'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.'

MORE

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the waronly 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.'

NY Times has the right to do this--but the biased is so clear.

All this piling on McCain makes him the underdog.

Shipley is an asshole.

You and Drudge seem to have left out part of the story.

"In a statement released Monday, The New York Times said 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," the statement said."

(I wonder who Yeshua would call "asshole"?)

Maybe if it was a simple assessment of the situation as he saw it, and not intended as a direct rebuttal of Obama's op-ed, then maybe he'd get published.

It's the NY Times, not a venue for any Beltway Beefs.

McCain was petty in his letter. He didn't say anything about his positions, but attempted to refute Obam's piece. Obama's editorial was about his plans and policy. It wasn't about McCain. McCain's was all about Obama.

The NYT basically told McCain that he needs to write a letter that explains what he stands for, what success means, etc. Be RELEVANT, not a piassant using the NYT to fight back and forth answering the other candidate.

In short, what HC said.

"The NYT basically TOLD McCain..."

Liberal definition of free speech at it's core. Write want you want - just like we say it should be written.

A biased editorial? Egad!

Liberal definition of free speech at it's core. Write want you want - just like we say it should be written.

Clueless aren't you. Rather enjoyable, though.

Are you colorblind YAV?

Are you colorblind YAV?

Are you a liar, ElCid?

Why should the NYT print the article of a bumbling idiot who finished 894/899 in his graduating class.
An idiot who doesnt know a shite from a suni. Doesnt know there is no Czecestovokia, doesnt know there is no Iraq, Pakistan border, a man who calls his wife a cunt in public, a man who is touting the merits of the surge when the success of the surge is due in most part to the number of outsourced troops we have there from firms like Blackwater and in most part due to the fact we walled off the suni's from the shites with heavy concrete blast walls and are paying the insurgents not to shoot at our troops with US tax dollars.
And add the mix the fact the US Navy had to remove him from active duty as a piolet due to the fact he had crashed 5 jets and was burning up your taxpayer dollars because he didnt have the smarts to fly anyways. The Navy doesnt let midshipman finishing as low as he did in his graduating class even try out for flight school. The only reason he ever was allowed to get within 100 feet of a jet was because his father and grandfather were admirls in the navy and pulled strings to get the bumbling idiot into flight school. He also said that the Economey was not his strong suit. And raise your hand if you want this man our next president.

Why should the NYT publish a piece from someone with 143 days in the Senate before he started running for POTUS?

Why publish anything from someone with no experience?

Hey the NYT can do what they what--but what they did here was arrogant--not going to publish McCain's piece--

Condensending--You--McCain will publish what we want.

And frankly stupid--

Because now it will be published is many other places--again showing the bias of the MSM including the NYT.

They choose now to do this to try and kick the crap out of McCain--showing their bias and utter "in the tank" for Obama side..

It all back fires.

But enjoy your kool-aid.

And Obama is not colorblind--

Take a gander at his sponsored bills in the 143 days of his Senate exercise.

They are 99% geared to black folks.

Nothing wrong with that but don't say Obama is not colorblind.

He sat in the pews of a church of a pastor who is completely racist for 20 years.

Obama has a problem--he has no core.

He learned law for 3 years at Harvard and being a community activist--yes that is really enlightening.

He was a Daley machine Illinois Senator for the far left of his district.

And now 143 days in the US Senate--never a hearing on Afghanistan while the co-chair of the committee to do so.

He is an empty suit..

"Take a gander at his sponsored bills in the 143 days of his Senate exercise.

They are 99% geared to black folks."

Another lie from the liar Murphy.

I think it is about time we started calling this purposeful stupidity what it is: Lying.

Good on you, nulli.

"And now 143 days in the US Senate--never a hearing on Afghanistan while the co-chair of the committee to do so."

It was actually a subcommittee. But of course you fail to mention that McCain attended exactly 0 of his committee meetings (on which he is the ranking member) on Afghanistan in the last 730 days.

Oh, and you wring your hands about the NYT refusing to publish McCains editorial when they actual said nothing of the sort.

Tool.

Check it out--

"He sat in the pews of a church of a pastor who is completely racist for 20 years."

Thats funny because I sat in those pews 3 times and there wasn't anything remotely racist said or implied. So I guess it couldn't have been happening 100% of the time for 20 years as you would have us believe.

Or maybe my visits were just the only 3 time there wasn't anything racist going on.

Tool.

