Partisanship over principle at the NYT

Ed Lasky
The New York Times has been on a multi-year campaign to restrict the executive powers of President Bush. The paper has goaded Congressional Democrats (and wayward Republicans) to take on Bush and enact measures that tie his hands. The paper has basically called upon the Lilliputians to bind Gulliver.

Now the paper looks ahead to the next President (likely a Democrat) and calls upon that President to be given powers to unilaterally makes decisions regarding Iraq. One can surmise that the paper is calling for the next president to be given unlimited power to withdraw without conditions. That is the type of unfettered Presidential power that meets with approval from the Times, which looks like it is placing partisan goals over any type of  principle regarding the balance of powers.
The New York Times has been on a multi-year campaign to restrict the executive powers of President Bush. The paper has goaded Congressional Democrats (and wayward Republicans) to take on Bush and enact measures that tie his hands. The paper has basically called upon the Lilliputians to bind Gulliver.

Now the paper looks ahead to the next President (likely a Democrat) and calls upon that President to be given powers to unilaterally makes decisions regarding Iraq. One can surmise that the paper is calling for the next president to be given unlimited power to withdraw without conditions. That is the type of unfettered Presidential power that meets with approval from the Times, which looks like it is placing partisan goals over any type of  principle regarding the balance of powers.