Apologies for the week-long hiatus. I was on a trip in Switzerland (about which more in a bit) and trying amidst a heavy schedule to pay attention to developments back at home. Seems like the central news is the emerging debate over a GM/automaker bailout. I'm far from expert in these matters and still puzzling through the details, but Felix Salmon's comments on the false dichotomy of bailout v bankruptcy seem sensible.

But there's a broader point to make here: we're in totally uncharted waters right now. We've witnessed the intellectual collapse of the old neo-liberal orthodoxy, and yet its advocates retain tremendous real-world political, intellectual and elite influence. The public's attitudes towards state intervention have grown generally more friendly, but figuring out where the public is ideologically is a very tricky business. And on top of this we have this rolling crisis, which demands, or seems to demand consistent intervention, ideology be damned.

In this environment, we're seeing a lot of very ad-hoc policy-making, a case by case government intervention. I'm not sure what the massive wholistic alternative to this is, but it seems to be that we've now got a mismatch between the capacities of our deeply stripped down, subcontracted federal government, and the requirements of the moment. Amidst all the talk of the Bush Administration's penchant for increasing the size of the state, the measure invoked is the size of the federal budget as a percentage of GDP, which has indeed grown. But starting in the early Clinton years, the federal civilian workforce has shrunk [PDF]. Contractors make up the gap.

So here's the issue. We're now in a situation where we are asking more and more of the federal government, managing $700 billion in bailout money, most obviously, and we don't necessarily have a government staffed up enough to handle what it needs to do.

Comments (76)

1. nothing a few kelly girls can't fix.....

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 11:43am

2. Isn't that a perfect solution to create more federal jobs, they have been lost over the years and contractors have taken over. In my mind they have not been the answer as the service they provide is not as efficient as the federal one used to be. It can be a very slap dash, that will do attitude they work on and that is not what people want to have a good work force and one that keeps employee's and not hiring new folks every five minutes. Lots of jobs in the Air Force have been contracted out and they definitely do not work as well as they did under federal employee's....I think they should go back to federal employment for a lot of these positions.

   Posted by Caj at 11/17/2008 @ 11:52am

3. First of all, we should not be having government do more to begin with.

   But also, what is needed is to terminate the employment of roughly 25-50% of the federal civilian workforce.

   We do not need taxpayers money used for some bureaucrat to spend all day moving paper from one side of the desk to the other, only to repeat the process the next day.

   You have to consider that there are jobs being done that are not necessary to begin with, and then look at the jobs that everybody would agree to governement has to do. Those jobs are being done in a wasteful and inefficient manner.

   You do not need account numbers that are so long that you have to take a taxi to get from one end of the number to the next, nor do you need paperwork requirements that are "needed" only because some bureaucrat says they are needed, or coordination cycles/approval chains or management levels where some "specialist" has to approve something that in the real world (anything outside of government) would be up to a department manager to approve.

   In the real world authority is delegated and managers take responsibility for decisions and do not require and endless phalanx of paperwork if they make a decision on a case by case basis it is not needed. The department manager will have a budget and is responsible for any purchases after a budget is approved.

   And then we go beyond this to stories of a government employee who reads all day or another one who doesn't come to work for SEVEN MONTHS and then upon finally being fired says the reason was his boss made him sick.

   Mask will require me to supply links or proof, instead Mask needs to go talk to anybody who has worked for both the government and in the real world and they can tell Mask what I am talking about.

   Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 12:55pm

4. Mask,

   You have not posted in on this thread yet, but my comment will be percieved by you like a shark that sees blood in the water.

   You will demand I post links, say I am engaging in truthiness if I do not, or whatever, and think you can prove a point.

   But if you look at my post you may be able to glean from my last paragraph where I am coming from.

   In other words, my comments were not fed to me by Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or for that matter any other "neocons" or "chickenhawk neocons" such as Karl Rove, etc.

   They are driven by personal observation, from having worked in the government and in the real world.

   They are essentially not even politically driven comments. They are driven by the complete disbelief that Christopher Hayes thinks there should be MORE government employees, when we really need less. A lot less.

   Disbelief driven by having seen some of the utter nonsense that takes place as your tax dollars go down the toilet every day. Government employees do not police this themselves to stop it. They do not want to cut waste, and thus put their own jobs in jeopardy.

   I am not talking about fraud here. I am just talking about unnecessary work effort that is intertwined within everything government does.

   Cut back on some of this, and then less people would be needed. Government workers, who have essentially guaranteed lifetime jobs where performance is not a consideration in getting a raise each year (it is virtually automatic) are not going to trim things that would cause some of them to be unemployed. So the taxpayers pay an unnecessary bill instead.

   If you want proof, do what I suggest and talk to someone who has worked in government AND in the real world.

   Thus there is nothing to link to in order to prove..... I

   Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 1:16pm

5. Mask,

   Somehow my last post did not completely get in.

   At the end I was just repeating what I said the first time, if you want proof talk to anyone who has worked for the government and in the real world, actually someone who is working in the real world now.

   The reverse, a governemnt employee, would not want to admit what I have said, but a former governement employee working in the real world now will tell you what I have told you.

   Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 1:19pm

6. sjchermak-I have worked for the federal govt,state govt,and two county govts as well as in the private sector and I have no idea what you are talking about.Right now isn't the time to start firing govt employees since jobs are scarce and that would only raise the unemployment rate and cause people to go on government assistance, which will accomplish nothing.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 11/17/2008 @ 1:38pm

7. The reason the cost of government has gone through the roof is these private contractors are using it a cash cow. Those parasites on Wall Street couldn't get their hands on Social Security, so they get government money through the bailouts for the investment banks. I have worked in private enterprise, local government, and the military. While there is no such thing as perfection, I would rank the military as the most efficient, followed by the civil service, and watch your wallet with big business. Government is no place for the the profit motive.

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/17/2008 @ 1:42pm

8. PJCasey-I was going to rate the military as the least efficient that I have seen particularly with the way the military will spend $200.00 to buy a $2.50 screw driver.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 11/17/2008 @ 1:45pm

9. Healthcare is an area where federal take over could be beneficial. By taking the insurance companies out of the equation, we can curb the high cost of healthcare. We could also eliminate the existing administrative bloat of corporate healthcare, and increase the numbers of workers who give direct patient care such as doctors and nurses.

   Posted by nursevic at 11/17/2008 @ 1:50pm

10. i'm nobody,

    You say you have no idea what I am talking about.