"Ok--maybe 85% geared toward black folks"

Where on earth did you come up with that particular lie?

Maybe you should click on your own link at then on the link that lists ALL of his legislation.

Tool.

I thought the right hated the NY Times. So, why would they even care whether or not McCain's 10th Op Ed ran there? It's not even supposed to matter if something's in the NY Times, right?

The Washington Times, that venerable right wing rag owned by Rev.Sun Myung Moon should be more than happy to run it.

What section of your lying fat ass did the 85% fantasy come from, murphy?

Thats funny because I sat in those pews 3 times and there wasn't anything remotely racist said or implied

SANANTONIO

Just to check out Wright for myself I watched dozens of his sermons on YouTube at the Trinity Church site.

I actually found him to be a pretty good preacher, and never heard a bit of racism.

Face it, if the right wing shock jocks had more than 12 seconds they could construe to be racist they would have run with that too ad infinitum. But, it's just not there. They chose to edit out 4 seconds here, 3 seconds there, and 5 seconds of quotes from Ambassador Peck - who'd appeared on the previous Sunday's Fox News, and who he quoted verbatim.

The YouTube site is TrinityChgo

It's their paper; they can do what they want with it. But it is funny how their readership has been declining for years now and they don't seem to understand why. . .

But just as the radio stations have the right to broadcast what they want without any 'fairness act' dictating opposing views, I do not think newspapers should either. The market will decide if the rag lives or dies -- as it should be.

Oh my God, the NYT actually asked McSame to define victory in Iraq!

The horror!

Don't they know the Righty's definition changes faster than the value of the zimbabwe currency? if he started writing it, it would change by the time he got to the end of the sentence.

Fortunately, Mcsame drew on his vast foreign policy experience and whined away. What a hero.

But it is funny how their readership has been declining for years now and they don't seem to understand why. . .

GOATMAN

As with every other newspaper in the country it's called 'The Internet'.

As with every other newspaper in the country it's called 'The Internet'.

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe the numbers in declining readership included their on-line as well as print version.

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe the numbers in declining readership included their on-line as well as print version.

Which is, again, the case with all newspapers. So many websites link news stories it's really diluting readership across the board at old style newspapers and their online versions.

Heard an interesting statistic the other day during a show about the decline of the newspaper:

#1 source of 'news' these days?

Yahoo News

This ain't bias.

If the Times and other papers didn't reject drafts of editorials from important people, they'd get nothing but boring press releases. The editor here was pressing McCain to be more specific on his plan for Iraq, and I think that's a valuable thing to do.

McCain's scoring points on the Times when he should've worked harder to inform the public about his plan for the war, which is the centerpiece of his campaign.

Forget the NY Times for a moment, dont you think the American people and families of all GI's would like to know what defines victory in Iraq?? Screw McCain, the Times was correct to reject that assholes op ed.

Obama clearly took a stand on bringing our troops out of Iraq in 16 months. McCain has wandered from 100 years to "as the situation on the ground calls for". He seems unwilling to clearly state any plan for Iraq other than just "stay the course." After five years Americans have a right to clearer answers from the next potential president. The Times apparently agrees.

"" 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece.""

The key word is 'mirror.'

NYT is saying that all McCain has to do is write a column that affirms Osama's position, and they will be delighted to publis it.
----
As for you retards who say 'it's their paper' you are wrong. They have a public responsibility to publish divergent views. Their failure will come from refusing to do that.

Danni,

McBullshit has no plan for Iraq other than "stay the course" until Jan 2013 when he hands it off to the next POTUS in true neocon fashion.

The market will decide if the rag lives or dies -- as it should be. -- Goatman

I dunno. I think it's good for democracy if the public gets news about something other than Brangelina and Britney.

Vernon--Mirror does not mean exactly the same. A mirror image is the opposite of the other image.

Keep in mind that the NY Times does this to most people. I heard Ben Stein speak about this last night and he (despite being for McCain) believes NY Time's explanation due to his extensive headaches they've caused him over the many years he was a columnist for the NY Times.

I dunno. I think it's good for democracy if the public gets news about something other than Brangelina and Britney.

Posted by Phoenix

McCain's scoring points on the Times when he should've worked harder to inform the public about his plan for the war, which is the centerpiece of his campaign.

Posted by rcade at 2008-07-22 09:30 AM

Yet the vocal anti war candidate seems to get the print these days. Which is understandable when things were bad. It is hard to imagine why the NY Times refuses to print an Op-Ed peice written by the next POTUS. That is not news worthy? They should have done their job and pointed out how wrong Obama has been about Iraq since Jan. 2007. The so called centerpiece of his campaign. Just wonder if it has to do with the 30 point lead McCain enjoys as who would make a better CiC.

Are we really suprised someone actually asked someone to rewrite his paper? Didn't he finish near the bottom of his Navy class? I think he should be used to seeing "see me after class" atop his papers by now.

think he should be used to seeing "see me after class" atop his papers by now.

Posted by __b__

I think he should also be used to having someone proofread his work before he submits.

But we don't hold our politicians to very high standards in this regard, usually, then along comes somebody who writes well, and with very little help, and he busts the curve for everyone else.

McCain: "Why does Obama have to be so..... literate?"

Bad move by the Times... now it looks like McCain is treated unfairly by the press and his rebuttal gets more attention then it would have, had they just printed the damn thing.

But thanks to the NY Times for giving the right a little more ammo the next time some liberal queer tries to say there is no left wing bias in the media...

This ain't bias.

If the Times and other papers didn't reject drafts of editorials from important people, they'd get nothing but boring press releases. The editor here was pressing McCain to be more specific on his plan for Iraq, and I think that's a valuable thing to do.

McCain's scoring points on the Times when he should've worked harder to inform the public about his plan for the war, which is the centerpiece of his campaign.

Posted by rcade

Well hang on there sparky, did they make Obama revise any of his work before publishing it, or would that be racist of the Times?

If Obama got his first draft published, then fuck yes its bias...

"If Obama got his first draft published, then fuck yes its bias..."

Of course...heaven knows a Harvard Grad and former Editor of the Harvard Law Review wouldn't know the first thing about how to write an op-ed piece that would pass editorial muster!

heaven knows a Harvard Grad and former Editor of the Harvard Law Review wouldn't know the first thing about how to write an op-ed piece that would pass editorial muster!

Posted by Danforth

According to RCADE:

If the Times and other papers didn't reject drafts of editorials from important people, they'd get nothing but boring press releases.

According to Rob_the_a_hole:

Go fuck yourself

Danforth this is an absolutely serious question, if Obama asked you to spend the night with him would you?

Rob, i'm guessing his answer would be what you wrote at the bottom of your post at 10:26.

McCain: "Why does Obama have to be so..... literate?"

Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-07-22 10:12 AM

The Times allows the Boy Wonder unlimited space to write a Op-Ed on a important subject and McCain is not allowed to rebutt his peice? Even though in the last 18 months Obama has been so wrong about the situation? Maybe the Times should have pointed out the gross errors by Obama. They had no problem printing and exploiting every mistake made in Iraq. They had no problem printing any dem or leading liberal voices as long as it was negative or critical of the war. Now that the situation has improved suddenly Iraq is off the front pages? Unless it is Obama refining his position? Are they afraid voters might see through Obama and the dems? Or their obvious bias and intent on seeing a black president?

Rob, i'm guessing his answer would be what you wrote at the bottom of your post at 10:26.

Posted by __b__

Probably... but that wouldn't be a "no" would it.

I guess I should throw that question out to the entire liberal portion of this blog... Honestly... because the way the Left treats this man (and last I checked that's all he is) is like they have some schoolgirl crush on him...

On the Daily Show joke after joke about the guy bombs, because the crowd won't laugh at his expense... even Stewart had to remind the crowd, "its okay to laugh at him."

So I'm just curious... guys, girls, transgendered from the Left, how many of you would have an affair with Barack Obama... right now I'm guessing 63%

Guys, Obama was an editor of Harvard Law Review.... i.e. the man knows how to write, and well. why can't/won't you get that?

And like I said yesterday, at the top of this thread...

"Maybe if [McCain's op-ed] was a simple assessment of the situation as he saw it, and not intended as a direct rebuttal of Obama's op-ed, then maybe he'd get published.

It's the NY Times, not a venue for any Beltway Beefs."

"...if Obama asked you to spend the night with him would you?"

In separate rooms. But I'd bet the dinner conversation would be fascinating.

Personally, I'm more of a Scarlett Johannson kind of guy.

How about you...longing to sleep with McCain, are you?

Guys, Obama was an editor of Harvard Law Review.... i.e. the man knows how to write, and well. why can't/won't you get that?

Not saying he isn't smart... just saying if McCain is going to get his drafts read and rejected by this Editor, Obama should have his drafts rejected as well.

