Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

N.Y. Times Op-Ed Page Rejects McCain Iraq Piece

Updated 3:55 p.m.
By Howard Kurtz
Prospective authors don't usually make a big announcement when their prose is rejected by the New York Times Op-Ed page. But John McCain's campaign is telling the world that the liberal opinion and commentary page turned down his submission on Iraq, just days after publishing a similar piece by Barack Obama.

The Obama article made the case that his administration could "safely redeploy" most U.S. forces from Iraq over a 16-month period. The McCain camp, sensing an equal-time opportunity, submitted its Iraq piece Friday.

"The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops," it said. "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."

About two hours later, David Shipley, the paper's opinion editor, wrote:

I'd be very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page. However, I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.

I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach. 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, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.

Sounds like a pretty high bar.

Shipley, by the way, served as a speechwriter and special assistant to then-President Clinton. And the McCain camp was already steamed at the Times over that much-criticized news story about his relationship to a female lobbyist.

At this point McCain strategists had three choices. They could a) rework the article for the Times, b) submit it to another newspaper or c) clip it to Matt Drudge. They chose c).

The Drudge Report gave it a big splash online, which will drive the controversy onto radio and cable talk shows.

The Times issued a statement Monday afternoon, saying: "It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission. We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously."

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said the Times's response "reveals where they're coming from" and that the article will not be resubmitted. The Republican candidate's position on Iraq, Rogers said, "will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times."

Who needs the Times when you've got a big online megaphone?

By Web Politics Editor  |  July 21, 2008; 3:01 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Corzine Smoothes the Road for Obama in the Holy Land
Next: League of Conservation Voters Endorses Obama

Comments

THE FOURTH ESTATE
IS STARTING TO RESEMBLE
THE THIRD REICH.
Like Joseph Goebbels, American main stream media has replaced objectivity, integrity, and free choice with one sided reporting, that reflects their bias for Barack Obama. The American Press used to be the last bastion of truth. When special interests got out of hand, the press came to the rescue and exposed them to the public. Now, the press is the special interest with their own agenda.

Posted by: Howard | July 22, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"Rediculous! The media could not possibly be more blatant in its preferance for Obama!"

Well, now we know who's doing the McCain campaign's op/ed writing and copy editing.

Posted by: Left of the Pyle | July 22, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

It's hilarious that McCain, whose candidacy is by any stretch of the imagination only possible because of his press support, is now complaining about the Times's refusal to print the text of a McCain campaign attack ad on its editorial page. An op-ed is supposed to present a view or an analysis or a proposal; that's what Shipley is suggesting in his response. After publishing Obama's plan for Iraq, the Times is indeed obligated to publish McCain's proposals too. Problem is, he didn't submit any. He doesn't have any.

So instead, his campaign submits a piece that no respectable news organization would print, and gets it publicized for free in this "story," as well as getting an opportunity to whine. It's exactly this kind of free advertising in the press that's gotten McCain this far. But let's hope the cult of personality surrounding McCain continues to fade as people realize that while Obama actually has ideas about what to do in Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain has no plans beyond saying the word "victory" over and over again.

Posted by: professordarkheart | July 22, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I'll take a mulligan

If a newspaper is going to publish an Op Ed piece by one candidate then it just seems fair that they would publish one by his or her opponent.

If John McCain's article is as bad as many here say it is then the readers would be able to determine that after comparing his article with Barack Obama's article.

I think David Shipley, the opinion editor, is getting a bit full of himself when he treats a major presidential candidate like a freelance writer by telling him how to write his article. He is making the article a bigger deal than it ever would have been if it had been published in the Times.

Run them both and let the readers decide.

Posted by: danielhancock | July 22, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

If a paper is going to publish an Op Ed piece by one candidate then it just seems fair that they would publish one by his or her opponent.

If John McCain's article is as bad as many here say it is then the readers would be able to determine that after comparing his with Barack Obama.

I think David Shipley, the opinion editor, is getting a bit full of himself when he treats a major presidential candidate like a freelance writer by telling him how to write his article. He is making the article a bigger deal than it ever would have been if it had been published

Run them both and let the readers decide.

Posted by: danielhancock | July 22, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Oh please people. 99.9% percent of you here have never written pieces for an editorial. Doesn't matter if it's a right leaning or a left leaning publication, you get 2-3 revision requests at times. You respond and correct. I'm a middle of the road Republican and I see that the McCain camp instead of addressing the editorial issues and get published choose to blast the publication. How immature, address the faults NYT found and get published. This is the same as the other writers, but they just don't go airing it? What you all think the first draft of someone's editorial gets published? Dream on!

I'm more and more concerned that none of McCain's so called high quality staffers are doing their job? He has Carly Fiorina on board, whatever position you take on her running HP, she is a pretty smart women. She alone could have dealt with the NYT editorial back and forth and got a McCain response published.

I expect our print media to uphold their standards irregardless of the candidate. If you want the NYT to dumb down, then should we also expect publications that align to McCain to dumb down for Obama.

Have we really become this stupid as a nation?

Posted by: NPS | July 22, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Why submit an Op-Ed piece to the Times? Why not come out and make your statements publically?

Then they (The Times) would have to report on it - not subject it to editorial review.

Stupid News.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 22, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Rediculous! The media could not possibly be more blatant in its preferance for Obama! It has now crossed over into intentional activism for one candidate over another. Media bias? How about just remaining ethical!

Posted by: Cory | July 22, 2008 7:05 AM | Report abuse

I really like these guys less and less every day. But McCain take the Cake.
I dont like either of these two obama or McCain. This is a little off subject, but I just saw the Video of McCain on the Conan Show, He fell asleep on the Conan show. LOL thats hallarious. Wow! Thats all I can say Wow. The news should run this video more. If anyone want to see the video you can go to http://www.mccanes.com its under the videos. LOL Halarious. Today Ive seen a video of McCain taking a nap on the Conan Obrien show, and a Video of Obama making a three pointer. This race is a carnival. lol. Go see the video. www.mccanes.com

Posted by: John | July 21, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

We definitely should have spent the 2 trillion from Iraq on education - you Republicans are pathetic!