    What you need to do is take something that you had to do at work when you were at work in the private sector, and then compare it to what you had to do while performing the same type of function in government.

    Most likely, you would have had to fill out considerably more paperwork as a government employee to do this than you would have had to in the private sector.

    Or it may have been that in the private sector you immediate supervisor would be the one to approve it, or approve the purchase of it, wheras in the government you may have had to get the approval of some "specialist" instead who in reality has no clue whether you really need it or whether there is the money for it. Or you may have had to get several approvals as various managers (bureaucrats) needed to "cooordinate" on it.

    My best example is in traveling for work as a government employee vs. traveling for work as an employee in the real world.

    Or another bone of contention I have is where career government employees talk and write with so many acronyms in their on the job culture, but when talking to someone outside their jobs, perhaps when talking to patients at a VA hospital, they still talk the government gobbledygook.... they are so mired in their world they can't switch to English when they talk, you are supposed to translate to "government" instead.

    I don't know how else to describe it, you do indicate a lot of government in your background, maybe too much to be able to see what I am saying.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 2:02pm

11. Subcontract it to Haliburton. They're supposed to be coming home ;-)

    Posted by mikecope at 11/17/2008 @ 2:05pm

12. Subcontract it to Haliburton. They're supposed to be coming home ;-)

    Posted by mikecope at 11/17/2008 @ 2:07pm

13. i'm nobody,

    I agree it would put a lot of people on unemployment, what I propose would be a shock to the system now. But eventually as the govenment employees gained employment in the real world this would be overcome.

    It it would be a shock to the system what is the alternative? Letting this continue forever? I don't think that is right, not at all.

    And people would say that it would be heartless to have people left with no jobs now, etc..... but did any of these government employees think... while working in their guaranteed lifetime job with the guaranteed "cola" (cost of living increase) each year, what the impact is on others? What the impact is on people who may not have jobs because industry has left their state due to high taxation?

    (We were talking federal employment but the same is true for all government, state and local as well, although my perception is that as you get to a local level of government there are less people doing work completely unnecessary or whose only purpose,in and of itself, is to shuffle paper or "coordinate", as oppposed to bureaucrats at a state capital or a federal office)

    But back to what I was saying, why is some bureaucrat's existence more important than somebody who has no job and has trouble providing for their family because of job scarcity due to high taxation? The answer is that it is not, and thus some of these government workers are quite arrogant to think that it does.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 2:11pm

14. If they are paying $200.00 for a $2.50 hammer, they are probably not buying a hammer with the $200.00. It may be going for some secret project?

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/17/2008 @ 2:14pm

15. sjchermak-I never noticed much difference in amounts of paperwork or in anything else and did spend more than enough time in both the private and public sectors to have noticed..Can both sectors be made to be more efficient?Yes.Will they be?Not likely, as long as humans are in charge.I've seen tons of waste in the private sector just as I have seen tons of waste in the public sector and that's the way it's always been..We humans are wasteful critters.Every occupation has it's gobbledygook that the employees speak and not just govt employees.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/17/2008 @ 2:16pm

16. sjchermak-Working for the govt is working in the real world and the private sector does not have enough jobs available for everyone to be employed.What you purpose would send this country into a horrid depression,cause untold problems with people going on welfare and food stamps,cause serious problems for thousands of children whose parents you just put out of work,increase the crime rate,and would be a nightmare as someone decides who stays and who goes.The increase in welfare and food stamps won't help the economy and the increase in crime won't help to downsize the govt.It would be nice to be able to downsize,but that just isn't possible right now and likely never will be.We just need for it to not get much bigger.High taxation isn't the reason that people are losing their jobs.It's more complicated than that.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/17/2008 @ 2:28pm

17. Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 1:19pm

    SJCHER, what more is there to say.

    You state something, claim "everybody knows" it's true, and can hardly ever prove it.

    "truthiness"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 2:37pm

18. i'm nobody,

    Apparently your experience is different than mine. In my experience I saw things that would not exist in the real world.

    In the real world only so much fat exists before it is trimmed, because companies are trying to make profit. That concept is condemned in some quarters such as by some on The Nation, but it serves as a brake on too much fat building in.

    This is non-existent in the government.

    As far as your other comments-

    Why would crime go up?

    Who decides who stays and who goes (or how), you ask?.... You layoff by job performance, like in the real world.

    High taxation most definitely does have an impact on jobs.. It may not be the only factor but it plays a large part....It is one of the main reasons many jobs gravitated from the "Rust Belt" to the "Sunbelt", along with excess unionization.

    You said we need government to not get much bigger. But it always gets bigger, even during Republican administrations. If something drastic is not done it will always get bigger.

    The difference between Republican and Democrat is that Democrats propose growing government to begin with.

    And I am sorry but we are supposed to care about the government employees out of work? Did government employees care about others out of work because of taxes propping up guaranteed lifetime jobs and guaranteed pay raises every year doing unnecessary paper shuffling?

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 3:09pm

19. Relax, Mask-

    While doing your job as the internet traffic cop who patrols the blogs for "truthiness", you need to go back and request backup from Malcontent for the following comment:

    "bushes actual crimes"

    I asked Malcontent what these were, and have received no reply. Probably not going to receive a reply.

    Since your policing is selective, you can dispense with these requests you make... I told you already I am not going to respond, and now you need to know I am not going to worry about what you say either.

    You may wind up joining Rese on ignore.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 3:15pm

20. These extra government workers that SJ is talking about aren't nearly as debilitating to our system as, say, the two trillion dollars the pentagon lost just before 911. What about that? No one even mentions it anymore, just like the fact of GW's being AWOL from his military service. I seek clarification, because, right now, that money would sure come in handy. Aren't they 'government employees'?

    And what about the war in Iraq, even though Saddam had nothing to do with 911? Expensive and unnecessary. And how about the approximately 700 plus military bases around the world that need funding? We could sure save some money there. How about baiting all the current military employees with offers of money for a new car, college loans? Is that a truly honest device meant to inspire patriotism, or a desperate attempt to keep them there at any cost to secure that oil?

    There's so many ways to parse this it numbs the mind. I don't totally disagree that some government employees may need to go. That's reality. But let's start with with the 'decider' and his minions, undo some of those aggressive policies that have made us so unpopular. When our 'boat' is floating again we can do a further cleansing, but not when people could lose their homes.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/17/2008 @ 3:19pm

21. I think that 'SJ' is a 'shill' planted by the Nation to inspire debate. It can't possibly be a real person.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/17/2008 @ 3:28pm

22. 'Where do you get the money for all this [secret projects]?'

    'You don't think they really pay $400 for a hammer, do you'

    -- Independence Day (the movie)

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/17/2008 @ 3:47pm

23. sjchermak,

    First of all, one of the reasons for the layers of authorization needed in the governmental sector is because it's the taxpayer's money and the public demands higher accountability, especially over things that get a lot of press coverage. This is also why examples from the public sector of slacker employees get more play than when the same type of thing occurs in a private corporation.

    Speaking of the private sector, why is it that American companies need one manager for something like every 2 or 3 employees when Europe and Japan can get by with a single manager for every 8-9 workers?

    Here in New York State, the state workforce has lived with either soft or hard hiring freezes for the better part of the last 20 years. We can fill the positions mandated by law (there's that legislature again, creating unnessassary jobs), such as developmental aides for the developmentally disabled (maybe not so unneeded, huh?) while clerical positions have been shed by the thousands. The average age of the state workforce is over 50, and while we have some people with little or no work to do, others are doing the job of two or three people, often with little or no staff support. Please ID the specific types of government jobs you'd like to see eliminated.

    I would love to see a smaller, less intrusive government. If more people made a good, decent wage and we had universal health insurance and pensions, we could get by with smaller social welfare staffs (or maybe make their caseloads reasonable). Hell, the private insurance industry is a wonder of overstaffing, with a whole army of people trying to deny coverage. And big pharma spends billions on advertising of questionable honesty to drive up demand, hence increasing their profits.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/17/2008 @ 3:57pm

24. You may wind up joining Rese on ignore.-----Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 3:15pm

    You mean YOU are going to Ignore me? Okey-doke.

    But you'll miss how I continually point out the Colbertian stereotype that you (in all self-seriousness) truly are. Or the fact that you ADMITTEDLY get your talking points from Rush and never investigate to see if they have any factual basis...

    and maybe consider trying to defend yourself?

    But then again...since you can't...maybe putting me on Ignore IS a good idea for you!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 4:45pm

25. ficheye and cka2nd,

    Your own arguments defeat themselves. You mention two trillion dollars the Pentagon lost? Who do you think would have lost the money?

    Civilian government paper-shufflers. Civilian government bureaucrats who got guaranteed pay raises every year. Excess staff doing excess paper shuffling (probably now excess emailing and mouse-clicking instead) in an environment where authority and responsibility are not delegated or taken, but paper shuffling and crossing every t and dotting every I instead of managers taking responsibility and managing are the order of the day.

    The mindset that if all the reams and reams of paper are filled out this "insures" that whatever is supposed to happen happens.

    You do that objective not through paper shuffling but by managers delegating authority and taking responsibility and acutually managing instead of overseeing paper shuffling.

    "Slacker employees" do not last very long in a private corporation, at least not as long as in government.

    You say "we have some people with little or no work to do"?????

    Then what are they on the state payroll for? GET RID OF THEM NOW.

    ficheye, you then switch off and turn this into an argument about Iraq. Not a good idea for you, since you know that we went into Iraq not to catch or stop the perpatrator of 9/11 but to prevent future 9/11's.

    Saddam was trying to stir up trouble in the Middle East (such as paying Palestinian homicide bombers' families $25,000... he had established links to terror organizations and he was going to build WMD again.

    Stopping Saddam was one part of preventing future 9/11's , which President Bush had a responsiblity to do and which he has tried his best to do.

    Your beliefs do not hold up under scrutiny. They are wrong.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 4:51pm

26. As I said before, 'SJ' is not a real person. It may, in fact, be Rush Limburger himself making these posts just for yuks.

    I mean, the pentagon employing civilian contractors? Who would have thunk it? And downsizing the pentagon staff, paper shufflers or not, ain't gonna happen very soon. they've got hammers and toilets to order.

    Hopefully this 'SJ', whoever it is, will get tired of typing soon. I mean, not realizing that the military and government overspending are connected at the hip... it's too bogus to respond to except in the third person.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/17/2008 @ 5:05pm

27. "bushes actual crimes"

    Lying about war intelligence. (Your attempts at backpedaling and "how could we have known", will not work with someone, as far out of the loop as I am, who knew <i>as bush was speaking</i> that what he said were lies. He either should have known. Or did. Liar or incompetent. You choose. Same goes for congress).

    Torture.

    Rendition.

    Habeas corpus.

    Illegal spying.

    Retrogressive laws, immunizing him against prosecution. (unconstitutional.)

    Free speech zones.

    To many to list. Real arguments will be entertained. Rovian bullshit will be ignored.

    Your tirade against civil service employees diminishes your already minute intellectual stature.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 5:26pm

28. gobbledygook.... they are so mired in their world they can't switch to English when they talk, you are supposed to translate to "sjchermak" instead.

    I don't know how else to describe it, you do indicate a lot of sjchermak in your background, maybe too much to be able to see what I am saying.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 2:02pm

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 5:27pm

29. Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 1:16pm

    Your posts are mostly rugurgitated right wing talking points sucked from the talk out the asses of Limbaugh and Hannity anyway.

    A shark will usually only eat live and viable prey. Not some fecid and rotten useless fodder.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/17/2008 @ 6:00pm

30. Malcontent,

    You discuss lying about war intelligence and that you knew as the President was speaking.

    Where are you facts to back this up. Right now you just have a statement on the table.

    Were is the evidence to support this? I don't see any. You have just made a statement.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 7:21pm

31. Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 7:21pm

    Two months before he mis-spoke, the IAEA said that the tubes "were not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment.

    Same as the Department of Energy months earlier.

    Some of us were paying close attention as bushco had already laid out their plans for attacking Iraq before 9/11.

    Hell, they had a website back when clinton was president. Some of us have distrusted this president and seen through his lies from the beginning. Not because I'm so smart, but because the entire bush administration (née nixon administration) had published their intent months earlier.

    Sometimes it helps not to get all your news from one biased source.

    Arguing with you would be more fun, if you got new talking points. We argued out all these points years ago. Try that and maybe next year, we can move up to facts.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 8:00pm

32. The entity who refers to himself as sjchermak is now reverting to 'Palinspeak'.

    Is it possible that he can see Sean Hannity from his house?

    I mean, even Colin Powell and Scott McClellan are coming out about the indiscretions regarding the truth and the outgoing administration, not that they are the most perfect vessels of information considering their past. But after all the 'conjecture' about Bush and co., one can look at the new revelations about 'Plamegate', yellowcake and ad nauseum criminal acts as at least a finger pointing in the direction of massive incompetence.