Just because he was the editor of the Bible or flew 30 times backwards around Earth to save Lois Lane from an earthquake, doesn't mean he should just be able to walk over to the Times and publish whatever he wants... or it does, but then you have to admit what the Times is...

How about you...longing to sleep with McCain, are you?

Posted by Danforth

i'd get 40 chances a day with the old bastards nap schedule if I wanted to...

I'm on the fence with who I'm voting for... right now I'm a McCain supporter, but I'm certainly open to Obama... I just don't see him as the Varisty Quarterback I'd love to go to Anal Pointe with...

"just saying if McCain is going to get his drafts read and rejected by this Editor, Obama should have his drafts rejected as well. "

Unaffirmative Action?!?

"Not saying he isn't smart... just saying if McCain is going to get his drafts read and rejected by this Editor, Obama should have his drafts rejected as well. "

That is absurd. You don't reject drafts for the sake of rejecting them. You reject the drafts for content. McCain was spouting the same old crap he always does--empty rhetoric with no real plan. Obama actually layed out a plan. Instead of publishing a political hit piece, they asked for revisions.

Unaffirmative Action?!?

Posted by Danforth

At least we're in agreement race had to do with Obama getting his first draft published...

"How about you...longing to sleep with McCain, are you?"

Hey rob, can you say "viva viagra!"?

Hey rob, can you say "viva viagra!"?

Posted by __b__

Fuck that... I don't care who it is, I'm the "top"

NYT is saying that all McCain has to do is write a column that affirms Osama's position, and they will be delighted to publis it.
----
Vernon's calculator is now writitng his posts. As somebody else pointed out, it means they want him to respond to his positions and plans.

Of course, that would require he have a position and a plan.

At least we're in agreement race had to do with Obama getting his first draft published...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Rob, do you really believe that?

It couldn't possibly be that the letter was better written and not merely an attack piece?

Rob, do you really believe that?

It couldn't possibly be that the letter was better written and not merely an attack piece?

Posted by Hagbard_Celine

I think race is lurking in every part of this election... and yeah, I don't think the Times would have done the reverse here, because people on the left would have been screaming racism...

Maybe it was just a better written piece... I don't know... but to me it seems a little for lack of a better word, conceited for the NY Times to act like some 10th grade English teacher telling John McCain to go back and correct his work.

This is what McCain should re-submit to the NYT.

What I plan to do in Iraq: WIN.

John McCain.

"At least we're in agreement race had to do with Obama getting his first draft published..."

Hardly. You're suggesting because McCain's editorial wasn't up to snuff, Obama's should have been returned outright. Because the old fart can't cut it, lets hold the other guy back as well.

John-

Define "WIN"

-Ed.

Define "WIN"

-Ed.

Posted by Danforth

Are there any other Left Wing talking points you'd like the Times to use in their rejections Dan? Any given day we can hear that same thing here, and across the liberal blogosphere... but no matter how many answers are given, nobody listens.

Hardly. You're suggesting because McCain's editorial wasn't up to snuff, Obama's should have been returned outright.

Perhaps you're not aware of the timelines here... Obama's was posted a while ago in the Times. He wrote his first... and his first draft was accepted no questions asked apparently...

but you guys are right, its cuz he's soooo smart, and handsome.

Because the old fart can't cut it, lets hold the other guy back as well.

Posted by Danforth at 2008-07-22 10:57 AM | Reply |

It works with peanuts in kindergarten class...

"and his first draft was accepted no questions asked apparently..."

I didn't go back through the last bunch of posts on this too carefully. Was there something posted earlier saying his first draft was accepted with no questions asked that I didn't catch? Thanks.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think McCain has had more opinion pieces published by the NYT than Obama - at least that is what I think I heard as on the treadmill today.

Was there something posted earlier saying his first draft was accepted with no questions asked that I didn't catch? Thanks.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Its an assumption on my part... really think I'm wrong?

Every reasonably intelligent person not in the present White House or Fox News or the McCain campaign (and a lot who are in those categories) knows that there will be no "victory" and no "win" in Iraq. There will eventually be something that a few misinformed and unbalanced partisans will feel they can call a "victory", but by any reasonable standards it won't be. Remember the "victory" in Viet-nam.

At the risk of being repetitive here, I would say that is why McCain's Op-Ed piece was turned down.

McCain complaining that Obama doesn't "want to win" in Iraq is plain nonsensical oxymoronic chatter.

