|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
The Real Agenda
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Issue
|
| Contributor | RP |
| Last Edited | RP Jul 17, 2006 01:14pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Editorial |
| Media | Newspaper - New York Times |
| News Date | Sunday, July 16, 2006 07:00:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear. Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.
Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress, the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch.
One result has been a frayed democratic fabric in a country founded on a constitutional system of checks and balances. Another has been a less effective war on terror. |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
