I’m not a huge fan of the New York Times (too many articles about yoga and real estate for my tastes), but they do have the best unsigned editorials of any major newspaper. Here’s their take on the Bush versus Congress showdown:

President Bush is taking every opportunity to rail against the troop withdrawal deadlines in the war-spending bills that Congress is readying for passage. He warns that Congressional attempts to set deadlines will harm the troops in Iraq, because a political fight over timetables will delay money needed for the frontlines.

The assertion is completely contrived. Mr. Bush voiced no such misgivings last year, when the Republican-led Congress took until June to complete a war financing bill. The $103 billion Mr. Bush wants— and Congress is ready to provide — is for spending through the end of September. It’s not needed in a lump sum or on any particular date in the near future. In the end, the real obstacle to getting the money promptly to the troops will be the veto that the president has threatened to issue on the final bill.

Contrast this with hooey the circus dogs at the D&C are slinging (as mentioned in the previous post):

Both sides have to move toward this point, which unfortunately is rather distant even as soldiers fight and die and the Pentagon scrambles for money to sustain their effort. Congress and the president have to go back to the drawing board, figure out how to write a funding bill that respects presidential power, is realistic about the situation on the ground and gets needed funds into the military pipeline.

The Republican Congress didn’t deliver its bill to June, but now we need to get “needed funds into the military pipeline” by April. And “respects presidential power”? Are you kidding me? Everyone who has observed the last 6 years of Republican mismanagement of the war (and just about everything else) knows the problem has been “too much presidential power.” You know, I’d like to develop a health plan that is realistic about my cardiovascular health but also respects my desire to smoke two packs a day.

Remember: the New York Times opinion page was very much for the war (btw, the opinion page was headed up by different people at the time). This isn’t about them being “anti-war” and the D&C being “pro-war”. It’s about the fact that the Times is a real paper and the D&C is a joke.

Related posts:

1. An interesting look at Congress
2. How a real newspaper handles a political scandal
3. Progressive patriots versus DLC surrender monkeys
4. LTE, City Newspaper-Kuhl’s right on S-chip, Pe-lease!
5. Kuhl and staffer on war: don’t blame me, I just work here