I think i'll listen to it on the radio. I can't bear to see Pelosi and Reid standing behind him this year.

He's got a lot of work to do (and we all know work is something this president doesn't care much for):

Poll: Bush Approval Rating At New Low On Eve Of State Of Union, President's Approval Rating Falls To 28%, A New Low

President Bush will deliver his State of the Union address Tuesday night to a nation that's strongly opposed to his plan for increasing troops in Iraq and deeply unhappy with his performance as president, according to a CBS News poll.

Mr. Bush’s overall approval rating has fallen to just 28 percent, a new low, while more than twice as many (64 percent) disapprove of the way he's handling his job.

Two-thirds of Americans remain opposed to the president's plan for sending more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq — roughly the same number as after Mr. Bush announced the plan. And 72 percent believe he should seek congressional approval for the troop increase.

The president's nationally televised message to Congress may not even reach many of those whose minds he would like to change. Less than half the public says it's very likely to watch the speech — and that answer comes more from those who already support him.

There's still more troubling news for the president: By a more than 2-to-1 margin, Americans think Mr. Bush does not share their priorities. Just 28 percent think he does, while 69 percent think he does not.

More than two-thirds of Americans also think the country has gotten off on the wrong track, while just 26 percent think it is headed in the right direction.

Mr. Bush's approval rating is much lower than it was one year ago, when 42 percent of Americans approved, and far lower than the ratings he received in polls prior to his previous State of the Union addresses. Those ratings have fallen steadily since a high of 82 percent in January 2002, shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

His job approval is also far below those of other modern two-term presidents at this point in their second terms.

In January 1999, for example, just after his impeachment by the House of Representatives, President Bill Clinton's job approval rating was 65 percent. In January 1987, President Ronald Reagan's was 52 percent. In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson received a 47 percent approval rating, even as debate about the Vietnam War raged.

The war in Iraq remains the most important problem facing the country, cited by 33 percent of Americans, far more than mentioned the next top issues, the economy and jobs (8 percent) and health care (7 percent).

Only one in four believes the war is going even somewhat well, while three-quarters say it's going badly — something the president himself acknowledged earlier this month and the highest number since the war began.

Wow. People dislike this president even more than Johnson at the height of the Vietnam war. Bush's approval now stands near where Nixon's was just before impeachment.

And if people dislike this guy now, they are really going to hate him this time next year. I predict he will leave office as the most unpopular president in generations, and will go down in history as one of the 2 or 3 worst US presidents of all time.

I have a prediction as well. That at this time next year, Aaron won't have found one thing where he disagrees with Democrats and that includes when Democrats try and take BOTH sides of an argument as they usually do.

I also predict that at this time next year, Aaron won't have had an original post that wasn't cut and paste from CNN or the NYT.

I further predict that Aaron's blind hatred of the President will only grow more and more and that he'll even start criticizing the breathing the President does, and say that it's his breathing that's causing global warming.

Interesting that you should bring up global warming. Because the Prez is expected to address that issue tonight. Given that the righties on this blog believe that global warming is a myth, how do you square that with your Preznit's embrace of the issue?

It's either real or imaginary, kids. Can't have it both ways. Pick a side.

walliyo, walliyo, walliyo...

I don't hate Mr Bush. Judging Mr Bush to be one of the worst presidents ever doesn't take hate - it merely takes reasonable judgement. I leave the hating to you all - after all, hate is what drives fascist authoritarian movements...

It does appear, however, that an overwhelming majority of Americans don't much care for The Decider.

Right Aaron... don't you see what a f*cking hypocrite it is to say "I don't hate" and then immediately imply that I'm a fascist authoritarian because I support the president.

You're an idiot. HUGE. Big Time.

I've read nearly every post you make, and you hate Bush. I've never read ONE statement where you say he's done this that was good, and even if you agreed with something he's done, you'll always throw up an asterisk to explain it wasn't really him that did it.

You're a tool of Markos and yet you don't even know it. Tool being the operative word.

And Cyber, if you'd pay attention.

You'd note that most people don't suggest the Earth isn't warming, they suggest the CAUSE is what's in question.

But like all liberals, it's either Bush's fault, America's fault, or Humanity's fault.

Granted, we've only had science to know what's been happening for around 200 years... odd that those 200 years or so also coincides IMMEDIATELY with the end of a mini-ice age.

Go figure that we'd like to know a little more about the causes so we can solve the problem most efficiently. As liberals are so good at saying, why put a bandaid on a bullet wound.

wawilliyo

Since Aaron is not the leader-in-chief, you have nothing to worry about. You should be worrying instead about the guy that's holding that office right now. I don't think Aaron's opinions will hurt the country in any way. However, we can't say the same about the other fellow, can we?

"Right Aaron... don't you see what a f*cking hypocrite it is to say "I don't hate" and then immediately imply that I'm a fascist authoritarian because I support the president."

1) it's not merely "supporting" the president that makes you part of an authoritarian personality cult. Rather, it is your unquestioning, undying devotion in the face of mountainous evidence of abject failure.

2) even brainwashed authoritarian cult worshippers need love. Come on over here and have a hug, walliyo.

