Standing Pat

Der Spiegel stands by its story:

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.

As well they should. They had an on-the-record interview in which Maliki's remarks were not at all ambiguous and during which time he repeatedly returned to the subject of thinking that Obama's proposals are the right framework within which to proceed. Against that there's a non-denial denial, in another person's name, issued by CENTCOM. Considering that Maliki in effect lives and works inside a CENTCOM controlled military installation, that's some exceedingly weak tea he served up.

Comments

Big International Media Matt.

"Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by 'how little effort was made' to make the Baghdad denial convincing."

So klug!

Posted by Kiril | July 20, 2008 12:23 PM

If a game-changing bombshell lands in the desert and no US media pick up on it, did it really happen? Answer, No. But they're doing a fine job of reporting the retraction without even mentioning the original statement.

As always one need only posit the opposite case--Maliki coming out explicitly in favor of McCain's "Stay for 100 years" policy--and imagine the media treatment of same to understand what the term "stacked deck" means. Don't worry though. The incessant repetition of Michelle Obama's "proud" statement and the Wright sermons ensures that Obama's getting much more coverage than McCain. So we should be happy with how it's all going.

Posted by DrBB | July 20, 2008 12:27 PM

Der SPIEGEL is the most important and reputable news magazine in Germany, and it also offers the biggest news website in German. It is majority-owned by the employees, which means that there's no big shareholder in the background pulling the strings and influencing the reporting. Spiegel's _factual statements_ are regarded with utmost credibility in Germany, even when the commentaries and editorials can be controversial.

The probability that Der SPIEGEL not only mistranslated the same things multiple times AND having Maliki fail to recognize this when his interview was signed off (standard practice) is so low that you need to be literally BRAINDEAD to believe it.

Well, that describes CNN, for example.

Sorry, but America has no free credible mass media left.

Posted by Mentar | July 20, 2008 12:29 PM

Der Spiegel's journalistic standards are generally lackluster, and most of its reporting is one-sided issues advocacy.

Journalistic standards in Germany are generally pretty bad, though. The only half-way respectable traditions in journalism are from the post-war period, as every government before squashed any type of reporting that didn't toe the government line.

Easily 90 percent of German journalists are card-carrying Social Democrats or (com)post-communist members of die Linke.

Posted by MarkG | July 20, 2008 12:38 PM

MarkG has a thoroughly convincing argument about that silly German media. I bet they never even correctly reported the story of Iraq's WMD's that imminently threatened the U.S. and Britain. And they're probably gay and wear black and stuff and sip whatever the German elitist equivalent of lattes are.

Posted by El Cid | July 20, 2008 12:46 PM

Yeah, and they're all descended from Nazis, Nazi sympathizers, or traitors who resisted their government. Or else they're dark.

The French media also can't be trusted; they're card carrying Frenchmen!

Posted by Luke | July 20, 2008 12:46 PM

But here's the thing, completely justified media bashing aside: You know are the only ones who can and should keep this in play? The Obama campaign, that's who. If they were to take a page from the GOP playbook, it's fairly simple: Treat the original al Maliki statement as genuine (which it is) and trumpet it long and loud while ignoring the "retraction" as if it never happened. If the press come back with "What about the retraction," it's just an opportunity to keep the main story up front while pointing out that the retraction doesn't seem to have actually retracted anything (What was mistranslated? Anything? Who speaks for Maliki? Maliki or this other guy?) The controversy keeps the issue in play, and the self-evident lameness of the walkback gets paraded out in public repeatedly under the aegis of the original, quite unambiguous statement, instead of vice versa.

The alternative? Sit back and expect the Corporate Media to Tell The Truth and have nothing to respond with but wonder and befuddlement and Grave Disappointment when they don't. The Kerry approach. The Democratic Consultancy approach. Guess which one we're going to see?

Posted by DrBB | July 20, 2008 12:55 PM

It is obvious that non-denial denials from someone other than the source coming directly from the American government are far more reliable than al-Maliki direct statements! The story is completely bogus!

Posted by Blixner the Hack | July 20, 2008 1:00 PM

Yeah, the Obama campaign better be crafting something good to explicitly use this occurrence.

Posted by Reality Man | July 20, 2008 1:02 PM

If you don't read German, you'll find media critics who take occasional looks into the lop-sided, activist yellow journalism typified by German MSM reporting on the US.

Of course, slavish devotees of rags like The Nation would find their worldview reflected perfectly.

Posted by MarkG | July 20, 2008 1:03 PM

But here's the thing, completely justified media bashing aside: You know are the only ones who can and should keep this in play? The Obama campaign, that's who.

Ding ding ding. Let's see if the team that isn't travelling right now has the smarts to ensure that every stateside Obama surrogate hammers this home.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 20, 2008 1:05 PM

Der Spiegel's journalistic standards are generally lackluster, and most of its reporting is one-sided issues advocacy.

As opposed to the impeccable journalist and truth-telling standards of the Green Zone Information Warfare team. Nothing lackluster about those. No one-sided issues advocacy there. Nope.

Posted by DrBB | July 20, 2008 1:08 PM

I am genuinely impressed by MarkG's ability to treat the raving screed he linked to as a serious critique of Der Spiegel, which no one suggested was some sort of supra-journalistic fount of god-hood.

Posted by El Cid | July 20, 2008 1:09 PM

Shorter MarkG: "Der Speigel" is hopelessly left-wing cuz I say so, so we can't trust an interview in which CENTCOM's denial can't point to a single specific problem with the interview.

Posted by Reality Man | July 20, 2008 1:12 PM

I am sure the backtrack came from threats by the vp in the bowels of death.
But, apparently now the white house may have another problem
Their hero, petraus, says that al qaida is focsing on Afg. and not much on Iraq anymore and that they are moving towards that region.
Sounds like Petraus may be moving away from the bushies and agreeing, at least some, with Obama.
Someone needs to make sure McCain and Bush keep a bottle of asprin around for all these headaches that keep coming everyday from their former 'allies'

Posted by vwcat | July 20, 2008 1:16 PM

Hehe. It's pretty humorous to see the left-wing European Obama media sycophants try to win the election for John McCain. It's not surprising, of course - the left-wing media will always try its best to win the campaign for the left-wing candidate, which is why it has been scientifically proven that the left-wing MSM is in the tank for Obama (not that the left-wing Democrats care about science - they will continue with their faith-based, but scientifically proven false, belief that the media favors McCain).

