Sweet Jiminny Christmas . Let's try again.

1) How could the president be talking about an engineering failure three weeks before anybody knew that's what happened?

2) Why are you continuing to claim that overtopping and breeching are separate issues? I explained to you - twice - that overtopping causes breeching. When the water flows over the levee, it scours out the landfill on one side and can lead to a catastrophic structural failure. That's what happened in NOLA in 1965 (and along the Mississippi in 1993), and that's what experts were warning about before Katrina (which was a much stronger storm than Betsy WHEN BUSH WAS WARNED. He should have mobilized federal resources at that moment, not after the storm made landfall.

I showed you Bush's quote when he tried to backtrack: "Of course, there were plans in case the levee had been breached. There was a sense of relaxation in the moment, a critical moment." If there were plans in place, somebody anticipated a breech, right? He said he thought the "bullet had been dodged," meaning he was aware of the danger, but thought it had passed.

3) Why are you throwing Margaret Ebrahim into this as a red herring? Are you making the claim that she's a liberal stooge? Did you know she was the founding editor of the Center for Public Integrity, and won an award in 1996 for exposing the Clinton Lincoln Bedroom Scandal?

So she won an award for that story... it's still curious that she was a CBS 60 Minutes II producer at the time of another lying attack against Bush.

I'm not still saying that the President knew that it was an engineering failure before it was known... I'm saying that the only concerns discussed were overtopping not breaching. There weren't concerns raised about the issue you're talking about and the levees were supposed to have held.

And no, overtopping didn't cause the breach... if you read the WAPO articles I linked to you'd see that the experts say the water never came close to overtopping.

And no, overtopping didn't cause the breach... if you read the WAPO articles I linked to you'd see that the experts say the water never came close to overtopping.

Dude, you're cherrypicking things out of sequence from all over the timeline to fit your argument. Let's put them in order:

- Experts warn before the storm hits that there is a significant chance the levies will be overtopped and breeched causing catastrophic damage just like Betsy in 1965. Even I see these predictions at WeatherUnderground. At this point Katrina is a Category 5. This is when the videos are made.

- In the videoconference, Bush tells state and local officials (who are also guilty as hell, but this does not exororate Bush) that all preparations are being made at the federal level (which is not true). He continues his vacation.

- The hurricane hits, and the levees fail. At this point no one knows that the engineering problems are responsible. Three days later, on Sept. 1, Bush makes his "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" comment. But people - a lot of people - had in fact anticipated them to fail - after being overtopped. Again, at this point no one knows the real reason. Bush's statement must therefore be referring to the overtopping/breeching issue.

- Sept. 12 Bush backs off his statement in a press conference and sidesteps by saying that everyone thought the crisis had been avoided. But this is irrelevant, because if he had heeded the warnings BEFORE THE STORM, the feds would have been ready when the levees failed.

- Sept. 21 Experts telll the WaPo that the storm surges were lower than expected and that the levees were structurally unsound.

You're trying to make the argument that because the storm was weaker than expected, Bush gets off the hook. But the fact remains that he was warned of the potential for catastrophe and did nothing (strike that he did go on vacation). Then he lied about the fact that he was warned, then he tried to weasel out of the lie.

The fact that the levees failed because of design is irrelevant, because that wasn't the issue at the time the AP tape was made. He could have prepared for levee failure.

I'd be satisfied if he just act like a man for once and admit he made a mistake.

I for one am horrified at the way the administration has allowed Michael Brown to be thrown under the FLEET of buses that they recently drove over him.....I originally thought this guy Brown was a worthless tool.....only to find out that while he's certainly not squeaky clean, he ain't as bad as the administration made him out to be!!

In a large public corporation, now would be the time for the board of directors to quietly ask for the CEO's resignation, and if they didn't get it, force him out....IF SOMEONE ISN'T DOING THEIR JOB, THEY GET FIRED!!

