Alex Constantine - August 25, 2008
Jul 22, 2008
The New York Times editorial staff recently rejected an op-ed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), which responded to a one published last week by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). The Times said Obama’s article “worked” because it offered “new information” and that they would be “pleased” to “look at another draft” from McCain.
While the Times wanted something “new” from McCain, the New York Post — owned by Rupert Murdoch — has no problem republishing McCain campaign talking points — even if they’re not totally accurate. Today, the Post published McCain’s rejected article in its entirety. From McCain’s Post op-ed:
In 2007, he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we’d taken his advice, the war would have been lost. 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 Maliki has endorsed his timetable - when the Iraqi prime minister has merely said that he’d like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of US troops at some unspecified future point.
The inconvenient truth for McCain’s piece is that Maliki (and more recently his spokesman) did endorse Obama’s timetable in a recent interview with Der Spiegel:
“US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”
But McCain didn’t stop there, offering a baseless attack on Obama, claiming that he “doesn’t want to hear” what “the commanders on the ground” in Iraq “have to say.” Obama heard what they had to say just yesterday.
Naturally, the right wing is outraged that the “liberal” New York Times rejected McCain’s op-ed, falsely claiming that its decision is unprecedented. Lucky for them…there’s always Rupert Murdoch.