Bush is CEO of the world's most powerful and benign economic and civil authority, and Cheney is his COO. Deal with it.
==================================

"A sneering Liberal in the comments here derisively tagged us as "the few, the proud, the 28%", implying that President Bush only has a 28% Approval Rating. That is, like so much from the Left, a false claim and shows a bit of the malice which colors everything from the DNC and the MSM these days,"

3/2-4/07 - Gallup/USA Today:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

Approve - 33%

Disapprove - 63%

Unsure - 4%

You're right - 33% is so much better. The 28% low-water mark was from the CBS News/New York Times Poll. Feb. 23-27 - and that was TWO WHOLE WEEKS AGO!

Lee,

Sneerily is not a word. WHAT ELSE ARE YOU LYING ABOUT!?

That was supposed to read as funny by the way, it's hard to gauge humor around here sometimes.

It's a word if I use it sneeringly.
==================

Wow, I got that sneerily right.
===================

How about a blog name: Sneerily Right.
========================

DJ Drummond..you and Barney are practically the only one's left who who believe in the rectitude of this administrationon this matter. Even Scot McClellan, the former spin doctor for Bush and Cheney when the proverbial "sh.. hit the fan on the leak is fed up with all the falsehoods that his former bosses gave him. Remember him? the President 's own pr man doesn't have any faith in President... we are in trouble.

"If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration"

Steve, reading that article (I don't watch the videos at work) it looks like McClellan thinks the administration should go and spin this instead of ignoring it until the appeals process is done. Hardly the way you intentionally mirepresented it.

As to your quote, the "it" was outing a covert agent...which didn't happen. Other than that, I don't believe Libby is actually IN the administration anymore....or are you claiming he still is?

Well said DJ, thank you.

brainy 435. good point on Libby, but Libby was considered Cheney's Cheney who was involved (though not proven) and is still at the White House, unless he has given his resignation letter. As to the question about 'outing a covert agent'..there are 2 views on that;one, she wasn't, and two, she was

Yes, there are 2 views. One supported by the fact that the special prosecutor hasn't indicted anyone for outing an agent after years of investigation and the other being a liberal wet dream with no grounding in reality.

Cheney was involved in defending his office from Wilsons lies. There was no crime in this, so there is no conspiracy he can be tied to. Why would he resign?

No one is denying that Plame WAS a covert agent at one point. But she wasn't anymore and hadn't been for years, so she couldn't be "outed."

As a follow up. I concede the conservatives have a good point in why the larger question of the 'crime' of leaking 'a covert agent' in the CIA was never addressed by Fitzgerald..I think it would help clarify the issue for everyone, if he did..Kevin Drum a liberal blogger echos this.."I think Patrick Fitzgerald really does owe us all an explanation of one thing: at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not an indictable criminal offense? Was it early in the investigation? Not til the end? And why did he come to that conclusion? Merely because he didn't feel he had enough evidence to convict anyone, or because he thought Plame's outing simply didn't violate federal law at all? He's not allowed to talk about the evidence he compiled against people he didn't indict, but he can talk about his team's legal reasoning and its understanding of the federal statutes involved. And he should".

Good post D.J.

The reason most on both sides can't hold onto consistent ethical positions is because, by and large, most people don't know why they believe what they believe. What has passed for philosiphy in this country for many, many decades has simply been an excuse for not thinking. Moral relavitism reigns supreme today. Whoopi Goldberg trumpeted on O'reilly that she doesn't have to use logic and reasoning when coming to her decisions, she simply uses her "heart." Which part of her "heart" tells her not to step in front of a speeding car? It is always easier not to actually think. But not knowing why you believe what you believe, e.g., not having a core philosiphy, ultimately leaves a person with a trash heap of inconsistencies.

This is why any person who is sure and confident of what they believe is a lightning rod. A lightning rod from the left because they are so utterly philosiphically bankrupt that they can no longer believe that anyone really can KNOW anything (yes, wake up Kant, it's time to take your meds.) A lightning rod from those on the right who are still at least looking for clarity of thought and purpose. It is truly rare to find people who know and practice a consistent, non equivocating, non relative philosiphy today.

Here here DJ.

Consider me one of the 28% proud to stand with you.

Unfortunately, I can't say that I have always stood with you. I used to consider myself a liberal.

Everything I knew about politics, I learned from MTV. The picture I had of President Clinton when I voted for him in his second term was of a saxophone playing dude in sunglasses that was a friend of everyone. What a cool guy I thought ...

I knew nothing of what his Presidency had done ... or -*had not*- done ... I didn't care ... he looked cool on MTV, and that was all I needed.

I saw a movie called "Roger & Me" and thought what an asshole that guy was for refusing to do an interview. I downloaded Fahrenheit 9/11 as soon as it hit the net, and watched it in great anticipation ... I finished watching Fahrenheit 9/11, went to my PC, and donated $50 to Bush's Presidential campaign fund.

I had never donated money to a political campaign before, but I figured if people like Michael Moore were so well funded and organized to make a hit-piece movie, Governor Bush just might need some help, and $50 was a good place for me to start.

