Maliki interview transcript

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852,00.html

First remember that despite claims of being wrongly translated, it was translated and released by Maliki's own people. Having read the transcript, the article did report the quotes with a bit of a slant however. Maliki's quotes that pertain to the US presidential race-with added italics to show what is important not to ignore:
Maliki: So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

Now agreement was emphasized because it is important to recognize that he is talking about an arrangement with our country being the victory, not simply having our troops out of there country being a victory; despite that being the ultimate goal for both sides.

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.

It is important to post the question first to show that the interviewer in no way put Obama's name in Maliki's mind. Maliki brought up Obama without prodding. It's very important to notice the wording "slight changes". It should not be overlooked that Maliki isn't implicitly endorsing the entirety of Obama's plan.

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

Him using the words "short term" is much more indicative of how much longer he-and as the last sentence shows, Iraqi's in general-feels this is going to last, not whether it'll be only 16 months from now or 16 months from when a new president would take office but that it shouldn't be 4 years from now (4 years was said simply as an example time frame).

Read more...

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.

Read more...

Translated wrong?

So now we're hearing reports of mistranslation of Maliki's comments without any specifics. It seems specific words that Maliki is claiming are wrongly translated are the agreements with a 16 month plan. Now it seemed that adding the phrase "with slight changes" in regards to Obama's 16 month plan would mean that conditions would affect the pace and quite possibly extend the draw down plan beyond 16 months.
What appears to not be disputed and the more important underlying truth was him talking about American presence needing only to be in the short-term manner. One could argue rightly that this leans toward giving credence to Obama's plan and overall Iraqi strategy. It should also rightfully be pointed out that Sen. McCain has said that he'd abide by an Iraq wish of taking all US troops out of Iraq and for bad or good, will support whatever the Iraqi's feel they need, even if that means a permanent base like we have in Germany, etc (we've all heard the rhetoric...).
Although some would have the general public believe that Obama would ignore conditions on the ground in order to pull us out of Iraq, despite numerous speeches and debates where he said otherwise, he has always said that he would do things in a way that made the Iraqi's take full control/responsibility for there country. That is the ultimate goal here by both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain, even if one disagrees with how one of them wants to achieve it, they share the same goal. This quote can aptly be applied to both Senators plans: "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias." Time will certainly tell what kind of agreement we end up in but something in the air says it wont be as Sen. Obama has stated nor what Sen. McCain has said, it'll be how the Iraqi people want it. It is looking more and more like Iraqi's don't want us there much longer but that is far from saying they aren't grateful for what we have accomplished there.

Read more...

Gut check time for Republicans and Sen. McCain supporters?

Obama wants defeat in Iraq because of his 16-month plan? Really? "So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki told SPIEGEL. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."
That's right folks, not only is the Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki getting President Bush to discuss a "time horizon with most likely some set dates" but now an interview with Iraqi's Prime Minister Maliki supports the overall premise of Sen. Obama's plan being a short term plan. As some have said before, nothing about Obama's current plan is accepting defeat or would directly lead to it. The spin, as well as very truthful facts we'll be hearing on this, on both sides if we are to be honest, should be priceless.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html

Actual quotes from Maliki (with italics/bold added):
"US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
"Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business," he said.
"Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems."
"would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations."
security agreement..."remain in effect in the short term."
"So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," Maliki told SPIEGEL. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."
"It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population," Maliki said.

One could argue and rightfully point out that had we removed our troops way back when some in this country first started saying we should we wouldn't be where we are today, for some that is irrelevant as many feel we should have never gone there in the first place. It isn't likely that when immediate troop draw downs were first discussed that Iraq would've felt like they were in a position to want it as quickly as some here in the States wanted. The truth is we'll most likely never know except that it is a fact that some Iraqi's-quite debatable how many-did in fact want us gone as soon as we removed Saddam from power. Obviously others wish we had never invaded at all. Sounds like Americans doesn't it?

The answer to the headlines question is: No. Sen. McCain has always said what the Iraqi's want we'll abide by.

Edited 7/22; 7/26

Read more...