Just to Recap … Editorials Across America Blast Democrat Iraq Bill

Via email:

Washington Post editorial: “House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates. It would heap money on unneedy dairy farmers while provoking a constitutional fight with the White House that could block the funding to equip troops in the field.” (3/23/07)

Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial: “By adding billions of dollars for special projects to the military appropriations bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues have chosen to cloud what ought to be a stark moral and strategic choice.” (3/23/07)

USA Today editorial: “It's hard to say which is worse: leaders offering peanuts for a vote of this magnitude, or members allowing their votes to be bought for peanuts … Even so, an emergency war funding bill — especially one that would set a hard exit date of Aug. 31, 2008, for U.S. troops in Iraq and impose strict readiness standards for deploying combat forces — is no place for extraneous issues. And certainly no place for bribes.” (3/22/07)

The Washington Times editorial: “Democratic leaders and appropriators responded by adding $21 billion to the bill. The vast majority of the additions comprised pork projects or spending utterly unrelated to the wars. The extra spending was designed for a single purpose: to purchase support from Democrats who otherwise would have voted against the bill." (3/22/07)

Palm Beach (FL) Post editorial: “Pork-Laden Iraq Bill Worse Than No Bill At All.” (3/22/07)

Fort Wayne (IN) Journal-Gazette editorial: “Democrats do no favor to their country or themselves with an ill-considered move to curry anti-war votes with blatant pork-barrel spending.” (3/21/07)

Rocky Mountain News editorial: "The best thing that can be said of the House Democratic leadership's bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it is unlikely to pass the Senate, and in the improbable event that it does, President Bush will veto it." (3/21/07)

The Oklahoman editorial: “‘Emergency’ Spending Bill a Political Tool.” (3/21/07)

Journal Times (WI) editorial: “But the future commitment of our American men and women in service halfway around the globe should not be based on browbeating a handful of congressmen by putting them in the position of voting against millions in dollars of home-state plums. This is a vote of conscience and national policy, not a pig trough. Leave the menhaden out of it.” (3/20/07)

Washington Post editorial: “In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself … Ms. Pelosi's strategy leads not toward a responsible withdrawal from Iraq but to a constitutional power struggle with Mr. Bush, who has already said he will veto the legislation. (3/13/07)

Los Angeles Times editorial: “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 … By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, 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 evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.” (3/12/07)

Washington Times editorial: “Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, dazzled reporters with his incoherence, stating that ‘our troops must be out of a combat role by October -- I mean by August of 19 -- of 2007.’ Mrs. Pelosi then reminded him that the correct date was actually 2008. Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, and committee staffers were unable to say precisely how much money was in the Iraq supplemental bill the panel was considering.” (3/12/07)

National Review editorial: “The bill does succeed in showing the emptiness of Pelosi’s claim that her Democrats support U.S. troops even as they oppose the war. The message is: We don’t believe you should be there; we don’t believe you can win (even as the surge shows early signs of progress); so be warned that we mean to pull the rug out from under you as soon as we can get away with it.” (3/12/07)