NYT Rejects Mccain's Editorial; Should 'mirror' Obama

Truth Detector · 07-26-08, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

You are wrong. It bought them no time, as there is no time constraint on the situation. What it did was was put more boots on the ground and treat the symptoms of sectarian violence, the insurgency, and foreign terror involvement.

The real major factor in the reduction of terrorist/insurgent related deaths over there is the "Sons of Iraq." Local militia and former insurgents who are paid by the U.S. military to patrol the streets and drum up intel on the bad guys. They have been convinced to work with the police and army. This is how it's really done.

The troop surge put boots on the ground and won temporary yet decisive victories in Iraq. It's the strategy of giving the insurgents a choice of coming in from the dark and giving the locals a choice of never joining the insurgency that is actually making the most notable difference.

Whatever you say Jeff ::wink wink::

In other words, it is allowing the Iraqi people to re-build their infrastructure, train their police and military and take on more of the task of self defense themselves.

Carry on.

Truth Detector · 07-26-08, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy

Honestly I think they did the right thing. I know that's going to be a very unpopular position to take in this thread but there it is. Obama's piece touched on McCain, true, but it was more about Obama's positions and what HE wanted to do. McCain's piece on the other hand was nothing more than an attack piece. He didn't give anything of substance as to why we should elect him, it was just about why we shouldn't elect Obama. It wasn't worth printing and was a fairly crappy article. A waste of space if you will. McCain wasn't being forced to support Obama in any way, he was just being forced to write something of substance and give his specifics and what he wanted to do. Instead McCain went the Karl Rove route and attacked.

Just my opinion of course but I agree with their stance.

What a shocking and surprising revelation; news flash read all about it, Indy agreeing with Liberal bias and censure of Republican opponents.

Carry on.

Truth Detector · 07-26-08, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

It's called McCain writing a poorly-written article and the New York Times correctly not wanting to print it. McCain was unwilling to define victory in Iraq, yet you had no problem defining it to me last week.

News flash read all about it; new standard in journalism and Liberalism insists that one needs to clearly write out what the definition of winning is before they can be published.

What is profound about this is that winning is such an easy word to understand, unless you are a Bush hating Liberal that is.

Main Entry: 1win
Function: verb
Pronunciation: 'win
Inflected Form(s): won/'w&n/ ; win•ning
Etymology: Middle English winnen, from Old English winnan to struggle; akin to Old High German winnan to struggle and probably to Latin venus sexual desire, charm, Sanskrit vanas desire, vanoti he strives for
transitive senses
1 a : to get possession of by effort or fortune b : to obtain by work : EARN <striving to win a living from the sterile soil>
2 a : to gain in or as if in battle or contest b : to be the victor in <won the war>
3 a : to make friendly or favorable to oneself or to one's cause -- often used with over <won him over with persuasive arguments> b : to induce to accept oneself in marriage
4 a : to obtain (as ore, coal, or clay) by mining b : to prepare (as a vein or bed) for regular mining c : to recover (as metal) from ore
5 : to reach by expenditure of effort
intransitive senses
1 : to gain the victory in a contest : SUCCEED
2 : to succeed in arriving at a place or a state

One cannot be clearer in what is meant by achieving our objectives; when the Iraqi Government can stand on its own, its form of Government is working and defend its borders against its neighbors and terrorist elements bent on causing death and destruction.

Now this could take another year, it could take ten years. It once again begs the question; why does it matter how long it might take unless you have a partisan political agenda.

It took us 50 years to pull out of Germany; although we still have a presence. We are still in Korea. How is it any different to stay in Iraq?

Please do not attempt to answer my "rhetorical" question; I am not one who enjoys wandering endlessly in the circle of futility constantly explaining the OBVIOUS.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode