digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

NYTimes to Congress: Reverse the Lawless Policies of Bush and Cheney

nytimes.com — The New York Times offers a list of things that need to be done: Restore habeas corpus, stop illegal spying, ban torture, close the C.I.A. prisons, ban extraordinary rendition, close Gitmo, etc., etc.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -218/+28Congress to NYTimes: Suck it, Libs.
    • Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -19/+151It's not just the libs who think this administration has criminally neglected their oath to uphold the Constitution.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -14/+185I hereby enact a new rule: Anyone that uses "liberal", "conservative", "republican", "democrat", or any nonsensical meaningless derivative of those as an insult or compliment without knowing what the words mean will be immediately dugg down. Anyone agree?
    • Shak, on 10/12/2007, -20/+114Its not just libs; anyone that can think for themselves or has half a mind would agree with this. Way to go NY Times.
    • Shawnosaurus, on 10/12/2007, -11/+41@krymore - I hereby second the "krymore jackass rule"

      I only wish we could give them the hose instead of just the dugg down =)
    • SonOfHam, on 10/12/2007, -8/+72How amusing it is that the party that is so against "big government" when it comes to programs that help people, doesn't mind a big government bent on destroying our privacies.
    • venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -46/+5Not sure why I'm getting dugg down, it's a cynical description of Congress not a poke at the NYT.
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -41/+1@krymore

      That's nice. You know what you be nicer? If you actually defined each of those meanings so all of us here on Digg who want you to add us to your "friends" list will know how we should structure our posts.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -11/+40"Reverse the Lawless Policies of Bush and Cheney."

      And Please make it ALL OF THEM.

      Thank-You
    • designer, on 10/12/2007, -44/+12Maybe the NY Times should have included defeating the enemy.
    • designer, on 10/12/2007, -53/+5Some definitions
      liberal = top down big government, communism
      conservative = limited government, capitalism
      republican = top down big government, socialism
      democrat = top down big government, communism
    • writeman, on 10/12/2007, -10/+43"Maybe the NY Times should have included defeating the enemy."

      They did: Bush and Cheney.

    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30Some Definitions:

      "Classic Conservatism = fiscally conservative, non-interventionalist, small government (states rights), socially conservative

      NeoConservatism (Bush / Cheney Style) = fiscally liberal, interventionalist, big federal government, socially conservative

      Get it?"

      http://digg.com/politics/There_Is_Nothing_Conservative_About_Neoconservatives
    • trollmode, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25GREAT article. I applaud the NYT for summarizing the pretentiousness of this out-of-control administration.
    • kickinass, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7sick of these republican money makers, soon democrats will be back in office and things may pan out...
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Get it?"

      Now please explain how they took over the Republican party, that is the part I don't understand.
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"It's not just the libs who think this administration has criminally neglected their oath to uphold the Constitution."
      You would have had to be the biggest dumbass ever to vote for these guys and then not like their policy.

      "Get it?"
      Tell that to the millions of tools who voted them in.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Get it?"

      "Now please explain how they took over the Republican party, that is the part I don't understand."

      I don't think anyone had any idea. They fooled all of us.
    • mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4NY Times? LOL!!!
    • nowayhoseb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Its about time that a paper with credibility spoke out,,,go NYT
    • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6> Some definitions
      Fixed for truth...

      > liberal = top down big government, communism
      Liberal = "Big Brother", Heavy Social Spending, Sell Votes to Anyone "Green"

      > conservative = limited government, capitalism
      Conservative = "Big Brother", Heavy Defense Spending, Sell Votes to Religious Reich.

      > republican = top down big government, socialism
      Corrupt Conservative who has sold out their values, but not as many as there used to be since they just got ousted

      > democrat = top down big government, communism
      Corrupt Liberal who has sold out their values, but not as much as the republicans since they just got elected.

      The fact is... both parties are nothing like their traditional heritage and even the names liberal and conservative no longer really mean what they once did... now there is no party for smaller government, there is no party going to bat for the voters, it's all about who ever is currently purchasing the votes be it the evangelicals, pharmaceuticals, oil, whatever. Just about everyone is a sellout.

      I'd love to see someone get in power who is a traditional conservative who believes in smaller government and preservation of the constitution... closest thing to that these days are libertarians and they field extremists who will never have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. Ron Paul is borderline conservative / libertarian, but I greatly disagree with his views on abortion and several other points... however, at least he's honest about how he votes, that'd be an improvement over most candidates I've seen.

      I'd like to see some TRUE liberals or conservatives get in office, at least we'd have two different parties again... rather than one party who sells out to different people.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Also, please review every single Executive Order and Signing Statement W has ever issued. And please review Clinton's Executive Orders that Bush threw out. Thanks.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12THINGS WE WILL MISS WHEN GOP IS COMPLETELY GONE

