On July 14th, the New York Times published an editorial by Barack Obama titled “My Plan for Iraq,” in which Obama layed out his plans about what he wants to do in Iraq.
McCain decided to write a response, and was flatly rejected. McCain’s camp claims that it is liberal bias, but it could also do with the fact that, while most of Obama’s piece was about himself and his plans, McCain’s piece takes shots at Obama in 10 of 12 (and arguably 11 of 12) paragraphs, arguing why Obama’s plan is bad and why the surge worked…but not detailing what McCain supports going forward or how, specificially, he would determine when and how we should get out of Iraq.
In fact, the New York Time’s op-ed edtior stated as much when he said McCain’s piece would need to “mirror” Obama’s (presumably in the “this is what I support going foward” style instead of the “this is why my opponent sucks” style) and that McCain must concretely lay out what his vision of “victory” in Iraq is.
Of course, many of us have asked McCain repeatedly how, exactly, he defines “victory” in Iraq, especially since he says we need it so much, but McCain has never actually said what victory entails.
This is a very bold move by the New York Times, but one which they’re doing in an attempt to actually force McCain to lay out his vision instead of just trashing Obama’s.
