Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Drudge ^ | Mon Jul 21 2008 | Drudge

Posted on 07/21/2008 9:09:19 AM PDT by edzo4

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-264 next last
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.

1 posted on 07/21/2008 9:09:19 AM PDT by edzo4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: edzo4

Good now more people will see it...


2 posted on 07/21/2008 9:10:00 AM PDT by edzo4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
Really?? I'm shocked....SHOCKED I tell you.....
3 posted on 07/21/2008 9:10:40 AM PDT by homeguard (The U.S. is being ruled by a liberal Media, Judicial, Academic Oligarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4

I think NYT’s view is that McCain should talked more about his plan rather than using the editorial to simply attack Obama


4 posted on 07/21/2008 9:10:49 AM PDT by neutrality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4

Bump for later reading.


5 posted on 07/21/2008 9:11:38 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
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.]


Well, there ya go...
6 posted on 07/21/2008 9:13:54 AM PDT by library user (There's no sandwich like prawn sandwich.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4

NYT is biased against Republicans....WOW, who knew....</sarcasm>


7 posted on 07/21/2008 9:13:55 AM PDT by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (Some days it is not worth chewing through the restraints.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Listening to Rush, on this very subject. Shocked...no. Surprised....nope. Obama is king!


8 posted on 07/21/2008 9:14:00 AM PDT by gathersnomoss (General George Patton had it right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
WHEN Is McPain going to get it?

The LEFT used him. The LEFT doesn't play “fair”.

How idiotic can McPain get till he realizes that FACT?

9 posted on 07/21/2008 9:14:05 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neutrality
I think NYT’s view is that McCain should talked more about his plan rather than using the editorial to simply attack Obama

Sounded like he attacked Obama's position, not Obama. How else do you debate?

10 posted on 07/21/2008 9:14:28 AM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick

REALLY!!!

McPain is as STUPID as they come.

He’s leading the charge of the IMBECILE party.

We are past being the “stupid” party.


11 posted on 07/21/2008 9:15:03 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


12 posted on 07/21/2008 9:15:05 AM PDT by imintrouble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: edzo4

Rush talking about this now.


13 posted on 07/21/2008 9:15:08 AM PDT by CedarDave ("Not Evil, Just Wrong - The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria" http://noteviljustwrong.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: neutrality
The NYT's view is they don't like McCain's world view.

Period.

15 posted on 07/21/2008 9:16:16 AM PDT by Osage Orange (Hillary's heart is blacker than the devil's riding boots...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
You're not supposed to be opposed to the LEFTS Messiah, the Obomination. They will not print anything negative against the Obomination. Didn't you know? The Obomination is god's gift to mankind. They will NOT tolerate and opposing view - to hell with the “Fairness Doctrine”! That only comes out as a bullying phrase when it suits the LEFT.
16 posted on 07/21/2008 9:17:01 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neutrality
I think NYT’s view is that McCain should talked more about his plan

no the NYT's view is that surrender is a plan, winning is not

17 posted on 07/21/2008 9:17:10 AM PDT by edzo4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

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.


18 posted on 07/21/2008 9:17:31 AM PDT by neutrality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: edzo4

No bias there, nawww.

Pfft~

Bias have been proven over and over. UCLA study, a Harvard study and Pew Research Proved medial left-wing bias.


19 posted on 07/21/2008 9:17:50 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
if we don’t win the war, our enemies will

Now you're talking, Senator McCain, keep saying that till November and Obama will be history.

20 posted on 07/21/2008 9:18:14 AM PDT by T. Buzzard Trueblood ("Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it." - Senator Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange

No doubt about that, though until election 2008 they’ve been Mccain cheerleaders.


21 posted on 07/21/2008 9:18:42 AM PDT by neutrality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

UNNECESSARY & OUTRAGEOUS.

22 posted on 07/21/2008 9:19:28 AM PDT by anita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Could we get this in front page news somehow? It is blaring on the front page of Drudge, after all.


23 posted on 07/21/2008 9:19:42 AM PDT by kc8ukw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4

I think the Barack Hussein Obama editorial should be seen as a corporate campaign contribution to his campaign.


24 posted on 07/21/2008 9:21:59 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
Freedom of the press, Ha! That is a myth propagated by the lords and ladyships in Versailles/Washington. It is NOT for common people or for “enemies of the state”.

