Maliki endorses Obama’s Iraq strategy — by name

July 19, 2008

Americans have a clear choice in the election. On the one hand, we have a candidate who wants a flexible, 16-month withdrawal policy from Iraq, shaped by conditions on the ground and in consultation with commanders on the ground. On the other hand, we have a candidate who wants the status quo to continue indefinitely, waiting for a yet-to-be-defined “victory,” followed by an indefinite military presence in Iraq.

And while Americans consider their options, it seems Iraqi officials have already reached their own conclusion. Reuters has this stunning story.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.

By any reasonable measure, this is pretty extraordinary. The Bush-backed Iraqi prime minister has endorsed Obama’s withdrawal policy, both in general and by name.

In fact, it gets better. Maliki, hailed by Republicans, has given up on Republican talking points altogether.

Asked if he supported Obama’s ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

“Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems.”

Maliki added, “The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn’t.”

It’s extraordinary. Assuming the report is accurate, and that there wasn’t some kind of translation problem, the prime minister of Iraq believes John McCain is wrong about everything — the utility of withdrawal, the notion of “defeat,” the extended stay, everything.

About a week ago, Maliki was publicly moving in this direction, but now he’s dropped the pretense. Obama, the prime minister believes, has the right policy, and McCain has the wrong one.

I can’t wait for a) McCain to explain why Maliki’s opinion about events in his own country don’t matter; and b) the media to explain to me why this is good news for McCain.

16-18 months is the optimum/minimum time to withdraw all the personnel and equipment there. If we abandoned some of the stuff (start with the electrified showers) it could be done sooner. Attacks and involvement in internecine disputes would lengthen the involvement.

  • “Reuters has this stunning story.”

    yes, but is it being reported anywhere else? this is quite a coup, but i’m confident they’ll find a way tp spin it poorly for obama.

  • al Maliki is (apparently) just part of the American fringe left. Therefor, his views can be safely ignored, when it comes to what is best for Iraq. John McCain, on the other hand, has visited Iraq on *several* occasions, and even strolled down a marketplace street with a mere brigade’s worth of protection. So clearly he knows what he is talking about.

  • Wrong maliki is against a specific timeline.

    A specific timeline means you can’t have any flexibility.

    Maliki signed an agreement that the timeline is based on turning over the areas to the iraqi security forces.

    Obama’s timeline has nothing to do with turning it over to the iraqi security forces.

    Obama’s top advisor said he wants to keep 80,000 troops in iraq.

    Obama wants to keep troops in iraq to go after al queda.

    Obama wants to keep troops in iraq guarding our embassy in the green zone.

    Maliki is against Obama’s plan for the green zone but you or the rest of the media won’t report that.

    Obama wants to keep troops in iraq training iraqis.

    You need troops to train the iraq air force and to continue flying over iraq for security.

    You need troops for supply lines.

    Obama has been all over the map on iraq.

    When Obama was running for the senate he said he was agaisnt withdrawing any troops and argued how a timeline would help the terrorists and how a timeline was wrong.

    MCCAIN IS FOR WITHDRAWING TROOPS.

    MCCAIN’S SURGE PLAN WAS SO IRAQI TROOPS COULD TAKE OVER BASRA, SADR CITY, MOSUL AND ANBAR AND OUR TROOPS COULD COME HOME.

    OBAMA SAID THE SURGE WOULD MAKE THE VIOLENCE WORSE AND HAVE THE OPPOSITE EFFECT.

    OBAMA HAD TO SCRUB HIS SITE OF COMMENTS SAYING THE SURGE WOULD MAKE VIOLENCE WORSE. THIS SHOWS HOW AMATUER HE IS.

    OBAMA WANTS TO JUST SHIFT TROOPS TO FIGHT THE TALIBAN. HE DOESN’T KNOW THAT AL QUEDA IN IRAQ TRAIN AL QUEDA IN PAKISTAN.

    THEY ARE ALL ONE. SO THIS IS MEANINGLESS.

    OBAMA WILL LOOK SO WEAK. ISRAEL AND IRAN WILL HAVE A HUGE WAR AND NO ONE WILL LISTEN TO OBAMA.

  • I would gather from this that Bush had a heads up and after a brief meeting to arrive at a name that did not include the word “timeline”, the brave General Time Horizon was born.

    Also given fair warning, McCain suddenly began giving speeches with a rundown on Barack Obama’s itinerary, saying “I’m sure the terrorists are interested,” and then began to insist into every microphone that “we HAVE succeeded in Iraq!!!”

    I suppose we can expect within a month or so a new “Mission Accomplished” festival aboard one of the carriers in the gulf and Bush and McCain will land their separate jets and do the flight suit strut.

  • Maliki the puppet of Iran.

    What a great guy to be endorsed by.

    Lets expand iranian influence in the region where it is Iran mullahs, iraq, syria and hezbollah in lebanon.

    Maliki is not a friend to any sunni in the region.

    He represents the iranian government.

    I can’t wait till Obama is president and Israel elects Netanyahu and there is a huge war between Israel and Iran and syria and the hezbollah and no one will listen to Obama.

    Obama will look so weak.

  • McCain doesn’t want anything to happen to Obama.

    Obama is the worst candidate the dems could have picked. Hillary got more votes.

    Rasmussen did a poll. Hillary polls 10 percent better against McCain that Obama does.

    Hillary also doesn’t have any wilder effect where he polls better in exit polls and other polls than in the voting booth.

    Obama is the weakest candidate the dems could have selected. He always polled better than her and she got more votes. One poll had him beating her by 26 percent and she still got more votes.

    Hillary would have been far stronger than Obama.

    Hillary was beating McCain by 20 percent in Arkansas and 9 percent in Kentucky.

    Hillary was a powerhouse. Why would McCain want anything to happen to Obama when he is the weakest candidate the dems have.

  • Hillary has the experience and the voters who like Bill’s experience.

    Hillary polls well with hispanics, jews, catholics, white working class.

    Hillary would have been far stronger. She was beating McCain by 9 percent in kentucky.

  • Jason, you really should watch and compare some of onscreen Obama vs onscreen McCain before you start saying who is the “amateur”. Especially helpful might be the video where McCain is asked the question regarding contraceptives and viagra.

    Also, the caps lock thing just makes you seem deranged. Could be you are only an amateur troll.

  • Jeff, please be sure to revisit us on November 5 to give us a rundown on the polls.

  • I’m relieved this interview took place BEFORE Obama met with Maliki or else everyone would be saying that Obama was trying to change policy on the trip.

  • Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in an interview when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months.”

    Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama’s Withdrawal Plans

    buh bye amerikan OIL Stealers !!

    here’s your helmet what’s your hurry ??

    wave buh bye to all of the lovely OIL beneath the Iraqi sand !!

  • Nouri al-Maliki ready to oust US from Iraq green zone — The green zone of Baghdad, a highly fortified slice of American suburbia on the banks of the Tigris river, may soon be handed over to Iraqi control if the increasingly assertive government of Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, gets its way.

    Why isn’t reuters reporting that Maliki is against U.S troops in the green zone.

    Obama’s plan is to keep u.s troops in the green zone guarding our enemy.

  • Nah, the Republicans will “spin” Maliki’s remarks to say that since Maliki’s first language isn’t English (of course, neither is George Bush’s) that he was “misunderstood” and really said “McCain’s plan” when the liberal-media thought he said “Obama’s plan”.

    There. Understand now?

  • Jeff, you were aware that the primaries are over, aren’t you? Oh, and this whole kertuffle is for president of the united states, not the president of Kentucky.

  • I notice that the White House statement the other day on their agreement with the Maliki administration described “”a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals”.

    I’d love to hear from anyone who knows Iraqi Arabic well enough to check the Arabic version of the statement that Maliki must have issued. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Arabic reads something more like: “a specified time period during which we expect to reach certain benchmarks” or something like that. After all, given that most US news agencies don’t have many Arabic speakers, and given that Bush wants the mushiest possible statement (for his political reasons) while Maliki wants the most rigorous possible statement (for HIS political reasons), there’s no real reason to believe that the White House will honestly translate the Arabic version of the agreement, is there?

  • It is fascinating that suddenly the Bush adminstration is trying to move towards Obama’s positions. Whether it’s an attempt to steal the issue from him or save their own asses I’m not sure. There’s no doubt they knew about this interview with Maliki. The last hope for McCain and the Republicans was some sort of disaster for Obama on this trip. Being snubbed or repudiated by Iraqi officials would have been devastating, but it certainly looks like just the opposite. He’ll finish things off with a star turn in Europe. By the time Obama lands back in the US McCain will dead in the water.

    I thin there is a real hunger in america to be respected and liked again. Obama’s trip could make people realize the damage done by the Republicans can be undone.

  • SPIEGEL: How short-term? Are you hoping for a new agreement before the end of the bush administration?

    Maliki: So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn’t the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that’s why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of president bush’s term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

    ‘The Tenure of Coalition Troops in Iraq Should Be Limited’

    buh bye amerikan OIL Stealers !!

  • I’ll give this 3 hours until the right starts citing this as proof the A-Rabs want Obama.

  • Wrong it is Obama following McCain’s strategy.

    Obama had to scrub from his site comments saying the surge would have the opposite effect and increase violence.

  • He has to maintain the facade that he’s taking a strong stance. Unlike Bush, who can do anything he wants because nobody will oppose him here, Maliki is weak and has to tread very carefully through the thorny political thicket in Iraq. He can posture all he wants in front of the press, but the bottom line is a nebulous agreement that permits sufficient American military force to remain in Iraq indefinitely, in order to secure the interests of the oil companies and overall stability of the region (protection of Israel).

    There’s an irony here, too. With all his posturing, Maliki probably wouldn’t survive politically (or perhaps bodily) if we did pull 100% of our troops out.

    Look, the oil is coming. We can’t just pull out and trust the Iraqis to protect Exxon. We need that oil.

  • 16 months, beginning in January 2009, would bring everyone home by right around Memorial Day weekend, 2010. That would be, to me, a pretty damned good way to honorf those who have fallen—by telling them to their faces that “we don’t want to add to your numbers when we don’t have to.”

  • For all those attacking Obama for opposing the surge – the main reason the surge has seemingly worked is nothing to do with the increases in troops. It’s simply that Patreaus made deals with many of the militias that dominate the landscape in Iraq. In effect, he acceded to demands and politicked the situation until things improved. Kudos to the man for doing that. But it has very little to do with McCain’s judgement and a lot to do with clever (and unideological) movement on the ground. Obama would still have prevented the pointless, murderous, petty war in the first place. That’s good enough for me….

  • I’ve always wondered what a nation-of-whiners tag team (5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 22) would look like.

    Now, I know….

  • The AP misses the story….again!

    Funny, the AP doesn’t have a peep about this important statement by the prime minister of Iraq in an interview with a major international media outlet. Funny, wonder why that is? (as of July 19, 11:30 AM)

  • mcCain is obviously leading. why, for over a year, obama’s been proposing 2 more brigades in afghanistan, but last week mcCain proposed THREE brigades. way to be ahead of the curve!

    and iraq? let’s see, obama wants us out, , the vast majority of americans want us out, the vast majority of iraqis wants us out, the iraqi government (who we helped into power) wants us out. but mcThuseleh and bush cling together for the 28 percenters. this is gonna be a fun election.

  • I agree with hark.

    Call me Gloomy Gus, but I have trouble taking what a political puppet like Maliki says at face value.

  • It is good to see the president following Obama’s strategy of a timetable for withdrawal.Also for talking to Iran, of course he was forced into that because the European Union seems to agree with that. George Bush should still be impeached for lying the country into this illegal war.Hopefull Obama will not follow McCain’s disgraceful example in London, where he held a fundraiser and people were charged massive amounts of money to attend.I feel sure Obama can be relied on to be a little more dignified. He would be president tomorrow if the British and Europeans had a choice. The should have an opinion though, they have a right, there are hundreds of British troops dying in McCain/Bush wars.

  • Wow. I can only imagine what the White House must be thinking right now… It seems that everyone but McCain Bush and the republicans are now on the record loud and clear about wanting to get out of Iraq.

  • It all depends on the meaning of “troops.” “home,” and “out.” There are going to be Americans in uniform in Iraq for a long time. They may not be in combat roles, but they’ll be there. How many, and what uniforms they’ll be wearing — military or mercenary — is another matter. Just one guy’s opinon.

  • I really think that the Rove/McCain campaign plan was to hold firm on the Bush/Cheney Iraq policy. Unfortunately for them, Maliki shifted the ground out from under them. They had no choice but to shift their position toward Obama’s. Then to cover their asses in case people began to notice that the McCain position suddenly looked a lot like the Obama position, they introduced the meme that Obama was adopting the McCain position.

    It’s a pretty stupid tactic, but it’s about all they could do. And what the hell, stupid tactics have worked for them in the past.

  • The only “surge” that “worked” in Iraq was the surge of money to pay $300 a month personally to hundreds of thousands of insurgents to keep them off the street through the elections (both the Iraqi and the US). No wonder Bush and the Republicans don’t want a real stimulus package for the millions of American un- and under-employed: they already spent on the Iraqi stimulus package!

  • You know, I’m against the death penalty until bAdmin. commits another assault on the language. What the hell is a Time Horizon? Sounds like an Event Horizon.

    Which kind of makes sense when you consider the person using the phrase. Hmmm…

  • —military or mercenary—
    The mercenaries are not real Americans. They are Bushylvanian slugs, and are not worth the cost of transporting home (especially with the price of fuel being what it is these days). Leave the mercenaries in Iraq, and let the Iraqis sort them out. The ones they don’t want, they can send home a few at a time on the oil tankers. The ones that they DO want (murderers, war criminals, rapists, armed robbers, and the like), however—well, that’s a horse of a different color, now isn’t it?

    Besides—every mercenary that’s left behind in Iraq is a mercenary that can’t take up arms for the Bushylvanians on US soil—and putting them in Gitmo-esque cages over there is a far better option than fighting them over here.

    Or something like that….

  • MCCAIN IS FOR WITHDRAWING TROOPS.

    […]

    OBAMA HAD TO SCRUB HIS SITE OF COMMENTS SAYING THE SURGE WOULD MAKE VIOLENCE WORSE. THIS SHOWS HOW AMATUER HE IS.-Jason

    Jason you’re such a jokester. Did you realize that McCain scrubbed his Web site of references to his support of more troops for Iraq while hammering Obama for changing his policy and site surreptitiously, when in fact it was changed to reflect the changes on the ground in Iraq? You would have you actually read the Carpetbagger Report.

  • Rege,

    The similarity in style and lack of content is too close to be a coincidence.

    There may be two trolls, but I’m pretty sure there’s only one brain (if that) between them.

  • Sure looks like we’re being told to leave ASAP by the guy that runs the country (and who welcomed Iran with the red carpet treatment a couple of months back).

    Call me cynical, but I’d say the odds for a massive “Bush” victory in Iraq just went off the charts.

  • Jeff and Jason are the sort that stand with a timer in hand waiting to see if they can get out of paying for the Dominoes pizza being delivered within 30min. They are the same person. It’s tiresome to keep debunking their ALL CAPS tirades. Keep it simple:

    McCain=wrong, mis-guided, disastrous, war profiteering Iraq policies

    Obama= reflective deliberation, changed strategy, disaster ending Iraq policies

    Policy first…then tactics.

  • btw…Bush’s stated goal…to make it impossible for the next president to leave Iraq.

    Everyday I live in fear of this president…of what he might do next. I don’t want to feel that way about the next president. Thank God it won’t be McCain (unless they steal it)

  • Maliki the puppet of Iran. — Jeff, @7

    It appears that, for Jeff, the mystery of the verb “to be” and its many avatars (are) just too much to cope with. It (is) amusing to think that my teachers of English in Poland, some of whom (had been) really lousy, (were) still better than his. It (would have been) much more fun to read Jeff’s effluvia, (had) they (been) written in better English. But, perhaps, with time and effort, Jeff (will) reach proficiency in this beautiful language.