Sorry to say:
I believe that 111 BLOGS will not influence anyone
Primarily, because no one but you will be reading them. So, I, also, will not be influenced by them.
It is important for you to understand that partisonship realy needs to be scrutinized.
To many factors influence opinion. To many opinions are not well thought out and can never stand alone.
Bill

You're a tool of Markos and yet you don't even know it. Tool being the operative word.

And not a very sharp tool at that.

Given that the righties on this blog believe that global warming is a myth, how do you square that with your Preznit's embrace of the issue?

It's either real or imaginary, kids. Can't have it both ways. Pick a side.

Cyber, can you cite some "righties" on this blog who believe GW is a myth. I know there are a couple who don't think that the approximately 1 degree increase over the last century is anything to be overly concerned about. The majority of us, as Wawilliyo points out, just haven't seen scientific evidence that human activites contributed, to any significant degree, to that increase. My guess is, if Bush signals in his speech tonight that he's bought into your view of GW and it's causes, you won't see too many "righties" at this site support him. I know I won't. If he buys into your view, will you support him? Just curious.

Aarontime,

I'm sure I saw you a while back. What's it like being on Jaywalking?

Hey CO:
Since you're not an American, you have nothing to worry about. You should be worrying instead about the guy who 24 Sussex instead of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Fortunately I know your opinions won't hurt my country in any way. They probably won't hurt your country in any way either.

I have a lot of respect for the President for not listening to people like you and Aaron. Why, because sometimes you can have a majority of the people be WRONG. Further, you can also have a political party play fast and loose with their position for pure political gain. And Democrats are doing just that. The list is ENDLESS.

We can start with Chairman Reyes, you know, the guy who doesn't know ANYTHING about Al-Qaeda or what's actually going on in Iraq be in favor of a troop surge literally a week before the President says that's what he wants.... THEN AMAZINGLY ENOUGH, he's opposed immediately after the President takes his advice... odd huh?

Or isn't that how liberals operate these days? Or to be honest, Liberals in positions of government.

As far as I can tell, CO, you've always taken a constant and consistent position of weakness against those who wish nothing more than to kill all Westerners.

Aaron:
It just dawned on me what you're about.
You're about finding words that are loaded with emotion and using them, whether they are rightly or wrongly applied.

I can assure you, the only one brainwashed around here is you. I further note I see you can't even bring yourself to saying you'd agree with Bush on ANYTHING. So, is his raising NEA good? Is his aid to Africa good? Is his desire to fight HIV/AIDS good?

Again, in your "war of words you don't understand but know they rile up people's emotions" there is NO way you can even bring yourself to acknowledge good work done.

And for that Aaron, I feel sorry for you. And that's why I'd return your hug. And to further piss you off, my best friend in the entire world, he's as apolitical as they come, but socially the biggest liberal out there, and we get along well, because he knows how to engage in debate about issues, not about hating someone as much as you clearly hate Bush.

"I can assure you, the only one brainwashed around here is you. I further note I see you can't even bring yourself to saying you'd agree with Bush on ANYTHING. So, is his raising NEA good? Is his aid to Africa good? Is his desire to fight HIV/AIDS good?"

Mr. Bush also exhales carbon dioxide, which is needed by plants.

Gar Wood

This is Blogsforbush, and I'm sick and tired of coming to read the slimy libs posting in here. Why don't you naysayers and liberal commies go elsewhere so you can circle jerk. I'm predicting that if the Prez comes out suggesting he agrees with the lib version of global warming, that they will immediately say they didn't mean it. They were insincere to believe CO (yeah u canuck) was the cause, and now believe Walmart is somehow involved. In the end discourse will become more uncivil....these libs are like Bears fans. It doesn't pay to show them the error of their ways, but let them feel better about their pathetic selves by spewing lies and hatred. I'd like to spit on them, but i'll just smile knowingly that conservatives are far superior. Seems to me that with all the pontificating and complaining that Aaron and CO put forth, they must be among the pitiable downtrodden.

"We can start with Chairman Reyes, you know, the guy who doesn't know ANYTHING about Al-Qaeda or what's actually going on in Iraq."

Touche wawilliyo! Chairman Reyes did indeed demonstrate a truly embarassing lack of knowledge about al-qaeda, Iraq, and the world in general. So there you have it, wally - democrats and Mr Bush really CAN sometimes share something in common. ;)

And to think that some people said bipartisanship was dead...

I notice how you completely disregard the point that Reyes in less than two hours AFTER Bush made a statement agreeing to what Reyes wants, he changes his mind... odd huh?

More odd, that you fail to even mention this rank politicking.

But then again, it's how you roll right Aaron.

Still want a hug?

oh how delicious.. on the eve of the SOTU address we find out that dick cheney is indeed the lying criminal that we've all believed him to be this entire time... details all over the press now about how cheney was indeed libby's initial plame source. my oh my, it's a terrible time to be a blind administration loyalist.

To be crystal clear: If George W. Bush actually steps up to the plate and promises to take significant steps to curb global warming (which humans have to a significant degree caused), I'll be first in line to say "Bravo!".

However, if he does what he normally does and pays lip service to environmentalism while making it easier for his cronies in the energy industry to continue to pollute and corrode the atmosphere, nothing will have changed.

Cyber:
I thought you were an artist, when did you become a climatologist?

