LA Times Slams Democrat Efforts to "Micromanage" War
General Pelosi's Modified, Limited Slow Bleed Loses Her Troops In The Media
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in War — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The LA Times Editorial Board is not where you would look for support for a Republican Administration in a debate about war, unless the answer is so screamingly obvious that the newspaper doesn't want to lose credibility even with liberal readers by siding with the Democrats.
Guess what?
This morning's LAT carries a remarkable editorial entitled, "Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi?" that criticizes the House Democrats' latest effort to hamstring the war effort in Iraq without openly taking responsibility for demanding retreat:
AFTER WEEKS OF internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he'll veto it, as well he should.
It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It's quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.
Read On...
As the LAT points out, Congress has the power to stop the war - but only if it really means it and is willing to take responsibility for doing so:
If a majority in Congress truly believes that the war is not in the national interest, then lawmakers should have the courage of their convictions and vote to stop funding U.S. involvement. They could cut the final checks in six months or so to give Bush time to manage the withdrawal. Or lawmakers could, as some Senate Democrats are proposing, revoke the authority that Congress gave Bush in 2002 to use force against Iraq.
But if Congress accepts Bush's argument that there is still hope, however faint, that the U.S. military can be effective in quelling the sectarian violence, that U.S. economic aid can yet bring about an improvement in Iraqi lives that won't be bombed away and that American diplomatic power can be harnessed to pressure Shiites and Sunnis to make peace — if Congress accepts this, then lawmakers have a duty to let the president try this "surge and leverage" strategy.
Amen to that. Of course, the editorial contains the usual nods to criticism of Bush, Rumsfeld, et al, but at the end of the day, the LAT hears the sawing and isn't especially willing to stay out on the limb Nancy Pelosi is on.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | State Department Support of Terrorist Organizations Frowned Upon — Comments (1) »
LA Times Slams Democrat Efforts to "Micromanage" War 4 Comments (0 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Marketing people say for everyone who actually bothers to write, dozens who feel the same way don't.
Well done.
You should be able to recite the 9th and 10th Amendments from memory in order to be eligible to
vote.
It's nice to see that the LA Times editorial board is not so knackered with the Dems as you would think.
Sucking and ruining since October 2003.
but perhaps this is the first line of an act of contrition. But again, this is so "screamingly[!!!]" obvious that even a hard-core [K]ostrich might agree with the Times on this.
But then again, probably not. Obvious doesn't work on that end of the spectrum.
Last week I cancelled my subscription to the LA Times and wrote them a scathing letter about how their editorial bias has been steadily influencing their news coverage and creating a partisan echo chamber. I had been a subscriber for 16 years.
To my surprise, I received a response from new publisher David Hiller:
"I hate to lose you as a customer. I'm new out here, as is editor Jim O'Shea. Partisan echo chamber is not our mission, and I hope on most days not our impact.
"On the point you raised on the Libby verdict coverage, I agree with your point that some of the language was off base and excessive. You are right to raise it. But I still hope you keep reading and let me know when you see things that seem off kilter."
Let's hope that today's editorial is a true indication that the Editorial Board is making a good faith effort to be more independent and less reflexively partisan.
--
"We can all do our part to save the planet by dying." - R.E. Finch