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...



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.

still voting for Obama.

= NYT saying "We will be happy to print an article by Mr McCain, but it must contain more than bellyaching and whining about Obama"

Try again, little T-Rex arms.

=NYT saying we will only print your editorial if it agrees with our position.

"Obama, noboma, nanny nanny boo boo" is not a printworthy political position.

=NYT saying, "Sorry old man you are not newsworthy".

Sounds more like "we will only print your editorial once it doesn't read like a road rage tirade against your opponent, and actually discusses the topic at hand, not the candidates."

=Shemp saying, "The only way for the NYT to be objective would be for its editors to print anything McCain chooses to submit without changes, and as an aside, what are 'editors,' anyway??"

= Shemp saying, "The only editing I approve of is Dick Cheney editing all the bad stuff out of EPA official reports!"

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Rasmussen Reports article

which means that the other 51% believe that reporters will help McCain?

Who will this reporter help out?

It's thier paper, they can print what they want.

he'll bend over backwards in his search for the truth!

Finger sniffer.

3* Looking ahead to the campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain, will most reporters try to help Barack Obama, offer unbiased coverage, or try to help John McCain?

49% Try to help Barack Obama
24% Offer unbiased coverage
14% Try to help John McCain
13% Not sure

... oh, and editing the civil liberties stuff out of the Constitution.

Stiggs

Why can't the Media be fair and objective anymore?

I don't really care dude. I was just making fun of your stupid poll reference. You live in Massachusetts. It doesn't matter who you vote for. Obama will carry it with 70% of the votes.

The only thing sadder than being a vocal "god fearing" Republican in Massachusetts is trying to be a bleeding heart liberal in Tennessee.

Seriously though.

Since when does the idea of Freedom of the Press implicitly state that Newspapers must print whatever content some Politician submits to them?

That does not change the point of the poll results

Awww. anatomicallyincorrect is all mad because I reminded him that his vote means nothing.

Doesn't really make them relevant to the discussion either, considering that reporters don't approve or disapprove editorials.

EDITORS do.

Awwww. Danny assumes he knows how I'm going to vote. I'm not a refugee from a banana republic

I think if the poll had used the word media instead of reporters the results would
probably have been similar.

I think the fact that they had to dumb it down by using the word "reporters", because the people being polled wouldn't necessarily understand references to "media" in general is telling.

I read somewhere where 26% of Americans think Barack Obama is a Muslim. Americans have become too stupid for me to care what they collectively think.

I also view McCain's assertion that Iraq can only either be won or lost to be a gross oversimplification, exacerbated by his view that "losing" the war means the "terrorists" have won.

There are any number of outcomes that cannot easily be defined as a win or a loss.

Others have already covered the initial flaw in Marsman's logic and/or comprehension.

pssst...My vote doesn't count either!

none of ours does. I didn't assume anything.

I love how Republicans perpetuate the "media bias" thing so that when something like this happens, they can whine and jerk each other off in the FoxNews studios. Fucking hilarious.

The truth!
(I know...tin foil/moonbat/librul/"your guy" etc...)

I don't mean it in a moonbat kind of way.

I mean it in a we live in Massachusetts, dumb dumb. kind of way.

Actually there is media bias and many in the "media" have admited it

That's because being in the media and writing news/editing newspapers requires an education and a relatively high amount of intelligence.

One of the greatest things about living here is that it allowed me to vote Nader without fear of unintended consequences.

ditto.

Seriously?

I've seen lots of reporters, etc., within the media admitting to being liberals and/or Democrats and claiming that such is not at all uncommon among their peers, but I've never seen them admit to media bias.

I see,meaning the electoral college sort of way.
But,voting still means nothing (IMHO) cause all of our "choices" are fairly
lackluster and none of them will change things much,if at all.
I wish i could be more positive...

Imagine if Obama had said 1/10th of the dumbass things that McCain has said so far in this election, what the tidal wave of negative media attention that that would have generated, and then consider your opinion again.

McCain is largely skating by on many of his gaffes. Gaffes that Obama would have been incinerated for...

Exxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxactly.

The "media" is controlled by corporations.
Any perceived "left wing"bias is simply untrue.
If the slant is so "lefty" then why do we not see anything about
troop fatalities,Kucinich's impeachment follies or the Ron Paul march
that happened in the last month?
If there was a true bias these stories and many others would be highlights
and not under-reported or not reported at all.
The "republicans" are well represented by our media.
The stories and ideas that are ignored by the mainstream media are many.
Many reporters have admitted this.
That being said,i'm tired of hearing how "oppressed"
republicans,white men and christians are "persecuted".

The fact that you know about McCain's gaffes indicates that they are being reported.

But they are not being used as Campaign attack fodder like Rev. Wright, etc.

This is correct. Corporations own the media. Corporations own the reporters and editors. The corporations decide what the stories are broadcast, and which stories are over-reported or swept under the rug. The media is the corporations' lapdog. The corporations are largely pro-republican.

However, wealthy white christian men playing the "victim" card = comedy gold.

I don't see why the NYT should offer mccain free advertising space. Now, if he were to actually DEFINE "victory in iraq", something the bush administration NEVER has, then it would be something print-worthy for sure! McCain's "editorial" reads like a badly scripted attack ad. It's full of propaganda terms and doesn't really say anything about what a McCain administration would do other than the so-vague-that-it's-full-of-EPIC FAIL quote, "I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013."

Frankly, i'm not surprised it was rejected. it's nothign but smear smear smear with nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

But i'm sure that the rejection will get him enough hay with the base that he won't ever really have to put forth a serious proposal/discussion on iraq.