The New York Times rejected Senator McCain’s Iraq op-ed piece yesterday in a story that is likely to spark criticism from the conservative blogosphere. This criticism is not new because conservatives have continued to suggest over the years that the NYT is the epitome of a liberal newspaper however I do not agree with that assertion. My disagreement is based on the research done by Eric Altermann in his book: “Why We are Liberal” in which he states that the NYT is not as liberal as you might believe. Regardless of the political leanings of the paper, when we compare both the Obama op-ed and the McCain op-ed, there is a distinct difference in the way it is written.
The first difference being the number of times Senator Obama actually makes the reference to Senator McCain which is only 3 times compared to McCain’s 6. The biggest difference is that Senator McCain’s article focuses on attacking Senator Obama rather then stating his policies on Iraq. From the McCain op-ed:
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.
The above paragraph is a moot point given the initial endorsement by Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and then the Iraqi government’s subsequent back pedal on that statement. Not to sound conspiratorial, but that sounds like President Bush picked up the phone and said: “What the hell did you say…” The indisputable fact is that the Iraqi government wants U.S forces out of Iraq by 2010 regardless of the desires of Senator McCain or President Bush. The GOP and Senator McCain need to stop deluding the American people into thinking that we have a choice; if the Iraqi government wants all U.S forces out by 2010 then we must go.