GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
The NYT has decided to reject Sen. McCain’s OP-Ed:
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.’
Update from Drudge (13:09 CST):
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.]
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.’
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.’
Here is the full text of Sen McCain’s New York Times Draft that was recently rejected by the paper for your reading pleasure:
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.
h/t: Drudge
July 21st, 2008 at 11:32 am
What? That is the most biased slap in the face ever. It’s on NYT. It is on! Buying, or advertising with this papaer is now officially unAmerican. They need to be boycotted like South Africa!
July 21st, 2008 at 11:34 am
I just don’t understand NYT. Clearly they are in the tank for Obama. Why do this? It’s not like McCain won’t get his message out through other newspapers. All this does is mobilize the Right against the biased propaganda outlet. That’s all for the better for us, but you think that these liberals who love to pretend to be the smartest people in the world would understand the concept of backlash.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:36 am
Barack Obama was against the surge before he was for it.
The New York Times was for McCain before it was against him.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:36 am
Who the hell gives these stereotypical liberal neanderthals at the NYT the right to decide what is newsworthy? No wonder the NYT is a failure. No wonder people are losing their jobs there. No wonder it will soon be out of business. What will people like David Shipley do to make a living? He is too stupid to be employed by a company trying to make a profit so….it’s off to Washington for Mr. Shipley, as soon as he can get the Maadi, Obama, elected.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:39 am
Will the NYT get away with it?
July 21st, 2008 at 11:47 am
sampo,
It’s probably better for us if they do. Every conservative outlet is going to pounce for as long as NYT keeps this up. Fox will trumpet it. Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers will do the same. Rush Limbaugh will raise hell.
I don’t understand how NYT can make such a dick move and think that they won’t lose the PR war.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:48 am
New York Times: All the News That’s Fit to Omit
July 21st, 2008 at 11:48 am
NYT is Un American. Against freedom of speech. But we all knew this, right? Anyone shocked? Obama’s lovin’ it anyways. Wonder if he could win without the media boost. He’ll never know.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:50 am
There has already been a backlash narrative that’s been established over the past few days, even AP reported it, that the news coverage in general has been too pro-Obama, but the idiots at NYT are only drawing more attention to it.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:51 am
I’d like to say I’m shocked, but sadly I’m not.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:53 am
Adam, got the link to the AP article in #9?
July 21st, 2008 at 11:54 am
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIHbNjxgyh98CZcVL1vYRM6JBVNQD9220LG85
July 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am
the fact that this comes out right after polls show americans believe the media is trying to help obama just hits slick barry that much harder.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:56 am
By the way, in line with the issue of media bias, this piece from The Onion is hilarious:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/time_publishes_definitive_obama
“No news publication has dared to barely scratch the surface like this before,” columnist and campaign reporter Michael King wrote in The Washington Post Tuesday. “This profile sets a benchmark for mindless filler by which all other features about Sen. Obama will now be judged. Just impressive puff-journalism all around.”
July 21st, 2008 at 11:58 am
Yikes! This is like getting a paper you wrote in high school handed back to you. That is what McCain should be angry about. Its insulting and embarassing.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:58 am
This is flat out ridiculous. I’m not shocked, more and more they’ve stopped bothering to even try and “keep up appearances”. It’s really pathetic, but at least they’re not pretending anymore to be fair.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
This ranks right up there with the 50% discount the NYT gave to moveon.org to run an ad accusing Petraeus of treason.
Hey, not to change the subject but the American Spectator is saying that John Kasich should be McCain’s VP pick. I think I’m sold on the idea. He’s a Pennsylvania native and a Representative from Ohio. It’s almost perfect.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Madge,
Did you even read McCain’s essay? It’s obvious that you’re a fish out of water here but I wonder whether you aren’t just a sock-puppet of someone who has been here before, and several times.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
And if you think it’s insulting and embarrassing why don’t YOU try to refute it?
