Rejected!
Drudge is reporting that the New York Times has rejected an editorial submission from John McCain's campaign that seeks to counter a piece written by Barack Obama that ran last week in the paper.
NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley told the McCain campaign that the GOPer's item didn't address the issues presented by Obama in 'My Plan for Iraq.'
"It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece," 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."
The McCain camp is incensed. NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy has this statement from McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds: "John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times."
Per Drudge, the submitted McCain editorial is available in full after the jump.
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.
is it not illegal for a serving member of the armed forces to promote a political end in uniform?
Sue,
To whom are you referring and what's your point?
I'd reject this for publication in my newspaper also. It's pedantic and written at a 8th grade level.
McCain is so confused that he referred to "Iraq Pakistan border" today while talking to ABC. McCain is clueless, old and confused.
McCain constantly talks about "winning" the war in Iraq but has never to date offerred an explanation as to what would constitute a "win".
How will we know when we've "won"? When every Sunni insurgent is dead? Does that include the children who are potential future soldiers? Or is it when every American soldier is dead? When Bagdad is totally in ruins? When Iraq reaches some mythical future "murder-free" state?
Just what does a win mean over there, Mr. McCain? And how many more hundreds of billions of dollars must we divert from domestic needs while you figure that out?
Neither Drudge nor McCain seem to realize that the Times isn't obligated to run the editorial. That McCain was given a reason at all is a courtesy from Shipley and if McCain wants to resubmit, he should according to the feedback.
I think it's hysterical that McCain is using Drudge to press his case.
This is 100% to my point about the Right. Blame blame blame, spin spin spin, whine whine whine. But MORE problems and NO solutions.
Yup. I'd reject this one too. It reads like a press release from the McCain campaign war room, not a set of policy proposals. It tells us nothing new nor adds any more detail to the basic positions that McCain has been advocating all along. Per the commenter above, yes, I'd love to hear a concrete definition from him of what victory would mean, what criteria he would use to decide if we could draw down our forces, and what his plans are for a longer-term US military presence.
You are all missing the point. This newspaper, which sees declines in readership quarter after quarter refused to publish something from a man running for president. Instead of allowing readers to decide whether it was correct or relevant, this Former Cinton speechwriter, a real objective guy, made the decision himself (and then blows town on vacation). How is this not relevant, but what Obama wrote in kindergarten is a stroy? It isn't their job to decide if it makes sense. Their censorship of this op-ed is simply another manifestation of the bias in the liberal media. Here's a message from Flyoverland. Nobody out here takes the New York Times. We don't read it and don't care about it and our votes count just like the news mavens in the Upper East Side. This crazy decision actually did McCain a big favor. Many more people got the info than if it had been lost on their editorial pages. I wonder how long this paper can continue to make these stupid decisions and stay in business?
Re: Robert Reppy
"McCain constantly talks about "winning" the war in Iraq but has never to date offerred an explanation as to what would constitute a "win"."
McCain's article states what a win is.
"goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies."
>>>It isn't their job to decide if it makes sense
The editor of the NYT op-ed section? Um, yes that IS his job.
>>>Nobody out here takes the New York Times. We don't read it and don't care about it
Right. You just watch Fox News and read the Washington Times op-eds.
But THEY'RE not biased, right fly?
Haha. Puh-lease. :)
"Pedantic" is just the word for that piece of tripe. I actually had to force myself to keep reading after the first few sentences, not only because it was written as incoherently as a middle-schooler's last-minute essay, but because it was smug, vague, and begged far too many questions to be taken seriously.
And I have to say, the editor's response to it was very polite. The Times was perfectly within its rights to decline to print it, and gave legitimate reasons for this decisions.
HA HA HA!!!! This is great!
300 times as many people will now read McCain's well written indictment of the astonishingly ignorant and naive Hussien Obama's so called Iraq policy - than would have read it in the nations largest DNC newsletter (aka the New York Times).
John tells it like it is, and despite the junior senators very DEEP foreign policy experience *SNICKER* - his policy is exposed as 100% wrong from the start. Hussien Obama has shown too much arrogance to actually adjust the policy to match real world events. OUTSTANDING!!! And thanks to the New York Times... FREE BABY! :)
I submit it is not the Op-Ed page editor's job to force a candidate for president to make his positions fit those of the liberal, biased New York media. Yes, Big E. Fox New is Number One here, They out-pace the Clinton News Network and MSNBC put together and then some. We don't get the Washington Times. We do get the Wall Street Journal and the Farmer's Almanac which is predicting a big storm in the NYT corporate offices about now. First they give a discount to the left-zealots for that stupid ad and now this. I'll bet the hedge funds that own that stock are burning up the op-ed phones lines in the investor relations department. Its great to watch the free market at work on a demagogue. Hey E, I will be on the East Coast early next month. Let me know where you are and we will get together.
flyover, the problem isn't that the NYT doesn't like McCain's positions (they endorsed him for the Republican primary, after all). It's that McCain's editorial is poorly written and, rather than stating his position, is an attack piece on Obama. An op-ed in one of the nation's premier newspapers should be better than this.
flyover, the problem isn't that the NYT doesn't like McCain's positions (they endorsed him for the Republican primary, after all). It's that McCain's editorial is poorly written and childishly whines about Obama rather than stating McCain's ideas for Iraq. An op-ed in one of the nation's premier newspapers should be better than this.
LN - Sorry.... but I count no less than 6 separate childish/whining attacks on John McCain in Hussien's op-ed "My Plan for Iraq"... which is really nothing but a hasty acknowledgment of changing circumstances for Hussien to try and claim that his policy a year and a half ago (which has been proven 100% wrong) is now right.
McCain's piece was rejected because it's devastatingly accurate in describing Hussien's hapless casting about for coherent explanation of why a policy proven wrong 2 years ago is now suddenly right (without benefit of having visited the country for 3 years - nor consulting any of the leaders in the conflict - American or otherwise)... and correctly points out that "winning" in Iraq has never been a consideration for Hussien.
Other than that, the other possible difference is that McCain likely actually wrote his article.
Context. This is the actual rejection email:
Dear Mr. Goldfarb,
Thank you for sending me Senator McCain's essay.
I'd be very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page.
However, I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.
I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.
Let me suggest an approach.
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.
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. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops
levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out
how it meshes with his Iraq plan.
I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with (Redacted)
Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator's draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.
Sincerely,
David Shipley
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/21/new-york-times-rejects-mccain-the-e-mail/
Add your own spin, but that is the official response to the McCain campaign, for the record. This is the context, people. The NYT is hardly to blame for not wanting to publish something so off.
The only thing off, and needing to be put in context Ethan... is the fact that the Times Op-Ed editor (David Shipley) is a former Clinton hack.
Asking McCain to specify timetables, and troop levels, is basically asking McCain to agree with Hussien's premise - or to predict the future... rather than leaving those decisions to military commanders on the scene.
"General" *snicker* Hussien Obama is the only candidate arrogant enough to believe he can predict the future - but his track record stinks in this regard (as McCain's above efforts makes MORE than clear).
GL, the second you start calling Obama "Hussein" is when I stop listening, because it's obvious that you're just biased against him altogether. People who use his Obama's middle name (notice that they don't use HRC or McCain's middle names) are just trying to connect him to Muslim extremists.
LN - Don't lie, you quit listening the moment you detect someone's opinion doesn't jibe with your own.
I know Hussien is not a muslim... and beyond pointing out his policies are good for muslim extremists - I have no desire to connect Hussien to muslims in any way (overtly or otherwise). The plain truth is, I only use the messiahs middle name because it irritates folk like you. :) I'm shocked I haven't been called a racist yet, which admittedly does reflect well upon you.
I have no problem using the same method with Rodham Clinton, or Sidney McCain... but since those public figures haven't achieved a mindless cult-like following among the populace - as Hussien has, it just isn't as much fun. lol
If it was poorly written, then why didn't they just publish it and let people see that it was poorly written. For a paper that employed a reporter who made stuff up, I'm not sure poorly written is grounds for rejection of a presidential candidate. This was censorhip, pure and simple.
I thought Cry Baby McCain was for Freedom. The NY Times is a private publication.
It isn't censorship, it’s a private entity. They don’t have to publish anything they don’t want to.
When has Focus on the Family or Rush Limbaugh ever been forced to put an opposing viewpoint on?
Religious Right Wing Talk Radio is full of nitwits like Jay Seculow whining about the come back of the fairness doctrine. Now suddenly they are all for the fairness doctrine when it suits their political needs.
These McCain supporters are a set of unprincipled whiners.
I think you should look up the definition of censorship. Private entities censor things all the time. No one is questioning their "right" to reject this piece. They simply show their true colors by doing it. I am, however, glad you lump the NYT in with those you consider extremists on the right. That is exactly where they belong. Anyway, thanks to the Einsteins at the NYT, McCain will get another bounce in the polls after this one. The Rasmussen poll (see Ethan, I am quoting a poll to make you happy) released yesterday had one thing that should make the left pucker. Half of uncommitted voters think the media is in the bag for Obama. They are the ones who will decide the election and they think the media is in the bag.
Oh I am sure there is some right wing alternative dictionary out there to suit your needs, and as discussions with Bush Zombies are preposterous I will just agree with your FOXdefinition of "censorship"--- You have me convinced. Another geat vistory for the glorious McCain campaign. So, you should be happy that the great McCain juggernaut will just keep rolling right along.
McCain is being treated soooo unfairly.
Webster was a right wing nut job? How did you miss that trip with Jim Jones?