But it is even funnier to see Obama-hacks like Matthew continue to believe the false story even after it has been denied. It's like Matthew doesn't even care about the truth - he's happy to repeat the false version of the story for so long as he thinks it benefits Obama. (Note that this is surely why he is moving to ThinkProgress - it's a place much more conducive to lying than is The Atlantic.)

Posted by Al | July 20, 2008 1:17 PM

Obama said towards the end of the primaries that he has been holding back from attacking Hillary because she is in his party, but he won't be so easy on McCain.

I'm waiting.

Posted by Arnold Evans | July 20, 2008 1:41 PM

Al-- see, the thing is, in the "scientific proof" you link to, the main critical story of McCain is that he may not be conservative enough. To those of us on the left, those go in the "positive" column, rather than accounting for most of the negative ones.

And what the hell is this about "even after it has been denied"? It HAPPENED. Maliki walked into the room, and he said what he is quoted as saying.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | July 20, 2008 1:55 PM

Ah the last refuge of the incompetent - oh noes, teh media isn't telling teh story rite, they are using facts instead of the Republican line.

Look MarkG, the Iraqis want the United States to pack up and get the fuck out of their country. Why? Because it is an occupying army that has no business trying to tell the Iraqis what to do. It didn't have that right five years ago and it doesn't have that right now.

Does this match Obama's plan? Of course it does. That's the difference between him and Bush/McCain - he understands the word sovereign. It isn't just a buzzword. It means the decisions about who is and isn't in your country belong to you - not some far off dictator.

Posted by Not as stupid as James Robertson | July 20, 2008 2:15 PM

MarkG: For your information, I'm a core voter of the conservative CDU. Your assessment that 90% of journalists are social democrats or "Die Linke" socialists only demonstrates how clueless you are about Germany, and is more indicative or your own extreme positions than those of German news sources.

Germany's journalistic standards are generally fairly high. Unlike the US, which has a high concentration of media ownership in few hands, there are publications of virtually any kind of political background. It also doesn't have the self-imposed filtering of news which might conflict with patriotism, which is particularly prevalent in the US.

The site MarkG listed is pretty well-known to me: It's frequented by right-wing Americans, who combat what they perceive to be "anti-american" news reporting in Germany. I suspect that it's on some lists circulating in American blogospheres, and it's partly horrifying and partly amusing how many Americans believe to know what German journalism looks like by reading this pamphlet page. Anyone interested is heartily invited to give the page (and particularly comment section) a visit. It's a cesspool of Germany bashing by proud faithful white American patriots, an echo chamber par excellence. You won't find many Germans there though, a humorous contrast to the site's own mission statement.

To sum it up: Matt is right. We have this quarter-hearted weak denial of an unknown government official passed out by the American PR outlet in Iraq, which doesn't even specify what kind of "mistranslation" might have caused a "misunderstanding" on one hand, and a detailed interview log on the other, provided by the leading newsmagazine in Germany, which happens to exactly mirror what Maliki and sources have said before several times.

Make up your own mind.

Posted by Mentar | July 20, 2008 2:56 PM

Obvious question: does Der Spiegel have tape recordings of the interview?

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | July 20, 2008 3:06 PM

Wow, you can just smell the desperation from the right-wing over this. Al, your words don't look tough, just sad.

Posted by Reality Man | July 20, 2008 3:20 PM

Bruce: I'm not a direct employee of Der SPIEGEL, but I'm managing half of their internet portal, so I happen to have some firsthand experience with them.

Interviews of this scale are _naturally_ taped, and even more: They will have at least one certified translator of the visitor's native language present, AND they will present a transcript of the interview for the visitor to recheck before publication.

I'm convinced that this is why the denial was so wishy-washy: If they'd openly accuse SPIEGEL of falsehoods, they could easily prove that their transcript and translation will have been correct. This way they simply remain on the "this transcript is what happened, and we stick to it" stance. But it will be a pleasure for me to ask for some more details tomorrow.

Guys, keep in mind, this is Germany's leading news magazine, no sensationalist gotcha investigative journalism blog.

Posted by Mentar | July 20, 2008 3:29 PM

Atlantic Monthly should check the ip logs to confirm that someone else is posting as "Al". "Real" Al usually confines himself to a single wowzer per post. This one has several. And the "Al" post above even begins with a "Hehe". I don't remember "Real" Al ever resorting to contrived "hilarity".

---

A counter for something like this can only legitimately come from Maliki himself, and then to keep from sounding like the result of arm-twisting by his masters, he should assert a change of heart rather than make an accusation that he was misquoted.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 20, 2008 3:46 PM

Oh darn...does this mean Maliki will not do a 60 Minutes interview in September?

Posted by jerri | July 20, 2008 3:48 PM

Oh darn...does this mean Maliki will not do a 60 Minutes interview in September?

Posted by jerri | July 20, 2008 3:48 PM

Interviews of this scale are _naturally_ taped, and even more: They will have at least one certified translator of the visitor's native language present, AND they will present a transcript of the interview for the visitor to recheck before publication.

What's their editing policy? Maliki was at an Arab conference lately talking about timetables and he's on tape and when the BBC ran it, an aide gave them a transcript of what he said...except that *wasn't* what he said and basically Maliki told them it didn't matter, the transcript was the official version.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 20, 2008 3:56 PM

Mark G's post is grade A bullshit. The claims he makes demonstrate that he doesn't know the first thing about Germany, its media, or its history. Let's just take this:

"The only half-way respectable traditions in journalism are from the post-war period, as every government before squashed any type of reporting that didn't toe the government line."

Der Spiegel was founded shortly after the war and exemplifies the post-war tradition in Germany journalism more than any other publication. So this assessment makes no sense whatsoever as a criticism of Spiegel. The other half of the sentence shows a bottomless ignorance about German history. Pre-1933 German governments most certainly did not squash any reporting that didn't toe the government line. But who knows, perhaps our expert believes that the Nazis really were in power for a thousand years?

Posted by gr | July 20, 2008 4:11 PM

That 'scientifically proven' link is one of This Particular "Al"'s tics. Never mind that he's too dumb to understand the linked article, and gets slapped down for it every time he posts it. Ah, the diminishing returns of paid trolls.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 20, 2008 4:35 PM

Der Spiegel stands by its story

Well it would, wouldn't it?

