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/

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.

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

Heh. heh. heh. Maliki’s own interpreter. Rich.

“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!

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.

“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.

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?