Oh that's right... you KNOW it. Gore KNOW it. Liberals have spoken, therefore there need not be any further discussion.

Who cares if people who study the weather and climate for a living disagree. Who cares! Who cares! The polar bears are dying (even though Canada says they are stable or growing)!

I know what I know because I've been told to believe it.

Look, I've turned into Cyber! I can repeat the line no matter what evidence is presented before me.

And Conscriptor, It's interesting how you can't even get the facts of the story right. Again, as liberals are so oft to do, who needs facts to get in the way of their truth.

Wally:

I've studied this issue and, while I am no climatologist, I'm pretty well convinced by the evidence I've seen that (a) global warming not only exists but (b) we are a leading cause of it.

Now, I know that there are a bunch of flat-earthers here at B4B who have fallen in lock-step behind the GOP, Bush and energy industries toadies who claim that global warming both is not happening and, if it is, is not caused by humans. But I've never seen a shred of evidence beyond some oil-industry shill "scientists" making these claims. When 99% of climatologogists agree on something, I'm sold. I don't consider 99-1 to be a "debate" over the issue. I consider 99-1 to be a consensus, with one whacko thrown in.

Got something truly convincing that shows that greehouse gases, spurred by human emissions, is NOT causing the planet's climate to change? Let's see it.

Say, not to get too far off topic. Anyone want to comment on why Hezzbollah decided to start a major protest now? The headline I saw on the Foxnews website is that Beruit is Burning. And the picture from the air backs it up. (It is really just a lot of tires burning). Maybe Iran decided now would be a good time to cause problems somewhere other than Iraq, given that the Mahdi Militia has lost the protection of the Iraqi government.

To be crystal clear: If George W. Bush actually steps up to the plate and promises to take significant steps to curb global warming

What steps could he take that you would applaud, Cyber? Could you cite some credible scientific studies that support how those steps would effect global climate in a positive way?

(which humans have to a significant degree caused)

Again, pardon me if I don't take your word for it. Are you a peer-reviewed climatologist, physicist, geologist or any other kind of ist? If not, can you cite any scientific studies that show conclusively what portion of the warming witnessed over the last century is directly attributable to human activities?

Posted by: wawilliyo "...The polar bears are dying (even though Canada says they are stable or growing)!"

No no Wawi. Since the US government mentioned that the polar bears are in trouble, a bunch of Eskimo politicians are saying that there is an increase in numbers to avoid a ban on polar bear hunting by rich mostly American hunters. It's bull sh*t!! Give your head a shake.

Oh ya... I forgot the United States controlled the government of Canada as well.

How sad that you can't handle facts at all.

Nice try though... if you can't win on facts, blame those evil native eskimos and big business.

I had no idea you could pull that off too.

And Conscriptor, It's interesting how you can't even get the facts of the story right. Again, as liberals are so oft to do, who needs facts to get in the way of their truth.

wally - why looking so askance at my reporting? what facts have i failed to get right? i'm reading verbatim from what is presently circulating all over the MSM.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16770023/

and if you care not to do the reading, take it from david shuster himself here:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/23/cheney-libby-trial/
(no, it is not fox news, i know, but the video feed is clear in its source and its content.

before you level such allegations, you ought do a better job of backing yourself up by doing some very menial, basic research before accusing me of distortion.

Regarding Global Warming: It was reported by AP, that next week the ‘International Panel on Climate Change’ is being released. Written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, it will feature “an explosion of new data on the observations of current global warming. A Dr. Mahlman(former director of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Boulder Colo.) was quoted as saying “Global warming is happening now, it’s very obvious……it’s pretty much of a no-brainer”

You would think that it being a “no-brainer” that you neo-con blockheads would catch on. However I digress.

The line “..edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries..” -- that however worries me, nothing much good comes from editing bureaucrats.

Now moving on further for you no-brained blockheads including the ever witty Wawi:
“one of the authors said: “look for a simple but strong and unequivocal summary on how global warming is occurring – Kevin Trenberth of the national Center for Atmospheric Research also in Boulder.

I will be interested in your reaction when the study finally comes out. Or will you all have your collective heads up where the sun don’t shine and disclaim it as a lefty liberal junk science nonsense.

Spooky,

You don't have to take the word of a silly ol' non-climatologist like me on global warming! Why should you? So how about some REAL climatologists? From real, actual scientific studies and all that cool science stuff? Have a look:

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc-assessment-process.html

In particular, pay attention to the second article and the PEER REVIEW process.

Enjoy!

canuck - watch out for the follow-up to your comment as follows:

where in that report do they cite human activity as the cause of this global warming...

(be prepared)

God only knows that MSNBC doesn't have a bias at all in it's reporting. If they didn't agree with their philosophical masters, they'd be even farther down on the ratings chart.

How low can they go? Just ask Keith Olbermann...

wawilliyo - i'm about to checkmate your as* right in front of your own team:

Fitzgerald said Cheney told Libby in 2003 that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and Libby spread that information to reporters. When that information got out, it triggered a federal investigation.

"But when the FBI and grand jury asked about what the defendant did," Fitzgerald said, "he made up a story."

Out of curiosity...
To stop bashing one another for a second and to stop talking about politics...