    I'm going to rest my case. It's almost like writing to the National Enquirer and complaining about their content.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/17/2008 @ 8:11pm

33. Posted by ficheye at 11/17/2008 @ 8:11pm

    You really need to read from sources other than leftist spin sites.

    All of the lies about the WMD that you suggest have been thoroughly debunked including the grand liar himself, Wilson.

    I can re-educate you on all the finer points of truth that I have posted here the past 3 years, but you wouldn't read them or accept them (even though they come from sources like the Senate, the 9/11 Commission, foreign govt commissions, and on and on).

    Like many leftists, it is easier for you to accept and regurgitate the lies than to actually investigate the evidence.

    So continue to wallow in your little hate filled world.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/17/2008 @ 8:28pm

34. You really need to read from sources other than leftist spin sites.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/17/2008 @ 8:28pm

    What sources do you use, LVLIB?

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 8:55pm

35. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/17/2008 @ 8:28pm

    Well, well. I wondered when you would rear your head and spew.

    Your attempts to re-educate one and all have had such little impact on the general truth that exists out in the real world it's a wonder that you haven't actually written a book in a greater attempt at reenforcing the generally accepted lies that conservatives seem to wallow in. They need all the help they can get, especially now.

    Entering into a serious exchange of 'ideas' with you would generally insult the concept of the word 'idea', so you just have at it. Am I a leftist? Not so sure about that. But I won't defend ideas that are indefensible. And as far as my sources I actually refer to National Review Online and The Hill as often as I can stomach. Know your enemies.

    I'll bet that you think Obamas birth certificate is fake, too. Phillip Berg, Joe Leiberman - same thing. I originally came here for information, but what I learned is that as soon as you disagree with someone who is a conservative the bashing begins. If you laid out facts that were meant to educate so that I may check them out myself... that I could respect. But you don't - you just talk 'at' people. I would put you in the ignore category, but it's both fun and frightening to keep abreast of those who try to educate others from 'the shallow end' of the pool.

    As far as I knew, in Iraq, they only found some WWII mustard gas containers and some trailers that might have been biological weapons production facilities, but the experts said that their actual functionality was in doubt. Send me some links or direct me to information that would serve to educate me. I await with interest. I have doubts as to the veracity of some of the 911 commission findings, I must say.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/17/2008 @ 9:14pm

36. ficheye, malcontent, mask

    I picked up a book at the library on Saturday. It is depressing to read, but not for the reasons you may think.

    It is for the opposite. This book, and I am only half through, debunks all the canards you post regrading Iraq, national security, 9/11, the Patriot Act, media bias.

    The book is

    The Terrorism Watch by Ronald Kessler ISBN 978-0-307-38213-9

    It is written from the perspective of the FBI regarding surveillance, the War on Terror, etc. but it is the most comprehensive refutation of your arguments I have come across.

    It is depressing for me to read it because your viewpoints (i.e., distortions and lies) have been successfully promoted in this country in recent years.

    It is one thing for you bloggers on The Nation, or Katrina Vanden Heuvel, etc to have the viewpoints you do, but you libs have been extremely successful in getting your viewpoint believed by a lot of people who are not all that politically oriented.

    And the media has been successful at this too, along with newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post apparently more concerned with promoting this viewpoint than with national security.

    ficheye, have you read Scott McClellan's book? I have, and Mr. McClellan's premise that the Bush administration was not forthcoming about things is something he does not successfully prove. He seems to think the case for war was not properly made, even though practically everybody in this country knew what all the issues were before the war. Both lib and conservative, with the libs opposing and conservatives supporting.

    To be continued

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 9:54pm

37. Truthiness Watch by Ronald Kessler

    Any factual quotes (not the authors) from this book, that refute the facts you've been presented with?

    Or just vague accusations that what we've posted is not true?

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 10:07pm

38. McClellan seems to think that after the initial invasion of Iraq that President Bush should have been more forthcoming or apologize .. but about what he never exactly makes clear.

    Of course, the war did not turn out as hoped, and over time the U.S. stood it's ground and continued to fight instead of giving up. Exactly why an apology was needed because we were continuing to fight terrorists who want to kill us, is beyond me.

    The first few chapters of the book, I have to admit however, I got a kick out of big time.

    Any lib promoting McClellan's book probably ought to go read those chapters, and it will be a safe bet the lib won't mention the book again!

    This part had to do with McClellan being in Florida in 2000 after the night of the election, during all the recounting drama, etc.

    He describes being in a room where ballots were being inspected, by Democrat and Republican election officials.

    The Republicans noticed something odd. The floor was littered with chads.

    When you stop and think about it, why would there be chads on the floor? The chads come out when people vote.

    But people weren't voting. The ballots were only being inspected or recounted.

    So how could chads be on the floor?

    Could it be that people were still voting, so to speak? People voting for Gore? After the election, during the recount process? Recounting and voting at the same time?

    No wonder Gore wanted more recounting, because he wanted his new votes to be counted, too!!

    I thought this was hilarious, that a book feted by libs as an expose of the Bush Administration, contained stuff that undercut the "2000 election was stolen" canard!

    One more comment, ficheye---

    You say I have reverted to "Palinspeak" - you meant it as an insult, I'm sure.

    But I take that as a compliment! Thanks.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 10:08pm

39. You say I have reverted to "Palinspeak" - you meant it as an insult, I'm sure.

    But I take that as a compliment! Thanks.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 10:08pm

    (insert rimshot)

    Thank you, and goodnight!

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 10:16pm

40. Malcontent, ficheye, Mask -

    What is it with you libs? You declare things with no facts or citations or proof, then state they are fact and you have proved your case.

    Then when a conservative posts in and cites places that contain a wealth of evidence refuting what you say (lvliberty1 mentioned the 9/11 commission, and I mentioned a book I am currently reading), you say we haven't refuted your "facts", and you demand specifics even though you have only posted your opinions, and then Mask says it was told to us by Rush Limbaugh.

    I was tempted to say you would lose in a high school debate class, but then I remembered the teacher would probably be lib,and declare you the winner!

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/17/2008 @ 10:16pm

41. If it says Libs, Libs, Libs on the label, label, label.

    You crack me up.

    Somehow your allusions to the exsistance of facts, <i.are fact</i> and our facts go unrefuted, because apparently, you don't see them.

    Where have you stated any fact that refutes what has been posted?

    All you have done is say you've read a book that refutes our facts. Then you don't even bother to quote where the author got his facts?

