Yep, that’s what the hyperlibs — here and abroad — are calling the occasion they expect to receive political gifts from Patrick Fitzgerald: “Fitzmas.” Their salivary glands are working overtime. The UK Guardian newspaper is typical in its view of the libs’ most wished-for outcome. Today, speaking of Plamegate and comparing it to the case of suicided UK intel analyst David Kelly, columnist Jonathan Freedland writes:
“Now there is a chance to discredit not just Bush’s presidency but the ideology which led to the disastrous adventure in Iraq. Plamegate itself may seem arcane, but that outcome is one in which we all have a stake.”
We all do, indeed, Mr. Freedland. Whether we continue to fight the global war against terrorism is not something that should be decided by prosecutors or courts.
Perhaps the most worrisome event — so far not something we should confuse with White House disarray on the the Plame Name Blame Game — is the president’s inexplicable continued reliance on the UN to deal with the matter of Syria. If Mr. Bush is to be criticized, it should be for failing to prosecute the war against Syria. That it is the source of terrorists, money, and weapons that are killing Americans in Iraq has not been in doubt for more than two years. Why are we not doing something — decisively, conclusively and, yes, unilaterally — about it is a criticism to which Mr. Bush has no defense.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?