The NY Times didn't "agree" with McCain editorial, so they didn't run it.

And the newspapers wonder why they're going out of business.

Such arrogance is one reason.

"...the other (Obama's) editorial worked for me..."and "...I would have accepted it (McCain's) if the timelines were the same..."

Those are basically the words of David Shipley, a DEPUTY editor of the NY Times to Senator McCain as to why "he" would not use the Senator's editorial which come from an email.

At the outset, the words, "worked for me," that overused Hollywood writers and directors term indicates the man thinks about style more than substance.

The point here is clear: he, Mr. Shipley, a man I can only presume by virtue of his title has no real demonstrated knowledge of military things, has taken it upon himself to demand an entire change in strategy to reflect and "mirror" those of the Democratic front runner for president. Oh, all right, let's assume he passed this by an editorial board.

But then, all of our young people who have really no reason to carry all this angst about things military because after all we do have a volunteer military, seem to have these marvelous ideas about strategies nonetheless, kinda like those games they play on their computers. That's makes them real men, you know.

It causes me to wonder if they really, deep down, wish they were called up. So they can be heroes too.

Grow up, Boys. Worked for me, indeed.

Thanks for the read.