    In a debate, you are required to arm yourself with the facts, not merely note that someone else did once and wrote it all down.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 11:03pm

42. All that bullshit about how Govt. bureaucracy is so inefficient reminds me of the Lethal Weapon movie series. "Those damn bureaucrats in charge don't know how life is on the street! In the real world!!"

    It's such a cliche. Who are these unnecessary hangers-on. I believe that an allegation was made that 25-50% of Federal civilian employees be cut. Why no examination of the inefficient military? I know other posters brought it up, but it is where most of the Federal Budget goes...

    Posted by koroviev at 11/18/2008 @ 12:19am

43. Malcontent,

    Where exactly are all these facts you have posted? You have stated some opinions.

    I have said before, that when some of you libs state your opinions you see that as fact, in your minds it is blatantly obvious and self-proving somehow. You never seem to provide anything resembling support for these so-called facts, certainly not the level of support you demand from us.

    You have stated this mindset up above, in YOUR own words, "our facts go unrefuted, because apparently, you don't see them"

    In other words, it is we that in your mind fall short, because we do not see your opinion as fact, which we obviously are supposed to do.

    I think that some of you on the left are honestly not used to somebody questioning you. At least the more pseudo-intellectual among you can not fathom why someone would not sop up your every word like a sponge.

    I am supposed to quote where the author of the book got his facts? The book covers a wide range of topics, many separate circumstances - what am I supposed to do, paste the entire content of the book into The Nation website?

    But it is like lvliberty1 said, you wouldn't accept it anyway, you would just dance around to a different topic.

    I told you what the name of the book is and the ISBN number, go to your local library and read it or if the library does not have it you can probably buy it at Amazon.com.

    You haven't proven that President Bush lied or that the Iraq war was unnecessary. Up above you list what you believe are "wrongs" - we already know what you think on these, and we have different takes on these events.

    You have made no attempt to prove how these are "wrongs". The book I cited tears these things apart, you need to read the book - it is not unreasonable to ask that you do so.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2008 @ 12:20am

44. Malcontent,

    Where exactly are all your posts?

    What did they say?

    I have said before, repetitive shit I've said already.

    I repeat, I've read nothing you wrote.

    In other words, I don't know what you said.

    I think that some of you on the left are honestly not worth paying attention to.

    I am supposed to quote facts? Blah, blah, blah The book?

    But it is like lvliberty1 said, He's so smart.

    I told you what the name of the book, now stop pestering me to post anything factual from it. Track it down and read it yourself, by which time I will have moved on to other truthiness and you'll have forgotton all about this episode of obsfucation and mock indignation.

    You haven't proven that President Bush lied or that the Iraq war was unnecessary. Up above you list what you believe are "wrongs" - we already know what you think on these, and I've ignored everything factual posted, so I can continue to disagree.

    You have made no attempt to prove how these are "wrongs", that I bothered to read. Even thogh I only refuted the one thing anyway. The book I cited tears these things apart, you need to read the book - Please drop this for now, so I stop always looking mis-informed. - it is not unreasonable to ask that you do so.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2008 @ 12:20am

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/18/2008 @ 02:21am

45. The Downing Street Memo proves Bush and his Junta of cronies lied.

    Posted by koroviev at 11/18/2008 @ 02:43am

46. ...you need to read the book - it is not unreasonable to ask that you do so. Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2008

    Oh, yes it is. Since I couldn't read the book tonight I went to Amazon and read a bunch of reviews.

    The section that says 'People who bought this book also bought' was illuminating to say the least. Newt Gingrich, Mark Levin, Anne Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Glen Beck.

    And the book reviews looked pretty much like this out of control thread. The ones that liked it were lib hating, finger pointing, foaming-at-the-mouth conservatives. And a lot of the reviews that gave it four or five stars also criticized his sudden swing into unfounded and biased political accusations.

    But a lot of things are clear now. Billy Cunningham, Anne Coulter (shudder). You get information from rabid hate mongers and therefore no exchange of ideas will ever be possible. I'm going back to the third person thing now. A lot more fun.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/18/2008 @ 03:20am

47. ficheye,

    Fantastic. Where are your specific comments about specific things in the book?

    And of course, people you disagree with are labeled "rabid hate mongers".

    Libs foaming at the mouth with contempt for people they disagree with - you no doubt call what they say "truth".

    koroview,

    No, the Downing Street Memo did not.......

    Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq by John Hawkins

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/ special/xyz.php

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2008 @ 04:59am

48. I read the memo. There are unavoidable facts.

    "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record."

    Posted by koroviev at 11/18/2008 @ 05:27am

49. http://www.rightwingnews.com/ special/xyz.php

    Posted by sjchermak

    rightwingnews.com.....Eeeew!

    Posted by koroviev at 11/18/2008 @ 06:41am

50. Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2008 @ 04:59am

    Fantastic. Where are your specific comments about specific things in the book?

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/18/2008 @ 5:54pm

51. I think SJ must be about 100 years old, because I clearly stated that I couldn't read the book overnight. No matter. He blew right (?!!) past that and asked me where were my specific questions about a book I couldn't read yet. My fellow contributors, the Amazon reviews speak for themselves.

    This guy (?) his his sights set on whoever he thinks is a 'lib' and just goes on the attack. I have to apologize to my fellow Nation bloggers for becoming fascinated with someone who has this mindset. I wonder why he doesn't go to a right wing website and post there?

    Nonetheless, I will temper my discussion and keep within the bounds of the topic. Check out a book called 'The Terrorist Watch' by Ronald Kessler. SJ couldn't even type the title correctly to a book that is obviously in his possession. Flame on, SJ. I'll needle you on occasion, but let's try to exchange information here.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/18/2008 @ 6:34pm

52. koroview,

    Here's the scoop refuting your claim that the Downing Street memo is some kind of "unavoidable facts"

    ===================

    But, let's move on to the meat of the DSM. Via Wikipedia, here is the part of the Downing Street Memo that has caused the most "excitement" on the left:

    Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

    Basically the charge here is supposed to be that Bush "fixed" the evidence for the war.

    When the word "fixed" is mentioned in the memo, it's obviously not being used as Americans would use it if they were talking about "fixing" a horse race. Instead, the writer was trying to get across that the Bush administration was attempting to build a solid case to justify its policy publicly. That's certainly not a unique way of looking at it either. For example, John Ware, a reporter at the very liberal BBC, seems to have roughly the same interpretation:

    "Several well placed sources have told us that Sir Richard Dearlove was minuted as saying: "The facts and the intelligence were being fixed round the policy by the Bush administration." By 'fixed' the MI6 chief meant that the Americans were trawling for evidence to reinforce their claim that Saddam was a threat."

