The tide of unity that has swept this nation in the wake of the attacks on the US has transformed a bitterly divided Congress, shattered icons, and recast the nation's political debate in barely a week.
Determined to be seen to march in step, Democrats in the Senate have agreed to remove constraints on President Bush's testing of his controversial missile defence.
Guarantees by both parties not to encroach on the social security budget surplus have been thrown out the window and cherished priorities have been put on the backburner.
Congress rushed through both a $40 billion spending appropriation and authorisation for the President to use force with unparalleled speed - the former by unanimity, the latter with only one vote against.
And if one wanted evidence of the banishing of partisanship, albeit temporarily, what better than the parties' moratorium on fund-raising, only one year ahead of mid-term elections?
On defence, that has meant a capitulation to the Bush agenda; on the budget, a joint turning of backs on the rigorous fiscal rectitude that only 10 days ago was common currency.
And in the conduct of his "war" Mr Bush enjoys, at present, considerable discretion and room for manoeuvre.
In the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Democratic chairman, Sen Carl Levin, has agreed with his Republican counterpart, Sen John Warner, to remove from the defence budget Bill a key Democratic amendment which ruled out, without Congressional approval, any spending on missile defence which would have breached the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty.
"This is a major step forward, and I am greatly appreciative of that," Mr Warner said.
The deal allows for the introduction at a later date of separate legislation containing the ABM Treaty provision to be considered later.
The Bill now authorises the administration's full $328.9 billion request for defence for 2002, the largest defence increase since the mid-1980s.
It represents a 7 per cent increase over this year's budget in real terms, after inflation, and may yet be increased to pay for additional anti-terrorist measures.
And, while originally it appeared the White House would face a tough fight over the 2002 budget, many on Capitol Hill now say most differences will be set aside if law-makers continue to co-operate across party lines.
What is clear is that the sacred cow of the "social security lock-box", the substantial pensions surplus which both parties had agreed could only be used for debt reduction, is no longer.
Two weeks ago, the top Democratic aide on the House Budget Committee, Mr Thomas Kahn, was fighting the White House over the possibility the surplus might be raided to pay for the Bush tax cuts. Now, he says, that is a dead issue.
"We have higher priorities - stopping those terrorists," Mr Kahn told the Washington Post. "In the short term, there is no way we could or should" try to avoid spending the surplus. That projected surplus for 2002 is about $175 billion.
But the slowing economy is prompting officials to recalculate revenue projections - and much of the rest of the surplus could disappear as law-makers jockey to provide funds to stimulate the economy and build up the military.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a year-long recession would cut the projected 10-year $5 trillion surplus by $300 billion.
But a year-long recession and a return to the slower growth of the early 1990s would essentially wipe out the surplus.
Within the White House a new "domestic priorities group" under the deputy chief of staff, Mr Josh Bolton, is meeting daily to reprioritise the presidential agenda.
Ms Karen Hughes, the President's special adviser, admits that some of the previous presidential priorities such as prescription benefits for the old and a patients' bill of rights may be delayed until next year.
She says seven or eight measures are also being considered to stimulate the economy including a capital gains tax cut, new depreciation provisions, and a rollback on payroll taxes.
In the Senate the majority leader, Mr Tom Daschle, has said any economic package should be "a unified, bipartisan approach".
But there are signs of some Democratic dissent, with the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee responsible for tax policy, Mr Charles Rangel, describing Republican leaders' attempts to push capital gains tax cuts as "shameful".
"Before we've even buried our dead they're asking for tax breaks," he said.
Leaders of both parties yesterday met the Fed chairman, Mr Alan Greenspan, and the White House economic adviser, Mr Laurence Lindsay, before meeting Mr Bush today.
Meanwhile, the lone voice of congressional dissent, representative Barbara Lee, from California's ultra-liberal 9th district which includes Berkeley and Oakland, has been given police protection following threats to her life.
"In times like this," she told the Post, "you have to have some members saying: 'Let's show some restraint'."
She does not rule out military action, she says, but she voted against the authorisation to use force because she opposes giving the President the sole decision on when and where to make war.
War, she believes, is not the most effective way to fight terrorism. "Military action is a one-dimensional reaction to a multi-dimensional problem," she says.