Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Big fuck-up on McCain's part. How difficult is it to write (or have written by his aides) a piece detailing his plan for Iraq? So we have to play by the Left's rules now? It's not bad enough we have THEIR favorite Republican running for our side? The New York Times is a company which is free to do what it likes. If it solicits written details of the two candidates' Iraq policies , there is nothing wrong with only printing the response that actually details an Iraq policy. Some of the people in here don't understand what "mirrors" means, because they never learned about parallel structure when they took English in high school. What the Times clearly wants is for McCain to write a piece detailing his Iraq policy, and they are not only within their rights but also right to deny him space in their newspaper for other purposes. Has anyone suggested that they should be forced by military arms to print the piece?  No?  Then what is your point? You can see from the quote above my post that it was in reference to nonsense about the "left's rules." This isn't a matter of the "left's rules."

NYT is left leaning paper, possibly setting post-submission rules to cater to the submission of the left-leaning candidate.  I don't think he's too far off.

Obama's submission was little more than an attack on Bush and McCain with his plan thrown in between as rebuttal to their policy.  When McCain does the same, it's now unacceptable and not worthy of their print space.

It's so surprising to see Jonas Wright agreeing with the left.  I am simply shocked.  

Quoted: Quoted: Again sir, I ask you:   Did the Gray Lady publish a set of criteria before it would accept candidate submissions?   If not, this is simply an exercise in ex post facto "spot the difference and claim that's the reason" backfill justification.     It is perfectly plain, to anyone reading the NYT what the candidate's "plans" are -- McCain will stay in Iraq until there is victory by some unspecified metrict, and Obama will force a withdrawal from Iraq as soon as some, different, unspecified metric permits. They're now arguing their positions.   The McCain piece is brutal in that it calls Obama to the carpet for writing an editorial that was, in essence, a fraud.   Obama wanted to leave Iraq without even trying the surge, now he wants to say the surge is the reason we can leave.   McCain called in out on teh fact that getting out is all that seems to matter to O-face, even if its getting out other than as victors. I don't know if the Times sent a criteria sheet to the McCain campaign. But I do know that when I was the opinion editor of a COLLEGE paper I wouldn't let my columnists turn in something like that. It wasn't an opinion piece, it was a letter to the editor. It presented nothing except the fact that John McCain disagrees with Barrack Obama on Iraq, and I don't need 25 inches of print space to tell me that. If Obama wrote that the day of his inauguration he would order every swinging Tom, Richard and Frank to run at a double time toward the Kuwaiti border then it would be marked as one of the stupidest things in the annals of the modern world, but at least it would be seen as a plan. Conversely, if John McCain wrote that the day of his inauguration he would order every swinging Tom, Richard and Frank to run at a double time toward the Iranian border then it would be marked as one of the stupidest things in the annals of the modern world, but at least it would be seen as a plan. You don't get column space in the paper of record just to say "nuh-uh." Which is what McCain's column was in its entirety. Yes, Obama's column was 99% nuh-uh, I guess that 1% put him over the edge.

And Obama's column contains exactly no "nuh-uh" about McCain's positions?

I see where you're going, but I might also point out that the NYT gave "first word" to Obama, which virtually assured that any follow up epistle would be, by nature, a rebuttal.

What they ought to do is say:  Look, you guys have X inches each.    First Obama on any topic, with a Response by McCain, and a Rejoinder by Obama;  

Then McCain on any topic, with a response by Obama, and rejoinder by McCain.

I'm sorry, but you are being naive to the point of foolishness.

You DO know who David Shipley is, right?

What he did BEFORE he was playing "approve Obama,"  and "reject McCain" for the times?

Well, do you?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Again sir, I ask you:   Did the Gray Lady publish a set of criteria before it would accept candidate submissions?   If not, this is simply an exercise in ex post facto "spot the difference and claim that's the reason" backfill justification.     It is perfectly plain, to anyone reading the NYT what the candidate's "plans" are -- McCain will stay in Iraq until there is victory by some unspecified metrict, and Obama will force a withdrawal from Iraq as soon as some, different, unspecified metric permits. They're now arguing their positions.   The McCain piece is brutal in that it calls Obama to the carpet for writing an editorial that was, in essence, a fraud.   Obama wanted to leave Iraq without even trying the surge, now he wants to say the surge is the reason we can leave.   McCain called in out on teh fact that getting out is all that seems to matter to O-face, even if its getting out other than as victors. I don't know if the Times sent a criteria sheet to the McCain campaign. But I do know that when I was the opinion editor of a COLLEGE paper I wouldn't let my columnists turn in something like that. It wasn't an opinion piece, it was a letter to the editor. It presented nothing except the fact that John McCain disagrees with Barrack Obama on Iraq, and I don't need 25 inches of print space to tell me that. If Obama wrote that the day of his inauguration he would order every swinging Tom, Richard and Frank to run at a double time toward the Kuwaiti border then it would be marked as one of the stupidest things in the annals of the modern world, but at least it would be seen as a plan. Conversely, if John McCain wrote that the day of his inauguration he would order every swinging Tom, Richard and Frank to run at a double time toward the Iranian border then it would be marked as one of the stupidest things in the annals of the modern world, but at least it would be seen as a plan. You don't get column space in the paper of record just to say "nuh-uh." Which is what McCain's column was in its entirety. Yes, Obama's column was 99% nuh-uh, I guess that 1% put him over the edge. And Obama's column contains exactly no "nuh-uh" about McCain's positions? I see where you're going, but I might also point out that the NYT gave "first word" to Obama, which virtually assured that any follow up epistle would be, by nature, a rebuttal. What they ought to do is say:  Look, you guys have X inches each.    First Obama on any topic, with a Response by McCain, and a Rejoinder by Obama;   Then McCain on any topic, with a response by Obama, and rejoinder by McCain. I'm sorry, but you are being naive to the point of foolishness. You DO know who David Shipley is, right? What he did BEFORE he was playing "approve Obama,"  and "reject McCain" for the times? Well, do you?

