Powerline's "Trunk" has a complaint. Not long ago the New York Times published an op-ed by 7 Iraq war veterans. It was extremely critical of the management of the war and called for American disengagement from Iraq.
It's not like this is the only line in op-eds from the New York Times; not long before, pro-war types had been trumpeting an article by Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack on the same pages. But of course the criticism from veterans stung.
Hence "Trunk" links to a Weekly Standard article by another group of veterans which takes the pro-Bush position --
Seven Iraq war vets and members of Vets for Freedom respond to the New York Times Seven, of the 82nd Airborne, whose op-ed column appeared in the paper this past Sunday.
So the 7 critics become the "New York Times Seven" (east coast liberals nudge nudge wink wink) while the Bush defenders are the Vets for Freedom. Perhaps we should be thankful that the first 7 didn't become the Vets Against Freedom. As it happens, the Vets for Freedom have an ad campaign going (unlike the NYT Seven) which calls for the war in Iraq to continue. In its parroting of White House talking points, it suggests that they should be renamed Swift Boat Freedom Veterans For Whatever It Is That George W. Bush Currently Wants To Do.
Anyway, Trunk's complaint --
You have to read to the end to find this item of interest:
This Op-Ed was originally submitted to the New York Times, which declined to publish it.
Why should they? Its authors are an organised lobby group with their own funding -- and access to the pages of the Weekly Standard -- to get out their message. There's no right of equal access for Republicans to the pages of the New York Times, or any other paper for that matter.
UPDATE: The complaint is seconded by Instapundit. It's remarkable. They want the Times to give free space to a funded pressure group.