Meanwhile, the response in America to your "devastating game-changer" has been a monumental collective yawn. Even before Maliki corrected Der Spiegel's misrepresentation of his comments. In fact, reports of your "devastating game-changer" in the American media came and went so fast hardly any ordinary Americans will even be aware of the story at all. It's been barely mentioned in the major print and television media, and it came and went in a flash on the websites of CNN, MSNBC, etc.

The real story in all of this is your gullibility. Next time, you might want to try exercising just a little more restraint in your tendency for wishful thinking.

Posted by Mixner | July 20, 2008 4:43 PM

Yes, the "real story" is that Mixner, torture supporter and cheerleader for the slaughter of men, women, and children, is still pimping occupation. What do the Iraqis want? "Fuck them," says Mixner, the only real news is what the occupying army says is news.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 20, 2008 5:07 PM

The real story is that not-as-stupid, supporter of the wholesale slaughter of Iraqi men, women and children, apologist for Saddam Hussein, and defender of war crimes by Bill Clinton, is still as morally and intellectually bankrupt as ever.

Posted by Not-as-stupid is insane | July 20, 2008 5:13 PM

Poor Mixner, maybe Bush will start bombing Iran so you can get your fix of dead brown bodies.

Human beings hope that doesn't happen. Mixner, not so much.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 20, 2008 5:18 PM

Even before Maliki corrected Der Spiegel's misrepresentation of his comments.

Mixner is lying. Maliki did no such thing. In fact, nothing that could be called a "correction" was issued, even by CENTCOM.

Posted by hello | July 20, 2008 5:29 PM

Mixner is lying

Mixner gets told what to think, he's not bright enough to create.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 20, 2008 5:32 PM

Mixner is lying. Maliki did no such thing.

hello is lying. Maliki did exactly what Mixner said.

Posted by goodbye | July 20, 2008 5:39 PM

OK, Mixner/"goodbye," show me where I'm wrong. Provide a link to a correction made by Maliki.

Posted by hello | July 20, 2008 5:44 PM

Re Mark G

Mr. Mark G probably thinks that the Washington Times represents good journalism.

Posted by SLC | July 20, 2008 5:52 PM

show me where I'm wrong.

"hello", it's not anyone else's job to disprove your false claim. It's up to you to prove it. Which you cannot do of course because it's false.

Posted by hiya | July 20, 2008 6:06 PM

That's transparently pathetic, Mixner.

Posted by hello | July 20, 2008 6:26 PM

Mentar,

It also doesn't have the self-imposed filtering of news which might conflict with patriotism, which is particularly prevalent in the US.

That's a rather long-winded way of saying that SPON puffs up its "reporting" with editorializing. Some of the more flat-out leftist reporting from America, mainly on the reporter's opinion, came from Mr. Pitzke, which the online edition rarely ever translates into English, if ever.

The most revolting period for me was when, under Augstein, the magazine seemed to be promoting the ideas of Horst Mahler, now a national socialist, and an old friend of Gerhard Schroeder.

There was a reason that Helmut Kohl wouldn't talk to Der Spiegel -- he knew full well that the magazine would simply distort and selectively edit anything he said.

Since it seems to be tilting towards Steingart as chief editor, there seems to be some improvement in the magazine, but the SPON is sensationalized: I've seen plenty of "reports" from America there that are mistranslated -- as in, changing the "facts" in the story -- from original AP or Reuters headlines pulled from Drudge Report.

Finally, half of the CDU is made up of Herz-Jesu-Sozialisten, so that's no claim to conservatism. FWIW, I was a member of the FDP for about five years. But that party will have to change its line or disappear, since 90 percent of Germans seem to want Vater Staat to grow and grow and grow.

Posted by MarkG | July 20, 2008 6:28 PM

Ben Smith:

It's almost a convention of politics that when a politician says he was misquoted, but doesn't detail the misquote or offer an alternative, he's really saying he wishes he hadn't said what he did, or that he needs to issue a pro-forma denial to please someone.

The Iraqi Prime Minister's vague denial seems to fall in that category. The fact that it arrived to the American press via CENTCOM, seems to support that. It came, as Mike Allen notes, 18 hours later, and at 1:30 a.m. Eastern, a little late for Sunday papers; his staff also seems, Der Spiegel reports, not to have contested Iraqi reporting of the quote, even in the "government-affiliated" Iraqi press.

The notion this was a misquote also bumps up against Der Spiegel's standing by its reporting, and providing a long, detailed transcript.

The Washington Post reports that the Iraqi government's "mistranslated, misunderstood" statement came only after the U.S. embassy called to complain about the Maliki interview. I'm sure they were just calling to debate the fine points of Arabic to English translation. Or maybe not:

But after the Spiegel interview was published and began generating headlines Saturday, 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.

Posted by southpaw | July 20, 2008 6:49 PM

It's pretty obvious that Maliki committed the classic 'political gaffe' (in kinsley's definition), someone who accidentally says what he thinks. Then, maybe he realized that Bush is still president and has a lot of power, so he sorta kinda indirectly maybe backtracked really weakly on his original clear and strong statement.

Is it possible to hold another view of these events?

As for Mixner's utter compulsive obsession with the phrase 'game changer,' who knows? Maybe members of the media and/or bloggers calling this some electoral or political 'game changer' overstated the case, but the jury's still out on that.

Of course, what is a 'game changer' is frequently not measurable (was the 'swift boat' moment in '04 a 'game changer?'), the point is that the Maliki moment seems like a big deal to the W.H., to the McCain campaign, and to Centcom.

Isn't there something more interesting to discuss as to whether it crossed a vague threshold no one can define?

We'll know, probably several months or a year from now, whether this moment meant the end of the McCain campaign and Bush changing his position from 'basically stay w/o timetables' to 'leave pretty soon with timetables.'

Mixner, would you feel better if Yglesias and everyone else said 'ok, we're not 100% positive this is a "game changer," but this seems like a really big deal, both politically and practically'?

Can we then move on?

Posted by mike | July 20, 2008 6:50 PM

You can be sure that there is a tape, a transcript, a document on which Maliki or one of his people signed off on the whole thing before it was published and on request testimony of a certified translator. I wonder why nobody has asked Der Spiegel to produce these. You wanna play hardball with Der Spiegel - go for it.

