Iraqi Prime Minister Does NOT Support Obama’s Plans
Despite all the talk in the American press that Maliki supports Obama’s plans, the truth is more nuanced.
In a recent interview with a German newspaper, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was quoted as saying that he supports Barack Obama’s plan for Iraq (with regards to the withdrawal of US forces). Immediately American newspapers and news networks picked it up, and started telling Americans that Obama’s plan are just what the Iraqis ordered.
There’s only one problem for Obama’s friends in the media; it’s not true.
A German magazine quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as saying that he backed a proposal by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months.
“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months,” he said in an interview with Der Spiegel that was released Saturday.
“That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes,” he said.
But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.”
Now, this does not mean that he opposes Obama’s plans strongly either; his main point is that a withdrawal should depend on the situation in Iraq and, as it appears now to him, the situation may very well improve so much that the US can (and then should of course) withdraw its forces. But it all depends on the situation in Iraq itself, not on some nice timetable cooked up in offices far away from Iraq by people happily ignoring what’s actually going on in that country.
Maliki’s views are quite nuanced. Sadly, American journalists seem to be unable to comprehend nuance. They have told the American public that Maliki and Obama agree on this subject; many Americans will now believe this regardless of the facts. The damage to the truth has been done.
"But it all depends on the situation in Iraq itself, not on some nice timetable cooked up in offices far away from Iraq by people happily ignoring what’s actually going on in that country."
Which is why Obama will chat with some generals as well like a good, obedient democrat who makes sure he’s far away from the mean ole ivory tower.
"But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."
Okay, mistakes happen.
"his main point is that a withdrawal should depend on the situation in Iraq and, as it appears now to him, the situation may very well improve so much that the US can (and then should of course) withdraw its forces."
Can you quote Maliki on this? You seem to be inferring.
Is Maliki trying to say that the translators within the American media suck? Is this is the second time in two weeks they’ve mistranslated Maliki? If so, they ought to be fired, for they’re clearly not doing their job correctly.
You know I’m a big critic of the media, but this seems like a faster flip-flop than anything Barack Obama could claim.
There’s nuance, and then there’s a direct quote. If Maliki didn’t mean what he said, he shouldn’t have said it. Now there’s a lesson Obama could teach him.
Der Speigel stands by its story and has published the transcript. Maliki said it three different ways. What he said is what he meant. What his office released was a tepid half hearted denial at best under pressure from the Bush Administration, without identifying a single translation error as claimed. His later statement was obviously more devoted to indicating he does not support a particular candidate. This is big for Obama as it once again validates his judgment on Iraq (the first validation being his opposition to the war and correct prediction of the consequences) and reveals that you dont have to be a former military man or a thirty year sitting senator to have excellent foreign policy judgment.
Yes Michael, are you willing to give over every time you have criticized Obama about ‘clarrifying’ or ‘flip-flopping’ on an issue to nuance. You need to keep your criteria objective.
It seems to me that at the very least, Obama’s plan is much more in line with what the Iraqi people want than McCain is. That still might be a bad thing, but with this and the direct Iran talks hitting so close, it looks almost like Obama is already running the country.
"without identifying a single translation error as claimed."
I saw this in the Reuters article too. No correct ranslation. Weird, huh?
"dont have to be a former military man or a thirty year sitting senator to have excellent foreign policy judgment."
McCain doesn’t have excellent foreign policy judgement in the first place. He opposed the North Ireland solution.
Oh, and he sucks far worse on the economic matters than Obama’s detractors are claiming the latter is sucking at foreign policy.
Just like W were surrounded by people with thir own agendas that harmed America economically and aborad, McCain is covering up his lack of awareness about economic matters with a circle of ideologues and goodoleboys. Like Phil Gramm, whose extreme anti-regulation fetichism has almost tanked the US economy twice.
Enron? Gramm. The current problems and the exorbitant bank interest rates? Gramm. Part of the reason one in six American kids aren’t getting their necessary nutrition, that eighty percent of dependants on a welfare food warehouse I saw mentioned are families with children? That’s Gramm.
Republicans can’t do the economy well. McCain’s circle of friends will move this deficiency onto the global arena. For MY sake, I want Obama.
Why can’t anybody guess that perhaps it is the Iraqi prime minister himself who actually flip-flopped on this issue???
So I have a little quiz for everyone here: Is Maliki’s agreement with Obama:
1) a good thing
2) a bad thing
3) it doesn’t matter in the least bit
4) all of the above
5) none of the above
Apparently, the US journalists seem to think it’s a good thing, that’s why they reported it as some great news. To me and to all military personnel engaged, the reality on the ground means so much more than what Maliki says, can’t say, or doesn’t want to be quoted as "saying".
Much ado about nothing. So Maliki agreed. Or no not really he didn’t. Or he can’t make up his mind. Obviously if Iraq’s leaders were being taken seriously by all the groups on the ground as US journalists seem to take them, the US would have finished off its operation and withdrawn from Iraq by now.
Der Speigel changed their own translation text after publication, deleting a key phrase.
Maliki himself does not seem to be in complete control of his own PR apparatus.
Take anything "nuanced" by media through three languages and PR flacks with a grain of salt–one about as large as Cincinnati.
What a joke! Why should maliki support Obamas plan to withdraw american troops? The only people who would support Obamas plan are the one who are willing to split Iraq by a violent civil war, which definitely WILL break out sooner or later if americans leave iraq. And this would be a desaster, destabilizing the whole middle east. Thousends of more lives will be lost, not to mention the economic crisis which would break out at the whole world. Only because he is black and his father is a muslim, he wont be able to manage the middle east! AMERICANS; GO AND VOTE FOR MCCAIN, no matter how many germans attend obamas speech (most of the could not even understand what he said)