This is fascinating.

So the initial report is being defended and saying their was no mistranslation and pointing out that the claim it was mistranslated/misunderstood is not giving any form of specifics as to what was wrong.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566914,00.html

Excerpts in defense:
Other major newspapers in Baghdad on Sunday, including the government affiliated al-Sabah, the independent daily al-Mashriq and Iraq's leading paper al-Zaman quote the SPIEGEL interview at length. There is no mention of al-Dabbagh's statement denying Maliki's support of Obama's withdrawal plans, but it may have come after the papers went to press.
A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

Let the fun continue. The full transcript will be released tomorrow, on Monday.