Winning in Iraq:
1. Defeat al-qaeda elements in Iraq (complete elimination is not required).
2. Bring security to an acceptable level where life is somewhat normal.
3. Establish a centralized democratic govt in Iraq that can function (does not need to be perfect).
4. As step 1,2 & 3 become realized, need for International troops won't be required and we can then draw them down or send to Afghanistan.

I have the same definition for winning in Afghanistan with 1 more step. Kill top 2 leaders of terrorist group al-qaeda.

sitdown,

Can you define winning in Iraq? What would constitute victory in Iraq or Afghanistan for you? I don't really see how they would be definded differently but I might be missing something.

"I don't really see how they would be definded differently but I might be missing something."

That something might be oil.

I have the same definition for winning in Afghanistan with 1 more step. Kill top 2 leaders of terrorist group al-qaeda.

Posted by laj

I disagree with this as a goal for "winning," yeah, it will be great when Bin Laden and Zawahiri are dead... when I hear the news of either of them dying or their capture I'll crack open a beer, give a shout and hope they suffered long and hard... I'll think back to watching the towers burn and fall from my bedroom window, and where our country has gone since then... but in reality all it means is that Mustafa Abu al-Yazeed (if he isn't dead at that point too) will take over, or some other shit smelling Muslim will take over and they'll try to attack us as well.

Individual captures or deaths aren't going to do shit for this war like if we had killed Hitler or Hussein (back in 91)... fundamental change throughout the Middle East and a moderate voice of Islam there is the only thing that will bring peace...

"Are there any other Left Wing talking points you'd like the Times to use in their rejections"

The current situation is A. McCain talks about C. The Times, and America, is asking for B. That's a reasonable request.

It's like his balanced budget statements (pick one). Until he has one concrete proposal, all his blather about balanced budgets, especially when coupled with continuing the tax cuts, is fantasy.

"fundamental change throughout the Middle East and a moderate voice of Islam there is the only thing that will bring peace..."

That's a tall order and will require great sacrifice. Probably greater sacrifice than Americans are willing or even able to make.
We need to face the truth, its the ME, and we will not change it to be what we want....ever.
We should try concerning ourselves about our own hemisphere, our own country and let the ME people worry about the ME.

the bleeding liberals defend this yet if the tables were turned they would be screaming and crying all over the place.

this is nothing new, and this is why fox and other more center, and yes sometimes leans one way is doing so well, because the truth is ABC, NBC and CBS and most news papers... have always been and will always be liberal and twist the truth or not report things to help slant the news and information toward what "they" want, If you dont see this then you have already been brain washed and there is no hope for you.

Rob_The_A_Hole,

I don't see Winning and Peace as the same thing. If we wanted peace than we could simply surrender to the terrorist. Iraq and Afghanistan are just battles in a bigger war but my objective isn't peace. It would be to re-define the future to be more in-line with our vision of the world. The islamist are trying to re-define the future to fit their vision of the world and if our objective is simply peace, then they will win in the end.

"Fuck that... I don't care who it is, I'm the "top""

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Huh, with a name like that, i thought it would be the other way around. Then again, if you really think about it, i suppose it could be interpreted both ways (think of a "robber"). I suppose you'd be considered versitile.

What a fart in a bandbox.

Obviously, the people who are bumping their tired old gums about this have never been subjected to editorial process by a major publication. The Times wanted a piece speaking to certain issues, and evidently didn't get it. That's par for the course for amateur writers - they think that they're going to get to blather on about whatever makes their dick hard. Then they get back an edit, with comments designed to get the piece on track.

This point in the process separates the men from the boys; either the writer realizes that this is serious business, buckling down to do the job he's been hired to do, or he insists on some imagined "right" to do as he pleases, have it published as-is, and get paid for it. Doesn't often happen that way, not even if you're very famous. Everybody who writes gets edited, period. The Times wants a piece speaking to what Obama has to say; McCain evidently doesn't want to give it to them. He's behaving in an amateur, arrogant fashion, and that's why the Times isn't publishing the piece at this point.

Well, either that or the stone tablets.

Not according to Rupert Murdoch. -- Hagbard

MaryTylerWhore,

Do you think that the NYT went to Obama and said that this is what has to be in your op-ed? I don't think they did, they are telling McCain based on Obama's op-ed, this is what needs to be in yours. They are allowing Obama to dictate the content of the debate. It has put the Times in the position of trying to control the content of McCains op-ed.