    ==================

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2008 @ 6:37pm

53. koroview,

    continued from above

    ======================

    Furthermore, to even try to interpret the Downing Street Memo as supporting the idea that Bush was making up evidence -- presumably about weapons of mass destruction -- is extremely difficult to square with the fact that the DSM itself makes it absolutely clear that the British believed Saddam had WMDs. From the DSM:

    "For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

    If the Bush administration and the Brits believed Saddam had WMDs and was capable of using them, what exactly is supposed to have been forged? Nothing of course, because that's not how the person taking the notes meant it to be interpreted. If he'd known his notes were ever going to be read by the public, I'm sure he would have been more careful about ambiguous phrasing that could be willfully misinterpreted for political gain.

    Quote (the DSM) all you want. Is there some evidence to back this up? Say, to refute the conclusions of the Butler Report (British), the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, or the 9/11 Commission, which all concluded that there was no improper manipulation of intelligence? Or are we now willing to disregard the conclusions of three official inquiries on the strength of one (word in an) unattributed set of minutes from a single foreign staff meeting?"

    ========================

    okay, koroview, what's next?

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2008 @ 6:40pm

54. Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2008 @ 6:37pm

    "When the word "fixed" is mentioned in the memo, it's obviously not being used as Americans would use it if they were talking about "fixing" a horse race"

    Google PNAC. Then actually read. As has been pointed out to you many times, the plan was laid out before chimpy was even installed by the supremes.

    Do you read any of the responses to your posts? Or just whine alot?

    "Quote (the DSM) all you want. Is there some evidence to back this up?"

    IAEA and DOE statement, before bush lied to the country. But then, why listen to the experts when you already have an agenda to fill?

    Any chance of <i>you</i> quoting your beloved book? Or just whining because nobody else cares to even read it?

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/18/2008 @ 7:38pm

55. OK Malcontent,

    With the " chimpy was even installed by the supremes." comment you have completely trashed your credibility.

    That canard has been hashed over and disproven over and over again,... did you see my remarks above about the first few chapters of the McClellan book and what seems to have been additional Democrat voting after the election was over?

    Votes for Gore being created even as votes were being counted?

    Mask won't ask you to lay out all your evidence for the "chimpy was even installed by the supremes".

    This is getting old, and ridiculous. What is demoralizing is that your mindset has prevailed in the court of public opinion, in this election cycle.

    However, trends come and go and eventually a Republican will be elected to the White House again (and I really do hope it is Sarah Palin, I really do).

    You libs can't stand her. I believe she is competent and smart and has common sense and would make a principled leader in her own right to begin with, but it would be a bonus and a plus to have someone elected to the White House that drives libs nuts!

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2008 @ 8:30pm

56. Fantastic. Where are your specific comments about specific things in the book?

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/18/2008 @ 8:42pm

57. ...opps! there are none. you just keep changing the subject.

    Have you ever read about the actual supreme court opinion and what the justices themselves, claim it means?

    Nevermind. I refuse to get into another "debate" on a different topic with you. You answered my question, by asking (inanely) the same question back.

    Will you ever even quote the author of the book, much less his sources. Or will you just continue to babble on about how "the book" trashes my view?

    (You conservatives and your books of fairy tales).

    I sincerely doubt that it does. But, it very well might, for all the info you've disclosed about it. I am happy read any source you provide on-line. But, I'm not gonna buy a book, that I doubt has a singe coherent factoid in it, just to debate you.

    Quote what gets you all excited about said book or drop it.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/18/2008 @ 8:49pm

58. Malcontent,

    You keep forgetting you have never substantiated your views! There has been no debate going on because you state views you haven't substantiated, yet you demand I go in detail and lay out the entirety of a book into these web pages as refutation of something which is your opinion and no more.

    You are entitled to your opinion but I have noticed that when you put your opinion down Mask the internet policeperson never demands you provide backup.

    The supreme court opinion had to do with belief that ballots were not counted equally in recounting and thus not in terms with the equal protection in the Constitution, and also with the need to adhere to established election deadlines.

    It also represented an overturning of judicial activism by the Florida court, in allowing recounting despite the deadlines.

    Election deadlines and rules do matter, you should not be able to make them up on the fly. You also need to take note that Gore lawyers never satisfactorily proved the need for manual recounting to officials in lower courts.

    Any read of the chronology of the election shows that when you consider election law and rules the decisions went down in favor of Bush in accordance with these.

    Why election law does not matter, is beyond me. How "chimpy" stole the election is something you haven't proven.

    Note also--- I have tried in a few paragraphs above to defend my opinon, something that you supposedly call for.... I can't imagine that will pass muster with you any more than my previous posts....

    The one thing I admit I do not seem to grasp is that arguing with you is a total waste of time. It is blatantly obvious it is a waste of time, yet I am doing it anyway, God only knows why.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2008 @ 9:21pm

59. That web site link was creepy. It had some posting "How to hit a liberal over the head with a shovel, and smile" or something.

    Regardless, I couldn't find Mr. Hawkins Downing Street Memo article. I didn't have time to look, really. But, considering what else I saw on there, I figure it's just more bullshit from fringe assholes.

    In Re: Downing Street Memo...

    The Memo clearly states that the Bush Administration had, at that time, already decided to invade Iraq and that WMDs were goig to be the pretext.

    The Memo clearly states that if Saddam allowed UN inspectors to continue working in Iraq, it would reduce public support for the invasion.

    The Memo also states that Bush proposed provoking Saddam to attack first by using phony UN planes.

    As far as the term "fixed." It could have meant "the intel was being bolted onto the policy." But, does that really make much sense. Already discussing WMD's and invasion would seem to be enough, if this is the intended usage. It is just too convenient. Also, the notion that the term "fixed" as defined as fraudulently altered is unique to American usage and not Brittish English usage of the term is not true.

    Also, we've all heard that bullshit "everyone thought Saddam had WMD's." This just isn't true. Why didn't Congress listen to President Chirac, instead of responding with childish insults. Kofi Annan also opposed the invasion and they tried to get him fired. The Germans also opposed the invasion. Canadians too. In reality, more countries opposed the invasion than supported it.

    Posted by koroviev at 11/18/2008 @ 11:52pm

60. koroview,

    Somehow when I paste these links in extra spaces are getting in.

