Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 7/21/2008 7:40:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 7:45:23 AM EST by The_Macallan]

BREAKING ON DRUDGE...

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET

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

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

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

MORE

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

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

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

MORE

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

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

MORE

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

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

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

Developing...




Nope. No media bias here. Never heard of it.


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.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:41:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 7:42:22 AM EST by macman37]
edit: Beat me to it!

Now,

If the Libs get their way and get "balanced" time on radio, the Conservatives should demand equal time EVERYWHERE ELSE.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:44:07 AM EST
Hmmm.

I'm not surprised.


Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:45:05 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:46:51 AM EST
Obama 08
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:47:48 AM EST
Now that Drudge has posted the rebuttal, it now will be seen by more people than the NY Time op-ed would have.

The NY Times is completely irrelevant. It's the Daily KOS of the printed word.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:48:11 AM EST

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:49:17 AM EST
We shouldn't "rebut" Obama, we should "mirror" him instead...

Oh, this is going to be an amazingly fun election cycle.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:51:10 AM EST
The point about mirroring the original piece is a valid one. The first piece was of a certain style and format. The second piece is more of a letter-to-the-editor in that its style is simply a critique of the first piece. The second piece doesn't present the author's own viewpoint and perspective in a clear and concise way; it simply attacks the original piece point by point. I can see how how an editor referrred to the need for mirroring in style, as the second piece wasn't the right style/format for an oped. The second piece could have just been run as a letter-to-the-editor though.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:52:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 7:52:37 AM EST by JonasWright]
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.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:52:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By FMJshooter:


+1
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:53:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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 that criteria set forth before they accepted the Obama piece ,or is it just a convenient excuse for not accepting the McCain piece.

Give me a break.

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:55:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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.

Let me say this clearly...

SO THE FUCK WHAT!? Obama wrote what he wanted, McCain RESPONDED to that. That's the very purpose of editorial pages - to RESPOND to what is written in the newspaper.

NYTimes never put any preconditions on what Obama wrote. So to be FAIR, no preconditions should be put on what McCain wrote.


Get it?

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:55:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:57:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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...
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:58:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By Torf:
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.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:58:58 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 7:59:23 AM EST
Win-Win for McCain. Exposes the media's bias, particularly at the New York Times. Also gets way more exposure for the article on Drudge. Drudge has about 1,000x more readers than the Times.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:02:12 AM EST

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


And I find it both ironic and disgusting that this asshole can't seem to make a good point without going and ruining it by sucking up to the very people he is trying to defeat.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:03:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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."

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:06:43 AM EST
Wow, many Obama voters on ARFCOM today.

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:06:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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.


Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:10:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 8:15:38 AM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
I think by this point we all know that the media can barely talk because Obama's nuts are in their collective mouths....

As such, this sort of thing shouldn't surprise us.

No - it really SHOULD surprise us.

This is America, not the Soviet Union.

The NYTimes is free to write and print anything they want - but with that freedom comes responsibility. If they would simply say, "Hey, we aren't looking to report the news, we just want to report our OPINION of CERTAIN events that supports our political viewpoint", then at least they'd have an aire of honesty.

But they don't. They TRY to call themselves "objective journalists", when in fact they are political parrots who hate America and do everything they can to lie, cheat and destroy American society.

Who published the story spilling secret information about how the US intelligence was tracking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? In WWII there was the saying, "Loose Lips Sink Ships". Today, the New York Times believes "Secrets spilled, troops killed, headlines filled."

Who published the LIE about McCain's "affair" with NO credible sources?

Who published the overblown story of the one-day event at Abu-Ghraib (that was already being dealt with by US Military Justice) in above-the-fold page one stories every single day for WEEKS on end - JUST to advance John Kerry's political campaign?

Who completely IGNORES the stunning improvements in Iraq since the start of the surge last year as if it it's not newsworthy?


New York Times. Not just opinionated, but downright seditious traitors

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:11:11 AM EST
I like Rush's comment on the NYT. We should charge them a surtax because of their massive carbon footprint. All that newspaper, the delivery trucks, etc.

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:11:52 AM EST
10 years ago it wouldn't have been an issue, because no one would have known about it.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:14:14 AM EST
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.

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:14:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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 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.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:15:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By azmjs:
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?
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:17:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 8:20:29 AM EST by Grunteled]

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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.



Yeahhhhh......



The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president.



In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted.




Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.



Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face.



the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.


His long term strategy of opposition to McCain and Bush's policies as laid out in his critiques of their positions is clearly superior to any refutation of those policy points and we certainly could arrive at no conclusion based on such from McCain.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:17:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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 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.

FAIL.

"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."

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:19:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 8:20:54 AM EST by Zaphod]

Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face.