    However. What I really wanted to address is another part of his posting, specifically this:

    I can’t wait till Obama is president and Israel elects Netanyahu and there is a huge war between Israel and Iran and syria and the hezbollah and no one will listen to Obama.

    Disregard the lack of understanding of what’s a country (Iran and Syria) and what isn’t (Hezbollah) and concentrate on the “huge war between Israel and Iran”, which is to happen once Obama is president.

    It seems that we won’t have to wait that long for the happy event. According to this op-ed in yesterday’s NYT:
    http://tinyurl.com/56g698
    written by Ben Morris (a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University), Israel’s attack on Iran is a certain — and necessary — thing to happen. As for the date… This tidbit really sent the shivers down my spine:

    (the period from Nov. 5 to Jan, 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel will have support from the lame-duck White House)

    Could we, pretty please, “disappear” the Shrub and his puppet-master Dead-eye Dick on, say, Nov 3rd? One of those CIA “black holes” might be a good location. Even with everyone looking for them we could keep them safely there till January 20…

  • “Victory”… over what??? There was no al qaeda in Iraq till we invaded it. Victory over the Sunni insurgents which was actually the Iraq military Bremmer fired in spite of their offer to work for the US which set up the civil war we began policing and which has continued ever since only improving when we began “paying” them “salaries” again to not ‘insurge’. Had Bremmer kept the Iraq military in place the insurgency never would have taken place. Bush/Cheney sacrificed our soldiers and Iraqi innocents for huge contractor profits. The whole Iraq disaster was avoidable yet McCain supported all of it.

    The only “Victory” is the victory over Bush’s incompetent policies which will lead to the withdrawal of the US occupiers. Bush got the oil contracts guaranteeing $13 trillion over the next decade. From 9/11 till now the US tax dollar cost is only a trillion (lives lost and personal injuries don’t count). This was the oil corporations budget plan …$12 trillion profit while the naive public remains distracted by thoughts of WMDs and democracy etc the corporate bandits use disaster capitalism to make out like big dogs.

    “Victory”…what a shallow meaningless word Bush/Cheney have used like a carrot on a stick before the horse’s eyes. True “Victory” will never be achieved until these war profiteers like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Feith/Rice etc are held accountable for mass murder, fraud, extortion, and mass destruction of property.

  • I’ll second the NYT op-ed libra cites @ 44 as a must read expose on the insanity that’s consuming Israel, Iran and the U.S. The scenarios the author lays out are exactly what many have feared in the waning days of Bush/Cheney. Should McCain lose the election and such events unfold prior to Jan 20 — no, that would be unthinkable, wouldn’t it?

  • hey, jason, it was quite entertaining watching your head explode.

    can you do it again? i didn’t have my camera ready.

  • The press will IGNORE this statement, as they did the Downing Street memo, Bush’s promises about firing the Plame leakers, the Vincent Bugliosi book, and McCain’s real record. It will be as if it never happened.

  • Hey, let’s do it! Let’s withdraw very quickly and see how Iran will react. What could go wrong? Then the liberal lefty loonies catch watch some real genocide take place. President Obama will be shamed but we can have the MSM blame it on Bush.

    All of the morons wanting to rush out of Iraq will have blood on their hands.

    After all of you ridicule this posting, just remember, you are settting us up for Iraq – war number 3. Obama says “we’ll go back in if we need to”. Sadly, we will.

  • EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME!

    I AM WRITING IN ALL CAPS TO SHOW YOU HOW SERIOUS MY POSITION IS!

    IT MAY SEEM LIKE SOME OF WHAT I AM SAYING IS COMPLETE MALARKY, BUT SINCE IT IS IN ALL CAPS, YOU MUST KNOW IT IS THE TRUTH!

    THIS IS WHAT YOU LIBTARDS FAIL TO COMPREHEND! WE DON’T NEED YOUR STINKING LOGIC WHEN WE HAVE ALL CAPS!

    YOU DON’T NEED TO LISTEN TO COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND OR LEADERS OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS WHEN YOU HAVE ALL CAPS!

    ALL CAPS ARE WHAT MAKE THIS COUNTRY GREAT! ANYONE MAKING AN ARGUMENT WITHOUT USING ALL CAPS IS NOT SERIOUS!

