Regarding McCain’s Rejected Op-Ed

Regarding McCain’s Rejected Op-Ed

Ethel C. Fenig

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.

 

The New York Times: Shilling for the Islamists?

Blabbermouth NYT: Help! Help! Help!

Terrorist-tipping NYTimes wants Ruth Ginsburg’s help

NYT brags it selectively leaked NIE to help Dems

NYT brags it selectively leaked NIE to help Dems

Tom Maguire of Just One Minute notes the New York Times bragging it leaked portions of the National Intelligence Estrimate at a critical time to help the Dems.  Although he notes that the leak was disingenuous:

Unsurprisingly, the Times report was a bit tilted; a few days later Bush declassified the key judgments of the NIE and we saw things like this:

The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Thank heaven for intelligence agencies – who would have guessed that a failure by the jihadists in Iraq would set them back?  Of course, withdrawing US troops may not be the best way to bring about that jihadist failure, but the Times report overlooked that subtlety.

Here is another quote from the original Times story:

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

Really?  Compared to what?  The NIE made no attempt to establish a baseline.  For example, prior to 2003, jihadists had been inspired by the US troops based in Saudia Arabia as a bulwark against Saddam Hussein, and by US-led UN Sanctions on Iraq, alleged to be killing 5,000 Iraqi babies a month.  How would those two rallying cries have held up if in 2003 the US had settled for attempting to re-tighten “the box” containing Saddam Hussein?

Clarice Feldman  11 10 06

Times Echoes

Times Echoes
November 4th, 2006

A distinct subculture, a belief system if not a religion, exists in the United States. Its members draw their instruction on what to believe and how to live from the New York Times. I call them the Times Echoes. They exist in urban social ecosystems all across American.

There are certain people you never forget.  One is a man I knew who was an anomaly in more ways than one.  He was a politically conservative Jewish septuagenarian living in Westchester County, NY, within the gravitational pull of the Den of Iniquity (that would be NYC).  Possessing a genius IQ and intrepidity to match, on more than one occasion he told me of a technique he used when debating liberals. 

He’d say, “I can tell you what you believe on any issue.  Name for me any issue, and I’ll tell you what your position is.”  Not that he claimed powers of divination.  He explained, “I can do this because I know they get their beliefs from the New York Times.  All I have to do is open the Times, and that’s what they believe.”

This came to mind when I read Clay Waters’ piece on Timeswatch, “Richard Berke Bashes Blogs that Criticize the Times.”  Reporting on an event called Times Talk, at the New York Historical Society in Manhattan, Waters writes,

 . . . what struck me was the condescending and sometimes paranoid liberalism of the audience questioners. Of the seven or eight audience members who addressed the panel, none said anything that could be remotely construed as Republican or even moderate. Instead, the panelists got foreboding questionings of whether Bush believed in democracy and whether Red State folk are as ignorant as they are because they don’t read the New York Times.

Don’t think this is unusual.  For instance, I remember another septuagenarian, a woman I engaged in a political debate.  She was an avid reader of the Times and when I asked her if she believed everything contained therein, her response was “yes.”  When I asked why, I was informed that it was because the people who write for them are “very intelligent.”

To Times Echoes, the Times isn’t merely an information source.  It isn’t even just the newspaper of record.  It is an oracle, an inerrant purveyor of wisdom, compared to which the Bible pales.  But the Times Echo is most certainly human.  Although, if Christian theology is correct that it’s intellect and free will that separate man from the animal kingdom, perhaps just barely so.

If you’re offended by the Times Echo’s query about ignorant Red Staters, don’t be.  Despite their delusion that they’re possessed of sophistication, Times Echoes are the most callow, provincial of creatures.  You see, they don’t actually interact with people from the hinterlands and consider sufficient study of the latter’s culture to be a screening of Deliverance.

