Skip to content
Categories:

Maliki really did endorse Obama’s withdrawal timeline

Post date:
Author:

Over the weekend, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Der Spiegel, unprompted and by name, that he supports Barack Obama’s withdrawal timeline for U.S. troops in Iraq. The White House furiously sought to characterize this as a transcription error, while the McCain campaign insisted that Maliki’s words had been taken “out of context.”

Now, we’ve known for a couple of days that the Republican talking points on this are completely wrong. The New York Times reviewed the recording of the interview and found that the Der Spiegel transcript was exactly right.

But in case there were any lingering doubts — several news outlets are still characterizing the original Maliki quotes as being in dispute — the Iraqi prime minister actually received a copy of the interview before it went to print. He had the opportunity to make changes, but chose not to.

“We have a policy at Der Spiegel when we do a question and answer session to provide a transcript to our counterparts in case they want to have a minor thing changed,” says Muller von Blumencron, who says Zand verified that Maliki’s aides received the publication-ready advance copy. They had no response, and presumably no complaints, before its release.

Der Spiegel has no plans to release the tape (“We don’t see a need to improve upon our credibility by, say, putting the audio on the web.”) but is happy to play it — in person, over the phone — for any journalist interested in verifying.

Kevin added, “The interview was conducted in English, Maliki’s Arabic answers were then translated into English by Maliki’s own translator, and the completed transcript was later provided to Maliki for his approval before publication. Hopefully this will be the last word on whether or not Maliki really meant what he said.”

I’d just add that while Maliki’s support for Obama’s policy is a disaster for McCain, the White House is still in a very awkward position. As David Kurtz noted, “When a guy you more or less install in power and keep there on a very short leash starts going off the reservation, you first claim there was some sort of translation error. Then you claim that what he says is not what he means. When he continues to reiterate the point, you assert that he knows not of what he speaks.”

And now that none of the talking points can rationalize the prime minister’s remarks, the White House isn’t sure what to do.

Comments

  • Lance

    says:

    I’m still not sure how safe al Maliki is. Dick Cheney is a dangerous man after all. But then, I’m not sure he’d lift a finger to get JSMcC*nt elected.

    It is amazing that parts of the media still spout the nonsense that this issue is in dispute.

  • NonyNony

    says:

    Ah, see, CBS can just “edit in” a clip of Maliki talking about how bad timetables would be from a few years ago or something. Then it will be like he never said it at all.

    See – problem solved! I’m sure they’ll get right on that.

  • thorin-1

    says:

    I’m still not sure how safe al Maliki

    Many of the right wing bloggers are already starting to play up al Maliki’s ties to Iran. If that rhetoric gets picked up by the MSM noise machine and we hear a report saying “White House sources say the President is ‘concerned’ about Maliki’s increasingly close relationship with Iran” then I’d say Maliki’s days are numbered.

    It would not suprise me if, in the event of an Obama win, Bush/Cheney make some move in Iraq before the inuguration to try and force Obama to stay. Overthrowing al Maliki could start the whole thing all over again.

  • Tom in Ma

    says:

    If the US government, and the GOP candidate for President, make it clear that the Iraqi government has no real say in how long the US will occupy Iraq, then where does that leave the Iraqis? The USA cannot indefinitely occupy Iraq if the Iraqis resist them, and hasn’t their acceptance of the occupation been based on the assurance that it is temporary and with their consent? I predict more attacks, more resistance and more US deaths and injuries.

  • Lance

    says:

    Tom in Ma said: “If the US government, and the GOP candidate for President, make it clear that the Iraqi government has no real say in how long the US will occupy Iraq, then where does that leave the Iraqis?”

    Hasn’t it become clear that one of the criteria for success for Victory in Iraq according to Joe LIEberman is that there be NO IRAQIS (alive) who want us to actually leave. Once they are all dead, then it is safe to go.

    I mean, if al Sadr wants us to leave Iraq, and the American people want us to leave Iraq, isn’t he really our best ally in that country???

  • 2Manchu

    says:

    I still find it interesting that the initial statement that said al-Maliki’s comments were mistranslated came from a press release by US Central Command.

    Doesn’t the Iraqi government have its own press office to handle stuff like that?