Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
New York Times Denies McCain Editorial
Rotterdam NY...the people's voice    Rotterdam's Virtual Internet Community     Chit Chat About Anything  ›  New York Times Denies McCain Editorial Moderators: Admin
Users Browsing Forum
Googlebot and 96 Guests

New York Times Denies McCain Editorial  This thread currently has 608 views. |
1 Pages 1 Recommend Thread
MobileTerminal
July 21, 2008, 12:32pm Report to Moderator
Guest User
Quoted Text
NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET

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 in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

MORE

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... 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.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

MORE

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: '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.'

MORE

Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

Developing...



The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

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.


http://www.drudgereport.com
Logged
E-mail
MobileTerminal
July 21, 2008, 12:35pm Report to Moderator
Guest User
Anyone wanna take bets that the NYT gets a phone call from the Obama "camp" telling them it's "ok" to print it?

NYT is more worthless than the Peoples Gazette - the difference is, one is read, the other is bird cage material. You decide which.
Logged
E-mail Reply: 1 - 6
MobileTerminal
July 21, 2008, 12:43pm Report to Moderator
Guest User
Quoted Text
The McCain campaign says the New York Post has now expressed interest in running the McCain piece.
Logged
E-mail Reply: 2 - 6
Shadow
July 21, 2008, 2:21pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
11,107
Reputation
70.83%
Reputation Score
+17 / -7
Time Online
448 days 17 minutes
Both the NYT and the peoples Gazette are bird cage material.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 3 - 6
MobileTerminal
July 21, 2008, 2:23pm Report to Moderator
Guest User
Bing Bing Bing, Shadow gets the prize!!
Logged
E-mail Reply: 4 - 6
bumblethru
July 21, 2008, 8:00pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
30,841
Reputation
78.26%
Reputation Score
+36 / -10
Time Online
412 days 18 hours 59 minutes
Did ya read this one today in the times union..............



Taking the pulse of political coverage


First published: Monday, July 21, 2008
Biased.
     
Unfair.

Inaccurate.

Unclear.

Full of holes.

And those are sometimes the flattering descriptions of political coverage -- especially in a lively election year like 2008. Which is why you're now hearing from me.

The Times Union's editor, Rex Smith, has asked me to be what he calls "an independent monitor" of the paper's political coverage through the upcoming election. Why should you care about this experiment?

Because, with the good-hearted cooperation of the paper's journalists, I'll pay even more attention to your questions, comments and concerns about political coverage. I'll take another look at how well the coverage meets the standards of good journalism (see that opening list of complaints) and serves the public's needs in our democracy. Where there are lapses, I'll ask the reporter's favorite question: "Why?"

Along the way, I'll also do my best to explain the more mystifying rituals and procedures of journalism. I'll try to give you yet another window into the newsroom. And we'll discuss those good-journalism standards: Impartiality. Accuracy. Thoroughness. Transparency. Honesty. Independence.

So let me introduce myself: I teach journalism. In particular, I teach the kind of journalism that we'll explore here. I'm the Knight Chair in Political Reporting at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University.

To translate that mouthful, I hold a special faculty position -- created by an endowment by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, one of journalism's most prestigious philanthropies -- at one of the country's top professional journalism schools. That makes me very lucky.

Some personal tidbits: I grew up on a farm outside a small town in Alabama during the Vietnam and civil rights eras. Fell in love with journalism partly because of those two overwhelming news stories. Was the only child of working-class parents -- father a farmer; mother a homemaker and secretary -- who wanted me to "amount to something."

Lived on a boat for 12 years and for three years in a Winnebago motor home. Joyously married to a former newspaperman turned artist, an all-around saint. Don't have any hobbies, unless you count mysteries, thrillers, science fiction and chocolate.

Spent 25 years as a reporter, including two years in radio news and 20 years with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12 of them in its Washington bureau. Covered, among other things, the Panama invasion; the lives and deaths of five Roman Catholic missionaries killed in Liberia's civil war; the Democratic or Republican national conventions in 1984, 1988, 1992 and 1996; the politics and policies of health care and international trade -- and the World Championship Domino Tournament in my hometown of Andalusia, Ala.

Left the newsroom for the campus in 1996 with stops at Princeton, Harvard, Syracuse and Hampton universities. The story I regret missing: Iraq.
When it comes to politics, I belong to a very small group of journalists -- including Len Downie, retiring editor of The Washington Post -- who don't vote. I don't evangelize for that view.
For me, it's another way of pursuing impartiality and independence. Most folks, in all sorts of activities and jobs, can suspend their personal views to fulfill other obligations. Think of jurors, judges, referees.

Some Grimes Guiding Principles of Journalism: Democracy doesn't survive without a free press. "The purpose of journalism," as one of my favorite books, "The Elements of Journalism," puts it, "is to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing."

Being a journalist is an awesome privilege and awesome responsibility, because people sometimes make decisions based on what we report. There's a special place in hell for journalists who fabricate, because they betray the public trust. Facts are precious. A journalist's job is to sometimes tell you things you don't want to know, so that you can make choices you didn't know you had. And journalism is an act of citizenship.

That's what I try to teach to my students at the Newhouse School. You can find out more about me and my teaching at my Web site: http://knightpoliticalreporting.syr.edu. And you also can call or e-mail me.

Yes, I love journalism. Because of that, I want it to live up to its obligations and serve its purpose in our democracy. When it doesn't, we all -- journalists and the public -- lose.

In this monitoring experiment with the Times Union, my territory will be news coverage of politics -- not the editorial pages, columns or commentary. As part of our agreement, my pieces won't be edited except for the usual grammar, spelling, punctuation and fact-checking. Of course, I'll always ask the paper's journalists for responses to criticisms and concerns.

How independent can I be? Very. I'm not on the paper's payroll. And I already have a good job.

When I end this gig in November, I hope this experiment will have added a bit to the mutual respect between the Times Union and its community. I look forward to working with you. And good luck to us all.

Contact Charlotte Grimes at (315) 443-2366 or cgrimes08@gmail.com.
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=704887&category=OPINION&TextPage=1


When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche


“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.”
Adolph Hitler
Logged
Private Message Reply: 5 - 6
Salvatore
July 21, 2008, 8:23pm Report to Moderator
Guest User
it proves they are in 'bed' with Hussein Obama.
Logged
E-mail Reply: 6 - 6
1 Pages 1 Recommend Thread
|

Rotterdam NY...the people's voice    Rotterdam's Virtual Internet Community     Chit Chat About Anything  ›  New York Times Denies McCain Editorial

Thread Rating
There is currently no rating for this thread