NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 44 (permalink) Old 07-21-2008, 12:12 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA

No "fair and balanced" at that rag! McCain tries to respond to an Obambi editorial printed by the NYT, but they will have none of it. Wow, they aren't even pretending to be a news organization. They are simply a mouthpiece for Obambi.

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...

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 44 (permalink) Old 07-21-2008, 12:14 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,925
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 596 Post(s)
Wake up, it's already been posted: http://www.benzworld.org/forums/off-...ml#post2978413

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #3 of 44 (permalink) Old 07-21-2008, 12:14 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Here's what McCain submitted...

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.

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #4 of 44 (permalink) Old 07-21-2008, 12:15 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 11,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 757 Post(s)
No timetable?

© All photographs and likenesses of Multipurpose are protected under copyright
law. Any use of photographs in whole or in part is strictly prohibited
unless authorization is granted in writing by copyright holder. All rights
reserved.
Multipurpose is online now  
post #5 of 44 (permalink) Old 07-21-2008, 12:25 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Since you post it twice, I will reply on both threads. The McCain piece was not intended to be a "response", it was an invited piece from the NYT for BOTH to present their vision of the future of IRAQ. Both had equal opportunity to submit their carefully crafted view of what the future of Iraq should look like from an American perspective.

If you READ McCain's submitted op-ed piece you see he did not follow instructions. He was asked to provide an op-ed for his vision of the future of Iraq. All he does during the entire response is attack Obama's view and take about the last 5 years. He fails to mention HIS VIEWS for the FUTURE other than one line that mentions 2013.

They asked him to go back and do what was requested. Why is that hard to understand? You have to read ALL of the Drudge Report to glean that information, not just the first para.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #6 of 44 (permalink) Old 07-21-2008, 12:30 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1763 Post(s)
^Your patience with Jay surpassed admirable long ago, now it is just downright miraculous. Going for sainthood by any chance?
Shane is offline  
post #7 of 44 (permalink) Old 07-21-2008, 12:34 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Since you post it twice, I will reply on both threads. The McCain piece was not intended to be a "response", it was an invited piece from the NYT for BOTH to present their vision of the future of IRAQ. Both had equal opportunity to submit their carefully crafted view of what the future of Iraq should look like from an American perspective.

If you READ McCain's submitted op-ed piece you see he did not follow instructions. He was asked to provide an op-ed for his vision of the future of Iraq. All he does during the entire response is attack Obama's view and take about the last 5 years. He fails to mention HIS VIEWS for the FUTURE other than one line that mentions 2013.

They asked him to go back and do what was requested. Why is that hard to understand? You have to read ALL of the Drudge Report to glean that information, not just the first para.
His views--unlike Obambi's--are well know to everyone. He was responding Obambi, not doing a homework assignment for heaven's sake! The NYT's "conditions" came after McCain's response, saying "if you write it our way we will publish it..." In other words, "say what we want you to say or get fucked!" I'm sure that's how you feel too, but it is NOT fair.

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #8 of 44 (permalink) Old 07-21-2008, 12:42 PM
Always Remembered RIP
 
cascade's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2006
Vehicle: 1991 560SEC AMG
Location: Grass Valley, N. Calif. / Gardnerville, Nevada
Posts: 10,146
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to cascade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk View Post
In other words, "say what we want you to say or get fucked!" I'm sure that's how you feel too, but it is NOT fair.

Jim
<--- superschnelle 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV, Hochverdichtung = high compression (11/2011) ... Wie im Freien Fall. Nur horizontal.


"I swear to god, it's like I live in a trailer of common sense, and stare out the window at a tornado of stupidity." >'='<
cascade is offline  
post #9 of 44 (permalink) Old 07-21-2008, 12:50 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,925
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 596 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk View Post
His views--unlike Obambi's--are well know to everyone. He was responding Obambi, not doing a homework assignment for heaven's sake! The NYT's "conditions" came after McCain's response, saying "if you write it our way we will publish it..." In other words, "say what we want you to say or get fucked!" I'm sure that's how you feel too, but it is NOT fair.
Unless you feel that way about everyone in this country, your cries for fair play have no meaning.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #10 of 44 (permalink) Old 07-21-2008, 12:53 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
jlomon's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 2013 VW Golf Sportwagen TDI, 2011 Mazda 2, 2000 E320 4Matic Wagon (retired),1994 C280 (retired)
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,488
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk View Post
In other words, "say what we want you to say or get fucked!" I'm sure that's how you feel too, but it is NOT fair.
We all know how fair and balanced you like your news to be.
jlomon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    LA TIMES questions McCain's disability pension... Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 0 04-23-2008 06:11 AM
    McCain's wife a pathological liar Qubes Off-Topic 14 04-16-2008 09:33 PM
    Great Editorial Cartoon.... Check Codes Off-Topic 0 10-05-2007 06:58 PM
    Got a hometown newspaper 9-11 editorial? Here's mine. FeelTheLove Off-Topic 5 09-12-2006 04:28 PM
    American rejects, invading Canada. GOOD!!! S-KLASSE8 Off-Topic 29 02-22-2005 08:07 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome