So I open Le Monde this morning to find that its front page contains the latest flap between John McCain and the New York Times. The paper has refused to publish his op-ed on Iraq, claiming that his piece was not up to snuff. Due to a series of leaks by the McCain campaign, we know that David Shipley, the op-ed editor sent an e-mail to McCain saying that the article "would have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troop 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." Shipley explained, "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece . I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written." Of course, the Drudge Report points out that Shipley was part of the Clinton Administration. Of course, thanks to this report, you can read the editorial as it was originally submitted.
I find this funny, implications and all.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Sorry John, Not a Passing Grade
Posted by USWest at 9:44 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Wow, if McCain really did submit what Drudge published, it's terrible. It's just talking points and an attack on Obama. It says nothing about what McCain proposes to do in Iraq. Not surprising. McCain's proposal is to "not surrender" - whatever that means in a context where the proposal is redeployment of troops, not surrender of troops, territory, or anything. Beyond that, he's got nothing.
More than that, McCain directly contradicts his own position when he says "No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges." But McCain is rather famously on record as having said he'd be fine with US troops being there for 50 to 100 years. If that's not permanent, then what is?
However, politically this is a dumb move by the NYT. The NYT is the favorite whipping boy for the right (Drudge included) and by refusing to print an op-ed piece by McCain right after printing one by Obama (regardless of their relative merrits), it looks like the NYT is just playing partisan games.
Frankly, it would have been better for the NYT to let McCain write this nonsense then hold him accountable for it in their own editorial columns etc.
"Beyond that, he's got nothing." and that, in a sentence, sums up McCain's entire candidacy.
McCain writes:
"violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years"
What he doesn't tell you is the reason isn't because the "surge" worked, but because Sadar and Iran agreed to a cease fire. And that "my friends" (as McCain likes to address his audiences), is why Obama is correct to deny "that any political progress has resulted."
McCain says, "He [Obama] makes is sound like 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."
Well, last time I checked, Maliki refused to agree to a SOFA agreement with the U.S. That is pretty clear sign that he would like us to leave. And he has been working closely with Iran. So . . . .
McCain claims that Iraqis still need training in logistics, planning, etc. Well golly gee, it isn't as if they never had an army before!
" No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges." Lie, lie, lie. As RBR pointed out, you said 100 years. And my own brother transported supplies for the building of a U.S. Base on the Northern Iraqi border with Syria. It looked pretty permanent to me based on the photos and they where planning too add a gym and pool!
"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." With what troops? You are going to send the guys who have done 5 tours already to Afghanistan next?
McCain is nuts. His latest is to blame Obama for rising gas prices. Whaa????
Post a Comment