Every pollster out there is in the tank for McCain. Rasmussen has stuff like: 'McCain pulls within ten in Maine!' 'McCain beats Obama by five in Alaska!' 'Whites won't vote for the black man' etc. The editorial over at electionprojection is always pining for Obama to make some small gaffe so it can be magnified, just like the rest of the media.

Michelle Obama said the same thing John McCain said about loving America, and she was lynched in the media for it.

There is a double standard in this election. And there will be a computer program that analyzes all political content and calls out all of the media pundits and power players for their biases.

In case you missed it, WaPo and NYT - have ignored or underreported the most recent major stories:
1) Maliki's support of Obama's timeframe is a huge, huge story that is being underreported. (And the WH cover up of its Iraqi diplomatic arm twisting will be swept under the rug.) Who called whom, and when?
2) The pending FEC case against McCain arguing that he should be forced to stay in the matching system
3) Phil Gramm, entrusted with McCain's economic plan, is the corrupt Mr. Enron
4) The surge only worked because of the surge in bribes
5)McCain's long legislative history of opposing energy independence

The media is in the tank for McCain. There should be an outrage that he used public money to secure a loan then exited the matching system. That has a material impact on the election. McCain is breaking his own law! And no one has the balls to call him on it!

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 21, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I believe the real problem is that Senator McCain may be writing his own op-eds. This is another area where he needs help.

Posted by: Sneadly P. Armish, Ph.D. | July 21, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Read the link to the Drudge Report, which prints McCain's submission in full.

Read McCain's piece, and see if there's anything to it other than a rehash of his recent TV commercial.

The Times points out that it's published at least seven op-eds by McCain since 1996.

It's obvious that rather than do what thousands of other writers do---rework the original article a bit---McCain finds it more advantageous to play the martyr and fire up his base.

And like all Republicans, he finds it easier to run against the media than to confront the Bush record and tell us how he'd actually differ from Bush.

Posted by: Andy | July 21, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

This is absolutely unbelievable. Everyone knows that the press is in the tank for The Great Messiah Obama. But my God, is this the New York Times or the North Korean Times? You can't reject news or opinion from one presidential candidate. This is unreal.

Posted by: muskrat | July 21, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

General Casey's tactics in Iraq were flawed. General Petraeus took over and proposed the surge. Senator McCain supported it while Senator Obama, he who says he would listen to the generals on the ground, opposed it. The surge worked and things go much better as a result - by which we see which candidate displayed better judgment about the surge.

Posted by: Frank | July 21, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm still trying to come to terms with the fact that the media titans - WaPo and NYT - have ignored or underreported the most recent major stories:

1) Maliki's support of Obama's timeframe is a huge, huge story that is being underreported. (And the WH cover up of its Iraqi diplomatic arm twisting will be swept under the rug.) Who called whom, and when?

2) The pending FEC case against McCain arguing that he should be forced to stay in the matching system

3) Phil Gramm, entrusted with McCain's economic plan, is the corrupt Mr. Enron

4) The surge only worked because of the surge in bribes

5) McCain's long legislative history of opposing energy independence

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 21, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Howard Kurtz thinks that It is too high a standard for the NYT to insist that an op-ed on McCain's plan for Iraq contain some information about what his plan is.

Saying that he will have them out by 2013 has about as much meaning as he will balance the budget by 2013 when his first year he plans to increase the deficit more than his opponent.

The NYT is insisting on the same amount of transparency. If journalist insisted on the same degree of transparency Gore would have been president.

"I think that the McCain supporters, who support McCain on the war, lack the curiosity and integrity to have demanded such a declaration, unless they simply do not care about the welfare of the troops."

Posted by: Gator-ron | July 21, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

And to those still whining about how "liberal" the NYT is: Please read its oh-so-delicate profile of everyone's favorite morally bankrupt hypocrite, Rush Limbaugh, in a recent magazine profile. It was written by an obvious admirer, Zev Chavets, with no criticism whatsover.
So please, spare us the "NYT is liberal" BS.

Posted by: vegasgirl | July 21, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

McCain has already indicated that he feels that it is an imposition to spell out a plan. He just wants to make ad hominem attacks on Obama and keep secret his plan.

In the debates I hope Obama attacks him for lack of transparency for wanting to keep troops in Iraq with no plan of how to achieve victory.

Posted by: Ronnn | July 21, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

JohnD wrote: If the original draft is posted somewhere, I can't find it. Does anybody have a link?
---------------------------------------------
Duh! It's inside the Drudge link. I guess I should have had McCain give me an Internet lesson. I hope everyone will give me a pass because the McCain piece blends in perfectly with the other attack material on the Drudge site.

Posted by: JohnD | July 21, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse


Littlw Howie is beside himself.
BESIDE HIMSELF.

Where is the "straight' talk express he so
revered? What about lieberman, are we getting enough Lieberman?

What if they really get the troups out of Iraq and don't bomb Iran, as Irael wants?

It's not lookin good. Shriek.

Posted by: tired of it | July 21, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't take long for the left wings to accused anyone who support McCains to be labeled as uneducated, stupid redneck, does it? As the point that the McCains piece being an attack ads. The piece in queation is a RESPONSE to a earlier Obama piece. Obama would have writen a similar piece if he got the chance, and the NYT would have published it.

Posted by: I.H.Kwong | July 21, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Go read McCain's article. It's more of a campaign flyer then anything. McCain's interview on the network morning show he is definitely out of touch with what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain also needs a remedial class in geography. Iraq does not share a border with Pakistan. If the election is about McCain he loses.

Posted by: Scott F. | July 21, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

McCain can only preach to the choire. Obviously the NYTimes is not the choire

Posted by: mikie44 | July 21, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Waaah! A newspaper won't do whatever I ask of them! Waaaaaah! It makes me all sandy in my fromunda!

Posted by: mobedda | July 21, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Don't know about you all, but I'm ready for the VP picks!

I'm tired of the old guy and the Koolaid Kid trading jabs back and forth.

Let's get some more players in the game - and get this party started!

Posted by: Christina | July 21, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

The NYT says the McCain piece had no new information and inadequate details. Printing it as-is could have embarrassed McCain, so by asking for another draft, the NYT is doing McCain a favor.

If the McCain campaign disagrees, they could post the original piece to johnmccain.com and let us be the judge. Of course, playing bash-the-media can be worth more political points than presenting new ideas, especially when you have Drudge in your corner.

(If the original draft is posted somewhere, I can't find it. Does anybody have a link?)

Posted by: JohnD | July 21, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

If there is disproportionate coverage on Tv and the airways, that can be cured by reenacting the equal time provision. I support that even though it would disfavor my candidate.
Posted by: Gator-ron | July 21, 2008 7:00 PM
_______________________________

FOX NEWS--FAIR AND BALANCED proved the point that a pound of truth for fifteen minutes and a pound of lies for fifteen minutes is just giving lies equal weight with truth, and that's what balanced reporting has come to mean in America!!!

Posted by: harried | July 21, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

I know a little physics,...
Posted by: Douglas L. Barber | July 21, 2008 6:32 PM
__________________________

How little?
I apologize Douglas, but I could not resist!
I mean people are talking about Aspirationals Goal within the Time Horizon.
One guy today said everyone has the god given right to be stupid!
It's tuely mind boggling what's out there in America these days.

Posted by: harried | July 21, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

If there is disproportionate coverage on Tv and the airways, that can be cured by reenacting the equal time provision. I support that even though it would disfavor my candidate.

Posted by: Gator-ron | July 21, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

According to an analysis I heard on Potus 08, all of the media including Fox News gives twice as much coverage to Obama as McCain. That coverage however is twice as much when it is negative as it is when it is positive. The implication is that it is not bias as much as it is that Obama is more Newsworthy, more interesting, a bigger draw. One other point that was made was that McCain's coverage was comparable to Kerry and Bush, the thing that differs is Obama. Since Obama gets greater coverage on Fox News as well. I am sure it is more unfavorable news that is given.

Posted by: Ronnn | July 21, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

My God!, what's the world coming to? I never in my life would have thought a big, powerful, and White man's words would be turned away from one of these national newspapers, even a Jewish controlled, Liberal newspapers like the New York Times.

I mean, a BIG, POWERFUL, GOOD White man's words?

What's the world coming to, really?

What these uneducated, Liberals don't get it is that McCain IS THE GOOD GUY here, okay? Why would the NY Times turn down THE GOOD GUY's words, when he merely wants to explain his goodness and assure the world he's a force for good and the world, including America, has no fear from him?

I am utterly amazed at these girly LIbrals and what they are able to do, even if they number no more than a few dozen clewless ones, unlike Rush with his half billion dollar contract and hundreds of millions of followers....

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

FJ

My post was directed to you but you were unnamed.

Posted by: Mish | July 21, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Your position is well presented. I would disagree with you if Sen McCain criticized Sen. Obama as being defeatist without defining himself what conditions on the ground now preclude him from withdrawing troops. After he defines that he must give us some idea of haw he will achieve such a state that withdrawal is possible. It is unacceptable to attack Obama without giving a feasible plan. Obama's plan is better than no plan. And if McCain has no plan what is he writing about except to attack Obama.

I am surprised that you would believe the NYT has too high a standard in publishing the McCain plan without one given.

Posted by: Mish | July 21, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what a comparison of the numbers of inches of print and the number of photos of the candidates would show? CBS has reportedly given twice as much coverage to Obama. I'd bet the NYT is worse.

Posted by: IMAC | July 21, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

I read the piece - NYT did him a favor. How this man is considered an expert on international affairs is beyond me. Is all he going to do and run after Obama and carp? Does he have anything positive? Any vision about what he will do?

Bueller...Bueller...

Posted by: 2008 | July 21, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

A campaign of whiners that's having a mental regression...McCain's, that is.

Posted by: Gotta Whine | July 21, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

I think it's obvious that the NYT's editorial judgement is this:

Obama's piece was straightforward op-ed stuff, addressing a current issue. McCain's piece was a campaign attack on Obama.

I still say that the Grey Lady ought to let 'em roll.

I know a little physics, and I'm convinced that there is no possible universe in which John McCain outdoes Barack Obama in a battle of intelligence, decency and articulacy.

Perhaps Obama's campaign should suggest that the NYT allow an ongoing debate.

Posted by: Douglas L. Barber | July 21, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

If the NYT published an op-ed in which McCain criticized Obama about at time line but offered none of his own that would be a rehash of McCain's old position. If McCain calls Obama's plan defeat without defining what victory that is simply name calling and unacceptable. If McCain. Why won't McCain do that much? It seems like the only thing he wants to do is attack Obama. In so doing do, he will be the sole judge of how the withdrawal should be done, since the reader has not been given McCain's idea of what is correct. McCain's problem with the NYT seems to be he is an autocrat and gets angry when he is called on it.

How can people compare the two arguments if somewhat comparable information is not given. I am surprised that McCain is now running against the NYT and that he is willing to announce that the quality of his professional work is not up to Obama's. I am surprised how many people are blaming the Times for maintaining their journalistic standards.I am shocked that Howard Kurtz would admit to a lower standard..

Anyone drawing any conclusion about the accuracy of the reporting by the NYT is taking an illogical leap from the opinion page to the front page.

Posted by: Mish | July 21, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

NYT--"To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."

Washinton Post--"Sounds like a pretty high bar."

Drudge--"Hey Drudging is what I do."


Posted by: harried | July 21, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

I am extremely grateful our nation still has a handful of news organizations that are adequately staffed and offer objective skilled journalism like the New York Times. In this case I think they asked for too much, and Senator McCain chose to fire up his Fox News constituency rather than do his homework and offer some additional substance, in addition to his attacks. It would be nice and arguably to be expected to have a candidate for President of the United States offer some clear cut solutions and well defined goals when it comes to explaining how he will direct this war. The NY Times requested that McCain "articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq." The following is all I could find in McCain's draft that explained what he would do, "I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground." All McCain had to do was define even if only in general terms what some of those conditions are. We not to mention those Americans who are fighting this war deserve as much. Instead of explaining himself, he chose to attack the New York Times.

Posted by: FJ | July 21, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

It's simple:

The NYT rejected an editorial written by John McCain less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama.

How about the terms--Media Bias and Double Standard.

But, what else would you expect from the NYT?

