Nyt Rejects Mccain's Editorial; Should 'mirror' Obama

[broncofan7]

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'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 war—only 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.'

Developing...


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.

All of those who have worked in the media please provide some clarity for we laymen who see this as nothing but the stifling of thought...

[Dudeskey]

It wasn't submitted in proper MLA or APA format ;)

[cutthemdown]

Who cares we got to read it anyways. Like we all didn't already know the media is totally liberal.

[Bronco Jamus]

I support the NYT's right to print want they want on their OP/ED pages. It would be nice if they gave fair time, but I don't think they have too. It's a dead medium anyway.

[bronclvr]

Within the last Month we took a Trip to Ireland, and were absolutely shocked (I must live in a bubble) at the way News is portrayed here versus there-our News here in the good 'ol USA is dramatically censored-kinda makes you wonder about other things, too-

[Taco John]

McCain's editorial is nothing but a critique of Obama's editorial. It's not a reflection of his own plan, so much as it's an attack ad disguised as editorial.

[Bronco Jamus]

Within the last Month we took a Trip to Ireland, and were absolutely shocked (I must live in a bubble) at the way News is portrayed here versus there-our News here in the good 'ol USA is dramatically censored-kinda makes you wonder about other things, too-

For example?

[That One Guy]

McCain's editorial is nothing but a critique of Obama's editorial. It's not a reflection of his own plan, so much as it's an attack ad disguised as editorial.

My thoughts as well. They just want to continue to be taken serious, not become a drama/debate forum.

[Bronco Jamus]

On that point, I would have to ask if Obama said anything about McCain in his Editorial? If he did, then that really isn't a good reason.

[Rigs11]

McCain's editorial is nothing but a critique of Obama's editorial. It's not a reflection of his own plan, so much as it's an attack ad disguised as editorial.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner, and why is it that grampa mcsame, and fellow rightards on this board, fail to realize that progress in iraq began before the surge, in place like anbar province after the US soldiers left. The sunnis then turned their attention at alqaeda and killed them off.But whithdrawal wouldn't work right?

[peacepipe]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?hp
Here's Obamas op-ed to compare.

[Rohirrim]

I guarantee you McCain's handlers designed the rebuttal to make sure it got rejected. On the Right, it's more important that you have ammo to attack the NYT than it is for you to create an opinion piece that can actually be published in the NYT.

[Bronco Jamus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?hp
Here's Obamas op-ed to compare.

"Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks"


So right here in the very beggining he attacks McCain and lies. He did support the President's War in 2004. The You Tube has been posted here.

[Bronco Jamus]

"Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government. "

He attacks McCain here as well

[Bronco Jamus]

"Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender. "


He attacks McCain here also.


So again, I supprt the NYT's decisions to print what they want provided it's not lies. But the reason given is dubious based on Obama's print.

[peacepipe]

that's not a attack, & Obama did oppose the war before it began. key phrase being "before it began".

[SPfloppy]

Dudes come on. McCain could end up as the most powerful man on earth and the NYT would love to be able to brag that they got one over on him.

[Bronco Jamus]

that's not a attack, & Obama did oppose the war before it began. key phrase being "before it began".

Attack or difference in opinion? It's the same thing. He's bringing areas to the fore front where he disagrees with McCain. Then McCain does it and it's somehow different?

[peacepipe]

In a couple of spots Obama points out some differances. McCains entire op-ed is an effort to discredit Obamas plan. McCain doesn't express that he himself has a plan only that he doesn't like Obamas plan. Maybe if McCain actually layed out what he would do instead useing an entire op-ed to discredit Obama his op-ed might have been printed. McCain was simply trying to use the NYT as a way to attack Obama. The NYT op-ed page isn't a 527.

[Bronco Jamus]

In a couple of spots Obama points out some differances. McCains entire op-ed is an effort to discredit Obamas plan.

Either way it's the same thing. Obama is "discrediting" McCain's ideas. Come on. Now you want to count the number of discredits, attacks, or differences in opinions? So I guess the 3 is acceptable and 4 is just one to many?

[peacepipe]

Attack or difference in opinion? It's the same thing. He's bringing areas to the fore front where he disagrees with McCain. Then McCain does it and it's somehow different?You're smarter than what this comment makes you sound like.

[peacepipe]

Either way it's the same thing. Obama is "discrediting" McCain's ideas. Come on. Now you want to count the number of discredits, attacks, or differences in opinions? So I guess the 3 is acceptable and 4 is just one to many?I guess I'm giving you more credit than you deserve.

