Nyt Rejects Mccain's Editorial; Should 'mirror' Obama - XDTalk Forums

tmorr37 · 07-21-2008, 12:33 PM

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA

Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ETDRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2008®

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

MORE

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

MORE

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.'

MORE

Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

Developing...

The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

FLSTFI Dave · 07-21-2008, 01:57 PM

Not a surprize that McCain can not run an editorial in the NYT.

It is a liberal paper. It openly supports Obama.

Heck it set McCain up earlier this year.

NYT wanted the most liberal Rep as the nominee so they helped McCain beat out the conservatives. The whole time NYT was sitting a negative McCain story. Once it was clear McCain was the Nominee...NYT ran the story against McCain......

That paper is not even good enough to wipe my *** with....

yeahYeah · 07-21-2008, 02:13 PM

this election firmly displays the media bias favoring Obama. McCain was at one point a media darling, now, for every 1 McCain article, there are 10 for Obama. the media is a whore for the messiah. the NYT is only read by elitist, snob leftists, so it's not like this will effect peoples opinions in middle america much.

It's a given - they are in the tank for the left, but it should not surprise most of the country. If any of these rags were for McCain, they left would label them as racists.

**longtalltechsan** · 07-21-2008, 02:16 PM

Where are the liberal koolaid drinkers to spin this one?

AZXD · 07-21-2008, 03:59 PM

Drinking a big gulp

AZXD · 07-21-2008, 04:03 PM

I'm not the least bit surprised.
The Republican party could have stopped all of this unfair intentional bias when Ron Paul was asked if he was electable on national TV ... But they didn't want it to be fair.
So .... Yep, they screwed themselves and all of us in the process.

It's just another reason why, if a Republican looses, the reasons will be that much more obvious

The GOP is lost.

Etta Place · 07-22-2008, 10:35 PM

The reason they didn't run the McCain editorial was because it was all about Obama. It didn't offer anything new or reveal McCain's plan for Iraq. It just attacked Obama's plan. On the other hand, Obama talked about Iraq, not McCain, and offered new information.

yeahYeah · 07-22-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etta Place

The reason they didn't run the McCain editorial was because it was all about Obama. It didn't offer anything new or reveal McCain's plan for Iraq. It just attacked Obama's plan. On the other hand, Obama talked about Iraq, not McCain, and offered new information.

are you sure it was Obama talking?

FLSTFI Dave · 07-23-2008, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etta Place

The reason they didn't run the McCain editorial was because it was all about Obama. It didn't offer anything new or reveal McCain's plan for Iraq. It just attacked Obama's plan. On the other hand, Obama talked about Iraq, not McCain, and offered new information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yeahYeah

are you sure it was Obama talking?

How could Obama possible offer new Information on Iraq, when He had not been there yet??????????????????

Get a clue, it is a left wing paper....Pure Bias

And the McCain piece, pointed out the faults with Obama's plan and what the differances were from His plan.....You know, point an counter point...

AZXD · 07-23-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etta Place

The reason they didn't run the McCain editorial was because it was all about Obama. It didn't offer anything new or reveal McCain's plan for Iraq. It just attacked Obama's plan. On the other hand, Obama talked about Iraq, not McCain, and offered new information.

Gee ... Where did you read the McCain piece ... Got a link ??

07-21-2008, 12:33 PM	#1
tmorr37 XDTalk 100 Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 116	Nyt Rejects Mccain's Editorial; Should 'mirror' Obama NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ETDRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2008® An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles. 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.' MORE In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.' NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.' [Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.] MORE A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft." McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.' MORE Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial. 'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.' Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.' Developing... The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form: In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains. Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted. Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism. The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance. To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future. Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops. No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013. But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama. Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.” The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely. I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies. __________________
	Share

07-21-2008, 01:57 PM	#2
FLSTFI Dave XDTalk 1K Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Ten Mile TN Posts: 1,390	Not a surprize that McCain can not run an editorial in the NYT. It is a liberal paper. It openly supports Obama. Heck it set McCain up earlier this year. NYT wanted the most liberal Rep as the nominee so they helped McCain beat out the conservatives. The whole time NYT was sitting a negative McCain story. Once it was clear McCain was the Nominee...NYT ran the story against McCain...... That paper is not even good enough to wipe my * with.... __________________ XD 40 Service** If you don't Stand behind our Troops, Please feel free to Stand in front of our Troops. One Big Azz Mistake America
	Share

07-21-2008, 02:13 PM	#3
yeahYeah XDTalk 10K Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: NeverNeverLand Posts: 14,977	this election firmly displays the media bias favoring Obama. McCain was at one point a media darling, now, for every 1 McCain article, there are 10 for Obama. the media is a whore for the messiah. the NYT is only read by elitist, snob leftists, so it's not like this will effect peoples opinions in middle america much. It's a given - they are in the tank for the left, but it should not surprise most of the country. If any of these rags were for McCain, they left would label them as racists. __________________ My savior is a carpenter, not a president.
	Share

07-21-2008, 02:16 PM	#4
longtalltechsan XDTalk 4K Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 4,477	Where are the liberal koolaid drinkers to spin this one? __________________ "When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." -- George Washington "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson Gun owner's prayer.... "Oh Lord, if I die, please don't let my wife sell my guns for what I told her they cost."
	Share

07-21-2008, 03:59 PM	#5
AZXD XDTalk 25K Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 28,635	Drinking a big gulp
	Share

07-21-2008, 04:03 PM	#6
AZXD XDTalk 25K Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 28,635	I'm not the least bit surprised. The Republican party could have stopped all of this unfair intentional bias when Ron Paul was asked if he was electable on national TV ... But they didn't want it to be fair. So .... Yep, they screwed themselves and all of us in the process. It's just another reason why, if a Republican looses, the reasons will be that much more obvious The GOP is lost.
	Share

07-22-2008, 10:35 PM	#7
Etta Place XDTalk 15K Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Southern California Posts: 15,593	The reason they didn't run the McCain editorial was because it was all about Obama. It didn't offer anything new or reveal McCain's plan for Iraq. It just attacked Obama's plan. On the other hand, Obama talked about Iraq, not McCain, and offered new information.
	Share

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode