The shrinking NY Times

The NY Times refused to publish an editorial penned by John McCain because there was nothing new in it.  This a week after Barack Obama had his editorial published. This is a rebuttal to Obama’s piece. The NY Times wanted the McCain editorial to set timetables for withdrawal. The McCain campaign told the times editorial board to stick it.

McCain’s editorial fared much better than it would have anyway.  The Drudge Report published it as submitted by 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% 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.

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.

NY Times e-mail to McCain Campaign:

From: David Shipley/NYT/NYTIMES [mailto:XXXXXXX]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:31 PM
To: XXXXXXX
Cc: XXXXXXX
Subject: Re: JSM Op-Ed

Dear Mr. XXXXXX,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

I’d be very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.

I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.

Let me suggest an approach.

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.

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 am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. Her email is XXXXXXXX; her phone is 212-XXXXXXX.

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,

David Shipley

t/b: Michelle Malkin

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Calling Jim Murtha: apologize to the wrongly accused Marines!

Jim Murtha and the scumbags in the Main Stream Media perpetuated a lie about the “Haditha Massacre.”

A new report by Nathaniel Helms at Defend our Marines proves the Marines were set up by Al Qaeda operatives.

Buried in the mountain of exhibits attached to the once secret Haditha, Iraq murder inquiry prepared by US Army Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell is an obscure Marine Corps intelligence summary (see pdf) that says the deadly encounter was an intentional propaganda ploy planned and paid for by Al Qaeda foreign fighters.

Veteran military defense attorney Gary Meyers said he never understood why the Naval Criminal Investigative Service special agents leading the Haditha criminal investigation didn’t “examine the linkage” between Al Qaeda, the local insurgency and the events at Haditha. Meyers was an attorney on the defense team that successfully defended Justin Sharratt, a Marine infantryman accused of multiple murders at Haditha.

The journalist that did not investigate the story thoroughly was a writer for Time Magazine.

The prosecutors in the case against eight Marines charged with murder and cover up at Haditha still maintain the besieged infantrymen acted solely out of malice and poor judgment when they killed 24 Iraqis there. The prosecution’s investigation was launched after a story by Time magazine reporter Tim McGirk on March 6, 2006 accused the Marines of cold blooded murder in retaliation for the death of a brother Marine.

McGirk received his video “evidence” and contacts from two known Iraqi insurgent operatives already under observation by Marine Corps counter intelligence teams. One of the Iraqi witnesses McGirk relied on had just been released from almost six months captivity for insurgent activities and the other witness was considered a useful intelligence tool by Marines listening to him talk on his cell phone. McGirk never interviewed the Marines, who ironically had prepared a similar intelligence summary in anticipation of his canceled visit.

It’s obvious that the MSM and John Murtha intend for the US to lose in the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. When will the American Public wake up and defeat the Democrats in 2008?

h/t: Stop The ACLU , Michelle Malkin

t/b: Hot Air

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The NY Times is slimming down :

Beginning Monday, the Times “will reduce the width of its pages by an inch and a half,” to a 12-inch standard, the paper declared.

“The move will cut newsprint expenses and, in some printing press locations, will make special configurations unnecessary. Slight modifications in design will preserve the look and texture of The Times, with all existing features and sections, and” — it admitted at the end — “somewhat fewer words per page.”

The Times is a much less significant news source now than than it ever was. Fewer words no less liberal bias just condensed a bit. The typeface should be reduced 80% just to make it more unreadable than it already it.

t/b: Michelle Malkin

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

J.K. Rowling isn’t happy with two U.S. newspapers, the Baltimore Sun and the NY Times . Join the club sweetheart. Many aren’t happy with the Old Gray Lady. Editorially and with it’s left leaning news articles, the paper of record doesn’t represent the views of the majority of Americans.

The New York Times and the Baltimore Sun published reviews of the final Harry Potter book on Thursday before it went on sale, drawing a stinging response from author J.K. Rowling.

The New York Times review, which appeared overnight, said its copy was purchased from a New York City store on Wednesday, while the Baltimore Sun said it obtained a hard copy of the book “through legal and ordinary means”.

The official release of the eagerly awaited “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” is not until 0001 British Summer Time on Saturday or 2301 GMT on Friday night.

Rowling, whose first six Potter books have sold 325 million copies worldwide, responded with a terse statement.

“I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children,” she said.

“I am incredibly grateful to all those newspapers, booksellers and others who have chosen not to attempt to spoil Harry’s last adventure for fans,” the 41-year-old added.

This is a Weekend OTB & Linkfest for July 20-22, 2007.

Trackback URL: http://stuckon-stupid.com/wp-trackback.php?p=1063

Permalink: http://stuckon-stupid.com/?p=1063

Trackposted to: Pirate’s Cove, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein… has no mercy,Woman Honor Thyself, 123beta, Big Dog’s Weblog, Maggie’s Notebook, The Pet Haven BlogOutside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Right Celebrity, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Nuke’s news and views, Phastidio.net, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News Outside the Beltway, Right Celebrity, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, , and Conservative Cat thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Linkfest Haven

Technorati Tags:linkfests, open trackback, conservative, linkfest haven deluxe

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The NY Times publishes another lie that it will not admit to.

A must read story.

From The American Thinker:  The New York Times’ own Rathergate

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

 The New York Times is laying off 250 employees in order to save money from it’s declining readership.

The paper decided to shrink the street editions by 1 1/2 inches in width claimed to save $42,000,000.

At the rate the Times is moving it will be the size of your local pennysaver before long.

This From Market Watch:

New York Times Co. reported that second-quarter profit was about flat with the year-earlier period due to expenses related to job cuts it announced last September, as well as continued weakness in the advertising market.

(NYT ) also said Tuesday that it will cut about 250 production-related jobs as it consolidates its New York metro printing operations into a single facility and shrinks the width of The New York Times by one and a half inches. On a busy news day for the company, it also said Chief Financial Officer Leonard Forman will retire in 2007 and that it retained an executive-search firm to find his successor.

New York Times Co.’s second-quarter net income was $61.3 million, or 42 cents a share, compared with $60.8 million, or 42 cents, in the year-earlier quarter.

The latest figure includes an after-tax charge of $5.3 million, or 4 cents a share, associated with the September staff reduction.

The company expects charges for severance and buyouts tied to the latest consolidation but doesn’t yet know how much they’ll be or when it will book them.

Excluding the item, New York Times earned 46 cents in the latest three months.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Bookmark It

Hide Sites