Really, New York Times? Really?

As per the New York Times new editorial today, they seem to be upset about the Libya war.

Only it's not because Obama's bungled alot of things with it; it's because those dastardly Republicans want to define limits on what Obama can do. Oh, and they're afraid that Congress will force the military to retreat from the NATO led operation. Oh noes! No one can do that to Obama!

"One measure, sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney and apparently backed by the House leadership, would allow financing only for American surveillance, search-and-rescue missions, planning and aerial refueling. Republicans say that if it passes, the Pentagon would have to halt drone strikes and attacks on Libyan air defenses.
They claimed it would do minimal damage to the alliance and its campaign because the United States would still be providing some support. But the damage to this country’s credibility, and its leadership of NATO, would be enormous. Any sign that the United States is bailing out could lead others to follow."(Emphasis Mine)

I can't believe they're even trying to play that game, after they spent the better part of 8 years bitching about President Bush's Iraq and Afghanistan wars. So they're just happy now, because the President has a D in front of his name. They at least admit that Obama's made mistakes- but they don't suggest any consequences for him. I doubt they'd give Bush any credence or support. Obama's made a good deal of mistakes with the Libya venture, and the NYT is trying to carry more than just water for him here.

The NYT is beyond partisan.What once was a great paper has dissolved into a hack-fest of Democratic and left wing cheerleaders who can't help themselves.