• 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: ,

  • John McCain,  New York Times,  President 2008

    John McCain Watch: The New York Times Debacle Part Two

    The Gray Lady by Michael Ramirez

    EVEN, The New York Times ombudsman slammed his own paper’s piece.

    The New York Times’ ombudsman strongly criticized the newspaper’s insinuation this week that White House hopeful John McCain had a tryst with a female lobbyist 31 years his junior, nearly 10 years ago.

    “The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and (Vicki) Iseman had a romance,” public editor Clark Hoyte wrote in the Times’ online edition.

    Clark Hoyt, the New York Times’ Public Editor’s critique is here: What That McCain Article Didn’t Say.

    Another low for the MSM and the New York Times. How many subscribers and advertisers did they lose in this debacle?

    Previous:

    John McCain Watch: The New York Times Debacle

    John McCain Watch: McCain Denies Lobbyist FLAP

    John McCain Watch: What Favors Did Senator McCain Provide Vicki Iseman?


  • John McCain,  New York Times,  President 2008

    John McCain Watch: The New York Times Debacle

    The Gray Lady by Michael Ramirez

    The New York Times attempt to smear John McCain was a “thin” story and has been widely discredited. The Washington Post today has attempted to revive a lobbyist-business corruption angle of the story but EVEN that is in dispute.

    The story is dead.

    The BIGGEST LOSER = The New York Times

    Previous:

    John McCain Watch: McCain Denies Lobbyist FLAP

    John McCain Watch: What Favors Did Senator McCain Provide Vicki Iseman?


  • David Petraeus,  New York Times

    New York Times = Left Wing Fringe Rag

    *****UPDATE*****

    Rudy Giuliani called on The New York Times to allow the campaign to purchase a full page ad at the same discounted rate they provided MoveOn.Org for their “abominable” ad attacking General Petraeus.

    Listen here: http://blip.tv/file/377008

    gwotjune24b

    News item: TIMES GIVES LEFTIES A HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR ‘BETRAY US’ AD

    The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org’s ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

    Headlined “Cooking the Books for the White House,” the ad which ran in Monday’s Times says Petraeus is “a military man constantly at war with the facts” and concluded – even before he testified before Congress – that “General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.”

    According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.”

    A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad – a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

    Left Wing Fringe Rag may be TOO mild of a term.

    Remember the ad:

    iraqseptember10aweb

    Previous:

    Senator John Ensign Calls on All Democrats to Return MoveOn.org Contributions


    Technorati Tags: , , ,

    Add to My Yahoo!

    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Subscribe to FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog by Email

    Facebook Flap!

    Gregory Flap Cole's Facebook profile

  • New York Times,  The Ryskind Sketchbook,  Wall Street Journal

    NEW York Journalism

    The New York Times and its Publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. is worried that the Wall Street Journal will out compete the New York Times and bury them circulation-wise and financially.

    The WSJ would then become the pre-eminent American daily newspaper and the national newspaper of record.

    Is Murdoch the NEW W.R. Hearst?


    Technorati Tags: , , ,