Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
NY Times calls for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales
nytimes.com — Americans have been waiting months for President Bush to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who long ago proved that he was incompetent and more recently has proved that he can't tell the truth.
preisler- 2308 diggs
- digg it
- ChessPieceFace, on 10/10/2007, -2/+65Step right up and pick your poison...FTA: "As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different” from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up."
- ThatsNotPudding, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6It will be Door #2: I can already hear Propagandist Snow spewing just that type of offal.
- mdhauke, on 10/10/2007, -28/+2NY Times
buried as spam- pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1mdhauke buried as spam
- mdhauke, on 10/10/2007, -28/+2NY Times
- p51d007, on 10/10/2007, -38/+4Gee.........the NY Times coming out for removal of someone in a conservative administration.....who'd thunk it?
- expat001, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24Not you cause you exhibit no qualities associated with thinking.
Why is a lying man still in charge of the law? And why do you hate our troops?- mdhauke, on 10/10/2007, -15/+1Maybe it's because he doesn't exhibit the qualities of a sheep.
Why have you fueled the insurgency against our troops since 2003? - expat001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Why do you hate our troops mdhauke?
- pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3yeah mdhauke, why do you hate our troops? Answer the question before positing your own, typical neocon evasive tactic
- mdhauke, on 10/10/2007, -15/+1Maybe it's because he doesn't exhibit the qualities of a sheep.
- expat001, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24Not you cause you exhibit no qualities associated with thinking.
- Bcodms, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Door number three. There are multiple programs, including the use of allies like the Aussies and Brits who will gladly use our own technical assets to perform eavesdropping activities with a wink and a nod. Congress was careful not to ask Gonzales for a full and complete briefing of each and every or all program under this category, but limited initial question to the program under discussion. He should be dragged back in to testify about the legality of each and every program that involves surveillance of U.S citizens, even those that obtain intelligence product from allies. In the meantime this is just political theater.
- hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Project Echelon/ Carnivore, Look it up folks.
- faskill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Carnivore is retired. Echelon is out of date.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_program
The fun thing about spying and government big brother programs is that you rarely hear about them at their inception.
- faskill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Carnivore is retired. Echelon is out of date.
- hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Project Echelon/ Carnivore, Look it up folks.
- bleep1912, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Man up AMERICA, and do the ***** same with that lying bastard Bush, you wimps.
- ThatsNotPudding, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6It will be Door #2: I can already hear Propagandist Snow spewing just that type of offal.
- anteyekon4myst, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29Fall/Winter 2007: The Whitehouse looks to be supporting a slimmed down style with impeachments.
- dview, on 10/10/2007, -2/+40About time that the mainstream media cover this. Here's hope our representatives read this.
- onceinawhile, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4The reality is that the NY Times constantly covers Bush administration controversies. But no one in the government gives a damn.
- expat001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8It was the NYT that had the planted article that confirmed WMD's in Iraq idiot!
- mstar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5They've been covering this for awhile now. Where have you been?
- dview, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not in the States, reading NY Times.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6In ur states, readin ur times.
- dview, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not in the States, reading NY Times.
- Onetrack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The funny thing is that I'm in a jerkwater little town in canada and I realize how much of a lying weasel this guy is - Why do I even know his name, while your sentators and congressmen seem not to care?
- onceinawhile, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4The reality is that the NY Times constantly covers Bush administration controversies. But no one in the government gives a damn.
- Frankenbeans, on 10/10/2007, -2/+68Impeach him now...why wait...few in the history of the US gov't have deserved it more
- Rhine23, on 10/10/2007, -15/+3I would just like to point out that Gonzalez holds a job that he can't be impeached from. He has to be fired/resigned/killed for him to lose his job. As pointed out down in the comments this is an editorial and it seems like it wasn't very thought out. Er unless the poster thinks that impeachment and firing are interchangeable :/
- Rhine23, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Nevermind I'm a newb, it has to be a rare case, and then impeachment can be commenced by the House of Representatives. For more information "The Attorney General is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate. He or she is normally removed from office by the President but, in cases of wrongdoing, can be impeached by the House of Representatives and brought to trial in the Senate where, if convicted (by a two-thirds majority), he or she may be removed from office or even barred from holding future offices." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General
- Rhine23, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Nevermind I'm a newb, it has to be a rare case, and then impeachment can be commenced by the House of Representatives. For more information "The Attorney General is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate. He or she is normally removed from office by the President but, in cases of wrongdoing, can be impeached by the House of Representatives and brought to trial in the Senate where, if convicted (by a two-thirds majority), he or she may be removed from office or even barred from holding future offices." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General
- Rhine23, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Wow, my internet connect decided it was a good time to reset as I hit enter, and it double posted and didn't let me update :( bury all my comments if you would like
- Rhine23, on 10/10/2007, -15/+3I would just like to point out that Gonzalez holds a job that he can't be impeached from. He has to be fired/resigned/killed for him to lose his job. As pointed out down in the comments this is an editorial and it seems like it wasn't very thought out. Er unless the poster thinks that impeachment and firing are interchangeable :/
- rhabd0mancer, on 10/10/2007, -44/+7Alberto Gonzales is a product of illegal aliens. It's no wonder why he has no respect for the Constitution.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8i don't like the guy, but xenophobia and racism are just stupid. bush and cheney don't respect the constitution either. maybe it's a neo-con thing, not an immigrant thing.
- directive0, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You fail at correlation Rhabd.
- xxdesmus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Please die Rhabd.
Just do us all a favor. - AvidPreatorian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Explain Mr. George Bush then. A proud American. - idiot
- pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think immigrants illegal or otherwise have more respect for our Constitution than we do.
- Kmack928, on 10/10/2007, -1/+83Since firing him would be the right thing to do, I can just about guarentee it won't be done.
- floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -5/+40Not gonna happen.
Congress has been sitting on their ass despite having enough ammo to impeach.
IMO, those who let the criminals get away instead of going forward in punishing them or doing something about the problem are *JUST* as bad as the criminals themselves.
Everyone is calling for impeachment. Congress knows. They won't do it.- lndmn01, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1Just sitting on their asses? There have been over 40 separate congressional investigations looking for any possible reason to impeach Bush. THE CONGRESS HAS FOUND NO REASON TO IMPEACH BUSH! It's just that simple. What high crime should they impeach him for?
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Obviously they're not looking hard enough or some of those reasons would reflect back badly on them.
Look up the treamtent of Jose Padilla for just one example of something I think is an impeachable breach of the constitution. - pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1being too incompetent to run the country
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Obviously they're not looking hard enough or some of those reasons would reflect back badly on them.
- shupy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The REPUBLICAN members are never going to vote to impeach. It takes a significant majority to start impeachment proceedings. The only way they did it to Clinton what because there was a Republican majority.
Nixon went down only because it was so clear that they had the goods on him, his Republican colleagues that wanted a future in politics knew they had to dump him.
This will probably happen to Bush sooner or later. Problem is, impeach him, and who takes over? Another Bush appointee? Impeach Bush, who you gonna get? Cheney. Impeach Cheney, who knows what you get.
The biggest chance to impeach the whole bunch will be the next election.
- lndmn01, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1Just sitting on their asses? There have been over 40 separate congressional investigations looking for any possible reason to impeach Bush. THE CONGRESS HAS FOUND NO REASON TO IMPEACH BUSH! It's just that simple. What high crime should they impeach him for?
- grungegbunny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14So he gets fired then what?
Bush appoints another stooge to take his place with the exact same agenda?
Charges need to be filed and court hearings on them set.- patientXero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12As I said in this comment thread (http://digg.com/politics/Leahy_to_Gonzales_Why_not_just_be_fair_to_the_truth/all). . .
Anyone appointed Attorney General must undergo a Congressional hearing and receive approval from Congress. Bush knows this and he is afraid of giving the Democrats a public forum to attack the attorney firings, the wiretapping issue, the patriot act, and any of his other various abuses. That's why he wouldn't fire Gonzales. That's also why Gonzales is being so difficult, he is stalling to earn time for his boss.