Oh, it’s not that they don’t travel.  They like bucolic vistas and toasty winter climes as much as anyone, and they have plenty of money. But they tend toward places previously civilized by other Times Echoes. Thus, jaunts to the Hamptons, cozy Vermont Inns (Vermont is rural but acceptable, since Times Echo hegemony was achieved long ago.  Hello, Bernie Sanders?) and trips to Aspen, Boca Raton and the Carribean are definitely on the itinerary. The areas in-between are akin to the Planet of the Apes, inconvenient badlands that only make travel between the aforementioned venues more time consuming.

And Times Echoes’ habitat really is that insular.  For example, despite the fact that Times Echoes fiercely oppose erecting a wall along the southern border, you shouldn’t be fooled.  It’s not that they oppose such barriers in principle, it’s just the location with which they take issue.  Manhattan Island already has its own moat.

And it is this very insularity that enables the Times Echo to exist.  Much like the ground-dwelling birds of Madagascar, the Times Echo’s isolated original habitat on the narrow island of Manhattan is even narrower. Guns, big stick foreign policy, adequate punishment for criminals and forced interrogation of terrorists seem like antiquated tools of Cro-Magnons to the Times Echo, ensconced as it is on the thirty-first floor of its doorman-protected building.

It is life in this bubble that blinds the Times Echoes to the real world.  And, insofar as they are cognizant of the “quirks,” “oddities” and “prejudices” of the barbarians beyond the realm, they have the expectation that their grand mission should remain totally unfettered by them.  It is this attitude that explains the comments of Times Assistant Managing Editor Richard Berke.  Waters reports from memory Berke as stating,

There are some good blogs, like Dick’s [fellow panelist Dick Polman]. The bad blogs are the ones that take on the New York Times.  Some of the blogs take a toll on our reporters.  One question on our minds is, ‘What are the blogs going to say?’ . . . Reporters have to be careful not to pull their punches . . . There are people dedicated to analyzing and picking apart whatever we say and do, not always in a bad way, but sometimes it’s just mean-spirited . . . The bloggers are after us . . . we try not to be affected, but foremost in our mind, we know that everything we write will be picked apart . . . you have to ignore those people that go after you . . . I’m afraid that blogging . . . creates problems for people to do their job.  

Well, well, what a cross he has to bear.  No man should have to labor under such conditions. 

Retirement comes to mind. 

What really upsets Pinch and his minions is that bloggers harm their ability to spawn more Times Echoes. Declining circulation shows how serious a problem this is.

A Times Echo is a creature of human respect, although he doesn’t show it as much as he craves it.  He sees nothing above his caste, and when he casts his myopic eyes downward, is assaulted by the visage of the common man.  This explains his paternalism. He is also a creature of his age, being too disconnected from that which is ageless to transcend it.  He is trapped in time and place, the servant who fancies himself a king, the simpleton posing as a savant.

This would explain why publisher Pinch Sulzberger, waxing contemporary, once is reported to have said that the Times

“ . . . can no longer offer our readers a predominantly white, straight, male vision of events . . ..” 

Personally, I don’t remember such a practice, unless he meant the vision of a white, straight male named Pinch.  But what vision are we to expect?  A black, lesbian, female vision?  Is the paper to be known henceforth as the “Gay Lady”?  A green, reptilian, cold-blooded vision?  An orange, beta-carotene, vegetable vision?  A brown, sedimentary, mineral vision?    

This is why the times of the Times’ woes are times for hope.  The near-religion that is the Times dying, its Echoes are becoming fainter.  And this is perhaps why they hate the Internet media so.  They fear its ascendancy, for they know what fate befalls creatures that cannot or will not adapt to changing times.  The oblivion of extinction.

Contact Selwyn Duke.

Selwyn Duke

13 Reasons to Vote Republican on Nov. 7 — Copy the text and email it to your friends

by Mona Charen 13 Reasons to Vote Republican on Nov. 7October 27, 2006 08:54 PM EST
I can understand why Democrats are jazzed about November’s election. The polls combined with the fawning media (“Oh, please, Sen. Obama, let us kiss the hem of your garment!”) are giving them goose bumps such as they have not experienced since “An Inconvenient Truth” debuted in theaters.What I don’t understand is the seeming tepidness of so many Republicans. Yes, the war in Iraq is a long, hard slog. The world is not Topeka, Kansas (would that it were). A journalist pointed out to President Bush at his most recent press conference that the Iraq war has now been going on as long as World War II did for the United States. Well, yes, but we lost 407,316 men in World War II. On Iwo Jima alone, we lost 6,800. This is not to say that the deaths of our people in Iraq should be trivialized. But comparisons with World War II — in terms of sacrifice and terrible price paid — are ridiculous.Republicans have abundant reasons to reserve a spot at their polling places on Election Day:

1) The economy. More than 6.6 million new jobs have been created since August 2003. Our 4.1 annual growth rate is superior to all other major industrialized nations. The Dow has set record highs multiple times in the past several weeks. Productivity is up, and the deficit is down. Real, after-tax income has grown by 15 percent since 2001. Inflation has remained low. As Vice President Cheney summed it up at a recent meeting with journalists, “What more do you want?” The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress can take a bow.

2) The Patriot Act. Democrats and liberals mourn this law as a gross infringement upon civil liberties. Yet the much-discussed abuses simply haven’t materialized. The law has, on the other hand, permitted the CIA and FBI to cooperate and share information about terrorist threats — at least so long as The New York Times isn’t publishing the details of our counterterrorism efforts on the front page.

3) The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to which liberals clung with passionate intensity, has been cancelled, permitting us to work on missile defense. In the age of Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is anyone (except Nancy Pelosi) sorry?

4) Immigration. Republicans in Congress insisted upon and got the first serious immigration restriction in decades. On Oct. 26, the president signed a law that will build a 700-mile fence along our southern border and, what is more important, does not offer amnesty.

5) There has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Who would have predicted that on 9/12?

6) Libya has surrendered its nuclear program.

7) A.Q. Khan’s nuclear smuggling network has been rolled up.

8) John Roberts and Samuel Alito sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

9) Those Democrats who do not want to close Guantanamo Bay altogether want to give all of its inmates the full panoply of rights Americans enjoy in criminal procedures.

10) Democrats believe in immediate withdrawal from Iraq. If they succeed in forcing us to leave under these circumstances, the United States will suffer a stinging defeat in the war on terror. The terrorists already believe that they drove the Russians from Afghanistan and Israel from Lebanon and Gaza. They are convinced they chased us out of Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993. According to Osama bin Laden and those who share his views, we are militarily strong but psychologically and spiritually weak. Like it or not — and no one likes it — we cannot leave Iraq now without utterly and decisively validating this analysis. We might as well run a white flag up the flagpole at the Capitol.

11) Democrats would like to eliminate the terrorist surveillance program.

12) If Democrats achieve a majority in the House, Barney Frank will chair the Financial Services Committee, Henry Waxman will head the Government Reform Committee, and Alcee Hastings will chair the Intelligence Committee.

13) Democrats believe that the proper response to Kim Jong Il’s nuclear test is “face to face talks.” That’s what the Clinton administration did for years. It worked out well, didn’t it? 