Posted by novakant | July 20, 2008 7:11 PM

Here's the transcript in English.

Posted by southpaw | July 20, 2008 7:28 PM

Hot Air captured the following passage from the English translation of Maliki's Der Spiegel interview:

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. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

Here's how the exchange reads now:

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.

There is no explanation of the rewrite.

Spiegel says: "SPIEGEL stands by its version of the conversation." That's great . . . but which one?

Posted by Patterico | July 20, 2008 8:08 PM

Uh, Patterico, where are they getting that alleged original version?

That's not how the Maliki quote appeared in the version the White House blasted out when the story broke.

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Sat 7/19/2008 12:56 PM

Subject: Reuters - Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine

Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine

BERLIN, July 19 (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a

German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential

candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within

16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted

U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"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 the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by

Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a

tour of Europe and the Middle East.

Obama has called for a shift away from a "single-minded" focus on Iraq and

wants to pull out troops within 16 months, instead adding U.S. soldiers to

Afghanistan.

[. . .]

Posted by southpaw | July 20, 2008 8:16 PM

Hot Air got it from the source. Allahpundit tends to report stories right away, and he quoted the passage before it was rewritten.

Here is a blogger at BarackObama.com touting the quote as originally reported by Hot Air.

Looks like Maliki's office is telling the truth after all. Matthew?

Posted by Patterico | July 20, 2008 8:22 PM

Looks like Maliki's office is telling the truth after all.

The statement by Maliki's office was an at best half-hearted attempt to distance Maliki (by citing unspecified translation issues) from the fact that Maliki said he liked Obama's plan. The version you're flacking retains that pro-Obama feature just as much as the other one, so I'm not sure what you think your point is.

Posted by guyx | July 20, 2008 8:42 PM

The Hill also has the original version of the quote attributed to Maliki by Der Spiegel in its report from 10:33am yesterday:

Asked in an interview with German news magazine Der Spiegel of when he would like to see American forces leave Iraq, Maliki said: “As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned.” He then added that “Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.”

So not only did Der Spiegel mistranslate, misrepresent and misconstrue what Maliki said, but it's now doctoring its own story in an attempt to cover up its original version of what Maliki said. Really, really, really dishonest.

Posted by fmc | July 20, 2008 8:49 PM

It is clear and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt: Dan Rather forged the Spiegel interview with Maliki, in order to cover up for the fake birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama X, which in turn was all done so as to prove the global warming hoax, which Al Gore made up, and also he is fat.

Posted by El Cid | July 20, 2008 8:53 PM

This "gotcha" is basically backing up the facts of Maliki's own statement released originally. I really don't see what all of you guys are braying about. The guy certainly doesn't think that McCain's ideas are worthwhile.

Posted by Tyro | July 20, 2008 8:55 PM

I thought my point was clear, but I'll make it even clearer.

There is a CNN story online now that says this:

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

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.

In this post, Yglesias mocks this as a "non-denial denial, in another person's name, issued by CENTCOM."

But the original translation by Der Spiegel -- not the "version" I'm "flacking" but rather Der Spiegel's own original translation -- translates Maliki's answer differently, and explicitly included a condition of security improvements:

Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

So my point is simple: the clarification by Maliki's office is in line with what Der Spiegel originally reported.

If you want to argue that the original quote was still supportive of Obama's plan, be my guest. But let's not pretend that the clarification by Maliki's office was manufactured after the fact under pressure from the U.S. How does that square with the fact that the paper itself originally reported exactly what Maliki's office now claims?

Additionally, there's something very weaselly about a paper "standing by its story" even as it rewrites that story in its most significant aspect, and fails to inform readers of that fact.

Posted by Patterico | July 20, 2008 8:55 PM

Do you guys actually see this as calling into question that Maliki was endorsing Obama's plan?

Or are you just saying, "Look, there was a change! So there really are TRANSLATION PROBLEMS!! Therefore Maliki's office was right! Therefore Maliki didn't say he likes Obama's plan!"

Is that really the "argument"? Because that's all I can see here, so far. It's so transcendently dumb that I fear I must be misunderstanding your "point," so please feel free to explain it further.

Posted by guyx | July 20, 2008 8:57 PM

The question of the weekend, which needs to be rammed home throughout the week, is why NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al., buried the Maliki story. What gives here? Bias? Brain death? Lack of coherent counterspin so the reporting can appear "balanced?"

Maybe (1). There's certainly plenty of evidence, on this and other topics, of (2). But I'm betting on (3). Two days into the story, NRO's The Corner, a likely candidate for Counterspin Central, has posted NOT. ONE. WORD.

Posted by allbetsareoff | July 20, 2008 9:02 PM

If you want to argue that the original quote was still supportive of Obama's plan, be my guest.

Of course I want to "argue" that (or rather point it out, since it's a fact in plain evidence, not requiring argument). The thing is, I thought that's what all this was about: whether Maliki really meant to say he favors Obama's ideas and approach, and a timeline for the US getting out. The fact that you're choosing to emphasize another part, one that doesn't affect any of that, looks to me like an attempt at misdirection.

Posted by guyx | July 20, 2008 9:04 PM

Der Spiegel has now been caught redhanded changing its quote without any notification of the change. That violates one of the basic principles of journalistic integrity. The magazine clearly cannot be trusted on this matter, period. Until the quote is confirmed through an independent translation and transcription of the interview's audio recording by a third party, nothing reported in Der Spiegel's story should be taken seriously.

Posted by Jason | July 20, 2008 9:08 PM

It seems to me clear that Maliki approves of Obama's 16-month plan, assuming everything continues positively on the security front (something that wouldn't be happening if we had listened to Obama before the surge, or in January 2007 when he advocated a pullout then).

I'm not trying to argue otherwise.

My point is pretty clear:

Matthew's post, trumpeting the fact that the denial was passed on through CENTCOM and not issued by Maliki himself, implies that the clarification from Maliki's office is the product of US pressure, and isn't true. And that implication is clearly false.

Spiegel rewrote the quote. The original quote said exactly what Maliki's office is now saying.

By the way, they rewrote the quote and didn't tell readers that fact. That is weaselly. Don't you agree?

Posted by Patterico | July 20, 2008 9:14 PM

Spiegel rewrote the quote. The original quote said exactly what Maliki's office is now saying.

