|
 |
 |
|
Two out of Two Editors Agree: Democrats' War Plan Is Lacking
-
03/13/07 08:54 AM ET
Yes, Republicans are enjoying surprising unity in vexing the Democrats on war policy. But what could surprise them more than seeing the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post agree with them?
WARNING: The words below were not written by a House GOP Conference press staffer.
Yes, the L.A. Times yesterday called the Democrats' war-funding blueprint an unruly mess of bad policy and bad precedent that Bush should veto. "By intefering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs," the paper opined, "Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It's absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict ..."
And The Washington Post, not to be outdone, today called the plan an attempt "to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself," with numerous "benchmark" requirements that cannot be met by the deadline. Editors there concluded such a proposal represents "an inflexible timetable conforming to the need to capture votes in Congress or at the 2008 polls."
Who said being in the minority was miserable?
WARNING: The words below were not written by a House GOP Conference press staffer.
Yes, the L.A. Times yesterday called the Democrats' war-funding blueprint an unruly mess of bad policy and bad precedent that Bush should veto. "By intefering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs," the paper opined, "Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It's absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict ..."
And The Washington Post, not to be outdone, today called the plan an attempt "to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself," with numerous "benchmark" requirements that cannot be met by the deadline. Editors there concluded such a proposal represents "an inflexible timetable conforming to the need to capture votes in Congress or at the 2008 polls."
Who said being in the minority was miserable?
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
