Obama still ducking townhall debates

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

And you're no closer to a point on fascism with regards to Universal Health Care than you were two posts ago. I still don't know WTF your point is. I don't think you do either.

Perhaps it is because the poster boys for fascism, Mussolini and Hitler, were all about providing universal health care to the chagrain of private industry

Moreover, had he bothered to read the entire wikipedia article (note -- he shunned the use of wikipedia earlier because anyone could have written it) -- he would have realized that a Federal universal health care bill hardly meets the core tenets of fascism, much less Obama's plan seen here http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ -- which mostly maintains the private sector

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

You have no idea what you're even talking about. Why don't you provide your own definitions to support your claims instead of relying on wikipedia and conservative blogs? Where is your voice?

The concept of universal heathcare has nothing to do with fascism. There is no plot to 'take over' the health care industry. That's not what proponents of universal healthcare in America are looking for.

It's really simple - so simple that you probably won't even grasp it: those of us who support universal healthcare are only looking for medical insurance that is government provided and available to everyone regardless of one's economic standing or health condition. If you want United Healthcare, or Cigna or Aetna - that's your right, but there should be another option that is a guarantee for everyone at fair and equal rates for everyone. There is nothing fascist about that, but I can easily see how those who profit from greed would be fearfully opposed to something that might level the playing field.

In our modern world there is no reason whatsoever that every person should not have access to medical care and prescription drugs. Currently this isn't the case even in America. We have a duty as Citizens to provide for one another, and let me point out something: if you are so opposed to a national healthcare program, how can you possibly be in support of police departments, libraries, fire departments, public schools, military - or would you prefer that we do away with all of those social institutions?

Okay - so I typed this much longer version of this, but it got deleted by my cursed computer

So, ditto.

Mind you - - I think people confuse the phrase "universal health care" with their concept of "socialized medicine," which is different. And, many studies indicate a universal health care system would be less expensive in the long run. I, too, am afraid of letting the govt. take control of an entire industry (TSA anyone ) -- but that is not what is happening with the currently offered universal health care plans. Moreover, John McCain "believes we can and must provide access to health care for every American" and his plan uses govt. influence and money to acheive that goal (is that fascism too? ). See http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...f2edb527cf.htm Finally, we are already paying for some form of universal health care. So, why not make it better?

[vermicious knid]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Based on what?! Your say-so?

So you are accusing the hyperliberal NY Times, who won't even publish McCain's own op-ed piece of being a shill for Bush administration on no evidence whatsoever and you would like to be taken seriously.

That's a funny way of asking for more information. I would think you would ask for a link or a source that I had before presuming I was making things up. People here are willing to debate issues, but when you call people "dense" and imply that they are lying at the first mention of something you haven't heard before, you make yourself look like someone not worth debating with.

Anyway, what I was referring to was the idea that Iraq had aluminum tubes that would have been used to make nuclear bombs.
link
A Sept. 8, 2002, account [in the New York Times], written by [Judith] Miller and military reporter Michael Gordon, dealt with aluminum tubes obtained by Iraq, allegedly for its nuclear weapons program. That same Sunday, the vice president appeared on NBC's Meet the Press, and pointed to the article, which relied heavily on administration officials, as proof positive of Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.

Judith Miller was the reporter who went to jail rather than testify on the crimes of Bush's people, so it isn't like that newspaper is filled with radical left-wing enemies of Republicans. It ran many stories that convinced people that the war was a good idea. Only Knight Ridder newspapers sufficiently investigated what George Bush was selling.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Not only that, but the NY Times did not just refuse to publish McCain's opt ed (note they published seven of his other opt eds in the past) as he would have you believe. Rather, the Grey Lady merely asked McCain to say something new and to define what he meant, which McCain apparently has refused to do - to wit:

July 21, 2008, 6:19 pm

The Times and the McCain Op-Ed

By Kate Phillips

The Op-Ed section of The New York Times has decided not to publish an opinion piece submitted by Senator John McCain in response to one published last week by his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, on his plan for Iraq.

The decision occurs against the backdrop of the candidates’ dueling visions on the war in Iraq and how to handle the war going forward, particularly whether there should be a timetable for withdrawal or “time horizons” as spoken by President Bush or a measured troop presence for the foreseeable future to maintain stability.
Mr. Obama is on center stage today with his overseas trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, and Mr. McCain is hitting back from home with attacks that he has been right all along in achieving stability in the war zone through sustained support of President Bush’s troop buildup over this year.

On Mr. McCain’s Op-Ed, Matt Drudge posted online what he said was the original submission by Mr. McCain. According to his post, the senator wrote about Mr. 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.”
Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, issued this statement: “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.”

Times officials said that the decision not to publish Mr. McCain’s submission should not be considered a total rejection of the article by the presumptive Republican nominee. Rather, David Shipley, editor of the Op-Ed page, kicked back the original version while offering suggestions for changes and revision.

Here’s Mr. Shipley’s email response on Friday to Michael Goldfarb, a member of the McCain team and frequent writer for the senator’s blog, McCainreport:

Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

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.
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. 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.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,
David Shipley

Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page and Op-Ed, issued this statement today about the process undergone by editors in reviewing submissions:
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 pesidential primaries. We take his views very seriously.

(In full disclosure, I worked as the deputy Op-Ed editor under Mr. Shipley during the mid-to-latter part of 2004, and it was policy then not to publish direct responses to Op-Ed columns already in print. Very rarely would a direct counterpoint to an Op-Ed be published; more often the response would be directed to Letters to the Editor. But dueling candidate Op-Eds sometimes rise to a different level, when they go beyond back-and-forth or standard talking points that everyone is familiar with.
That said, I should also say there is an enormous firewall between the editorial/Op-Ed side and the news operation. We on the news side had no input, nor intelligence, per se of Mr. McCain’s article, nor did we know that Mr. Shipley requested revisions. That holds true for all submissions to Op-Ed.)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-mccain-op-ed/

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

And you're no closer to a point on fascism with regards to Universal Health Care than you were two posts ago. I still don't know WTF your point is. I don't think you do either.

Perhaps English is a bit esoteric for you. If you nationalize an industry under the guise of "sticking it to the rich for the little guy" that is a distillation of what the article on fascism is. The very idea of nationalizing provate corporations is inherently fascist. You don't know what you are talking about, as usual.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

^^^

Not only that, but the NY Times did not just refuse to publish McCain's opt ed (note they published seven of his other opt eds in the past) as he would have you believe. Rather, the Grey Lady merely asked McCain to say something new and to define what he meant, which McCain apparently has refused to do - to wit:

July 21, 2008, 6:19 pm

The Times and the McCain Op-Ed

By Kate Phillips

The Op-Ed section of The New York Times has decided not to publish an opinion piece submitted by Senator John McCain in response to one published last week by his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, on his plan for Iraq.

The decision occurs against the backdrop of the candidates’ dueling visions on the war in Iraq and how to handle the war going forward, particularly whether there should be a timetable for withdrawal or “time horizons” as spoken by President Bush or a measured troop presence for the foreseeable future to maintain stability.
Mr. Obama is on center stage today with his overseas trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, and Mr. McCain is hitting back from home with attacks that he has been right all along in achieving stability in the war zone through sustained support of President Bush’s troop buildup over this year.

On Mr. McCain’s Op-Ed, Matt Drudge posted online what he said was the original submission by Mr. McCain. According to his post, the senator wrote about Mr. 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.”
Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, issued this statement: “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.”

Times officials said that the decision not to publish Mr. McCain’s submission should not be considered a total rejection of the article by the presumptive Republican nominee. Rather, David Shipley, editor of the Op-Ed page, kicked back the original version while offering suggestions for changes and revision.

Here’s Mr. Shipley’s email response on Friday to Michael Goldfarb, a member of the McCain team and frequent writer for the senator’s blog, McCainreport:

Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

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.
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. 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.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,
David Shipley

Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page and Op-Ed, issued this statement today about the process undergone by editors in reviewing submissions:
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 pesidential primaries. We take his views very seriously.