      Wiretapping
      Warrantless searches
      Torture camps
      enemy combatants
      unending wars
      Ineffective natural disaster responses
      Power Cuts
      Budget deficit
      Cowboy accents
      e-mails to pageboys
      White house midnight male prostitutes
      posts with "lib traitors" in title
      O'reilly
      Jingoism
      New vocabulary by the president
      Made in China Flags
      Freedom Fries
      Macacas
      Taxpayers paid vacations to Scotland
      Mobster lobbiests
      Crusaders
      attacking the wrong country
      Swiftboat men for truth
      New Reasons to stay in Iraq
      Ann coulter dressed as a woman
      Evil Swedish chief UN representative
      Flight suits
      Condi Playing the Paino while countries are bombed
      plastic sheets and duct tape
      color coded paranoia levels
      High gas prices
      Hydrogen economy
      WMDs searches
      Finding more bones at ground zero 5 years after
      Iraqis attacking the USA on 9-11
      Ricin plots
      Liquid Bombs
      Shoe Bombs
      Dirty Bombs
      The twins
      Direct orders from God
      Going after dady's assassins
      Forgetting Osama
      Bush dropping dog on head
      Pretzel accidents
      Segway accidents
      The mid-east roadmap to hell
      Protecting Israel so that Jesus comes
      Threatening North Korea with Caviar embargoes
      Flip Floping
      Staying the ever changing course
      Asking Libs for the plan
      Deadenders in their last throes before the curve
      Gay-Bashing Flaming knob-rubbing meth-addicted hypocrit Preachers
      "The Constitution is just a piece of paper."
      Defiance of the geneva convention.
      The death of habeas corpus.

  • BluthBoy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+42I hope the Democrats grow some balls for this... of course the list is all true, but whether its actually gonna be done (even though it is for the sake of humanity), well, lets face the truth....
    • dairyland, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30"I hope the Democrats grow some balls for this... of course the list is all true, but whether its actually gonna be done (even though it is for the sake of humanity), well, lets face the truth...."

      I agree. However, the Republicans need to grow a set of balls, too. They've been a bunch of yes-men puppets during this entire Administration's reign. Come to think of it, maybe they should grow some spines while they're at it. We need representatives who will stand up and actually protect the Constitution instead of destroying it.
    • BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Why do you think the Reps would need to grow balls? No matter how bad the laws get, they will never be affected by them because they are above the law in their little world of plush seating and polished podiums.

      The constitution protects the people, not the politicians. They can safely ***** all over it and come out smelling like daisies.
    • dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"I hope the Democrats grow some balls for this..."

      I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
      -- Will Rogers
    • adb44, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Government needs the Republicans in it as much as it needs the Democrats. Unfortunately, with the ever present specter of 9/11 hanging over their heads, all Congressmen and women seem to let anything happen under the name of national security. So, yeah, the Democrats need to grow a pair or two, and stand up for the civil liberties that are supposed to be their platform. But Republicans should stand up for the fiscal responsibility they claim to support, too.

      In short, Congress itself needs to grow a pair or five hundred thirty five.
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1(Republicans are) yes man puppets???? Democrats need to grow some balls?

      What are you morons talking about?? Bush hasn't accomplished much beyond the tax cuts and no child left behind. Congress gave him authority to go to war in Iraq using some of the same intelligence that the Clinton administration had.

      Democrats have blocked almost every single item in the Bush agenda, as evidenced by a record number of fillibusters. What has the Republican majority delivered? Social Security reform? No, but we have Democrat-friendly medicare expansion.

      If anything, Bush is too much of a "christian conservative" aka liberal and Congress is socialist/communist. Pull your heads out of your asses, people.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2GOP IS A POLITICAL THEOCRACY
      THAT PRACTICES HYPOCRISY.

      American doesn't want a crazy, home grown Taliban, running our country. That crap only sells in the south. Like chewing tobacco, monster trucks, and dating your cousin.
  • sideshowjohn, on 10/12/2007, -12/+72Is this list complete? Because impeachment isn't listed
    • LuciferChaos, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31@sideshowjohn

      Exactly, that should be # 1 on the list.
    • ferrofluid, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27I would imagine it would be along the lines of Impeach the Organ Grinder first, then impeaching the Chimp.

    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -22/+4It wouldn't matter. Clinton showed us how you can be impeached and still retain office.
    • pilot3033, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Impeach who? Impeaching Bush would leave Cheany in charge (not that he isn't already).
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -7/+56Clinton also showed us that getting a blowjob is worse than treason, murder, and attempting to destroy the Constitution of the United states.
    • Ansible, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@pilot3033: then impeach bush AND cheney. cheney has his grubby little fingers all over this administration's bumblings and transgressions, why should he be immune?
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8I'm sorry but everything else aside, when a man can shoot another man in the face with a shotgun, no questions asked, something very wrong is going on.
    • dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"I would imagine it would be along the lines of Impeach the Organ Grinder first"

      Hard to imagine the Republicans moving to impeach Cheney. They've rubber-stamped the assault on the Constitution, it would be an admission of guilt. The very charge McCain will face if he gets the nomination in the general election.

      They can't admit the truth now...if they even know it.
    • naery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Impeachment wouldn't really do anything. It's worse than a slap on the wrist in that there is absolutely NO punishment related to it if there isn't a conviction. In fact, I would imagine that someone with the kind of ego Bush has would take impeachment followed by a failed conviction as an empowering event. Kind of like, "Well, if I'm not guilty, obviously I must be innocent. Therefore, I'm right!"

      The following are taken from wikipedia.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach


      "In the constitutions of several countries, impeachment is the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to remove a government official without that official's agreement. The second stage is called conviction.

      Impeachment is so rare that the term is often misunderstood. A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact, it is only the legal statement of charges, parallelling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict."

      ***** In other words, if the president is impeached, he would then face a trial by the Congress. Given the fact that Congress is more or less in the same "old boy's club" as the president, I doubt it would go that far. And it's a difficult process, too.

      "The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives). The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been 'impeached.'

      "Next, the Senate tries the accused. ...In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension.) If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

      "Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases."

      Of the 62 impeachment proceedings to have been enacted since 1789, only 17 federal officers have been convicted.