I read the OP which included that Shipley was a Clinton dude of some sort. But I'm relatively sure there was no part his job description reading "sticking it to those nefarious Republicans."

Truth be told, I found both columns to be stupid, simplistic and pandering. But the likelihood of detailing an Iraq strategy (I doubt either candidate has a clue, anyway) in a short column is absurd. It's hucksterism of the lowest sort.

But if John McCain's column said in essence:
"Barrack Obama is a mother fucker, I hate him, his plan sucks, he's deluded.
By the way, my plan is to complete the transition of Anbar, followed by provinces X, Y and Z and fully integrate the Iraqi Coast Guard."
Then I would be perfectly content.

Hell, if McCain had IGNORED Obama and spent his space at least SOMEWHAT detailing his strategy his stock would have gone up tremendously. But as it stands, both read like a bad MadLibs.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There's a whopping big difference between saying what you're going to do and saying what you expect to happen. I occasionally have some sympathy for your viewpoints, but you're completely full of crap here. Read Grunteled's response a couple times until you understand why. The fact that Obama's piece was pure shit notwithstanding. "I'm just gunna tell em to pack up and head back to Ma's house." It was a joke, pure and simple. There was no substance, no bread, nothing of any reason. But it was bullshit with at least a definitive statement - I'll bring them home in 16 months. The entirety of McCain's submitted column was, "I disagree with Barrack Obama." Well, neato.

Nice backtrack. But you already showed your hypocritical distortions:

You STARTED out saying that Obama "proposes a plan of action" and McCain doesn't.

THEN you continued to defend what you think Obama would DO by saying "There's a whopping big difference between saying what you're going to do and saying what you expect to happen."

So tell me - where is the "whopping difference" between this:

OBAMA: "We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months."

McCAIN: "...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, ... 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."


So you're wrong - twice. Your adoration of Obama led you to see what wasn't there (like all Obama worshipers do).

Obama doesn't say what he will DO. He says what "CAN" happen.

There is no difference in the depth of specifics between what Obama wrote and what McCain wrote - and there's no difference between each criticizing the other candidate's positions either.

The only difference is that Obama is adored by you and other Leftists in the Media - and McCain is not. And for that, their and your hypocrisy is, again, glaringly layed out for all to see.

I previously established on page 1 that I agree with JonasWright.

Quoted: ..I see where you're going, but I might also point out that the NYT gave "first word" to Obama, which virtually assured that any follow up epistle would be, by nature, a rebuttal. What they ought to do is say:  Look, you guys have X inches each.    First Obama on any topic, with a Response by McCain, and a Rejoinder by Obama;   Then McCain on any topic, with a response by Obama, and rejoinder by McCain. I'm sorry, but you are being naive to the point of foolishness. You DO know who David Shipley is, right? What he did BEFORE he was playing "approve Obama,"  and "reject McCain" for the times? Well, do you?

Who are you to say what a newspaper should or shouldn't do?  So you think they "ought to" give out specs in advance and guarantee equal space to two candidates?  This isn't a public debate forum.  It's a newspaper.  

You have plenty of sources for your preferred news - listen to Rush, watch FOX, whatever.  You don't depend on NYT so why are you using this simple situation in such an inflammatory way?  It was basically a R&R (revise-and-resubmit).

The Washington Times has printed plenty of pieces about the Heller case without guaranteeing equal space to dissenters.

Also, everyone remembers David Shipley was a writer/journalist who also worked for President Clinton so you don't need to harp on that point.

Shipley's NYT piece back in 2004 about opeds

And Now a Word From Op-Ed By DAVID SHIPLEY Published: February 1, 2004 Here at the Op-Ed page, there are certain questions that are as constant as the seasons. How does one get published? Who chooses the articles? Does The Times have an agenda? And, of course, why was my submission rejected? Now that I've been Op-Ed editor for a year, let me try to offer a few answers... Our decisions about which essays to publish aren't governed by a need for editorial variety alone. Among other things, we look for timeliness, ingenuity, strength of argument, freshness of opinion, clear writing and newsworthiness. Personal experiences and first-person narrative can be great, particularly when they're in service to a larger idea. So is humor, when it's funny. Does it help to be famous? Not really. In fact, the bar of acceptance gets nudged a little higher for people who have the means to get their message out in other ways -- elected officials, heads of state, corporate titans. It's incumbent on them to say something forthright and unexpected. Op-Ed real estate is too valuable to be taken up with press releases...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Big fuck-up on McCain's part. How difficult is it to write (or have written by his aides) a piece detailing his plan for Iraq? So we have to play by the Left's rules now? It's not bad enough we have THEIR favorite Republican running for our side? The New York Times is a company which is free to do what it likes. If it solicits written details of the two candidates' Iraq policies , there is nothing wrong with only printing the response that actually details an Iraq policy. Some of the people in here don't understand what "mirrors" means, because they never learned about parallel structure when they took English in high school. What the Times clearly wants is for McCain to write a piece detailing his Iraq policy, and they are not only within their rights but also right to deny him space in their newspaper for other purposes.

Are you attending ASU, U of A, NAU or MCC?  GCC?

Who needs Al Jazeera when we have the NY Times...

The NYT should have printed McCain's rebuttal, by refusing it they have drawn attention to it...The opposite of what they intended. Now more people will read it and see that Obama's desire to remove troops from Iraq is is completely independent of any other goal or of any kind of success there. It was a simple cut & run abandonment strategy.  

Any withdrawal timetable that the Iraqi Government or the current Administration are willing to allude to at this point are based on the success of the Surge Strategy and other efforts that brought the country out of the ongoing sectarian strife that existed while AQI was operating widely in the country when the Surge was launched.

Such statements have nothing to do with any "agreement" or concession to Obama's years-old plan to abandon Iraq on a strict timetable and flee regardless of the consequences. If implelemented when first proposed, his withdrawal would have left us running from a sectarian massacre, abandoning allies, millions of children and women in a pure hell that would have made 80's Lebanon look like a damn fun-house for elementary school kids.

To say that we would have been soaked in blood up to our asses to undertake such a cowardly and chicken-shit retreat in early 2006 as Obama had proposed all along would be a total understatement. The cost to our nation's credibility beyond the giant mistake of invading based on flawed intelligence would have been not only that we are a nation of fuck-ups, but also one of weakness and cowardess that run away and leave women and children to be butchered because made a wrong decision. For Obama to propose to do this and Democrats to latch onto it shows that they short-sightedly put politics above human life to win an election.    

To be honest, I will admit that even I thought the Surge would fail and that Iraq was probably a lost cause. I can admit that I was wrong, why can't Obama and his followers do the same? McCain, if anything by standing with the Surge, risking everything, nearly going under the bus before the primaries even got going has shown more courage of conviction to stand behind what believes is the right course of action than just about any politician I have ever seen. He did all this while his own 18 year old son was serving his tour of duty in Iraq as a Marine...Something he has never publicized a single time in an attempt to gain political advantage in spite of the fact that he and his wife gave their written consent for him to him to join the Marines early at age 17.      

Quoted: It's so surprising to see Jonas Wright agreeing with the left.  I am simply shocked.

He's just mad that Mike Gravel doesn't get to have his piece published in the NYT.

Quoted: Who needs Al Jazeera when we have the NY Times...

I hope that some of the "change" obama is talking about has something to do with ending the nonstop abusive of the First Amendment and illegal influence of an election process via fraud (like rathergate).


Nah... he is part of the problem, and we are all fucked.

(Sure are a lot of Obama loving, McCain hating DU types hanging around ARFCOM lately...)

The MSM bias is getting so pathetic and obvious, even Joe SixPack is starting to notice.

I think this may backfire on them, come November.

NOBODY likes having that shit shoved in their face.  The 30% in the middle that will decide this election are getting pissed.

Quoted: The NYT should have printed McCain's rebuttal, by refusing it they have drawn attention to it...The opposite of what they intended. Now more people will read it and see that Obama's desire to remove troops from Iraq is is completely independent of any other goal or of any kind of success there. It was a simple cut & run abandonment strategy.   Any withdrawal timetable that the Iraqi Government or the current Administration are willing to allude to at this point are based on the success of the Surge Strategy and other efforts to bring the country out of the ongoing sectarian strife that existed while AQI was operating widely in the country. They have nothing to do with any "agreement" or concession to Obama's years old plan to abandon and flee Iraq regardless of the consequences. If implelemented when first proposed would have left us running from a sectarian massacre, abandoning allies, millions of children and women in a pure hell that would have made 80's Lebanon look like a damn fun-house for elementary school kids. To say that we would have been soaked in blood up to our asses to undertake such a cowardly and chicken-shit retreat in early 2006 as Obama has proposed all along would be a total understatement. The cost to our nation's credibility beyond the giant mistake of invading based on flawed intelligence would have been not only that we are a nation of fuck-ups, but also one of weakness and cowardess that run away and leave women and children to be butchered because made the wrong decision. For Obama to propose to do this and Democrats to latch onto it shows that they short-sightedly put politics above human life.     To be honest, I will admit that even I thought the Surge would fail and that Iraq was a lost cause. I can admit that I was wrong, why can't Obama and his followers do the same? McCain, if anything by standing with the Surge, risking everything, nearly going under the bus before the primaries even got going has shown more courage of conviction to stand behind what believes is the right course of action than just about any politician I have ever seen. He did all this while his own 18 year old son was serving his tour of duty in Iraq as a Marine...Something he has never publicized a single time in an attempt to gain political advantage in spite of the fact that he and his wife gave written consent for him to him to Join the Marines early at age 17.

Very well said.

Quoted: Quoted: Oh, this is going to be an amazingly fun election cycle.   You ain't kiddin'. They're not even making an ATTEMPT to appear unbiased.

If McCain pulls this one out (and I think he will) the big 3 will collectively shit themselves and drink a Jim Jones cocktail on TV.

