Informed Speculation

Oh, boy, here we go again:

The House of Representatives now has a chance to lead the nation toward a wiser, more responsible Iraq policy. It is scheduled to vote this week on whether to impose benchmarks for much-needed political progress on the Iraqi government — and link them to the continued presence of American combat forces. The bill also seeks to lessen the intolerable strains on American forces, requiring President Bush to certify that units are fit for battle before sending any troops to Iraq. Both of these requirements are long overdue. The House should vote yes, by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin.

It is normally the president who provides the leadership for American foreign policy and decides when there needs to be a change of course. But Mr. Bush stubbornly refuses to do either, and the country cannot afford to wait out the rest of his term. Given Mr. Bush’s failure, Congress has a responsibility to do all it can to use Washington’s remaining leverage to try to lessen the chaos that will likely follow an American withdrawal — no matter when it happens — and to ensure that the credibility and readiness of the United States military is preserved.

Let’s take that last paragraph again and insert some handy translations:

It is normally the president who provides the leadership for American foreign policy and decides when there needs to be a change of course. But Mr. Bush stubbornly refuses to do either [Of course, the President has changed course, and the Times is well aware of it, having campaigned endlessly against the change of course known as 'the surge'.  There is no intellectual honesty any more on the Times' editorial page], and the country cannot afford to wait out the rest of his term. Given Mr. Bush’s failure, Congress has a responsibility to do all it can to use Washington’s remaining leverage to try to lessen the chaos that will likely follow an American withdrawal — no matter when it happens — and to ensure that the credibility and readiness of the United States military is preserved. [This last sentence is perhaps the most craven bit of nonsense to ever see print in the Paper of Record.  The assertion that Congress must try to 'lessen the choas that will follow an American withdrawal' by following policies that HASTEN that withdrawal and ensure even more chaos than is necessary is a clear indicator that the Times cares more about blind opposition to Bush than events on the ground in Iraq.  How can the credibilty of the United States military be assured by turning tail when events are finally beginning to go our way?] 

As always, I can only laugh at those poor souls who actually continue to pay money for the once-mighty paper that is now slightly more credible than Entertainment Weekly…