McCain can't Respond to Obama in NY Times...

[KMAN]

Go figure.... The NY Times not letting a Republican (which they endorsed by the way) have equal time as Obama... Sad to have to win an election this way. I guess they are afraid of McCain getting his message out. But why would you be afraid when you have Barrack "The Messiah" Obama running??????


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 DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2008®

 

[Abelian Sea]

USMB Rules & Regulations

Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material.


A good way to post an article for discussion is to quote the "hook" of the article (in this case, perhaps the first three paragraphs) and provide a link to the place from which you copied the article.

Please edit your post.

 

[Jeepers]

"...But why would you be afraid when you have Barrack "The Messiah" Obama running??????..."

Jealousy is so unbecomming...

 

[Ravi]

Kman, does this mean you support the Fairness Doctrine?

 

[Shogun]

MCCAIN's editorial.

and, since this wasn't published, it should not trigger our local policy on only using bits and pieces of the piece.


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.



DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2008®




poor form on the part of NYT. They should have let the man write what he wanted to express. If I were the Mccain camp, id go strait to the NYPost with it in full.

 

[52ndStreet]

The Times may be afraid of exposing the fact that Sen. Obama's strategy, of cut and run, was wrong, and that Sen. John McCain agreement with the surge was
ultimately correct. Also the times editorial staff may have been against the surge also.

 

[Ravi]

From kman's link:

'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.'

This seems perfectly legitimate reasoning to me, especially reading McCain's, which is nothing but a hit piece on Obama.

But of course, since it is the New York Times this is going to rankle the right wing forever.

 

[sealybobo]

Go figure.... The NY Times not letting a Republican (which they endorsed by the way) have equal time as Obama... Sad to have to win an election this way. I guess they are afraid of McCain getting his message out. But why would you be afraid when you have Barrack "The Messiah" Obama running??????


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.'

You can't have it both ways. If Fox News can be bias, so can this paper.

 

[Charles_Main]

You can't have it both ways. If Fox News can be bias, so can this paper.

Wow, and you once again show how foolish you are by applauding media bias, in any form.

 

[Wow]

The NYT discriminates against McCain.
Discrimination, racism, sexism is no surprise, these are the basic principals of Liberalism.

 

[sealybobo]

Wow, and you once again show how foolish you are by applauding media bias, in any form.

You try to pretend to be better than the neo cons and then in November you'll end up voting for McCain. Oh, say you aren't, sure, but we all know you will. Very clever Karl Rove.

 

[Shogun]

From kman's link:


This seems perfectly legitimate reasoning to me, especially reading McCain's, which is nothing but a hit piece on Obama.

But of course, since it is the New York Times this is going to rankle the right wing forever.

Why should the NYT be the ones to decide what is an acceptable response from a presidential candidate? Sure, it's their paper... but it's also their REPUTATION. If Mccain wanted a hit piece to be his rebuttal then so be it. It's precisely this kind of tomfoolery that causes the right to pin lefty adjectives onto that paper.


Doesn't it get in your CRAW when fox news filters out lefty opinions because it doesn't meet their "standard"? Are news organizations who you want narrowing down what information you recieve without the benefit of seeing what is out there in order to make up your own mind?


Like I said.. I'd take it strait to the competition.

 

[Shogun]

The NYT discriminates against McCain.
Discrimination, racism, sexism is no surprise, these are the basic principals of Liberalism.

dude. shit the hell up. The history of your political ideology makes your post a helluva punchline.

It wouldn't be DISCRIMINATION anyway. It would be censorship.

 

[Charles_Main]

You try to pretend to be better than the neo cons and then in November you'll end up voting for McCain. Oh, say you aren't, sure, but we all know you will. Very clever Karl Rove.

LOL, More baseless accusations now eh. I will not be voting for McCain, not matter how many times you try to claim I will.

Should I just start making shit up about you, I mean how am I suppose to respond to some guy who thinks he knows all about me. I started out on this Board calling for everyone to vote 3rd party. I have not moved from that position one time thank you very much.

