"Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency" offers a view of American history and how various presidents have tested the Constitutional boundaries of executive power. Richard Nixon framed it well in these words-"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal."

One of the strengths of this book is the information about Dick Cheney and how integral a part he has played over the course of his career in the White House in his obsession with strengthening the presidency. With George W. Bush he has succeeded in making the presidency virtually free from oversight on the part of the legislative and judicial branches.
A disturbing pattern of behavior appears in the current administration; if the Constitution, a law, or Congress gets in their way, they simply ignore the obstacle and continue on.

Mr. Savage examines another intriguing aspect of the Bush administration that is secretive. That would be the conflicts in the White House involving an inner circle of people around Dick Cheney.

An interesting tidbit that Judicial Watch discovered about Cheney's secret energy task force- as early as March 2001, two years before the invasion of Iraq, the group was studying Iraqi oil fields and who owned the drilling rights.

On page 132 is a relevant quote on the quest for political power. "The rule of law is the enemy of the powerful. The essence of law is that everyone obeys the same rules regardless of weakness or strength, so the law chafes most keenly against those who, in a world without rules, have the power to simply impose their will."

George Sutherland wisely said "An informed public is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment."

Mr. Savage covers the president's signing statements as alternatives to vetoes. The use of this tool to more or less serve as a line-item veto is explained. He also does an excellent job on examining the judicial appointments of this regime. The unofficial criteria for a Bush appointee often get's missed amidst the buzz surrounding social issues like abortion.

I can't think of a better-written, more illuminating book about the subject of presidential power expansion, both from a current view as well as a historical standpoint. If you read just one book about the subject, this is the book to read!

This book is a great read. Yes the title is sensationalistic. I look past that at the content. It's easy to read through, and explains complex issues well. More than that it's something that anyone who cares about democracy and balance of power should read.

Pulitzer-Prize winner Charles Savage is on target with this well-researched expose. Savage shows how the Bush White House consistently grabs power and abuses the Constitution with signing statements. The author attributes this dangerous trend to Cheney's days in the Nixon and Ford administrations, but it's hardly a one-man show. Few actions go more against the spirit of the U.S. Constitution than using a signing statement to negate a law, then employing sham legal briefs to justify the practice. As the author shows, this dangerous trend started under Reagan, and kept up under Bush Sr. and Clinton. But the devious Bush/Cheney regime has greatly expanded this (probably illegal) practice, with frightful consequences for the U.S. Constitution. Actually, Bush goes even further, claiming the sole right to end treaties. Savage shows that attempts to subvert Constitutional limits on power is a dangerous, if occasional trait of most Presidents (even Truman and Carter), but never taken as far as in the current Bush/Cheny regime.

Some Republicans slam this book for partisan reasons. That's foolish. Nobody knows who the next several Presidents will be, or what they will try to get away with. This is an important and well-wrtten expose about the weakening of our Constitution by G.W. Bush. Sadly, it will probably be ignored in favor of Paris Hilton and other vital matters.

A most disturbing aspect of the Bush Administration is how Cheney and his chief counsel (now Chief of Staff) David Addington have maneuvered their way into essentially giving themselves a blank check that allows them to do whatever they want behind the scenes in the name of national security. The enemy has been depicted as an incalculable threat, capable of the most murderous rampages with the worst of weapons, and it is up to the Executive to use every means available to thwart them in their tracks. The War on Terror, this argument implies, requires a constant and never-ending state of emergency, in which the Legislative and Judicial branches do not have the power to check the Presidency.

The author details how the efforts by Cheney and Addington to consolidate and extend Presidential power have a history that goes back to the Nixon Administration, to the time when a young Cheney was hired by Donald Rumsfeld. The power of the Presidency had reached a low point then, and as Cheney became more empowered in government, he became more determined to reverse that trend. David Addington solidified and emboldened Cheney's efforts to defend the actions of the Reagan Administration during Iran-Contra affair, and thereafter provided him with the force of legal arguments. During the first Bush Administration Cheney became Secretary of Defense and brought along Addington as legal counsel.

Even before 9/11, Cheney was busy putting into practice the theory of the Unitary Executive (the phrase was taken from the Federalist Papers) for the new Bush Administration. In a scenario that has became all too familiar, Cheney claimed that the Executive had a right not to disclose information about the Energy Task Force. According to Cheney, the public had no right to know about the origins of the decisions made concerning energy policy (that is, how the oil industry shaped the policy), a position which in effect frees the Executive from all accountability.

The problem of accountability, of course, becomes much more difficult after 9/11 when the matter of national security becomes significantly more critical. Although the actual maneuvers are difficult to follow, because of national security barriers, it is clear the Cheney and Addington sought a legal basis for defying the Geneva Conventions and that they used their influence to get the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department to do their bidding. When Jack Goldsmith tried to make relatively small changes, he ran into a buzz saw in Addington. Clearly, it was their intention to control the Justice Department. Among the shenanigans was an effort to force John Ashcroft to sign off on warrantless surveillance from his sick bed, and people like Monica Goodling using a political litmus test to hire prosecutors.

But of all the tactics, the stamp of Executive arrogance is most keenly to be seen in the signing statements. The author notes that it is unprecedented in U.S. history for the office of the Vice-President to pore over every piece of legislation, and express the intention to refuse to abide by all the parts that it does not like. But Addington acted for Cheney in this way, apparently in Bush's name. Beside insisting that the President could bypass the torture ban passed by Congress, the signing statements seek to thwart all kinds of checks on the power of the Executive over information, whistle-blowing, etc.

Finally, the question that begs for an answer is: just exactly what role does George W. Bush play? In the beginning of the book, the author notes the incident on 9/11 when Cheney seems to have been the one who called the shots. The author notes that Bush has led the way with such things as faith-based initiatives. But as the "Decider", where does he get his information? When it comes to national security, the answer seems obvious. When it comes to legislative and judicial matters, the answer also seems obvious.

Could the author PLEASE tell me if President Clinton sets a precedent, and President Bush follows the same rule, that Mr Bush is held as a tyrant?

The author would never write a book about a left-wing politician doing the same thing. He COULD prove me wrong by writing a book about Senator Barak "60 states" (57+1+2)Obama, if the American populous is mentally absent enough to elect him.

Clearly written, well thought out, well supported and utterly infuriating.Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy

This Pulitzer-Prize winning book by Charlie Savage should have received five stars. I give it only two. To learn why -- read on.

Savage is a good writer and his trenchant analysis of how the neocons have nearly destroyed our Constitutional system is basically correct. His story is also important and needs to be told.

The problem is Savage's naive acceptance of the official yarn about 9/11. In the very first chapter Savage displays his personal ignorance when he reviews the events in the White House bunker -- and gets it wrong. What is incredible is that Savage didn't bother to research this himself. It appears that he simply accepted as bible the version of events reported by Bob Woodward in the Washington Post.

There is no excuse for this lapse of critical thought.

The problem is that the version of 911 reported by Woodward in his 2002 series was largely fabricated -- a lie. It does not reflect what actually happened. It was fabricated for a reason: because Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta just happened to be present in the bunker with Cheney on 911 and witnessed what transpired.

Check out Mineta's testimony before the 911 Commission in May 2003 -- and you will discover what I am referring to. Mineta places Cheney in the bunker as early as 9:20 am. What is more, he actually overheard Cheney give the treasonous order to stand down -- as Flight 77 was approaching Washington. Mineta told how a young man, probably a Secret service staffer, came in and warned of the approaching plane. "It's 50 miles out" the young man said. Then it was "thirry miles out" -- then "ten miles out." The young man asked Cheney if the orders still stand. Cheney shouted: "Of course they still stand...Have you heard any different?" Mineta told the commission this was Flight 77 -- no mistake about the ID of the plane. In short, his testimony was incredibly incriminating. No doubt, is why there is not one word about it in the 911 Commission Report.

For this reason -- it was obvious in the immediate aftermath of 911, long before Mineta testified before the commission, that his presence in the bunker posed a grave problem for Cheney. The White House had little reason to think it could count on Mineta's loyalty. He was a civil servant, after all, not a neocon---the only Democrat in Bush's cabinet. It is now clear that the White House responded to this "threat" by proactively attempting to head off trouble. How? By rewriting history. What else?

Late in 2001 the well-known journalist Bob Woodward was invited to conduct a series of interviews about September 11, as seen through the eyes of the president and his staff. Woodward (a glory hound) was only too eager to oblige. As we know, he thereafter served as court historian. The result, beginning in January 2002, was a series of retrospective articles in the Washington Post about 9/11.

This is the version of 911 history that Savage relied on for the first chapter of his book.

How could Savage be so naive? In fact, Woodward simply wrote what he was told. His series in the Post presented a White House-friendly version of events. No surprise that one of the stories Woodward recounted was the famous episode in the bunker. In Woodward's redacted version, however, Cheney is the man of the hour who rises to the press of terrible events. The same young man approaches the VP and warns about the incoming airliner. But, of course, in this revised history the timeline has been pushed back: Now it is almost 10 am -- and the plane is Flight 93, not Flight 77. Now the plane is 80 miles out, not 50.

There is another BIG difference. This time instead of a stand down -- it is a shoot down order. When the young man says, "There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?" Cheney responds by giving the difficult command to shoot down the plane. But the young man hesitates. As narrated by Woodward the tension in the room mounts. The plane is closing fast and is now only 60 miles out. The young man repeats the question and again Cheney gives the command. But the young man still hesitates. "Does the order still stand?" he blurts out. Cheney finally snaps and says, "Of course it does!"

Woodward's revised version of 911 is more colorful, but there is a problem. It is a fabrication -- a complete lie. In fact, it deviates just as sharply from the official narrative presented in the 9/11 Commission Report as it does from Mineta's account, since at no time on September 11 did Flight 93 approach anywhere near as close as 60 miles to the White House. This crucial detail is the fly on the windowpane that exposes the fraud.

Someone please inform Charlie Savage that he got his 911 history all wrong -- backwards. There is no excuse for this. He is a fine writer. It is simply incomprehensible that Savage -- a strong critic of the neocons -- would swallow hook, line, and sinker their version of the 911 "attack." If half of what Savage reports in his book is true -- and I have no doubt that much more than half is true -- then the neocons are easily capable of murdering 3,000 Americans in a false flag attack on 911 to vastly increase the power of the White House and catapult America into two unnecessary wars.

This is exactly what they did -- and shame on Mr Savage for not figuring it out. He's lucky I didn't give him one star. So readers - please beware. You must view the analysis in TAKEOVER through a critical lens, making allowances for Savage's failure to comprehend who was behind 9/11. There is no question that Cheney and Rumsfeld and others were personally involved in the attack.