Barack Obama,  John McCain,  New York Times

John McCain Watch: The Rejected New York Times Editorial

NYTimesRejectsMcCain

The New York Times is in the tank for “The One”- Obama but Matt Drudge put up the rejected John McCain editorial.

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.

In the meantime, the MSM newspapers lay off employees and they wonder why?

Can media bias be anymore blatant?

Oh yeah. The New York Times editor who rejected the McCain editorial: David Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.


Technorati Tags: ,

18 Comments

  • Matt

    It’s obvious that the NYT rejected this op-ed because it was written like a 5th-grade expository essay. It has no salient wisdom, no news-making turn of phrase and is beneath the quality one would expect from a presidential candidate. All it is, is political boilerplate, without any style or art. I think the NYT was doing McCain a favor by asking for a revision. This pedestrian garbage isn’t worth the screen space it’s printed on.

    This is just further proof that while he is brave, McCain just isn’t smart enough to be president

  • Sigmond

    Substance trumps style and art. While McCain’s writing may not be as stylish and as artful as some would like, it does lack the arrogance found in the first poster’s comment.

  • Matt

    I think any professor would ask for a revision of a piece like this. Has nothing to do with Obama. I’m no fan of his new Iraq policy. But this op-ed is only a bunch of simple declarative sentences gathered from stump speeches, with far too many commas and subordinate clauses. It’s just poorly written

  • Matt

    McCain’s policy is fine on Iraq. As they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. There are many ways to “win” in Iraq. All I am saying is that the NYT can’t print just anything that they get from the McCain camp. If he sent them a bunch of smileys and a picture of the troops it wouldn’t go in!

    All he did was copy and paste a bunch of bromides from his stump speeches. We have heard everything in this piece before, and the NYT wants to make news; no matter the source.

    BTW, I have a BA from The University of Notre Dame in Philosophy, and a JD from the University of San Diego. I also am working towards a PhD from Georgetown in Political Science and work as a campaign manager for an AG candidate.

  • Flap

    McCain’s piece is fine and it is certainly the New York Time’s right to print what they wish. He did not submit a picture and a bunch of smileys.

    McCain did rebut Obama’s piece of the previous week and there lies the problem.

    Perhaps McCain is appealing to those voters who are not as sophisticated or educated as you or I?

  • Matt

    I think he already appeals to uneducated voters. What he needs to do is win the intellectual high-ground. The NYT just wants something more than a first draft filled out by campaign rhetoric. If McCain said something new, said something that didn’t sound like a press-release, they’d print it. The paper wants smart conservative readers, they want dumb conservative readers, but they can’t make the paper into a print version of the DRUDGE REPORT. They need more than “McCain disagrees with Obama.” They need something we haven’t heard 100 times out of McCain’s mouth.

  • Matt

    yeah, he does. His speech on race was nuanced, honest, and sophisticated. He has the “educated” vote in the bag. He killed Hillary with it. He’ll do the same to McCain. He wins college grads, and he destroys McCain with Masters or above.

  • Flap

    Those facts fit his image well – SNOB.

    He really killed Hillary in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana, right?

    Why do you suppose McCain is within a few points of Obama? Could it be all of those uneducated folks?

  • Matt

    yes it is all of those uneducated folks.

    It’s not snobbery, Obama needs to do better with the middle class and working class to win. No Question about it. OH, PA, and IN are working class states. I’ve lived in all three (born in OH, lived in PA, college in IN).

    But this shouldn’t be a lowest common denominator election.

    We need a brain not a bio.

    This should be a meritocracy.

    Neither you nor I are good enough to be president, but we are both smarter than McCain

  • jamaljk

    Hey Matt:
    I have a PhD (applied physics), and I thought McCains article was just fine. Just wanted to let you know that 90% of the people on my team think McCain should be president (and we are all research scientists). In fact the only 2 guys on the team that think Obama should win only have graduate level degrees! I think PhDs should be polled too…

  • jamaljk

    and Matt: The best you could do with a JD from San Diego “and working towards a PhD” is campaign manager for an AG candidate??? They must be giving out JDs and PhDs rather liberally these days

  • Matt

    Really?

    no need to get personal!

    I have a job while writing my thesis. I can’t exactly be working full time.

    All things considered, Campaign Manager for an Attorney General candidate isn’t so bad.

    There is nobody above me except for the future Attorney General. I’ll take it at 25 years old