Today's Editorials: Public Safety and Privacy Rights

WaPo: Responds to the Virginia Tech Review Panel's findings: "In the aftermath of such a devastating tragedy, it's easy to say, but nonetheless true, that public safety must trump privacy rights".... Asks who hired the people who killed Anna Politkovskaya -- and offers a guess.

NYT : Says that the new GAO report on Iraq proves that the administration "went to great lengths to pretend that victory was at hand when nothing could be farther from the truth".... Cautions that "as homeowner woes mount, Wall Street may have a harder time justifying its pleas for special treatment."

LAT: Wonders if "South Park" can make money online under its creators' new deal with Viacom.... Says that coal should "not be cheap" because "the only way to encourage cleaner alternatives is to make coal producers and the consumers of coal-fired power pay the true cost of their pollution."

By Nick Baumann |  August 31, 2007; 8:46 AM ET
Previous: Today's Hot Topics: Early Primaries and Public Restrooms | Next: Today's Columns: Poverty vs. Celebrity

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I never knew the GAO had any expertise in warfare. Perhaps they could follow the money being spent, but even that is a waster of manpower and money since the elites in Congress already have a hand on the waste---not there's of course.

How do these reports get leaked? I fear we have less and less genuine journalism. GAO would get as much attention if it conducted a poll.

Posted by: Gene Bishop | August 31, 2007 10:40 AM

A "high crime" is a crime against the State. Committing, or attempting to commit a fraud against the State; i.e., to mislead the people and the Congress, surely is a high crime within the meaning of the Constitution.

How much evidence of "probable cause" does Congress need to instigate impeachment proceedings?

Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | August 31, 2007 05:43 PM

dream on Charlie

Posted by: Al Gibbs | August 31, 2007 07:25 PM

You say: "We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge the washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features"...and you certainly do that.

Now if you could, somehow, persuade the WHITEHOUSE to stop obfuscating practices and be more responsive, IN A POSITIVE WAY, to legitimate criticism you would really serve the needs of the nation.

The likelihood of success, on your part, in achieving such a goal does not appear to be more than "wishful thinking" with all of the "doctors of spin" in and around the WHITEHOUSE at the present time so why not start a campaign to impeach HIM?

HE, twice, swore to defend the Constitution and has pushed, very hard, to undo THE BILL OF RIGHTS which made the Constitution and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA POSSIBLE!

Posted by: Allan Dane | September 1, 2007 10:28 AM

Don't be so naive--Bush still has enough influence in the Rupublican party to stall or derail any attempt to impeach him. The Republicans didn't hesitate to lower the bar to impeachment when it could be used to thwart Clinton's plans, it has become a political tool, now. The Democrats, for their part, have little to gain by impeaching Bush. The Republicans would blame the problems caused by the deficits, the war, environmental degradation, etc. on the Democrats, and say it's because the government was tied up with impeachment, and lots of people would be stupid enough to believe them.

Posted by: Beezelbub | September 6, 2007 11:11 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company