      HOWEVER, if we really wanted to send a message to politicians, as a voting populace what we should do is initiate a recall election for any official who has supported Bush and Cheney. Unfortunately, they are not allowed at the federal level.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election

    • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Unless they're going to impeach Cheney too, for the love of god don't impeach Bush. Cheney may well be the only president that could be worse than what we already have.
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@krymore

      Clinton was impeached for perjury, not for having Monica suck on him a bit. Perjury is a crime.
  • ElbridgeGerry, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37An excellent list detailing our human rights abuses.
  • claughery, on 10/12/2007, -26/+3time to digg this now!

    oh, and any comments praising the commander and chief (and dick) should probably be buried.
    • kiscokid, on 10/12/2007, -25/+2"oh, and any comments praising the commander and chief (and dick) should probably be buried."




      So much for free speech on Digg.
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5@kiscokid

      You've got to be kidding. Your comment and the parent comment weren't buried for being anti-Bush, that's what Digg is all about. Your comments were buried because they didn't contain any useful information and weren't humorous.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23You exorcised your right to free speech. Digg exorcised it's right to bury your juvenile comment. Democracy's a bitch isn't it?
    • Five28, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5It's Commander in Chief, not Commander and Chief. Obviously you have not been in the military. You should try it sometime. Might even change your whole outlook.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9And it's only Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, not the entire Federal Government. There are two other VERY important Branches with just as much Authority.
    • claughery, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0wow you have some stick up your ass there with the spelling crap. - five28. go get yourself a mad libs or wait till the 28th of May. do it for yourself.

      oh and kiscokid: did you think that by telling me NOT to speak my thoughts on the dictator (aka bush)'s poor performance you are respecting freedom of speech? --- or did it occur to you that you may think that your opinion negates personal feelings.

      kiscokid - if you own digg, then you can tell me not to have an opinion on this awesome site. if not, watch what you write.

      nobody likes a hypocrite.
    • Five28, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1claughery ,
      I'm pretty sure that this wasn't a spelling error on your part. There are quite a few folks out there that believe it is "Commander and Chief". If I thought it was a typo, I wouldn't have bothered bringing it up. But your response just proved what I originally thought. You are a dimwit.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why hasn't Bill O'Lielly addressed any of the following Bush failures.

      Bush has;
      1) Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history; (2) Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period; (3) Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market; (4) First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history; (5) After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history;6) In his first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs; (7) Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history; (8) Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history; (9) Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history; (10) Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed; (11) Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans; (12) Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest a sitting American President, shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind; (13) Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history; (14) First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt; (15) Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world; (16) First president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation; (17) Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States; (18) Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history; (19) First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission; (20) First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board; (21) All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations; (22) Biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation); (23) Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history; (24) Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history); (25) With a policy of 'disengagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years;26) Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability; (27) First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea; (30) Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts; (31) Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts; (32) Failed to fulfill his pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'; (33) Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months he has no leads and zero suspects; (34) In the 18 months following the 911 attacks he successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States; (35) Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history; (36) Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic indicator negative.

      MICKEY MOUSE COULD RUN THE COUNTRY BETTER!!
  • Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44Why isn't "No more unprovoked wars of conquest" on the list?
  • feckineejit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+46Please also end War Profiteering, give the consumers back their rights from the corporations, restore the social safety nets, make it okay to dissent again...

    • powerclam, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3"make it okay to dissent again.."
      ???
      "dissent" has never been more tolerant or prevalent in history.
      Recently, some assholes spray-painted anti-war graffiti on (I forget just which washington DC monument/building) while cops watched, and they weren't even arrested.
      You modern asswads have no idea how rough the 60s/0s really were, or how corrupt the protesters back then actually were.
    • powerclam, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Okay, somebody tell me why I got dugg down? Is history _that_ inconvenient?
    • EndersGame, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Have a source? Didn't think so, that story smells like *****. And back in the 60's and 70's you didn't have to worry about the president and his friends calling you a terrorist just because you are against a certain political belief. You didn't have the government illegally spying on its citizens and you didn't have a president that says he can do whatever the ***** he wants because he is 'the decider.'

      While you sound like a big ***** pussy when you call the 60's and 70's rough (lol), I agree the protesters did know how to protest back then. People these days are too lazy, too ignorant, or just don't care enough to actually achieve something. It also has to do with the way Bush spins things, he has people believing he is keeping the country safe, when if he really wanted to keep the country safe he wouldn't have wasted that money in Iraq and would have drastically lowered the crime rate here. Because last time I checked there were more Americans dying at the hands of other American citizens rather then at the hands of any terrorists....especially terrorist from Iraq.
    • powerclam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@endersgame:
      "Have a source? Didn't think so, that story smells like *****"
      http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/012507/protesters.html

      "And back in the 60's and 70's you didn't have to worry about the president and his friends calling you a terrorist just because you are against a certain political belief."
      Hello? 1968 Democratic convention? Kent *****' State? Columbia University?
      You obviously don't know SQUAT about the history of protest.
    • powerclam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@endersgame:
      "While you sound like a big ***** pussy when you call the 60's and 70's rough (lol),"
      You sound like a prepubescent moron.
      See:
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=wrhfd-4YtOo
      for my take on the 2 generations...
      I think both generations of protesters were/are morons and dupes, but the modern version are pale caricatures of the old.
    • Fumz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The country was founded on dissent. Dissent is an essential part of our adversarial system of government. The dissent 200 years ago makes the dissent of today look mild, which it is. People who dissent Bush are labeled unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers. "At no time in history"... pff, that's funny and you're an idiot enders. Plz stop posting.
    • powerclam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@endersgame
      One more for ya:
      "You didn't have the government illegally spying on its citizens"
      Ever heard of COINTELPRO? McCarthy/J.EdgarHoover et el?
      You seriously, seriously don't know what the hell you're talking about if you think that today's protesters are working against any real load at all.
      Today's protest movement is nothing more than entertainment for wannabes and a last hurrah for a bunch of faded has-beens.
      You people think Bush is an evil, evil, neocon? Once upon a time, he'd have had to run as a Democrat. Today, JFK would have to run as a Republican.
  • speedynlane4, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9Let's just hope there's a democrat president winning the next election... Obama anyone?
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Let's just hope a president that will follow the constitution, restore our international image, and leave our country better than he found it gets elected. As long as that happens, I don't care what letter is next to his name. Obama and Paul may be on completely opposite sides of the political spectrum, but I'd gladly vote for either of them.
  • HrnyGoat, on 10/12/2007, -21/+5Im not a Bush fan, but that article does have way too much of a left slant to it. This is crap churned out by those conspiracy theorist nutcases that reside in their parents basements. And the sad thing is how many people are gullible enough to believe it. Yes, Bush has done a pretty lousy job, but he is not some criminal dictator. NY Times FTL.
    • MasterSmatty, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Agreed, some good and some bad. Torture is wrong. But to try and make a case for banning torture because you believe it "puts every American soldier at far greater risk if captured" if you don't, is ridiculous. When have the monsters that execute, torture and bomb at will ever viewed the Geneva convention as anything other than something to hold back the infidels? I'm not saying we should ignore it....but how the hell are you going to tell me that if we play nice so will they?!
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Infidel is a word invented by the Crusaders. Contrary to popular belief, Easterners don't use the term.
    • an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@krymore
      Is that so, kafir?
    • Fumz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1MasterSmatty,

      Are you really unable to look beyond the current conflict?
    • inv1c7u5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jlaugh

      100% true

      do you want the puppet on the right or the puppet on the left?
      ~waking life
  • kiscokid, on 10/12/2007, -28/+4The Times should have been prosecuted for treason for all the leaks it published. Anything posted on its editorial page is complete garbage.
    • Five28, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3Kiscokid,
      You are one of the few here that has made any sense. The whole freaking NY Times editorial staff should be doing federal time for aiding and abetting the enemy. They are the goofs who continually publish US intel secrets for all to see, yet go unpunished. What the FBI should do is charge anyone involved in this sort of irresponsible journalism with treason. Maybe then we wouldn't have these leftwing rags telling the bad guys exactly what they need to do to thwart our efforts to find them.
    • kiscokid, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3Thanks Five28. Your post makes it worth wading through the crap most people post on here.
    • kurttrail, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Like the crap Judith Miller was reporting about WMDs, that the White House leaked to her. Yeah, I agree that the NYT was an accomplice in leading this country into the immoral war in Iraq.

      Oh yeah, and all you Americans that were for the Iraqi War back in '03, you too are accomplices.
    • Fumz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ahhh the right-wing lunatic fringe is at it again. It's all the journalists fault! Let's hang them before they report more news.

      Ahem... might I remind you that is was journalists who told us about Walter Reed. If you care at all about soldiers, you should be down on your hands and knees thanking journalists for bringing issues to light... even if it means making your hero G.W. look bad. You do care about the troops right?
  • pleiadianagenda, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32Bush and Cheney NEED to go. And not because of any left/right republican/democrat dichotomy. Personally, there are alot of great republicans and democrats. There are also alot of sold out soulless republicans and democrats. So party lines mean absolutely nothing in today's world.

    What DOES count for something is honesty and integrety, and service to public, not above-the-law arrogance being portrayed in the last 40 years of American govt. Bush and Chenyt are just the pinnacle of a broken system that Kennedy and Eisenhower tried to warn us about.

    Get rid of Cheney and Bush, get rid of Hillary and Kerry, and all these other imperialist/corparatist/socialist/big govt puppets. Give us a REAL leader like Ron Paul(R), or Dennis Kucinich(D), who aren't afraid to call for grass roots power and minimum govt, and above all TRUE SOVERIEGNTY.

    Frankly, I don't care what party gets in, as long as these people have souls. But for God's sake, these current scorpions need to go to prison for life.

    And don't dig me down for telling you what you already know in your heart. You want this country back as much as the rest of us.
    • Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Bush and Chenyt are just the pinnacle of a broken system that Kennedy and Eisenhower tried to warn us about."

      Perfect examples. Eisenhower: the last really good Republican president, and Kennedy: the last really good Democratic president. Both warned us that the system was getting carried towards the crapper. Nobody listened, and who came after them? Why, Johnson, who gave us Vietnam, another war based on lies (Gulf of Tonkin) and Nixon, the great Criminal President, and it's all been flat or downhill since.
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What did Kennedy accomplish? He was a ***** President. Slick talker, so just like Clinton he'll be remembered as great until everyone that was alive during his reign is dead.
    • Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2jcm267,

      1) Successfully dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis (that "slick talking" came in handy)
      2) Sent foreign aid to Latin American countries will simultaneously pushing for higher human rights standards (instead of propping up brutal dictators just because they weren't communist)
      3) Created the Peace Corps
      4) The Partial Test Ban Treaty, which stopped above-ground nuclear testing
      5) Pushed for increased funding for education, medical care for the elderly, and government intervention to halt a recession
      6) Support of the Civil Rights Movement (Presidential support begun by Eisenhower, but intensified by Kennedy)
      7) The Space Program (also begun by Eisenhower, but expanded by Kennedy)
  • holzp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Specifically they offered these things to the democratic majority, but forgot the most important one:
    Stop being pussies. You *were elected* to do this stuff.
  • kiscokid, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1@herolint

