Bush as Reagan?

Am I the only one who sees a difference between the Cold War and the War on Terror here? From the National Review(shudder):

If President Bush not only memorializes Ronald Reagan's moral compass and strategic vision but emulates them, both in Iraq and more generally in this global war on terror, there is reason to believe that the results for American national-security and foreign-policy interests will be every bit as salutary as were those achieved by our beloved and lamented Gipper.

Wasn't Reagan's strategy one of building up arms in hopes of containment, not going to war in hopes of annihilation? Isn't Bush's doctrine of establishing democracy in the Middle East just the domino theory in reverse, a theory which ultimately proved false?

I guess Reagan and the boy king do have something in common, their willingness to subvert the Constitution in their favor. Reagan had his arms for hostages, and now the Wall Street Journal has an article about the Bush's attempt. I defer to Josh Marshall:

The article describes a confidential Pentagon report providing legal rationales and interpretations by which US personnel could use torture and methods of near-torture in contravention of various international treaties and US laws. The bulk of the arguments rest on arguments of 'necessity' and the powers of the president as commander-in-chief. They also go into some depth about how people acting at the president's order could avoid prosecution for demonstrably criminal acts.

The article is well worth reading for this alone.

But that whole discussion is different in kind from one passage in the report. I quote from the piece ...

To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."
So the right to set aside law is "inherent in the president". That claim alone should stop everyone in their tracks and prompt a serious consideration of the safety of the American republic under this president. It is the very definition of a constitutional monarchy, let alone a constitutional republic, that the law is superior to the executive, not the other way around. This is the essence of what the rule of law means -- a government of laws, not men, and all that.

Now, we know that president's sometimes break laws and they frequently bend them, if only in cases where the laws don't seem to anticipate a situation the president finds himself confronting. There is even an argument that the president can refuse to enforce laws he deems unconstitutional.

But there is no power inherent in the president simply to set aside the law.

I wonder if the President reads blogs? Maybe I should forward the link.