    A space got put in before the word special. When I checked my original link that had the inadvertant space before the word, I got the site you were talking about.

    This is the link without the space.

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/19/2008 @ 04:20am

61. http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php (suggested by he-who-must -not-be named)

    The first time I went here I was led to a page that addressed me as a 'hippy' (sic). Then I could get to the page.

    A line at the top of the page said 'Beating liberalism to death with a shovel and a smile'. I forged on.

    As usual, there was a ton of snarky, mean spirited writings, people calling Obama a scumbag, etc, etc. '20 reasons why you might be a liberal'. A whole lot of name calling and finger pointing, diatribes against the poor, racial over and undertones. a lot of sickness and very little factual, substantiated information.

    After I took a shower I wondered just what any of it had to do with this article about the efficiency and size of government. To refer to the sites overall view as a 'mentality' would inadvertently connote some sort of consciousness.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/19/2008 @ 12:56pm

62. ficheye,

    You, in your analysis of what you found, forgot to mention you also found on the page an article that debunks the canards about the Iraq war, which included the stuff about the Downing Street Memo.

    You were wondering what the article had to do about the size of government, etc. You are forgetting the the topic of Iraq crept into this blog and the Downing Street Memo was proclaimed to be fact and the article was in response to that B.S.

    About your comment "As usual, there was a ton of snarky........."

    Put in Bush instead of Obama and conservative instead of liberal, and you are describing The Nation website!

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/19/2008 @ 3:48pm

63. Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2008 @ 9:21pm

    'The one thing I admit I do not seem to grasp is that arguing with you is a total waste of time. It is blatantly obvious it is a waste of time, yet I am doing it anyway, God only knows why.'

    There is always therapy. And pills, many pills.

    I read the article. It mostly references material from 2003 and 2004, 5 or 6 years ago. A lot of the politicians quoted RECANTED their stance about WMD's. A frontline article about George tenet goes on at length about the 'slam dunk' statement, with many colleagues professing to the fact that this pretty much boxed him in, leading, to a great degree, to his eventual resignation.

    The article in question here has been parsed in a way that only right wingers would love... fantasy, half formed opinions and accusations based on information thats about 6 years old. Things have changed since then, clearly. And Obama was elected president by a landslide. Dig it, man.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/20/2008 @ 01:09am

64. ficheye,

    You talk about politicians recanting. If other politicians were saying, independent of George W. Bush, that there were WMD, does that make them liars also?

    Those other politicians are not proclaimed as liars. Only George W. Bush is said to be so.

    If they didn't lie, then he didn't lie either. If people honestly thought there were WMD, then saying there were WMD is not lying. What matters is the statement at that time based on what was thought at that time.

    And some of these politicians that are recanting are only doing so, frankly, because know they know that we went into Iraq and found no WMD, so they want make it seem that they are on the right side of things.

    And it has worked. A lot of people said there were WMD. We go into Iraq and find no WMD. George W. Bush is said to have lied, whereas other politicians who said the same thing but are now "recanting" (backpedaling) after the fact are held up as more justification for the left to call George W. Bush a liar.

    This is absurd, but this is reality in the public domain, especially the left side of that domain. And I have said many times it is moot anyway because we know now Saddam was going to make WMD again so it is a good thing we stopped him regardless of whether there were WMD or not.

    You discount the quality of the article (6 yrs old, etc) but that was commentary back at the time that a lot of the stuff was happening. You say a lot has changed since then but in reality on much of this stuff no great revelations have occurred that would change the arguments being batted forth about going into Iraq. So commentary 6 years ago about something happening 6 years ago IS relevant.

    Except we DO know know more about what a threat Saddam really was. That new stuff you on the left ignore.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2008 @ 03:49am

65. "If other politicians were saying, independent of George W. Bush, that there were WMD, does that make them liars also?"

    YES! Are you finally catching on?

    "You discount the quality of the article (6 yrs old, etc) but that was commentary back at the time that a lot of the stuff was happening. You say a lot has changed since then but in reality on much of this stuff no great revelations have occurred that would change the arguments being batted forth about going into Iraq. So commentary 6 years ago about something happening 6 years ago IS relevant."

    Think about that paragraph, in the context of your claims the media leans left. Too bad we can't call up the nightly news clips to remind you how complicit the media was in spreading the false propaganda. You say "no great revelations have occurred" and I agree. Only the media spin and politician lies have changed.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/20/2008 @ 07:46am

66. "Except we DO know know more about what a threat Saddam really was. That new stuff you on the left ignore."

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2008 @ 03:49am

    Please, enlighten us then, instead of merely stating your opinion.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/20/2008 @ 07:48am

67. Malcontent,

    The reports by David Kay at some point after the war, and then that "Pentagon" report about a year ago, that pointed out things like how Saddam's own people said he was going to reconstitute WMD programs, and how he was engaging in connectivity and activity with terror organizatons and even engaging in obstructive activity regading not compying with what he was required to do until the very end.

    They painted a picture of a Saddam who seemed to have a desire to be a troublemaker and who was stepping up activity regarding connectivity to terror organizations.

    I do not have time now to start calling up links and pasting quotes it. I can only spend a few mintues to make this post. I see your comment and that is my repsonse to it, and I have cited things that are in the public domain. If you then take that I am not defending my point, which you will, there is nothing more I can do on this because my time is limited at the moment.

    What I glean from that stuff is that if you have Saddam making WMD again, with a desire to be a trouble maker and connecting more and more to terror, coupled with the fact that world attention would not have been on him anymore (afterall, it would have been thought that he was no longer a threat), it is hard to imagine that some of the WMD he was making would not have gotten into terrorists hands. I don't think Saddam himself would have used it to wipe out a U.S. City by surprise, but he would have given it or sold it to terror groups that would have had no reservations about doing so.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2008 @ 09:21am

68. Malcontent,

    I do have one more comment before I go, you ask if I was catching on that they ALL are liars?

    If all the evidence points to the existence of WMD, and Saddam is obstructing efforts to find what is really going on, and people say there is WMD then there is no lying going on... The fact there was no WMD when we went into Iraq does not mean people lied about it.... if they thought there was WMD and said so, and did not know any different then they are not liars.