Quoted: The NYT should have printed McCain's rebuttal, by refusing it they have drawn attention to it...The opposite of what they intended. Now more people will read it and see that Obama's desire to remove troops from Iraq is is completely independent of any other goal or of any kind of success there. It was a simple cut & run abandonment strategy.   Any withdrawal timetable that the Iraqi Government or the current Administration are willing to allude to at this point are based on the success of the Surge Strategy and other efforts that brought the country out of the ongoing sectarian strife that existed while AQI was operating widely in the country when the Surge was launched. Such statements have nothing to do with any "agreement" or concession to Obama's years-old plan to abandon Iraq on a strict timetable and flee regardless of the consequences. If implelemented when first proposed, his withdrawal would have left us running from a sectarian massacre, abandoning allies, millions of children and women in a pure hell that would have made 80's Lebanon look like a damn fun-house for elementary school kids. To say that we would have been soaked in blood up to our asses to undertake such a cowardly and chicken-shit retreat in early 2006 as Obama had proposed all along would be a total understatement. The cost to our nation's credibility beyond the giant mistake of invading based on flawed intelligence would have been not only that we are a nation of fuck-ups, but also one of weakness and cowardess that run away and leave women and children to be butchered because made a wrong decision. For Obama to propose to do this and Democrats to latch onto it shows that they short-sightedly put politics above human life to win an election.     To be honest, I will admit that even I thought the Surge would fail and that Iraq was probably a lost cause. I can admit that I was wrong, why can't Obama and his followers do the same? McCain, if anything by standing with the Surge, risking everything, nearly going under the bus before the primaries even got going has shown more courage of conviction to stand behind what believes is the right course of action than just about any politician I have ever seen. He did all this while his own 18 year old son was serving his tour of duty in Iraq as a Marine...Something he has never publicized a single time in an attempt to gain political advantage in spite of the fact that he and his wife gave their written consent for him to him to join the Marines early at age 17.

Excellent work!

Huzzah!

Quoted: Big fuck-up on McCain's part. How difficult is it to write (or have written by his aides) a piece detailing his plan for Iraq? Years of vague, open-ended "victory" rhetoric hasn't made the current president very popular, there is no reason to think McCain would profit from making the same mistake.

Big win for McCain. Now that the NYT rejected it, someone may actually read it.

Quoted: To be honest, I will admit that even I thought the Surge would fail and that Iraq was probably a lost cause. I can admit that I was wrong, why can't Obama and his followers do the same? McCain, if anything by standing with the Surge, risking everything, nearly going under the bus before the primaries even got going has shown more courage of conviction to stand behind what believes is the right course of action than just about any politician I have ever seen. He did all this while his own 18 year old son was serving his tour of duty in Iraq as a Marine...Something he has never publicized a single time in an attempt to gain political advantage in spite of the fact that he and his wife gave their written consent for him to him to join the Marines early at age 17.

Bears repeating.

Quoted: Who needs Al Jazeera when we have the NY Times...

Too true.

Quoted: The New York Times is a company which is free to do what it likes. If it solicits written details of the two candidates' Iraq policies , there is nothing wrong with only printing the response that actually details an Iraq policy. Some of the people in here don't understand what "mirrors" means, because they never learned about parallel structure when they took English in high school. What the Times clearly wants is for McCain to write a piece detailing his Iraq policy, and they are not only within their rights but also right to deny him space in their newspaper for other purposes.

First off, there is no indication that the NYT "solicited" anything. Additionally, I find it rediculous to assert that when two candidates submit something to a newspaper as part of their campaign, that it is the newspaper's business to decide which is better written than the other. That's MY decision. It's the newspaper's job to print the two submissions and let their readers decide for themselves.

Yes, the NYT can do whatever it wants, but in doing so it fails to even remotely comply with the standards of objectivity that media sources are SUPPOSED to and EXPECTED to adhere to as part of the professional execution of their duties.

This is MSM leftist bias, plain and simple.

I don't know what the big fuss might be.

If you ever thought that the New York Times and its reporters were balanced, objective and fair, you had a missupposition.

Why would you ever expect a former political appointee, former politician or an activist of any political stripe to be a fair, even handed reporter, editor, newscaster or moderator?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Has anyone suggested that they should be forced by military arms to print the piece?  No?  Then what is your point? You can see from the quote above my post that it was in reference to nonsense about the "left's rules." This isn't a matter of the "left's rules."

The hell it isn't.

The NYT is basically saying to McCain, "Until you give us something that WE think meets Obama's work (and we're not going to give you any other criteria than "mirroring"), we're not going to print your stuff."

As such, you are advocating that we have to convince the mouthpiece of the other side (i.e. - the NYT) that we are even worth printing, let alone that our ideas are any good.

THAT doesn't sound a bit SLANTED to you?

Let's see, just what is the value of the fairly obvious backing of Obama by a newspaper full of lying "journalists" that has a declining readership.  

This is a big win for McCain from a propaganda view.

Quoted: Say it ain't so... the leftist media no longer loves their outspoken "maverick" Senator from Arizona?!?! All of a sudden he is just another war mongering Republican who needs to be beaten at all costs?!?!?! Will wonders never cease?

yeah no shit, we didn't see that one coming.

Quoted: There is no difference in the depth of specifics between what Obama wrote and what McCain wrote

And more to the point, SO WHAT IF THERE IS?

Who the FUCK is the NYT to tell the electorate, "Sorry, but this item written by one of the Presidential candidates isn't good enough for you to read."

Once again, the MSM takes it upon itself to think for us instead of just printing what the candidates said and allowing US to decide!

Quoted: Quoted: Who needs Al Jazeera when we have the NY Times... I hope that some of the "change" obama is talking about has something to do with ending the nonstop abusive of the First Amendment and illegal influence of an election process via fraud (like rathergate).

Why would he do that? All that stuff HELPS him.