[Bronco Jamus]

You're smarter than what this comment makes you sound like.

I don't understand what you mean, but I think you see the hypocrisy of your position by now.

[Bronco Jamus]

I guess I'm giving you more credit than you deserve.

Now you are trying to call me stupid? Come on buddy. That's a last ditch effort on a discussion point that you know you've lost.

[Taco John]

On that point, I would have to ask if Obama said anything about McCain in his Editorial? If he did, then that really isn't a good reason.


He did. But not like McCain did. Obama mentioned McCain in points where he was differentiating their policies. McCain used his editorial as a straight up attack ad against Obama, without spending any real time outlining his own positions.

It shouldn't be a suprise to anybody that McCain has done this. The campaign has not been an "Elect McCain" campaign so much as it's been a "Don't Elect Obama" campaign.

[peacepipe]

Let me put it this way,Me pointing out that a apple is red & a orange is orange isn't an attack on the apple. does this analogy work for you.

[Bronco Jamus]

He did. But not like McCain did. Obama mentioned McCain in points where he was differentiating their policies. McCain used his editorial as a straight up attack ad against Obama, without spending any real time outlining his own positions.


I haven't read McCain's so I don't know, but to me it's fair game. Just because he does it harder shouldn't matter. But again, I support the NYT's right to tell McCain to get lost.


It shouldn't be a suprise to anybody that McCain has done this. The campaign has not been an "Elect McCain" campaign so much as it's been a "Don't Elect Obama" campaign.

They'll lose with that path.

[Taco John]

Either way it's the same thing.


You seriously don't recognize the significant difference in tone and substance between the two articles?

Here, try this. Count the number of times McCain says "Obama" in his editorial, and then count the number of times Obama references "McCain."

[Bronco Jamus]

Let me put it this way,Me pointing out that a apple is red & a orange is orange isn't an attack on the apple. does this analogy work for you.

You are still pointing out differences. Which is what McCain is doing. Which is what Obama is doing. So the NYT's reasoning is suspect. They should tell the truth. "We don't want to print it." And they don't have to.

[Bronco Jamus]

You seriously don't recognize the significant difference in tone and substance between the two articles?




I understand your point, but it doesn't matter unless he's using foul language.

[jhat01]

Who gives a ****? Does anyone even subscribe to the NYT anymore? We all can read everything on the web anyway. I don't think they're doing it because he's bashing Obama, I've read several op-eds that bash Obama, especially the flip-flop piece that was out a couple of weeks ago. They are doing it because they can.

[Breaker]

All I can say is Fairness Doctrine, Fairness Doctrine, Fairness Doctrine :)

[Breaker]

that's not a attack, & Obama did oppose the war before it began. key phrase being "before it began".

These are written in exactly the same way and the NYT is full of ****.

Obama is going into reasons why the war isn't working and how he would work to change it. McCain believes that the war is being prosecuted correctly and then gives reasons as to why that is the "truth", directly refuting the points that Obama made. It is a response to what someone else said, and since McCain thinks things are going correctly it is every bit his right to explain why he thinks things are going right.

[Rohirrim]

He did. But not like McCain did. Obama mentioned McCain in points where he was differentiating their policies. McCain used his editorial as a straight up attack ad against Obama, without spending any real time outlining his own positions.

It shouldn't be a suprise to anybody that McCain has done this. The campaign has not been an "Elect McCain" campaign so much as it's been a "Don't Elect Obama" campaign.

I have seen polls that show that the American people are sick of this kind of political campaign, ie. the Rove attack campaign, and yet the Right seems to be stuck in some kind of rut. They've got nothing left to sell. Their entire agenda has been discredited. Their entire philosophy has collapsed into failure. Maybe they figure they've got left but "attack politics?"

[Taco John]

I understand your point, but it doesn't matter unless he's using foul language.

Sure it matters. The NY Times would have printed an editorial from John McCain that highlighted his positions. Instead, he sent an attack ad criticizing Obama's positions instead of highlighting his own.

He's got to pay for that kind of thing.

[Pseudofool]

McCain's editorial is nothing but a critique of Obama's editorial. It's not a reflection of his own plan, so much as it's an attack ad disguised as editorial.Yup, I'm sure the NYT would happily publish McCain's own "plan". And I bet the Obama editorial was actually written by Obama...