Posted by: BobM | July 21, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

posters... please. McCain said he can't even turn a computer on. Obviously some nitwit campaign scribe amalgamated a bunch of Fox/WSJ talking points and threw it up their for automatic stamp of approval (NYT). Things can not improve for McCain unless and until he gets a new scribe, because again, he can not type on the computer his thoughts because he does not know how.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 21, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Why to Drudge? Why not to the Washinghton Post?
Is Drudge going to be McCain's go to newspaper now?

Posted by: harried | July 21, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I read parts of his submission elsewhere and it was grotesquely innacurate and basically rambling drivel. He should thank them for not publishing it, rather than admonishing them. Doesn't someone help him write things - I mean, who worked the computer? Someone needs to help him with his facts. Wow.

As an Obama supporter, I have but one comment after reading McCain's editorial:

Can't wait for the debates!!!!!

Posted by: Susan | July 21, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

If the NYT doesn't want to print whiny attack pieces, then they should get rid of their entire editorial page. Liberal whining is okay; any other kind of whining isn't. That's their standard.

Posted by: Jason | July 21, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

I suspect that the NYT will eventually think better of this decision, and allow as much back-and-forth between the candidates as the candidates are willing to proffer. What's not to like about America's greatest newspaper hosting a *real* presidential debate, not those sound-byte things we've become accustomed to watching on television? Presumably McCain's reply doesn't include cable TV crap like, "Senator Obama, if your wife was raped...."

Posted by: Douglas L. Barber | July 21, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I imagine that the New York Times requires something in Word format, and John McCain's was in paragraphs.

Posted by: lwps | July 21, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

The New York Times all of a sudden has standards? Wow, who knew? Their motto used to be "all the news that's fit to print." Now it's "we'll kill anything we don't want you to see." After all, it's all Obama, all the time. The credibility of the NYT went by by long ago.

Posted by: Fergie | July 21, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

They's so childish, nanananana na' na

The point is, Sen McCain had nothing new to say.

No plans, just attacks. Because Oabama is getting great press.

He wants Obama to say he was wrong on
the surge! Obama doesn't think he was.
That's 7th grade stuff in a very backward school...

Posted by: lily | July 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Howard Kurtz is a shill for the republicans. If he had any testicles he'd publish it in this article. The reason he didn't is likely that it would be obvious why NYT refused.

Posted by: Kevin Morgan | July 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Having read the McCain piece I have to agree with the NYT on this one. Rather than present his own vision for Iraq all McCain did in his own piece is sling political mud at the opposition. That kind of stuff may fly on FOX News but the NYT is right to set the bar alot higher.

Posted by: Cal | July 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Times or the New York Post would have been appropriate for McCain's writings. It shows that McCain is not very articulate.

Posted by: truth1 | July 21, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The excerpted paragraph "by" McCain is not worthy of publication. An attack ad by a candidate is not an op-ed. Maybe a letter to the editor would have been a better choice.

Anyway, the NYT can publish what it darn well pleases to, ad, ed, op-ed, letter to the ed, or news.

Posted by: kitchin | July 21, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I hate to say it, but the NYT was right on this one. Read the submitted piece, it's far more worthy of a whiny letter to the editor in a small-town paper than an op/ed piece in any respected paper.

BTW, is this what passes for media criticism at the WP? Reporting both sides of the story as if they're equally right when there is an obvious imbalance is not what criticism is all about Howie. Shoot, that's not even what journalism is all about.

Posted by: OutToLaunch | July 21, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

A lot of important polling information was released today: Obama leads McCain in Ohio, Mark Begich crushes Ted Stevens in Alaska and Dole keeps her lead in NC. Full roundup: http://campaigndiaries.com/2008/07/21/mondaypolls/

Posted by: Dan | July 21, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I read the McCain piece in the Drudge Report. The item reads as a soon to be released 30 second attack ad on Senator Obama.

I'm not so much afraid McCain is growing senile, as I am afraid McCain has surrounded himself with people who have already reached that stage. The piece should have never been sent as written. His staff should have understood that and not sent something that was basically an attack ad.

Posted by: Never McCain | July 21, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

This is the same newspaper (the big one in New York) that published Jason Blair on the front page right?

Posted by: ks | July 21, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

To clarify facts...the NYT didn't say that they won't publish McCain's article, they just said that it didn't measure up to their standards and wanted a rewrite. The article ultimately ended up in Matt Drugde's website which will publish anything. Since most republicans never graduate high school, it doesn't surprise me that most of them would take McCain's side. If I were a republican....I'd be dying of shame right now.

Posted by: Playa | July 21, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Having read Mr. McCain presentation to the OP Ed of the NYT I for one can not figure why they would not print it as it is. It is well constructed and lays out his plan and objectives. Is the NYT afraid of other viewpoints such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox news and this great web site(?). But be that as it may
this is much ado about nothing. It just shows the hatred that the left wing of this country has toward the rest of us middle american. The same can be said for the right wing.

We vote with our feet and move were we are comfortable. Government has reached its limits in the US. It either reform or fail.

Posted by: robinhood | July 21, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

The liberal dogs are out in force today. I waiting for the Nov to see this circus end. It is sickeing to see this ultra-liberal press making their choice. One liberal talking head (Tim Russert) is gone and I wish more would follow him.

Posted by: discerner | July 21, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

It would be ok for the NYT to deny McCains piece if its other op-ed stories were based on similar criteria. I can't even name the number of anti-Bush opinion rants in the op-ed section of the New York Times where all they do is bash Bush and don't provide and substantial issues or solutions.

Posted by: Cryos | July 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

ohhh..I wasn't surprised. This is expected from a liberal newspaper. No wonder, this election will result in the fall and the rise of many. The fall of NYT is already written. When McCain wins, I would like to see liberal talking heads put their heads in their a**es.

Posted by: discerner | July 21, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

The McCain camp is in complete disarray. I think it's time for Mitt Rommey to step up as the Republican's only true conservative and smart choice. Otherwise, we're going to lose this election in a landslide.

The McCain camp seems like an amateur hour at the Improv. I just don't understand how incopentent they're compared to the Obama campaign. Mitt would have done a much better job.

Republicans need to stand up or be left out in the upcoming election.

Posted by: Eros Wong | July 21, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Cryos...there is nothing wrong with a high quality newspaper like the NYT asking an author to resubmit an article. It just shows McCain is just too stupid to understand that. Whining when you don't get your way may help you when you're a baby......it's just not cute when you're a 72 year old geezer.

Posted by: Playa | July 21, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

McCain is in no position to advise anyone about the war. His misguided rants helped lead us into this disastrous war, showing us the true measure of his judgment and leadership "talents." Don't forget, McCain promised us the war would be "brief" that we'd be welcomed as conquering heroes, that we wouldn't need that many troops because technology would pave an easy path to victory and in March 2003 joined in the "Mission Accomplished" talk, promising that while there WAS a bit of mop up left, that the main goal had been accomplished, that of regime change. That this guy would presume to use the NYT oped pages for another anti-Obama rant is a good view of why his campaign is sputtering and lurching along. All vestiges of the straight talk express have been abandoned. Too bad -- at least he used to be honorable.

For a good article on most of McCain's early war blunders, see this:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/17/mccain/

Posted by: straight talk my a** | July 21, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Is it to late for the parties to declare that Hillary and Romney were better candidates then these two... Make them the winners of their respective primaries.. and give the American people another shot of picking the best person to be President?

Posted by: rss | July 21, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

It's disappointing the Times won't run McCain's op-ed piece, whether it meets the standards. It simply gives the right wing noise machine/echo chamber more fodder.
Well, McCain can go on Rush Limbaugh, who reported hates him less than Obama, and state his piece to a rapturous audience.

And to Sam: I hate to break this to you, the Right loves to lie, too. Too bad you apparently can't grasp that.

Posted by: vegasgirl | July 21, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Most of the Obama supporters opinions on this article are amusing. I'm glad for the protracted democratic primary. It opened Hillary supporters' eyes to what it is like to be a republican to the media. I think a lot more people can't deny the media bias because of the democratic primary.

It used to at least be somewhat hidden bias but it seems the last year media wants their candidate so bad they are willing to forgo all journalistic integrity and outright plug for their preferred candidate.

It will be interesting to see if the media and money win this election for Obama. Despite all the rhetoric for Obama abandoning public financing "to combat the coffers of the republican special interest groups" in the 2004 presidential elections when all was said and done the democrats spent $100 million more than republicans.

I guess that is part of the reason they are so mad at Rove and republican related 527s that even with $100 million additional dollars and media support they got outmanuevered.

Posted by: Cryos | July 21, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

McCain says if we don't win our war, our enemies will. If turning the security of Iraq over to the democratically elected government and reconstructed military of Iraq isn't victory then what is? Saddam Hussein was killed years ago.

Posted by: Deep analysis | July 21, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I've read both pieces. Senator Obama's stated his position on Iraq. Senator McCain's was an attack on Senator Obama's position. It was a reactionary piece instead of a statement of his own position, and I think the NYT made a fair decision in rejecting Senator McCain's piece in its present form. Disagreements with op-ed pieces is what the "Letters to the Editor" section of the op-ed page is for.

Posted by: John Lowe | July 21, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

As a voter who was previously swaying towards Obama, this has caused me to rethink my decision. Simply put, I no longer trust the information provided to me about the candidates from the media sources I had been reading, to have been fair and without significant bias. I will now wait until the debates to make my decision.

Posted by: Nick | July 21, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm not usually a fan of blog-explatives, but Sherry Kay's scream has pretty accuratly represended the level to which I have been fed up with old, rationally crazy, power-hungry, corpulent wretches like McCain & Co. When will these sick old tools give it up?

Posted by: Jaylike Birds | July 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

It is almost unreadable. It sounds like it was written by a child.

+++++++
I'm not one to defend the NYTimes, but it does sound fair to me. Why can't McCain just come up with a plan. He truly has not articulated his vision for victory, outside of something that looks like Korea (which is obviously not feasible in Iraq), and of course the complicit media never calls him on it. Although I think the NYTimes is way out of touch, in this instance, the WAPost's efforts to paint the NYTimes into a corner is pathetic. The Post should instead focus on asking tough questions of both candidates.

McCain seems like a big whiner, just like his pal Phil Gramm.

Posted by: GoHuskies08 | July 21, 2008 5:15 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

The mistake Bush and Mccain made was Ideological. They were under the pressure that the American Troops would be precieved as liberators and welcomed with open arms. If the Iraqi's would have percieved the U.S. presence as that Bush and Mccain would have had a long term pressence in Iraq. Unfortunately, it was only Bush/Mccain who thought our pressence would be precieved as liberatiors and not the Iraqi's. It was and is the total opposite. The Iraqi's never wanted the U.S. presence in Iraq and its clear that they want us to leave. The Iraqi's never asked for our help.

Posted by: Craig | July 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story."

Posted by: JP Vanderbilt
*********

No, the situation in Anbar began to change before the surge when in 2006 the US commander in Fallujah rebelled against the Bush dictate against working with local Sunni leaders to address security problems, and helped one defend his people against a group of terrorists. Sunni leaders had been asking for such cooperation since August of 2003, and were rejected at least 3 times.

Bush made a quagmire of Iraq, and terrorists exploited it while Bush was concerned with forcing Iraq to follow his plans. We began to make progress when the army shifted strategy from occupation to counter-insurgency, and helped the Sunnis fight the terrorists.

The decimation of AQI is a victory indeed - but as long as the right claims it as a victory of the surge, that is, OUR victory, it looses much of its potential impact on Al Qaeda. Instead, we should proclaim it as an IRAQI victory, the rejection of extremists by the mainstream, and thank Allah that we were able to assist them in their struggle.

Posted by: j2hess | July 21, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I'm not one to defend the NYTimes, but it does sound fair to me. Why can't McCain just come up with a plan. He truly has not articulated his vision for victory, outside of something that looks like Korea (which is obviously not feasible in Iraq), and of course the complicit media never calls him on it. Although I think the NYTimes is way out of touch, in this instance, the WAPost's efforts to paint the NYTimes into a corner is pathetic. The Post should instead focus on asking tough questions of both candidates.

McCain seems like a big whiner, just like his pal Phil Gramm.

Posted by: GoHuskies08 | July 21, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

The point is Mccain is losing this argument because Obama is right Mccain doesn't have a strategy to win in Iraq just to stay in Iraq. What is Mccain's strategy to win. The surge has improved the situation on the ground now how does the surge improve the process of a functional government? The Iraqi government already made it clear. Bush didn't have a strategy to win either if he did they would have convinced the Iraqi governement for long term presence like Bush and Mccain want. They didn't have a plan and thats why the Iraqi government wants a timetable for withdrawl.

