New York Times Censors John McCain’s Editorial… So Barbados Free Press Prints It

Barbados Free Press Supports Barack Obama… However…

Long ago, Barbados Free Press announced our support for Barack Obama as the next President of the United States of America.

Not that any of us can vote for Mr. Obama, but if we could, we would. Nobody is perfect, and we disagree with Barack Obama on several key issues, but in the end between HILLARY! and Republican candidate John McCain, we would vote for Obama.

Yes, the racial component is part of Obama’s allure. We would like to see a person with darker skin sitting in the White House. There. We said it… but at least we are honest about it.

Enter the New York Times

Last week the New York Times published an editorial by Barack Obama. We didn’t read it, but that’s life.

This week, John McCain submitted an editorial to the New York Times and they rejected it!

The editor at the NYT who rejected it was David Shipley… a former speech writer for President Bill Clinton.

Hey… the New York Times is sounding more and more like that lapdog of a newspaper, the Barbados Nation News.

So… as much as we support Obama, we support free speech and the democratic process even more. Shame on the New York Times.

Blogger Matt Drudge broke this story, which you can read here.

Here is the editorial by US Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain…

Editorial By John McCain – Rejected by 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.


Filed under Barack Obama, Barbados, Blogging, Culture & Race Issues, Ethics, Freedom Of The Press, John McCain, Politics, Politics & Corruption, Race

21 responses to “New York Times Censors John McCain’s Editorial… So Barbados Free Press Prints It

  1. Straight talk

    What Mr McCain fails to explain is why is there an American military occupation of Iraq oin the first place.

    A sovereign country with nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, neither did they possess weapons of mass destruction.

    Their only threat to the US was that Saddam started selling his oil in Euros.

    Yes that is is it, ladies and gentlemen, a country decided not to value its single most natural resource in the failing dollar, but price it more equitably, and economically more beneficial to the Iraqi people, in the more substantial Euro.

    For its sins, Iraq’s people were targetted by the most powerful military machine ever assembled in the history of the world.

    Bombed, murdered and suppressed by this occupying force, for a reason which was palpably maliciously contrived, the people naturally resisted.

    If they invaded Bim, I would too.

    Now this numtee McCain calls these citizens terrorists, purely because they reist handing over their country and its natural resources to Cheney, and his cohorts Halliburton and Blackwater.

    I support the Iraqi people in their struggle for freedom, a freedom which cannot be imposed by a corrupt foreign army and its selected talking heads.

  2. Thomas Gresham

    McCain’s argument about “the surge” is fundamentally flawed. It can only be said to be “working” if they could remove it and things would not fall back to where they were before the surge.

    If the surge only works by bribing local militia and lining the streets with troops, that is hardly a sustainable, sensible policy. And have they learned nothing? Bribing militia is how Osama Bin Laden started. They funded him to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan.

    I am backing Obama, not because he is black, but because he understands that this is stupidity and he is brave and intelligent enough to say so. The fact that he is black, well that just a fantastic bonus.

  3. yatinkiteasy

    Black or white is not the issue..its the illegal war against
    …who? Terrorists? The US has not declared war on any country, and therefore their WAR in Iraq is ILLEGAL…not to mention, IMORAL…its OIL..go mess with Chavez now!BUSH/CHENY..CROOKS AND LIARS!

  4. Rohan

    BFP, what a misleading title. Even the Drudge Report was fairer in there reporting of this. Drudge posted the reason for the rejection of the Editorial, which I’ll do here:

    New York Time’s Editor:
    ‘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.’

    Shipley continues: ‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, HOW SENATOR MCCAIN DEFINES VICTORY IN IRAQ”

    She went on to say: ‘I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.’
    It wasn’t censorship as much as it was a rejection of an editorial.

    Also BFP: What evidence do you have to support saying this

    “the New York Times is sounding more and more like that lapdog of a newspaper, the Barbados Nation News.”

    My guess is: NONE. It probably just goes nicely with the Title.


    BFP says,

    Well… I guess we’ll just have to disagree then won’t we? And… you have been incredibly selective about what you quoted from the Drudge article. Frankly, you have never agreed much with anything we say…. just on principle that you don’t like BFP. Fair enough.

  5. Thistle

    Come on, BFP, I thought you would know by now that the New York Times is run by a bunch of left-wing loonies!

  6. Rohan

    Also, BFP.
    A bit of research would reveal that there has been an ongoing riff between Mccain and the NYT that probably had more to do with this than any “censorship”. The last shot was thrown by Mccain when he released his medical records to a few news agencies and excluded the NY Times.

    Maybe it’s a bit of payback coupled with a real acknowledgement of the weakness of the editorial
    (did you read that garbage)

    But censorship? come on…..this is not a free speech issue.

  7. Sargeant

    Wasn’t that “Mission Accomplished” some time ago? First it was the search for WMD’s and then it was “to fight the terrorists over there before we have to fight them over here”. Didn’t McCain say that he was prepared to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years if necessary? Meanwhile Exxon, Mobil, BP and Shell are negotiating no bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest oil fields …. plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose

  8. Straight talk

    Not that I am at all interested in the Nov. election, as I strongly believe that that result is already pre-determined, but I find McCain rather out of his depth with the mantle he has been chosen to carry,

    To describe him further would mean characterising him as a flip-flopping lying opportunist, so I shall desist.

  9. Rohan

    BFP says,

    Well… I guess we’ll just have to disagree then won’t we? And… you have been incredibly selective about what you quoted from the Drudge article. Frankly, you have never agreed much with anything we say…. just on principle that you don’t like BFP. Fair enough.
    I quoted the parts of the Drudge article that you left out. The parts that showed the reason the editor gave for her decision. Why you would exclude the explanation given for the rejection and substitute it with your own conjecture is beyond me.

