Marc Ambinder reports:
This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq’s Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there’s no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot.
Even more enlightening is the quote Ambinder got from a Republican consultant that advises the McCain campaign:
“We’re f***ed.”
Loading ...
Say, Zack?
That’s “We’re (cheney)ed.”
And whoever said it, is correct.
Again, this was a bad translation error.
al Maliki’s office: His words “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.”
Thats the problem with translation … http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/
Real translation: “the White House called and sent the message that Maliki better tow the line or else” as discussed on Meet the Press this morning. That is why the story changeed.
Truth hurts.
“…or else” WHAT? Just “what” is the misAdministration of Boy Blunder And The Plunderers gonna do?
Boy Blunder is a Lame Duck; but what’s (not) really surprising is all the bootlickin’ republiCons clamoring for NOT setting goals and holding people accountable for those goals.
After 8 almost 8 years of misAdministration by Bush The Lesser, they still have yet to hold anyone accountable for the FUBAR they created in Iraq. And that’s not going to change, which is why GOP now stands for GreedOverPrinciples.
@ Sean2
Bullshit. Claim disproven in the other thread. Saying it several times doesn’t make it more true.
Der Spiegel stands by the translation.
Sean2 -
“Obama is pleased, but McCain certainly is not. In an interview with SPIEGEL, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki expressed support for Obama’s troop withdrawal plans. Despite a half-hearted retraction, the comments have stirred up the US presidential campaign. SPIEGEL stands by its version of the conversation. “
http://www.spiegel.de/international/
Clearly, what this demonstrates is that Boy Blunder is in Lame Duck status, and the Iraqis recognize this.
The al Maliki govt speaks for itself, and they have made it clear that this is a translation error. You can throw all the conspiracy theories tying it to Bush out there. As soon as al Maliki’s govt got news of the story, they issued a statement. The Iraqi govt speaks for itself.
Spiegel has already altered the translation numerous times, so I’m not sure which version he is standing by, but it’s fishy when you change the translation of the person being interviewed. Certainly not trustworthy, that’s certain.
Sean2:
First of all, the the Maliki government has not said what specifically was “mistranslated” or “misunderstood.”
Second, you are right to say that the government speaks for itself. Their preference for a timetable for withdrawal has been clear for weeks. In fact, the very statement released by the government claiming the spiegel mistranslated also included support for a timetable.
Even before Maliki allegedly endorsed Obama’s plan, he had already (and unquestionably) endorsed a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Even you cannot deny that.
Despite the unflinching spin of Sean2 ..Malakai’s stated preference, and Obama’s plan are VERY close, and the contrast between Malakai’s preference and Cheney’s ‘plan’ is vivid.
Say, lo?
Are you trying to say that the Iraqis don’t want us there another 100 years, as Bushy McSame has suggested?
Zack - the al Maliki govt made it clear their support for a conditions based withdrawal, which should be the way we get out of Iraq. Obama’s plan puts times and dates certain, which poses danger. What was the last war any country won when it publicized its timetable for bringing its troops home before victory is established? We can have troops home in the next few years. Let’s not screw it up and leave Iraq before securing victory and ensuring the safety of the Iraqis.
A conditions based withdrawal should become enacted policy in agreement with Iraq, and that is what Bush agreed to this week.
“Obama’s plan puts times and dates certain, which poses danger.”
How can one person be so consistently wrong?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#phased-withdrawal
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
“After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.”
-Barack Obama
“What was the last war any country won when it publicized its timetable for bringing its troops home before victory is established?”
That is an asinine question. “Winning” and “victory” in Iraq should no longer be in the lexicon. We are participating in a CIVIL war. How is it possible for an invading force to “win” a civil war?
“We can have troops home in the next few years. Let’s not screw it up and leave Iraq before securing victory and ensuring the safety of the Iraqis.”
Well your plan is obviously superior. I am voting Sean2 write in.
To trust Spiegel or not? Hmm http://patterico.com/2008/07/20/spiegel-rewrites-interview-with-maliki/
…before victory is established?”