[Pseudofool]

I have seen polls that show that the American people are sick of this kind of political campaign, ie. the Rove attack campaign, and yet the Right seems to be stuck in some kind of rut. They've got nothing left to sell. Their entire agenda has been discredited. Their entire philosophy has collapsed into failure. Maybe they figure they've got left but "attack politics?"That's probably it exactly, given Maliki supporting Obama (and weakly drawing it back under US gov't pressure), McCain doesn't have much to run ON--they have to run AGAINST.

I don't know if you watched Meet the Press, but Chuck Todd (who seems pretty freaking knowledgeable and not an egoist) said the Maliki comment really derailed Republican. Here's the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqCtoREx88I

[cutthemdown]

McCain just seems to be giving a rebuttal to what Obama wrote. I'm not seeing the huge difference everyone is trying to point out. It may have been more rebuttal because McCain went second but other then that it didn't seem like a really bad attack piece.

If McCain wanted to play dirty it could be a lot worst then that. I mean the guy was a coke dealer or something right? HeHeHeHeHe Oh that's right he only used it like Bushy. The real question then becomes did he smoke it? Did Obama like him some crack?

[cutthemdown]

I do agree that Obama scored a huge hit with Maliki saying he liked his plan to pullout. Maliki will probably get Obama, and he better hope the money keeps flowing or he's screwed.

[Rigs11]

McCain just seems to be giving a rebuttal to what Obama wrote. I'm not seeing the huge difference everyone is trying to point out. It may have been more rebuttal because McCain went second but other then that it didn't seem like a really bad attack piece.

If McCain wanted to play dirty it could be a lot worst then that. I mean the guy was a coke dealer or something right? HeHeHeHeHe Oh that's right he only used it like Bushy. The real question then becomes did he smoke it? Did Obama like him some crack?

yeah right. I'm sure people like you were up in arms when Kerry gave his rebuttal to bush's first four years.All I kept hearing from the right is "he has no plan of his own".So now that mcsame does it he get's a pass?

[Rigs11]

That's probably it exactly, given Maliki supporting Obama (and weakly drawing it back under US gov't pressure), McCain doesn't have much to run ON--they have to run AGAINST.

I don't know if you watched Meet the Press, but Chuck Todd (who seems pretty freaking knowledgeable and not an egoist) said the Maliki comment really derailed Republican. Here's the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqCtoREx88I

Yep, mcsame will not be able to recover from this one. Not only that but obama outraised him in cash by 2 to 1 in june. He is going to get destroyed in the debates. The repubs better cue the fat lady...

[peacepipe]

Sure it matters. The NY Times would have printed an editorial from John McCain that highlighted his positions. Instead, he sent an attack ad criticizing Obama's positions instead of highlighting his own.

He's got to pay for that kind of thing.
ding,ding,ding,we got a winner!

[Pseudofool]

yeah right. I'm sure people like you were up in arms when Kerry gave his rebuttal to bush's first four years.All I kept hearing from the right is "he has no plan of his own".So now that mcsame does it he get's a pass?Kerry lost; maybe there's a theme here.

[BroncoBuff]

McCain's editorial is nothing but a critique of Obama's editorial. It's not a reflection of his own plan, so much as it's an attack ad disguised as editorial.
Exactly.

[Bronco Jamus]

Amusing. It's the same thing.

[Pseudofool]

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.'

[Spider]

McCain should have El Rushbo read it on the EIB network

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Who cares we got to read it anyways. Like we all didn't already know the media is totally liberal.

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

The same newspaper that functioned as a propaganda missive for Bush's invasion of Iraq and covered Scooter's ass to the bitter end fails to give a republican the customary free ride on one occasion and now "the media is totally liberal."

You make me chuckle. :giggle:

[Taco John]

NYT rejects bad op-ed. So what?

Posted by J.H. Huebert at July 21, 2008 01:12 PM

Drudge wants to make a big deal (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm) over the NYT rejecting an op-ed piece "written by" John McCain, as though the rejection is the product of bias.
Anyone who knows anything about op-eds, though, knows that no serious newspaper would print McCain's piece because it doesn't conform to one of the basic guidelines for op-ed articles: you need to just state your own views, not attack someone else's op-ed from the same paper. Criticism of someone else's article is only appropriate for a letter to the editor. (You'll note that LRC, too, prints differing views, but never in the form of one piece attacking another.)
Of course, it could be that McCain's people are (like everyone else) more web-savvy than John McCain, knew the piece would be rejected, and knew that publicity from Drudge is more valuable than appearing in the increasingly irrelevant Times. It seems more likely, though, that they're incompetent and it just happened to pay off.
Anyway, it's not like the NYT has any problem with running things by warmongers. They run Bill Kristol's column, after all, and last week ran this item (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html) about why it's better for Iranians that we or Israel bomb them sooner rather than later.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022089.html

[cutthemdown]

There is a new article out highlighting how Obama has had about 25% more coverage from the press over McCain. Also they showed that Obama gets more favorable coverage. It's pretty much a given the media is on Obamas side, why even argue you about. If Obama is your man you should be happy about that. Just say good they know whats best for country.

I don't think media has to be fair, they can say we think Obama better IMO. It's up to Americans to make there own minds up and not let media program that. I certainly feel I am able to make my own mind up, I don't need CBS to help.

[cutthemdown]

I mean it's not like McCain gets no coverage. I'm not saying media doesn't have an obligation to show both sides, they do. I'm just saying they can pick a side if they want, but they should admit we have picked a side.

[cutthemdown]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

The same newspaper that functioned as a propaganda missive for Bush's invasion of Iraq and covered Scooter's ass to the bitter end fails to give a republican the customary free ride on one occasion and now "the media is totally liberal."

You make me chuckle. :giggle:

I'm glad I bring some smiles into your otherwise drab existence.

I think they just pointed out that Obama has gotten about 25% more coverage then McCain.

[Pseudofool]

There is a new article out highlighting how Obama has had about 25% more coverage from the press over McCain. Also they showed that Obama gets more favorable coverage. It's pretty much a given the media is on Obamas side, why even argue you about. If Obama is your man you should be happy about that. Just say good they know whats best for country.

I don't think media has to be fair, they can say we think Obama better IMO. It's up to Americans to make there own minds up and not let media program that. I certainly feel I am able to make my own mind up, I don't need CBS to help.Some of that is Obama is making more "news" rather than any bias. McCain took foreign trips to either the wrong places or too early. When he does get coverage it's because of Gaffes not policy innovation. Moreover, the American public already "knows" McCain (and have a ton of maverick misconceptions about him) while Obama is "newer" to cover for the media...i think this is where McCain running in 2000 hurts him.

[peacepipe]

Some of that is Obama is making more "news" rather than any bias. McCain took foreign trips to either the wrong places or too early. When he does get coverage it's because of Gaffes not policy innovation. Moreover, the American public already "knows" McCain (and have a ton of maverick misconceptions about him) while Obama is "newer" to cover for the media...i think this is where McCain running in 2000 hurts him.No doubt, the biggest issues faceing us are Iraq & the economy & McCain is in colombia.
McCain should feel fortunate that his gaffes aren't being run 24/7. From that standpoint McCain is getting a free ride,cuz' if Obama was making these gaffes the media would be all over it.
McCain has only himself to blame for the media coverage Obama is getting now overseas. McCain spent quite some time critisizing(sp) Obama for not having gone to Iraq recently,now he's there & scoring big points. this is backfiring on McCain in a big way.

[Rigs11]

Bwahahahaha! Oh man it just keeps getting better and better...All they have left is the "politics" card after the "translation" card didn't work.Hilarious!


Iraqi backing of Obama plan irks White House
Says Baghdad may be using U.S. election as leverage in negotiations


pdated 6:13 p.m. MT, Mon., July. 21, 2008

WASHINGTON - The White House expressed unhappiness Monday about Iraqi leaders' public backing for Barack Obama's troop withdrawal timetable. And it said that Baghdad may be trying to use the U.S. presidential election as leverage in talks about the future of American's military presence and obligations in the war.

Washington and Baghdad probably will miss a July 31 target for reaching an agreement, said White House press secretary Dana Perino, characterizing the negotiations as "hard-driving."

"We don't think that talking about specific negotiating tactics or your negotiating position in the press is the best way to negotiate a deal," Perino said after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was quoted in a magazine article supporting the 16-month troop withdrawal timeline proposed by Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate. "However, we understand that they're a sovereign country and they'll be able to do that," Perino said. "We're just not going to do it on our end."

Al-Maliki's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, initially appeared to try to discredit the magazine report but on Monday he expressed hopes that U.S. combat forces could be out of Iraq by 2010, the timeframe proposed by Obama. Buoyed by a sharp reduction in violence, Iraqi leaders have become more assertive about the country's sovereignty, giving rise to demands for a specific plan for American forces to leave.

The Iraqi statements suggested that Iraqi officials were setting the agenda on the timing of U.S. troop withdrawals and forcing President Bush to make concessions. "Let's squeeze them," Al-Maliki was quoted by The Associated Press as telling his advisers. Bush last week reversed course and agreed to set a "general time horizon" for bringing home more U.S. troops, based on Iraq's ability to take care of its own security.