    I hadn't heard that you were now in charge of Digg.
  • nnnr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21It is going to be interesting when Americans wake up and realize how many things have been stripped away from this administration. Most people are still in a coma because they have been told to fear terrorism and be nervous freaks.
    • kiscokid, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4How many Americans were captured on the battlefield or actively planning terrorist attacks. The only people getting their rights stripped away are people trying to kill us. You assholes should wakeup.
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I was afraid of terrorists more and more during the 1990s... It wasn't until September 12th that I felt this country was somewhat safe from a major terrorist attack... 9/11 could've been much worse.
  • kiscokid, on 10/12/2007, -21/+4If it were up to the New York times to conduct World War II we'd be speaking German now and there'd be no Jews alive on the planet.
    • javip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2shut up already kiscokid.. you're an idiot.. we get it
  • dredd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13A sane article in a US publication? Hard to believe. The author and editors will probably die in a mysterious car accident or simply disappear shortly ...
  • TheDiggPig, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4When a democrat does become president and these changes don't happen(Restore habeas corpus, stop illegal spying, ban torture, close the C.I.A. prisons, ban extraordinary rendition, close Gitmo) then what does that mean?

    I'm just curious because everyone seems to think once a democrat gets back into power everything will be good again.I'm willing to bet that none of what the Bush administration did will get overturned and then we will see who really runs the country or should I say who really doesn't run the country,the president nor the vice president.
    • GiggaDigga, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Basically I agree. I think only popular pressure can make these changes (and others) happen -- no matter which party the Congress and the President belong to. But it helps a lot that the New York Times address the issue.
  • mdnash, on 10/12/2007, -10/+53 cheers for liberal propaganda...

    (dugg for liberal propganda)
  • Five28, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7Why is the Geneva Convention constantly brought up as a topic for debate regarding terrorists? IT DOES NOT APPLY TO TERRORISTS. If in doubt, please Google it and read it. And how can anyone say that our failure to comply with it will cause our soldiers to suffer. The terrorists are already beheading their victims, yet nobody seems to care about that. Give me a break!
    • kiscokid, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4If I were a soldier and had read this BS in the Times I would adopt a new policy. Take no prisoners!
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Dugg down for stating a fact. Awesome. I love digg. No, the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists. It applies only to uniformed soldiers, neither of which describes terrorists.
    • palindrome12, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4It's peoples blind hatred for Bush that blinds their eyes to the real threat against America. Who frikkin cares if the NSA is listening to my phone calls? They'd be bored to tears anyway. If I lose a freedom of privacy so that the NSA can catch Muhammed trying to blow me up, so be it. And if you don't like it, move to France. Get out of the USA and stop breathing my air.
    • kurttrail, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Your President is the one that declared the "War," usurping Congress's constitutional authority. If he didn't want to abide by the rules of War, then he should have kept his stupid mouth shut.
    • buckrogers1965, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

      You do realize that our founding fathers were all regarded as terrorists and many sustained great loses during the revolutionary war, right?

      http://www.rosecity.net/rush/freedom.html

      Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create, is still intact.

      And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark.

      He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to the infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York harbor known as the hell ship "Jersey," where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No."
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Enough with the moral relativism. The same could've been said about the SS. The jihadists will kill us and not think twice about us. If you're not with them, you're against them... and unlike our dear leader Bush these guys really mean it when they say that.
  • zthiel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Clearly Bush and Cheney both should be bout up for treason, and put in prison. Also Rep., Dem. whats the difference. They are two sides of the same coin, nether one is worth it a thing. We collectively as Americans have to stand up to these criminals running this country and kick them out. They work for us!!
    • incode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Great...
    • incode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0@zthiel "Clearly Bush and Cheney both should be bout up for treason, and put in prison. Also Rep., Dem. whats the difference. They are two sides of the same coin, nether one is worth it a thing. We collectively as Americans have to stand up to these criminals running this country and kick them out. They work for us!!"

      Who are you trying to kid... they work for Halliburton
  • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6Ladies and gentlemen, the Terrorists' Bill of Rights, as written by The New York Times.
    • kurttrail, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Ladies and Gentlemen, ark7, Digg's village idiot.
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Very witty. Attack the person, not the statement: the definition of a coward.
    • kurttrail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Your statement is worthless. Typical right wing idiocy.

      The NYT isn't very liberal, and certainly isn't supporting terrorism. They are supporting the Rule of Law.
  • TheScanner261, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3The congress could easily throw out Bush and Cheney and then they could be tried for high treason but that's not going to happen. Why, well because the congress is in on the whole thing. They passed the military commissions act (HR 6166) which gets rid of hebeus corpus. The congress has been totally bought off and paid for by the same global corporations that own Bush and Cheney. The only way we are going to save this country is to expose the massive fraud that the government has committed against the American people. What fraud am i talking about? The Income tax and Federal Reserve for one thing. Yes the Federal Reserve is a private bank that prints the money and then charges the government interest. They then use the income tax to control inflation so that the currency isn't devalued to quickly. They want to devalue the currency to rob the American people of they're wealth but they don't want the currency to be devalued to quickly and just crash. The second fraud that needs to be exposed is government sponsored terrorism. Where the government carries out or provocateurs terror attacks (such as 9/11) as an excuse for political control and to set up a police state and crack down on the population. It is absolutely essential that both of these frauds be exposed if we are going salvage whats left of our liberty and our wealth.

