NYT editorial: The Imperial Presidency 2.0

[DeepModem Mom]

The Imperial Presidency 2.0
Published: January 7, 2007

Observing President Bush in action lately, we have to wonder if he actually watched the election returns in November, or if he was just rerunning the 2002 vote on his TiVo.

That year, the White House used the fear of terrorism to scare American voters into cementing the Republican domination of Congress. Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney then embarked on an expansion of presidential power chilling both in its sweep and in the damage it did to the constitutional system of checks and balances.

In 2006, the voters sent Mr. Bush a powerful message that it was time to rein in his imperial ambitions. But we have yet to see any sign that Mr. Bush understands that — or even realizes that the Democrats are now in control of the Congress. Indeed, he seems to have interpreted his party’s drubbing as a mandate to keep pursuing his fantasy of victory in Iraq and to press ahead undaunted with his assault on civil liberties and the judicial system....The Democratic majority in Congress has a moral responsibility to address all these issues: fixing the profound flaws in the military tribunals act, restoring the rule of law over Mr. Bush’s rogue intelligence operations and restoring the balance of powers between Congress and the executive branch. So far, key Democrats, including Mr. Leahy and Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, chairman of a new subcommittee on human rights, have said these issues are high priorities for them.

We would lend such efforts our enthusiastic backing and hope Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin and other Democratic leaders are not swayed by the absurd notion circulating in Washington that the Democrats should now “look ahead” rather than use their new majority to right the dangerous wrongs of the last six years of Mr. Bush’s one-party rule.

This is a false choice. Dealing with these issues is not about the past. The administration’s assault on some of the nation’s founding principles continues unabated. If the Democrats were to shirk their responsibility to stop it, that would make them no better than the Republicans who formed and enabled these policies in the first place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/opinion/07sun1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[illinoisprogressive]

1. this is a really good article.

[grasswire]

2. sounds like a setup to me

Of course, there's no admission from the Times of its culpability in allowing Sir Bush to get away with his imperialism.

[Joe Bacon]

3. You got that right!

I'm still waiting for Jeff Gerth to admit that he lied about Whitewater and made that up for the Screw York TImes.

It just amazes me to see which "newspaper" loves to lie more for the GOP--The Screw York Times, The Whoreshington Post, The Chicago Fibune or the Lies Angeles Times!

[Bhaisahab]

4. Cowards! What was holding the NYT back

in the six years talked about? There was nary a peep from this newspaper as bushco brazenly dismantled the american political and economic system.
and now, when bush has been finally checked by the voting public, they find the balls to protest?

there's only one kind of person who kicks a man when he is down.