Whiny McCain: The NYT Won't Print My Editorial!!!!

[VolcanoJen]

:cry: :cry: :cry:

Drudge - NYT Rejects McCain Editorial

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.'

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.'



At the end of the "piece," Matt Drudge obliges McCain by publishing his craptacular essay. It's essentially a hit piece on Obama... "Why won't Obama admit that teh surge is teh awesume??///!!111" :rofl:

[grantcart]

1. McCain's article has not one word about his plans for the future of Iraq

[VolcanoJen]

2. Exactly. It's not a "rebuttal." It's a hit piece, and it's all about The Surge.

If McCain wants to live in the past, we should probably let him. Although violence in Iraq today is precisely where it was pre-surge, if McCain wants to go on and on about it without talking about getting us out of Iraq, we shouldn't stand in his way.

McCain got us into this illegal and immoral and hugely unpopular war, and has no plan to get us out of it. He wants to talk about "honor" and "winning" but we're so far past any chance of either that he just comes off looking like the fool he is.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Yep--one giant attack on Obama, no new ideas, analysis, or plans.

[Clear Blue Sky]

48. Good for the NYTimes. An enlightened decision...nt

[zanne]

3. BOO friggin' HOO. nt

[Connie_Corleone]

4. It's basically a campaign attack ad against Obama.

No wonder it was rejected.

[leveymg]

5. McCain already got his NYT Iraq Op-ed

Read this again and weep, John. Dead wrong then, and dead wrong now: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E3DB153EF931A25750C0A9659C8B63

The Right War for the Right Reasons
By JOHN MCCAIN
Published: March 12, 2003

American armed forces will likely soon begin to disarm Iraq by destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein. We do not know whether they will have the explicit authorization of veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council. But either way, the men and women ordered to undertake this mission can take pride in the justice of their cause.

Critics argue that the military destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime would be, in a word, unjust. This opposition has coalesced around a set of principles of ''just war'' -- principles that they feel would be violated if the United States used force against Iraq.

The main contention is that we have not exhausted all nonviolent means to encourage Iraq's disarmament. They have a point, if to not exhaust means that America will not tolerate the failure of nonviolent means indefinitely. After 12 years of economic sanctions, two different arms-inspection forces, several Security Council resolutions and, now, with more than 200,000 American and British troops at his doorstep, Saddam Hussein still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction.

Only an obdurate refusal to face unpleasant facts -- in this case, that a tyrant who survives only by the constant use of violence is not going to be coerced into good behavior by nonviolent means -- could allow one to believe that we have rushed to war.

These critics also object because our weapons do not discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Did the much less discriminating bombs dropped on Berlin and Tokyo in World War II make that conflict unjust? Despite advances in our weaponry intended to minimize the loss of innocent life, some civilian casualties are inevitable. But far fewer will perish than in past wars. Far fewer will perish than are killed every year by an Iraqi regime that keeps power through the constant use of lethal violence. Far fewer will perish than might otherwise because American combatants will accept greater risk to their own lives to prevent civilian deaths.

The critics also have it wrong when they say that the strategy of the United States for the opening hours of the conflict -- likely to involve more than 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first two days -- is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi people. It is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi military and to dissuade Iraqi leaders from using weapons of mass destruction against our forces or against neighboring countries, and from committing further atrocities against the Iraqi people.

The force our military uses will be less than proportional to the threat of injury we can expect to face should Saddam Hussein continue to build an arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons.

Many also mistake where our government's primary allegiance lies, and should lie. The American people, not the United Nations, is the only body that President Bush has sworn to represent. Clearly, the administration cares more about the credibility of the Security Council than do other council members who demand the complete disarmament of the Iraqi regime yet shrink from the measures needed to enforce that demand. But their lack of resolve does not free an American president from his responsibility to protect the security of this country. Both houses of Congress, by substantial margins, granted the president authority to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. That is all the authority he requires.

Many critics suggest that disarming Iraq through regime change would not result in an improved peace. There are risks in this endeavor, to be sure. But no one can plausibly argue that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein will not significantly improve the stability of the region and the security of American interests and values. Saddam Hussein is a risk-taking aggressor who has attacked four countries, used chemical weapons against his own people, professed a desire to harm the United States and its allies and, even faced with the prospect of his regime's imminent destruction, has still refused to abide by Security Council demands that he disarm.

1 2 Next Page >
John McCain, a Republican, is a senator from Arizona.