Quoted: Quoted: To be honest, I will admit that even I thought the Surge would fail and that Iraq was probably a lost cause. I can admit that I was wrong, why can't Obama and his followers do the same? McCain, if anything by standing with the Surge, risking everything, nearly going under the bus before the primaries even got going has shown more courage of conviction to stand behind what believes is the right course of action than just about any politician I have ever seen. He did all this while his own 18 year old son was serving his tour of duty in Iraq as a Marine...Something he has never publicized a single time in an attempt to gain political advantage in spite of the fact that he and his wife gave their written consent for him to him to join the Marines early at age 17. Bears repeating.

Yep. McCain and Bush both deserve considerable credit for the Surge.

There is no way Obama can admit that Bush/McCain were right.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Oh, this is going to be an amazingly fun election cycle.   You ain't kiddin'. They're not even making an ATTEMPT to appear unbiased. If McCain pulls this one out (and I think he will) the big 3 will collectively shit themselves and drink a Jim Jones cocktail on TV.

And I'll be there watching, cheering them on!

Quoted: Let's see, just what is the value of the fairly obvious backing of Obama by a newspaper full of lying "journalists" that has a declining readership.   This is a big win for McCain from a propaganda view.

Yep. It will gain much more attention now. And the controversy shows that the MSM is in the tank for Obama, something most people believed before, but this strongly reinforces that view.

Quoted: Wow, many Obama voters on ARFCOM today.

They won't be loving Obama so much when they are restricted to .22s and magazines with less than 7 round capacities.  Seen it all before in 1992.  Seeing it again now.  Same insanity.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who needs Al Jazeera when we have the NY Times... I hope that some of the "change" obama is talking about has something to do with ending the nonstop abusive of the First Amendment and illegal influence of an election process via fraud (like rathergate). Why would he do that? All that stuff HELPS him.

He's a Democrat from Chicago . . . of course he's going to bring in a breath of fresh air . . .

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who needs Al Jazeera when we have the NY Times... I hope that some of the "change" obama is talking about has something to do with ending the nonstop abusive of the First Amendment and illegal influence of an election process via fraud (like rathergate). Why would he do that? All that stuff HELPS him. He's a Democrat from Chicago . . . of course he's going to bring in a breath of fresh air . . .

God, just think of how much fun it will be when all the scumbag corrupt Rezko-like Chicago folks pile into an administration on his coat tails.   Talk about ethics.   It will make the "old by" stuff from Arkansas look like a truth serum convention.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: To be honest, I will admit that even I thought the Surge would fail and that Iraq was probably a lost cause. I can admit that I was wrong, why can't Obama and his followers do the same? McCain, if anything by standing with the Surge, risking everything, nearly going under the bus before the primaries even got going has shown more courage of conviction to stand behind what believes is the right course of action than just about any politician I have ever seen. He did all this while his own 18 year old son was serving his tour of duty in Iraq as a Marine...Something he has never publicized a single time in an attempt to gain political advantage in spite of the fact that he and his wife gave their written consent for him to him to join the Marines early at age 17. Bears repeating. Yep. McCain and Bush both deserve considerable credit for the Surge. There is no way Obama can admit that Bush/McCain were right.

Any credit that Bush gets for the Surge is utterly and completely erased by his team's horrific mismanagement and bungling of post invasion Iraq to an extent that it nearly cost the entire thing. McCain was a massive critic of this as well, but Dubya didn't want to hear it until the shit got hip-deep after a couple of years with no progress. If Obama becomes POTUS the blame for that and any negative impact on our way of life will lie squarely on Dubya. Electing McCain just makes right what should have happened to the GOP primaries in 2000, Bush should never have been President in the first place.

Dubya, Bremer and Rumsfeld cost us dearly and one wonders if they even so much as Googled "The Arab World" before they tried to invade and then manage Iraq. Someone who had done a Google search would have had a better idea how things get done in that part of the world. Disbanding the military and handing control of everything over to the Shiia opened the door to Iran. Failure to use intelligence and operatives to identify, make contact with and capitalize on relationships with people who would or could be persuaded to cooperate with us among the Sunni in the immediate aftermath of the invasion opened the door for Al Queda.

This says nothing  for the redneck rampage at Abu Ghraib that could have been prevented by the Pentagon following basic common sense in a modern world by making sure that pure idiots from Deliverance USA didn't have unsupervised contact with Iraqi POWs and were not allowed to bring camera devices of any kind within prison walls.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There's a whopping big difference between saying what you're going to do and saying what you expect to happen. I occasionally have some sympathy for your viewpoints, but you're completely full of crap here. Read Grunteled's response a couple times until you understand why. The fact that Obama's piece was pure shit notwithstanding. "I'm just gunna tell em to pack up and head back to Ma's house." It was a joke, pure and simple. There was no substance, no bread, nothing of any reason. But it was bullshit with at least a definitive statement - I'll bring them home in 16 months. The entirety of McCain's submitted column was, "I disagree with Barrack Obama." Well, neato. Nice backtrack. But you already showed your hypocritical distortions: You STARTED out saying that Obama "proposes a plan of action" and McCain doesn't. THEN you continued to defend what you think Obama would DO by saying "There's a whopping big difference between saying what you're going to do and saying what you expect to happen." So tell me - where is the "whopping difference" between this: OBAMA: "We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months." Translation: I'm going to remove U.S. forces in 16 months. McCAIN: "...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, ... 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." Translation: When a vague set of criteria has been met we will begin to redeploy. We expect to be done in 2013. So you're wrong - twice. Your adoration of Obama led you to see what wasn't there (like all Obama worshipers do). Obama doesn't say what he will DO. He says what "CAN" happen. There is no difference in the depth of specifics between what Obama wrote and what McCain wrote - and there's no difference between each criticizing the other candidate's positions either. The only difference is that Obama is adored by you and other Leftists in the Media - and McCain is not. And for that, their and your hypocrisy is, again, glaringly layed out for all to see.

