NOW:53110:USA00949
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA00949
69°
H 69° L 55°
Partly Cloudy | 7MPH

The Way I See It!

I am an Ultra-Conservative, Alpha-Male, True Authentic Leader, Type "C" Personality, who is very active in my community; whether it is donating time, clothes or money for Project Concern or going to Common Council meetings and voicing my opinions. As a blogger, I intend to provide a different viewpoint "The way I see it!" on various world, national and local issues with a few helpful tips & tidbits sprinkled in.

McCain VS. New York Times

Blogging, McCain, Military, National Politics, Obama

Here is the article that the New York Times would not print and asked the McCain camp to rewrite.  While a news media should be fair and balanced that is not always the case.  If you want to buy a media outfit, you could influence what is printed and what is not.  I do think that if you let one party write the other should if you are reporting news.

 

On to blogs.  They are one sided and don’t have to be fair.  I was asked where are McCain’s flip-flop posts from me.  This from a Liberal blogger who does post the McCain flip-flops, but he himself doesn’t post the Obama ones.  He doesn’t have to.  The blog is opinioned.  Thus fair and balance doesn’t have to be there.  That blogs are slanted and sided and that is the point.

  

“It is mostly, as you'll see, a response to Democratic contender Barack Obama's views on what to do in Iraq -- and a response to the opinion piece written by Obama that the Times published on July 14. Obama's column was called "My Plan for Iraq."” – USA Today

  

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/new-york-times.html

 

July 21, 2008

Op-Ed piece by Republican presidential contender John McCain

Sent to The New York Times

Source: The McCain campaign

 

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 Sen. 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 Sen. 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 Sen. 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 Sen. 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."

 

- 3 -

This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Page Tools