The LA Times posted an editorial that I found to be most interesting. Among other things, the editorial asked what would have happened if Gen. Eisenhower was limited by Congress as to how many troops he could land at Normandy, or if President Lincoln was told when he had to end the Civil War.

Note to Liberals: This is NOT Fox News! Even though bashing the “Fair and Balanced” news network is a contact sport among liberals, this editorial is from the usually left-leaning LA Times.

Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi?
Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it shouldn’t micromanage the war.
March 12, 2007

AFTER WEEKS OF internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. 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.

It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It’s quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.

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.

Editorial here.

Hmmm… McCain sides with the NY Times below and I quote an editorial from the LA Times: perhaps Gore is right – the sky is falling when the RightPundits agree with these two papers in the same day!