The Orange Juice wishes to thank Matt Drudge in advance for publishing this NY Times rejected submission in its entirety. We do not engage in censorship on this blog. Let me recommend readers to check out the Drudge Report, a major source of news leads for this conservative writer.
The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:
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% 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.
McCain squandered his opportunity to come out as a leader back when Obama was still staving off Hillary. Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the New York Times just wasn’t interested in hearing from McLame because he’s had so little to say so far? This is the price he pays.
As to his content, it’s funny how he takes credit for Bush’s surge strategy but then dismisses a diversion into Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent, as a ‘Mission Accomplished’ style error. Classic!
SMS
Of course the Times is very interested in having McCain express his views, the more times the better. But he’s in a political campaign and he’s gotta PAY the Times to run his stuff. So does Obama. Did John really try to get a freeby from NYT? I kinda doubt it — he’s a lot smarter than that. I’ll bet it was one of his staffers who tried to pitch one past the NYT editors.
“Freedom of the Press”…..says that any newspaper does not have to put anyone in print that they don’t want to.
They are responsible to their Editorial Board and their Advertisers…sometimes the Publisher. In any event….Ben Bradley…..printed everything that could harm Richard Nixon…because he didn’t like Richard Nixon. The Washington Post….makes the NY Times…looks like the OC Register!
It’s called Editorial license!
SAHS Teacher hit the nail on the head…why should The New York Times accept a campaign promotion masquerading as an “editorial”. Leave that sort of thing to the Matt Sludges of the world.
#3,
Gimme a break. Ben Bradley didn’t print the Watergate story because he didn’t like Nixon. He printed the story because he had 2 reporters working for him who broke the biggest political story of the 70s. When you got that, you print it regardless of how you feel about the subject of the story.
who are you trying to kid here people . the sleazy N.Y. times . this paper always endorses democrats. it wants obama to win in the worst way . NOBAMA 08
SAHS Teacher.
Respectfully, you are mistaken. Having written several Op-Ed’s or Viewpoint articles for the OC Register you do not have to pay for that opportunity to share your message.
It’s not a “freebe” if you provide “fair and balanced” coverage but we all know that will never happen at that newspaper.
Anon.
When Obama says it its not for his campaign but when Sen. Mc Cain presents a rebuttal to Sen Obama’s editorial you refuse to accept it.
Larry. The world is not flat. This is not a level playing field and you of all people surely know it
Great one.
Isn’t it refreshing when both sides, plus DTS’s, can interact on this blog and express their opinions. In this case you are simply correct and those across the aisle do not want to listen.
Ron & Anna.
Yes, unless you offer to pay to have something printed, you are at the mercy of the media. However, we are speaking of a party nominee for president of the USA. You allow his opposition to write an editorial and don’t offer equal consideration is un-American.
However, should Sen. McCain prevail in Nov., which we can all debate over the next 100 days, I can assure you that President Mc Cain will not cancel the presidential Press Corps credentials of the NY Times representative.
Larry,
Compare the writing of the two and Obama’s is clearly written more like a position paper (or, surprise surprise, an editorial) and McCain’s comes off much, much more like a campaign speech. It’s no wonder the NYT asked him to do another draft. I guess instead of doing a rewrite, McCan’t would rather cry about it and make political hay out of it.
Lately we are leaning about an effort to impose the “Fairness Doctrine” as a liberal attempt to muzzle conservative talk radio. It’s OK for the left to control the majority of our print and broadcast media so long as as the scales never tilt to the right.
And that folks is simply wrong.
Anon.
The last time I checked Obama’s passport there were no stamps for Iraq, Israel or Afghanistan.
While we all can question “junkets” by elected officials who travel the globe, until this week Obama has not tried on a flack jacket. This trip with three major, in their own minds, network news anchors is more of a photo op than a fact finding mission. We all heard about this in advance of his travel. Normally when going to a hostile area to see conditions for yourself you keep a lid on the travel details.
Obama’s trip is a photo op and campaign junket? Whoa! Thank you for that startling insight! Who knew?
Maybe if McCain were a more compelling, charismatic candidate, the news anchors might follow him around too.
You can always turn off your TV.
Anon.
I never said that Sen Obama was not a “compelling, charismatic candidate.” Those are the traits which enabled him to defeat a very tough opponent named Hillary (and Bill)Clinton.
For over a year he has been “wingin it” as he discussed Foreign Policy and the war. You cannot be an effective commander-in-chief from the comfort of your arm chair. Four months ago, without advance fanfare, Sen McCain made another trip to the front, confirmed by CBS News, as stated below:
McCain Makes Unannounced Trip To Iraq
With 13 U.S. Troops Killed This Week, GOP Candidate Who Supports Bush’s War Makes “Fact-Finding” Visit. Further details of McCain’s visit, which had been anticipated, were not being released for security reasons,
Comments 371
BAGHDAD, March 16, 2008