Speaking in its neocon voice, the Washington Post blasted Nancy Pelosi (and, by extension, the vast majority of American voters) for her plan to end the war in Iraq by no later than August 2008.

The Post attacked the Democrats' plan not because it's too conservative, of course, but because it's designed to end the war:

In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.

... Aggressive oversight is quite different from mandating military steps according to an inflexible timetable conforming to the need to capture votes in Congress or at the 2008 polls. 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.

As I pointed out in my recent Washington Monthly piece, those doomsday scenarios are by no means guaranteed: Iraq might not collapse into "massive civilian casualties" (beyond those already occurring!), nor will Al Qaeda take over, nor will Iraq's neighbors necessarily be sucked in. By trotting out scare talk like that, the Post is simply carrying water for President Bush's stay-the-course strategy or, rather, his recent (and now permanent-looking) escalation.