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.

25 posted on 07/21/2008 9:22:00 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
Good now more people will see it...

Exactly. The New York Times is less relevant everyday. And Drudge is incredibly popular, and loves a scoop.
26 posted on 07/21/2008 9:22:21 AM PDT by kc8ukw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neutrality

The NY Times view is a lie. Please don’t tell me you believe it.


27 posted on 07/21/2008 9:22:29 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: edzo4

They fool only fools.


28 posted on 07/21/2008 9:23:08 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4

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?


29 posted on 07/21/2008 9:23:26 AM PDT by papasmurf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
The N.Y. Times better hope McCain doesn't win. I think he holds grudges.

We may see tanks rolling through Times Square this time.

30 posted on 07/21/2008 9:23:35 AM PDT by McGruff (Either way we're screwed but I'm still voting for McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kc8ukw

You can do it yourself. Type “frontpage” into “topics” list.
And, BTW, I agree with you.


31 posted on 07/21/2008 9:23:48 AM PDT by CedarDave ("Not Evil, Just Wrong - The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria" http://noteviljustwrong.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kc8ukw
Rush mentioned it in the first few minutes...it's out now. Stay tuned.

Rush says that the Drive-Bys are like parents escorting Little Barry on his first trip to summer camp while saving the world at the same time...going overseas on someone else’s money...trying to learn something. RUSH: This trip is pimping George Bush's ride.
32 posted on 07/21/2008 9:23:52 AM PDT by Miss Didi ("Good heavens, woman, this is a war not a garden party!" Dr. Meade, Gone with the Wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: edzo4

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.


33 posted on 07/21/2008 9:24:12 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

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.


34 posted on 07/21/2008 9:24:21 AM PDT by neutrality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
Why does the NYT even PRETEND to be an unbiased journalistic paper??? Come on now.

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!!

35 posted on 07/21/2008 9:24:51 AM PDT by stockstrader (CHANGE--a euphemism for further dividing our country along racial, social and economic lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neutrality

Scratch that, I may have imagined the part about Mccain previously writing NYT editorials


36 posted on 07/21/2008 9:25:21 AM PDT by neutrality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

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.


37 posted on 07/21/2008 9:26:08 AM PDT by RED SOUTH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neutrality
Well, then I have some bridges to sell you.
38 posted on 07/21/2008 9:26:23 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: edzo4

Why is this a surprise? The Slimes long ago stopped even pretending to be objective.


39 posted on 07/21/2008 9:26:23 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (The problem with the rat race is,even if you win you're still a rat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

bookmark


40 posted on 07/21/2008 9:27:14 AM PDT by nutmeg (Imagine Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama... appointing US Supreme Court justices)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Didi
Rush says that the Drive-Bys are like parents escorting Little Barry on his first trip to summer camp..

That made me snort (laugh).

41 posted on 07/21/2008 9:27:24 AM PDT by McGruff (Either way we're screwed but I'm still voting for McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH

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.


42 posted on 07/21/2008 9:28:33 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
How sad is it that I'm not completely confident he would not rewrite and resubmit it?

McCain is the quintessential battered wife.
43 posted on 07/21/2008 9:29:05 AM PDT by According2RecentPollsAirIsGood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
Traitor NYT's Op-Ed Political Censor David Shipley ...

Closer to the truth. Fair and without bias. I think not.

44 posted on 07/21/2008 9:29:27 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece

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.

45 posted on 07/21/2008 9:30:05 AM PDT by JimSEA (just another liberal-bashing fearmonger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4

bookmark for later


46 posted on 07/21/2008 9:30:49 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

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.


47 posted on 07/21/2008 9:31:00 AM PDT by RED SOUTH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

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.


48 posted on 07/21/2008 9:31:12 AM PDT by Miss Didi ("Good heavens, woman, this is a war not a garden party!" Dr. Meade, Gone with the Wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: edzo4

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.


49 posted on 07/21/2008 9:31:58 AM PDT by Finalapproach29er (Democrats still want to Impeach Pres. Bush and/or VP Cheney; keep your eye on these House hearings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
"The New York Obama"
All the Obama, All the Time
---------------------------

Who, US? In the tank for Obama?

50 posted on 07/21/2008 9:32:09 AM PDT by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-264 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson