(CNN) - The New York Times has rejected an op-ed piece written by John McCain defending his Iraq war policy in response to a piece by Barack Obama published in the paper last week.
Read the rejected op-ed
In an e-mail to the McCain campaign, Opinion Page Editor David Shipley said he could not accept the piece as written, but would be “pleased, though, to look at another draft.”
“Let me suggest an approach,” he wrote. “The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece.”
McCain’s rejected op-ed had been a lengthy critique of Obama’s positions on Iraq policy, particularly his view of the surge. “Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history,” wrote McCain, criticizing Obama’s call for an early withdrawal timeline. “I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner prematurely.”
Obama’s July 14 essay had taken shots at McCain for not further encouraging the Iraqi government to take control of the country.
All the Repugs can do is go negative. Not this week, John Boy!
Gee, what a shock. "The Treason Times" blocking out freedom of speech from a Republican, even if he is as liberal as their candidate. For all of you Fox News bashers out there, you might want to think again as to where the true bias in media really exists. It's in the "mainstream media", and here is the living proof.
It was an opinion, he should be able to write whatever he likes. He should have every right to have it published. The NY times should change their name to the obama times. Maybe now there will be no argument about bias and how the left have no time for anyone's opinion other than their own. That's very clear and reading some of these idiotic responses, they are just preaching to the choir.
"I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner prematurely"
Didn't John McCain say last week that the surge was a "success" (as opposed to "is succeeding").Altough there has been improvement in Iraq, far be it to say the goal of the surge, creating a completely stable environment where political reconcilation can be achieved, has been obtained.
Today he was just saying that "he knows what Iraqis want"
Im voting for Barrack Obama because Im sick of the Republicans treating me like im stupid (i.e; Let me tell you want you should think). I had enough of this for the last 8 years.
i find it intresting that since the war got started Obama position has been that same. The GOP Brow beat him for only being there once. he goes again with the same message and is already ahead of the game in years. the Iraq Gvomnt' agrees with him. And the GOP still find a reason to brow beat him...why? Cause he once again beat them?
Its probally was full of spelling errors because he says he realy does not know much about computers and thought spell check was a Warlock term.
Amercians view themselves as the smartest folks on the planet. Yet, they want to elect the second dumbest person into the top office, McCain. We might as well re-elect Bush for his third term. Atleast we would have someone who can think to some level; and not just behave as an attack dog.
For all the whiners that claim that the Times is wrong for rejecting McCain's editorial, and showing some kind of bias – take your predictable and tired Conservative Outrage back to the good old "fair and balanced" Fox News.
How can you call it media bias? This is an editorial letter. Sen. Obama was talking about his plan with some criticism of Sen McCain, while McCain is just writing to complaint about it, making it a propaganda. There is a big difference between the letters.
And I am being objective about the subject.
Senator McCain needs to be an adult about this and let us know that he is capable of discussing his plans with us, the people who actually vote. Besides, I remember back in the Iowa Caucus, he mentioned that the people do not like negative campaigning... wow, how fast he forgot about that.
How's it smell up there Libs? You've all got your heads buried so far up your rear, it's pathetic (say hi to the mainstream media while you're up there too.) Why is it anytime anybody calls out the messiah for something he said or his wife said, that it's an attack. If you actually read McCains Op Ed – it's not an attack piece. You pseudo intellictuals make me sick. It's no small wonder that the New York Times is going down the tubes – there's just not enough of dimwitted losers out there to read that biased tripe to keep it in business. I can't wait to see the look on all of your socialist faces when your Messiah gets his butt kicked at the voting booths. A lot of the morons who favor him in the polls will not even bother to vote.
Sen.McCain is quite dishonest and misleading in most of his utterances. He claims" I know how to win wars". Which war did he win?
His surrogate Joe Lieberman says"Obama can now tour Iraq because of the safety brought on by the "surge". How did McCain and his favorite Sancho Panza(Joe) tour Iraq before the "surge".
It is high time these bluffs got called.
New York Times has rights to publish anything they want. This is a free country. They can endorse Obama if they think appropriate. Everyone knows New York Times supports liberal candidates while Wall Street Journal supports conservatives.
The NY Times is right on this one. When they were wrong I called them out too. YOU CAN NOT SIMPLY ATTACK ANOTHER PERSON'S POLICY WITHOUT LAYING OUT YOUR OWN STRATEGY. Mccain go ahead and take obama's lead just like you have with his Afghanistan plan for more troops.
What do you expect?
Mccain was a D student.
Obama graduated number 1 at Harvard Law.
They should give Mccan credit for spelling his name right.
Typical of the NY Times.
We don't agree with what you have to say, so we won't publish you.
But, if you want to be just like our savior, Obama, then we will be happy to publish you.
F the NY Times. Liberal propaganda.
Old guard politics and repetitious political rheortic isn't cutting the mustard. The New York Times wants McCain to present "tie down conditions" on his conclusion to the war in Iraq. It is not only the American people who want our troops out, the the Bush back Iraqi Prime Minister also wants US withdrawl. Old saying, why are we staying where we are not wanted?
Won't be voting for McCain anytime soon, but I have to admit the NY Times is showing true colors. They've always been left bent. Another example of how liberal media won't stop until they've help get rid of any of the moral values this country has.
This paper is the biggest piece of crap in "journalism". Obama can write whatever he chooses, but McCain has to revise based of what some snot-nosed Liberal editor wants to hear? Don't think so.
As a veteran, this paper is a continual disgrace and national security threat to this country. They, time and time again, reveal national security secrets for a headline, that is ALL they care about. It is the same wiener Harry Reid, Shumer and Polosi politics that makes Americas tired of the so called public servants that are out there. They play "GOTCHA!" and the Nation suffers.
SHAME ON YOU New York Times! You lost the country's respect a very long, long time ago.
The rag that is called the New York Times is not even worthy of being used as toilet paper. It lost all credibility and integrity years ago. This includes all of their coverage, be it politics, science, the arts, etc. It's amazing how irrelevant it has become.
Typical White Person
I am white and have served my country for over 15 years and there is nothing typical of you and the majority white pop. You will see that in Nov.
I have yet to hear Pelosi and the rest of the democraps announce they want a fairnesss doctrine instituted for News Papers and Media. any libs care to answer wht that would be?
These comment postings on CNN have turned into nothing more than a name calling forum of John McCain, instead of discussing the actual issue; does the NY Times have a right to censor one candidate over the other. Calling one candidate names it childish and unproductive. Lets grow up and discuss the issues.
NY Times as liberal as always. I'm not surprised.
In other words, they were not going to publish lies. I love it! Mccain your judgement sucks. Look where all that so called 'experience' has gotten you, your desperate and copy catting Obama on everything now. We don't need you in the white house. And he is still stuck on IRaq. Incredible!
GOODNESS man, Iraq is old news and has been old news since we invaded them for no good reason. Get a clue Mccain.
Ah, so it is up to the NYT to determine what "new" means. I guess those who have not heard what McCain has to say should just be smarter.
"It would be great if McCain would just say what we want him to."
This from the same crowd who will complain bitterly that the protesters at the national conventions are kept too far from the politicians. By NYT logic, we've already heard what code pink and move on have said, so why do we need to let them say it again?