Posted by: Grady. | July 21, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight. The WP's "media critic" thinks during the week that Obama is in the Mideast and Europe that McCain's having his homework handed back to him by the NYT marked "incomplete" will get any traction outside the people who were going to vote for him anyway?

Posted by: John Dillinger | July 21, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I can see how Mccain lost to Bush in 2000. The guy is really an inferior candidiate to Bush. Jeez....rewrite and submit your article already. the last thing America needs is nurse your hurt feelings because your first draft was rejected.

Posted by: Playa | July 21, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-EEEEEEEEEE-EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-EEEEEE-EEEEEE-EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-EEE-EEEE-EEEEEE-EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-E-E-E-EEEEEEEEEE-E-E-EEEE-EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Sherry Kay | July 21, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I think the New York Times asked the appropiate questions. What is Mccain's plan, besides just staying in Iraq. All I hear from Mccain is the conditions on the ground without ensuring the public how he will continue to improve the conditions on the ground and how long it would take. Americans want to end the war in Iraq and Mccain wants us to stay there indefinately without and approximate date for withdrawl. We can't have an open whenever date. How can Mccain have a strategy without a time for leaving. Yes the surge has improved the situation on the ground but Iraq is far from being a fuctional government so thats the strategy Mccain is leaving out if he wants to stay. Besides the Iraqi government wants us to leave and a time table for with drawl.

Posted by: Brad | July 21, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Mccains campaign disintegrates a brick at a time by the minute. You don't know which will die first, the campaign or Mccain himself. It looks like a dead heat.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

and open A Bunny Ranch East in Basra.

Posted by: jakeD's shadow | July 21, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Way to go...McCain's campaign. Here we have Obama meeting with heads of state looking presidential, and mCain whining like a baby because the NYT won't publish the first draft of his Op-ed piece.

Posted by: Playa | July 21, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

It's because McCain used crayons to write it - he's going to learn how to use a computer right after he "wins" in Iraq.

Posted by: | July 21, 2008 4:21 PM

===============================

why I tune in.... actually, I think it was that victory would be declared when Hooter's open's up outside the GreenZone.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 21, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

If the people running the Mccain campaign had any brains, they'd rewrite and submit the article as the NYT wanted, instead of PROVING TO THE WORLD THAT McCAIN IS AN UNEDUCATED HACK WHO CAN'T WRITE A PROPER ARTICLE. That happens when you graduate among the bottom 5 (that's 5, not 5 percent) of your class.

Posted by: Playa | July 21, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The guy graduated at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, and he probably only got in because of family connections.

The Navy later told him that he'd never make Admiral, which is comparable to a general in the army.

And the guys wants to be commander-in-chief?

His op-ed piece was a political hit job, not a policy paper. He should know better. And he would know better if he had any sense.

The man was, after many years, judged by his peers to be not worthy of being an Admiral in the US Navy. Despite the fact that his father and grandfather were both admirals. That's like not getting into Brown, the easiest Ivy for legacies, when your parents and grandparents have buildings there named after them.

The man is not fit to be POTUS.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 21, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Try reading McCain's "editorial". It is raw electioneering and name-calling, riddled with smears and exaggerations, and dedicated to tearing down an opponent rather than putting forward a vision, plan, or even a hint of a positive proposal. I would not expect any op-ed in the NYT or any other major newspaper to read in this way. There's an accepted, more thoughtful and constructive style that is the norm for such settings (and which Obama's piece fit into).

I believe this was a set-up by the McCain campaign. They produced something that was deliberately over the top and not "fit to print," to use the NYT slogan, as a major newspaper opinion piece by an aspiring president. Then the NYT took the bait by refusing it (or requesting a revise), and the McCain people had their splashy story.

Something like this happens all the time in book publishing when an author is required to submit a certain number of books but no longer wants to stay with that publisher. They turn in a manuscript they know will be a deal breaker, that is a full book but that the book publisher won't like. Once it's rejected, they've still fulfilled their contract by submitting it and now they're free. Here it was an opinion piece they hoped and prayed would be rejected.

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | July 21, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

so the NYT ask Senator Mc Cain to lay out his plan for Iraq and since he has no plan, he chooses to leak the story to drudge and Mr Kurtz chooses to highlight it as another case of medias bias. I've just read the Mc Cain op-ed, i rather call it Senator Mc Cain attack op-ed on senator Obama plan. There are more valid examples of medias bias than this.

Posted by: J | July 21, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

....and in another note, foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's strongest suit. Enough said.

Posted by: Playa | July 21, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

j2hess

What you say is correct. He probably has one but fears letting us know because it would reveal that his plans would make him sound like a warmonger

Posted by: Gator-ron | July 21, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

The GOP has two choices: 1) Replace McCain by fomenting some situation that will make McCain unable to continue as a candidate. 2) Or, of course, the one that will be attempted: steal the election, through all of the methods they worked with Bush's illegitimate elections. McCain can't win on merit, he's toast. Wait until it really heats up, and watch insane McCain light up like a matchhead. McCain's time is passed, he had a chance in 2000 and was a much better candidate then...but he bent over for Bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Of course McBush chose another route. He had no choice.

There is no way he can in the article "... articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate..." primarily because he and his crack campaign team have no idea how to address those issues.

McBush has shown paper thin knowledge in either depth or breadth on almost any issue he has discussed, to include foreign policy. And, on that issue, supposedly his strong suit, he confused the players in Iraq and mentioned Czeshlovakia (sic), which as a country has been gone for more than a decade.

It would have taken great effort on the part of the "R" party to find a worse candidate for president than one who graduated FIFTH FROM THE BOTTOM of his Annapolis class. As president, he would be worse that his present mentor, the WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY.

Enough said.


.


Posted by: swanie | July 21, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

I see Grandpa McCain has his depends in a knot because the NYT won't publish his joke for an editorial. Guess what? A lot of highly educated people pay a lot of money to read quality articles on the NYT. The NYT can't lose readership by publishing something that can only be published on a blog like the druge report. What next...people whining that there isn't enough news of two headed chickens or alien abductions on the NYT?