Since that day, I've kept politics as one of my "hobbies." I've read more books on politics than I can count, read blogs, write my own blog, talk to people about politics, listen to people about politics, study history ... In that process between voting for Clinton, I made a bit of a change. I voted for Governor Bush ... but didn't have a strong conviction -*why*- I should vote for Bush ... I was mostly in the "anyone but Ann Richards" crowd. With that said, I don't regret my vote then, and I don't regret my support for President Bush now.

Now I understand why I'm a conservative, and you're right ... it's not easy to stay conservative, but it was easy to become one. Once I opened my eyes to the entire world of politics, I knew where I really stood. My beliefs, my convictions ... they are with the conservatives ... and they always will be.

I'm proud to stand next to you brother.

"If few stand with me, those few have passed a test most people fear to even face. "

God you are so manly and brave. How much do you bench?

Except for the elitists liberals from acadamia most liberals have their hands out ALL the time. Give me healthcare, food, money transportation. They aren't really liberal philisophically but simply because the liberals in power will give them hand outs. Conservatives will not, so they will never vote for us. We stick to our ideology. ww

Lee, proudly proving she, like most libs and elected dems, avoid accountability at all costs.

DJFelix, well said. There are many who feel like you, and we are proud to be conservatives. It's liberals who are not proud, hence their meltdowns in the last decade, and their incredible anger at themselves and their own sad lives.

Well said DJ. I'm with you.

"Cheney was involved in defending his office from Wilsons lies. There was no crime in this, so there is no conspiracy he can be tied to. Why would he resign?"

Now that it has been proven that Scooter Pie is a liar, the question is who much did he lie about - did his lying including a cover-up for his boss the Veep? Of course it did - and this will all come out in the civil trial - unless the defendants lie some more.... Cheney should resign immediately -- for health reasons of course.

At the trial's close, Fitzgerald expressed his concern in unusually blunt terms. After Libby's lawyers complained that he was trying to put a "cloud" over Cheney without evidence to back it up, Fitzgerald told the jury on Feb. 20, "We'll talk straight."

There was, he said, "a cloud over what the vice president did" during the period before the publication of Novak's column, and it was created by testimony showing that Cheney directed Libby and others at the White House to disseminate information about Wilson and Wilson's criticisms.

"We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened," Fitzgerald added.

The notion that Libby was merely a courtroom stand-in for Cheney infuriated Libby's lawyers, who sought in their courtroom statement to defend both men. "Nobody in the office of the vice president is concerned about" Plame, Libby attorney William Jeffress Jr. said in his closing statement. "She never was part of the story they were trying to put out." Fitzgerald disagreed. Suppose, Fitzgerald said, you were investigating whether a pitcher had purposely beaned a batter, and if so, why?

"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?" Fitzgerald asked at his October news conference. "What we have when someone charges obstruction of justice is the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure out what happened, and somebody blocked their view."

...

He expressed skepticism that the case against Libby should have been presented to a jury.

But Fitzgerald's decision to do so may have stemmed from his pique at his inability to get to the truth about Cheney, who appeared in testimony and in White House documents disclosed to the jury as the man behind the screen, pulling the switches and levers in what one of Fitzgerald's aides described as an orchestrated "political public relations" campaign to undermine Wilson.

"...an orchestrated "political public relations" campaign to undermine Wilson." Straight from the White House - a campaign to discredit critics who proved that the administration was working on bad info -- or jst plain lying - and now that we KNOW there are liars in the administration who's to say where the lying starts and stops?

This will all come out in more detail in the months ahead. The decorum is over gone, and the gloves will come off, and VP Cheney will be subjected to the full scrutiny this situation deserves.

If he's smart he'll resign now. If conservatives are smart - they'll call for it.

Interesting post, DJ. If there were any conservatives in power today, it might be worth discussing. But as many conservatives freely admit, today's Republicans are no longer conservatives; they're just Bushies.

p'p' (if that is really you) would you like to take a bet on that? Naww . I didn't think so. Just using your pretty box quotes to make you look like you know something. Just use your ditto key. Save everyone a lot of time. Resign my rear.Why the h%^l should he resign.That's like saying for your posts to make sense. Oh by the way, how many "socks" do you have?

That's like saying for your posts to make sense.

Comedy gold.

Comedy Gold -- lol!

Lee, you fail to mention how the ACTUAL leaker of Plames name fits into this story.

For those in the cheap seats, the actual leakers name Armitage, from State, and not Libby who worked for the VP.

And how is it "...an orchestrated 'political public relations' campaign to undermine Wilson." when you go out and refute his assertions and tell people the truth about his actual report to the CIA? There is no there there.

Liberals could not be engaged productively in a discussion about National Security.

Uh huh. You mean like how when the Democrats propose an alternative plan to Bush's failed strategy in Iraq, the Right (and gee, right here on Wizbang, no less) immediately attacks and dismisses it as "a Plan for Retreat", "Roadmap for Terrorists", "'Slow Bleed'" legislation", "Democrat-led effort to lose the war", and a plan to see "America defeated, our troops humiliated, and Iraq exploding in violence and civil war".

Yeah, boyz, that sure is the Right modeling how to be "engaged productively".

Hypocrite. Coward. Liar. You can claim those labels as badges of honor, also. And I bet you can find another Republican to tell you how cool you look doing it.