![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe New York Times' coverage of Cheney's recent statements appears to be fairly typical of the coverage that they have received/.
There are good reasons to be suspicious, it seems, of executive authorities unchecked in their ambitions by democratic oversights. There were good reasons in the Watergate era, and there are good reasons now, both inside and outside the United States. Peer review is critical for good governance, or at least it is for objectively good governance.
Talking with a small group of reporters on Air Force Two as he flew from Pakistan to Oman, Mr. Cheney spoke in far broader terms about the effort to expand the powers of the executive than President Bush did on Monday during an hourlong news conference.
"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it," said Mr. Cheney, who was in many ways the intellectual instigator of the rapid expansion of presidential authority as soon as Mr. Bush came to office.
Today, he made no effort to play down his central role in aggressively seizing those powers, citing his early battle to keep private the names of people he consulted while drawing up recommendations for Mr. Bush on energy policy. That effort was ultimately upheld in the courts.
[. . .]
He described the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 in a post-Vietnam effort by Congress to prevent the president from committing troops without sharp congressional oversight, as "an infringement on the authority of the presidency" and suggested it could be unconstitutional. Similarly, he said budget legislation passed in the 1970's restricted the president's ability to impound money.
"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam both during the '70's served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," Mr. Cheney said.
There are good reasons to be suspicious, it seems, of executive authorities unchecked in their ambitions by democratic oversights. There were good reasons in the Watergate era, and there are good reasons now, both inside and outside the United States. Peer review is critical for good governance, or at least it is for objectively good governance.