 

[Shogun]

You try to pretend to be better than the neo cons and then in November you'll end up voting for McCain. Oh, say you aren't, sure, but we all know you will. Very clever Karl Rove.

dude.. why don't YOU be better than the neocons of 04 and stop assuming that anyone who votes for mccain is of the same cloth as the machine Rove created 4 years ago? There are enough disgruntled conservatives out there bitching about their choice so that your assumptions fall about 100 yards short of a touchdown.

 

[sealybobo]

dude.. why don't YOU be better than the neocons of 04 and stop assuming that anyone who votes for mccain is of the same cloth as the machine Rove created 4 years ago? There are enough disgruntled conservatives out there bitching about their choice so that your assumptions fall about 100 yards short of a touchdown.

Karl Rove last week announced that he had given $2300 to the presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain.

Asked over the weekend about the donation, McCain said he has "always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics," and specifically refused to condemn Rove's hyper-partisan campaign tactics (including his smears against McCain in the 2000 South Carolina race).

McCain Embraces Rove

MCCAIN: He beat me. I certainly would be glad to get his advice. I don't think I'd want to revisit how he did it. And I mean that. Not about South Carolina. I mean I don't feel like reliving my defeat.

 

[sealybobo]

dude.. why don't YOU be better than the neocons of 04 and stop assuming that anyone who votes for mccain is of the same cloth as the machine Rove created 4 years ago? There are enough disgruntled conservatives out there bitching about their choice so that your assumptions fall about 100 yards short of a touchdown.

And I won't stop because McCain is another 4 years of Bush. Screw that.

And why be "better" when Kerry tried being "better" and it cost us 4 more years of Bush.

Bottom line, if McCain gets to appoint the next Supreme Justices, America is doomed. Corporations will have more rights than citizens, if they don't already, and abortion will be banned. And the Justice Department and every other branch of Government will continue to employ the bushie neo con's that Bush/Rove/Chaney put in place.

Apparently you are either down with the program or really don't know how important this election is.

Not to mention continue unfair tax breaks while the country goes broke and continue wars we can't afford, etc.

Besides, McCain isn't mentally stable enough to be President. He's 100 yrs old and has a really bad temper.

 

[Charles_Main]

Bobo would not know a Neo-Con if one bit him on the ass. Hell he does not even know what the term means. For that matter he does not even know what he is.

He calls me a neo-con when I support a womans right to choose, Gay rights, and many other liberal positions. He has to be one of the most clueless members of this board. IMO

 

[Shogun]

Karl Rove last week announced that he had given $2300 to the presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain.

Asked over the weekend about the donation, McCain said he has "always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics," and specifically refused to condemn Rove's hyper-partisan campaign tactics (including his smears against McCain in the 2000 South Carolina race).

McCain Embraces Rove

MCCAIN: He beat me. I certainly would be glad to get his advice. I don't think I'd want to revisit how he did it. And I mean that. Not about South Carolina. I mean I don't feel like reliving my defeat.

Well no shit Rove gave money to the GOPs candidate. WOW. WHAT a fucking mind blower!

And, as far as politics is concerned Rove won the goddamn election, didn't he? What election have you ever known to consist of cotton candy and unicorns in some hippy pipe dream of a john lennon song? Assuming that Mccain is an extension of Rovian politics, when thus far they clearly ARE NOT, makes you no better than the ignorant partisan motherfuckers that you aretrying to demonize with the Rove reference.

For real.it's 2008. get over it.

 

[Charles_Main]

Well no shit Rove gave money to the GOPs candidate. WOW. WHAT a fucking mind blower!

And, as far as politics is concerned Rove won the goddamn election, didn't he? What election have you ever known to consist of cotton candy and unicorns in some hippy pipe dream of a john lennon song? Assuming that Mccain is an extension of Rovian politics, when thus far they clearly ARE NOT, makes you no better than the ignorant partisan motherfuckers that you aretrying to demonize with the Rove reference.

For real.it's 2008. get over it.

You know Shogun no matter how much we may disagree on some issues, I like you more and more each day. You are just so damn good at smacking down Completely brainless lemmings like Bobo