    For more information watch the following videos

    Videos about the IRS and the Federal Reserve

    America From Freedom to Fascism
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&hl=en

    Videos about government sponsored terrorism

    Terrorstorm
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terror+storm

    Martial Law 911 Rise of the Police State
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=martial+law

    911 The Road to Tyranny
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1358726890127819985&q=911+road

    Loose Change 2nd Edition
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+Change

    9/11 Mysteries
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+Mysteries
    • Five28, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9TheScanner,
      You need to run out to the nearest store and get yourself some tin foil. Rip off a big piece and make it into a hat and plop it on your head. It'll keep out all of the radio waves, x-rays, and satellite transmissions that are bombarding you with idiocy. Once you are done, go pay your stinkin taxes like the rest of us and quit trying to leach off everyone else.
    • kokoBware, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree that it was long overdue for a mainstream publication to post many of the atrocities enacted by these two goons. It's a shame that all that work needs to be spent undoing things instead of making real progress. And for those of you who like to throw out the same old "tin foil hat" argument, please, "tin foil hat" wearers were saying this about Bush and Cheney 4-5 years ago--don't discard rational thought only because it's not mainstream yet. Opposition creates balance and the "CT's" only agenda is truth and freedom, not republican or democrat. "CT's" might be on the fringe, but it costs you nothing to listen to a group who want nothing but the preservation of individual liberty. However, blindly listening to the government will allow administrations like this to happen. The greatest threat to a free society, as pointed out by an old president, is the government.
    • Jlaugh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Actually he's right on the money about the Federal Reserve. It's private and mostly owned by europeans.
    • caponumen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A repost of the mostly accurate info.

      The truth is the US you are learned about in school died in 1861.
      Now congress uses the 14th amendment to treat everyone as second class citizens.
      There are dozens of example of examples on the books.
      The far right is in the process of using it to nullify ROE V WADE at this very moment.
      It is in the public record that far right whack jobs recommended 9/11 style FALSE FLAG attacks to Pres. Kennedy.
      US ARMY ANTHRAX was used in the letter terror attacks shortly after 9/11.
      There is not doubt that the far right (neocons) are very active in the US government.




      PREV POST:

      The congress could easily throw out Bush and Cheney and then they could be tried for high treason but that's not going to happen. Why, well because the congress is in on the whole thing. They passed the military commissions act (HR 6166) which gets rid of hebeus corpus. The congress has been totally bought off and paid for by the same global corporations that own Bush and Cheney. The only way we are going to save this country is to expose the massive fraud that the government has committed against the American people. What fraud am i talking about? The Income tax and Federal Reserve for one thing. Yes the Federal Reserve is a private bank that prints the money and then charges the government interest. They then use the income tax to control inflation so that the currency isn't devalued to quickly. They want to devalue the currency to rob the American people of they're wealth but they don't want the currency to be devalued to quickly and just crash. The second fraud that needs to be exposed is government sponsored terrorism. Where the government carries out or provocateurs terror attacks (such as 9/11) as an excuse for political control and to set up a police state and crack down on the population. It is absolutely essential that both of these frauds be exposed if we are going salvage whats left of our liberty and our wealth.

      For more information watch the following videos

      Videos about the IRS and the Federal Reserve

      America From Freedom to Fascism
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&hl=en

      Videos about government sponsored terrorism

      Terrorstorm
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terror+storm

      Martial Law 911 Rise of the Police State
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=martial+law

      911 The Road to Tyranny
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1358726890127819985&q=911+road

      Loose Change 2nd Edition
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+Change

      9/11 Mysteries
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+Mysteries
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24I am very conservative and I dugg this article. I do not drink bush's neoconservative kool-aid. This is not about left vs right, its about right vs wrong.
    • koreth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Yes, exactly. Plenty of conservatives think Bush is a menace to humanity. Our parents and grandparents died to protect the freedoms and way of life he and his neocon crew are bent on rolling back in the name of a "war" that has no defined enemy, no battlefield, no concrete objectives, and no criterion for declaring victory. And even with that nebulous definition... they're STILL managing to screw it up overseas. (Don't take my word for it. "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history." -- John McCain.)

      If we were making any kind of visible progress against Islamic terrorism, I'd be singing a very different tune. But you have to have pretty huge partisan blinders on to honestly believe that what we've done so far -- inciting civil war in Iraq, tying ourselves down such that we're helpless to do anything about North Korea and Iran -- has made the world safer. And you don't have to look very far to find conservatives who believe, as I do, that throwing our cherished principles out the window at the first sign of trouble is a giant leap in the wrong direction.

      We justified our war on terror by correctly noting that we occupied the moral high ground. It makes me sick to see so-called "conservatives" arguing that, for example, we should ignore the Geneva Conventions because the enemy will too. Since when did we allow the enemy to dictate the acceptable bounds of our wartime conduct? We set our own rules based on human dignity and decency. "Anything goes" is not an honorable way to fight a war.
    • rnewson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm genuinely curious. What does "very conservative" mean? Personally I have a wide range of opinions on many subjects and I can't find a single work that I'd be content to label them with. As for the whole left-right spectrum, it seems so anemic as to be a complete joke, why do we still think that political views follow along a single dimension?
  • Cherubim, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Terrorism is an excuse to take away freedoms. It's not the "boogeyman" threat the so-called leaders proclaim it is. We have more to fear over the loss of privacy and civil liberties than any bogus "terrorist" event.