[ErinBerin84]

24. via Wonkette

"NYT To McCain: Your Writing Sucks, Too. Stylish wordsmith Barack Obama had an op-ed in the New York Times last week, which is kind of a big deal. He could be the next David Brooks or Bill Kristol or even Maureen Dowd! So then Grampa Walnuts McCain was all, “Argghhh, I should get a column in the New York Times, I was tortured,” so the Times is all, “Okay, submit one, we guess?”

According to Drudge or where-ever he got this from, Op-Ed editor David Shipley cold rejected McCain’s submission because, instead of being an op-ed for the NYT, was just some rehashed campaign talking points against Obama."


http://wonkette.com/401287/nyt-to-mccain-your-writing-sucks-too#more-401287

[VolcanoJen]

25. ROFL

That's hilarious... and spot-on accurate, too. :-)

[leveymg]

47. How many times can one be wrong, and we are still to believe, it doesn't matter?

This election is shaping up to be a repudiation of every wrongheaded notion this man has stood for, along the holes in his hat.

[Renew Deal]

6. We already won the war.

:think:

[KansDem]

8. Was McCain given a new script or just the old one from the Viet Nam war?

...'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.'

I believe this was the reason to stay in Viet Nam: That once the godless commies overtook South Vietnam, then it was on through the whole of SE Asia, then Australia, then "Main Street, USA!!!"

Oh, and Nixon's "Peace with Honor" didn't help much either...

[VolcanoJen]

12. Well, I doubt McCain wrote that piece of crap, but you're exactly right.

It's just Vietnam-speak retread. It's kind of embarrassing.

Also, in the line you quoted, McCain is essentially equating Maliki and Iraqi self-determination with terrorism, in light of Maliki's endorsement of Obama's troop withdrawal timetable, isn't he?

[IndianaGreen]

17. McCain is still fighting the Vietnam War

He belongs to that small group of veterans that have deluded themselves into thinking that the Vietnam War could have been won. When McCain speaks of "victory" in Iraq, he is having a PTSD episode over Vietnam.

[The Onyx Key]

9. Actually, this is probably a bad move by the NYT.

Publish it and let people draw their own conclusions.

However, I really don't care enough about that paper to get very upset. :thumbsdown:

[VolcanoJen]

14. No, I don't think the NYT should be a mouthpiece for either campaign.

The NYT invited McCain to re-submit his article as an actual rebuttal to Obama's "My Plan For Iraq" editorial. The one McCain submitted isn't a rebuttal, it's a hit piece and it doesn't deserve a spot on the most valuable editorial real estate in the country.

Of course, Maureen Dowd doesn't deserve a spot there either, but I digress.

The wingnuts will whine about the New York Times until the end of days, whether they publish McCain's craptacular essay or not. Screw 'em. Let 'em cry.

[wmbrew0206]

20. You do realize that the NYT not publishing his Op-Ed piece is more valuable to McCain than

publishing it, don't you?

If the NYT had just gone ahead and publish McCain's piece than it would have gotten about a 2 minute mention on most evening news cast and we wouldn't hear about it again.

Now, I can gaurntee you that the McCain campaign will have a e-mail out to every right winger they can think of by the end of the day saying something like "The liberial NYTimes won't print McCain's Op-Ed piece. We need your donation to help us fight this injustice." This will porbably help McCain and the RNC with their funding raising effort.

Also, all the MSM outlets are going to cover this story and it will get a lot of air time in this weeks news cycle, when we needed this news cycle to be all about Obama's oversea trip. They'll also throw Rasmussen's poll that 49% of those polled think the media is trying to help Obama win into the mix. It will be discussed during the round tables, etc.

[VolcanoJen]

23. No, I totally disagree with you.

"The New York Times is a Liberal Rag" has been a right-wing meme since 1980. Publish the piece, don't publish the piece, it doesn't matter. The story never changes.

Our Awesome Liberal Media can wring their hands over this all they want to, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that gas is $4.00 a gallon, the Iraq War is unpopular, the economy is in the tank, we're under the reign of Most Unpopular President Ever, and Obama is up EIGHT POINTS in a new Ohio Poll.

One thing we really should have learned from the 2004 election is to stop playing the game by the GOP's rules. Let them wring their hands and sob into their hankies. If it's not this claim of "liberal media bias" it'll be another one. The story never changes. It's all they've got.

