Washington Post Editorial Rips Pelosi Plan For Retreat From Iraq

A scathing Washington Post editorial today excoriates Nancy Pelosi for the pork laden plan she is putting together to force U.S. troops out of Iraq without addressing the consequences of such an act, nor the Constitutional separation of powers issues inherent in her plan.

THE RESTRICTIONS on Iraq war funding drawn up by the House Democratic leadership are exquisitely tailored to bring together the party's leftist and centrist wings. . . . And there are plenty of enticements on the side: more money for wounded veterans, for children's health, for post-Hurricane Katrina reconstruction.

The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi< ignored in her plan for amending President Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.

The editorial goes on to chastise Speaker Pelosi for crafting a plan that impedes the Constitutional powers of the President to serve as Commander and Chief of our Armed Forces:

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. Such a struggle would serve the interests of neither the Democrats nor the country.

Read the whole editorial here.