(In full disclosure, I worked as the deputy Op-Ed editor under Mr. Shipley during the mid-to-latter part of 2004, and it was policy then not to publish direct responses to Op-Ed columns already in print. Very rarely would a direct counterpoint to an Op-Ed be published; more often the response would be directed to Letters to the Editor. But dueling candidate Op-Eds sometimes rise to a different level, when they go beyond back-and-forth or standard talking points that everyone is familiar with.
That said, I should also say there is an enormous firewall between the editorial/Op-Ed side and the news operation. We on the news side had no input, nor intelligence, per se of Mr. McCain’s article, nor did we know that Mr. Shipley requested revisions. That holds true for all submissions to Op-Ed.)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-mccain-op-ed/

#1. This has never happened before

#2. If you READ McCain's article you would see he was VERY clear.

#3. If you read Obama's article, you would see it bears no resemblance to what this guy represented it as being.

#4. It appears to me that the editor is dictating to McCain what he can and can not write about.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Perhaps English is a bit esoteric for you. If you nationalize an industry under the guise of "sticking it to the rich for the little guy" that is a distillation of what the article on fascism is. The very idea of nationalizing provate corporations is inherently fascist. You don't know what you are talking about, as usual.

No, you are wrong. Fascism is wildly more complicated than that.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

#1. This has never happened before

#2. If you READ McCain's article you would see he was VERY clear.

#3. If you read Obama's article, you would see it bears no resemblance to what this guy represented it as being.

#4. It appears to me that the editor is dictating to McCain what he can and can not write about.

So, the opt ed's are never sent back for more info. or other reasons. Please be specific as to how you know this as a fact. And, here is allegedly what McCain sent:

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 percent 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.
___________________________________________________________

Please quote the relevant parts where he was specific regarding how he defined winning the Iraq war because "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" is a restatement

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Okay - so I typed this much longer version of this, but it got deleted by my cursed computer

So, ditto.

Mind you - - I think people confuse the phrase "universal health care" with their concept of "socialized medicine," which is different. And, many studies indicate a universal health care system would be less expensive in the long run. I, too, am afraid of letting the govt. take control of an entire industry (TSA anyone ) -- but that is not what is happening with the currently offered universal health care plans. Moreover, John McCain "believes we can and must provide access to health care for every American" and his plan uses govt. influence and money to acheive that goal (is that fascism too? ). See http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...f2edb527cf.htm Finally, we are already paying for some form of universal health care. So, why not make it better?

The problem with making it universal is that Social Security as is is crippling us with debt. That is for one segment of the population. Imagine tryign to cover every man woman and child?! Also, has the government EVER done anything more efficiently than the private market?

You said, "but that is not what is happening with the currently offered universal health care plans" The biggest universal plans of them all, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are rampant with fraud and waste. Can you really justify the costs of what the government has to pay to suppliers? I think I already mentioned the problems with wheelchair pads and canes. Unless the government takes over the suppliers too, you will give suppliers carte blanche to charge whatever they want, as they already do. This is what happens when you have a half-assed hybrid of market and government. Freddie Mac, Fannie May anyone? HELLLOOOOO!

John McCain says in his townhall meetings, if you ever bothered to listen to the guy, that his solution for bringing health care to every man, woman and child is by providing choice. Part of what makes medical insurance so expensive is that there are mandatory coverages according to the state. In Washington, acupunture and many other holistic coverages are mandatory. Pay over $800.00 a month for health insurance for my family because of this, as well as ridiculous punitive damages suits. Doctors are leaving Washington in droves because of malpractice insurance costs, thanks to guys like John Edwards. McCain's idea is to let families choose which coverage they want instead of having the government do it for you.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Here is a cool article explaining why the NY Times' rejection of the opt ed for clarification was not some left wing horror, which you said it was.

Right calls foul on rejection of McCain's Op-Ed

Conservative bloggers are outraged by the New York Times' rejection of John McCain's piece and, unsurprisingly, decry the media's liberal bias.

Vincent Rossmeier

Jul. 21, 2008 |

Thanks to a story on Drudge Report, the political blogosphere is all atwitter today with the news that the New York Times Op-Ed page rejected a guest column by presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain last week. This rejection came a few days after the Times printed a similar column by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

McCain's piece, which Drudge reprinted in full, attacked Obama's position on troop withdrawals from Iraq and lauded the success of the "surge." In the piece, McCain also stated that he expects "to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of [his] first term in office, in 2013."

In rejecting McCain's submission, New York Times Op-Ed editor David Shipley said that he wasn't "going to be able to accept this piece as currently written," and explained his rationale by 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."

Right on cue, right-wing bloggers have reacted to Shipley's decision with outrage and allegations of liberal media bias. Little Green Footballs fumed that the Times refused McCain's article while running pieces by Yasser Arafat and members of Hamas in the past. The blog Gateway Pundit asked, sarcastically, "Media bias ... What media bias?" and, in citing the full text of McCain's article, continued, "Here's the editorial that The New York Times refused to publish. It is fantastic. It is a brilliant piece of writing that absolutely destroys Obama's phony attempts this week to look like a Commander in Chief ... Barack Obama is a war loser, plain and simple."

These heated protestations overlooked a number of fairly obvious factors relating to this story. For one, in his rejection e-mail, Shipley was friendly and repeatedly emphasized that he'd be "very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page" and offered to review another draft. In fact, the Times' Op-Ed page has printed submissions from McCain on several other occasions, including a piece in March 2003 titled "The Right War for the Right Reasons" in which the senator argued for the justness of the Iraq invasion.

The sticking point, to some degree, seemed to be Shipley's request that McCain define "victory" in the Op-Ed. That request poses obvious difficulties for McCain, who -- like other supporters of the war -- has been decidedly reluctant to be pinned down on a definition. If you really wanted to, you could claim that Shipley deliberately tried to corner McCain by including what was, in effect if not intention, a poison pill in his request for a rewrite. But such an attempt at policy explication hardly seems to constitute media bias. It's reasonable to expect politicians to be able to explain their positions.

Additionally, the Times' Op-Ed page endorsed McCain in the Republican primary. And if it hadn't, the page's point of view is not a secret, and is unrelated to the paper's news coverage. It seems odd that McCain would be so naive as to expect that the page wouldn't favor the Democratic candidate. Wouldn't it seem a little crazy for liberals to accuse the Wall Street Journal of bias because the paper refused to print a column penned by Obama?

But this sort of tactic may be McCain's most effective campaign strategy at this point. As Michael Scherer, a former Salon reporter, points out over at Time's Swampland blog, Republicans believe the campaign can't focus on McCain and his beliefs if McCain is to win the presidency. Citing a column this morning by Robert Novak, Scherer writes that McCain's best bet is to make the campaign about Obama, as he tried to do in the Op-Ed submitted to the Times.

In a statement, Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for the Times, said:

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.

-- Vincent Rossmeier

www.salon.com

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So, the opt ed's are never sent back for more info. or other reasons. Please be specific as to how you know this as a fact. And, here is allegedly what McCain sent:

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 percent 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.
___________________________________________________________

Please quote the relevant parts where he was specific regarding how he defined winning the Iraq war because "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" is a restatement

That is what Obama does, he speaks in vague generalities with terms no one can disagree with, because they are non-specific. I could say, "I have a plan for lowering health care costs for all Americans." No one can disagree with that statement. However, if my plan involves strafing every other house to reduce the population, we have a problem. Same with Obama. Most of his goals are great ones. It's his methodology that scares me. C.S. Lewis once said that evil is the act of obtaining the right objective the wrong way.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

^^^

Here is a cool article explaining why the NY Times' rejection of the opt ed for clarification was not some left wing horror, which you said it was.

Right calls foul on rejection of McCain's Op-Ed

Conservative bloggers are outraged by the New York Times' rejection of John McCain's piece and, unsurprisingly, decry the media's liberal bias.

Vincent Rossmeier

Jul. 21, 2008 |

Thanks to a story on Drudge Report, the political blogosphere is all atwitter today with the news that the New York Times Op-Ed page rejected a guest column by presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain last week. This rejection came a few days after the Times printed a similar column by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

McCain's piece, which Drudge reprinted in full, attacked Obama's position on troop withdrawals from Iraq and lauded the success of the "surge." In the piece, McCain also stated that he expects "to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of [his] first term in office, in 2013."

In rejecting McCain's submission, New York Times Op-Ed editor David Shipley said that he wasn't "going to be able to accept this piece as currently written," and explained his rationale by 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."

