NYTimes Rejects McCain’s Response to Obama’s NYTimes Op-ed

Here’s the NYSlimes reasoning:

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.

Did Obama’s Op-ed from last week titled, My Plan for Iraq,  “define victory in Iraq?” No. But that’s because Obama does not believe any sort of victory in Iraq is ever possible and the New York Time knows it, and assumes that you know it. I guess, however, that the NYT thinks you aren’t smart enough to be able to figure out what John McCain’s plan is, or what victory in Iraq might be.

Of course, if you don’t know – it’s probably because the NYT has refused to print positive stories about Iraq, or anything that might actually show that we are making progress there – instead favoring 32 days straight of front page articles to cover what a few jackasses did in Abu Ghraib.

Here’s John McCain’s rejected NYT piece in it’s entirety:

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.

So since the NYT wants McCain to clearly explain what ‘victory in Iraq’ means before they’ll publish his piece –  Why didn’t the New York Times reject Obama’s letter, since Obama clearly didn’t explain why victory in Iraq was impossible?

Perhaps it’s because the NYT figures everyone agrees with Obama, and thus no explanation was necessary…

Here’s a little reminder of the NYT past high standards for op-eds: All the Astrology that’s Fit to Print


4 Responses to “NYTimes Rejects McCain’s Response to Obama’s NYTimes Op-ed”

  1. Alice deTocqueville Says:

    McCain seems disingenuous in saying no one wants a permanent presence in Iraq. I’m sure Dick Cheney would, or at least as long as there’s oil there. And have you seen the largest embassy ever built anywhere in the world? It’s right there in Baghdad, humming with electricity 24/7, clean swimming pools, not to mention drinking water, and all the things Iraqis don’t have, thanks to US! Has he flip-flopped on staying in Iraq for 100 years? Who cares? He’s a nutcase, and will self-destruct long before the campaign is over. What’s more important is will the American people ever get clear on whether they believe in anything, or do they really believe it’s okay to fall for everything?

    There is nothing to win in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Iran. The opportunity to redeem our nation is here, where we can either be a decent country, or crumbling Rome.

  2. whatthecrap? Says:

    That’s an interesting perspective Alice. I think I would simply disagree on a couple points. For instance – I don’t really understand the oil argument, since we clearly haven’t gained any ground in that area whatsoever. Also, McCain’s statement about a staying for 100 years has been greatly misunderstood (you can see the entire comment in context here.).

    As far as there being nothing to win in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran – I have to completely disagree. There is a great deal to be won in that region as a whole. Bringing some semblance of stability to the region, making new friends and allies, as well as spreading crucial cultural ideas such as the rule of law, liberty, human rights, etc. These are all pillars of advanced societies and things that America should be focusing on spreading (as opposed to crappy cheeseburgers, and crappy movies.) I think these are noble ideas that are worth sharing with other nations around the world. Of course, if you just watch the news here in America – you would have no idea that we are actually trying to do that over there at all.

    I would highly recommend Michael Yon’s book: Moment of Truth in Iraq. It gives a pretty darn good look at what exactly we are doing over there minus all the bull-crap. And it’s not a book about Washington, Bush, or Dick Cheney, so you won’t have to worry about that. Check it out.

    Thanks for posting your opinion.

  3. Washington Post: [Afghanistan's] strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq. +Candidates on Iraq « What The Crap? - whatthecrap.us Says:

    […] there is possible, and that it is important not to leave until we reach that point. Obama thinks victory is impossible, and that we should get out […]

  4. All That’s Fit To Be Shoveled Down Your Throat « What The Crap? - whatthecrap.us Says:

    […] quote an earlier post: Of course, if you don’t know – it’s probably because the NYT has refused to print positive […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: