ought to set a standard that if you’re provocative about killing people, we’re not going to show you any mercy."

Yes, we should thank the US Airlines crew for disciminating against US citizens who were freely practicing their religion. The muslims should have declared "we support the war in Iraq and wish you luck in bombing the Middle East" before boarding the plane--otherwise, we would show them no mercy and kick them off. It should be required, all the time, of everyone.... (sigh).

How's this, from Friedman (same transcript):

"They want justice before democracy. The Shiites want justice for the last 30 years. The Kurds want justice. The Sunnis want justice for a war that overturned their, their dominance. My, my fear about Iraq right now and the reason I wrote that column is that I get the sense, Tim, that our vision of Iraq, a democratic, or democratizing pluralistic Iraq, is everyone’s second choice there, all right? Their first choice is a Shia theocracy in the south, a Sunni return to power, an independent Kurdistan. And we cannot go on having our first-choice boys and girls dying for Iraqis’ second choice."

That last sentence is appalling. It really reads: "We just can't keep sending our sons and daughters to be killed for those lazy Iraqis who aren't doing what we wanted them to do after we invaded their country, destroyed their (admittedly despotic) government, and then messed everything up. I'm so upset that the Iraqis aren't conforming to our vision."

Or, how about this one:

"And it gets back to something, you know, I, I argued, you know, before the war, which is that some things are true, even if George Bush believes them, and one of them is that this part of the world is really falling off, all right, in a dangerous way. As David alluded to, that if this cracks up, you know, what you get, they actually need a civil war.

We had a civil war in our country. We had a civil war because we thought some people in our country believed really bad things. Really bad things about human dignity and equality, about, you know, the right of one people to enslave another. They’re having a civil war in Iraq, only it’s not about ideas, it’s about tribal issues. There is no Abe Lincoln there. It’s the South vs. the South, that’s the problem with the fight right now."

His understanding of history and how it informs the present is so mangled that I can just hear the tires squealing and the metal crunching. It's a wreck. He has no clue what he's talking about. (Note: I don't have much of a clue either, but I can at least say with great confidence that Friedman is full of it.)

Sorry for the double post, but I just ran across another great one from Friedman:

"You know, Tim, if I can share with you another rule I had about the Middle East, it was that any general going to the Middle East—or reporter—should have to take a test, and it would consist of one question:

Do you believe the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? If you answer yes to that question, you can’t go to Iraq. You can go to Korea, you can go to Germany, you can go to Japan. You can’t go to Iraq.

And the problem is, when you hear the first lady, when I think of the way Bush is running this war, he thinks that in the Middle East the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. It’s all straight, it’s a matter of just add a little more force here, and a little more, you know, give another speech there. It’s insane."

His "test" is bs. The shortest distance between two points, obviously, is a straight line. I understand that he's trying to say "think outside the box," but then he should just drop the whole two points idea and come up with something else.

The only reason he doesn't use 2+2=? for this example is that saying 2+2=5 would just make him look even more ridiculous. But its the same logic. God. It's like 1984. "War is Peace." "The shortest distance between two points is not a line."

Doesn't have the same ring to it though.

Kevin I am glad you read OxBlog so we don't have to.
Ever since the BushWar went in the toilet those cheerleaders have been spending a lot more time working on their dissertations. Note to future Democratic administrations: If someone suggests hiring one of those clowns, fire that person immediately.