What has Bush done RIGHT?! We certainly have our fair share of political posturing and finger-pointing going on, but Bush himself has said he takes reponsibility for the disaster. He hired these guys, and he should've fired these guys, at least Chertoff....how many lost their lives in Katrina? I have heard a lot of numbers, 2-3000 maybe? maybe more, maybe less, I don't know. But if you run a snowplow company, and a big blizzard is coming, and you assure everyone that you've got 'em covered, and then it hits, 5 feet of snow, and you don't even start the plows for a couple of days, meanwhile people freeze to death in their homes, car accidents abound, who's at fault? Who gets sued? Who is liable? It seems clear to me, that Bush WAS advised that it was distinctly possible that flooding, and maybe SERIOUS flooding, could/would occur, yet days later, he stated that no one considered the possibility the levees would fail...?! They are only rated for a Cat3 storm at most, and this was a big Cat5 less than 24 hours before landfall, how could they be doing their jobs, if they WEREN'T considering that possibility?! Heck, I sat at home, and watched the coverage, and -I- considered the possibility!!What is it going to take, for the people of this country to realize that this guy is WAY out of his depth? He's knocked out two foreign sovereign state governments, he's only half-built the replacements, and they're crumbling like the levees in New Orelans. Please help me understand how he still has his job....?

Look Andy, you're spinning what I'm trying to say and I've debated this enough with you guys who just keep taking this in circles... You can't find where Bush was warned about levee breaches/breaks before the storm and that's a simple fact.

warnings BEFORE THE STORM, the feds would have been ready when the levees failed.

Again, what warnings? And what could they have done to be "ready"... Oh you mean like begging Blanco to have a mandatory 100% evacuation or declaring an emergency days before the thing hit land? Oh wait they did those things, and New Orleans and Louisiana officials didn't do anything. Or how about if Nagin had used his own evactuation plan to uses the thousands of buses at his disposal to evactuate people? Are these the sort of things you're talking about? How about Blanco telling the Red Cross to stay out of the city because she didn't want to create a magnet to the Superdome and convention center? Clearly DHS is/was a mess too, but you guys can't ever seem to accept that the local and state officials who were on the front lines REALLY screwed up big time.

Anyway, are we really going anywhere with this? You keep insisting that this new revelation shows Bush being warned about breaches/breaks, but that's simply not true and that is the main point in question in all of this.

If you want to talk semantics about over-topping versus a "breach", go right ahead......the dead people will wait until you're finished wasting your breath, and then they'll still be dead...

The TRUTH is, that he was warned that bad things were going to happen, and he told everyone they were fully prepared, now, you tell me, WERE we fully prepared?

sure local folks could have done more, they could call out the National Gua-...oh yeah, they're in Iraq....

fred evil, there's a difference between being warned about bad things and having a new and admittedly unprepared DHS and being warned about levees breaking that effectively destroyed an entire city... although if you've gotten past the headlines you'd know that while Brownie was more involved than previously though, so was Bush and things were offered to Brownie and he turned down help saying he had all he needed a number of times. Everyone screwed up from the FEMA and DHS to the President because they're his people, down to the people who designed and built the levees, but especially to Nagin and Blanco.

The point is, this was a huge screw-up, but at the same time it doesn't seem that anyone foresaw what actually happened, and this was just the latest media smear campaign on the President. They thought they had their "smoking gun" to bust Bush for lying, but it fell flat... It was shameful for them to say he was warned about it without providing any evidence, and then try to use his comments on ABC as a way to say he lied. Again, why am I repeating all of this? Either you get it or you choose not to.

I disagree that it fell flat, it is ACCURATE to say he was warned! I'm sorry, I'm searching for words, because I just am appalled by your unwillingness to see that he prevaricates, he blusters, he mis-states, he mis-phrases...how many times does he have to do or say something stupid before you will admit he ain't all that bright, and isn't doing a good job?! WHAT WILL IT TAKE?!?! Are conservatives so beholden to this man, that the deaths of about as many Americans as were in the WTC is ok when they're killed by an American's incompetence, as opposed to a willful action of an enemy? HOW CAN YOU CONTINUE TO SWALLOW THE ADMINISTRATION'S SPIN!?!?! If you can't see it now, you never will. He could violate Mother Theresa's remains, while burning the Talmud and waving a flag that says kill n%^*&rs, and you NeoCons would lap it up, and happily repeat whatever explanation the white House hand down won't you?! WHY AREN'T YOU OUTRAGED!!? Do you hate America so much that you will letting Bush continue to screw it up for the rest of the second term?

lol, the word unhinged comes to mind with your last comment Fred Evil... You've just entered in to a realm reserved for the nuttiest of the nuts. Perhaps you can join the "9/11 was an inside job" crowd next...

how many times does he have to do or say something stupid before you will admit he ain't all that bright...

