Ali al-Dabbagh says in English that the Iraqi government thinks US troops should be out of Iraq by 2010. Barack Obama's plan for Iraq would, of course, have US troops out of Iraq by 2010.
« More Translation Folloies | Main | McCain: I Know What Iraqis Want »
Lost in Translation
21 Jul 2008 10:05 am
Comments (37)
Where's Patterco?
Does he need an English to english translator?
Yes, but what does the staff from the U.S. Embassy think about what the CENTCOM coordinated correction said that al-Dabbagh actually meant to say?
“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.”
Jebus! How can anybody so stupid as to believe that there was a "translation error" of "Obama", "if he takes office", "16 months" and "suitable to end the presense of forces in Iraq."
There is nothing open to interpretation. This isn't a pronoun problem. This isn't mistranslation of a certain word. Maliki mentions Obama by name, quotes his friggin' plan, and says it would work. Anybody who believes otherwise is now a resident of Fantasyland.
Clearly, he was mistranslated.
But, Obama takes the oath of office in January, 2009 and I have authoritative word that the pullout will start in July, 2001. By my reckoning, that is 18 months and not 16 months.
So which is it, 18 or 16 months?
Obama, Maliki and his spokesman are therefore dirty fucking hippie LIARS!
With granite countertops.
Now that the same Ali al-Dabbagh repeats the timeline in English, who will sent out a rectification about mistranslation?
It's getting better & better
Scarlett J lounging around in her panties is the first something lost in translation. The curve of her behind follows umpteen billion "meditations" on Mt. Fuji. That is, if she takes office in 16 months. Or something.
Now that the same Ali al-Dabbagh repeats the timeline in English, who will sent out a rectification about mistranslation?
It's getting better & better
Now that the same Ali al-Dabbagh repeats the timeline in English, who will sent out a rectification about mistranslation?
It's getting better & better
Now that the same Ali al-Dabbagh repeats the timeline in English, who will sent out a rectification about mistranslation?
It's getting better & better
Now that the same Ali al-Dabbagh repeats the timeline in English, who will sent out a rectification about mistranslation?
It's getting better & better
With granite countertops.
C'mon. Obama is old enough and wealthy enough to afford granite counterops, whereas McCain is so "experienced" that he was actually there when the granite formed. (It was 6,000 years ago, when the rest of the planet was intelligently designed, right?)
To be fair, al-Dabbagh's remarks were not put out by CENTCOM this time, so we're going to need to authenticate the kerning of the . . . and who taught him English anyway . . . grumble grumble.
Okay, I got it: Why won't Ali al-Dabbagh release his birth certificate?
How can anybody so stupid as to believe that there was a "translation error" of "Obama", "if he takes office", "16 months" and "suitable to end the presense of forces in Iraq."There is nothing open to interpretation.
"Obama" is the Iraqi Arabic word for "McCain".
From the linked story: "Iraq's government spokesman is hopeful that U.S. combat forces could be out of the country by 2010."
Does Matthew not understand the word "hopeful"?
I don't think he does.
Everybody's "hopeful" that that the combat troops could be out by then. We've been "hopeful" that the troops could leave quickly for quite a while.
But hope is not a plan. There is nothing inconsistent here with the Bush plan to leave as conditions allow. We all hope that conditions will allow us to leave by 2010.
However, as we all know, Obama's plan has nothing to do with whether conditions allow us to leave. Obama wants to surrender immediately and leave, no matter whether conditions allow or not.
Hope is not a plan.
I'll take hope as a plan over the strategic vision that can't tell the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, and which doesn't know its Sunnis from its Shias. That ain't even hope - just delusion to the max.
Does Matthew not understand the word "hopeful"?
Does Al not understand the meaning of "100 years" or "58 permanent bases"?
Obama's views are supported by the Iraqi people. Obama said he wanted us out. Maliki, other gov't officials, and the Iraqi people say they want us out. The majority of the American people want us out.
Bush and McSame clearly stated they wanted to long-term, semi-permanent presence, like "Germany and South Korea".
Game over, man.
Does Al not understand the meaning of "100 years"
I do understand the meaning of "100 years" - given McCain's caveat that we wouldn't be engaging in combat where soldiers were getting killed or wounded. There's nothing in McCain's statement that is inconsistent with Obama's plan to leave American troops in Iraq indefinitely to, among other things, kill al Qaeda and train Iraqis.
