August 11, 2011 | 5 comments
February 4, 2011 | 5 comments
December 29, 2009 | 6 comments
November 16, 2009 | 3 comments
September 17, 2009 | 0 comments
In speaking with people who would know far better than us about the Fitzgerald indictment, what on the face appears to be thin gruel may be a remarkably complex and dangerous document for the Bush Administration and its defenders, as well as Democrats.
Don’t expect a lot of commentary or pushback from White House or Administration types, particularly given that so many colleagues have testified under oath or provided interviews to the FBI. The wrong comment or conflicting piece of information could create further troubles for others already in jeapardy.
More interesting is the time line that Fitzgerald lays out related to the defense the White House began to erect agains the leaking and prevaricating of Joe Wilson. Remember, all of this got started because word reached the White House from reporters and friends of the Administration that Wilson was talking himself up and his Niger trip in green rooms all over town. The White House had several weeks at least to begin mapping out a pushback plan, and this appears to be the time when many of the problems took shape. There appears to be much in this timeline for others to mine.
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?