What The NYT Didn’t Want You To Read

The New York Times rejected this op-ed from John McCain. Couldn't possibly be bias, could it?

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.

Read the whole thing. If the NYT didn't like it, you should.

This entry was posted in Media, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to What The NYT Didn’t Want You To Read

  1. Rich Horton says:

    But it takes issue with the chosen one!
     
    As I asked over at IMW, I wonder how long it will be before the Times prints Obama’s words in red ink.

  2. martian says:

    McCain hit the nail on the proverbial head, howevr, it’s too bad he didn’t wait a few days so he could add something to the effect of:
    "Now that Sen. Obama has been to Iraq and has been told that a rigid timetable is a bad idea by the commanders on the ground, he still disagrees with them and wants to stick to his original idea of a 16 month deadline. Why did he bother going at all?"
     
    Indeed, in the sound bite I heard from him yesterday his comment was,"The commanders on the ground have one job to do and that’s to manage the war in their area. As Commander in Chief my job is (referring to himself like the job is already his) to look at the big picture of overall national security." The first thing that popped into my mind was, "If the ‘big picture’ doesn’t include winning when you go to war, what the heck is in that picture?"

Comments are closed.