  • Lawrencetom, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6Impeech Boosh an Cheeney too. Allahu Ahkbar !
    • Five28, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Haha. That comment has more truth to it than people seem to believe, except good ol Mohammed.
  • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6You are aware that in out entire history we have only had fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions?

    Tell me how does treason apply to Bush?

    "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000
    • kiscokid, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4"...levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason..."

      Sounds like what the NY Times is doing. They are the ones who should be indicted for treason.
    • mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7Because most of the libtards (who are out in force tonight) dont really know what the word means.

      Bush isnt going anywhere until the election, get the ***** over it. The US is fine, and will continue to be fine.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3It applies perfectly,

      He flew the Bin Ladens out after 9-11,
      He knowing went against the country by destroying the Constitution,
      He has declared war on any one in the US labels as an enemy combatant...or terrorist...notice he doesn't label them a enemy to the United States PEOPLE just the government.

      I could go on...but that should suffice.
    • Jlaugh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6War profiteering is treasonous... his failure to uphold the oath of his office to support the constitution.

      In addition to being Bush and Cheney are in violation of the Nuremberg laws (fighting and waging an aggressive war).
  • ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Stick it to that bald headed ***** and his sidekick, Chimp.
  • zthiel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I completely agree. Let see how many people call you a conspiracy freak, without actually checking out he facts. Its amazing the kind of denial people are in, actually thinking there is a difference between the two parties. Oh wait lets trust the gov. there here to protect us. Right!
    • wildrice128, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I might take you seriously if you could spell and use proper grammar.
    • Jlaugh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0wildrice128

      His spelling and grammar have nothing to do with wether he's right or wrong. Your arguement on the other hand is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad hominem. You are attacking him not his statement, in doing so you refute nothing he has said.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  • AsylumAleikum, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7How did the NYT obtain the Al Qaeda wish list?
    • palindrome12, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4And we wonder why their sales keep dwindling... Good riddance to them when they have to file bankruptcy.
  • Cherubim, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Political parties are opposames. Two sides of the same coin. Who you vote for doesn't really matter - the outcome is the same. People are too blinded and in denial about this.

    • Rheikon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Absolutely true. I really hope people take off the blinders soon.. Everyone says oh don't look at me, like voting for Kerry would have changed anything.
  • hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4At what date exactly did the NYT stop being bum buddies with the Bush Administration. They were pretty good cheerleaders leading up to the war on Iraq.
    • Jlaugh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe they got paid off to switch sides.
  • Keach, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3How did I ever miss this? I must have been on Vacation.

    Bush Makes Rolling Stone Cover
    "The Worst President In American History?"

    http://www.the-office.com/bushkerry/bushworst.jpg
    • Five28, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I think the title of Worst U.S. president in history must go to that asshat Jimmy Carter. His mile long yellow streak gave the Iranians and every other bad guy in the world the belief that we were afraid to defend ourselves. Clinton did pretty much the same thing when he made the US run with it's tail between it's legs in Somalia following the Blackhawk Down incident, didn't do much after Khobar Towers, Marine Barracks bombing, USS Cole, etc. No wonder the terrorists and other unfriendly regimes think we are a bunch of poosies. It's about time we kicked some serious ass. Too bad that Bush put that dumbass L. Paul Bremer in charge of the Iraq reconstruction. He made some unbelievable mistakes and kicked out almost all of the Baathists, without realizing that these people, now without jobs because of the US, would fuel an insurgency. Someone wasn't thinking too hard on this
  • Calann, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3In other words, get the Bush administration to follow the constitution they swore an oath to uphold.
  • cosmothx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2buried as accurate.

    stupid reality and it's liberal bias
  • insomnislacker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I get really tired of people who've nearly formed a cult regarding hating (or loving) the current administration. All it does it take the focus off of the issues we all face (many of which were there long before the current administration).

    Lobby Congress to fix those issues. Don't waste time with the impeaching crap talk that everyone does. It's not going to happen, and it just wastes more money.

  • ChewyBass, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3In other words lets act like France and surrender.
    • tbilltthemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who saved us in our fight for freedom against Britain?

      (I recall the word 'France' being uttered in class the day we learned it.)
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3This would be great except that the Democrats are just as rotten as the Republicans; they're just far less competent at getting things done, which admittedly is a huge plus.
  • juliocgrajales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hopefully we will be a country soon governed by individuals really in the middle (and for the people not corporations or self-interest only). Get rid of the extremes and lets start solving some issues already, lets make the USA a country of the people again... though I am still cynical of our system here in the US, I still have hope.
  • utore, on 01/07/2008, -5/+1Since when did the Constitution become applicable to non-American citizens?
  • buckrogers1965, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I am a right wing conservative and I think that the neocons are right wing-nut fascists. I agree with every item on the list and I'd like to list a few more things.

    How about we stop borrowing money to run the government and we pay off what debt we have? That is what is called fiscal responsibility. It's a quaint conservative value. The wing-nuts want to tax and spend, but pass those taxes on down to our children. Let me give you a clue. Every dollar congress spends is tax dollars, no matter if we collect the taxes to pay for it now, or later. Cutting taxes without cutting spending is loony tunes crazy.

    Another conservative value is the respect of human rights. Yeah, the whole golden rule works for Jesus, but not for the neo-cons. You know, that old fashioned rule of treat others as you would want to be treated yourself. So unless the people in charge have secret fantasies about strict domination and torture for extended durations by big burly military types, then they need to change their ways. Or just stop lying about being Christians.

    How about we treat the constitution as the only source of power for any branch of government. Sure the president has certain special powers, but those only kick in when we are faced by an invasion on our own soil. And not just an attack. There has to be military units on American soil conduction operations.

    • Five28, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Buckrogers1965 said,
      "How about we treat the constitution as the only source of power for any branch of government. Sure the president has certain special powers, but those only kick in when we are faced by an invasion on our own soil. And not just an attack. There has to be military units on American soil conduction operations."

      So you are saying that even though there is a very real threat of suitcase nukes being smuggled into the US and detonated in major metropolitan cities, we shouldn't take any active measure to try and identify and neutralize those responsible by utilizing NSA data mining, wiretapping of overseas calls made to enemy states, profiling, etc, but should do nothing until we are invaded? Are you fooking kidding me!! Hey, if you can't lead, then get the hell out of the way, cause I'm not following you! Might as well learn Arabic now with that kind of thinking.
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2When did the right wing become overrun with people who don't think beyond tomorrow. To stop terrorism, invade Iraq? We set an example for the lawless Muslim herds by.. torture and suspending habeus corpus? You win in the long run by maintaining the moral highground. They have made the situation much worse. Then the patriot act power has been abused to maintain power. There's a huge disconnect between the rhetoric of fighting a war against terrorism and actions.
  • kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Hey NTY FU. F'N CMMY BSTRDS
  • Rounin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How about the New York Times do something crazy like...oh, I dunno, actually report the news for a change.
  • realist73, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3It's really amusing to read the posts of all of the leftists/liberals/socialists, whatever the hell you want to call yourselves, posing as 'Protectors of the Constitution,' while at the same time embracing a political philosophy that continually attempts to dismantle the Bill of Rights. Let's start with the second amendment-- no further elaboration needed on that one. Then there's the enormous blow to the fourth amendment in 2005 with the Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court decision, in which all of the liberal justices sided with the principle of allowing a city to seize your private property for commercial/non-essential use, all in the name of urban renewal (or should I say "gentrification"). Only Rehnquist, Scalia, O'connor, and Thomas dissented on that one.

    Face it. Your political philosophy is a quagmire of contradictions with a history of assault on the Bill of Rights. So don't pretend to be our constitutional saviors because, frankly, it's repulsive. Go ahead, bury me! It's easier than facing the truth.
    • Jlaugh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Left and right are illusions. Do what's morally right.
    • inv1c7u5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jlaugh

      100% right.

      Do you want the puppet on the right or the puppet on the left?
      ~waking life
  • Miraa, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1The NYT to-do list might as well have included:
    1) Weaken our resolve
    2) Embolden our enemies
    3) Remove the only tools our government has protect its citizens from terrorist organizations
    4) Allow Iraq to fall under into the hands of a reckless Iran
    5) Surrender
    • Miraa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why the negatives? Don't you think that the result of the NYT proposals would be these?
  • inv1c7u5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2our GDP is the highest, we are the most powerful, we have the strongest army, we have the best economy.

    shouldn't we be setting an example for others, doing what is right, what is just?

    I think winning this war involves not turning every single country in this world against us.
  • DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2OK people, we're on a roll. Lets get Cheney and Rummy thrown in jail on war crime charges for violations of the Geneva convention. These guys aren't politicians - they're dangerous criminals!!!
  • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1As long as the majority of Americans are willing to sit on the bench, leaving the work of protecting the erosion of our liberties to the alternative media, "conspiracy nuts" and Lou Dobbs we won't see much change. A great number of us do our best to wake up the rest of the country and try to make them face the ongoing destruction of America from within. All these traitors have to do is stage another 9-11 and they will have the pretext they need to launch WW3, suspend the constitution and loot what's left of our fiat currency. People need to set aside the "liberal vs. conservative/ left vs. right" / democrat vs. republican" debates. The people in govt who are selling us all out only take these labels in order to manipulate us, they have no ideology beyond lining up as much money and power to take with them to their estates in Europe, Argentina and other places of refuge. When the ***** hits the fan they won't be here to watch your children die.

    March 18th provides the next new moon and represents the last remaining ideal date for an attack on Iran for a great while. The deployment of anti missile systems close to the former USSR combined with a very clear warning from Putin should make things perfectly clear to us all. Bush and Cheney intend to go forward with an attack on Iran despite being told in very clear terms we will face retaliation from Russia and possibly China. There is no time left for action, there will be no general strike or arrests to save us. I sincerely hope things change in the next week or so or that people with the power to stop this insanity do so but I really feel our time to act has passed.
  • LoJack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm watching how many minutes will pass before someone will call NY Times a left-wing paper controlled by the Liberal Asses. LOL...
  • mibur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Forget for a moment that this article is about a modern western, -free- democracy like the USA. Then read it again.
    You could swear this is about a country like Cuba.
    And that's a sad realization.
  • SLuM, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yes many things the Bush admin has done is wrong (ie gitmo, removal of heabus corpus) but don't for one second say the war in Iraq is wrong. The removal of a brutal dictator is how the US should give examples (although I will admit the CIA has put several dictators in power throughout the world) to the world. Democracy in the middle east (where there are many fanatics prone to extreme violence) must bloom, if not a new caliphate with an islamic empire would be extremely dangerous to the world. Also the US cannot expand it's empire in the modern world by saying "Hey we're going to invade and take over some countries" like many conquerers have. We must to it subtlety saying that we will take em over but we will also give them power.
    All empires MUST expand.
    • spankaccount, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Habeas Corpus was not suspended.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.