Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From this morning's NY Times we learn that diplomats from the US Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Iraqi PM Maliki’s advisers on Saturday after the Der Spiegel article broke. Then, by a strange coincidence, the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine’s rendering of the interview.
Luckily Der Spiegel provided, to the New York Times, an audio recording of the interview in question:
Quote:
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.”
“Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.
I know the Obama campaign and it's bots are desperate for a lifeline on this matter, as well as the liberal media. No one, not even Maliki has ever called for a timetable, especially BEFORE they had success on the ground.
This is a simple thing for the electorate - Obama opposed the surge, said it wouldn't work and would make matters worse. McCain staked his political like on the surge, he was right. Simple. Obama can't run away from that.
If the Obama campaign wants to grab that false headline and run with it, how foolish will he look as the other corrected headline is used by McCain?
It's always been conditions based.
So we should believe a translation by the NYT? You must be joking? In addition, Der Speigel is a renowned anti-Bush, anti-war rag.
Despite what the "American Thinker Blog" may or may not blog about.
We all can see the truth.
Obama will continue to make it a priority once he is elected to work with the sovereign Iraqi government towards respecting their wishes and planning a timely and orderly withdrawal with our military leadership.
Der Speigel has the conversation tape recorded and the remarks have been confirmed by an independent translator. They were made, no amount of White House spinning will change that.
Face the facts. McCain has already had to concede Obama's Afghanistan policy was the correct one. Now Maliki has demonstrated his support for Obama's Iraq policy as well. Now with Maliki conceding the obvious, that Obama's plan is preferred by the Iraqi people as well, McCain would be wise to concede this as well, and bring the conversation back to something he's better versed in, like economics.
I know the Obama campaign and it's bots are desperate for a lifeline on this matter, as well as the liberal media. No one, not even Maliki has ever called for a timetable, especially BEFORE they had success on the ground.
This is a simple thing for the electorate - Obama opposed the surge, said it wouldn't work and would make matters worse. McCain staked his political like on the surge, he was right. Simple. Obama can't run away from that.
If the Obama campaign wants to grab that false headline and run with it, how foolish will he look as the other corrected headline is used by McCain?
It's always been conditions based.
So we should believe a translation by the NYT? You must be joking? In addition, Der Speigel is a renowned anti-Bush, anti-war rag.
Getting desperate aren't we? First off, the original interpreter was Maliki's, not Der Spiegel's, and now we have a translation from the original recording. How many more more translations do you need before admitting the truth...Maliki supports Obama's plan.
Interesting as well that a Maliki aide released a statement saying the remarks had been misinterpreted only after being contacted by US diplomats.
Whoa, I posted an article in another thread. The Maliki government by intent is playing games with the American election to negotiate the best deal possible. I believe the date of their strategy meeting was July 7. They will play bait and switch and probably did this weekend. Neither side should get real excited because that is what they want. Maliki quite possibly called the bluff of Bush this weekend got concessions etc. He will do the same to Obama. He wants both sides of the issue independence and a security blanket. The oil money is rolling in and he also knows he has Iran to play against us also. He is a horse trader and neither should want to be one of his horses so you may want to chill and not go out on a limb.
Der Speigel has the conversation tape recorded and the remarks have been confirmed by an independent translator. They were made, no amount of White House spinning will change that.
Face the facts. McCain has already had to concede Obama's Afghanistan policy was the correct one. Now Maliki has demonstrated his support for Obama's Iraq policy as well. Now with Maliki conceding the obvious, that Obama's plan is preferred by the Iraqi people as well, McCain would be wise to concede this as well, and bring the conversation back to something he's better versed in, like economics.
I think I'll take the word of the Iraqi's and the Iraqi generals on the ground rather than an "independent" translator provided by the NYT.
You wish he would concede this issue, which is a major loser for Obama. The damage has already been done, as McCain has hammered him about his opposition and horrible judgement about the surge. That is really easy to understand. If Obama had his way a possible genocide would have resulted, and believe me McCain will be pounding him on it.
Fortunately, we have ALL those statements by Obama about the surge, that it was wrong, that it wouldn't result in success, that it would fail.
Those are the things voters pay attention to , not nuanced phrasing.
You must have missed the WH Friday release, basically agreeing to withdrawal, based on condition. You must not have been listening for the last year as the WH, MCCain and the generals said the same thing - withdrawals based on success. Which is not Obama's plan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
