The McCain Editorial Not Fit To Print In The New York Times------

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.

John McCain

(John McCain submitted this opinion to the New York Times in a rebuttal to Barack Obama's op-ed written on the 14th of July. The Times has rejected McCains rebuttal because "it did not mirror Obama's text. "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece."

Unabashed Bias

More at Hot Air

New York Times Swaps, (Creates Own Biased) Headline

The New York Times (Online) yesterday took an AP story that told an incredible tale of Iraqis asking the U.S. military to stay out of a fight where they killed 18 bad guys, AND inserted their own biased headline. Here's the original story released by Associated Press:


Nov 10, 9:14 AM EST

Clash in Iraq Kills 18 al-Qaida Members

By SINAN SALAHEDDIN
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Former insurgents who turned against al-Qaida in Iraq launched an attack against the terror group and killed 18 of its members, asking the U.S. military to stay away while the battle raged, an ex-insurgent leader and Iraqi police said Saturday.

Most members of the Islamic Army, a major Sunni Arab insurgent group that includes former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, joined U.S. forces battling al-Qaida in Iraq earlier this year, though some of the group's leaders deny any contact with American troops.

A top Islamic Army leader, known as Abu Ibrahim, told The Associated Press that his fighters ambushed al-Qaida members near Samarra on Friday, killing 18 people and seizing 16 prisoners..............

"We found out that al-Qaida intended to attack us, so we ambushed them at 3 p.m. on Friday," Abu Ibrahim said.

He asked that Iraqi authorities inform the American military about his plans, and requested that no U.S. troops interfere, they said. He worried that U.S. helicopters might mistakenly fire on his fighters, since they had no uniforms and were indistinguishable from the al-Qaida militants, they said............(full AP story)

Was this headline by AP good enough for the New York Times?
The answer is NO!

Here's the same story, but with a different headline:

Roadside Bombs Across Iraq Kill Seven

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 10, 2007
Filed at 9:13 a.m. ET

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Former insurgents who turned against al-Qaida in Iraq launched an attack against the terror group and killed 18 of its members, asking the U.S. military to stay away while the battle raged, an ex-insurgent leader and Iraqi police said Saturday.

Most members of the Islamic Army, a major Sunni Arab insurgent group that includes former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, joined U.S. forces battling al-Qaida in Iraq earlier this year, though some of the group's leaders deny any contact with American troops.
A top Islamic Army leader, known as Abu Ibrahim, told The Associated Press that his fighters ambushed al-Qaida members near Samarra on Friday, killing 18 people and seizing 16 prisoners................ (New York Times Link Here)

14 paragraphs down (in both story's) this was written:

"Meanwhile, roadside bombs and shootings killed at least 12 Iraqis early Saturday, police said, and the American military issued a statement saying a U.S. soldier was killed in Diyala province."

While I'm still trying to decipher where the "seven" comes from in the NYT's headline, I wrote an email to the public editor and asked "if this is common practice to change headlines submitted by AP to suit a particular bias"? A automated reponse was returned that said they will look into this matter and get back to me (if necessary). My response to the New York Times------ IT'S NECESSARY!

EDITORS NOTE: ( I plan on doing a little follow up on this in the next few days to give the Times a chance to respond. Please check back.)

UPDATE: NOW IT APPEARS THE LINKS TO BOTH STORIES HAVE BEEN CHANGED. NOW THE LINKS TAKE YOU TO THIS:

Nov 11, 10:12 AM EST
Iraqi Leader Says Baghdad Violence Down

Did the AP change this link? Where's the Saturday story to this link?

TWO WORDS FOR AP AND THE NEW YORK TIMES-----SCREEN CAPTURE!