Skip to comments.NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Posted on 07/21/2008 9:09:19 AM PDT by edzo4
click here to read article
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 thats 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 Malikis new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr Cityactions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obamas 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 thats because he doesnt 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 weve 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 waronly of ending it. But if we dont 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.
Good now more people will see it...
I think NYT’s view is that McCain should talked more about his plan rather than using the editorial to simply attack Obama
Bump for later reading.
NYT is biased against Republicans....WOW, who knew....</sarcasm>
Listening to Rush, on this very subject. Shocked...no. Surprised....nope. Obama is king!
The LEFT used him. The LEFT doesn't play “fair”.
How idiotic can McPain get till he realizes that FACT?
Sounded like he attacked Obama's position, not Obama. How else do you debate?
McPain is as STUPID as they come.
He’s leading the charge of the IMBECILE party.
We are past being the “stupid” party.
I hope the internet is flooded with reprints - who needs the NYT - buncha sissies - who scuttle and run when the going get’s meaty.
Typical rag sheet which passes itself off as nooz these days.
Thank goodness for our electronic freedoms.
Rush talking about this now.
no the NYT's view is that surrender is a plan, winning is not
That’s perfectly fine, I’m just saying the way they see it editorials are supposed to be a bit more substantive. He should have attacked Obama’s position WHILE detailing his own in a bit more detail.
No bias there, nawww.
Bias have been proven over and over. UCLA study, a Harvard study and Pew Research Proved medial left-wing bias.
Now you're talking, Senator McCain, keep saying that till November and Obama will be history.
No doubt about that, though until election 2008 they’ve been Mccain cheerleaders.
UNNECESSARY & OUTRAGEOUS.
Could we get this in front page news somehow? It is blaring on the front page of Drudge, after all.
I think the Barack Hussein Obama editorial should be seen as a corporate campaign contribution to his campaign.
Just try writing a letter to the editor, espousing Conservative values. Three things happen: 1) it doesn't get published; 2) you don't recognize what is published, or 3)they round up some Neanthredal with DNC talking points to rebut you the day yours gets published.
The NY Times view is a lie. Please don’t tell me you believe it.
They fool only fools.
Ya’ know there is a parallel here.
In Iraq, Zawqari cut off the heads of captured Islamic sympathizers as well as others.
Are you paying attention, Senator?
We may see tanks rolling through Times Square this time.
You can do it yourself. Type “frontpage” into “topics” list.
And, BTW, I agree with you.
The NY Times is talking to McCain like a teacher would speak to a student. Rewrite it and we look at it again and decide whether to publish it. So juvenile.
I’m inclined to believe their anti-Mccain bias affected the decision, but it’s probably not a complete fabrication. Mccain has written plenty of NYT editorials, at least one even this year.
Why don't they just be honest and rename it the "DEMOCRATIC PARTY TIMES"???
After all, the DPT is blatantly biased on a regular basis.
That blatant bias was highlighted by the absolutely OUTRAGEOUS "HIT PIECE" on McCain with that female lobbyist a few months ago. That "hit piece" was so unconcionable and shameful that even many liberals (even Gueraldo Rivera winced for one) were embarrassed by it.
That that shameful, disguting and outrageous bias was 'child's play' compared to this blatant censorship and partisanship.
Shameful and UNCONSCIONABLE!!
Scratch that, I may have imagined the part about Mccain previously writing NYT editorials
Mccain is no idiot. His campaign knew it would be rejected and that’s why they chose the NYT. His editorial would get
a barn storm of attention if rejected versus just putting it
in a paper that would print it.
I liked the part where he ties Obama to Bush failures of waving the mission accomplished flag to early.
Why is this a surprise? The Slimes long ago stopped even pretending to be objective.
That made me snort (laugh).
Well, I don’t share your high opinion of the cleverness of the McCain camp. The NY Slimes has not endorsed a Republican since fricken Eisenhower and acts as an arm of the DNC.
Closer to the truth. Fair and without bias. I think not.
As I understand this, the Times will only print an article by McCain if it agrees with Obama. It would also be nice if McCain endorsed Obama and withdrew from the race.
bookmark for later
The point wasn’t about the NYT and whothey endorse. It is that Mccain knew the story of his editorial being rejected versus Obama’s not would make a lot of news , working to get his actual editorial out , on a day that Obama is supposed to dominate
the news with his Messiac world tour this week.
Rush is blasting Little Barry today. Little Barry brags about how he opposed the mission and then goes over there and makes arrogant statements completely ignoring the plans of McCain and the Commander-in-Chief.
GOD’s making the media total crooks in peoples eyes.
This isn’t McCain’s loss, its the NYT’s that has lost the last shard of credibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.