Run on the issues, win the election. It really is that simple, and you give the wingnuts' fondness for faux outrage and reaching for the smelling salts from their perch on the fainting couch far, far too much credit.

[wmbrew0206]

27. You completely missed my point

As you point out the right wingers hate the NY Times. They are also not big fans of McCain and will probably vote for him but not give him money.

McCain is going to be able to use this issue to stir up the right wingers hatred of the NY Times and to raise more money from them. He'll be able to use it as a rallying cry to the Dobson type right wingers, who he has been having trouble with.

You are going to hear the right wingers talking about this and using it for fundraising for years. If the NY Times had just printed this story, we'd have had two minutes about it on tonight's news cast and then you'd never hear about it again.

[VolcanoJen]

28. I didn't miss your point at all. Your point is utterly predictable.

Oh noes!!!! Teh New Yorke Timez iz a librul rag and it iz soes unfaire!!111!!!

Cue: Wingnuts Heading For Fainting Couches.

This kind of "story" only rattles wingnuts, not normal people. Wingnuts aren't going to vote for Obama. Now, this story may suck a little bit of oxygen out of the room during Obama's overseas trip, but not that much, really. McCain's "editorial" was poorly written and isn't a rebuttal, it's a hit piece. The "story" will go away and instead we'll see more pictures like this, because they're a lot more interesting:



Wingnuts have been raising money off the NYT for decades now. If it's not this NYT story, it'll be another one. You're kind of concern-trolling this story, you know.

[wmbrew0206]

29. Yes, you did. This is not about the NYT being liberal, it is about McCain being to raise money

and get more support from the right wing nut jobs. He has been having a problem raising money from his base. Everyone admits that the ethusiasm gap is huge between the two bases right now. McCain will be able to use this to stir up his base and raise more cash than he has been. I bet his campaign will see at least a 2 million dollar increase in fund raising off this.

[VolcanoJen]

30. No, I didn't. And I'm not remotely concerned about McCain's fundraising abilities.

Republicans have lots of money, McCain's a Republican, so it's self-evident that he'll raise plenty of money.

Thing is, he doesn't have long to spend it, you know... he agreed to public campaign financing, so whatever dough he raises between now and the GOP Convention needs to be spent. After the Convention, he's kinda screwed.

Stop worrying and learn to love Obama's massive fundraising capacity, and his choice not to have his hands tied by public financing. :-)

[wmbrew0206]

36. I disagree. McCain's fundraising problems are hurting him and helping Obama

A large part of Obama's strategy is based on being to out raise McCain and the RNC.

The New York Ties just help out McCain a lot more by increasing with his fundraising than it would have helped him to print his Op-Ed.

[VolcanoJen]

38. And, again, McCain can't spend any of that money after the GOP Convention.

Let's buy your hypothesis that wingnuts nationwide will open their wallets and throw money at McCain's "Teh Timez iz librul, waaaaah!" whining. Great.

What's he going to spend it on, between now and the end of August? Probably an ad that parrots the talking points of the "article" he submitted to the Times, which was summarily rejected because it was a poorly-written political hit job.

Yawn.

I'll bet you five bucks Obama raises way more than McCain in July, making the NYT "story" as insignificant then as it appears to be now. Check back with me around August 15th. :-)

[wmbrew0206]

44. I have no doubt Obama will out raise McCain. The question is by how much?

The more McCain raises, Obama has to raise that much more to maintain his spending advantage. A lot can happen between now and August and having money to spend to exploit an opening is a big deal.

I think this sub thread has gone on long enough and neither of us is going to changed the other's opinion.

Like you say, we'll have to wait to see the July money figures. I think McCain will see an increase to about $2 million to a total of $24 million based of this issue.

[The Onyx Key]

26. Correct. But the Right Wing Outrage part of this is irrelevant.

It's the further coverage that this will engender that's the issue. Those who don't see beyond and behind the MSM (which is a LOT of voters, unfortunately), will infer an "UNFAIR" message.

On the brighter side, however, it's not going to make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

[grantcart]

40. I also disagree. It shows that the intellegentsia is actually forming a back bone

and they have little regard for McCain hysteronics.

It maybe too late to set the record straight on going along with Bush but they are not going to take any shit with McCain.

If McCain wants to get into an argument with newspapers then he is losing the one of the last group of people that are even listening to him.

[bunkerbuster1]

43. It's possible the right has gone to that well a few too many times

"the big bad MEDIA is hurting us" probably doesn't register like it did in the 80s or 90s.

