They Don’t Even Bother to Hide the Bias Anymore

The New York Times on Friday blocked an opinion piece submitted by John McCain to the newspaper shortly after it printed a piece by his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, McCain campaign officials confirmed to FOX News on Monday.

Obama’s piece detailed his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan. While McCain’s proposed piece also discussed Iraq, The Times told McCain’s advisers that it would not accept the op-ed in its current form because it did not offer new information. Obama’s speech previewed a series of speeches leading up to a highly publicized trip to war zones in the Middle East.

“New information”…..like Obama’s flip-flops and heretofore defeatist cut and run policy?
Like the New York Times’ blatant adoration of like-minded nihilists?

“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,” Times op-ed editor David Shipley wrote the campaign via an e-mail later distributed by McCain’s team.

“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,” Shipley wrote.

Shipley, who was named deputy editor in January 2003, served in the Clinton administration as a senior presidential speechwriter and special assistant to the president from 1995 to 1997.

Big surprise there.

McCain campaign Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker said the two candidates “have very different world views” about Iraq and the campaign wanted an opportunity to state its candidate’s view.

“We have elections in this country, not coronations and it’s unfortunate that The New York Times wouldn’t allow their readers to hear from John McCain and make their own judgment,” Hazelbaker told FOX News.

“John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times,” added McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

The New York Times issued a statement defending its process of posting op-eds.

“It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission. We look forward to publishing Senator McCain’s views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven op-ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously,” said Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis.

But apparently, not as seriously as your love affair with the Obamessiah.

Obama’s op-ed ran on July 14, days before the Democratic presidential candidate departed for Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a congressional delegation that received coverage from all three broadcast networks’ news services. It is the first time the networks have traveled overseas with a candidate.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/

Timing is everything when you’re supporting your candidate.
I won’t put Obama’s propaganda piece on here, since it can easily be accessed by reading the New York Times online.

I will, however, put McCain’s response in its entirety, since the liberal media cabal has refused equal time for the Republican candidate:

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.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/july/0722_mccain_oped1.shtml

This isn’t ‘new information’, it’s facts consistently absent from the NYT repertoire of mealy-mouthed anti-military/anti-America editorialized ‘reporting’.

If you’re goimg to be biased, as many media are, at least be honest about it.
Since the Vietnam War, the American public has been inundated with the leftwing perspective on domestic and foreign policy.
The advent of internet blogging along with Fox News, has provided an alternative to the ultra liberal spiel, and provided a platform for direct confrontation with the MSM tactic of molding opinion to suit their agenda.

Congratulations, New York Times. You’re every bit as biased as we’ve come to expect.

Adding to the farce is a recent memo by the Time’s standards editor, Craig Whitney:

On a recent road trip, I found numerous funny, bittersweet, or just bitter or idiotic political bumper stickers a welcome distraction from $4.50 gas, but also thought I should remind everybody who has anything to do with creating or displaying news content why they shouldn’t display their own political views, on cars or elsewhere, in this campaign season or afterward.

The following two provisions of our Ethical Journalism policy apply:

Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times. In particular, they may not campaign for, demonstrate for, or endorse candidates, ballot causes or efforts to enact legislation. They may not wear campaign buttons or themselves display any other insignia of partisan politics. They should recognize that a bumper sticker on the family car or a campaign sign on the lawn may be misread as theirs, no matter who in their household actually placed the sticker or the sign.

Staff members may not themselves give money to, or raise money for, any political candidate or election cause. Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors, any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Craig Whitney

http://www.observer.com/2008/media/times-no-place-funny-bittersweet-or-just-bitter-or-idiotic-political-bumper-stickers#comments

 Whitney’s memo qualifies as some of the best unintentional satire I’ve ever read.

Three MSM Obama Groupies to Follow Their Idol to Iraq

After Obama’s initial refusal to go follow John McCain’s example; to go to Iraq and see the success himself:

Via his spokesperson, Bill Burton:

“John McCain’s proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don’t need any more ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don’t want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer.”

Link: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/obama_camp_says_no_to_baghdad.php

……He finally relents, and at least 3 liberal network devotees will string along:

The three network anchors will travel to Europe and the Middle East next week for Barack Obama’s trip, adding their high-wattage spotlight to what is already shaping up as a major media extravaganza.

Lured by an offer of interviews with the Democratic presidential candidate, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric will make the overseas trek, meaning that the NBC, ABC and CBS evening newscasts will originate from stops along the route and undoubtedly give it big play.

John McCain has taken three foreign trips in the past four months, all unaccompanied by a single network anchor.

This cracks me up:

Obama has “proven adept at generating excitement,” says David Folkenflik, media correspondent for National Public Radio. He said the anchors hope “a little bit of that excitement will rub off on their newscasts if they can convey an American phenomenon abroad, if that’s what it turns out to be. Senator McCain is not as magnetic a figure in that way.”

No, Folkenflik (gawd, what a name), you’re all excited because you and the rest of the dimwitted leftwing MSM think he’s the ‘Obamessiah’.

More on the leftwing media’s love affair with Obama:

The senator from Illinois has been drawing far more media attention than his Republican rival from Arizona. With this week’s Newsweek cover story on Obama’s religious beliefs, he has been featured on Time and Newsweek covers 12 times in the past three years, compared with five for McCain. This week’s New Yorker includes a 14,600-word piece on Obama’s political rise in Chicago. Obama and his wife, Michelle, were recently on the cover of Us Weekly……”

When McCain visited Britain, France and Israel in March and met with their leaders, no network anchors tagged along. NBC and ABC sent correspondents; CBS did not. None of the evening newscasts covered his trip to Canada last month. And McCain’s swing through Colombia and Mexico two weeks ago was barely covered, although NBC and ABC sent correspondents.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/16/AR2008071602562.html

There’s just no love in the MSM for John McCain.

Obama’s campaign site conveniently deleted any reference to his criticism and claims about the surge, just in time for his little trip:

……The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared. John McCain and Obama have been going at it heavily in recent days over the benefits of the surge.

The Arizona senator, who advocated the surge for years before the Bush administration employed it, says the resulting reduction in violence is proof it worked with progress on 15 of 18 political benchmarks and Obama’s plan to withdraw troops by now would have resulted in surrender.

When President Bush ordered the surge in January 2007, Obama said: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse,” a position he maintained throughout 2007. This year he acknowledged progress, but maintained his position that political progress was lacking.

Tuesday, while Obama gave a speech on foreign policy, the New York Daily News was the first to notice the removal of parts of Obama’s campaign site listing the Iraq troop surge as part of “The Problem.” An Obama spokeswoman said it was just part of an “update” to “reflect changes in current events,” as our colleague Frank James notes in the Swamp. The update includes a new section on the rise of Al Qaeda violence in Afghanistan.

Link: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-surge.html

Updates to coincide with his flip-flops. The liberals can’t harp on Iraq anymore so they have to switch to Afghanistan, where after a good deal of success, American troops have just recently encountered renewed attacks by the Taliban and what’s left of Al Qaeda, who are crossing the border from Pakistan.

Hopefully, the troops will give Obama the same earful they gave Couric:
Link: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/soldiers-set-katie-couric-straight/

Too bad he doesn’t have the guts to take Michael Yon up on his offer:

I hereby offer to accompany any Senator to Iraq, whether they are pro-or anti-war, Democrat or Republican. I will make this offer personally to a few select Senators as well. Our conversations during the visit would be on- or off-record, as they wish. Touring Iraq with me, as well as briefings by U.S. officers and meetings with Iraqis, would provide an accurate and nuanced account of the progress and challenges ahead, so that the Senators might have a highly informed perspective on this most critical issue.

Our civilian leaders need to make decisions based on the best information available. The only way to learn what is really going on in Iraq is to go there and listen to our ground commanders, who know what they are doing. Generals Petraeus and Odierno have years of experience in Iraq, and vast knowledge of our efforts there. But the young Soldiers who have done multiple tours in Iraq also have unique and invaluable perspectives as well. These young Soldiers have personally witnessed the trajectory of the war shift dramatically, and can articulate those changes in concrete and specific terms. It doesn’t matter if a Soldier is only twenty-something. If he or she spent two or three years in the war, that person is likely to have valuable insights.

The best way to understand what is really going on is to listen closely to a wide range of service members who have done multiple tours in Iraq. Some will be negative, some will be positive, but overall I am certain that the vast majority of multi-tour Iraq veterans will testify that there has been great progress, and now there is hope. Combat veterans don’t tolerate happy talk or wishful thinking. They’ll tell you the raw truth as they see it.

Whether any Senators take advantage of my offer, I do hope that the presidential candidates visit Iraq, not just for a photo opportunity, but to spend time with our commanders and combat veterans, who know the truth and are not afraid to speak it.

Links: http://michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1311:an-open-offer-to-us-senators&catid=34:dispatches&Itemid=55

http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/michael-yons-open-offer-to-us-senators/

This upcoming trip will be a media circus and an Obama PR campaign by the media.
With the type of press entourage he’s getting, expect nothing less.

U.S. Army Deserter Deported From Canada

Deserter Robin Long was quietly returned to the United States Tuesday morning, the first resister Canada has sent back to the U.S. since the war in Iraq began. Long, 25, was transferred to U.S. authorities, who were expected to take him to the Army base he fled in 2005 in Fort Knox, Ky.

Once he gets back to the base, Long will be required to comply with military grooming policies, Lieutenant-Colonel George Wright, an acting deputy director in U.S. Army Public Affairs, said Tuesday in an interview from Washington. “Dreadlocks are not authorized under military grooming policies,” Col. Wright said.

This is the ‘fashion statement’ the little dumplin’ made while in Canada:

Make sure he gets a bath too, LTC.

Long joined the U.S. Army in July, 2003, believing at the time that his country was justified in going to war in Iraq. According to his lawyer, his perspective changed after hearing that weapons of mass destruction had not been found in Iraq and that Iraqi detainees had been abused. Concluding that the abuse was systemic, he decided he would not participate or be complicit in what he believed were war crimes, his lawyer said.

If Long used whatever reading level he possessed, he’d know that WMDs WERE FOUND:

Link: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/no-lies-about-iraq/

And I won’t lose one minute of sleep over interrogation methods designed to extract information that will save American lives. Long and other pissant Islamofascist apologists, have more sympathy for the terrorists than their victims.

In September, 2006, Long applied to be accepted in Canada as a refugee, claiming that the U.S. was involved in an illegal war. His application for refugee status was denied on Feb. 15, 2007. An application for leave to appeal the decision was subsequently turned down. An application for a stay of the removal order to allow him further judicial appeals was rejected Monday.

The “illegal war” mantra has been debunked….repeatedly.

Once he is returned to his military base, he will be subject to some type of restrictions, Col. Wright said……At a minimum, Long would be confined to the base.

“He could go to formation to report every morning and evening, and go to mess hall and be nourished,” Col. Wright said. Long could also spend time in his barracks, at the gym and Army store, or in worship if he wishes, Col. Wright said. “But he could not leave.”

They are being waaaaaaaaay too lenient with this puke. He ought to be in the stockade with a diet of bread and water.

His commander will decide how Long’s desertion will be handled. He could face disciplinary action ranging from a simple discharge, to a slightly more severe non-judicial punishment such as forfeiture of pay, to the most severe response, a trial by court-martial.

……The maximum punishment for desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service is a dishonourable discharge, five years confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction in rank, according to the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The maximum punishment for desertion in time of war is death or such punishment as a court-martial may direct, Col. Wright said in an e-mail. However, the maximum punishment is unlikely if the only offence is desertion, he said.

Too bad it hasn’t been enforced lately.

Canadian courts ruled Long could not be a refugee because he would not be subject to persecution if he was sent back. The court said a discharge from the Army would not be a serious enough punishment to allow a deserter to be considered a refugee, Mr. House said.
Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080715.wdeserter0715/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080715.wdeserter0715

They’re right….a dishonorable discharge is certainly not severe enough for the crime he committed.

Of course the usual gang of anti-war idiots showed up at the border to protest.
Funny, they only get their panties in a wad over wars they disagree with. READ: U.S.

Long is a dirt bag. He is what we Army vets refer to as “that 10%”.

I had two tours in Iraq. Soldiers have done and continue to do a hell of a job, fighting and erradicating Islamic terrorist scumbags in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have an ALL VOLUNTEER military. When you raise your right hand and take the enlistment oath you swear to obey the orders of those appointed above you, and to defend your country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Anyone who’s been in unifom longer than 2 minutes, knows that America sends you where you are needed. You don’t get to pick and choose conflicts.

I didn’t like being deployed to Klintoon’s wag-the-dog Bosnia foray, but I went anyway, as ordered.

If there really was any real justice, we’d deport his worthless ass to bumfuck Iran.

Barack Hussein ‘Brainiac’ Obama on How To End the WOT

This is from someone who wants to be Commander-in-Chief:

“I am absolutely committed to ending the war.” “I will call my Joint Chiefs of Staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war.”

How about you stay behind after school and clap erasers, Obama?

As Dean Barnett at The Weekly Standard explains:

In truth, the Joint Chiefs are not part of the chain of command. Indeed, they are specifically by statute not part of the chain of command but instead serve solely in an advisory capacity to the president.
Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_what_do.asp

In other words, they are part of a President’s advisory staff; not battlefield commanders or part of the execution of battlefield doctrine.

Just eight days after the attack Obama showed his stupidity with regard to threats against America:

The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair. We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.”

Link: http://thepage.time.com/obamas-response-to-the-sept-11-attacks/

Let’s see…we were attacked by Islamic thugs supported by a world-wide network, and all Obama is concerned about, is the ‘innocent’ people killed in war. Not one to dwell on the innocent people slaughtered on 9/11, he prefers to focus on our ‘image’ abroad and what the world thinks of us.

I have absolutely no empathy for a perverted, warped religion that is, at its very core, vile and oppressive in nature. The practitioners of Islam are following exactly what is proscribed in the Koran. We should not only take them out, but destroy any vestiges of the ‘religion’ itself. They have never, and will never worship peacefully, nor will they stop subjecting their own people (women) and the rest of the world to Islam’s brutality.

Obama is as vacuous on chain of command, military tactics, and strategy, as he is in his approach to world-wide threats.

At least, he’s consistent.

Murtha’s At It Again

According to John (”the troops are murderers”) Murtha, the surge worked because we just ‘broke down doors and inadvertantly killed people’:
Transcript:

Murtha: I think they have 17 or so guidelines and they’ve solved 4 or 5 of them.
(Actually they’ve completed 15 of the 18 benchmarks.)

Murtha: I think the short term it (the surge) has reduced incidents. I’m not sure if it’s because the Iraqis are just worn out but certainly the way they are doing it today it makes a big difference. It used to be we broke down doors. We went in and we killed people inadvertantly. Now they’re much more careful about it.

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3rO7qb4OvI

Hat tip to Gateway Pundit: Link: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/murtha-surge-is-working-because.html

Previous post on Murtha: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/murtha-sued-for-defamation/

Murtha needs a big, fat clue shoved up his ass.

Only in the Democratic Party…..