Right on cue, right-wing bloggers have reacted to Shipley's decision with outrage and allegations of liberal media bias. Little Green Footballs fumed that the Times refused McCain's article while running pieces by Yasser Arafat and members of Hamas in the past. The blog Gateway Pundit asked, sarcastically, "Media bias ... What media bias?" and, in citing the full text of McCain's article, continued, "Here's the editorial that The New York Times refused to publish. It is fantastic. It is a brilliant piece of writing that absolutely destroys Obama's phony attempts this week to look like a Commander in Chief ... Barack Obama is a war loser, plain and simple."

These heated protestations overlooked a number of fairly obvious factors relating to this story. For one, in his rejection e-mail, Shipley was friendly and repeatedly emphasized that he'd be "very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page" and offered to review another draft. In fact, the Times' Op-Ed page has printed submissions from McCain on several other occasions, including a piece in March 2003 titled "The Right War for the Right Reasons" in which the senator argued for the justness of the Iraq invasion.

The sticking point, to some degree, seemed to be Shipley's request that McCain define "victory" in the Op-Ed. That request poses obvious difficulties for McCain, who -- like other supporters of the war -- has been decidedly reluctant to be pinned down on a definition. If you really wanted to, you could claim that Shipley deliberately tried to corner McCain by including what was, in effect if not intention, a poison pill in his request for a rewrite. But such an attempt at policy explication hardly seems to constitute media bias. It's reasonable to expect politicians to be able to explain their positions.

Additionally, the Times' Op-Ed page endorsed McCain in the Republican primary. And if it hadn't, the page's point of view is not a secret, and is unrelated to the paper's news coverage. It seems odd that McCain would be so naive as to expect that the page wouldn't favor the Democratic candidate. Wouldn't it seem a little crazy for liberals to accuse the Wall Street Journal of bias because the paper refused to print a column penned by Obama?

But this sort of tactic may be McCain's most effective campaign strategy at this point. As Michael Scherer, a former Salon reporter, points out over at Time's Swampland blog, Republicans believe the campaign can't focus on McCain and his beliefs if McCain is to win the presidency. Citing a column this morning by Robert Novak, Scherer writes that McCain's best bet is to make the campaign about Obama, as he tried to do in the Op-Ed submitted to the Times.

In a statement, Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for the Times, said:

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.

-- Vincent Rossmeier

www.salon.com

Again, this is op-ed, not fact, not news.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

The problem with making it universal is that Social Security as is is crippling us with debt. That is for one segment of the population. Imagine tryign to cover every man woman and child?! Also, has the government EVER done anything more efficiently than the private market?

You said, "but that is not what is happening with the currently offered universal health care plans" The biggest universal plans of them all, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are rampant with fraud and waste. Can you really justify the costs of what the government has to pay to suppliers? I think I already mentioned the problems with wheelchair pads and canes. Unless the government takes over the suppliers too, you will give suppliers carte blanche to charge whatever they want, as they already do. This is what happens when you have a half-assed hybrid of market and government. Freddie Mac, Fannie May anyone? HELLLOOOOO!

John McCain says in his townhall meetings, if you ever bothered to listen to the guy, that his solution for bringing health care to every man, woman and child is by providing choice. Part of what makes medical insurance so expensive is that there are mandatory coverages according to the state. In Washington, acupunture and many other holistic coverages are mandatory. McCain's idea is to let families choose which coverage they want instead of having the government do it for you.

No -- McCain is for the govt. usurping some of the private aspects of health care, which is a pillar of universal health care, which you called fascist.

Also, please read the link above and you will see that Obama's plan is about the same type of choice.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Again, this is op-ed, not fact, not news.

That is why I called it an "article" that "explained" an event.

It takes the facts and explains then in some context. I agree with this guy. You apparently do not because you apparently think the NY Times refused to publish McCain's opt ed and never had any intention of publishing it because the NY Times is a horribly liberal paper. No facts support your position, as this article explains.

Again, please explain how you know for sure the NY Times' intent. Moreover, please reconcile the published email from the editor that asks for more info. before publishing with your point of view. That, and the fact that the NY Times has published seven McCain opt eds before as well as the paper endorsed McCain for the R nominee.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

That is what Obama does, he speaks in vague generalities with terms no one can disagree with, because they are non-specific. I could say, "I have a plan for lowering health care costs for all Americans." No one can disagree with that statement . . . .

Well, if you go to the site above, he explains what his plan is.

So does McCain on his site.

Actually, they are quite similar in application