Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Why the New York Times refuses to publish McCain's Op-Ed response to Obama

The liberal New York Times showed their bias once again by refusing to publish an op-ed by John McCain in response to an Op-Ed by Barack Obama on the Iraq War. The New York Times told the McCain camp that their piece had to include timetables, something that McCain vigerously opposes. Times op-ed editer David Shipley, who was a speechwriter and special assistant for President Clinton from 1995-97, wrote in an e-mail to the McCain camp, "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. And it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."

I'm sorry you want a piece that mirrors Obama's piece, sure I'll call Obama and ask him what he thinks before I rewrite my article. Maybe Obama could write my piece too. Maybe we can get rid of the First Amendment while we're at it. Why bother allowing people to hear opposing views? Your editorial board is far smarter than anyone else in America. I'm sure that response would satisfy The Times.

The truth is the two editorials are different because (gasp) the candidates have different views. The truth is if Obama had his way we would've left Iraq disgraced, leaving behind a sectarian war that would've resembled the slaughtering of the Cambodians after Vietnam. Now there are zero sectarian deaths being reported in Iraq. "In his report to the United Nations Security Council, US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told the 15-nation council that there were no confirmed ethno-sectarian deaths in Baghdad last month compared with the more than 1,600 such deaths in December, 2006. The number of civilian deaths throughout Iraq have dropped by 75 per cent since July 2007." Yes you read that right zero sectarian deaths, and a 75% drop in civilan deaths. If we had withdrawn early as Obama wanted to this could not have happened.

Here's a question why weren't these statistics on the front page of every newspaper in the United States? Here's a story that does more than suggest we're winning, and possibly may have won, the Iraq War, and it's treated as if it's not news. How can it be news when were losing, but not be news when were winning? How can bad news constantly make the front pages, but good news is almost impossible to find. Those of us who are conservative already know the answer to this question, but for those less enlightened I'll explain it to you. It's not news if it makes President Bush look good. It's not news if it makes America look good. It's not news if were not torturing prisoners, or killing civilans, or comitting other types of unspeakable war crime. All that would be news, but when our soliders do their job and flawlessly execute a strategy that liberals said would never work, and that gives Americans cause to be proud of their country, to the liberal media that's not news.

Please go to http://readerarticles.realclearpolitics.com/?period=all and vote for this article if you liked it.

1 comment:

  1. I think the point the Times was making was that McCain's Iraq op-ed was effectively a hit piece on Obama that didn't offer any actual plan. Obama's Iraq piece was actually about Iraq, McCain's Iraq piece was about Obama.

    Had Obama written an op-ed that did nothing but bash McCain, I doubt the Times would've printed that either. The fact that the McCain camp couldn't be bothered to write an op-ed which laid out any details of McCain's strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan (and hoping that NATO sends more troops to Afghanistan is not a strategy), merely shows that McCain has no specific plan for Iraq or Afghanistan, and further, that he's incapable of linking the two efforts together, despite the fact that our over-worked military basically forces them to be considered together.

    For the record, we used to have a law in this country that provided equal time for opposing viewpoints (it applied to radio and television, not newspapers, but the principle is clear). It was called the Fairness Doctrine, and Republicans killed it about 20 years ago. Right now, John McCain is currently sponsoring legislation to have it banned forever. So I find it more than a little hypocritical for his campaign to complain that the NYT won't give him equal time (of course, they will give him equal time; they just won't let him use their newspaper as a podium from which to bash his opponent), when he opposes the law that used to guarantee equal time.

    And "mirrors" doesn't mean duplicates. It just means that McCain needs to tackle the subject with specifics and lay out some clear terms of victory. He's welcome to do it on his own terms, but he can't simply bash Obama's plan, then offer nothing in place of it, and expect to get that published in the country's most respected newspaper.

    Also, enough with this NYT is liberal b.s. No paper did more to help Bush launch his war against Iraq than the NYT. It's not a liberal paper. It's just a paper.

    Oh, and for the record, if Obama had had his way, we wouldn't have left Iraq in a shameful defeat, we never would've gone there in the first place. How's that for judgment?