If Gonzales is removed from office, it bodes very poorly for the Bush administration and it would be nearly impossible for the President to just appoint another stooge.- kapsar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Couldn't bush just get around that by appointing said stooge when the congress is at a recess? Like he did with the UN, or is does this have to be done differently?
- Chakat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5This is why the senate hasn't been in recess since the dems took over. Even though there's just a token contingent of senators on the Hill when there are no bills, etc, it's still in session, thus Bush can't do his recess appointment scam.
- patientXero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I'm not sure if the ATTY Gen requires Congressional approval only when Congress is in session. . . that seems like a pretty big loophole, but what do I know?
Either way, even if Congress was at recess and Bush tried to slip one by, I'm sure the Dems would call an emergency session to oppose the nomination.
- kapsar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Couldn't bush just get around that by appointing said stooge when the congress is at a recess? Like he did with the UN, or is does this have to be done differently?
- FlaG8r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Congress has to confirm the nomination, so it's unlikely Bush could get another stooge just like Fredo through.
- patientXero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12As I said in this comment thread (http://digg.com/politics/Leahy_to_Gonzales_Why_not_just_be_fair_to_the_truth/all). . .
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Where has the level of decency gone when somebody in office resigned if they got caught out. To not recognise any level of accountability is to mock the people they are supposed to serve.
- Vash265, on 10/10/2007, -12/+9...you guys know it's just an editorial, right?
- Theodorant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11which reflects the views of the paper?
- aaaargh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, it's an opinion piece, but it's written by the paper's editorial board. It's not a letter to the editor from the public. To the limited extent that a news organization comprised of thousands of individuals can have an "opinion," this the organization's opinion. The headline for this thread is using the standard convention by saying a newspaper "called for" something, when it reflects an opinion expressed by the newspaper's editorial board.
See http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/editorial-board.html for an added description of New York Times editorials.
- aaaargh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, it's an opinion piece, but it's written by the paper's editorial board. It's not a letter to the editor from the public. To the limited extent that a news organization comprised of thousands of individuals can have an "opinion," this the organization's opinion. The headline for this thread is using the standard convention by saying a newspaper "called for" something, when it reflects an opinion expressed by the newspaper's editorial board.
- aaaargh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes, written by the editorial board of the Times. That's what it means when one says a newspaper "calls for" an action, or "endorses" a candidate. The newspaper is not literally alive, and does not have vocal cords, so it is generally understood that a newspaper's "opinion" is the opinion expressed by its editorial board. More info: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/editorial-board.html
- Theodorant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11which reflects the views of the paper?
- xlar54, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8Impeach Congress first. This thing is out of control, and these people are doing nothing about any of it.
- 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0It's unfortunate we can't do both at once.
- kenvsryu, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3mmmm peaches... /old joke
- diggThomas, on 10/10/2007, -30/+2The NYT president and its board should be impeached for wasting precious trees on printing that paper.
- Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -19/+3One person's opinion. The only real problem with Gonzales is that he is not confident in himself and, like Libby, won't stand up to unrelenting harrassment by Democrats who are insatiable. Congress does nothing but stage political stunts and investigate the Executive Branch, they can't pass anything.
- jpsucks3999, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The preceding comment was brought to you by the Fox News and right wing talk radio Republican talking points programming service. Any resemblance to "tax and spend", "no Ideas", "Saddam attacked us on 9/11", " WMD's were found", etc. messages is purely not coincidental.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I bet you get panic attacks when your denial wears thin once in awhile...
- Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well this *is* an editorial. I'm not in denial and I am not going to bat for Gonzales; the guy is a bumbling fool. That doesn't mean he should be impeached.
It cannot be denied that what is and has always been happening ever since the Iraq war started is a political witch hunt. Impeachment is a serious tool, and it's getting waved around like a trigger happy group of kids.
