New York Times Rejects McCain Rebuttal To Obama Op-Ed

The New York Times has rejected an op-ed penned by Senator John McCain in response to an op-ed by Senator Barack Obama published on July 14, members of the campaign tell the Drudge Report.

New York Times op-ed editor David Shipley wrote in an email to McCain's staff, "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece." But, he continued, "I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written."

Shipley further explained in an email to the Drudge Report, saying:

"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."

In his July 14 op-ed, Obama laid out his plan for Iraq. McCain's proposed op-ed is available in full here.

This is but the latest turn in the John McCain vs. the New York Times story, which exploded in February after the Times published a story implying an illicit affair between McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. In May, McCain rejected the New York Times' request for his medical records, allowing only two print newspapers — the Washington Post and the Arizona Republic — to see his records.

Comments

[cwillnophil]

I read both the piece submitted by Sen. Obama and the piece written by Sen. McCain. I thought both the quality of writing and the content were light years apart. I think the editor made a good call and I admire his courage.
I was so inspired that I took steps to cancel my subscription to the WSJ. For years now, I have liked to balance my local coverage with national coverage from The Journal. Lately, I have been troubled by some of the Journal's Op-Ed pieces, specifically the submissions from Karl Rove.

[MourningDude]

Since so many Barry-bots are squealing about defining "victory" in Iraq, how about if they take a stab at defining "victory" in Afghanistan?

According to Barry, his plan is to "finish the job" there. Wow, that's precise.

So if Big Mac simply said the goal was to "finish the job" in Iraq, I guess that would be more than acceptable, since that's the exact phrase they accepted from Barry.

[illus2003]

Let's go with Capturing or Killing Osama Bin Laden. Taking out the Taliban that would be ways of defining victory in Afghanistan. We are still waiting for what constitutes victory in Iraq.

[newworldman777]

"Finishing the job" (i.e. "winning the war") in Afghanistan is a proposition that is acceptable by the majority of the American people. Because we are fighting the enemy (Taliban, al Qaeda) in Afghanistan that actually attacked us on 9-11, the general public supports our efforts to defeat them. Hopefully, Obama will include aggressive diplomacy -- in addition to military strength -- to resolve the problem of Islamic hatred for America, which is what initially spawned the terrorist attacks against us. That will be the only way to resolve the conflict and eventually "win" the war. McCain's overly simplistic, yet very destructive, solution of bomb-bomb-bombing them to the stoneage will only create much more hatred for America, and that hatred will result in many more "terrorists."

Regarding Iraq, however, Bush and his minions lied to the American people in order to invade that country. We have subsequently become an occupying force -- and a very costly one, in terms of blood,treasury and reputation -- whose mission has become to ensure that their puppet government remains "friendly" to America so that Bush and Cheney's wealthy capitalist buddies can readily obtain Iraqi oil. The majority of the "terrorists" that we are fighting there are disgusted and angry Iraqi citizens who simply want us out of their country. Because of our criminal actions, we justifiably appear to the rest of the world to be aggressive bullies forcing our will onto others for our own selfish benefit. This "war' will never be "won."

[idest]

Ummm...maybe you haven't been listening to Obama's speeches, but "victory in Afghanistan" means driving the Taliban out, AGAIN (since Bush let them back in), and killing or capturing Osama bin Laden (you know, the guy responsible for killing 3000 of our civilians) and eliminating al Qaeda as an entity (what we SHOULD have done instead of go into Iraq).

Not that tough to understand.

Now what's McCain's definition of victory in Iraq again? I don't think you answered that question.

[SRaley]

It's your own fault if you fail to listen to a person's explanation of what he means by "victory." Just because you aren't listening doesn't mean that it isn't being said. Wow, indeed.

[MourningDude]

In 2007 Barry said that the surge would not reduce sectarian violence. In 2007 Barry said that the surge would actually increase sectarian violence. Today Barry says that the surge was never about reducing sectarian violence in the first place, and thus a failure.

Listening to Barry's spin is like watching a bad 3 card monte dealer. Sure, he can fool the occasional credulous sap (i.e. liberal), but anyone possessing the slightest bit of common sense realizes what's going on and won't play his games.

[nyscribbler]

Way to change the subject MrngDud. Since you know the object of the so-called surge was to allow a reconciliation of the Sunnis and Shiites which has not occurred, you are the Vegas faker. It's true that counterinsurgency has succeeded in extending our stay in Iraq- that's success? Want to increase the supply of oil- that's the only other RW talking point. Then leave the Iraqis to pump oil instead of interfering in their government and way of life. I'm sure Maliki would tell you the same thing. Let's hear your differentiation between " time horizons" and a timetable. Please deal from the top of the deck.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Wow go figure, a dittohead who apparently has read the scholarly tome: "How to talk to liberals (if you have to)," by the academic Ann Coulter.

What has the Bosh administration ever done for you, you incredulour non-sap you?

[elr50]

You are probably MOURNING because you know in your heart your ideology, your administration, and your candidate are all dying. I won't cry any tears for ANY of you.

[Jeff1958]

On the contrary, I'll dance on their graves.

[SRaley]

I love how you people still think that calling him "Barry" is an insult. Hilarious! If that's your best, you've got a long swim ahead before you're going to get to the swift boat.

[exflatlander]

Oh, come on, now. Get your facts right, dude. The goal for the surge - as stated by the Bush administration - was to reduce violence in order to allow Iraq to firm up its democracy and build up its defenses. Just last week 36 men were killed by two suicide bombers outside an army recruitment center. Hardly the first time either. Violence has decreased, yes, but it still isn't safe for an Iraqi to be perceived as supporting the Maliki government or US presence. Also, I'd think that part of the "freedom" Bush and his clone McCain keep harping away on would include the right to determine they've had enough of our "help." We need to let Iraq determine its own destiny and graciously leave when asked to. Too bad we messed up their country so badly that it probably will be chaotic for a long time to come.

[MPCarr]

New York TImes. Unfair and Unbalanced.

[nyscribbler]

You must be a Fox viewer. Most of you still think Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. You in that crowd?

[nomorebombs]

9/11 is the crux of our time

lets solve it..

who did it?

[msmaggie]

Unintended consequences: by rejecting the op-ed, McCain is getting broader and more sympathetic coverage than the piece would have come close to generating. Sometimes you gotta use your head. And of course this is reported in tandem w the 3 network anchors following Obama overseas. Hey, I'm voting for the guys, but this is a legitimate point, there is a middle school crush feeling to it that is frankly rather icky.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

They're in the bag for McBombsAway no matter what he does and even if they're not at all obvious about it.

But still I agree I wish they had published it. THAT level of scholarly discourse would have been even funnier.

[asl3676]

Dear Ms. Maggie,

Did you feel the same way when the media was all over Al Gore and John Kerry? This is about as much a legitimate point as a Fox News discussion of issues.
The Republicans have been railing against the media since 1960. This is a campaign tactic not a legitimate point.

[newworldman777]

McCain's petty criticism of the New York Times lends credence to the stipulation by his good buddy Phil Gram that America is truly "a nation of whiners." McCain's sniveling is quite annoying (yet predictable), to say the least. Get over it, McCain. The MSM is tired of printing op-eds about your old-school, destructive ideology that reveals no creativity and no clear "way forward," and, following nearly 8 years of disastrous policies resulting from the same mentality displayed by Bush, the American people are more than ready for a change.

[charon]

McCain's article reads like a high school novice debater's first argument, whose strong point is its vagueness. Odd how angry McCain gets when asked for a simple thing like defining victory in Iraq. We've been there for over 5 years and neither bushco nor McCain know what exactly victory is? What a godawful shame this right wing is. I'm surprised they don't try some line of bull like "if we told you what victory is we'd be telling Al Queda too!"

[nomorebombs]

shameful aren!t they?

[neoconsareliars]

McCrock is a walking bag of rightwing cliches and assorted neocon lies.

[PCVIRGINIABEACH]

Given that McCain does not know how to use a computer, I can understand why he refused to re submit the piece. I mean, can you imagine if you had to re write everything by hand like mccain does, and send it snail mail? The Times should have considered this before they rejected the McCain piece.

lol

[Phil123]

If any of the posters want to bother to read McCain's article, here it is:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/the-mccain-op-ed-the-new-york-times-wouldnt-publish/

Contrary to the uninformed comments of many of the posters, the writing is correctly written English (at least up to the standards of the Times), it is not a "Campaign Commercial for McCain," and it is not an "Attack piece on Obama."

The article is entirely about progress in Iraq (the ONLY topic), and factual statements as to where McCain stands and where Obama stands (from his own words).

I can't imagine why the Times rejected it, other than liberal bias.

For posters to ridicule the writing is ludicrous. Not only is the writing OK, but do you honestly think that either McCain or Obama personally write their own articles? I'm sure that they both have educated writers on their staffs who are responsible for things like this.

[peorgietirebiter]

just read it it, thanks and I think it's pretty clear why the NYT's rejected it; Sen. McCain never defines "winning"- much less how he intends to do it. Without those elements it's just another jingoistic flack piece. To my mind, given Iran's post invasion ascendancy in the region, we'll be lucky to break even.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

I'm thinking Phil123 truly doesn't know its haf-a**ed jingoistic unsupported garbage, because that's what Phil123 is surrounded with and takes as the norm.

I mean, if you grew up on a sh*t farm, you'd be true in wondering why everyone else keeps complaining about the stink right?

[CyrusBeaucephus]

You tend to see a lot of liberal bias these days. Sort of like endless Rev Wright stories and 24-7 Bittergate, with basically zero coverage of the new War Bush is getting ready to start. It must be soooo hard to be a conservative crybaby in 2008. i feel your pain

[Iraqnophobia]

so is it worse to be a conservative crybaby in 2008 or a liberal crybaby your whole life?

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

It's full of vague, unsupported talking points. It does in fact sound like a high school essay, the kind where you don't give any references at all, just pull "facts" out of your a**.

Example:
"...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.”

1. WHAT "news" article?? Something written by Rush Limbo? Why doesn't he say WHICH article and by whom?

2. The statement itself is a lie. Iraq has in fact MET 3 benchmarks, and has "made progress" on another 12. Even to say "made progress" could mean just about anything. Or nothing.

THAT's why this po S was rejected. It's typical neocon garbage.

[idest]

Tell me, where in the article does McCain lay out his plans for resolving the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[freecasey]

I think the difference is Obama's is strategy, and McCain's is response. I count 2 references to McCain in Obama's and at least 20 direct and indirect references to Obama in McCain's. It seems the Times didn't want a tit-for-tat, it wanted some strategy from McCain.

A good start would be to define the victory he so desperately longs for. I take it as Iraq's democratically elected leaders telling us we can go. Perhaps you can elaborate, Phil?

[brighterside]

I thought that NYT was a bit biased against McBlunder. But after reading that report at the drudge website I can see why its been rejected. Its something that Sean Hannity or BillO would write. Good for NY times for rejecting it. They have rights to do it.

[Photofarm]

The NYT was wrong to print Obama's and not McCain's editorial. The NYT times provided free campaign time for Obama and not McCain. It proved without a doubt it will slant things for Obama and not McCain.

The NYT, the Democrat Propaganda Paper, and it doesn't even hide it anymore.

[DrFelch]

Oh, so, judging by your comment, I would expect that you are for a re-institution of the fairness doctrine? That is what you are saying, quite plainly. If you are not for a return to the fairness doctrine, yet you still think the NYT owed McFelch "equal time", then you are a hypocrite.

[asl3676]

Do you think McCain actually wrote it? Could have been written by BillO or some other right wing hack..

[HarryTheHat]

To answer sdskelton03's point, the NYT wasn't seeking a rebuttal. Obama laid out his plan for the way forward in Iraq in his op-ed piece and the NYT asked McCain to do the same. Instead, McCain (or more precisely, someone on McCain's staff) choose to indulge in a wordy criticism of his opponent. The NYT has already published seven op-ed pieces from McCain and, if he actually has something of substance to say, they'll publish seven more.

If McCain wants the column inches, then write an article outlining his own plan. What is so difficult about that?

If he wants to do an attack piece, buy a full page ad to do so. I'm sure that the NYT won't refuse his money.

[AmericanSinceFeb08]

I agree with NYT after reading the op ed on the dru dge report. Nothing about his plan, only attacking ob a ma.

[basenji]

Read his so-called 'Op-Ed" which reads like an advertisement written by a Jr. High student. He is beginning to sound pretty darn pathetic.

[jackieblu23]

I agree with The NYT, what does surrendrer in Iraq mean? What does victory mean? Iraq wants us to leave, McCain & Bush said we would leave when asked... McCain's whole plan trying to back Obama in to a corner has back-fired big time!
McCain is not fit to be president.
Oboma 08
Awesome shot today 3 pointer!