    I AM SERIOUS, AS YOU CAN TELL BY MY ALL CAPS!

    JUST YOU WAIT, OUR GREAT LEADER GEORGE W BUSH WILL SEND A LETTER TO AL MALIKI IN ALL CAPS AND AL MALIKI WILL TAKE BACK ALL THE NICE THINGS HE SAID ABOUT OBAMA AND THEN AL MALIKI WILL SEND A NEW MESSAGE IN ALL CAPS TO THE WHITE HOUSE’S PRESS LIST – BUT ON PURPOSE THIS TIME – AND THEN WE WILL STAY IN IRAQ UNTIL WE HAVE ACHIEVED VICTORY!

    AND IF YOU THINK THAT ALL CAPS ARE NOT WHAT IS GOING TO WIN THIS WAR, THEN YOU HAVE MISUNDERESTIMATED PATRIOTS LIKE ME AND IRAQWAR3, WHO HAS SHOWN THAT WE HAVE MORE WEAPONS AT OUR DISPOSAL THAN ALL CAPS!

    WE HAVE STRAW MEN TOO! HA!

  • CB, you better change that headline. The McCain camp responded this evening to the Maliki interview. Guess what, Maliki agrees with McCain.(via TPM)

    ARLINGTON, VA — Today, McCain 2008 Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Randy Scheunemann issued the following statement:

    “The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama’s views had prevailed.”

    Let’s take this apart. When Scheunemann writes “Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders.” He is absolutely correct. Obama strategy is to withdrawal from Iraq. The top military commanders will not set the strategy. But Obama has made it clear that they will consulted on tactics.

    When he writes “John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground,” he isn’t referring to the tactics of withdrawal, but rather to withdraw at all. For McCain the condition to withdrawal is whether “we leave with victory and honor.” What about a timeframe? Not so much. “Timing is not as important” as victory, whatever that means, to McCain.

    What the McCain camp is up to is confounding the idea of conditioning the the tactic of a withdrawal on the conditions on the ground with the conditioning whether to withdrawal at all on the conditions on the ground, i.e. whether we have won or not, in order to confuse people into thinking that McCain has endorsed withdrawal.

    Scheunermann also asserts that Maliki ,”has repeatedly affirmed,” McCain’s view, “and did so again today.” It’s hard to see how to read the Maliki quote and come away with that belief.

    In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

    “U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

    On second thought, if you read the the following two sentences with a slight change of punctuation, then maybe it does make sense.

    Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today: Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama.

    After all, Maliki did say,

    “The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn’t,” Maliki told Der Spiegel

    So perhaps this is the view that Maliki has repeatedly affirmed.

    Scheunamman finishes by asserting that McCain was right about the surge and Obama was wrong and the surge has made a discussion of a “responsible withdrawal” possible. This is a key pivot point. I think it suggests that McCain will soon be moving to a position of advocating a withdrawal and crediting its possibility to the surge which he backed and Obama didn’t.

  • Too late, the story has already been killed and al-Maliki’s spokesman says that he was mistranslated. What he really meant to say is that he agrees with Bush on everything like a good puppet should. CNN doesn’t even have the original story up anymore, only the retraction. He didn’t really say what he said, nothing to see here, everyone move along. I wonder if the Sunday shows will even notice this happened.

    CNN’s Rick Sanchez only mentioned it earlier because he had to explain why the Bush mass email that was mistakenly sent to the press was so funny. He also seemed stunned that troops would give Obama a rousing ovation and wondered whether they treat McCain the same way. He also referred to Obama as a junior Senator when talking about his overseas trip. I have a feeling that reference will be spreading like wildfire on rightwing radio if it hasn’t already.

  • Pingback: Buck Naked Politics

  • I feel that these Republicans may find a way to use this against Obama, nevertheless. I can already see the commercial with a picture saying Maliki endorses Obama in an accusing voice, somehow insinuating that this is evidence that Obama is in league with ‘the terrorists.’ Because you know the average voter doesn’t really know who Maliki is and believes the most amazingly stupid things because we allow the fourth estate to tell lies without any accountability.

    • Comments are closed.