Oh, and if you want to talk about bad memory and denial, you must have been under a rock in the 1990s where everything under the sun was swept under a rug. Nobody knew nothing.- InsomniaSlim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Now you're just babbling.
- gropo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Impressive. Didn't think you'd manage a BUTBUTCLINTON!!! then you turn around and surprise us in the last sentence.
- onceinawhile, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14It makes me sad that we've gone past the point of the media haven't any real influence on what our government does, or the government giving a damn what the American people/media have to say.
- outhouseinput, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, but it seems clear that the media have a huge role in deciding who gets elected and what measures are successful. Think about Iraq, and how the media continuously supports candidates, which feeds their polls, which causes them to support them more.
- HanSolo69, on 10/10/2007, -28/+3This just in!: New York Times remembers it isn't Congress and has nothing to do with calling for impeachment and lost all credibility years ago to act like a political watchdog.
- shorn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Hey 'Han', YOU aren't congress either. That doesn't seem to prevent you from ***** out of your mouth. Bush lost the credibility years ago. Congress is losing credibility for not kicking all those fsckers out, but we're still pushing them. By 'we' I mean the non-insane public. Don't worry, you are not a member.
- hangtown2004, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I Agree IMPEACH HIM NOW !!!
- RandoTheKing, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Guess what is on the front page of CNN?
Iraq soccer...
Guess what isn't even covered anywhere on their website?
This impeachment.- Ignotus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4That would be because there isn't an impeachment.
- bizchris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Which in itself should be newsworthy.
- dfkjh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6CNN.com used to be my first stop every morning. I deleted their bookmark the day they bumped Michael Moores appearance on Larry King for Paris Hilton. I haven't missed them at all. They've become something almost as bad as Fox news in my opinion, featuring sensationilist crap in a "ratings at all costs" mindset.
- 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0As if Michael Moore is anything other than sensationalist crap?
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2I call for a impeachment of America and everybody in it.
- ThatsNotPudding, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8False Flag in September - probably on the 11th as they are nothing if not obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag - Ignotus, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2Well *****, if the NY Times is calling for impeachment, then someone damned well better impeach him!
Seriously, buried as inaccurate. It's in the OPINION section; it's an editorial. It's not the opinion of the news organization, it's the opinion of one author.
There's probably at least one person in Congress that agrees. That doesn't mean "Congress Calls For Impeachment" either.- mccord, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6an editorial is the official opinion of the paper, it represents the position of the editorial board...
- dkern, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Alberto Gonzales isn't going anywhere anytime soon. He has the perfect resume for this administration. Bush would never be able to replace Gonzales with another Attorney General so skilled with a gift for fiction such as Gonzales. Assholes like Alberto are really hard to find- Most politicians have at least one redeeming quality and given that Gonzales lacks even one redeeming quality- there is no better Attorney General for the Cheney/Bush dictatorship.
I would also venture to guess the current administration is using Gonzales (as a protagonist Latino) to create large-scale racism. Keep the citizens frightened and disgusted with each other so we won't look at the real issues bubbling beneath the scummy cesspool gurgling below the whitehouse.- bizchris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I was with you on the first paragraph, but I think on the racism point you're giving them too much credit. If there's one thing this administration has done right, it's increasing the diversity in a typically white male establishment - with Hispanics, with African Americans, and with women.
Unfortunately, so far it seems it's been under the pretense that they will move up quickly if they're willing to sacrifice their morals in exchange for the desires of this administration...- 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I suspect there is another strategy in it as well: Minorities and women tend to be less susceptible to scrutiny from the public at large, and especially from Democrats, because they have this view of them as disadvantaged people trying to make it in the white man's world. It allows them to push the Bush agenda with the face of the people he's screwing over the most. It's like how white supremacists often hire black trial lawyers.
- bizchris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I was with you on the first paragraph, but I think on the racism point you're giving them too much credit. If there's one thing this administration has done right, it's increasing the diversity in a typically white male establishment - with Hispanics, with African Americans, and with women.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9get this scum out of here or its 1776 again
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I agree but how exactly is denouncing allegiance to King George III going to help? If it is a diversionary tactic somebody warn Fergie.