Because I don't default to OHNOESOMGWTFBBQSAUCE!!1!11 I'm automatically voting for Obama.

Quoted: Any credit that Bush gets for the Surge is utterly and completely erased by his team's horrific mismanagement and bungling of post invasion Iraq to an extent that it nearly cost the entire thing. McCain was a massive critic of this as well, but Dubya didn't want to hear it until the shit got hip-deep after a couple of years with no progress. If Obama becomes POTUS the blame for that and any negative impact on our way of life will lie squarely on Dubya. Electing McCain just makes right what should have happened to the GOP primaries in 2000, Bush should never have been President in the first place. Dubya, Bremer and Rumsfeld cost us dearly and one wonders if they even so much as Googled "The Arab World" before they tried to invade and then manage Iraq. Someone who had done a Google search would have had a better idea how things get done in that part of the world. Disbanding the military and handing control of everything over to the Shiia opened the door to Iran. Failure to use intelligence and operatives to identify, make contact with and capitalize on relationships with people who would or could cooperate with us in the immediate aftermath of the invasion opened the door for Al Queda.

First of all, Monday Morning QBing is pretty damn easy in retrospect, isn't it?
Second, the fact that things weren't easy or perfectly executed in Iraq doesn't mean it was bungled or that the planners were incompetent.  You can be perfectly competent, do your due dilligence and still be wrong.  It happens all the time.  As a matter of fact, we have not yet fought a war in which things didn't go badly, sometimes disastrously wrong at several junctures.  You've heard the saying "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy?"  Well, it exists because it's usually true.
And third, Bush has been a better president for gun owners than McCain would have been, no question about it.  Your rant is full of unwarranted assumptions not backed by any sort of evidence.

Quoted: Quoted: Any credit that Bush gets for the Surge is utterly and completely erased by his team's horrific mismanagement and bungling of post invasion Iraq to an extent that it nearly cost the entire thing. McCain was a massive critic of this as well, but Dubya didn't want to hear it until the shit got hip-deep after a couple of years with no progress. If Obama becomes POTUS the blame for that and any negative impact on our way of life will lie squarely on Dubya. Electing McCain just makes right what should have happened to the GOP primaries in 2000, Bush should never have been President in the first place. Dubya, Bremer and Rumsfeld cost us dearly and one wonders if they even so much as Googled "The Arab World" before they tried to invade and then manage Iraq. Someone who had done a Google search would have had a better idea how things get done in that part of the world. Disbanding the military and handing control of everything over to the Shiia opened the door to Iran. Failure to use intelligence and operatives to identify, make contact with and capitalize on relationships with people who would or could cooperate with us in the immediate aftermath of the invasion opened the door for Al Queda.       First of all, Monday Morning QBing is pretty damn easy in retrospect, isn't it? Second, the fact that things weren't easy or perfectly executed in Iraq doesn't mean it was bungled or that the planners were incompetent.  You can be perfectly competent, do your due dilligence and still be wrong.  It happens all the time.  As a matter of fact, we have not yet fought a war in which things didn't go badly, sometimes disastrously wrong at several junctures.  You've heard the saying "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy?"  Well, it exists because it's usually true. And third, Bush has been a better president for gun owners than McCain would have been, no question about it.  Your rant is full of unwarranted assumptions not backed by any sort of evidence.

I don't think the Brief filed on behalf of the Administration in the Heller case supports your conclusion that Bush was better on the 2A than McCain. A POTUS that doesn't read or bother to understand what is Solicitor General is filing in such an important case should not be in office. McCain signed the brief that was filed on behalf of the Senate GOP along with Cheney which supported Heller completely.

I understand setbacks and stumbling blocks when something as complex as taking over another nation is undertaken. The fact is that the post invasion was not planned and then when it was placed in the hands of Bremer who really acted in a way that created an organized Sunni/Baathist insurgency.

I won't go into a back and forth, but disbanding the totality of the Iraqi military was 100% double stupid. I will explain this point...In Iraq, being in the military was an occupation. We could have saved money over what we have spent to date by tripling or quadrupling the pay of Iraqi soldiers and gathering cooperative officers in leadership roles over them while the military was more ethnically integrated. Instead, we just kicked out hundreds of thousands of soldiers/police and their leadership at the behest of the Shiia (cutting off steady incomes) and then left ammunition stockpiles and weapons largely unattended. Now unemployed and cut out of the nation, they did what came natural...They became a Baathist insurgency that set IED's anyplace they felt like setting them. The decisions that led to that led to thousands of uncessary American casualties. The first rule to remember in the ME is that everyone has a price. The second thing to know about Iraq is: Al Queda's checking account doesn't have nearly as much money in it as ours does.

If we started paying these guys more and made sure that they got orders from an Iraqi, they would have bought things, added onto homes, had kids, married more wives and done stuff because they saw a future in it. Instead, we tossed out some of the only professionals in the country that were employed before we invaded...The ones that had most of the basic skill in killing. We couldn't possibly hope to secure the country without their cooperation given the number of troops in place. This allowed the Iranians to undertake a massive infiltration into Shiia areas of the country as well.

Ironically, AQ actually helped us by going apeshit and killing so many Sunnis in cold blood that they drove us into a relationship with them for our own mutual interest as soon as we started looking for people to cooperate...In exchange for??...Money and a way of life. They initially cooperated with AQ in the partially mistaken notion that the US would flee in the face of casualties. The truth there is that we almost did and a lot of us still are...After all, Obama is a viable candidate for President now and has vast support from the MSM media-milk-fed masses.    

