Please note: This is not real at all, it's completely made up. We learned this technique from the New York Times.
[It's the document the Times doesn't want you to see...John McCain's original rejected Op-Ed piece WITH the NYT very own shocking suggestions...]
|[NYT1]Never use birth name when option of MoveOn dot org name is available.|
|[NYT2]We don’t usually worry about printing non-truths, but this just can’t be true. And we refuse to investigate it any further, so.|
|[NYT3]People won’t understand positive|
|[NYT5]This is just mean. You are a mean old man. Can’t you cut the guy some slack?|
|[NYT6]Geez, Senator. This is going to be a short piece if you keep trying the old school politics of using the facts against your opponent. We don’t like facts here---that’s not what we do.|
|[NYT7]Objection! Speculation…move to strike.|
|[NYT8]Troops? We here at the New York Times better know them as domestic murderers. Didn’t you read our wonderful piece unlocking the trend that all war vets come home and start killing people?|
In January 2007, when General David
Petraeus[NYT1] took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” He was completely wrong. The situation in Iraq is , Comrade Reid has declared the war lost. 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[NYT2] Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy[NYT3] 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. 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[NYT5] [NYT6] .
success[NYT7] of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops[NYT8] . All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech he offered hHis “Holy plan for Iraq” in advance of hHis first “ fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our 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 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
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,
|[NYT9]Blah blah blah shut up already old man!|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[NYT9] .”
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 nothing from recent history. I find it ironic 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.