How long does Obama plan to leave troops in Iraq? Indefinitely.
That isn't "Al". It's too stupid to be "Al".
According to "Al" there's a history of people pretending to be him. Like a franchise. Over the last several days, really, really stupid posts have appeared under his name. (2 levels of "really" instead of the usual 1.)
Mildly OT.
I was very pleased to see the raucous support for Obama from the troops in Kuwait. Please to note, militaristic swine, there's a big difference between "willing to be deployed" and "wanting to be deployed".
So what you're saying then, "Al," is that Obama and McCain are basically in lockstep on Iraq?
That's funny. Do you think McCain will apologize for calling Obama's Iraq policy a plan for surrender then? Or is McCain now in favor of surrender? Or is he just a bullshitting opportunist who changes his position more than he changes his socks?
So what you're saying then, "Al," is that Obama and McCain are basically in lockstep on Iraq?
Huh? Uh, no. Both Obama and McCain plan to leave troops in Iraq indefinitely. But Obama plans to remove combat troops regardless of conditions on the ground. And McCain plans to remove troops as conditions allow. I don't think that's so difficult to understand.
How to write an Al comment:
1) Quote something
2) Random comment
3) Platitude
4) Deliberately misunderstand something
5) Ramble ramble
6) Wait! How did I end up in this rhetorical cul-de-sac?
"I do understand the meaning of "100 years" - given McCain's caveat that we wouldn't be engaging in combat where soldiers were getting killed or wounded."
His caveat was just "ponies and kittens galore!" Our troops in West Germany were meant to keep out the Soviets (and keep the Germans from completely re-arming so that the rest of Europe wouldn't have to fear them). Our troops in Japan and Korea were meant to keep out China, North Korea and to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union. Who would those permanent bases and troops stationed be keeping out? Iran, the founding home of much of the organized Shi'ite political institutions? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? What you call a smear is actually charitable to McCain because it's the only way his comment makes any type of sense instead of just inane rambling.
No one is covering this. Not really. It's on the blogs and even the blogs of some papers, but I just saw an Andrea Mitchell piece on "Today" about Obama's trip and Iraq with not a single -- not one -- mention of the Maliki story. Viera mentioned it briefly in her interview with McCain, then followed it up quickly with "but he has since stepped back from that statement."
Of the many, many frustrating issues with the press in this campaign, this one is ranking right up at the top. I find the lack of coverage stunning, to be perfectly honest. It feels like the WH not only got to Maliki, they also put the word out to the press that somehow reporting this story will be a national security threat, or some such nonsense. They have to go out of their way -- literally, make a concerted effort -- to avoid reporting on this story.
I just watched CNN covering Obama's trip to Iraq, and al Maliki's statements were discussed upfront, right after the general details of his trip as known and the likely meetings happening today, and the CNN correspondent emphasized that although al Maliki's office had somewhat issued statements afterwards, this clearly favored Barack Obama and the agenda he has pushed.
But Obama plans to remove combat troops regardless of conditions on the ground.
But as we've repeatedly, exhaustively, pointed out to you . . . that's fucking untrue. If it were true, Obama would have had a much easier time in the primaries. Instead, he's stuck to a conditions based withdrawal; he just wrote a whole op-ed about it in the times.
You are claiming Obama's position as McCain's and trying to invent a new, further left stance for Obama. But not two weeks ago, McCain was equating any withdrawal with surrender. He spent a whole debate browbeating Romney for pronouncing the word "timetable." There's just no way McCain can climb down from that. If the media won't beat him down for it, Democrats will murder him with paid ads.
Really people, do I have to point out that English is certainly not al-Dabbagh's first language?
He probably doesn't even know what he's saying.
I demand a credible source.
El Cid -- thanks, good to know it's getting coverage on CNN.
With all the war porn they've watched over the past few years, you'd think people like Al would have learned the difference between strategy and tactics.
Barack Obama's strategy is to leave Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Begin immediately, and be out in 16 months.
John McCain's strategy is to stay in Iraq indefinitely. That's why he supported the invasion to begin with - so we could have an ongoing presence in Iraq, like in West Germany and South Korea.