And then there's the overall whininess of the piece itself. "he never talks about winning the war". Well, no, John--you see, that's your schtick. That this piece of crap don't-call-it-an-occupation, with the constantly moving goalposts, and no real military mission that anyone can discern at this point, can somehow be "won."

[VolcanoJen]

45. Precisely. The electorate is yawning.

One thing we know for sure... the GOP will run the same Atwater-Rove Campaign they've been running since '88. It's all they know, and it's all they have.

Thing is, they've never run that campaign against an extraordinarily unpopular exiting Republican President and $4.00-a-gallon gas. Good luck with that, GOP. :-)

[Cheap_Trick]

10. cry me a river, you whiny fucks

then build a bridge and GET OVER IT.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. I refuse to drudge that crap up. can you quote his article, please?

[TexasObserver]

13. First it needs to read like he's not texting someone on a cellphone.

Then, he can worry more about content.

I suspect the NYT correctly assessed the piece not as a statement of what McCain will do, but as a running attack ad against Obama. The piece must be really craptastic if the NYT rejected it. They print a lot of shit these days. Liberal media, my ass!!

[bullwinkle428]

15. McCain would get more bang for his buck if he just

shoehorned his ass into a Superman costume, with the big "S" standing for surge. He could then pose in front of a giant flag with a screaming eagle in the background, and just use that as a full-page ad in all of Murdoch's newspapers. Of course, I'm not one of his advisers, so I don't plan on passing that tip along...

[ErinBerin84]

16. yeah, Mika was just flogging this story on MSNBC to a McCain supporter

"What was wrong with the op ed that the NYT didn't want to print it???"


Mika, the "op ed" that McCain offered can be read, and it's pretty apparent that the reason it was rejected was BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AN EDITORIAL! The NYT response was basically that they would be willing to look at a more detailed draft, but this one bit big time.


This is another notch in their attempt to paint the media as biased against McCain...the McCain camp could have just submitted a different draft, but instead, they are using this as an opportunity to try and get in good with Drudge and complain about the media coverage to advance their narrative.

[VolcanoJen]

18. Mika drives me nuts.

She really comes off as your basic news-reading bubblehead. And, since the entire craptastic "editorial" can be viewed in the Drudge article that Mika took her story from, can't we assume Mika already read the article, and knows exactly what is wrong with it?

[blogslut]

19. Poor Johnny McSame

I haz sad 4 him.

[Happyhippychick]

21. Whaaaa, whaa, whhhhaaaaaa!!!!

:nopity:

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. McCain would have been better off just referring the reader to the AM

radio dial.

[jefferson_dem]

31. McBozo's editorial is nothing but a hit piece on Obama.

Nothing about his plan at all...as if he had one. The NYT did the right thing.

[bunkerbuster1]

32. Since I refuse to click on Sludge, could you copy/paste McCain's piece here?

I really would like to read his crap. I need a laugh today.

[VolcanoJen]

33. If I pasted it, I'd break DU rules... it's longer than four paragraphs.

Oh... wait... IT WASN'T PUBLISHED!!! Haha!!!! So here you go. ;-) It's craptacular; enjoy!

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.

[bunkerbuster1]

35. THANK YOU! I was close to clicking The Sludge.

And now, to savor the wankitude...

[bunkerbuster1]

37. "his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years."

Sheesh, can't McCain even count?

Obama's last visit to Iraq was in January 2006.

You can push it and claim that was "nearly three years" if you're rounding up, but jeez; why lie about something so easily debunked?

[VolcanoJen]

39. Oooooooh!!!! Nice catch!!!!

But, of course, Gramps thinks Iraq and Pakistan share a border, so you kind of have to give him a pass on not being able to count to 3. You know, the way the media will. ;-)

[bunkerbuster1]

41. "McCain Can't Count to Three."

Dare I dream of such a headline?

[Eurobabe]

34. Call Grumpy a WAAAAAHBUMLANCE, will ya?

And give him a banky to go with it:

[VolcanoJen]

42. I mean, really. John McCain: "Hey, look over here!!!! Shiny."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Gramps is getting pretty jealous about the troops fawning over Obama and Maliki's endorsement of his withdrawal plan, eh? ;-)

[Eurobabe]

46. Such a fuckin' woose.

You suggested it Gramps, :think: now just freaking deal!

[VolcanoJen]

49. Still, McCain's behavior the last few days is really cracking me up.

He's like a petulant child who can't get any attention. :-)