NYT Rejects McCain's Editorial

drudgereport.com — An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias.

Besides immediately recognizing the obvious liberal left bias involved in the New York Times rejection of Senator McCain's editorial, upon reading a copy of it over at Drudge, I was reminded of a scene in the movie Liar, Liar.

Recall when Fletcher (the dad lawyer played by Jim Carrey) couldn't tell a lie in court because his young son wished this on his birthday? In one scene, Fletcher yells, "Objection" to some evidence being shown against his client in the courtroom. The judge asks, "on what basis?" Fletcher replies (because he couldn't lie), "Because it's devastating against my case."

Well, the deliberate rejection by the New York Times of an op-ed piece written by Presidential Candidate John McCain can be summed up in the same way. Exactly why was his piece rejected? Precisely because "it's devastating against Obama's case!"

Let's examine just why the NYT didn't like this piece by McCain.

Quote: "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."

Ah! Here we see McCain using that word "hope." The situation in Iraq (which defeatist Obama wants us to believe is hopeless and we should leave) has improved most significantly. Makes Obama's puff-piece seem infantile...to say the least.

Quote: "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."

McCain points out the FACT that Obama is wrong. Can't have THAT now can we? McCain also covers the FACT that the surge is working in both the military and political realms.

Quote: "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."

Uh oh. McCain points out another FACT that Obama left out of his own op-ed puff piece! How many of the benchmarks have been met! And, we also have the fact that there has been profound political success because former Iraqi objectors to the war have switched sides to fight against the terrorists! This is something that Obama left out of his essay. Kinda important...don't you think? All of this just exposes Obama's naivete, sloppiness on this issue and his profound inexperience. Plus, the fact that he wrote out a plan for Iraq BEFORE VISITING AND TALKING TO THOSE IN CHARGE OVER THERE...shows his arrogance and inexperience regarding the PROPER method(s) to follow regarding foreign affairs.

Quote: "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."

This exposes Obama's weaknesses, once again. Obama was critical of McCain in his op-ed piece for voting for the war in the first place. But McCain can't be critical of Obama for his ideas to withdraw to soon, without striving for complete victory, and without consideration for Iraqis who still need our assistance? Sometimes the truth hurts - especially when the truth hurts Obama's views on this crucial presidential campaign issue.

Quote: "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."

This has been found to be also true. Obama used Maliki's words in his favor; whereas, Maliki didn't endorse Obama's views in the first place. Why did the Times let that Obama lie slip by?

Quote: "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."

Here, McCain covers a LOT OF FACTS. Plus, there is good reason for McCain to cite the fact that Obama HAS BEEN MISLEADING on the Iraqi military's readiness (which he wouldn't know about because he had not visited there yet) also shows his lack of knowledge about what is really happening there. Again, Obama's inexperience and uninformed views are quite revealing.

Quote: "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."

Recall how Obama and his news show surrogates used (and abused and misinterpreted) McCain's "100 years presence" comment on his campaign trail to try and make McCain appear to support a permanent active military presence in Iraq? Why shouldn't McCain use this opportunity to set the record straight? I don't ever see concern on Obama's part for leaviing Iraq as a "failed state" behind. As McCain points out later in his piece, the term "victory in Iraq" doesn't seem to exist in Obama's vocabulary.

Quote: "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."

Here McCain shows a definite POLICY DIFFERENCE with Obama. Obama HAS SET AN ARTIFICIAL TIMETABLE OF 16 months. Why? To please the anti-war, Bush hating, Iraq war withdraw no matter what the cost may be in the future, let the terrorists win, rabidly leftist donors and supporters. The FACT that Obama would create such an artificial timetable WITHOUT REALISTIC ASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND and before his visit to Iraq, again shows Obama's naivete and inexperience on this issue.

Quote: "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."

These three paragraphs absolutely nailed it. Senator McCain obliterates Obama's puff-piece article. Yet, the truth is that these explanations also show why McCain's policies on Iraq make sense while Obama's do not. I suspect that these paragraphs were viewed by the NYT's as DEVASTATING against their candidate of choice.

I can't wait for the debates. Even though the Times refused to print Senator McCain's piece, these facts are out there now. They will be brought up on the Internet, at the debates and in commercials. The Times may have wanted to silence McCain's opinions and views regarding the Iraq War and the success we are now enjoying there, but people are smart enough to know when they see bias and favoritism. The truth about this - as well as many, many other details as to why Obama is not qualified to be president - will come out. More people will eventually realize that McCain is far more qualified than this junior senator from Illinois to be President of the United States in 2008.

HT: Drudge

Related article:

The NYTimes Strikes Again

Digg

*******
Update:

Every time I see a news clip of his travels in the Middle East, I can’t help but notice how much he looks like a wide-eyed tourist! He does NOT have the experience(s) that are necessary to be president.

John McCain has 30 years MORE EXPERIENCE! How could Obama ever compete with that? Plus, Obama has absolutely NO MILITARY experience. Score huge points for McCain in that arena.

The idea that this one “fact-finding” tour of the Middle East would rate him as now “ready and qualified” to be president is ludicrous. He can’t even answer any questions! The topic about dividing Jerusalem is his latest idiotic flub. The man is all fluff and no substance. When will the MSM ever admit this fact? Perhaps Katie Couric will come out of the Obamessiah Kool-Aid drinkers coma and start doing some genuine journalism about the guy.

Wasn’t it very odd that the questions of the press at that Jordan news conference could not be heard? What was that all about? How hard would it have been to get a microphone to these people?? Just imagine if Bush or McCain ever did that. The liberal nutroots would scream, “what are they trying to hide….” Well, I think I, as well as many others have figured out what Obama is trying to hide….his severe incompetence!!

A must read post: Obama: Wrong Then And Befuddled Now

HT: Big Dogs Weblog