This man obviously has no earthly clue what "Strategic Presence" means.

I'm sure if we had left South Korea, Europe, or Japan, that our "broader security challenges" would have worked themselves out so much better than they did.

Oh, and I can sum up each candidates strategy on Iraq in one word:

McCain: WIN.

Obama: QUIT.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:20:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 8:21:42 AM EST by Frost7]
As usual, the American media are doing their utmost to convince me a totally free, unregulated press is actually NOT such a great idea. It's not like the media don't already censor the truth where necessary to meet their agenda. Might as well be a pro-American one for once.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:21:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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 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.

FAIL.

"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."



There's a whopping big difference between saying what you're going to do and saying what you expect to happen.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:23:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:27:02 AM EST
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"
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:27:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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 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.

FAIL.

"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."
There's a whopping big difference between saying what you're going to do and saying what you expect to happen.




Yeah - and HOW will Obama "end this war"???

Be specific.

Retreat, surrender, give up, run away.... pull troops out no matter what. THAT is his "plan"!??





Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:27:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 8:28:37 AM EST by JonasWright]

Originally Posted By DanielT:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:29:04 AM EST
It's no secret that newspapers are failing. Ad revenues are significantly down, staffing is being cut, lengths of editorials are being cut.

In a few years, there will likely be few (if any) left. Especially when the liberal whacktards who unabashedly promote leftist agendas in direct conflict with true journalistic principles - will succeed in obtaining an anointed socialist master who will outlaw the use of paper pulp for publishing in an effort to further support the bogus global warming agenda.


I will be waiting and laughing away while I let go my illegal, unlicensed cows out of the barn without their methane collection and containment tanks.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:30:20 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:32:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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.


Lessee.... McCain wants to win the war, not merely 'end' it a la Vietnam (and per the Obama "Plan"). McCain doesn't want be tied down by a specific timetable, but set withdrawal based on concrete progress in establishing Iraq as a sovereign nation.

Sounds like a plan to me....

BTW, there is no need to use humungous print to try to make a point. You'll just get greeted by the ban hammer for being rude.

If Obama wants to do some useful work, perhaps he can try to extricate the US from Kosovo.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:36:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 8:53:08 AM EST by GonzoAR15-1]

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:

Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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 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.

FAIL.

"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."



There's a whopping big difference between saying what you're going to do and saying what you expect to happen.


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 candidates' "plans" are -- McCain will stay in Iraq until there is victory by some unspecified metric, and Obama will force a withdrawal from Iraq as soon as some, different, unspecified metric permits him the political cover to do so. McCain wants to win and Obama wants to leave.

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 Iraq. Get it? Heads he wins tails he loses, as long as it includes withdrawal from Iraq. McCain called him out on the fact that getting out is all that seems to matter to O-face, even if its getting out other than as victors.

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:38:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By RichinCM:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
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.


Lessee.... McCain wants to win the war, not merely 'end' it a la Vietnam (and per the Obama "Plan"). McCain doesn't want be tied down by a specific timetable, but set withdrawal based on concrete progress in establishing Iraq as a sovereign nation.

Sounds like a plan to me....

BTW, there is no need to use humungous print to try to make a point. You'll just get greeted by the ban hammer for being rude.

If Obama wants to do some useful work, perhaps he can try to extricate the US from Kosovo.


I don't even like McCain, but to say that his editorial was rejected because it was "vague" is laughable! Like Obama has been specific about ANYTHING in his campaign.

McCain's editorial should have been printed, period.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:40:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dtrain323i:
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"


The NYT was a liberal bastion long before Sulzberger was even born. Consider Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize winning piece about how wonderful it was to live in the Soviet Union in the 1030s. (millions of Ukranians died from deliberate starvation) The NYT still brags about his prize for "objectivity."

AFAIK, the NYT is relevant only as a threat to subvert the Constitution for the sake of promoting Communism.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:41:14 AM EST

"ALL THE NEWS* THAT'S FIT TO PRINT."

* according to what WE say is "news." ~ NYT
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:42:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:


Yeah - and HOW will Obama "end this war"???

Be specific.

Retreat, surrender, give up, run away.... pull troops out no matter what. THAT is his "plan"!??



So Obama will employ the Monty Python gambit: "Run Away!!"
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:45:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 8:45:56 AM EST by azmjs]

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By azmjs:
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.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:53:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:

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.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:56:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By azmjs:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By azmjs:
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?
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 8:57:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 9:00:21 AM EST by NYPatriot]
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?
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 9:00:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By azmjs:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By azmjs:
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."
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 9:05:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By azmjs:
Big fuck-up on McCain's part.


No, big fuck up on the NYT's part...and yours.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top