Posted by: Playa | July 21, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

McCain hasn't said anything knew about Iraq and the Times is correct to require more than just a tit for tat free campaign ad. McCain, once again, is trying to make the distraction the issue. We can't afford that anymore. These are serious times.

Posted by: Truth | July 21, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Part of McCain's problem was that he was trying to write the piece on a computer and it crashed on him five times. At which point he had to be subdued and medicated. But it was NOT post-traumatic stress disorder. There may also have been some unappreciated attempts to edit the paragraph, "Don't you dare question my right to be president, you little jerk, or I'll put an IED under your chair and throw you out of the country. I served for five years in a prisoner of war camp...[untranslatable]...IT'S PSYCHOLOGICAL!"

Posted by: GaryL1 | July 21, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

The war turned around because Rumsfeld was fired, Cheney became less influential on the war and Gates and Patraeus were in charge. Had the Republicans won in 2006 Rumsfeld would still have been in and without competent advisors no president could succeed.

Bush's greatest failing is that he chose and got rid of people on the basis of their political thinking and loyalty and not on competence. The present Attorney General and Sect. of Defense are both men who I would trust and in the case of Gates, I would be happy to see in an Obama administration

Posted by: Gator-ron | July 21, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

From the NYT: "John McCain kept referring to Czechoslovakia and the Iraqi-Pakistani border in his piece. Because of the excessive errors in geography, we have asked Senator McCain to re-work is op-ed. Also the nation of whiners was also deemed not appropriate to describe Americans".

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | July 21, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The Times asks McCain "to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq" and tell us how he is going to achieve it. A McCain spokesman implies that this is equivalent to a demand that McCain change his position.

The logical conclusion is that McCain's position is to have no definition of victory and no plan for achieving it.

Doesn't that pretty much say it all?

Posted by: j2hess | July 21, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Chuck

In your dreams they are tied in the polls. Your "facts are as accurate as Hannity. The real poll on Intrade and the Iowa Market shows the current odds of an Obama victory as slightly short of 2:1 but greater than 3:2.

The race may appear close I'll grant you but it is not.

Posted by: Gator-ron | July 21, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse


What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public?

Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq.

London's Sunday Times called it "the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror." A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.

The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.

We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.

Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there.

Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.

Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside.

Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved "satisfactory" progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks, a big change for the better from a year ago.

Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.

But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, "the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks" that signaled political progress.

The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.

Posted by: JP Vanderbilt | July 21, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

theaz

The NYT has rejected things that I have said. You would call me liberal. Most times I can attribute not being published to having been rude. But not every time. Their not publishing I do not think is related to political content

Posted by: Ronnn | July 21, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I see why McCain is tied in the polls with Obama, America can see whats going on with the MSM and 50% of us can see how Obama is not ready for POTUS.

Posted by: Chuck | July 21, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

It's because McCain used crayons to write it - he's going to learn how to use a computer right after he "wins" in Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Admiral Mullen should be fired for going on TV and saying he is for McCain's. You lack the integrity to even realize that.

Posted by: G8tr | July 21, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Dan

What you said does not address what I said and should not have been addressed to me. You frankly have no idea what McCain feels. I do not care one twit about what he feels. I want a definition of victory and you do not care one bit about the troops, only that you win the election. The other thing that is need is a time horizon and some estimate of the troops at best. Your response was disingenuous at best.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

oh, howie, you're such a tool.

Posted by: linda | July 21, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Formally issuing a statement is news.

Op-ed's are subject to review and denial.

Cut out the middle man, get up on stage and tell me what you think, Senator. Don't try to hide behind the denial of an editor when you could simply make a public statement. This feels gimmicky.

Posted by: StrayDog | July 21, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"articulate, in concrete terms". They couldn't , they wouldn't, they sent it to Drudge. Sounds like a cheap political shot. The NYT was right to tell him to resubmit it when he has something worthwhile to say. Otherwise, Drudge is the right place for false outrage.

Posted by: thebob.bob | July 21, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Sam wrote: This approach worked with North Korea.

=====================================

are you kidding me? What worked. North Korea HAS a bomb, several bombs, and fuel oil, and food. What worked, that they gave the U.S. a list of ALL their Bombs? How does that work? Repugs as a rule are stupid... but you perhaps take the cake. Dittohead maybe, Rush druggie.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 21, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

theaz

You are aping what Ed said.

Posted by: G8tr | July 21, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"The NYT is in the bag for Obama. Tell me something new."

Posted by: Ed

Ed, you were quoting the NYT when you said "Tell me something new" for they said that first. From the fact that McCain announce that his op-ed did not meet their standards for publication means that he has no intention of meeting their standard.

You criticism lacks merit. How can there be an Iraq plan without a definition of victory and an approximation of troop levels and a time horizon similar to what the Iraqis ask of the US. If Mr McCain wants to print an attack on Mr Obama but reveal no pertinent information about his plan, he should do it on his dime or on the mouth piece of the Republican party, the Wall Street Journal which I will add I read.

You are whining, Ed. That makes you a mimicker of Hannity or Limbaugh

Posted by: G8tr | July 21, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

NYT is bad! I mean you can't post comments on their site like here; with opinions that is not liberal, they pick and choose what comments. Poor example of allowing freedom of the press, they should be shut down or registered as a 527!

Posted by: theaz | July 21, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

It is me or is anyone else getting tired of McCain 'whining' about Obama's coverage. McCain and his campaign has become a group of whiners....The NYT didn't publish my Op-ed, the MSM is giving Obama's tour too much coverage...Blah blah blah. Stop whining and do something, you whiners.

Posted by: Joe Jackson | July 21, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

JR careful is about leaving not having the iraqis take over.

Careful is leave safely he isn't talking about having the iraqis take over.

His plan is withdraw two brigades a month no matter what.

No matter if the iraqi military is ready or not.


The correct withdrawal is 5 brigades a year not rapid withdrawal.


We need to withdrawal responsibly with the iraqis taking over not a blind withdrawal.


Obama never served his country.


It is a disgrace that someone could want to be CIC and not listen to the commanders on the ground when he never served his country.

Admiral Mullen said you need a responsible plan based on conditions of Iraqis taking over not Obama the liberal's political gimmack with a date out of thin air.

