Andrew Bacevich in the Post: "Although [Jane] Mayer does not dwell on this historical context, her account suggests implicitly that the present period differs in at least one crucial respect. Whereas the earlier departures from the rule of law represented momentary if egregious lapses in democratic practice, the abuses orchestrated from within the Bush administration suggest that democracy itself is fast becoming something of a sham. From Mayer, we learn that in George W. Bush's Washington, the decisions that matter are made in secret by a handful of presidential appointees committed to the proposition that nothing should inhibit the exercise of executive power. The Congress, the judiciary, the bureaucracy, the "interagency process" -- all of these constitute impediments that threaten to constrain the president. In a national security crisis, constraint is intolerable. Much the same applies to the media and, by extension, to the American people: The public's right to know extends no further than whatever the White House wishes to make known. [...] Whether the prospect of war stretching for decades actually would serve the country's true interests received comparatively less attention. The issue was not one that troubled the War Council, obsessed as it was about ensuring that when it came to national security, nothing should encroach upon the prerogatives of the chief executive. 'What was missing,' Mayer says, 'was a discussion of policy -- not just what was legal, but what was moral, ethical, right, and smart to do.' Such matters remained on the periphery because 'fundamentally, the drive for expanded presidential authority was about power.' The extremists of the last century, both on the far left and far right, would have seen much to admire in Addington and his War Council. ..."

Posted by Laura at July 11, 2008 11:57 PM