Even if that were true, it has nothing to do with the fact that no one is providing an example of Bush being warned in those pre-Katrina meetings about the levees breaking/breaching. It's clear you've just become so crazy over this that you let loose with the way you libs all talk amongst yourselves. and where does this come from:

waving a flag that says kill n%^*&rs

What's wrong with you? I hope that was just out of your general looney leftness and not a reference to New Orleans.... Please don't make me school you one how whites died at an extremely disproportionate rate in New Orleans... please don't make me do it.

Randy, that's interesting, you callin me loony? Sure, I get carried away, but my mind reels at the idea of people continuing to support this man.

Oh, and as a screamin liberal, I am used to being told that I hate America because I don't support Bush's "War on Terror", I just wanted to see if it threw you for a loop like it does me to be told I hate America. I'm sure you don't hate America, I'm sure Bush doesn't either, but he just seems to wander from one debacle to another, leaving confusion and despair in his wake, and the Republicans just sit back and applaud him all the while! How do you justify in your own mind his behavior? Doesn't it strike you that he really doesn't have all that much control?

I could care less whether white people or black or asian or whatever died in New Orleans, they are people...I was simply trying to go for hm offending several large groups of people....I can't believe you thought I was serious.......school me?! what, are you like 8 years old?

Bottomt line, whether it was a failed levee, or an overtopped one, he was warned of the potential for significant flooding, people familiar with the levee structure at all know they were designed for Cat3 at most, and less than 24 hrs before, it was a Cat5, how could you NOT consider a break in a levee? Additionally, this is a fraction of the communications that took place, and it's only NOW being released, unless you believe Tom Davis of VA, who says this is old news.....it's not old news to me, this is the first I heard of it....

How about this for a puzzler, why is it a concern when a physical structure that restrians water gets close to having that water flood over the top? First there's the water pressure, we don't want the weight of the water to be too much, and break the dam, or levee...so what is done with a dam? They release controlled amounts of water to release the pressure, and to keep OVERTOPPING from happening, as when the water simply floods over the top and sides, it begins to erode the earthen structure that the dam or levee sits on, washing away the foundation of the dam or levee! It's not as simple as water splashing over a bathtub or sink, we're talking BILLIONS of gallons here, with 130+ MPH winds pushing it.....the levees were built by the Army Corps of Engineers, don't tell me Bush couldn't get the guys who designed, built and maintained these levees to tell him what the likely outcome was....if they aren;t knocking on his door to tell him, he should've been knocking DOWN theirs to ask!

You're really going to stick by the semantics of a levee "breaking" versus overtopping?

yes I'm sticking by those "semantics", because they are important. This was a smear attempt meant to call Bush a liar, and when looked at objectively it fails to do that, but it got out there and now the rest of the media is running with it, so as usual perception beats reality in the public eye. The left wing media knows this all to well and has used it to hammer this President. I see this going off in to other areas and I'd rather not because we could get in to WMDs and CIA "leak" and everything else... but that has nothing to do with this

and the Republicans just sit back and applaud him all the while!

Not quite... I stand up for many more things than most (my site is called RightWinged), and I certainly defend the administration more they they defend themselves. I think they've attempted to take the higher ground and not respond to being called liars, etc. over anything and everything, because they thought they'd look better not stooping to that level. Well, I stoop. And I also think the administration recognizes that history will be the ultimate judge of his presidency, and I believe it will judge him positively. There are still some things to get passed, no doubt, but I honestly believe that. I also think it will depend on the next President and how they handle things that will be passed along to them, but if they do a decent jobs , again I think history will be kind to Bush. Of course this isn't based on Katrina, and again don't confuse what I'm saying with saying that he did some great job on Katrina, but this has all been about this specific AP smear campaign.

As for engineers who should know, etc. This could be where Brownie should have known more. I mean it wouldn't be the President calling up an engineer to ask him about the levees potential to break. FEMA folks should have been on this probably, and so should local and state people. Wouldn't the state and local people be warning of this if they had the concern? They are the people who are in charge of this and live there, they have the home court advantage there.... I guess they were busy misappropriating $500,000 in federal money given for an evacuation plan to study some stupid bridges (starting in 1997, and this probably should have been caught by FEMA too)...

Do you think any of the communication breakdowns could have had anything to do with the fact that before Katrina
http://www.newsdesk.org/archives/000301.php

Senior officials in Louisiana's emergency planning agency already were awaiting trial over allegations stemming from a federal investigation into waste, mismanagement and missing funds"...