"The key issue," Perino said, "is that they understand it will not be arbitrary; it will not be a date that you just pluck out of thin air; it will not be something that Americans say, `We're going to do — we're going to leave at this date,' which is what some have suggested," she said.

The White House acknowledged the Iraqis might be trying to use the election for leverage.

"I think that a lot of other people look through the lens of a 2008 presidential election," Perino said. "Might they be? Sure. I mean, it's possible.

"Do they have their own political — domestic politics that they need to think about? Sure," Perino said. "Dare I say that they actually have domestic politics, but they do. And, so all of those things are being taken into account, but I believe that Ambassador (Ryan) Crocker and Prime Minister Maliki's negotiator are working together in a way that is very serious that they understand the implications."Hilarious!

She said she could not speculate about specific dates for withdrawals. "Whether or not it's 16 months, or later, or earlier, I just don't know."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25786952/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm not saying media doesn't have an obligation to show both sides, they do.

Gee, if I didn't know better I might think you were a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine.

http://www.bartcop.com/gop-to-change.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/mccain-monster.jpg
</center>

[cutthemdown]

Gee, if I didn't know better I might think you were a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine.

http://www.bartcop.com/gop-to-change.jpg

I haven't really paid attention to that issue to tell you the truth. I just find the whole notion the media even matters as silly. The fact the market is saturated with media makes the notion that it matters silly to me. Even if it's 60/40 slanted one way that still means that 40 percent is enough for everyone to get sick of hearing about you.

[cutthemdown]

you won't see me saying McCain loses because of the media biased. They just like Obama more because McCain is old and boring and Obama isn't. Of course the media is going to like Obama more. Republicans may just be serving McCain up to lose. They aren't giving a ton of money so that tells you something right there.

[Drek]

I'm glad I bring some smiles into your otherwise drab existence.

I think they just pointed out that Obama has gotten about 25% more coverage then McCain.

Its closer to 50% if I recall.

But thing is, that coverage isn't all positive. Fox News basically finds something new to attack Obama for every day. Meanwhile everyone ignores just how badly McCain has spun a 180 from everything he stood for as a primary candidate 8 years ago. They brush horrible comments like "bomb Iran" off and gloss over McCain's campaign chair calling us "a nation of whiners" and saying that we're just in a mental recession. Hell, they even ignore the fact that McCain himself said OCS drilling would have more of a psychological advantage than real tangible market effect on oil prices.

McCain doesn't get the press coverage Obama gets, both good and bad, and with how he's ran his campaign to date he should be thankful. He's done a horrible job and if he was covered equally to Obama he'd be dead in the water before even officially receiving the nomination.

[Bronco Jamus]

Its closer to 50% if I recall.

But thing is, that coverage isn't all positive. Fox News basically finds something new to attack Obama for every day. Meanwhile everyone ignores just how badly McCain has spun a 180 from everything he stood for as a primary candidate 8 years ago. They brush horrible comments like "bomb Iran" off and gloss over McCain's campaign chair calling us "a nation of whiners" and saying that we're just in a mental recession. Hell, they even ignore the fact that McCain himself said OCS drilling would have more of a psychological advantage than real tangible market effect on oil prices.

McCain doesn't get the press coverage Obama gets, both good and bad, and with how he's ran his campaign to date he should be thankful. He's done a horrible job and if he was covered equally to Obama he'd be dead in the water before even officially receiving the nomination.

Fox news has just as much postive coverage on Obama as anyone else according to some poll that was posted here during late primary season.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Its closer to 50% if I recall.

But thing is, that coverage isn't all positive. Fox News basically finds something new to attack Obama for every day. Meanwhile everyone ignores just how badly McCain has spun a 180 from everything he stood for as a primary candidate 8 years ago. They brush horrible comments like "bomb Iran" off and gloss over McCain's campaign chair calling us "a nation of whiners" and saying that we're just in a mental recession. Hell, they even ignore the fact that McCain himself said OCS drilling would have more of a psychological advantage than real tangible market effect on oil prices.

McCain doesn't get the press coverage Obama gets, both good and bad, and with how he's ran his campaign to date he should be thankful. He's done a horrible job and if he was covered equally to Obama he'd be dead in the water before even officially receiving the nomination.

Yep.

McSame is getting the same free ride from the "liberal" media GeeDubya received.