The OWH, for those of you who don't know, has the worst editorials in the United States. I replied to this one.
January 26's editorial "Balance of Power" is an absurd, backhandedly sophistic thumbs up to George W. Bush's shameless and unconstitutional power grab.
As is typical for the OWH, Bill Clinton appears, but not this time as someone to blame for Bush Administration failures, but instead as evidence that Clinton also centralized executive power. Next a quote from an "academic paper" is presented completely out of context. Obviously Bill Clinton doesn't have a damn thing to do with Bush's unwarranted surveillance of American citizens, 100% illegal according to any understanding of FISA law. The use of the secondary source shows how uncomfortable this editorial is with its own argument.
Yet another straw man appears, as if this fallacy was the best tool in the box for the OWH. What is it? Congress, yes, Congress's "power" must also be checked and held as long as we're holding back the executive branch. The same pork barreling Republican Congress that has watched approvingly Bush Administration failures of leadership in Iraq, during Hurricane Katrina, and has finally raised a sotto voce qualm not with torture, not extraordinary rendition, not cronyism, nor war profiteering, but finally perhaps come to its senses because while for a long time George W. Bush was merely stretching the law, he is now recklessly disregarding it, and spying on American citizens without a warrant, an Orwellian program if there ever was one.
The OWH is not so bad in its blank check support for Bush, but is certainly reprehensible in its refusal to come clean with what is its position. If a blank check for Bush doesn't make you feel dirty, then why camouflage that
ADAM M. SCHENCK