But Maliki's office's statement was universally taken to be intended to mitigate or walk back from Maliki's endorsement of Obama's ideas. That's what the whole foofaraw has been about, from where I sit. This difference between versions does not have anything to do with that point, as far as I can see.

By the way, they rewrote the quote and didn't tell readers that fact. That is weaselly. Don't you agree?

I agree that it merits further scrutiny / explanation. Possibly there is, in fact, a translation issue there. As it happens, I am a professional translator, and I know translation can be a very tricky business -- an acknowledgement that does not, of course, mean that Maliki's office's statement was not a vague non-denial CYA move.

Posted by guyx | July 20, 2008 9:24 PM

As Day Two of the "devastating game-changer" draws to a close, signs of either devastatation or a changed game are still hard to come by.

What will Day Three bring, I wonder. Will desperate Obamabots still be trying to breathe life into this decomposing corpse of a story? Stay tuned.

Posted by Mixner | July 20, 2008 9:35 PM

There is far to much money at stake in Iraq for the right wing to let it go. Somebody called al-Maliki on the carpet.

http://papastraighttalk.blogspot.com/2008/07/spiegel-and-al-maliki-endorsement-of.html

Bush is pissed off and so is McCain simply because the guy wanting his independence finnally has a friendly ear that wants to talk about our nation getting the hell out of Iraq that was a damn lie to begin with. The call was made and the Prime Minister lost his damn nerve.

Posted by Papamoka | July 20, 2008 9:47 PM

There is far to much money at stake in Iraq for the right wing to let it go. Somebody called al-Maliki on the carpet.

http://papastraighttalk.blogspot.com/2008/07/spiegel-and-al-maliki-endorsement-of.html

Bush is pissed off and so is McCain simply because the guy wanting his independence finnally has a friendly ear that wants to talk about our nation getting the hell out of Iraq that was a damn lie to begin with. The call was made and the Prime Minister lost his damn nerve.

Posted by Papamoka | July 20, 2008 9:50 PM

There is far to much money at stake in Iraq for the right wing to let it go. Somebody called al-Maliki on the carpet.

Read my post on it!

Bush is pissed off and so is McCain simply because the guy wanting his independence finnally has a friendly ear that wants to talk about our nation getting the hell out of Iraq that was a damn lie to begin with. The call was made and the Prime Minister lost his damn nerve.

Posted by Papamoka | July 20, 2008 9:52 PM

There is far to much money at stake in Iraq for the right wing to let it go. Somebody called al-Maliki on the carpet.

Read my post on it!

Bush is pissed off and so is McCain simply because the guy wanting his independence finnally has a friendly ear that wants to talk about our nation getting the hell out of Iraq that was a damn lie to begin with. The call was made and the Prime Minister lost his damn nerve.

Posted by Papamoka | July 20, 2008 9:52 PM

I have not seen any proof that Der Spiegel changed the transcript. Hot Air links to Reuters, which in turn uses the same words as the transcript. The fact that Hot Air uses quotes the different wording proves nothing.

Posted by novakant | July 20, 2008 10:00 PM

La-la-la I can't hear you!

Posted by Obliviouxner | July 20, 2008 10:01 PM

The Hill quoted the original version just as Hot Air did.

Posted by Patterico | July 20, 2008 10:22 PM

Okay y'all, this article should add to the fun.

But the interpreter for the interview works for Maliki's office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Maliki's interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for 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 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.iht.com/articles/2008/07/21/america/21obama.php

However, a right wing blogger found some anonymous dude threatened by a dead rabbit to look at the article and he decided that the kerning and RGB heat values proved it a forgery.

And also Obama's birth certificate proves he was born a Martian Muslim if you look at it with 3D glasses on a New Moon upside down & backwards.

Posted by El Cid | July 20, 2008 10:34 PM

gr:

Pre-1933 German governments most certainly did not squash any reporting that didn't toe the government line.

Well, it should be easy enough then to name publications from prior to 1946 that the government never shut down or censored. Sheesh, read Heinrich Mann's Der Untertan and get a clue about Wilhelmine Germany. The chauvinistic nationalists during the Weimar period, as a contrast, used the wild proliferation of media during that short period when censorship was very lenient as "proof" that the Kaiser's and earlier rulers' censorship were essential to keep Germans from descending into Western and American "decadence," as they saw it.

Please. Haven't you heard of Heinrich Heine's exile? Why do you think that happened? Heine's Wanderlust?

The one-time Land der Dichter und Denker has been the Land der undichten Bedenkenträger for some time now. And the public obsession with "consensus" and "harmony" where everyone marches down the collectivist road to serfdom has played a large role in modern German devotion to the Leviathan and creating DDR-Light.

Posted by MarkG | July 20, 2008 10:42 PM

OK, that NYT translation cited in the IHT doesn't say anything about "assuming positive developments," which could - possibly - point to an early translation that got a little too loose interpretively and was replaced by a later, more careful / 'literal' one. It would be good to see the complete NYT transcript if they have one, as it seems more literal.

One thing all this points up is the extreme slipperiness of the very idea of a 'literal' translation. Interesting (at least for me as a pro translator) to see that issue have some real-world political repercussions.

Posted by guyx | July 20, 2008 10:50 PM

That IHT article is also available now at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html?hp , and Andrew Sullivan just put it on his site.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | July 20, 2008 10:55 PM

They probably should have asked the Iranian embassy for the correct quote since no doubt Maliki was speaking on Iran's behalf.

That the right wing freak shows here go ape shit pretty much proves the CENTCOM denial is bullshit since the freak shows pretty much react the same way the Bush administration does.

All the screaming over "translation error" is hilarious. They had no problem accepting that Ahmadinejad's incorrectly translated statement about Israel was the truth directly from his lips that proved he wanted to annihilate all Jews.

Morons, the lot.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 20, 2008 10:59 PM

Yes, but the bottom line is that we now have a tape, with Maliki saying in Arabic (rendered into English very literally) that Obama's 16-mo timetable "could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."

And even more pointedly, "who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

Period. That should end the bullshit controversy about "translation" that the administration twisted arms to create. And since the NYT went to the trouble of getting this tape, I would imagine that they are going to keep running with the story.

Meanwhile, John McCain is digging himself in deeper, quoting admirals who say we've just *gotta* stay in Iraq, no matter what the Iraqis want. I'd say we're getting a pretty clear contrast on foreign policy.