If in a debate McCain answers a question that Winning in Iraq is the only answer. Then Obama starts to answer the question about getting out of Iraq and he is interrupted and told since McCain said it is about winning, he has to answer the question about how he will win in Iraq. Other answers aren't allowed.

**** but you guys are right, its cuz he's soooo smart, and handsome.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole ****

......you are right about that....he is smarter and more handsome than Mr Poopypants.......

......you are right about that....he is smarter and more handsome than Mr Poopypants.......

Posted by skizziks

So that puts Skizzi in the "Yes" column for my question above...

NEW YORK SLIME REJECTS MCCAIN EDITORIAL:

Did you really expect anything else. This Dirt Bag Rag is a mouth piece for George Soros and the liberal ASSHOLES. Thats why they are going in the tank. They still don't get it.

"Take a shit ASSHOLE!"

And risk bringing another little Oozie into the world? No freakin' way.

This is MS media bias.

They are telling McCain to "Mirror" Obama's piece.

Tell us about timetables--well, McCain doesn't want timetables.

It would be the same for them to tell McCain to comment on tax increases.

McCain does not want tax increases.

Who is running Obama? It's not him.

Obama is not a thinker--he has learned from elite Harvard professors and a preacher who hates America.

This is so contrived it is ridiculous.

Now he wants a Surge in Afghanistan--hilarious!

And he still won't admit that the surge worked in Iraq--because it doesn't fit the narrative he has that won him the Dem nomination.

Obama has been wrong on the surge.

Now the NYT is running the dabate--what a bunch of phoney baloney..

Saying the surge has worked ignores the fact that while Iraq has become somewhat more peaceful Afghanistan has become more violent so a good case could be made that the surge was really just another diversion of troops from the main battleground of the real war on terror to quell a civil war which would never have occurred had we not invaded.
The surge in Iraq should have been the surge in Afghanistan back when we first invaded, instead of invading a county which had nothing to do with 9-11.
Remember 9-11???

"MaryTylerWhore,

Do you think that the NYT went to Obama and said that this is what has to be in your op-ed?"

No, Laj, I think they asked him to speak to stuff Obama said and he wanted to write about what he wanted to write about instead.

Which is why they didn't publish it. If you're asked to do a job, accept it, decline it, but don't take it, then try to do as you fucking-A please, then expect to be paid.m

Oh, and Ozzie:

You left out "Doodyhead".

Which in your case, may constitute progress.

I'm not sure why people respond to you looser libs. If you can't see through the black sock puppet your not worth the type.

I'm not sure why people respond to you looser(sic) libs. If you can't see through the black sock puppet your(sic) not worth the type.

It behooves you to use at least 4th grade grammar. If you're going to call libs losers, anyway.

MARTYLERWHORE: "doodyhead" Did you get that out of your third grade fairy tale book?

"He is smarter and more handsome"

Sounds like LOVE to me!

"It behooves you to use at least 4th grade grammar"

THAT IS NUMBER 2 ON THE LIBERAL COME BACK LIST. It is used by the libs when there is no intelligent come back.

I read both letters. The difference is that Obama is talking about Iraq, while McCain is talking about Obama.

I agree with the NYT in that a similar editorial from McCain discussing Iraq is what's needed.

SNOOFY

I did too. Good point.

Cool name too, SNOOFY

*** "He is smarter and more handsome"
Sounds like LOVE to me!
Posted by ozzieoswald *****

...that's because you are a Jeff Gannon/George Bush/Victor Ashe republican .....

Better then being a Carter demoncrat!

Now that Mcsame has endorsed Obama's time table, we can see why he didn't bother rewriting. he was just going to Plagerize Obama's article anyways...

Probably... but that wouldn't be a "no" would it.

I guess I should throw that question out to the entire liberal portion of this blog... Honestly... because the way the Left treats this man (and last I checked that's all he is) is like they have some schoolgirl crush on him...

On the Daily Show joke after joke about the guy bombs, because the crowd won't laugh at his expense... even Stewart had to remind the crowd, "its okay to laugh at him."

So I'm just curious... guys, girls, transgendered from the Left, how many of you would have an affair with Barack Obama... right now I'm guessing 63%

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

well the sheeple are in for a rude awakening when he doesn't deliver.. and he wont not because he doesn't want to only that he CAN'T. In fact I wouldn't want to be president during the hyperinflationary period approaching that started in the 70's and a ended with a cherry on top by clinton bush.

hold on baby jesus .. its going get bumpy..