Obama OP-ed vs McCain Op-Ed, New Times intervient!

Messieurs vous vous souvenez la piece que Obama a ecrit la semaine derniere et publiee dans New York Times, Et bien New York Times vient de rejeter une reponse de McCain pour mauvaise redaction.

VOICI LA PIECE DE MCCAIN.

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET

The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

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.

John Mac Cain's logic is up side down.If the Iraqui's army is so obsolete,unequiped and unable to secure its own country ;then how could it has been a security threat to the United States of America the most powerful country on earth?Thus the invasion of a sovereign country by the United States was an irresponsible act of delenquency.

on the other hand if Iraq is peaceful ,as suggested by Senator Mac Cain why then our young men and women are dying every day in a foreign country?Isn't it time that we start planning the withdraw of our troops there so they can take care of our urgent needs in California ,in Louisiana and in every part of the country where our infrastructures are deteriorating?

John mac cain should explain to the american people how he plans to win a civil war in a foreign country when the politicians could not assume their responsibility to share the oil revenue and power.When will he realized that the solution to the Iraq's problems must be achieved by the Iraquis themeselves not by our young men and women.There was no civil war in Iraq before the invasion.When will he learn to take care of his own problems before he can take care of other people's problems.

VOICI LA PIECE DE OBAMA

Op-Ed Contributor
My Plan for Iraq

By BARACK OBAMA
Published: July 14, 2008

CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.


The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.
Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Beside that Rod, McCain as a politician cannot say : SUNNI and SHIITE TERRORISTS.

Here are the reason why NYT rejects his Op-ED according to the Drudge report.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

MORE

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... 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.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

MORE

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: '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.'

MORE

Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

'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.'

Developing...

Oui Messieurs,

cequ'on l'on appelle l'aristocratie du "savoir" aux Etats Unis est pro Obama dans sa grande majorité.
Dans des tournants de l'histoire ,ce qui n'est pas souvent ,elle manifeste clairement sa préférence.
Un Eli Whitney qui faisait des millions dans le commerce du cotton était pro Abraham Loncoln parce qu'il pensait qu'une Sécession du Sud des Etats Unis affaiblirait les Etats Unis et les mettrait à la merci des puissances européennes.
Elle avait appuyè Théodore Roosevelt dans sa lutte contre les monopoles ;John Kennedy parce qu'elle pensait que la déségrégation raciale était dans l'intérèt stratégique des Etats Unis .

Cette "aristocratie" dont le New York Times est l'un des organes pense que John Mc Cain n'est pas èquipé pour confronter les nouvelles challenges des Etats Unis ;ces challenges sont La Chine ,l'Inde et le Brésil.
Ces gens voudraient d'une personne qui pense autrement et c'est pourquoi ils feront tout pour élire OBAMA;sa race importe peu pour eux!

C'est vraiment etonnant ;ce n'est pas seulement l'elite du savoir ,mais aussi les progressites de l'avoir .En apprenant le soutien de Paul Volcker ,ancien chairman de la Banque Centrale des Etas-Unis à la candidature du Senateur Obama je suis mainteant convaincu ,a moins d'un grand scandale,son election à la presidence des Etats-unis est assurée.

Quand John Mac Cain veut perpetuer la peur des americains et les riches ne pretent pas l'oreille à son message au point qu'il accuse la presse americaine de mepris a son egard;alors on doit avouer qu'il y a reellement un changement dans la mentalite de l'elite americaine.Ce ne serait pas etonnant qu'un Al gore soutienne Obama ,mais Paul Volcker.?Cela ne m'etonnerait pas que John et David Rockefeller soutiennent aussi Obama.

Je regarde la tournée d'Obama et je me dis que c'est la tournée d'un président des USA. Avez-vous remarqué les comportements des chefs d'état qu'il a rencontrés? Ils sont honorés de l'avoir accueilli. C'est incroyable! Comme vous dites ,à moins d'un scandal , Obama sera le prochain président des USA en novembre prochain.

Pendant ce temps , on apprend que Mc Cain va devoiler le nom de son colistier. Il veut , bien sûr, occuper les médias. Pauvre type.

J'ai recu un email ou les democrates se reuniront cette semaine a travers les Etats-Unis pour formuler la plateforme politique du parti; c'est la vraie democratie. Au paravant cette plateforme etait formulée par les grands manitous du parti,maintenant tous les americains auront le droit de formuler leurs voeux pour determiner les priorites du prochain gouvernement.

j'invite tous les haitiano-americains à s'inscrire dans leurs counties pour faire entendre leurs doleances.Les reunions se termineront ce week-end;empressez-vous de vous inscrire.Pour tous ceux qui habitent Brevard en floride il y aura un meeting ce soir à 6.00.P.M.au 6300 N.Wickam Road à Melbourne.Vous pouvez consulter le site Obama 08 ou la page de MSNBC pour trouver l'adresse et la date du prochain meeting tout près de votre lieu de residence.

premye point mwen pral diskite se KOUMAN,LAPFE TITID TOUNEN...

piporiko a écrit:premye point mwen pral diskite se KOUMAN,LAPFE TITID TOUNEN...

Mwen panse ke premye poin ki inpotan an , eske Obama ap fe yon amnisti pou ilegal ayisien yo. eske yap joinn green cat .

retou Aristide vinn tres tres tres tres tres tres loin....

Eske Obama bral ede ayiti économiquement
eske Obama ap ede stabilite an ayiti
eske Obama ap genyen yon politik pou ayiti

Pipo sa pi inpotan ke retou Titid Wi

retou Titid se nou pouki organize, leu nou pret nap fe'l

Men Aristide dwe fe sa part des choses...pour l'instant.

Anpil moun pe retou sa..fok nou ka asire moun sayo ke retou Aristide ap bon pou tout moun et sitou retou ya pap vinn destabilize politik an ayiti.

Il ne faut pas avoir peur de le dire, l'elite d'haiti a très peur d'un retour du président Aristide. La question qu'il faut se poser comment faire pour que ce retour ne soit pas vu comme une vangeance politique ? Il faut écouter. Il faut discuter et il ne faut pas imposer les choses.

Marc,
pou ki sa tout mache sou ze sa yo?pou ki sa tout korido sa yo?Lap tounen pou limete sa li konnen nan sevis peyi'l.Mwen pa we pou ki sa tout bagay sa yo.Janm konnen ou se yon gran defanse entegrasyon diaspora yo.Wap fe kem sote wi...

Poukisa Aristide pa vinn join nou lan lite pou la reconnaissance de nos droits. mwen panse sa tap pi bon pou li , li demake lan politik aktif pou'l konsacre lan bagay serye com retou tout ayisien ke li tounen lan peyi yo.

Actuellement, je critique sa stratégie parce qu'elle n'est pas la bonne à mon humble avis. Fok misye demake'l lan zafe politik...

Joel

te genyen yon travay ki te fett avan ke Aristide te tounen en 94, fok wou rekonett sa. te genyen Malval comme bourgeois kite travay terren pou misye e sitou te genyen solda etrange ki te favorise hamonie social ak politik lan peyi an.

Comment faut-il envisager ce retour?

Joel, mem pipo pa pale de politik , pipo di fok Aristide tounen pou'l okipe de inivèsite ak tout loy bagay konsa sof politik.

Vous voyez même les lavalassiens ne souhaitent pas voir le docteur faire de la politique active.

Joel

Dans cette circonstance, Aristide dwe demake'l de politik si li vre retounen tout bon vre lan peyi.

Joel

Je serai le premier à lui donner la main. Je serai le premier à lui offrir mon service pour travailler avec les jeunes d'haiti. Il faut être lucide et réaliste, le docteur doit renoncer à faire de la politique active et il devrait être clair la-dessus. Il est trop controversé politiquement. Ma foi, je vous avoue quand je vois Aristide , je vois un coup d'état . On dirait qu'il y a une affiliation entre Titid et le coup d'état. C'est psychologique mon ami. Et je veux éviter un autre coup d'état au pays...nou pakapab pran kou deta anko...

Marc,pa fem di sa'm pa di...

premye point mwen pral diskite se KOUMAN,LAPFE TITID TOUNEN...

PIPO

Mon chè lè-m dage nivo ekonomik Ayiti, mwen wè poukisa gen you sezi de moun, olye ke yo defann peyi a, yo kole nan pye chèz you sèl lidè.

Paske Ayiti se "What you know but Who you know". Ayiti gen 2 Klas, klas moun pov yo e klas moun rich yo. De twa grenn moun ki ta sipoze nan klas mwayèn lan, yo rive la akoz de 2 bagay:
1- You bèl pos Politik nan gounènman
2- Dwog.

Tou de pilye sa yo, ke klas mwayèn apiye, frajil anpil. Politik pa stab an ayiti, nan dwog you nonm ka fè kèk kou, men you jou y'ap pran nan cho.

Apre Aristid fi-n demisyone, mwen admèt ke 10 % ke li te genere nan klas mwayèn lan tonbe sou bouda, kidonk retounen nan klas moun Pov yo avèk tout gwo konplèks. Paske yo te depite, senatè, gwo shèf chimè, biwo leta te ankonbre ak amployè initil etc.

Kidonk pou gwoup sa, gen you sèl espwa, you sèl Je vous salue "Fok Aristide Tounen". Yo pa mande sa pou byen Aristide, ni peyi a non. Men pou byen pa yo.

Mwen ka parye ak you moun, menm si-w ta bay Aristide 1 milyon dola pou-l retounen Ayiti, Li p'ap tounen.
Aristid ta pito ba-w 2 milyon pou-l pa retounen.

Aprann sa, Si Aristide te vle retounen, si li te enterese nan retoune, li t'ap tounen deja.

Nan Ka sa-a mwen pa regret ke mwen nan klas bas la, paske pa gen remo.