- JJsays, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4Hell, I called for the impeachment of the New York times years ago. Oh well, America needs it's communist I suppose
- xlar54, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Now if we could just somehow elect the NYT to Congress....
- bushisterrorist, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5How about the New York Times calling for the empeachment of anyone funding the illegal war in Iraq.
Bush is a terrorist, war criminal, and horrific liar.
9-11 was an inside job!
Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction! - esbern1, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4ITS AN EDITORIAL *****
how is this representative of the actual paper? God I hate stupid people.- Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Then you must hate yourself. Let me put it very simply for you: Editors are the Deciders.
- esbern1, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2no dumbass. editors put together opinion pages to show argument-counterargument, AS CAN BE SEEN ON THE WEBSITE.
I know you feel really clever with your cute little statement though.- mightytribble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6An Editorial represents the considered opinion of the paper's Editorial Board. It is the 'official view' of the paper.
Opinions are written by individual authors, and are not endorsed by the Editorial Board.
This article is an Editorial. And a Sunday Editorial, to boot. It's the strongest way the paper has of saying 'this is what we think'.
- mightytribble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6An Editorial represents the considered opinion of the paper's Editorial Board. It is the 'official view' of the paper.
- esbern1, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2no dumbass. editors put together opinion pages to show argument-counterargument, AS CAN BE SEEN ON THE WEBSITE.
- aaaargh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's written by the editorial board; while not a reflection of every employee's opinion, and may even be a minority view among employees, it is convention to say that the opinion written by the editorial board is the opinion of a newspaper. The same is true when a newspaper endorses a candidate. More info: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/editorial-board.html
- alittleroy101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@esbern1
you,sir, are a ***** idiot. As aaaaargh has explained, you're wrong. Sadly, you probaly won't even read his comment. Nice use of caps.
- Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Then you must hate yourself. Let me put it very simply for you: Editors are the Deciders.
- djdedeo0, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2Do you far left bloggers have any decency. The New York Times isn't callings for an impeachment. Do you know what an opionon is? Do you understand the concept of an editorial in a newspaper? What I find funny is there is no name to go with the editorial. If you're bold enough to talk then you should have the balls to leave a name so we can contact you with our own opinon. But that would be asking for to much from some of you liberals. And yea, look at the top of the page, there is a word that is commanly used in the English language. The word is Opinon. Get it together and get the facts before you throw people out of office.
- esbern1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1what are you expecting though? digg is definitely a mix of left/libertarians, is are most tech sites. i mean, who the hell else is going to vote for ron paul.
the point is not that ideology of the webpage, but the inherent hypocrisy in the amount of complaining that is heard towards the manipulation of facts and information for the president's gain, while here they are manipulating facts and information for their own gain. Saying the NY Times "Has your back" in more or less words is ridiculous. - expat001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Bill O is that you? How nice of you to drop in...
- jaxcs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Apparently, you don't read too well yourself. Read the last line of the editorial. "If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales."
- aaaargh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, it's an opinion, expressed by the editorial board. That's what it means when one says a newspaper "endorses" a candidate or "calls for" a particular action, when the newspaper itself is not an individual human. There is no name on the editorial because it was discussed, written and edited collectively by the New York Times editorial board. One writer might have written most of it, but whether or not that's true, editorials by the newspaper are not attributed as they are collective efforts, reflecting the view of the board as a whole. More info: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/editorial-board.html
- mightytribble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2An Editorial represents the considered opinion of the paper's Editorial Board. It is the 'official view' of the paper. That's why there's no name attached to it; it's an Editorial, not an Opinion.
Opinions are written by individual authors, and are not endorsed by the Editorial Board.
This article is an Editorial. And a Sunday Editorial, to boot. It's the strongest way the paper has of saying 'this is what we think'.
- esbern1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1what are you expecting though? digg is definitely a mix of left/libertarians, is are most tech sites. i mean, who the hell else is going to vote for ron paul.
- mexretroshore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Impeach Gonzo first (for practice) then work your way up!
