Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies isn't wrong: He did wake up in Bizarro World. That said, the split between the editorial pages of the reliably liberal New York Times and reliably conservative Wall Street Journal over President Obama's bombing campaign in Syria isn't so much a simple "yes/no."
The Times' editorial is about whether Obama has held a suitable public debate on the strikes, whether the strategy is sufficient and a subject near and dear to Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. (@timkaine):
With so much at stake and so much unknown, before he gets any further into this operation, Mr. Obama needs to get Congress's approval and prove that he has fully accounted for the consequences of this foray into Syria.
The Wall Street Journal starts off mostly supportive...
The initial bombing raids on Islamic State targets in Syria Monday night mark a welcome offensive that takes the war to the terrorists who beheaded two Americans and threaten U.S. interests in the Middle East and security at home. President Obama says this will be a long campaign, and it will need to be given the limitations he has put on the military.
Read the full article here