    And for the record, I do like about 80% of the work you guys do. It’s just easier to miss a post that says “great job BFP!” than one of my longer posts…


    BFP says,

    Hi Rohan

    Cliverton here. Don’t mind George because he is a cranky old man. 😉

    (Couldn’t help but comment!)

  10. iWatchya

    I would hope that Obama weighs the lives of the Iraqi people before he makes his political moves.(Don’t think for a minute that it isn’t politics or big business involved).

    The people of Iraq may not have wanted this war or the constant struggle that was foisted upon them, but they do deserve the peace of mind of having the rebuilding process completed.

    The Americans need to change their strategy in dealing with the different cultures and thinking in Iraq. Especially through the use of ZERO Tolerance when it comes to cultural and religious intolerance and malicious attacks on Iraqis.

    When you think about the human aspect of this war it puts everything into perspective.

    The war has become a major financial drain on the US and Obama has to look at dealing with this huge expenditure. Also, the growing resentment towards the war is growing at home. Even if it may have been the “right thing to do”, there is still a major decision that any new president will have to make:

    Does he save America from crisis or does he save the Iraqis from the Islamist wolves?

  11. Rohan

    BFP says,

    Hi Rohan

    Cliverton here. Don’t mind George because he is a cranky old man.

    (Couldn’t help but comment!)
    Cliverton, it’s all good man, haha, George is still good with me.

  12. Time Will Tell


    You are so “yesterday’s news” McCain was ONLY asked to make some factual changes to his OpEd piece. Not to withdraw in totality as implied in your ramblings.

    BFP I know the NYT’s and you are no NYT”s



    BFP says,

    When we published this piece, the NYTimes had not even responded to the Matt Drudge article that broke the story…. so if that is BFP “behind the times” we’ll be pleased to be behind the times perpetually because it would be ahead of the NYT.

    Here is the NYT’s excuse which we don’t see as valid…

    The New York Times criteria for publishing McCain’s OpEd was that he would have to apply a timetable for “victory” in Iraq, when his opinion is that there can be no fixed timetable based on politics and that the strategy must be based upon realtime assessments of the situation.

    Therefore, NYT tried to impose their view of what the Iraq strategy should be upon McCain as a pre-condition for publishing his piece.

    That is nothing more or less than the ex-Clinton NYT editor being partisan, and as much as we support Obama, we think the NYT’s rejection of McCain’s piece stinks.

  13. Time Will Tell


  14. Bimbro

    we disagree with Barack Obama on several key issues,


    Seems surprising then, that u should support him. Colour aside, a person can b an idiot, black or not!! I’m still waiting to be persuaded by Obama that he IS the best man for the job, irrespective of his colour!!

  15. aa

    If Obama, whose middle name is in fact Hussein, wins, you could bet that there will be an incident or a major threat of an incident, similar to the one that occurred when Gordon Brown became PM. Like Jimmy C, the best that there ever was Obama will be forced into a one term presidency.

  16. Tony Hall

    The mounting cost of the illegal occupation of Iraq is what is causing the economic problems in the USA. The economy is absolutely being drained.

  17. Dan

    Not to quibble over semantics but it’s an important distinction —

    Neither McCain nor Obama wrote an “editorial”. Only editors of newspapers can do that, and they represent an official position of that newspaper on an issue. McCan and Obama wrote an opinion piece. Such things appear on the Op-Ed page, not the editorial page.

    Also, your headline is inaccurate, as well. The NYT didn’t “censor” McCain. As used in journalism, the word “censor” implies that parts of an article were *edited* to remove objectionable or classified information. In this context, choosing to not run an opinion piece is not the same as censoring it. In order to have been censored, it would have to have been published. Again, a small but important distinction that shows how we misuse common words.

  18. Inkwell

    You are correct on the first count, Dan. When people don’t or can’t say what they mean, how can one be sure they mean what they say?

    However, on the second count, you can exercise censorship by removing, suppressing or withholding an entire communication, which is what the NYT did to McCain.

  19. Obama’s Iraqi stance was meant to satisfy the Democrats but it made no sense in the beginning. the U.S would be unwise to just pull out if Iraq is not stable enough to survive.

    Plus there has to be some responsibility taken. The war was a mistake but a U.S mistake. Running away will not help. Stand and try and fix the people country who you destroyed in the first place.

    but pulling out all troops sounds cool and hip and will get the US people tired of reading of its young men blown to bits in ambushes to vote for you so Obama and the Dems pushed that agenda.

  20. Rohan

    BFP, you want censorship? This is censorship:

    In a television interview on CBS, John Mccain made a major mistake by falsely claimed that the surge was responsible for the “Sunni Awakening in Anbar.” That is FALSE.

    Basically, McCain once again makes a major mistake on the one issue his campaign is running on—The Iraq war.

    So Mccain made a huge mistake in answering a question!


    They deleted the mistake, and spliced together two different answers from other questions, and made that appear to be the answer to the question that asked.

    Read more here:

    watch video here:

    This is as clear a picture of intentional censorship in the media you will find anywhere. I can’t expect you guys to be aware of every little thing that happens here in the U.S but given this post on the New York Times, I’m sure you’ll be interested in seeing a much clearer and infinitely more blatant incident.
    Gotta love the media.

  21. Rumplestilskin

    Pay close attention to the VP candidate proposed by John McCain.

    That individual would be the eventual de facto president if the republicans happended to win, stranger things have happended.

    John McCain is past it, was weaker than even Reagan when he won the presidency, hence unable to cope with the rigours of being pres, the real de facto pres will the the VP candidate.