- futureisours, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1New York Times opposing Bush... NO!!!! Digg down for non-news.
- Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Gonzalez is a mexican, so what do you expect??
- schul155, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hmm... I think I have decided what -"gate will characterize the bush presidency. "whitehousegate" Has someone else coined that phrase yet?
- feeser, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2This is an op-ed, it doesn't mean the NYT as a whole endorses the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales.
Buried as inaccurate.- tobtoh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Er yes it does - the editor *is* the NYT.
- mightytribble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4An Editorial represents the considered opinion of the paper's Editorial Board. It is the 'official view' of the paper.
Opinions are written by individual authors, and are not endorsed by the Editorial Board.
This article is an Editorial. And a Sunday Editorial, to boot. It's the strongest way the paper has of saying 'this is what we think'. - aaaargh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is not an Op Ed piece, nor a letter to the editor, it's an "Editorial," and that's an important distinction. Op Eds are written by individual contributors. Editorials are written as a group effort by the paper's Editorial Board. When one says a paper endorses a plan or candidate, or calls for an action, it means that the editorial board has written that opinion. Obviously it does not reflect the opinion of every employee of the newspaper, nor can a non-sentient entity like a newspaper literally think or have an opinion, but neither is implied by saying a newspaper expressed an opinion - that means the opinion was written as an editorial. If an Op Ed contributor or letter to the editor from a member of the public wrote an opinion, it would be be wrong to say that's the view of the paper.
- CrackX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Impeach him and president Bush.
- tmick7, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1WEBSTER ***** HUBBELL
VINCE FOSTER?
Paula Casey? Any of you myopic pukes know who she is? Clinton replaced the US attorney in Little Rock who was investigating Whitewater with Paula Casey. She killed the investigation. No charges. He didn't just replace her. He fired ALL OF THEM! Hillary was intimately involved in the firings.
For those of you unfamiliar with Whitewater, basically a friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton named James McDougal opened up a savings and loan, then wrote checks to fund Bill Clinton's political re-election campaign. Then the S&L had to be bailed out to the tune of 60 million. Using federal funds. Your money. My money.
***** liberal snobs. Get off of your self righteous soap box. They're all scumbags.
- hmugabe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1didn't your momma tell you two wrongs don't make a right, you know when i wasn't giving her a rogering behind the barn. i'm going to go masturbate to gay pornography and perform some abortions now.
- fulfillment, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Gonzalez's must be impeached regardless of a chance for 'Presidential Pardon'; we must fight the unlawfulness of the Bush proto-facists with everything we have. They are narcissistic abusers who will not stop the abuse unless we stop them. Do you want you children or grandchildren to ask 'Where Were You' when the American Republic was being turned into a lawless empire. Gonzalez's wrote the 'Torture Menu' To compromise International and American law on torture. He has lied again and again to Congress and The American people. We must take a 'Stand' and impeach him.
But Bush does care for America, his America; oil barons, the ultra rich, corporations who spew propaganda, etc. - people who don't work with their hands or minds but live off their trust funds and give him money for his campaigns. The rest of us are to be used and discarded - the world is his playground and he rams through it like a run-away locomotive. Waste and destruction mean nothing to this Gang as long as they acquire more wealth and power to sage their wounded souls - because nothing is ever enough for them. They are narcissistic abusers and must be stopped or the America we love is doomed.
This 'King' George has already taken more power and broken more laws then the king George the colonist rebelled against. Bush has suspended Habeas corpus; this means in a court of law the accused must be presented to the court. Habeas corpus has been English law since the twelve hundreds. He has snatched people off the streets of sovereign nations America recognized as such. Even “old crazy king George’s” arrogance - as the colonists referred to him – did not allow for that.
These 'Chicken hawks', Bush et al, replaced many of the intelligent and experienced generals in our military with 'Yes' men. Many good generals quit rather than become the pawns of these primitive politicians who broke the military for the acquisitions of more wealth and power. Not one of the 'Bush Gang' had ever experienced war - they were deferred from battle because of privilege or their own deceitfulness.