Both of them will pay a great deal of attention to the tactical advice the uniformed military gives them about the implementation of their strategies. This could mean that, for example, Barack Obama ends up pausing the withdrawal of American troops for a certain month or two during that period, so it ends up taking 19 months instead of 16.
One of them wants to walk across the room and give you a banana. The other wants to walk around the room while eating the banana. Both of them will pay attention when the janitor warns them about a slippery spot on the floor.
This is the sort of thing you have to work really, really hard not to understand.
Nathalie:
Regarding multiple posts, many here have made the same error, myself included. When you hit "Post" it may seem to process, then give you an error message. Ignore that error message. Your message has posted anyway Use your arrow keys to return to the post and reload it. Et voilà! Your post, it is there.
Welcome to the ever-expanding thrice-posting club.
Poor Matthew. Day Three of Devastating Game-Changer Watch, and still no signs of any actual devastation or changed games.
The New York Times has now relegated its "translation" piece from last night to an even lower position in its politics coverage.
And by the way, the Yahoo piece you link to does not report Ali al-Dabbagh saying that the Iraqi government thinks US troops should be out of Iraq by 2010. It says only that he is "hopeful" that U.S. combat forces "could" be out of Iraq by 2010.
southpaw,
But as we've repeatedly, exhaustively, pointed out to you . . . that's fucking untrue.
It fucking is? So Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawal isn't really a 16-month timetable for withdrawal? It's only a sorta, kinda, maybe timetable for withdrawal, as long as certain "conditions on the ground" are met? What are those conditions? How much is Obama willing to delay his "timetable" in response to them? Where has Obama explained all this? Inquiring minds want to know.
Mixner1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNGevn8vHRg
Mixner2: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. 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.
Do you think McCain will apologize for calling Obama's Iraq policy a plan for surrender then?
Judging from the talking points rolled out to the usual gobshites, McCain's going to graciously accept thanks for personally arranging the victory that permits a withdrawal, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Bonus coverage: Shorter Mixner.
southpaw,
Sorry, non-responsive. Vague allusions to "consultations" are meaningless. Nowhere in your quote does Obama describe the conditions on which his 16-month timetable is supposedly contingent. Nowhere does he describe how his "consultations" with "commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government" would affect his timetable. What are the conditions on which his timetable is dependent? What are the conditions that would cause him to extend his timetable? By how much would he extend his timetable in response to adverse conditions or his "consultations?" A few months? A year? Multiple years?
Obama is trying to have it both ways. Out of one side of his mouth, he's trying to create the impression that he has a "fixed" timetable, to avoid alienating his anti-war base ("Obama says he'll get us out in 16 months! Yay!"). And out of the other side, he alludes vaguely to conditions and qualifications that could extend that timetable indefinitely, to avoid alienating potential supporters who think a fixed timetable is unrealistic. And of course, he's never made any remotely clear statements about how many troops he plans to leave in Iraq as his "residual force," or how long he plans to keep them there.
Obama's walking a tightrope on Iraq, and sooner or later he's going to fall off. He's already pissed off a lot of his base with his moves to the center on FISA and other issues, but that's nothing compared to the fallout as the anti-war leftwingnuts realize he's been playing them for the fools they are on Iraq.
Obama is trying to have it both ways.
You'd be surprised at how much of that is going around.
Mixner, I have a plan to go to the store to buy some food for dinner, which I plan to serve around 7:30. I expect to get a couple steaks, some corn, carrots, and new potatoes (I'm barbecuing). Naturally, the execution of this plan will depend on conditions on the ground, including but not limited to food prices, whether I need to buy charcoal, when my roommates get home, traffic patterns, consultations with the butcher, and prevailing weather conditions. These considerations may change the plan, but they won't change the objective, which is to expeditiously serve dinner for myself and my roommates. That said, I can't particularize for you what all the contingent scenarios might be or say definitively how I will accommodate them and at what exact moment the food will be on the table. To do so would be even more time consuming, useless and stupid than responding to you, and that's saying something.
Comments closed August 04, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Damn it, now I'm thinking about Scarlett J. lounging around in her panties.
Posted by live | July 21, 2008 10:10 AM