Does anyone find the actual event of the State of the Union moving? If you've ever caught the beginning on C-SPAN where the Senate asks for permission to enter and the House claps for them... and then they introduce all the other dignitaries.

And then the President. Even when Clinton was there, the pageantry of the event was moving.

But then again, I'm a big fan of watching the Queen's Speech in the UK Parliament. Guess I'm kind of a dork in that regard.

It's not a checkmate idiot... you mean a prosecutor THINKS this is what happened and presents it as fact?

SHOCKING!!!! The Prosecutor would do the same thing with your Parking TICKETS you dumbcluck.

First off, there was no crime... Fitzgerald acknowledges this... and he is trying to prevent the Defense from presenting any evidence that shows the chief-of-staff and NSA to the Vice President was busy and didn't recall something accurately.

Heck dude, I know for a fact that EVERY human being on earth can't recall every conversation they've EVER had.

But I notice how both you and the newssource who wrote that article fails to mention that it's what Fitzgerald CONTENDS happened.

I guess you're playing checkers when the game is Chess. Try again!

Bush's low poll numbers prove (to me) that the Christian God does not exist.

Afterall, how many of you pray for him?

Isn't he God's candidate?

Wade

Wow. Libby is really gonna put you B4Bers in a bind, if his lawyers opening statement is any indication. Libby is claiming that the White House set him up as a scapegoat to protect Karl Rove. Yikes!

So which way do you GOoPers sway on this issue? It's one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't kinda deals. If you believe Libby, the White House tarnished the reputation of an innocent, admirable civil servant. If you don't...then you believe Fitzgerald.

Which is it, kids?

Or Cyber:
You believe that Libby can offer whatever he wants for a defense. And if he can try and sway the members of the jury who already said they can't take the word of the Administration as accurate, than it makes sense.

Further, Fitzgerald knows that he spent millions of dollars for an investigation that he knew after a few weeks no crime was committed. But he needed to get someone.

If anyone is making a scapegoat of Libby, it's Fitzgerald trying to salvage his reputation.

fair enough wawillyo. i perhaps made the unfair deduction that what was presented as the case today (that the jury would learn that cheney was indeed the primary source) by the lead prosecutor should indeed be intrepreted as fact. but my interpetation of your comment was that i somehow plucked this info out of the air and thus the reasoning behind my (perhaps too blustery) attempt to absolve myself of the perceived accusation by providing media sources.

i retract the pettiness of my tone.

Conscriptor...

I will also retract my flippant tone. I knew what you were trying to get at in the first place.

I guess it's my year in law school that's gotten me to question what prosecutors say.

This is exactly what Nifong did in the Duke case. Except this time, Fitzgerald is having the press take his statements and present them to the public as fact.

I think many people on one side of the aisle liked Fitzgerald because he was "conservative" and yet you saw him going after Bush and you LOVED it.

But as I mentioned before, Fitzgerald admitted that after two weeks or so he knew no crime per the statute was violated, and that there was NOTHING left to investigate, but he needed to have someone to get, and so he found someone who seemed to contradict himself. And he thinks that's perjury.

Well then, at 2:30 this afternoon, when my best friend texted me and asked how I was doing and I said OK was perjury because right now, I'm pretty swamped and not feeling okay.

A recollection of an event that wasn't how someone remembered it isn't perjury. If Fitz can prove their was perjury, than I'll be happy to admit it, but he's trying to keep the jury from hearing from experts on memory, I wonder why?

I'm no climatologist either, but I do know a few facts:

1. Of the warming that occurred during the 20th century, a larger portion thereof occurred during the first half than the second, even though industrial activity and CO2 production was greater during the second.

2. Global warming sufficient to cause a 300 foot rise in sea level occurred around 12,000 years ago, when mankind and its CO2 production was far smaller than it is today.

3. The 2005 hurricane season was exceptionally busy, while the 2006 season was far less busy, even though there was no change (that I know of) in the environmental policies of the Bush administration.

4. Global warming was cited as a cause for both the harsh winters of '94 and '96, and for the usually mild winter of '06.

5. About 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. The contribution from CO2 is something like 3% or 3.5%.

wawilliyo -

"First off, there was no crime... Fitzgerald acknowledges this..."

No, what Fitzgerald said was that there was so much cover up that it was impossible for him to make a call as to whether a crime was commited or not. Fitzgerald said that it was he was an umpire at a baseball game who got sand thrown in his face, preventing him from being able to make a call at home plate. This whole "even the prosecutor admits there wasn't a crime" is purposely misleading nonsense straight out of the echo chamber.

And it is not Fitzgerald who is saying that Libby was set up by the WH to protect Rove, but rather it is Libby's own lawyer who's saying that:

WASHINGTON Jan 23, 2007 (AP)— Top White House officials tried to blame vice presidential aide "Scooter" Libby for the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity to protect President Bush's political strategist, Karl Rove, Libby's defense attorney said Tuesday as the aide's perjury trial began.

I. Lewis Libby is accused of lying to FBI agents, who began investigating after syndicated columnist Robert Novak revealed that a Bush administration critic, Joseph Wilson, was married to CIA operative Valerie Plame.