And federal auditors are still trying to track as much as $60 million in unaccounted for funds that were funneled to the state from the Federal Emergency Management Agency dating back to 1998

The problems are particularly worrisome, federal officials said, because they involve the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, the agency that will administer much of the billions in federal aid anticipated for victims of Katrina.

Is that why no one was around mentioning the potential for breaks? Who knows, but the point is we have no anticipation of levees breaking/breaching, and not really that urgent of concerns about the overtopping. I think there was mass flooding that people had just accepted would occur from overtopping, but not the wiping out of an entire city due to a 700 foot whole in a new (relatively speaking) levee that was a new design after the Betty issues.

Randy, no one can disagree with the fact that New Orleans really was a disaster waiting to happen, whether it be from incompetent (and certainly corrupt) state and local officials, to purse-tightening authorizers of money to improve the levees or whatever.....there isn't one person who comes out smelling like a rose in this, no one.

There was once a man who put a sign on his desk, it read "The buck stops here", that man, supposedly like the present group of folks in charge, believed in Personal Responsibility. I was surprised and pleased when Bush stepped up to the plate and took responsibility for this mess, that is one thing I can respect, and one thing he does, is accept responsibility. He won't admit a mistake was made, but he will admit he feels badly about results. And while the buck DOES stop there, at least it should, it doesn't seem like it ever has an effect on Bush. But please notice, that Brown is gone,even thought now we see that this really wasn't entirely his fault. Bush said, "We are fully prepared", and this proved to be disastrously inaccurate.

Playing semantics with the words "break" and "overtop" is really not what bothers me. What bothers me is that he is playing this like the idea that the city would flood was so far from everyone's minds that it was never considered! Anyone who lives 12 feet below sea-level will tell you it's an ever-present thought, more of an awareness really, maybe not at the forefront, but definitely in the back of your mind (I have cousins who used to live there). If the idea wasn't even considered, then I have to ask what kind of brainstorming sessions did they have? How in the world did they miss this as a possibility? The suggestion that they didn't even consider a broken levee is actually more frightening to me, because it means there is a fundamental lack of creativity and imagination on the part of the DHS and FEMA Whether the President considered it or not, he should surround himself with people who consider EVERY situation, especially one as ominous and OBVIOUS as broken levees. Were you, or anyone you know, really really surprised at broken levees from a Category 5 hurricane? It was the first thought that crossed my mind! And it didn't even hit New Orleans directly and caused this devestation.

This just continues to underscore what I consider to be an ongoing demonstration in incredibly poor judgement.

I won't divert from the present subject either, as I really could rant for hours, and truly sound loony, because I am PASSIONATE about America, as I assume you are, otherwise we woudn't be talking, and impassioned folks sometimes say things that sound bizarre, but in a certain frame of reference, are understandable....back to the fun.....

if you don't consider the break/overtop comments a lie, what about the "We are fully prepared" line? They were in NO WAY fully prepared, not fed, not state, and not local......and when it comes to a multi-state catastrophe, the only way to handle that is from a federal level, only the feds have the resources and tools to properly manage that kind of situation, you can't lay it all on local and state....sure they were bad, but when 3 states get hit, it's gotta be in the federal bailiwick....

you can't lay it all on local and state

See previous posts, I never did... but they were the first line for evacuations, planning for their own city, and calling for military assistance.

Were you, or anyone you know, really really surprised at broken levees from a Category 5 hurricane?

Well for starters, again it was a 3 that hit MS, and only 1 to 2 conditions that struck NOLA... which means everyone was surprised considering that they were made to handle a Cat 3 and water didn't even come close to overtopping (speaking about the main break that flooded the city... not isolated reports of overtopping on various levees). So infact everyone was surprised that under the circumstances they broke. Would I have been surprised even if it had been a cat 5? Probably because I don't know anything about levees, and I don't think most people do either... I think the average person would have expected massive spillover, but nothing close to a 700 foot hole that left the city with no hope. I don't know where the investigation stands but I recall at one point they thought a barge had slammed in to the wall, causing the break.

And yeah, the President said we were prepared, and I assume his people were telling him that they were... and had the levee not broken and completely destroyed the entire city, while we'd still be hearing all the partisan blaming, the bigger picture would have seemed like we were prepared. But again, a lot of the ensuing chaos could have been avoided by forcing a mandatory evacuation which Bush begged them to do, instead of letting folks stay and party and then have all the poor people crowd in to the Dome and then armed thugs loot town.

I think we'd have hard evidence of people screaming "the levees are going to break and destroy the entire city" if that had been anticipated, but we don't see that. We see concern about overtopping. Were we prepared? Obviously not. Was it possible to truly be prepared for this? I doubt it. But again, it certainly would have helped if the city and state didn't fumble in the earliest stages, and even later in the week with blocking the Red Cross from entering the city and not requesting military, which the Governor admits she needed to do, and didn't until two days later.

As I said, I'm not making an excuse for anyone on anything in particular here. But this was an obvious "gotcha" piece, and it was spin and dishonest. If there was some sort of smoking gun here the video from the pre-Katrina briefing should have had some expert saying "Mr. President, the levees are probably going to break.. this is our main concern and the concern of the engineeres... overtopping is one thing, but we're talking about a break here that will effectively destroy the entire city" but that isn't anything close to what we saw. That is however the image the AP tries to paint before they show Bush saying no one anticipated the breach to make him look like he's lying. And that's the bottom line here. There's really nothing "new" here, other than that we see Bush was involved in pre-Katrina briefings, and Brownie was more involved than some would have us believe. But we didn't have people raising concerns about levee breakage which is the whole premise of the AP story.

Just a quick note here, it's getting late, the failure of the levee system can be viewed in many ways. The way I view it is this, The purpose of a levee is to hold back water, as long as it holds back water the system is working. Once water is allowed in however, the levee system can be said to have "Failed" in it's purpose, by allowing water in, so in that sense, yes, the levees most definitely failed. On the other hand, you could view it as the walls themselves did not fail, they were simply overtopped. Unfortunately, the overtopping is what CAUSED the failure of the levee on a grander scale. Once overtopped, the incoming water scoured away the underpinnings, and away goes a weakened secion of wall. Did the levee "Break" as in water pressure burst it open? Nope. BUT Did the levee FAIL? Absolutely. I believe Bush is going to lean heavily on this in the coming days as evidence that he didn't lie, that he spoke the TRUTH....unfortunately, the real threat wasn't from too much water pressure, but from the overtopping resulting in the removal of the supporting earthenworks, causing the FAILURE of the levee, as opposed to a "Break" in them. Did he lie? I'm sure he doesn't think so, and that's what determines of he lied, did he believe what he said? if so, it's not a lie. However, external interpretations of the language can offer alternate descriptions of what was said. If it is known that overtopping can and will cause the failure of dams, levees etc, than being told of impending overtopping IS informing him that the levees will break, even if the word "Break" is not used. These guys do this for a living, I cannot fathom that the idea of a ruptured levee never crossed their minds, I cannot fathom that an overtopped, therefore weakened levee never crossed their minds. If these ideas never strayed through their heads, than we REALLY have the wrong people in office!

Unfortunately, not telling a lie doesn't mean did he did a good job. Not lying doesn't make up for thousands of dead. Not lying won't repair the streets, and homes and lives.....doesn't the scale of this issue affect you? Doesn't the loss of a CITY make you want to just shake some sense into these people?! Especially when you hear them talk of rebuilding, and NOT putting in a Cat5 levee?

--"everyone was surprised considering that they were made to handle a Cat 3 and water didn't even come close to overtopping"--

I'm not sure where you got your data...

"Most of the levee and floodwall failures were caused by overtopping, as the storm surge rose over the tops of the levees and/or their floodwalls and produced erosion/scour that subsequently led to failures and breaches."

http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=290

Please take a moment to examine the link, they're not complete as yet, and some of the levees may actually have broken(more analysis is needed), but the levee breaks primarily were caused by overtopping.

So the word "Break" wasn't used as such, but the overtopping was definitely a possibility, and if it was possible, the ramifications of it were surely known...

You can stick to the semantics of the word "Break" not being used, but under scrutiny, the fact is, he at best obscured the truth through verbiage, much as Clinton did under oath, which to my knowledge no liberal will defend......and no one lost their life for Mr. Clinton's indescretion.

Sorry, not as short a note as I thought, but I am worked up about this....

where did I get my data? the WAPO articles I already posted above (to name a few)... here you go...
About the category of the storm that hit the city:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122101960.html

The winds in New Orleans, which lay to the west of the storm's center, were probably even weaker than that, at Category 1 or 2 speeds, the report said.

