St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer Press, on conflict in the Middle East:

History will pass judgment on this war in Iraq, but certain things became clear quickly.

For example, the president clearly got bad advice on how the US would be received and on what it would take to win the peace. The consequences have been difficult, to say the least. Further, the rationale for the war — rationale that spanned political parties and the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — proved faulty. The consequences of that are profound, as well.

As bombs fall in Lebanon and Israel, and as the drumbeat against Iran and Syria builds, it will behove Americans to pound the drum on behalf of clarity. If our government is aiming to take us to war again, Americans, so-called conservatives and so-called liberals alike, need to know what’s at stake. And to realise that we can’t expect any one source — including our own government, regardless of which party’s in power — to tell us the whole story.

The US system is built on checks and balances. Some of these are formal, such as the three branches of government. Some — such as the variety of voices in the public debate — are less formal, and more a product of the nature of the United States, a nation of immigrants from all corners of the Earth, assembled under democratic ideals and institutions.

When it comes to doing business with the rest of the world, clearly this diversity is an advantage. It opens doors. It leverages relationships. It multiplies possibilities.

The more that’s at stake, the better we must press our advantages. Among those advantages: ideals that attract people from all over, and the people themselves. As individual citizens, it’s within our power, and our responsibility, to press that advantage.

The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, on ABA report on Bush:

The bipartisan panel of the American Bar Association, the nation’s pre-eminent national organisation of attorneys, issued its findings on Monday on President Bush’s insistence that he can disregard provisions of bills that he signed into law.

The president’s use of so-called signing statements in this way, the group said, “is contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers”.

The president’s claim that he can ignore or not enforce parts of laws passed by Congress drew wide attention last year after he reluctantly signed a bill banning torture or degrading treatment of prisoners held at American detention centres. The White House later said he might waive the ban under his powers as commander in chief.

But that was not the only such case. The panel, contradicting assertions to the contrary from the administration, said Mr. Bush has raised more than 800 objections to congressional provisions, more than all of his predecessors combined.

Mr. Bush has reserved the right to ignore Congress, for example, when it has tried to insist upon information, define foreign policy, establish qualifications for presidential appointees and require affirmative action for women and minorities.

The panel said his statements use formulaic wording with “no citation of authority or detailed explanation”.

This is a familiar story, consistent with a president who thinks he can conduct a domestic surveillance programme in violation of federal law or set up kangaroo military tribunals.

The ABA panel urged Congress to require the president to set forth fully his reasons and legal basis for a signing statement, and to provide for judicial review of such actions.

Those are good ideas, and future presidents might heed those kinds of laws.

The incumbent, of course, would likely just declare that such statutes don’t apply to him.