• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The McCain Op-Ed Refused Print By NY Times

Mike

Well-known member
Home | Iraq, John McCain
The McCain Op-Ed The New York Times Wouldn’t Publish
by FOXNews.com
Monday, July 21, 2008



By Sen. John McCain

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 percent 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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
getdrunkandvote4mccain has posted this response from the Op-ed Editor...

Personally- I think it is that folks have got tired of Gramps and GW's old warmongering and bomb, bomb, bomb strategy to solve all the problems-- and the media knows that......They're looking for new ideas...


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.’

This is the comments from the getdrunk4McCain folks-- but they only figure this as a 1 martini one of his drawbacks..Not quite as bad as his 6 martooni pandering to the radical La Raza group that wants to take back the southwestern US for Mexico .... :( :lol:

Another object lesson for Mr. McCain about the fickleness of the New York Times.

But if he would learn from these lessons we wouldn’t need so much alcohol.
 

fff

Well-known member
McCain said:
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.

Of course, what Mailiki said was

"US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Yet, old straight talking McSame has the gall to say Obama mangles the evidence! And, yes, the newspaper has the original interview. Their own translator affirms that Maliki agrees with Obama projected withdrawal plan, with "slight changes." He's left Senator McBush swinging in the wind here. :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I don't know why McCain is whining- he made the news anyway... :wink:

I wonder how many martoonis the get drunk and gag down McSame folks will give this one... :???: :cry: :lol:

I can see the Czechoslovakia gaffe happening as his policy's and advisors (Gramm) indicate he is about 20 years behind times in his thinking-- but I don't remember when Iraq was next to Pakistan....
:???:

I can see it now--McCain calls CENTCOM up- "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Pakistan....OOPS- meant Iran- Oh what the Hay- do them all ".... :roll: :wink: :(


McCain Owns First Foreign Policy Gaffe During Obama's Iraq Trip
ABC News | July 21, 2008 09:34 AM

As Barack Obama began his trip to the Middle East and Europe, the media was already speculating about the possibility of a gaffe. Obama's travel "carries political risk," the New York Times reported, "particularly if Mr. Obama makes a mistake."

But the only foreign policy error made in the last few days came this morning on ABC's Good Morning America, when John McCain made ANOTHER geography gaffe while trying to criticize Obama's visit to Iraq. (Just last week, McCain repeatedly referred to Czechoslovakia, a country that hasn't existed since 1993.)

Asked by Diane Sawyer whether the "the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent," McCain responded: "I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border."

But as ABC's Rick Klein noted: "Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Afghanistan and Pakistan do."
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
It's their paper....they can print or NOT print anything they want.

The BS is easy to see through. Maybe this is one reason the "Gray Lady" is about broke and going under? Can you say partisan?

A former Clinton aide is the one who axed it. :roll: :roll:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
It's their paper....they can print or NOT print anything they want.

I agree 100%! Now tell the Democrats to keep their mouths shut with the Fairness Doctrine, the Radio stations should have the right to let whoever they want have Talk shows it is their stations.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
kolanuraven said:
It's their paper....they can print or NOT print anything they want.

I agree 100%! Now tell the Democrats to keep their mouths shut with the Fairness Doctrine, the Radio stations should have the right to let whoever they want have Talk shows it is their stations.



Geeezzz...you need to go back out side and beat them pigs!!!
 
Top