NY Times refuses John McCain editorial - Page 2

Donkey® · 07-22-2008, 04:05 AM

Here are the links. McCain's is an attack on Obama. Nothing more. Obama mentions McCain's name a few times...but actually has a paragraph or two with McCain's name not in it. The other essay isn't quite that way.

Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/op...qa&oref=slogin

McCain: McCain's rejected New York Times op-ed piece - CNN.com

C4Casey · 07-22-2008, 04:32 PM

I think the real issue here is that the New York Times suggested that McCain mention "timetables". Since McCain has steadfastly opposed artificial timetables for withdrawal, this almost sounds like the New York Times is suggesting policy changes to the McCain camp. While this may not be the case, the McCain camp sure as hell is going to make it look that way.

kombayn · 07-22-2008, 11:15 PM

Well hell, how can John McCain seriously still be for keeping troops in Iraq when...

A.) The Iraqi's want a time-table for us to leave, B.) The Bush Administration is discussing a "time-horizon" (time-table) for withdrawal, C.) The surge is being reported that it's working and Iraq is stabilizing.

John McCain is just extremely out-of-touch with everything, that's why he doesn't need to be President and the thing is... He's more Liberal than Barack Obama. John McCain is not a friend to the GOP and they need to realize this. John McCain is for Amesty, Green Energy, Stopping Climate Change, for Gun Control, originally opposed the Bush Tax-Cuts and Pro-Choice. This dude is not a Republican by any stretch of the imagination and I still don't know how he came to terms with being apart of the GOP. This is the same guy who behind the scenes (he'll never admit it to the public) was considering taking the Vice Presidential slot with John Kerry!

C4Casey · 07-22-2008, 11:26 PM

McCain has always maintained that we will leave Iraq when there is victory. And I think victory can be defined as making Iraq stable enough so that it can stand on its own. With this being said, we are still YEARS from leaving, if we follow this criteria. The goal of having most of the army home by 2010 is reasonable, assuming that the Iraqi army continues to improve at its current rate. However, no lasting victory can be achieved on the modern battlefield without air support, and the Iraqi Air Force has yet to even fire a shot in anger. They have no attack air craft. Therefore, the U.S Air Force, along with the air elemnts of the Army and Navy, will be in Iraq long after our ground forces return home. Only when Iraq has a truly modern air force can we expect to see an end to U.S combat operations in the region.

And yes, I realize some of McCain's policies lean towards the left, but he is not nearly as left wing as Obama.

kombayn · 07-22-2008, 11:42 PM

^I have to disagree with you. When Iraqi's Parliament tells the United States of America that they want to see a time-table for withdrawal of our troops, it's time to honor that request. It's not our place or purpose to let Iraq know when WE think it's right. They are saying right now they will be able to handle & complete the stabilization of their country. If that is not victory I don't know what is. I want them to honor this request because our United States dollar cannot handle the budget of this war anymore or the deaths of more American soldiers.

C4Casey · 07-23-2008, 01:01 PM

As I've said before, I'm fine with troops coming home around 2010 as long as the situation on the ground continues to improve. But you can't expect an air force comprised of mostly Cessnas, Hueys, and Mi-17's to be able to provide adequate support for the army. Currently, coalition aircraft conduct 100% of airstrikes in the country, and we provide the vast majority of intra-theater airlift and ISR capability. You can not have an effective army in a country like Iraq without air mobility and air support. And I think when the prime minister talks about troop withdrawals, he is refering to our ground forces, and not necessarily our air forces.

Donkey® · 07-23-2008, 01:38 PM

I don't understand the debate on timetables and when troops should come home when the realization is that we built a palace of an embassy compound and a bunch of military bases. We're obviously not truly going anywhere.

Dylith · 07-23-2008, 02:03 PM

I am not a big Obama fan, but I don't think that McCain's article was as well written as Obama's. It wasn't as bad as I was expecting and he made a few pretty decent points, but overall it was rather lacking in substance.

I think that they can still claim impartiality (though this is borderlining). Being impartial doesn't mean that they have to publish poorly written articles.

7960 · 07-23-2008, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Dylith

I think that they can still claim impartiality (though this is borderlining). Being impartial doesn't mean that they have to publish poorly written articles.

completely, entirely wrong.

they refused to print it and asked him to change his policy...they didn't print it because they didn't like his policy, not because of how it was written.

Donkey® · 07-23-2008, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

completely, entirely wrong.

they refused to print it and asked him to change his policy...they didn't print it because they didn't like his policy, not because of how it was written.

And you're completely wrong. Read them. All McCain did was attack Obama. Side by side the difference between the two is glaring. The NYT didn't have to give him suggestions on how to change it, but they did. That said, they are just suggestions.

7960 · 07-23-2008, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And you're completely wrong. Read them. All McCain did was attack Obama. Side by side the difference between the two is glaring. The NYT didn't have to give him suggestions on how to change it, but they did. That said, they are just suggestions.

And you're wrong. I read them. Obama talked about mccain and his policies through his editorial and mccain replied to it.

Donkey® · 07-23-2008, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

And you're wrong. I read them. Obama talked about mccain and his policies through his editorial and mccain replied to it.

Not really. McCain says Obama's name in every single paragraph. McCain is in Obama's 3 times...mentioned with Bush as well one or two of those times. Way different.

7960 · 07-23-2008, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Not really. McCain says Obama's name in every single paragraph.

because he was addressing what he believed obama got wrong.

kinggovernor · 07-23-2008, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Not really. McCain says Obama's name in every single paragraph. McCain is in Obama's 3 times...mentioned with Bush as well one or two of those times. Way different.

it was a response article, what else would you expect?

Donkey® · 07-23-2008, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

it was a response article, what else would you expect?

Respond to the article Obama wrote by clarifying your plans...not saying "Obama sucks" 20 times.

kinggovernor · 07-23-2008, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Respond to the article Obama wrote by clarifying your plans...not saying "Obama sucks" 20 times.

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."

That sounds like a response to me, I was for X, my opponent was not.

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.

That sounds like a response to me, My opponent is for X, here is what I am for.

Donkey® · 07-23-2008, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

That sounds like a response to me, I was for X, my opponent was not.

That sounds like a response to me, My opponent is for X, here is what I am for.

If you don't see the difference between how the two articles are written, so be it. We disagree.

7960 · 07-23-2008, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Respond to the article Obama wrote by clarifying your plans...not saying "Obama sucks" 20 times.

he did clarify his plans, and obama does suck. what's your point?

Rouger2 · 07-23-2008, 10:17 PM

McCain is running for president of the united states one of the last two candidates for that office the most important job in US and maybe the world give the man the respect he deserves they should have printed his editorial

Stylerod · 07-27-2008, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

that is EXACTLY the point.

sure they're private and are allowed to publish what they want....nobody is saying otherwise.

what we're saying is they're assholes for doing it but continuing to say they "want to report on both sides of the campaign." they don't.

The NYT's better hope the fairness doctrine doesn't get passed by the Democrats. Wait, that only works for talk radio which tends to be more conservative, right?