An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Obama’s Afghanistan Visit Already Reaping Political Dividends

Hard to be the Basset Hound »

Quote Of The Day: On Maliki’s Being “Misquoted” About Supporting Obama Iraq Pullout Timetable

Posted by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief in Media, Politics, War.
Jul 20th, 2008 | Comments

The Quote of the Day from The Politico’s Ben Smith:

It’s almost a convention of politics that when a politician says he was misquoted, but doesn’t detail the misquote or offer an alternative, he’s really saying he wishes he hadn’t said what he did, or that he needs to issue a pro-forma denial to please someone.

The Iraqi Prime Minister’s vague denial seems to fall in that category. The fact that it arrived to the American press via CENTCOM, seems to support that. It came, as Mike Allen notes, 18 hours later, and at 1:30 a.m. Eastern, a little late for Sunday papers; his staff also seems, Spiegel reports, not to have contested Iraqi reporting of the quote, even in the “government-affiliated” Iraqi press.

The notion this was a misquote also bumps up against Spiegel’s standing by its reporting, and providing a long, detailed transcript.

More broadly, Maliki’s words illustrate a political reality: Foreign players have a real influence on American politics, and they know it.

And, indeed:

1. As Smith concludes, it’s likely Maliki knew he was playing American domestic politics.

2. American politics increasingly relies on a series of legalistic on-the-record responses that anyone but a can of peas sitting on a shelf at Vons Supermarket on Adams Avenue in San Diego knows are baloney.

3. Just as night follows day and as money follows Hanna Montana concerts, everyone KNEW that the Bush administration would not let Malki’s statement stand and that there would be some kind of a retraction. In political terms (damage to the GOP) and foreign policy terms (the United States’ relationship to Iraq and its present government) it could not stand. You went to bed knowing that there would be a story soon about the interview “finessing” the comments..

4. But if you read partisan blogs, the statement about being misquoted is now being trumpeted as fact. And it’s likely many of those who’ll assert it as fact in print and broadcast know it’s proforma intergovernmental CYA — but it gives them a legalistic debating point. “See? Maliki SAID it was a lousy translation!”

5. The DELAY is the key.

6. The fact it did not come from Maliki himself within hours of the sensational story hitting the wires and Internet is another key to what happened.

7. Der Spiegel has been around for many years and translated many articles of interviews of foreign leaders. So in this instance they just happened to have a poor translator…just as it just happened that it took almost a day before Maliki responded…through a spokesman?

Tell it to the can of peas…..

superdestroyer

Who knows what Maliki believes or supports. What we do know is that Mr. Maliki did what most people in the middle east so, they tell foreigners what they want to hear. If Maliki really meant it is very different.

timr

superdestroyer, I see you have swallowed the republician/bush line- hook, line and sinker. God bless you, but you must be one of the 19% of those who continue to think, dispite all facts to the contrary, that bush is doing a great job.

superdestroyer

timr,

I have done business in that part of the world, (Kuwait to be exact) and one of the first things eveyrone tell you is that they will always tell you what you want to hear to your face. I experience this very thing in Kuwait when the government supposedly agreed to something and then almost immediately backtracked.

What I find odd is that Europeans and Americans are filtering what is occuring through our culture instead of through their culture.

StockBoySF

Wait a minute, SD... I thought just last week (before Obama's visit) the Bush administration was talking about general time horizons for *some* troop withdrawal and the need to send more troops to Afghanistan..... So while I think you're right about the people in that part of the world telling you what you want to hear, I think there is some deeper evidence to support the case that what Maliki says is what he wants.... Besides if Maliki was saying something he knew wasn't true in the first place, then why would he issue an apology? I think Maliki said what he thought Bush wanted to hear (and what Maliki said was the truth, because the Bush administration does need to withdraw some troops from Iraq to send to Afghanistan) but Bush/Republicans can't let Obama be right on this issue (yet again).

As far as the posting.... Bush playing politics (by having Maliki retract what he said) with one of the most important issues facing our country.... Never! Bush always places the US's interest above his own political gain! (Hand me that knife so we can cut my sarcasm).

StockBoySF

SD, "What I find odd is that Europeans and Americans are filtering what is occuring through our culture instead of through their culture."

I'm not entirely sure I understand you here.... but I wouldn't expect us (Americans and Europeans) to filter what is happening through the Iraqi culture. Many Americans, including our fearless leader can barely speak English, much less understand a foreign culture on the other side of the world... What am I missing in your comment? I must be brain dead today.

runasim

SD-
More to the point, I don't think it's possible to mistranslate Iraqi reaction. This is what they want to hear.
If Maliki only said whatever someone wants to hear, who was he addressing, Obama, Bush or voting Iraqis - or do Iraqis also have a filtering problem when they listen to Maliki?

superdestroyer

Runasim,

Senator Obama is travelling in the middle east. The Iraqi tell Obama what he wants to hear. If Sec. Rice visits Iraq next month, Maliki wil tell her what she wants to her. That is how things are done in the middle east. If you are in the room, they will agree with you but if they change their mind later, it is the will of Allah.

Tully

Maliki didn't "retract what he said," he simply did not say what he was misrepresented as saying. He was represented by Der Spiegel as supporting or endorsing Obama's Iraq plan, and he most explicitly did not do that. That's editorialism on DS's part.

Even in the interview itself he made that clear. If you read what he actually said, he said he would prefer that the situation allowed for us to withdraw in 16 months if circumstances permitted rather than for us to maintain an indefinite combat presence. (Well, doesn't almost everyone?) He did not say it would happen that way or that he was endorsing any timetable other than "sooner is better than later." He then went on to lay out specific conditions required for that to occur. Stability in central Iraq, sufficient strength and expertise of Iraqi security forces, the eradication of AQ in Iraq, and economic progress and recovery.

One would note that "Obama's Plan" does not really call for any such conditions, just for exit, regardless.

runasim

Tully,
You're right. Maliki didn't endorse Obama or his specific plan He endorsed a short term time frame, which is a lot closer to 16-18 months than Bush's horizon.

The thing abut horizons is that they recede as you approach, which has been at the heart of the problem since day one: a policy of moving the poal posts bit by bit to eventually justify a US military presence under ANY conditions.
--------.
"He then went on to lay out specific conditions required for that to occur. Stability in central Iraq, sufficient strength and expertise of Iraqi security forces, the
eradication of AQ in Iraq, and economic progress and recovery"
_______
Those are goals, not conditions if you think about it realistically. As an example: how would anyone recognzie sufficient rogress and security to justify withdrawal, and which part of that requires a US military presence to achieve?
When you get down to the nitty-gritty, this part of Maliki's statement is simply too vague to be called 'conditions'. For that, you need measurable benchmarks and specific qualifiers.
Your interpreatation is simply to revert to Bush's ever receding horizon condition and to McCain's equally nebulous 'victory' requiremtent

With the approaching elections in Iraq, it's much more logical to assume Maliki's primary audience consisted of Iraqis, who are anxious to reclaim Iraq as their sovereign nation, not as a playground for the US.

Patterico

Hot Air captured the following passage from the English translation of Maliki's Der Spiegel interview:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

Here's how the exchange reads now:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. 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.

There is no explanation of the rewrite.

Spiegel says: "SPIEGEL stands by its version of the conversation." That's great . . . but which one?

elrod

The NYTimes translated it directly from Arabic. This is how it reads:
"The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

There is apparently nothing in there about "assuming positive developments continue," though that would not be as controversial as Patterico makes it out to be.

The significance here is that, regardless of what translation you use, Nouri Al-Maliki cited Barack Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan as preferable to McCain's open-ended plan. Neither Obama nor Maliki want US troops to leave without regard for conditions on the ground or consultation with generals; that's an old and dishonest McCain canard.

Obama and Maliki both want a 16-month timeframe to be executed according to logistical reality and ground conditions. If after beginning a withdrawal all hell breaks loose in one area, the withdrawal will be suspended. But the point is that the Iraqi army is sufficiently capable of handling conflicts as they arise and will only need US Special Forces and their support behind.

StockBoySF

"assuming positive developments continue," That sounds like something Bush would want Maliki to say- when we do withdraw then Bush can take credit for laying the groundwork. And we are only able to withdraw because there were positive developments which continue.

Bush's surge may have brought some successes, but not the ones Bush said would occur in the timeframe he said would happen. I'm glad for those successes, though I can't help but wonder at what price- and really how stable are those successes?

runasim

"Assuming that positive developments continue"
----versus
"with the possibility of slight changes."

Potterico is stretching parsing talents amazingly far and thin.
Any politician, and Maliki is a politician, always includes some form of wiggle-room self protection, They are correct to do so if they are realists, and both Obama and Maliki are being realistic about withdrawal.

The bottom line is that Maliki expressed a preferrence for Obama's short time frame approach. There is no way to wiggle out of that part of the Spiegel interview.

runasim

SD-

Maliki was speaking to a German reporter (INTERNATINAL PRESS and AUDIENCE)
while anticipating elections (IRAQI AUDIENCE)
and in the aftermath of negotions with Bush & Co, who tried to blackmail him by demanding control of Iraq's air space, immunity for US military and CONTRACTOR personnel plus other goodies in that vein.

And yet, you insist Maliki's prime, or only,target audience was Obama.
You've made that claim twice, and you can make it ten more times, but it will still not make any logical sense.

I'm done with this topic.

Silhouette

Politics....I think it's safe to say it's all about politics..

=)

ChrisWWW

What this does is shoot holes in McCain and Bush's claim that withdrawal timetables = defeat. And if they try to continue that line of rhetoric, it exposes them as the imperialists they are at a time when public support for withdrawal is high.

blog comments powered by Disqus