so, the NY Times has asked McCain to define "Victory in Iraq" as part of his OpEd. The whinging coming from the GOP is telling. Very telling. I means, at least to me, that he can't tell us the meaning of the phrase because he doesn't know the meaning of the phrase.
From Reuters:
An e-mail sent to the McCain staff by a Times editor said it would be terrific to have an article from McCain but that the one sent in was not acceptable as currently written and that a new draft should articulate how McCain defines victory in Iraq.
And, so, they cry:
The McCain campaign, which does not feel McCain gets equal treatment in the U.S. news media, expressed dismay at the Times' decision and suspected it was because the Times did not agree with McCain's policy.
Say what? he's being ignored by the media??? But, but.. Senator, isn't that what you wanted? to not be scrutinized by them? And, so they did their job. They focused, negatively on your opponent. Relentlessly focused on him. Now, you complain.
The New York Times said it was standard procedure to have a "back and forth with an author about his or her submission" and looked forward to publishing McCain's views.
That's what editor's do. they say, "can you give me more?"
What is the definition of "Victory in Iraq" Mr. McCain? Is it al-Maliki asking us to leave? or is it something else. like the control of the oil fields, or what? We are waiting. At least those of us that read the Reuters article. Those that read the Times(UK) will see no mention of the "Why" only the "Whyne"
oh, and go over to Lou Dobbs' website, and freep the poll