[GJM] Fw: [globalnetnews-summary] Rupert Murdoch's New York Post Publishes McCain's Rejected, Error-Filled Op-Ed

[mary rose]

Again news of where support is coming from for Pres.
candidates. .

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "GlobalCirclenet" <webmaster at globalcircle.net>
To: <globalnetnews-summary at lists.riseup.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:07 AM
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Rupert Murdoch's New York Post Publishes 
McCain's Rejected, Error-Filled Op-Ed



Rupert Murdoch's New York Post Publishes McCain's Rejected, Error-Filled 
Op-Ed
http://thinkprogress.org/

mccainweb.jpgThe New York Times editorial staff recently rejected an op-ed
by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), which responded to a one published last week
by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). The Times said Obama's article "worked"
because it offered "new information" and that they would be "pleased" to
"look at another draft" from McCain.

While the Times wanted something "new" from McCain, the New York Post -
owned by Rupert Murdoch - has no problem republishing McCain campaign
talking points - even if they're not totally accurate. Today, the Post
published McCain's rejected article in its entirety. From McCain's Post
op-ed:

    In 2007, he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If
we'd taken his advice, the war would have been lost. 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
Maliki has endorsed his timetable - when the Iraqi prime minister has
merely said that he'd like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of US troops
at some unspecified future point.

The inconvenient truth for McCain's piece is that Maliki (and more
recently his spokesman) did endorse Obama's timetable in a recent
interview with Der Spiegel:

    "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That,
we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the
possibility of slight changes."

But McCain didn't stop there, offering a baseless attack on Obama,
claiming that he "doesn't want to hear" what "the commanders on the
ground" in Iraq "have to say." Obama heard what they had to say just
yesterday.

Naturally, the right wing is outraged that the "liberal" New York Times
rejected McCain's op-ed, falsely claiming that its decision is
unprecedented. Lucky for them.there's always Rupert Murdoch.