Posted in defeat liberalism, democrat half truth, Democrat issues, democrat lies, democrat muslim, democrat scandals, democrat socialists, democratic media, democratic morals, Democratic Party, Democratic socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic traitors, Democrats, Democrats & The Left, Democrats and AARP, democrats and CNN, democrats and illegal immigration, democrats and immigration, DEMOCRATS AND ISLAM, democrats and Korea, democrats and muliculturalism, democrats and the UN, Democrats being stupid, democrats cheating, extremists, fear of radical Islamists, get tough on islam, get tough on liberal media, get tough on liberals, get tough with democrats, Gitmo, Hollywood liberals, Hollywood wackos, Homeland Security, Illegal Immigration, Imams and Terrorism, immigrant vote, Immigration, immigration laws, In The News, Iran, iraq, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam sympathizers, Islam unrest, Islam's Founder, islamic death threats, Islamic immigration, Islamic lies, islamic recruiting, Islamic Schools, islamic taxi drivers, Islamic Women Rights, Islamist Web, Islamists, Islamofascism, Jewish leftists, Jihad, jihad ideology, Jihad watch, left-wing hatred for George W. Bush, Leftist Claptrap, Leftist parties, leftist universities, leftist wacko, leftists, leftwing billionaire George Soros, Liberal, Liberal and Left Wing Political Blogs, liberal bias, liberal Iraq media coverage, liberal media, liberal preachers, liberal professors, liberal Teachers, liberal universities, middle east, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Realities, Muhammad, Mullahs, Multicultural youths, multiculturalism, muslim, Muslim Alliance, Muslim American Society, Muslim Brotherhood, muslim charities, muslim clerics, muslim democrats, muslim extremist, Muslim Fundamentalism, muslim ghettos, Muslim immigration, Muslim integration, muslim schools, muslim sympathizers, Muslim Violence, Muslim vote, Muslims go home, NBC, New York Times, News, news leaks, Newsweek, Patriot Act. Leave a Comment »

Pre-Election SGO — If you own any stock in the New York Times, you’d better dump it before the election because the Times — like the rest of the 527 Media — will be the biggest loser of the 2006 election regardless of the other results. At about this time in 2004, I predicted that if Bush won, the media (especially Dan Rather) would lose. Two years later, Mr. Bush is still in the White House and Mr. Rather’s chair is now occupied by the excavatrix of the Couric Crater. Katie’s cuddly claptrap is running behind reruns of “Millionaire” in the Los Angeles market, and the only people who are surprised are the other occupants of the 527 Media cocoon.

Pre-Election SGO
By Jed Babbin
Published 10/30/2006 12:08:46 AM

If you own any stock in the New York Times, you’d better dump it before the election because the Times — like the rest of the 527 Media — will be the biggest loser of the 2006 election regardless of the other results. At about this time in 2004, I predicted that if Bush won, the media (especially Dan Rather) would lose. Two years later, Mr. Bush is still in the White House and Mr. Rather’s chair is now occupied by the excavatrix of the Couric Crater. Katie’s cuddly claptrap is running behind reruns of “Millionaire” in the Los Angeles market, and the only people who are surprised are the other occupants of the 527 Media cocoon.

Yesterday, it became official: there’s no difference between the Kos Kidz and the NYT editorial board. In a Sunday editorial the Times endorsed Nutroots Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman (and whatshisname, the Republican nonentity in the Connecticut Senate race). My theory that the media are leading the Dems rather than the other way around thus requires a corollary: liberals are so blinded by rage at President Bush that they’re willing to follow the media’s anti-Bush anti-war lead, even if it takes them over a cliff.

Bush Derangement Syndrome manifests itself differently among its sufferers. In the New York Times‘ case, it erupts consistently in its eagerness to toss its long-time pals over the side for any measure of deviation from the Nutroots fringe. Christopher Shays — Connecticut Republican and recipient of several previous NYT endorsements — suffered the Times‘ endorsement of his opponent last week for the same reason the paper is now tossing Ol’ Joe to the sharks: he didn’t oppose the Iraq war sufficiently or agree that the president should be impeached for it. The endorsement of Lamont closes the BDS loop. Inside the 527 Media loop, no candidate can be supported who ever had a thought that varied from the BDS chant voiced by Lamontocrats the night of his primary victory: “bring them home, bring them home…” The sad part is that the Republicans can’t seem to grasp that this presents an opportunity for them. Well, not all Republicans suffer from that inability. At least two don’t and they’re both named “Cheney.”