Posted by: Sam | July 21, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

To Gator-on:

McCain hates war. McCain is a navy man from the silent generation.

McCain voted against keeping our troops in Lebanon.


The Times is using political code words to hurt McCain.


McCain has explained victory many times.


The Iraq military taking over and our troops coming home.


McCain wrote about the iraqi military still needing help with their air force and command structure.

McCain has said victory is for the iraqi military taking over and our troops coming home.

Obama has a plan for defeat.


Obama wanted to withdraw two years ago when the extremists controlled basra, sadr city and mosul. Obama wanted to leave in defeat.


Obama was against a timetable when running for the senate saying it would tie the hands of diplomats.

Obama was agaisnt a timetable before he was for it.

Obama in the senate in 2006 said a timetable would tie the hands of diplomats.

McCain had his own son serve in Iraq.


McCain's victory is not leaving a vacuum by withdrawing without iraqi military taking over.


McCain's victory is withdrawing on a responsible pace so the Iraqi military takes over and their is no vacuum.


McCain's victory is to bring our troops home with success so future generations won't have to go back again.


Obama's plan doesn't include handing it over to the iraqis.

His plan is rapid blind withdrawal which leaves a vacuum.

Admiral Mullen is for McCain's plan.

Posted by: Dan | July 21, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Really, the NYT's mission has been to "take down" Obama? Stand back for a sec and try to look at the situation as an American - not a partisan. GW has set the bar pretty low, so Obama may look qualified compared to Bush - but by any other standard, the guy has accomplished so little while talking so big. Who else would the Times select? Still, I think the Times is favoring Obama (the Democrat) out of penance for being such stooges to Bush during the build-up to the Iraq War.

Posted by: David | July 21, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Sam: "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless going in"

Barack Obama


So why are you talking about a vacuum?


Posted by: JR | July 21, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Gator-on Obama is for a base at the green zone which Maliki is against.

Posted by: James | July 21, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Sam: Yeah, the best way to start out multilateral diplomacy is to sing songs about bombing the country you want to negotiate with and make jokes about killing their citizens.

Posted by: JR | July 21, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

To JR

Obama just got schooled by the Joint Cheifs that said you withdraw based on conditions on the ground.

Obama said he would listen to the Joint Cheifs.

Admiral Mullen basically said Obama has no clue.

Considering Obama has no military experirene he doesn't have a clue.


You withdraw as Iraqi military has the structure to take over.

You don't have a rigid rapid withdrawal which leaves a vacuum.

You withdraw on a pace that doesn't leave a vacuum and has the iraqi military taking over.


Iraqi military still needs help in Diyala province with al queda.


This election is a joke.


New study shows 93 percent of Obama coverage is positive compared to 17 percent for McCain.


Obama gets three times the coverage and more than 5 times the positive coverage.

Posted by: Sam | July 21, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

The NYT's, Mr Shipley, Is requesting exactly what many would like to know which is a definition of victory. Frankly, I do not think that McCain's definition of victory would be any different than Obama's with the possible exception that there would be a permanent base in Iraq. For political reasons the McCain camp will never write that NYT op-ed because it would be disastrous for them to define victory. The problem with Bush is that he never defined it and the troops keep dying and become seriously injured for an objective that has never from the date of entry been clear.

I think that the McCain supporters, who support McCain on the war, lack the curiosity and integrity to have demanded such a declaration, unless they simply do not care about the welfare of the troops.

Posted by: Gator-ron | July 21, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has decided to break with previous policy by sending one of its most senior diplomats to engage Iran's top nuclear official, the White House announced Wednesday...."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/us.iran/index.html


Read the link, and when did Obama say he wanted only unilateral talks?

and

Don't even go there about lying you Repuke.

Posted by: JR | July 21, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"being lazy and irresponsible for Obama does not serve any purpose"
David
---------------------------------------------

What they were doing was trying to prevent publishing a lazy and irresponsible op-ed piece from a certain candidate.

The NYT has done everything they can to take down Obama, they endorsed and favored HRC and they still don't like Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

To JR:

We are not talking to Iran.

We are demanding Iran stop the enrichment.

McCain is for multilateral diplomacy with the EU and the U.S pressuring Iran to stop enrichment with the threat of sanctions.


This approach worked with North Korea.


Obama wants to break up the multilateral diplomacy on Iran that worked in North Korea.


Obama wants unilateral diplomacy with Iran with no conditions.


The European leaders are against Obama's plan.

They want multilateral diplomacy with conditions.


We aren't talking to Iran we gave them a demand to stop enrichement and we listened to their answer.


Obama wants to negotiate without Iran stopping enrichment.


Obama wants to give a stage to that crazy Iran President who has museums praising the holocaust.


The left loves to lie.


Posted by: Sam | July 21, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like the Times is following the lead of BET in their coverage of the Presidential candidates. Do I have to listen to Rush, Hannity and FOX News, now? I loved the degree to which the MSM was critical of the Bush Administration; I expected the same degree of scrutiny to be applied to Obama as well. Listen, we got 8 years of GW because the press and the Congress were lazy and irresponsible - being lazy and irresponsible for Obama does not serve any purpose. Obama and Axelrod seem to have learned much from Bush and Rove about the manipulation of the masses and the MSM.

Posted by: David | July 21, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The NYT is in the bag for Obama. Tell me something new.

Posted by: Ed | July 21, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

haven't read the Times since Cheney used it as a propoganda outlet, but... here we have an indication that they have learned how to not become a repug campaign outlet. I don't know though... like the New Yorker, they are owned by AIPAC. I think they were just rejecting it because it was too stupid.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 21, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"Sounds like a pretty high bar."

Well! We mustn't bother the good Senator with high bars, must we?

Posted by: Bartolo | July 21, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Recent world events (Maliki's comments, the general time horizon, talking to Iran) seem to give the impression that the "naive" one is schooling McCain and Bush on foreign policy.

Posted by: JR | July 21, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

bwahahahahaha....the McCain people can't even write an educated Op-ed piece on foreign policy. Let's not even bring up economics. Matt Drudge seems to be the only outlet willing to accept McCains rubbish. BTW...as the NYT op-ed editor correctly stated, calling your opponent names does not qualify as policy. Meanwhile, get an education, you red neck McShame supporters.

Posted by: Playa | July 21, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company