Why The Times Said No To McCain

Boy the long arm of the Democrats strikes again. According to an email sent to the McCain Campaign by the NY Dhimmi Times the reason Senator McCain's op-ed was rejected was that it didn't include any timetable for withdrawal and didn't define what McCain meant by victory in Iraq. In other words, until you agree with Obama we are not printing your Op-Ed. Read more about the Time's rationale below, and you can read McCain's rejected Op-Ed here:

NYT wanted "timetables" in McCain op-ed

The New York Times Op-Ed page editor, in rejecting John McCain's opinion piece on Iraq, explained that he wanted to hear more detail on the GOP candidate's plan for the country -- including information about "timetables."

McCain, of course, has steadfastly rejected any timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece," wrote David Shipley, the Op-Ed editor, in an email last Friday to a McCain aide that I've obtained in full. "To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."

It's not completely clear that Shipley meant "timetables" as it relates to when U.S. troops would be withdrawn from the country, but that is how McCain's campaign interpreted a word that to them is a red flag.

Shipley's deputy didn't immediately respond to an email asking why they included that word (The editor himself is on vacation this week).

In closing his email, Shipley added that he "hope[d] we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution," but McCain's campaign was apparently soured on what they saw as the paper's definition of victory in Iraq and instead decided to use the opportunity to score political points against an institution conservatives love to hate.