Choices and consequences

AN EDITORIAL TODAY in the New York Times authoritatively calls this week’s Senate resolution on Iraq “a vote of no confidence on the war.” But the editorial then says that the resolution, which calls for a period of “significant transition” in 2006 to complete Iraqi sovereignty, is “meaningless” and “toothless.” At the very least, the Times says, the U.S. should put the onus of securing Iraq on Iraqis themselves, and if they fail to meet that goal, President Bush must show that “the price of equivocation is American withdrawal.”

Elsewhere, USA Today accuses the Food and Drug Administration of capitulating to religious politics by rejecting the over-the-counter sale of the “morning-after pill” despite the drug’s OK from dozens of leading medical groups. The temptation for an editorial writer, though, to drop in a few platitudes when writing about political and religious influence on science can be overwhelming. “In a nation founded on values of religious freedom and personal choice, [the FDA’s decision is] an outrage.”

Both USA Today and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette praise major league baseball for adopting tough penalties that include a lifetime ban for players who test positive for steroids three times. Both editorials say the new rule should restore integrity to professional baseball.

*

Paul Thornton