While the Los Angeles Times editorial page opined that the Bushies' criticism of the Pelosi trip was "off-base," the Times, as well as the Post, has editorialized against the House bill that would tie war funding to a troop-withdrawal timetable. Under the headline, "Gen. Pelosi?" the Times criticized the Democratic House for trying to micromanage the war and tie the military's hands.
Before November 2006, the Dems could take unlimited potshots at Bush. But as Pelosi is discovering, now that she is speaker, there are consequences to her rhetoric.
This is why the lame lament repeated by Lantos -- that Republicans, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also have gone to Syria -- falls flat. Everyone knows that a speaker's words carry more weight than those uttered by rank-and-file members.
More to the point, inside the Beltway, it is bad form for the other party to undercut a sitting president outside American borders.
Sure, some of the criticism from the right has been cheap and low. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was wrong to fault Pelosi, who has excellent manners, for wearing a head scarf.
But the speaker's words bring into question whether she has the courage of her convictions. Pelosi won't be honest about undermining Bush abroad. After bashing Repubs for overspending, Team Pelosi larded the $124 billion supplemental war spending bill with $20 billion in pork.
Tuesday, Pelosi lauded Lantos for his longstanding attempts to meet with the Holocaust-denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- but then she didn't want to sit down with Bush. Later, she changed her mind.
On "60 Minutes" Sunday night, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said, "I'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war." Does anyone believe the same of Nancy Pelosi?