When the leak investigation was begun, White House officials publicly cleared Rove of wrongdoing but stopped short of doing so for Libby. Libby, who had been asked to counter Wilson's criticisms, felt betrayed and sought out his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, lawyer Theodore Wells said.

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Wells said, recalling Libby's end of the conversation. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

Rove was one of two sources for Novak's story. The other was then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Nobody, including Rove and Armitage, has been charged with the leak. Libby is accused of lying to investigators and obstructing the probe into the leak.

By pointing the finger at Rove, whom he referred to as "the lifeblood of the Republican Party," Wells sought to cast Libby as a scapegoat.

"He is an innocent man and he has been wrongly and unjustly and unfairly accused," Wells said.

The White House declined to comment on the ongoing Libby trial.

Care to bet that Cheney ordered the leak as a warning to Wilson to shut up about the WH's pre-war intel lies? We shall see...

mark and matt have been 'relatively' good around here about allowing differing views to be voiced. i suppose sometimes it is too easy to let casual debate regress to pissing matches and systematic one-upmanship. i'd rather be known (even if despised) for contributing something productive to the debate as opposed to simply flame-throwing (which i admit i have been guilty of on many an occasion..)

So Aaron:
Where is that a qoute of Fitz's? About the baseball game?

I love how you HAVE to have a cover up. Otherwise your inaccurate world view comes crashing down.

I know you're most upset that come to find out, Joe Wilson was the one who LIED. Come to find out it was Armitage who did the deed, yet he's not going to jail, why? BECAUSE NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

Explain to me what crime was committed? Explain to me how a Prosecutor is claiming someone lied, yet that person has said that he doesn't recall that he made statements that are contradictory because he doesn't recall the events exactly someone else did.

That's not perjury... or should we start going through EVERYONE's statements to see if there is any incongruities. God knows you'd be in jail Aaron.

As would I.

But it must suck to have everything you pinned your hopes on fall down in around you... Sorry Aaron.

Conscriptor:
We all tend to get wrapped up in the moment. I know that I've gotten too close to the edge before. I remember on another site quoting the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution when if I had taken time to think about it, the War Powers Act was passed to get rid of the GTR.

It's stuff like that that happens in the heat of discussion. It's interesting how this thread, which was supposed to be about the State of the Union turned into a rehash of the Valerie Plame controversy... which, is sad that if the only thing that can be found to have been a violation of the law is a flimsy perjury case against someone who, as the only evidence obtained is two statements that aren't the same. Stop the presses!!!! All politicians would be guilty of perjury then.

It will be interesting to see how polite the parties will be to one another. I'm sure the Speaker will be polite to the man she can't stand. I'm sure the President will say some words of kindness towards her which he probably doesn't mean, and the evening will go down hill from there.

If you believe Libby, the White House tarnished the reputation of an innocent, admirable civil servant. If you don't...then you believe Fitzgerald.
Which is it, kids?

What? Dont you at least want to exercise your 'verbal gymnastics' and call Libby a fascist neocon or something? Youre losing your edge and I for one am disappointed, son.

You forgot to list another available choice: believe neither. Whatever Libby is up to, more than likely he is making it up to CHA. Fitzgerald is such a dunce he cant even keep his story straight; Libby destroyed evidence that Fitz currently has in his possession? How is that possible?

Fitzgerald has turned this trial of procedure into a trial of politics, he expects Libby to remember everything he said to everyone, ever. This disaster has turned into a Nifongesque extravaganza with a prosecutor floundering around desperately trying to find something, anything, to bolster his dead case.

Of course the lefties are orgasmic, believing futilely that somehow Bush will be found guilty by association and thrown into prison. Then again, they believe that Bush causes hurricanes and volcano eruptions, so I suppose this is par for the course.

wawillyo -

"So Aaron:
Where is that a qoute of Fitz's? About the baseball game?... I love how you HAVE to have a cover up. Otherwise your inaccurate world view comes crashing down."

Oh, sorry wawillyo - I forgot that your only sources of information are wing-nut blogs. Here's the full quote about the baseball game:

FITZGERALD: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."

You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.

You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.

And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

Full transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference can be read at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

Why even have a SOTU speech, since its simply a showcase for the professional dimwits we were dumb enough to put in office?

Bush is going to sell us out again on supposedly 'renewable fuels' while our cheaper indiginous oil lies untapped and within easy reach. Meanwhile, Mexicans are busy redrawing the southern border while the repubs kowtow to law-breaking businesses which hire illegals.

On the other side, the dems have more of an interest in trying to destroy Bush than they do in passing any meaningful measures for the country. A worthless 'symbolic vote' on Iraq just screams cowardice, Pelosi is busy trying to break all of her pre-election promises and the rest of the dems are preparing to open the doors to Al-Queda.

Tonights speech will be a chance for both parties to yet again prove how utterly worthless they are, and just how out of touch they are with everyday Americans. Bicker, bitch and whine, THAT should be the topics of the SOTU and the rebuttal.

Ok, flame away.

Are you a peer-reviewed climatologist, physicist, geologist or any other kind of ist?

Yes, he is, Spook--he's a socialist, a communist, and a self-trained proctologist...

Nice try Aaron.