Read http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jard_dev_070106_facing_up_to_2008.htm 'Another Dark Night of the American Soul': I belief that the present cabal of hubristic proto-fascist ideologues have learned nothing about the limits of American power. - lethalkid, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2This was NOT A NY TIMES ARTICLE !!! why lie ???
- mightytribble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, it was an Editorial. An Editorial represents the considered opinion of the paper's Editorial Board. It is the 'official view' of the paper.
Opinions are written by individual authors, and are not endorsed by the Editorial Board.
This article is an Editorial. And a Sunday Editorial, to boot. It's the strongest way the paper has of saying 'this is what we think'. - origclubsoda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2He didn't lie because he's too stupid to understand its an opinion piece. Most of the crap Diggers post as FACT is just opinion.
- mightytribble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, it was an Editorial. An Editorial represents the considered opinion of the paper's Editorial Board. It is the 'official view' of the paper.
- origclubsoda, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2This is is so blown out of proportion. The guy didnt do anything illegal - or too unusual. Democrats are just adding to the crap that Republicans do . Somebody at some point has to be the better man.
- JMnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I know.... Those democrats in congress got all riled up when Clinton got his BJ's by that Monica lady too.
- JMnet, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1How dare the NY Times call for impeachment of our Commander and Chief's Attorney General!!! We are in a time of War and they have no right to question the actions of our President.
OK Kids here are your Conservapedia Alberto Gonzales fun facts:
Did you know? Albert Gonzalez was voted the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1992.
and His Secret Service nickname is "Elephant", a reference to his uncanny ability to memorize obscure parts of United States law.
Learn more at about our great Attorney General at:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Alberto_R._Gonzales
Freedumb isnt free... these colors don't bleed!!!!! Amen JESUS!!!!
Bush/Cheney '08 let the good times roll!!!! - jake3988, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Despite all of Bush's crimes and Bush's lies... he probably won't ever be impeached (even if they decide to bring it up to the table).
Gonzales, if they finally bring it up, probably will. - ClearNed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Geez, people, it's just an Op-Ed piece. It's not a direct endorsement from the NYT.
- shorn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The author is the editor of the NYT. You know what that makes him? The Decider. I think you are confusing editorial with guest editorial. This is NOT a guest editorial. It is as close to the opinion of the NYT as a whole as anything can be.
- JMnet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah PEOPLE get the sand out of your vagina's. The decider has decided and Alberto Gonzales is here to stay until 1/20/2009.
Deal with it! Or the terrorists win. - supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Russia is heading quickly towards Facism with Putin... America is well ahead of Russia, and even initiating "pre-emptive" wars... This world is ***** when those two Facists states finally collide.
America, take your country back and vote these ***** out of office. - kensai111, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I say we just clean house and start new. Where's the delete key for Bush's reign?
- soot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The man is either a pathological liar or an incompetent ***** -- Regardless, he's already proven himself more than unfit for his job.
- FunkyNuts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How many times are you guys going to blow your wads over the word "impeachment" and then watch it NOT happen? So a liberal newspaper "calls for impeachment". Is that really such a surprise to you? Now if Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh call for it, THEN I'd be surprised. Until then, quit having a circle jerk every time you see someone else say the word. It's making you look like idiots.
- leatherback, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Google the a book called "The Authoritarians" this is who you are dealing with.
- leatherback, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Google "The Authoritarians" this is who you are dealing with.
- marinLETOILE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The New York Times isn't calling for his impeachment. It's the author who is. The article is an editorial, not news.
- billfisher, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't know about you, but I am going to look up the Senators and congressman I just elected and see where they are sitting on these issues. Then next time we can vote for them, pull out that sheet of "did and did-nots" and vote along those lines. I think it will take about 15 years to fix Bush's fu@k-ups.
- FunkyNuts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're probably right. We're still trying to recover from Clinton's f*ck up of letting bin Laden slip away because he considered him "a little fish".
- blackbamboo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0how long will it take to fix the best economy and stock market ever?
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by