=)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.