You're just buying the poor excuse that Fitz put out so to justify his spending millions of dollars for nothing, months after HE KNEW NO CRIME COULD HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.

But keep believing the fallacy as you see it. Otherwise, you'd have to start questioning everything else you believe. But you are genetically predisposed to NOT do that. You're a KOSSACK after all.

Tonights speech will be a chance for both parties to yet again prove how utterly worthless they are, and just how out of touch they are with everyday Americans. Bicker, bitch and whine, THAT should be the topics of the SOTU and the rebuttal.

At this point in time, I must sadly agree with you, Blog Security. My side deservedly lost power, and the DemocRATs are still acting like they aren't in power.

The state of the union is divided, and until all the libs are rounded up and sent to Git'mo, it will remain divided...

Care to bet that Cheney ordered the leak as a warning to Wilson to shut up about the WH's pre-war intel lies? We shall see...

Care to bet that we don't care? Bet that we don't--it's a sure bet. Armitage leaked the name of non-covert CIA desk-jockey Valerie Plame Wilson, whom I can almost certainly say I saw in the HQ cafeteria at least once. Non-covert, Aaron--Scoot is charged with a process crime. There was no leak of a covert agent, because the agent in question wasn't covert. Repeat after me:

There was no leak of a covert agent, because the agent in question wasn't covert.There was no leak of a covert agent, because the agent in question wasn't covert.There was no leak of a covert agent, because the agent in question wasn't covert.There was no leak of a covert agent, because the agent in question wasn't covert.
There was no leak of a covert agent, because the agent in question wasn't covert.There was no leak of a covert agent, because the agent in question wasn't covert.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy...

So how about some REAL climatologists? From real, actual scientific studies and all that cool science stuff? Have a look:

Cyber, you mean the scientists who concluded the following: (from your first article)

The simulations showed that there can be no "quick fix" to the problem of global warming. Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases were to cease immediately, the temperature would continue to increase after 2100 because of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.

Or the scientists that belong to this group: (from your second article)

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.

You're joking, right?

Wade,

Not exactly - we Christians were advised by Our Lord that we would be hated for his sake; that we would be reviled and attacked because of our faith in Jesus...so, the relentless attacks you and the rest of the left make on President Bush are entirely expected, and entirely useless...it matters not a bit what you THINK of President Bush...all that matters is what God KNOWS about President Bush. As long as Bush has done what is right as best he can determine it, then he's going to be ok with Our Lord.

Spook,

Probably not - he probably thinks that the Union of Concerned Scientists actually has, you know, scientists in it...pity that the truth is so relentlessly buried by the MSM, huh? So many people - mostly on the left - making their decisions on false or faulty information.

Aaron,

But there was no crime...Fitz can spin it all he wants, but within a week of his starting the investigation, he knew how Plame's name got into the press and that there wasn't any crime involved in that name getting into the press...he's prosecuting Scooter because Scooter has a different memory of a conversation than someone else...

Cyber,

Rather common defense lawyer tactic...I feel for Scooter having to do this sort of thing through his lawyer to protect himself against a false charge of perjury...this is what comes of bearing false witness against your neighbor.

Wade's a wanker, a Bush-bashin' America-hater. Why waste your time with him?

As for this global warming hooey; who really gives a rat's arse if all the polar bears die? Not I...

Just saw Lurch--he ain't lookin' too well. Do ya think he's runnin' in '08, or is he just gonna roll over and let Hitlery have it? Speakin' of Hitlery, did ya see the first closeup of her during the speech? What the hell was that look about?

I thought tonight's SOTU was gonna disappoint me, given the state of divisiveness in our government, and the difficult struggle we face in the Middle East.

Actually, I think it went relatively well tonight, and I even thought the civility between the prez and the speaker was refreshing. Of course, tomorrow's another day, isn't it?

With the way Pelosi bounces up to applaud before everyone else does, we should start calling her Ping-Pong Pelosi.

Well, I spoke too soon--it got even better!

I'm glad I stayed up for it; I was gonna give it a miss. Sorry you missed it live, Matt, but isn't DVR a wonderful thing?

"With the way Pelosi bounces up to applaud before everyone else does, we should start calling her Ping-Pong Pelosi."

Very funny, Matrix, you should write for the new Fox News alternative to the Daily Show.

"Actually, I think it went relatively well tonight, and I even thought the civility between the prez and the speaker was refreshing. Of course, tomorrow's another day, isn't it?"

Dikembe Mutumbo??? Karl Rove officially lost his mind after the 2004 election.

Gar Wood

Hey, on FOX News, they got up close and personal, following the prez as he made his way out of the chamber. Fascinating, the first time I saw that. That is to say, the first time I heard that. It was cool, and his memory is keen.

What's wrong, Gar? Dikembe Mutumbo is a humanitarian, as well as a superstar. And he's as tall as Obama's ears are big...

Webb: "Blah, blah, talking point, blah, blah."

SSDS. Lame rebuttal by the porno writer...

So, Webbie doesn't want "precipitous withdrawl," but he wants the troops to leave "in short order."

Could someone please explain the difference?

Webb just said no go. He wants his son to come home, because he cannot get past what happened in Vietnam. He sees an insurgency and thinks that is how the Vietcong won. That seems to be Hagel's problem as well. I wonder if they need a refresher in what was behind the Vietcong insurgency? The regular army that the Vietcong had?

Webbie is a lightweight with a good speaking voice. He'd do better in the voice-over field, but he got macacca'd into the Senate.

All in all, I'd give the prez high marks for the speech. And tomorrow, I go back to hatin' libs as much as they go back to hatin' the big guy at 1600...

God is Great--Libs I Hate,

Being a life long Virginian and a conservative, you do not know the true story behind George Allen.

He may have called himself a Republican, a conservative, a Virginian,
I and approximately 30 other farmers (former in my case) used to consider George Allen one of us.
That changed 3 years ago.

All us ran what is called Non-input farming. Meaning, we grow and we use everything locally. We sell locally, we process locally, etc.

George Allen personally intervened with the USDA to shut down the only local chicken processing plant in Augusta County. This was done at the request of Perdue due to the fact that our grass fed chicken were slowly replacing all chicken processed out of state thru-out central Virginia.

It caused me to go bankrupt and financially devastated many farmers in central Virginia.

If you want more details please feel free to email me @ stevencar@yah00.com

But please, do not stick up for George Allen.

Sorry, in my haste I made a mistake: stevencar46@yah00.com

If you google Polyface Farms, Joel is a good friend of mine and there are many stories on the ripple effect the close of that plant had on all of us.

George Allen is an example of what happens when politicians become beholden to large donors and big business.

I dont know if I like Jim Webb yet. But I do know this much, he didnt drive me into bankruptcy and put a financial strain on the rest of the farmers.

IT:
Welcome to what governing actually is!!!! It's about making tough choices. Sometimes, it's about saying these few people must suffer in order for more people to have jobs.

I am not defending any specific action which I know nothing about. But what I do acknowledge, and you seem to not be, and that is that government is about making choices, and never ever can you make everyone happy.

wawilliyo,

Im not sure exactly what you are saying.
How does governing have anything to do with a politician intervening on behalf of an out of state donor/business?

He helped the USDA shut a plant that was the only chicken processing plant within 150 miles us.

The owner of the plant had refused to process chickens from Perdue's contract farms. We paid him 23% more per bird then Perdue.
Shortly after that, Sen Allen's office attempted to intervene directly with the plant owner.
When that didnt work, the USDA suddenly enforced a rule: Each USDA inspected plant must have a bathroom designated for said USDA inspector.
Bathroom must conform to the USDA specifications and can only be used by the designated inspector.

The additional bathroom would have cost $55k to meet the USDA specifications.

The owner of the plant had two choices: close it down or sell.

He closed it down. 8 months later Perdue bought it.
Keep in mind, before Sen Allen intervened, the USDA inspector had been visiting that plant for 7 yrs. Not a single violation.

How on God's green earth does a Senator intervening on behalf of conglomerate chicken processor equate to 'governing'?

Im genuinely offended by your assertion.
Myself and my fellow farmers provided food for the local community at an affordable price.
We in turn drove our profits into our farms and local community.

Maybe by your definition what occurred is called 'governing'....maybe that is what is wrong with our government.

"Welcome to what governing actually is!!!! It's about making tough choices. Sometimes, it's about saying these few people must suffer in order for more people to have jobs."

wawilliyo,

I can quite honestly say I have never been so offended by a statement made by a fellow conservative.

The plant was not shut down so 'more people can have jobs'. The plant was shut down by political intervention.

Your assertion is the complete anti-thesis of what the conservative movement stands for.

Following the conservative movement, the government stays out of our lives. If the market dictated that Perdue offered a better price, the plant would have worked with the contractors.
Instead a conglomerate used its political connections to defeat us because they couldnt beat us on the free market.
Thats not governing...that is socialism.

We paid local workers a fair wage, we paid the plant a good price. We sold our product at a good price to the community.We didnt use illegals like Perdue does. We drove our profits into the local community. The money, the food, the work all stayed local. Our community is approx 3700 people.

You must be a city boy to make a statement like you did.

Looks to me like you were priced out of the market, IT. Sorry to say, but playing by the rules has become passe. It's sad, really, and I know what competing against illegals is like.

Maybe I will e-mail you, but I doubt I'll ever support a lib like Webb...

God is Great--Libs I Hate,

Oh no, I wasnt asking you to support Webb. I dont necessarily support him either.

I certainly did not support George Allen and neither did many other rural conservatives. That is why he was voted out of office.

Alot of focus was given on the maccaca incident, but it masked a large discontent by rural voters such as myself and other farmers in my community. After the shut down of the plant, George Allen never even visited our town. That plant employed 60-100 hard working Americans. Now its run by Perdue and let me put it this way: English is not the primary language spoken at that plant anymore.

I ran a profitable farm and I paid excellent wages to my workers. By focusing on a higher quality product (there is a huge market for grass fed products), myself and others were immune from the Perdue contract farms using illegals. However, we never prepared for Perdue using political favors to push us out of the market. Well, I was the only one pushed out. I was the newest farmer and therefore had less of a financial cushion. But the rest of them suffered financially. Without that plant, we would have to ship our product down to Roanoke for slaughter. Joel Salatin came up with a novel idea: The consumer buys the product BEFORE slaughter. There is a little known Federal law that allows individuals to slaughter their own chicken outside of a USDA plant. But he was one of the few to make it work. Now most shifted their operations to egg production.

