Here's the pic...
.....
Posted on 07/21/2008 6:15:11 PM PDT by edzo4
The Op-Ed section of The New York Times has decided not to publish an opinion piece submitted by Senator John McCain in response to one published last week by his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, on his plan for Iraq. Mr. Obama is on center stage today with his overseas trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, and Mr. McCain is hitting back from home with attacks that he has been right all along in achieving stability in the war zone through sustained support of President Bush’s troop buildup over this year. On Mr. McCain’s Op-Ed, Matt Drudge posted online what he said was the original submission by Mr. McCain. According to his post, the senator wrote about Mr. 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.” Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, issued this statement: “John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times.” Times officials said that the decision not to publish Mr. McCain’s submission should not be considered a total rejection of the article by the presumptive Republican nominee. Rather, David Shipley, editor of the Op-Ed page, kicked back the original version while offering suggestions for changes and revision.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
their entire excuse is here:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/
Noo Yawk Times? That sleazy, lying outfit bleeding investors’ money while they downsize? No tears here when she goes under.
On the bright side, how many people read the Slimes these days? About 50?
NYT: Not fit to line a bird cage!
What he wrote.
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.
Here's the pic...
.....
Amazing, yet truly predictable, how low the NYTimes continues to sink while clinging to their liberal orthodoxy.
Much obliged.
Probably suggested that McCain insert an endorsement for Obama for President somewhere in the editorial...
LOL,whether you are for or against McCain, you just have to love the horns of the dilemma that the NYT finds themselves between.
If you print it, it makes Obama look like an idiot, and rightfully so because it IS very well written. If they print it, they get gored on that horn.
If they don’t print it, it gets bigger, and Bigger, and BIGGER, it starts getting printed everywhere, people start actually READING it, and Obama looks like an idiot AND the NYT looks like a bunch of REAL idiots, and biased ones at that, and you get impaled on that horn.
If they try to avoid either horn by riding in the middle, they get the worst of ALL worlds, they look like idiots, they look biased, their candidate of choice looks even stupider, more inexperienced and even MORE anti-military, if that is even possible.
Hehe. I LOVE this. This is GREAT!
Watching this, you see the stupidity of liberals who think they have power, just to see them realize they cut off their fingers with the table saw they were trying to build a castle with.
I love it.
Unreal. Could they be any more brazen? I didn't think my opinion of the NYT could go any lower, but here it is.
The Internet media:
This looks like a wardrobe malfunction at the NY Times.... John McCain should tell’em to go pound sand.
to the minders and P/C EDITORS AT Free Republic.... Guess which finger is pointed in your direction?
McCain should take out a full page ad in every liberal rag across the country, including USA Today and the NY Times with the headline: “What the NY Times is Affraid to Let You See”. What should follow is a brief introduction to what the NY Times allowed with Obama’s editorial but it’s refusal to print McCain’s piece. Then McCain’s editorial would follow. At the end of the editorial it would say, “The National Media, Obama’s Propoganda Machine. Let’s Show Them We are Mad as Hell and Not Going to Take It Anymore. Vote McCain”.
Thanks. Nicely written response. I wonder what the NYT didn’t like about it. Other than it makes obama look incompetent that is.
Leave a comment on the NY Times page...if they allow it. I just tried.
I'm not sure where I read it, but I also like 'don't just hope for change, vote for it' (or something like that - probably mangled it).
~~~~~~~
As Rush pointed out today, David Shipley is married to the ever liberal partisan, one-time algore image consultant and perpetual snarky feminazzi
Naomi Wolf
More people are reading the McCain editorial on Drudge, FOX, and Rush’s page then would EVER see it in the NYT.
i think it was in the new mccain ad about gas prices and obama
It was an act on ‘In Kind’ assistance to the Obama Campaign, and a stifling of Free Speech. What the Communists, Castro and Chavez, and the the Iranian hardliners do to their oposition.
The New York Times is a rat warren of Fifth Columnists.
The Red Rag Hag.
Hilarious, they are publishing explanations rather than just print the damn op ed? McCain is the other candidate, this is rather simple NYT.
The press is taking over this country, or at least trying to anyway.
that sounds right - thanks for the reminder :^)
Your post #100 on this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2048826/posts?q=1&;page=51 of a picture of David Shipley reminds me of Peewee Herman.
This idiotic media frenzy is peaking too soon, IMHO, and I don't think the Times or the rest of the ring-kissing MSM have any idea of the level of blowback they're generating. If Bambi does lose, and it looks like about an even bet at the moment, we'll all be called racists for voting against him by the people who blew his campaign for him.
Probably how they get around laws preventing collusion between political campaigns and the media and PACs. They're also always switching organizations that they work for too, often moving from a PAC to a campaign or vice versa. Although they are not supposed to use proprietary knowledge gained in their previous employment, that doesn't say that they don't.
The Communists had Pravda.... The Liberals have the New York Times... same difference.
From the NYT article:
“I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.”
Oh-yeh! We would have no problem with that as long as McCain sucked up to us, big-time.
Maybe if McCain scales Mt. Everest, perhaps the perky one will meet him at base zero for a “series” in depth - base of Everest- interview.
(And in other UPDATED NEWS, Barak H-O , by himself, entered into the Cheesecake Factory toilet area, using 27 pieces of toilet paper, was able to present himself back into the crowd in only 37 seconds! - with one wet hand!)
The Times messed this up big time. McCain can justifiably claim that he’s getting different treatment than Obama and now it’s actually getting more coverage and becoming a bigger story. At the very least, more people read McCain’s column. It also feeds into the growing backlash in the public viewing the media’s coverage towards Obama as biased. Rasmussen says nearly half the country (49%) believes it is and the number is on the rise. It was only 44% last month. Somehow, 14% of the country believes the media is in the tank for McCain.
...we know why, they’re libs and they want Obama to win.
I can not express the outrage I feel, at the gall of NYT suggesting the McCain campaign should be adjusting their point of view with Obama's Shangri-La.
It looks/sounds so much like old Soviet Union propaganda. Damn I hope we do not follow that path...
From what I’ve read, David Shipley and Naomi Wolf are now divorced.
“Don’t hope for more energy, vote for it.”
Only college professors, LOL.
Cablers Cover Rejected McCain Op-Ed (Cable News Outlets cover NY Times rejection ) Videos
Cable News is on the story...See link at post #43.
I wonder if comrade Shipley "kicked back" Obama's version for changes and revisions? Oh, what am I thinking? That would be like Shipley telling Moses to rewrite the Torah.
I've heard of newspapers contacting citizens who write letters to the editor for revisions in order to meet publishing standards, but McCain is a Presidential candidate. Figures that Mr. Shifty is an ex-Clinton operative.
Yeah. It was a classic case of bilateral bait and switch.
She thought she was marrying a man and found out it was a woman.
He thought he was marrying a woman and found out it was a man.
After they both divorced, they realized what a mistake that was, because they both actually wanted what they got in matrimony.
Another pathetic example of only telling part of the story.
We are going to see bias in this election year like no other. The MSM will cross the line in their obvious bias, they’ll do anything to get a liberal Dem elected, but puttng a multicultural idol in will cause zealous actions.
They've taken over one party, and cannot be ignored by the other party. Both the national socialists (NAZIs) and the international socialists (Commies) believed that one of the first steps in taking over a country was to take over the instruments of mass indoctrination. That would include the press, TV and movies. How many anti-communist movies and television episodes have you seen? There are very few, while it is not hard to find anti-American or anti-capitalist movies and TV episodes. Was Leno “asked” to step down because he was insufficiently liberal? I don't know, but I think the question is worth asking.
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.