After the NY Times rejected John McCain's op-ed the NY Post, a tabloid paper, printed it with the following explanation EDITORS' NOTE: The New York Times wouldn't print this oped from the GOP candidate.
But of course. John McCain disagrees with Barack Obama. John McCain disagrees with the NY Times. Therefore why bother acknowledging anything positive about John McCain?
The NY Times editor wanted John McCain to give an exact Iraqi pullout timetable. When he didn't comply the editor used this as one of his excuses not to publish the op-ed. More knowledgeable, more realistic, even more experienced about such matters than any NY Times editor--or Barack Obama, McCain clearly stated:
But I've 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 Sen. Obama. (snip) During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I've heard many times from our troops what Major Gen. Jeffrey Hammond (commander of Coalition forces in Baghdad) recently said: Leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."
As Barack Obama's photo op tour continues, as he stumbles answering Saturday Night Live lite questions about Iraq, a confident McCain concludes
I'm dismayed that he never talks about winning the war - only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will - and a triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us.
As president, I won't let that happen. Instead, I'll 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.
Share