Hey, pal - you bootlickers haven’t even established what victory “IS”, just how the (cheney) are you gonna tell if victory is “established”??!?
This is why the electorate doesn’t trust republiCons anymore - you guys just plain make stuff up.
Since this war that was gonna take no time at all and pay for itself started, you bootlickers have held exactly NO ONE responsible for this FUBAR.
So much for “The Party Of Personal Responsibility” unless, of course you really mean:
“The Party That’s All About Holding The Other Party Responsible.”
victory has been defined a dozen times … when Iraq is stable enough to defend itself from terrorists and be an ally in the fight against terrorism without American presence. clearly, the decision as to whether victory is achieved is left to the commanders on the ground, who have the best ability to make such a judgemen.
At any rate, your assertions are false. Read over my entire above post.
Furthermore, the above criteria will never be met, with Iraq in it’s current configuration. We burned that bridge long ago.
Sean2 - “when Iraq is stable enough to defend itself from terrorists and be an ally in the fight against terrorism without American presence. “ is a “slogan”, NOT a “definition.”
But then again, you bootlickers took “Mission Accomplished” as fact, so your slogan is to be expected.
Remind me about that dancing in “teh streets” you idiots predicted, will ya?
This one deserves it’s own post:
“clearly, the decision as to whether victory is achieved is left to the commanders on the ground, who have the best ability to make such a judgemen.”
ROFLMAO!!!
What a (cheney)in’ bootlicker you are!!! The misAdministration has NEVER - NEVER - listened to the commanders, from when they shitcanned General Shinseki and ignored General Franks before the invasion, to ignoring the insurgency once it started.
And before you say a thing, let me remind you it was the misAdministration that disbanded the Iraqi Army, OVER the objections of “the commanders on the ground”, let alone the uniformed service chiefs in The Pentagon.
This is why reasonable people no longer believe anything republiCons say; that you would even try to pass that thoroughly and completely debunked tripe in July, 2008 just shows you’re either completely delusional, or a liar.
You tell me.
Middle of 2010 sounds about right to me, although the troops won’t be coming home, they’ll be moving to Afghanistan. Oh, and that’s combat troops, not all troops.
In post #7 Sean2 repeatedly stated “The al Maliki govt speaks for itself”
Really? I’m not sure the facts back up that conclusion.
“The statement by an aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling his remarks in Der Spiegel “misinterpreted and mistranslated” followed a call to the prime minister’s office from U.S. government officials in Iraq.”
“Officials at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad contacted Maliki’s office to express concern and seek clarification on the remarks, according to White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/20/maliki_aides_statement_came_af.html
So the statement only came after being prompted by U.S. Officials.
The statement said al-Maliki’s “remarks were “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but did not address a specific error”.
This statement “came from the U.S. military’s Central Command press office”.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/maliki-backs-obamas-troop-withdrawal-plan/
I think we will all agree, the best way to show that your government speaks for itself, is to have your statements issued by the
United States Central Command.
Those darn interpreters at Der Spiegel. What, the interpreter didn’t work for Der Spiegel?
“the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.
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.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html
Seems pretty clear to me!
What’s more, Maliki didn’t start yowling about a misinterpretation until AFTER a call from the Bush administration.
Heh. heh. heh. Maliki’s own interpreter. Rich.
The translation was accurate.
But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.
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.”
The NYT, which has undermined the war on terror from the beginning, that has endorsed a Democrat for President every election for the past 50 years, that refuses to run an editorial on McCain after running Obama’s editorial, etc … Am I to trust or care what they have to say? No.
The call was made y the US embassy over there asking for clarification. As soon as al Maliki’s govt, as I’ve stated before, heard of the story, they immediately said it was a mistranslation.
The al Maliki government translation was very clear in what he said, that al Maliki wanted a withdrawal based on conditions that corresponded to about roughly 16 months. Spiegel then edited the translation: http://patterico.com/2008/07/20/spiegel-rewrites-interview-with-maliki/