July 21st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I did read McCain’s piece, but I was not an english major so if there are mistakes I missed them.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:04 pm
That’s it? That’s all you’ve got? I’m not talking about the grammar. Try refuting the substance.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Not sure there’s a legit story here.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
July 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“John Kasich should be McCain’s VP pick.” -
I dont know about that, someone will need to review all his shows on fox from a few years back (ran on Saturdays) along with his fillin host spots on O.F.; I seem to recall at least a few cases of foot-in-mouth that will be exploited . I could think of worse though.
-2cents
July 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Who cares about the NYTimes. They’re biased and have been proven liars over and over again. It’s a wonder anyone takes them seriously.
THE DRUDGE REPORT is printing Senator McCain’s rebuttal in it’s entirety. It will now get 10 times the audience that the NYTimes could ever bring in.
The NYTimes is only fit for wrapping fish or lining a bird cage.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Brett,
Here are a few updates from Drudge that you might want to include on the front page:
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.]
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.’
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.’
July 21st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
[...] Independent, Political Radar, GINA COBB, TIME.com, Gateway Pundit, Get Drunk And Vote 4 McCain, race42008.com, Gothamist and [...]
July 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
O’Reilly is going to be all over this tonight.
On a secondary note, I thought the substance of McCain’s article was excellent. Not sure how anyone could have confidence in Obama if they listen and think carefully about these arguments.
July 21st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
“Yikes! This is like getting a paper you wrote in high school handed back to you. That is what McCain should be angry about. Its insulting and embarassing.”
Adam, I think Madge was talking of the rejection of the letter, not of its content. The NYT was insulting Sen McCain by doing this, and it’s an embarassment for them to do it publicly (but one Sen McCain should be able to capitalize on). I didn’t read that she was saying the article itself was poorly written.
You seem on edge lately. Relax, it’s not worth getting all angry and defensive about (especially since Sen McCain is going to win this one in a year no Rep should be able to win).
July 21st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Here is a collection of reports on Obama’s visit in Iraq…
Mr. Obama described his talk with Mr. Maliki as “a wonderful visit,” but news agencies reported that a government spokesman said that they did not discuss the timing of any troop withdrawal. However, the spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, addressed the issue. According to Reuters, he said, “We cannot give any timetables or dates but the Iraqi government believes the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal.” The Associated Press quoted Mr. Dabbagh as saying, “We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq,” but noting that any plans would have to change should violence rise.
Mr. Obama said he was “pleased with the progress taking place” in Iraq and said that it was his impression that among Iraqis there was “more optimism about what is happening.”
“You see the activity taking place, the people in the shops, the traffic on the streets, clearly there’s been an enormous improvement,” he said.
Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, a Sunni Arab, said he told Obama that while he agreed with a withdrawal timetable in principle Iraq’s forces needed to be ready. There are more than 140,000 American troops in Iraq.
“What about a security vacuum? What about upgrading the capacity of the Iraqi armed forces? … We have to look at all these requirements,” Hashemi later told reporters.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Ofcourse the NYT with their probama endorsement of the junior senator, will not print the reality based piece by Senator McCain. How shocking that the liberal rag of the Big Apple won’t allow any legitimate criticism of Obama. It’s downright creepy and cult like.
David Shipley has the utter gall to suggest that Senator McCain should mirror Obama’s views. Another way of saying, “I am not saying that you are wrong, I am just saying if you don’t agree with me that you are wrong.” As for Obama, if you just pretend that you said the right thing all along, then I guess you did!
What a crock!
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
THE FOURTH ESTATE IS STARTING TO RESEMBLE
THE THIRD REICH.
Like Joseph Goebbels, American main stream media has replaced objectivity, integrity, and free choice with one sided reporting, that reflects their bias for Barack Obama. The American Press used to be the last bastion of truth. When special interests got out of hand, the press came to the rescue and exposed them to the public. Now, the press is the special interest with their own agenda.