Posted by Ted | July 20, 2008 11:01 PM

So we now have at least three different versions of this alleged quote by Maliki. The original Der Spiegel version, the doctored Der Spiegel version, and the New York Times version. Which one are we supposed to believe is accurate, if any? And regarding the Times version, what is "....it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq...." supposed to mean? "Could be suitable" depending on what? The Times also reports Maliki's political advisor as stating that Maliki's comments were motivated in part by "domestic political pressure to withdraw," which suggests that, whatever it is that Maliki really said, it didn't necessarily represent his own view.

Posted by Jason | July 20, 2008 11:04 PM

...The Times also reports Maliki's political advisor as stating that Maliki's comments were motivated in part by "domestic political pressure to withdraw," which suggests that, whatever it is that Maliki really said, it didn't necessarily represent his own view...

Oh, Jiminy F***ing Christmas. Whereas, with Good American Patriot Conservative politicians, we are always and for true 100% sure that they mean what they say and they say what they mean and would never ever be so bad as to say something and then have a spokesman come out and say they actually meant something else and certainly not think about "domestic political pressure", it's like John S. McCain III how he just sort of vents the natural essence of the universe through his soul and his pure and unspoiled words fall like honey raindrops upon our mind's eye, and if we blink we shall miss the beauty.

Posted by El Cid | July 20, 2008 11:09 PM

Which one are we supposed to believe is accurate, if any?

The one in which he endorses the McCain-approved Korea-style ongoing multi-decade presence? Oh, I forgot, that one doesn't fucking exist.

But, please, send out a brigade of your finest kerners, if you can afford to take any off the ongoing War On Obama's Birth Certificate.

Posted by wingnut cleanup on aisle five | July 20, 2008 11:19 PM

OK, here is some sheer speculation, pulled out of my nether regions:

Suppose Maliki, when talking about the possibility of a withdrawal, dropped the word "insh'allah" while referring to it. Literally that means something like "if Allah wills it," and is an expression used commonly through Arab/Muslim culture, simply as a feature of the way they talk. A bit as if a US politician said, "God willing, we can get them out of there soon."

That could conceivably get translated as "assuming positive developments" by a translator working under a tight deadline and trying to "Westernize" the idiom. And could just as well be later removed by an editor, or upon reflection, as misleading, the idea being that it was just a kind of verbal placeholder or colloquial not meant to express or imply a point of policy.

Who knows. But these are the kinds of issues that can arise in translation sometimes.

Posted by guyx | July 20, 2008 11:20 PM

["colloquialism," not "colloquial"]

Posted by guyx | July 20, 2008 11:23 PM

guyx: That's a good hypothesis, but it doesn't yet explain why the Apollo astronaut's visor was lit even though the Sun was behind him!!!

Posted by El Cid | July 20, 2008 11:24 PM

I'm late to the thread, but skimming the posted remarks, it's really heartwarming to to see that these right-wingers are coming around to admit there might have been some ambiguity in the translation of Ahmadenijad's remarks about Israel. After all, English and Farsi are such different languages, with such idiomatic diversity, that one could almost say it's impossible to translate between the two with 100% accuracy, and....

Oh, wait, this is something completely, completely different. Never mind.

Posted by James Gary | July 20, 2008 11:49 PM

Just for the sake of it, I thought I'd put all the versions in one place:

Hot Air/Hill: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes . . . Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic."

Spiegel: "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....Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic."

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."

This has been said before, but I want to underline it: I read each of those to say that Barack Obama has the better plan for Iraq. Does anyone care to dispute that this is the meaning that each version conveys? If not, then I say we all file this next to the birth certificate and move on.

Posted by southpaw | July 20, 2008 11:56 PM

Oh, somebody please toss a life preserver to Jason. Even though he seems rather dim, I can't stand to see him drown.

Posted by Woody Bombay | July 21, 2008 12:09 AM

This has been said before, but I want to underline it: I read each of those to say that Barack Obama has the better plan for Iraq.

Then you need to enter a remedial reading program. None of them say that. As someone noted above, the mysterious "could be suitable" qualification in the Times "translation" just raises the question of what conditions Maliki had in mind. It implies that his support for Obama's timetable for withdrawal is conditional on the achievement of certain security and political goals in Iraq. Which is closer to McCain's position. Obama himself has vaguely suggested that his timetable is subject to such conditions, but has not so far made a clear statement on the question, precisely because he knows that any clear implication that his timetable is provisional and subject to change will alienate much of his base. Sooner or later, and certainly during the televised debates with McCain, Obama is going to be forced to state a clearer position on his plans for Iraq. I can't wait for the fallout from that.

The broader point, which still seems to elude you, is that no one really cares about this story except Obamabot obsessives like Matthew and Ambinder and you. The average American doesn't even know who Maliki is, let alone cares what he thinks about the U.S. presidential candidates.

Posted by Mixner | July 21, 2008 12:26 AM

I'm not sure I've ever read anything quite that stupid.

Posted by southpaw | July 21, 2008 12:32 AM

The average American doesn't even know who Maliki is, let alone cares what he thinks about the U.S. presidential candidates.

Shorter Mixner: the average American is dumber than me, and that's saying something. Gotta love the projection.

Posted by Mixnermatosis | July 21, 2008 12:41 AM

The only reason every news agency on the planet carried the original story and the New York Times obtained an original audio recording of this interview is because no one cares about this and all of you need to stop paying attention to this now, else I will be forced to tell you all in excruciatingly redundant form the same exact thing.

Posted by El Cid | July 21, 2008 12:45 AM

Ah Mixner the moron chiding others for their reading skills. It's beyond parody. It's like getting a lecture on astrophysics from a particularly dim two-year-old.

Unlike John Of The 100-Year Occupation, Obama recognizes the sovereignty of the Iraqi people. This alone makes him the favored candidate of the oppressed Iraqis. That Mixner can't tell that the quotes all essentially say - get the fuck out - is merely the product of the fact that he's a total douchebag opposed to anything that will result in fewer dead bodies and less torture.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 21, 2008 12:50 AM

When you spend 4 hours arguing that a story doesn't matter -- it's still open to debate.

When you spend 40 hours arguing that a story doesn't matter, you've begun to argue against yourself. Because if it didn't matter, you wouldn't still be arguing.

And the NYTimes wouldn't have gone to the trouble of getting an Arabic tape. And the AP, MSNBC, and Fox wouldn't still be using the story in their ledes, to define the context for Obama's visit to Iraq.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's visit to Iraq for talks with commanders of a war he long opposed follows the prime minister's apparent endorsement of his troop withdrawal plan and a shift by the White House away from refusing to discuss that option.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25774091/ http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/obama-expected-to-meet-with-iraq-war-commanders/

I realize that you're really dug in to the "it doesn't matter" position, Mixner. But you might want to consider changing your position and endorsing a strategic withdrawal.

Posted by Ted | July 21, 2008 12:58 AM

GOP to Iraqis: your preferred course of action at odds with our Plan For Victory, and to follow it would mean surrender.

Posted by Mixnermatosis | July 21, 2008 12:59 AM

Just got through reading the thread, and I must say that so much about what has happened since Maliki endorsed Obama's plan for a withdrawal timeline for Iraq has been entirely predictable. Especially the "walkback" non denial denial, but also the right wing's attempts to spin the story. Attack the messenger, twist quotes and take them out of context, and spin, spin, spin. It's actually fun watching liars trying to practise their deception in such a hopeless case as this. I have been skeptical that this Maliki interview could be a "game changer". But judging by the reaction here and from Centcom, I'm becoming more convinced that it will be.

It's always more fun when the truth is on your side, so make some popcorn and pull up a chair. The right wing is spinning frantically for your entertainment.

Posted by AnotherBruce | July 21, 2008 1:14 AM

Just to make it clear, I read all three versions as endorsing Obama's plan, to some degree.

But, the very funny jokes about kerning aside, there's no dispute that the first version published by Der Spiegel contained the qualification about conditions on the ground. It was quoted by The Hill and many others.

Then they changed the translation without telling anyone.

Now we have a third translation by the NYT, which hasn't released the audio, and expects us simply to trust their translation. Since most of the people here like the translation, I'm sure they're content to trust it.

I have no doubt that any accurate translation would support Obama, since all three translations appear to support him. But the exact nature of the support -- and whether Maliki's alleged walkback was really a walkback, or what he really said -- are still in doubt.

Posted by Patterico | July 21, 2008 1:29 AM

Thanks for the clarifications, Mark G. I think I get your point. Germany has universal health insurance, so it's DDR light, so what its news organizations report can only be biased lies and manipulations intended to smear the home of freedom. Yeah... You learn something new every day, I guess. That the NYT supports the translation after checking the audio tape of course doesn't matter, given that it's also a hotbed of collectivism trying to drag the US down the road to European serfdom.

It's nice to see you're aware of the Weimar Republic. Of course there was censorship in some of the states that later came to form Germany if you back into a distant enough past. Of course, the press in the Wilhelmine empire wasn't as free as it is today. But what you originally suggested is that all German governments before 1949 outlawed all German publications that didn't slavishly toe the government's line all the time. That claim isn't true of Weimar, it isn't true of the Wilhelmine system, and it isn't true of many of the German states in the pre-unification period.

Heine left Germany at around 1830, if I'm not mistaken. So that establishes that the Spiegel is a rag that cannot be trusted? Your logic here is rather breathtaking. Do you mean to suggest that no Spanish, Italian, Austrian, Russian, etc. newspaper can nowadays be trusted to report solid news, since there was censorship in all those countries at that time?

I hope you're getting paid to write this piffle, since you seem like a nice enough guy. If you really believe it, the cognitive dissonances must be quite painful to bear.

Posted by gr | July 21, 2008 1:31 AM

Very gracious, Patterico. For the sake of comity, I'll concede that Spiegel ought to explain why they altered their translation.

Posted by southpaw | July 21, 2008 1:45 AM

The qualifications don't really change the content. No one, except the strawman version of Obama invented by right-wing assholes and torture loving freaks like Mixner, supports simply grabbing the helicopter from the embassy rooftop.

No nation likes being occupied. There's nothing special about Iraq in this case. The fact that the violence level there is still more than ten times what it was under Saddam Hussein is the fault of the occupation, but probably cannot be fixed by further occupation.

In an ideal world, George W. Bush would never have been an Iraqi dictator. In the real world it is unlikely that John McCain will get to be one.

In an ideal world, anyone who supported this abortion would (at a minimum) hang their head in shame and never, ever, speak on politics again - even in the privacy of the voting booth. In the real world we need a serious investigation with serious consequences for those whose lies got us to the point that mindless assholes are claiming credit for getting the violence up to its current obscene levels.

Sadly, in the real world we will see the same thugs back in the next Republican administration and they will do yet more damage and who knows how many people will die because we didn't put these fuckers in jail.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 21, 2008 2:40 AM

You have no proof Patterico, you have some very fishy evidence at the most:

Here is Reuters article with the quote as it appears on Der Spiegel. The article was posted:

Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:38am EDT

The post on Hot Air including the words Assuming that positive developments continue was posted at:

12:15 pm on July 19, 2008

The post from The Hill is dated:

Posted: 07/19/08 10:33 AM [ET]

Posted by novakant | July 21, 2008 6:28 AM

gr:

Germany has universal health insurance, so it's DDR light, so what its news organizations report can only be biased lies and manipulations intended to smear the home of freedom.

Um, your earlier comment suggested a lack of awareness of Germany on my part. Glad to see you're no longer claiming that.

That the NYT supports the translation after checking the audio tape of course doesn't matter, given that it's also a hotbed of collectivism trying to drag the US down the road to European serfdom.

It's worth pointing out that NYT and Spiegel have had online cooperation for five or so years now. Spiegel's commentary-masquerading-as-journalism on the US generally consists of pieces featuring morality tales on a "Oh, how stupid, violent, and selfishly greedy all those Americans are."

But what you originally suggested is that all German governments before 1949 outlawed all German publications that didn't slavishly toe the government's line all the time.

See, now you've got to add qualifiers to what I originally claimed to make your charge stick.

As a matter of fact, censors in pre-WWII government didn't have to shut down every publication for dancing out of line. The government simply shut down the odd publication or locked up the odd journalist, and the rest of the business cleaned up its own act by self-censoring.

Whereas America enjoys a rich tradition of free speech and press for over two-and-a-quarter centuries, Germany's traditions here are barely over a half-a-century old.