It’s comforting to know that someone in the White House still understands what we’re up against. When radio interviewer Scott Hennen talked to the Veep about treatment of terrorist prisoners one question was, “Would you agree a dunk in the water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?” Mr. Cheney replied, “Well, it’s a no-brainer for me,” which led to a Chernobyl-like meltdown among the 527 Media. At the White House briefing the next morning, Tony Snow withstood a hilarious onslaught of righteous indignation as calm and well stated as Clouseau’s accusation that a suspect killed “in a writ of fealous jage.” Some smiling smartass girl ranted on for at least three minutes insisting that Snow explain what “a dunk in the water” meant if it didn’t mean “water-boarding.” (By the way, “water-boarding” is a means of breaking down a prisoner’s resistance to interrogation that makes the suspect believe he’s drowning.) The rest of the media munchkins were too busy jumping to conclusions to even listen to the answers to their own questions. Which proves a point and poses an essential question.

The media, at least the surrogate Lamontocrats among them, insist that terrorist prisoners should be treated the same way the Supreme Court requires a beat cop to treat a purse-snatcher caught on Rodeo Drive. Mr. Cheney made a point that resonates with every sensible American. If you want people to interrogate terrorist prisoners effectively, you’re going to have to use techniques that aren’t permitted in civilian law enforcement. Cheney didn’t agree with the idea of waterboarding, but so what? Was Khalid Sheik Mohammed “water boarded”? Possibly. And if so, that’s just fine by me. Whatever was done to KSM, the record shows that it succeeded in extracting information that led to the capture of other high-ranking al Qaeda terrorists and leaders, certainly saving an untold number of lives. This is one of the choices on November 7: Do you want terrorist prisoners treated — lawfully — in rough and innovative ways that work? If so, don’t vote for any Democrats.

And while the Veep was out there dispensing common sense, his better half was taking on the media in the way the Republicans should have been doing all year. On CNN with Wolf Blitzer, Lynn Cheney asked a pertinent question and made a couple of telling points.

CNN has been on an anti-Bush rampage unseen in its political activism since Rathergate put the phony Texas Air National Guard documents on the air. Its “Broken Government” special and anti-Rumsfeld rants dominate its pre-election “coverage”. Which didn’t escape Mrs. Cheney. Here’s the money quote from October 27, CNN last Friday night:

MRS. CHENEY: Well, you know, right there, Wolf, “Broken Government.” Now, what kind of stance is that? Here we are. We’re a country where we have been mightily challenged over the past six years. We’ve been through 9/11. We’ve been through Katrina.

The president and the vice president inherited a recession. We’re a country where the economy is healthy. That’s not broken. This government has acted very well. We’ve had tax cuts that are responsible for our healthy economy. We’re a country that was attacked five years ago. We haven’t been attacked since. What this government has done is effective. That’s not broken government…

BLITZER: You worked …

L. CHENEY: I watched your program last night and I was troubled.

BLITZER: All right. Well, that was probably the purpose, to get people to think, to get people to discuss these issues because a lot of conservatives and …

L. CHENEY: Well, all right, Wolf. I’m here to talk about my book, but if you want to talk about distortion…

BLITZER: We’ll talk about your book.

L. CHENEY: Well, right, but what is CNN doing running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans? I mean, I thought Duncan Hunter asked you a very good question and you didn’t answer it. Do you want us to win?

BLITZER: The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that. Do you think we want terrorists to win?

L. CHENEY: Then why are you running terrorist propaganda?

BLITZER: With all due respect — with all due respect, this is not terrorist propaganda.

Oh, c’mon, Wolf. You’re caught, and you know it. Media bias is a thing of the past. You, and the others like you in the 527 Media, are producing campaign commercials for the Democrats and trying to pass them off as news. Thus the ever-deepening Couric Crater, the falling stock price of the NYT (down almost 60% in the past few years) and so forth. (I know, I know. Internet competition is driving newspaper stocks down, but liberal activism accelerates their decline.)

A week from tomorrow Americans will decide between saddling George W. Bush with a hostile Democratic Congress or with a Republican-controlled Senate dominated by presidential wannabes. Sigh. Vote Republican anyhow, if only to annoy the media.