I don't know about that Senate link, but here's what the experts say about the levee break
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/20/AR2005092001894_pf.html

with the help of complex computer models and stark visual evidence, scientists and engineers at Louisiana State University's Hurricane Center have concluded that Katrina's surges did not come close to overtopping those barriers.

"catastrophic structural failure" of barriers that should have handled the hurricane with relative ease.

"We are absolutely convinced that those floodwalls were never overtopped,"

Again this is all above, along with other WAPO articles, and WAPO is one of the more obnoxious left wing papers in the country. You obviously won't agree with that, but you'd have to agree that they are far from conservative.

I still don't think it's "semantics" what Bush said though... I think no one had told him about, and we see no evidence of, people warning about levees breaching/breaking. Maybe they should have, but the fact remains that as far as we can tell, they didn't... So Bush was accurate in saying that he didn't think anyone anticipated the breach. If I were the President, and no one told me this was a worry, and I'm no levee engineer (nor is the President) I would feel confident saying "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees"

Not sure why your last comment isn't showing up, but I know you left the comment because I get an email when new comments are posted, here's the text of it:

Actually, any claims that the levees were never overtopped is simply erroneous. Most of the breacheS that occurred were caused by overtopping, which then allowed the water to scour away the foundations on the unprotected back side of the levees, which rather promptly caused their failure..

Please, to be reading....
http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=290

To which I say, you're not reading the correct parts.... See my answer to your question about where I obtained data about the category of the storm above? Well similarly I was quoting experts quoted in the WAPO about the levees not overtopping. As I've said, isolated incidents in various areas isn't the issue. The Lake Pontchartrain break was what basically destroyed the city, but the break is known to have not been a result of overtopping... From your link:

Field observations suggest that little or no overtopping occurred along most of the levees fronting Lake Pontchartrain, but evidence of minor overtopping and/or wave splashover was observed at a number of locations. There was a breach in the levee system at the northwest corner of the New Orleans East protected area, near the Lakeside Airport.

The lake level rose, but stayed below the crests of
most of the lakefront levees. The lake rose approximately to the tops of the lakefront levees
at a number of locations, especially along the shoreline of New Orleans East, and there was
moderate overtopping (or at least storm wave splash-over) and some resulting erosion on the
crests and inboard faces of some lakefront levee sections in this area.

The storm surge towards the south from Lake Pontchartrain drove both lake waters and waves against the lakefront levees. Best available field data, and numerical calculations of storm surge, at the time of this writing suggest that the lakefront storm surge in this area rose to about 11 feet, well below the crests of the lakefront levees in this area. No significant sustained overtopping occurred (only wave splashover at a few locations).

This is all contradictory to the Corps of Engineers explanation (like the WAPO article said)... Now I'm not sure if we're to believe this report you're linking to or not, but the point stands that we see no evidence of Bush being warned about breaches/breaks. Again, maybe he should have been, but the AP hit piece doesn't show that it ever happened.

Hmmm, I think that's the first time anyone taking the conservative side of a debate ever used the Washington Post, and described it as from the "Experts".....What I linked to was from the Senate investigations, including inspections by the ACoE, and others, and is not as yet complete, but is ongoing....

Bottom line, I believe he was warned about the possibility of NO flooding, and you say he was never told the levees would break, if that's what we each are convinced of, nothing seems likely to convince us. I insist that Bush is using a Clinton-esque play on words to hold himself above the muck, and I believe you are swallowing it.....what more can be said......

Agreed... but to be clear, I'm not calling the WAPO experts.. I'm using comments of experts that they spoke with... and I'm using WAPO, as I said, because one could hardly call it conservative, even if you disagree that it's liberal. The comments were from experts who used computer models, etc. to come to the conclusions they did.

So basically you use what you can,denigrate the source and defile the whole?Rock on Christian soldier!!

You're insane dude... and it's beginning to seem, quite obsessed. You're commenting all over my blog like it's all you've got scheduled today...

You're so beyond help I don't even feel like giving real responses because you're clearly the liberal type who is so bored that you go on saying the most outrageous and insane things all over a blog just to get arguments started, to have someone to talk to. I've obliged in the past, but I can see from your comments that this is just the type of attention you're begging for and with every response you'll come up with more insane diversions from the main point and.. whatever, I'm not in the business of deleting comments... but at least make thme relevant.

You don't feel like giving responses but you do anyways.Thats the Republican resolve I have come to love and admire in myself and in others.You know what else I love about being Republican?Never having to say I was wrong just misunderstood.