    So NONE of them were liars.... Bill Clinton of course was a legally proven liar about a lot of things - but on Iraq he was not a liar either, although that may be about the one and only thing he didn't lie about.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2008 @ 09:26am

69. Malcontent,

    So you are now going to come back and prove my remark about Bill Clinton... come on Malcontent, I made a spur of the moment remark that the proof of what I said is in the public domain over and over again including transcripts of his testimony in court that appeared in a lot of the newspapers including the Washington Post, and enabled kids in this country to learn more than I am sure their parents ever wanted them to know about oral sex (you know, the kind of sex that Bill Clinton says isn't sex), so if you are looking for proof go to the Washington Post archives and pull it up..... I suspect given the passage of time you may have to pay to pull up archived articles and transcripts, it would not be free, but it is in the public domain and maybe available from other sources.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2008 @ 09:29am

70. One more correction,

    I said you are going to come back and prove my remark about Bill Clinton... I meant to say you are going to come back and ASK ME to prove my remark about Bill Clinton....

    If you actually came back and agreed with me and proved my remark about Bill Clinton I am not sure I could handle the suprise.... It would be about the same as if they reported on the news there is ten inches of snow in Miami, Florida.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2008 @ 09:31am

71. Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2008 @ 09:21am

    "I do not have time now to start calling up links and pasting quotes it...yada,yada,yada."

    We all have better things to do from time to time. But, this has been your standard answer from the beginning. You've still yet to even quote your beloved book which "blows away" my theories. So...whatever.

    "If all the evidence points to the existence of WMD..."

    Th point was, most of the evidence did NOT point to him having WMDs. That's where the lies come in. AND the media complicity, in spreading false propaganda. (Left wing media, my ass). Trying to try to build is COMPLETELY different from "viable threat" or "mushroom clouds". Should we invade and occupy EVERY country that is trying to get WMDs? That could take some time. And lots of lives and money.

    Bill Clinton sucked as a president. Mostly because he was really a republican (except he actually had a libido). Only in retrospect, through the filter of the bush administration, does he even look reasonably good. Ole billy owes chimpy some gratitude for that. Had we had a good president, he'd go down in history as a shitty pres.

    As for oral sex, my parents taught me all I needed to know about sex and sexuality, before I even hit puberty, when it would have been difficult and probably, too late. I have no clue what's wrong with people who try to hide their children's humanity from themselves. Not my problem. If billy's dirty laundry scared you, then you have issues, not him. (or me).

    Good luck with your delusions and narrow world view. (Seriously).

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/20/2008 @ 2:21pm

72. Malcontent,

    First of all about Slick Willie and sex I made a sarcastic comment about him because I abolutely abhor Bill Clinton for many number of reasons.... and I had no intention to nor do I care to delve into the topic of sex in itself and by it self on The Nation.

    You said most of the evidence did not point to him (Saddam) having WMDs.

    Were is your backup for that? You demand backup from me, where is your backup for that?

    You talk about left wing media.. the book you disregard point to several times where the media put their agenda above national security or sensationalized a story were some actual fact that may weaken or even practically invalidate the impact of thier story was buried near the end, or times where down the road some news came along that invalidated what the newspaper had said earlier, but that was buried in the bowels of the paper and not page one like the original story.

    Again, you will demand the actual citations from the book. I AM NOT AT MY HOME PC RIGHT NOW AND HOME IS WERE THE BOOK IS..... Maybe you are Mask in disguise but you are arrogant to demand I supply a citation that can be found if you read the book, that I am to focus my life around your demands when you can find the information yourself and don't want to, and where also when you proclaim stuff you ABSOLUTELY DO NOT SUPPLY MUCH IN THE WAY OF PROOF YOURSELF.

    Thus, you do not do what you demand of me. You think that you are some font of wisdom or something that can issue demands that one must comply with.

    Because point of fact, when I am in a position to supply a citation or link or whatever, pretty close to 100% of the time you or Mask or other libs will then come up with some reason why THAT is invalid.

    Basically, you really are a pompus ass.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2008 @ 4:30pm

73. "Basically, you really are a pompus ass."

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2008 @ 4:30pm

    Finally, something we can agree on.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2008 @ 4:30pm

    Bottom line. You have provide scant and occasional references. Many posters chided you to post something, anything from your wonderous sources. You still have not.

    You chide me for not posting references to arguments about your refusal to do so. Childishness.

    So, I am done with you.

    I am (really) a pompous ass. (Althuogh I prefer the term asshole...it's more casual, like me).

    And, you are clueless. You no doubt disagree. But, I no longer care.

    Goodbye.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/20/2008 @ 6:22pm

74. Malcontent,

    Excellent post! (sarcasm)

    You say " You chide me for not posting references to arguments about your refusal to do so. Childishness. "

    Since I was chiding you for not posting references to stuff you claim like "evidence did not point to him (Saddam), etc"... , in other words you are not defending the lib canards... your version of what I was chiding you about is not true.

    In other words, you are re-inventing what the history was (in this case, what our blogs were about), on the fly, in real time.

    I know it is standard lib practice to do this and libs do this all the time in lots of venues, but I am at a loss to understand why you would do it here, since all one has to do is scroll above to see what was really said.

    In other words, it is quite easy for your attempt to do this to fail and be exposed. Maybe you on the left are so used to this practice (and have been successful at getting away with it lately), that in this case you got careless and did not realize that it is quite easy for people to check and see what was really said.

    You say that many posters request the same as you.... what validity does that have.. these requesters are all lib.... of course they are going to behave the same way you do..... just because there is more than just you does not make it valid.

    I haven't quite figured out yet whether you are just trying to pull my chain and get my goat with some of the stuff you post... or whether your head is in complete la-la land ... but either way the stuff you crank out is amusing, hilarious and bizarre!

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2008 @ 9:32pm

75. Malcontent,

    The 'One Who Must Not Be Named' has spoken!

    Let us retreat back to our sad little leftist villages in humiliation!

    Let us tattoo our daughters with the dread letters 'S' and 'J'!!

    I have yielded to the one who channels Francis Parker Yockey, vast is his knowledge of the nothingness!!

    He seems, however, to have never seen the Frontline documentary titled 'Bushes War', which gives much credible and respectable information on the subjects that you and I agree on. Right on.

    Therefore, brother, let us protect our hearts from the further misadventures and bombastic platitudes of the beast CHERMAK!! Send him back into the long night of the Right, let him diminish and go into the west!! We will be brave, and proud, and not make lowly gestures with our hands as he shrinks into the distance...

    Posted by ficheye at 11/20/2008 @ 10:18pm

76. Chris, your not seriously suggesting added even MORE government employees to the dole, are you?

    For one thing, there are not enough nail clippers and nail files left to supply to them.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/21/2008 @ 08:41am