It's quite telling that Augstein had to rely on American journalism traditions (especially Time) when he established Der Spiegel. Comparable traditions in Germany did not exist.

Certainly Augstein's Spiegel contributed something to the development of modern German democracy, but the rag flirted with Soviet and other forms of communism again and again.

Axel Springer actually did more to preserve freedom in Germany than Augstein and his Salon-Sozialismus.

Posted by MarkG | July 21, 2008 7:10 AM

Under the Espionage Act, the U.S. Postmaster acted as publication censor, and effectively shut down socialist publication The Masses in 1917 due to its opposition to World War I. While better than the situations of many European governments, some at the same time, some later, this was not a historical period demonstrating U.S. respect for freedom of speech or freedom of the press at its height. But, then, everyone said it was all because of the war, so the Americans were obviously right in following these effective censorship policies, while other nations which imposed similar, perhaps more direct censorship, were obviously wrong.

Under the Espionage Act of June 1917 and Sedition Act of May 1918, the Postmaster General Albert Sidney Burleson was authorized to ban from the mails any matter violating the Act or “advocating or urging treason, insurrection, or forcible resistance to any law of the United States”. Fines could range up to ten thousand dollars and prison sentences up to twenty years. Postmaster General Burleson interpreted this act broadly, siezing and suppressing "all kinds of publications that he deemed radical, dissenting, or otherwise supspect" (Espionage History). Under it, many were prosecuted. Juries, allowed to decide whether a defendant's speech violated the Act, routinely returned guilty verdicts.

In Shaffer v. United States (9th Cir. 1919), the defendant was found guilty of possessing and mailing copies of the book, The Finished Mystery, which contained the passage, “standing opposite to these Satan has placed [a] certain delusion which is best described by the word patriotism, but which is in reality murder, the spirit of the very devil. [If] you say it is a war of defense against wanton and intolerable aggression, I must reply that [it] has yet to be proved that Germany has any intention or desire of attacking us. [The] war itself is wrong. Its prosecution will be a crime. There is not a question raised, an issue involved, a cause at stake, which is worth the life of one blue-jacket on the sea or one khaki-coat in the trenches.” The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “the service may be obstructed by attacking the justice of the cause for which the war is waged, and by undermining the spirit of loyalty which inspires men to enlist or to register for conscription in the service of their country” (Stone) .

Thirty German-Americans in South Dakota were convicted for signing and sending a petition to Governor Norbeck demanding reforms in the selective service procedure. The signers of the petition “threatened” to vote the Governor out of office if he did not meet their demands. The government charged that the defendants had willfully obstructed the recruiting and enlistment service (Stone).

The day after the Espionage Act passed, Postmaster General Burleson issued a confidential letter to postmasters across the country. Burleson “asked postmasters to be aware of the new law, enclosed excerpts from it, and directed them to ‘keep close watch on unsealed matter which may be receive or deposited at your office, and to withhold such matter of the character above described from dispatch or delivery as the case may be, and submit samples to the Solicitor for the Post Office Department for instructions" (Jevec and Potter).

Between 1917 and 1921, postal workers seized hundreds of samples. “Often, the language of the publication prompted its seizure. Materials in German, Ukranian, Lithuanian, Russian, Spanish, French, Yiddish, and other languages made their way to the Solicitor for the Post Office Department” (Jevec and Potter). Other times, material was seized on title alone. Publications with titles such as "Soviet World, The Proletarian, Russky Golos [Russian Voice], The Red Army, The Socialist, The Old Red Flag, We the Anarchists, Trial of Eugene Debs, Revolutionary Socialism, Young Socialists' Magazine, The Communist World, El Communista, The Industrial Socialist, Der Armen Seelen Freund [Poor Souls Friend], and Die Krise in der Deutschen [The Crisis in the German Social Democracy]" were sent on to the Post Office “B-Files” (Jevec and Potter).

Postal workers also detained materials from organizations or individuals regarded as radical. They seized a letter from Upton Sinclair as well as membership cards and literature from Industrial Workers of the World (the I.W.W. or “Wobblies”).

Also banned from the mails was the August 1917 issue of The Masses , a monthly “anti-establishment” journal that featured authors such as Max Eastman, John Reed, Carl Sandburg, Bertrand Russell, Louis Untermeyer, Upton Sinclair, William Carlos Williams, Dorothy Day, and Sherwood Anderson. Postmaster General Burleson argued that the cartoon titled “Conscription” by Henry J. Glentenkamp and the following poem by Josephine Bell, an homage to Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman who were jailed for obstructing the draft, violated section 3 of the Espionage Act. Eastman and Reed, the editors, were indicted and tried for willfully causing or attempting “to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces” and obstructing “the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States”. (16)

http://academic.evergreen.edu/k/klalor09/Post%20Office%20Censorship%20home.htm

Posted by El Cid | July 21, 2008 7:35 AM

While better than the situations of many European governments, some at the same time, some later, this was not a historical period demonstrating U.S. respect for freedom of speech or freedom of the press at its height.

US policy consistently reverted to the original free speech and free press traditions.

But, then, everyone said it was all because of the war, so the Americans were obviously right in following these effective censorship policies, while other nations which imposed similar, perhaps more direct censorship, were obviously wrong.

The implications of having a government that is popularly elected complicate comparisons with contemporary governments elsewhere. Other governments suppressed free speech and a free press as a way of limiting accountability even though these governments often did not have to fear the voters' wrath.

As for other free speech restrictions, we could also talk at length about limitations imposed during WWII.

Ultimately, though, the US system has generally continued to hold elections even in periods like the Civil War, where the survival of the nation was in doubt. Post-WWII constitutions in Europe largely allow for the governments to suspend the election cycle in times of war or insurrection. This was the type of constitutional structure that allowed Hitler to suspend German Weimar democracy.

But if you live in Europe for a few years, you'll hear plenty of unsolicited lectures on how stoopid Amerikans fail to learn the instructive lessons of Germany's Nazi experience. That's right, Uncle Adolf died for our sins...

Posted by MarkG | July 21, 2008 8:28 AM

oh, so nice discussion,how about enjoying something new? it will be very crazy to check *****m u l t i r a c i a l l o v e.c o m****. may be i need to check how really it goes...

Posted by bily | July 21, 2008 8:47 AM