Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: More pro-BO bias in the lib media-NYSlimes rejects McCain EO after running BO's

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408

    More pro-BO bias in the lib media-NYSlimes rejects McCain EO after running BO's

    the same rag who gave moveon.org an unprecendented discount for the general betrayus ad.....let's see how this plays out...

    [QUOTE][B]NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
    Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET[/B]

    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.'[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm[/url]

  2. #2
    The New York Crimes is a joke.

    They're nothing more than the liberals Pravda.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    now there's more:





    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...

  4. #4
    Did Obama's piece receive a similar "Times editing process" as McCains, or no? Silly question, as the Times agrees with Obama on this issue.

    Where's the fairness Doctrine now, eh? If you're going to be a media news source, and give one candidate the free reign to say his peace, you should extend the same courtesy to the other candidate, not try to manipulat what or how he says it.

  5. #5
    [Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

    LOL.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Here it is (I have not yet read it):



    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.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    ok after reading it, the first two issues that I have with it are as follows:

    #1 Where he says '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.” ', I believe from reading about the benchmarks (and it's actually the Bush administration, not the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad who is responsible) and progress, that Bush et. al. are claiming 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory", meaning that enough progress is being made on them that Bush et. al. consider it satisfactory... NOT that 15 of 18 benchmarks have been accomplished / achieved

    and

    #2 How dare McSame or any GOP operative even mention shifting rationales, after that being their modus operandi over the past few years in trying to justify this illegal invasion starting with fall 2002 (pre-illegal invasion) onwards... they have no authority to chastise anyone else of using their own tactics, now do they?

  8. #8
    the reason why the op-ed piece was rejected, according to salon

    [quote]
    In rejecting McCain's submission, New York Times Op-Ed editor David Shipley said that he wasn't "going to be able to accept this piece as currently written," and explained his rationale by saying: "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 ... It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, [b]the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq." [/b]

    The sticking point, to some degree, seemed to be Shipley's request that McCain define "victory" in the Op-Ed. That request poses obvious difficulties for McCain, who -- like other supporters of the war -- has been decidedly reluctant to be pinned down on a definition. If you really wanted to, you could claim that Shipley deliberately tried to corner McCain by including what was, in effect if not intention, a poison pill in his request for a rewrite. But such an attempt at policy explication hardly seems to constitute media bias. It's reasonable to expect politicians to be able to explain their positions.
    [/quote]

    we can't get a definition from the right wing on victory in Iraq since 2002 why would now be any different?

  9. #9
    I havn't had time to read the Obama piece as yet, sadly.

    Did he "articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory in Iraq" or "articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory in the War on Terror" or "articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory in Pakistan/Afganistan"?

  10. #10
    according to Salon, HA

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2639130]I havn't had time to read the Obama piece as yet, sadly.

    Did he "articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory in Iraq" or "articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory in the War on Terror" or "articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory in Pakistan/Afganistan"?[/QUOTE]

    I have not either, but McCain eludes to Obama never speaking about victory in the war, but ending the war... so he doesn't have meaningless vague references to "victory", and therefore it doesn't seem like defining them is as important to his argument... no?

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=acepepe;2639140]according to Salon, HA[/QUOTE]

    much easier to attack the source than define victory

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Tanginius;2639142]I have not either, but McCain eludes to Obama never speaking about victory in the war, but ending the war... so he doesn't have meaningless vague references to "victory", and therefore it doesn't seem like defining them is as important to his argument... no?[/QUOTE]

    Convenient.

    So in effect the paper is holding the two candidates to different requirements for the piece based on it's own pro-withdrawl biases. Withdrawal supporters do not have to answer, but McCain does.

    And Obama may be for withdrawal (or at least says he is), however withdrawal does not "win" the war on "terror", i.e. the ongoing conflict against Islamic Jihad Extremism.

    While one could conveniently excuse him for not answering the Iraq question beyond "lets get out, we lost", if the paper were being fair it would have to mandate Obama answer the broader "fine, how to we win the greater conflict" question then, right? to hold the two candidates to the same intellectual standard.

    Of course, if one belive there IS no War or Conflict with Islamic Extremism, then it all works out conveniently in the "no answers required' dept.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    A once respected newspaper has truly become a joke.

    Did Mr. Shipley tell Obama what to write in his editorial? I can understand him telling McCain to make corrections if something he wrote was inaccurate, but to dictate what McCain (or anyone for that matter) should write about is pure b.s.

    I wonder if Shipley told Obama what he should write in his editorial.

    This is shameless.

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Middlesex County, NJ
    Posts
    3,365
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2637690]The New York Crimes is a joke.

    They're nothing more than the liberals Pravda.[/QUOTE]

    Don't you mean the New York Slimes?

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    1,934
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2639130]I havn't had time to read the Obama piece as yet, sadly.

    Did he "articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory in Iraq" or "articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory in the War on Terror" or "articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory in Pakistan/Afganistan"?[/QUOTE]

    Op-Ed Contributor
    My Plan for Iraq

    By BARACK OBAMA
    Published: July 14, 2008
    CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

    The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

    In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

    But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

    The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

    Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

    But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

    As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

    In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

    Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

    As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

    In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

    It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

    Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

    [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Obama%20editorial&st=cse&oref=slogin[/url]
    Last edited by LI2OH; 07-22-2008 at 11:12 AM.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2639207]
    So in effect the paper is holding the two candidates to different requirements for the piece based on it's own pro-withdrawl biases. Withdrawal supporters do not have to answer, but McCain does.
    [/QUOTE]

    not really. If there's a debate and one side argues pro and the other side argues con it's not the responsibility of the con debator to define Pro's victory conditions.

    If Obama is saying traditional victory is impossible in Iraq (something any objective military scientist would agree upon) then he doesn't have to define victory conditions. It's not Obama's responsibility to define the impossible.

  18. #18
    Ok, thanks for posting that.

    So clearly, Obama did not "articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory" in Iraq (where he claims he would keep some troops to do a litany of similar things to whats happening now).

    Nor did he "articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory" in Afganistan/Pakistan or in the War on Terror.

    But McCain must, and must do so in a way that pleases the papers sensabillities.

    As i said, I wonder where all the "equal time" fairness doctrine folks are now......

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2639242]not really. If there's a debate and one side argues pro and the other side argues con it's not the responsibility of the con debator to define Pro's victory conditions.

    If Obama is saying traditional victory is impossible in Iraq (something any objective military scientist would agree upon) then he doesn't have to define victory conditions. It's not Obama's responsibility to define the impossible.[/QUOTE]

    You spin any faster Bit, and you'll drill yourself into the ground.

    even if what you say is true (it isn't btw, since Obama himself says he'll keep U.S. troops in iraq in some form), he should still have to define victory in Afganistan, right? Since he plans to send additional divisions, and perhaps even enter Pakistan against Pakistans will.

    Or you giving him a free pass on not "articulating, in concrete terms, how he defines victory" in that front as well? a front he clearly (claims) to be gung-ho about fighting.

    EDIT: Oh, and btw, what do those "objective millitary scientists" say about fighting and winning a land war in Asia, specificly in Afganistan? Hows the track record on that?
    Last edited by Warfish; 07-22-2008 at 11:59 AM.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2639254]You spin any faster Bit, and you'll drill yourself into the ground.
    [/QUOTE]
    Nah, he's against drilling!;)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us