It always amazes me when I encounter people who claim they are conservatives, yet they indirectly support the destruction of our workforce...the very fabric of our nation... every time someone goes to a Super Walmart and buys product that is shipped from Mexico, Brazil, etc, those are dollars that should be spent on American made products. Instead those dollars go overseas to support governments that absolutely hate our country. And for what? So they can save 20 cents a pound?
I feel there is a growing disconnect between rural conservatives and urban conservatives..its only going to get worse.

Anyways I digress.. I certainly dont want you to support Webb, but you needn't feel sorry for George Allen. He was not a conservative.

IT...

I think you missed my point entirely. I wasn't speaking specifically about your farm, anymore than I was speaking about what Allen did.

I was simply mentioning that true governing, is about making hard choices. And that those hard choices will inevitably lead to people being upset one way or another.

Further, it's clear by your view of what a conservative is, that others would disagree with you. If you support the idea of the market, then WalMart is a good thing. (I support the market, but don't shop at WalMart because I know what their predatory business practices do). Some conservatives are conservatives for purely social reasons.

And for the record, my maternal grandparents had an 800 acre farm/ranch in Washington State that I spent most of my summers at while a kid.

And I lived about 10 miles from the closest town near Portland, Oregon. I'm hardly a city kid, I'm hardly a suburban kid.

I do apologize if you took what I said to be about your personal situation, but I stand by the fact that real governing isn't opinion poll governance. It is about doing what you think is best. And it's always sad to see someone who is working hard doing something that humanity has done for millenia be pushed out by corporate farming.

wawilliyo,
Sorry I guess I did misinterpret your post. Im relatively new to blogs and I have to admit I have trouble with this venue when it comes to understanding a persons intent.
And I apologize for calling you a city boy. Hell, my son is a city boy. hahaha! After he finishes his Army commitment I dont see him coming back here.

You mentioned social conservatives and the fact there are different conservatives.
I have to agree with you. Perhaps that is what I meant when I said there is a growing disconnect between rural/urban conservatives. I think there is a disconnect between many types of conservatives. I dont consider myself overly social conservative. Im a conservative along the lines of small government and the government staying out of my life. I think quite a few of my rural friends in Virginia and particular out west agree with me.

Also I agree with Super Walmart's right to open stores and the right for people to shop there.
However, if Americans are truly conservative and love this country, they will support their own economy.
I buy all my produce and meat that is grown in the area. Can I save a few bucks shopping at Super Walmart and buy tomatoes that cost 30 cents less? Yes of course. But those dollars are supporting a farmer in Brazil, not in America.
Economically supporting manufactures in other countries is not good for Americans.

Do I buy goods from other countries? Of course. Its unavoidable. But when faced with the choice of buying something from a local owned company or an American made product, I will GLADY spend more to do so. I consider it money well spent.
Unfortunately many conservatives are caught up in the consumerism that has infected all aspects of America. When I was kid, I was happy as all get out, when I got a bike for X-mas. Today, kids are pissed if their parents dont wait in line for 2 days to buy a Play Station 3....Americans waiting in line for 2 days to buy a product made in Japan....profits going to Japan.

actor, you say "Given that the righties on this blog believe that global warming is a myth..."

Cyberactor got it wrong AGAIN. Gee, who woulda thunk it?

No, the fact that the earth's temperature is rising is not a myth. No one said it was. There is honest debate about how much it is rising, and what that means, but in this case the figures don't lie, and overall there is a warming trend.

What is disputed by many many MANY people, on both the Left and the Right, is the reason for this warming. The warming trend started long before industrialization could possibly be blamed, it marked the end of what is called the Little Ice Age (which would, of course, mean higher temps, or it would not be the END of the LIA) and it is just one of hundreds of recorded variations in climate over the eons, none of which could have been manmade.

Reputable scientists are warning us of an impending cooling period as solar activity wanes. Hmmm. If we are in a period of high solar activity, and it is hotter, and then we are told to expect cooler temperatures as solar activity decreases, doesn't that lead to at least the CONSIDERATION of the possibility that it is solar activity MAKING it hotter now?

The matter has gone from being one of science to one of ideology. It is no longer a discussion of what is causing temperatures to rise, it is a division between the radical Liberals who have a deep vested political interest in promoting the idea and the rest of us who would like a more rational basis for our opinions than a political belief system.

If this was a rational scientific matter, it would handled as such. Equal weight would be given to all possible precipitating factors till true research showed one or more to be the actual causes, rather than a slavish devotion to an intuitive guess. (It might FEEL right to say "I see smog and I feel colder---smog must make it cold" but it is not science.) Rational scientific discussion would also address the advantages of a warmer climate (more agricultural production, less need for fuels for heating, etc.) and the downside to a cooling climate.

It is the lack of rationality and reason that have discouraged so many, on both sides of the political aisle. You ardent believers might take a look at what are referred to as "Watermelons" to get yet another perspective on the global warming issue.

But no, conservatives don't think global warming as such is a "myth". We just think you all are letting your emotions and your prejudices and your agendas govern common sense.