To say that some of the things that happened post-invasion could not have been avoided or were part of a "normal" war are bullshit excuse-making. Things were made many, many times more difficult than necessary by simple cultural ignorance, stupidity arrogance and repeated fucking-up. The Surge corrected a lot of that thank God before it was too late.  

Quoted: I won't go into a back and forth, but disbanding the military was 100% double stupid. I will explain this point...In Iraq, being in the military was an occupation. We could have saved money by tripling or quadrupling the pay of Iraqi soldiers and gathering cooperative officers in leadership roles over them while the military was more ethnically integrated. Instead, we just kicked out hundreds of thousands of soldiers/police and their leadership at the behest of the Shiia (cutting off steady incomes) and then left ammunition stockpiles and weapons largely unattended. Now unemployed and cut out of the nation, they did what came natural...They became a Baathist insurgency that set IED's anyplace they felt like setting them. The decisions that led to that led to thousands of uncessary American casualties. The first rule to remember in the ME is that everyone has a price. The second thing to know about Iraq is: Al Queda's checking account doesn't have nearly as much money in it as ours does. If we started paying these guys more and made sure that they got orders from an Iraqi, they would have bought things, added onto homes, had kids, married more wives and done stuff because they saw a future in it. Instead, we tossed out some of the only professionals in the country that were employed before we invaded...The ones that had most of the basic skill in killing. We couldn't possibly hope to secure the country without their cooperation given the number of troops in place. This allowed the Iranians to undertake a massive infiltration into Shiia areas of the country as well. Ironically, AQ actually helped us by going apeshit and killing so many Sunnis in cold blood that they drove us into a relationship with them for our own mutual interest as soon as we started looking for people to cooperate...In exchange for??...Money and a way of life.   To say that some of the things that happened post-invasion could not have been avoided or were part of a "normal" war are bullshit excuse-making. Things were made many, many times more difficult than necessary by simple cultural ignorance, stupidity arrogance and repeated fucking-up. The Surge corrected a lot of that thank God before it was too late.

The thing is, as I said, it's easy to say NOW that disbanding the military was a mistake, but what if they had NOT disbanded them and the military had become a hive of support for insurgency?  At this point, people would be saying "not disbanding the military was a horrible mistake."  It's Monday Morning QBing, assuming that if YOUR plan had been implemented it would have worked better.  

Quoted: Let me say this clearly - ahem The McCain piece was rejected because it was not a column detailing McCain's plan for Iraq. It was a response to Obama's column that detailed his plan on Iraq. ETA - beat to it by Masha.

Since when was an "Op Ed" not allowed to offer criticism of positions endorsed by the editor?

Is that not the very definition of "Op Ed"?

The "editor" has made it clear that he prefers Obama's piece -he wants McCain to "mirror" it.

Quoted: Quoted: I won't go into a back and forth, but disbanding the military was 100% double stupid. I will explain this point...In Iraq, being in the military was an occupation. We could have saved money by tripling or quadrupling the pay of Iraqi soldiers and gathering cooperative officers in leadership roles over them while the military was more ethnically integrated. Instead, we just kicked out hundreds of thousands of soldiers/police and their leadership at the behest of the Shiia (cutting off steady incomes) and then left ammunition stockpiles and weapons largely unattended. Now unemployed and cut out of the nation, they did what came natural...They became a Baathist insurgency that set IED's anyplace they felt like setting them. The decisions that led to that led to thousands of uncessary American casualties. The first rule to remember in the ME is that everyone has a price. The second thing to know about Iraq is: Al Queda's checking account doesn't have nearly as much money in it as ours does. If we started paying these guys more and made sure that they got orders from an Iraqi, they would have bought things, added onto homes, had kids, married more wives and done stuff because they saw a future in it. Instead, we tossed out some of the only professionals in the country that were employed before we invaded...The ones that had most of the basic skill in killing. We couldn't possibly hope to secure the country without their cooperation given the number of troops in place. This allowed the Iranians to undertake a massive infiltration into Shiia areas of the country as well. Ironically, AQ actually helped us by going apeshit and killing so many Sunnis in cold blood that they drove us into a relationship with them for our own mutual interest as soon as we started looking for people to cooperate...In exchange for??...Money and a way of life.   To say that some of the things that happened post-invasion could not have been avoided or were part of a "normal" war are bullshit excuse-making. Things were made many, many times more difficult than necessary by simple cultural ignorance, stupidity arrogance and repeated fucking-up. The Surge corrected a lot of that thank God before it was too late.   The thing is, as I said, it's easy to say NOW that disbanding the military was a mistake, but what if they had NOT disbanded them and the military had become a hive of support for insurgency?  At this point, people would be saying "not disbanding the military was a horrible mistake."  It's Monday Morning QBing, assuming that if YOUR plan had been implemented it would have worked better.

Well it so happens that when that decision was made, I was sitting with my father saying a collective "oh shit, here we go". Sure enough, things went almost exactly the way he and I thought they would until the Surge corrected much of it...Yanking a tattered victory from the jaws of defeat and humiliation...Years and thousands of lives were lost as a result of blowing a few key decisions in Iraq.  

Quoted: The thing is, as I said, it's easy to say NOW that disbanding the military was a mistake, but what if they had NOT disbanded them and the military had become a hive of support for insurgency?  At this point, people would be saying "not disbanding the military was a horrible mistake."  It's Monday Morning QBing, assuming that if YOUR plan had been implemented it would have worked better.

What if he's not Monday Morning QBing, though, and these are thoughts he'd held since before they were proven or disproven? (Maybe not, but maybe so. What say you, MACGI98Z28?) What if they're not based on examination of recently past events, but on sound logic backed up by history well before the fact?

Lord knows it's been suggesting I'm Monday Morning QBing when I suggest we should've gone with Powell's plan over Rumsfeld's, or that Bush was screwing around when he should've been more proactive. But I was saying that before, I said it at the time, and I still say it after. I was promoting the idea of a surge months before it even came up in governmental or media discussion, and wrote the Prez several letters explaining why it'd be a good idea at the time just on the off chance they might get read. I get sick of being told hindsight is 20/20, because my opinion after the fact is unchanged from what it was before. It was suggested Colin Powell himself was Monday Morning QBing in early '06 when he was arguing that troop levels were insufficient, even though he'd been saying it from the very beginning.

Just something to consider.

Quoted: I won't go into a back and forth, but disbanding the military was 100% double stupid.

That is a myth perpetuated by those who were not there at the time.
It is 20/20 hindsight of the worst type; it assumes that the opposite of a bad situation is automatically a GOOD situation. Unfortunately, in war, that is not always the case.
More often than not, what we are faced with is the choice of several decisions -all of which are bad.

When the "Fallujah Brigade" was formed from remnants of the Old Iraqi Army, much of the country erupted into a chorus of "Oh no! They're giving power back to the Baathists!".
Najaf, the Sadrists, etc.

Saying it was 100% stupid merely demonstrates a lack depth on the subject.

Well that's real one sided of them!

Quoted: Pinch Sulzburger has been a colossal fuckup at the NYT. He has single handedly destroyed the reputation and the relevence of that newspaper. A lady who used to host a radio show in chicago called the NYT the "Liberal Death Star"

Terri O'Brien - She was great!  I used to listen to her on WLS, but I don't think she is around anymore.

Quoted: Quoted: I won't go into a back and forth, but disbanding the military was 100% double stupid. That is a myth perpetuated by those who were not there at the time. It is 20/20 hindsight of the worst type; it assumes that the opposite of a bad situation is automatically a GOOD situation. Unfortunately, in war, that is not always the case. More often than not, what we are faced with is the choice of several decisions -all of which are bad. When the "Fallujah Brigade" was formed from remnants of the Old Iraqi Army, much of the country erupted into a chorus of "Oh no! They're giving power back to the Baathists!". Najaf, the Sadrists, etc. Saying it was 100% stupid merely demonstrates a lack depth on the subject.

You should start a thread on this topic.  I always thought that disbanding the Iraqi Army was a big mistake that we made, even at the time it was announced, but I'm not married to the idea and would like to hear more about it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let me say this clearly - ahem The McCain piece was rejected because it was not a column detailing McCain's plan for Iraq. It was a response to Obama's column that detailed his plan on Iraq. ETA - beat to it by Masha. Was Obama's piece a critisism of McCains or Bushs?  Please post it so we can find criticisms... Sure it was a criticism.   Just as much as McCains. www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Calling each other out by name, and criticizing each other.   THat's called  campaigning.   The NYT just is caught up in unicorns and "the change we can change for the change we hold dear." The difference between Obama's and McCain's editorial is perfectly clear - one proposes a plan timetable of action, the other does not. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war. As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months.

Quoted: Quoted: The thing is, as I said, it's easy to say NOW that disbanding the military was a mistake, but what if they had NOT disbanded them and the military had become a hive of support for insurgency?  At this point, people would be saying "not disbanding the military was a horrible mistake."  It's Monday Morning QBing, assuming that if YOUR plan had been implemented it would have worked better.   What if he's not Monday Morning QBing, though, and these are thoughts he'd held since before they were proven or disproven? (Maybe not, but maybe so. What say you, MACGI98Z28?) What if they're not based on examination of recently past events, but on sound logic backed up by history well before the fact? Lord knows it's been suggesting I'm Monday Morning QBing when I suggest we should've gone with Powell's plan over Rumsfeld's, or that Bush was screwing around when he should've been more proactive. But I was saying that before, I said it at the time, and I still say it after. I was promoting the idea of a surge months before it even came up in governmental or media discussion, and wrote the Prez several letters explaining why it'd be a good idea at the time just on the off chance they might get read. I get sick of being told hindsight is 20/20, because my opinion after the fact is unchanged from what it was before. It was suggested Colin Powell himself was Monday Morning QBing in early '06 when he was arguing that troop levels were insufficient, even though he'd been saying it from the very beginning. Just something to consider.

You  seem to have confused your metaphors.  Saying that something is needed now or should be changed when you are not in control is "back seat driving."  Saying things should have been done differently is "monday morning quarterbacking."  Saying "I told you so" after the fact is just petty posturing.

Quoted: Wow, many Obama voters on ARFCOM today.

They're Obama voters because they know the difference between an op-ed and a LTE?

The NYT are idiots.  Now McCain's piece will be a hell of lot more read than if they had just quietly published it.

Dickheads.

Quoted: What if he's not Monday Morning QBing, though, and these are thoughts he'd held since before they were proven or disproven?

You're ignoring the possibility that doing it his way would have been disastrous.

I used to get the NY Times fairly regularly. Not because I agree with their politics, but because there were many other articles of interest.

I have not spent a dime on that rag for about three years, once I realized they were downright treasonous.