The Walkback

I think you had to regard some effort at walking back Nouri al-Maliki's strong endorsement of Barack Obama's plans for Iraq as inevitable. Thus, the only thing really surprising about this development is how little effort was made to make it convincing:

Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the Iraqi government, issued a statement saying Mr. Maliki’s statement had been “as not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq,” but it did not address a specific error. It did soften his support for Mr. Obama’s plan and implied a more tentative approach to withdrawing troops. More of the statement, which came from the U.S. military’s Central Command press office: [...]

You can read the full statement at the link, but this summary really tells you what you need to know, namely that the walkback (a) doesn't involve Maliki on the record, (b) says the reports are inaccurate but doesn't name inaccuracies, and (c) was issued through CENTCOM. Basically, this morning we saw Maliki speaking in person and endorsing Obama's plan to end the occupation in no uncertain terms. By the late afternoon, an Iraqi government spokesman was pretending this never happened in a statement released by the occupying army. That's hardly even a serious effort at bamboozlement.

Now the question becomes: what happens when the CODEL currently in Afghanistan makes its way to Iraq? Meetings with Maliki are presumably on the agenda.

Comments

No, actually, the real question becomes: will the media jump on (a) the actual Maliki position or (b) the filtered-through-CENTCOM walkback B.S. Smart money is on the latter, because if they actually covered the former the way they should, it would be a knockdown blow to the McCain campaign, and nobody wants to undermine the infotainment of horse race political coverage with silly reporting of important events!

Posted by Tony | July 20, 2008 2:00 AM

While people who closely follow the campaign can see this, low-information voters will not, because the press corps will treat this walk-back with the same importance as al-Maliki's comments in the first place. It will justify this position because of the "reasonable doubt" that Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh introduced to the matter.

It doesn't have to make sense. And if Obama were to explain the details of this - that the occupying army released a half-hearted statement that justifies their continued presence in the country - he'd be painted as being anti-military because of him questioning the military.

Posted by socctty | July 20, 2008 2:32 AM

God my cock is so big. I'm cummmmmmming

Posted by Tony Jackson | July 20, 2008 2:41 AM

What's interesting is that the walkback doesn't seem to "walk back" the important part of Maliki's statement.

The burning issue in Iraq is not whether the forces should draw down by one brigade a month or one every two months; it's the fact that the Republicans are claiming that any drawdown (at least by the Democrats) is an admission of defeat.

Maliki exposed that for the lie that it is and there's no real way to explain it away. The Republicans can argue that Maliki and Obama have very different ideas about what constitutes "flexibility" since for all we know that is perfectly true.

It is a far bigger problem for them that Maliki is publicly saying that keeping the troops there is no longer necessary to "win the war on terra", because that's the real core of McCain's message.

Posted by Splitting Image | July 20, 2008 2:49 AM

Ha, now Der Spiegel has the peg for a follow up story-- they can release the interview tapes so Arabic speakers to confirm the translation for themselves (presumably Malaki spoke in Arabic, it'd be hilarious if the interview was conducted in English).

That the statement was released by the Centcom press office (isn't that in Tampa?), just pathetic. It reminded me of Billmon's comparison of Iraq to Japanese-occupied Manchukuo.
http://www.whiskeybar.org/archives/001427.html

Posted by beowulf | July 20, 2008 2:57 AM

But [splutter spin aaccckk] !

Posted by mixxner | July 20, 2008 2:57 AM

Matthew,

Gosh, you really don't know when to quit, do you? Your "devastating game-changer" has been rebutted by the Iraqi government itself. That rebuttal is now being reported by the U.S. media. CNN reported it earlier this evening. The New York Times just reported it. Your "devastating game-changer" is dead.

Posted by Mixner | July 20, 2008 3:21 AM

It's a hell of a bombshell, but it's not reported at all. Yet. But the cat is out of the bag. They have news in Iraq too, and Maliki can't take his message back.

There's no way this fizzles out, no matter how idiotic the villagers are.

Posted by Chris | July 20, 2008 3:36 AM

I have the sinking feeling that al-Maliki will not be with us much longer. Something about a bomb and a glitch in his personal security detail.
Posted by Joel

Possibly, but not by the USA. If Maliki said it or meant it between the lines, which is dubious, calling for the US to leave without conditions - would mean it was obviously done with no consultation with other factions in Iraq. It would signal to the Kurds and Sunnis and some anti-Iranian Shiite factions that the DAWA Shia mean to keep all the oil revenue to themselves, and break all promises of federalism and power-sharing.

That would be open exposure of his treachery to the other factions an exceptionally stupid and dangerous thing for a weak PM with a patched together ruling coalition to do. Highly unlikely, but he IS an Arab, so who knows?

My guess is Matt will be soon disappointed for his Black Messiah not being aligned at all with the Iraqi people...
Though Black Messiah was cheered by troops as he showed them his basketball skills...which may indicate they really want to see LeBron James or some other real player pay a visit...

My guess is

Posted by chris ford | July 20, 2008 3:43 AM

Black Messiah? When did clever ( for a 7 year old) potty mouths begin posting here?

So, let's see....would that make G.W. the Imbecile Avatar? McCain the Senile Savior?

The trouble with this crud is --as you can see --it accomplishes very little except p*ssing people off.

Try to move your invective to the level of at least the Middle School, OK?

You know, conservatives like my grandparents didn't talk like this....exactly what does it preserve? The art of rudeness?

Posted by Eisenhower Republican | July 20, 2008 4:21 AM

Julius Rosenberg Democrat - The trouble with this crud is --as you can see --it accomplishes very little except p*ssing people off.

Well, then if you mean a sanctimonious, self-righteous twit like you, that is MOST pleasing.

Obamessiah and Black Messiah and various other terms of affection for the Great Man less than 200 days in national office before running for Prez refer to:

1. The press signing on completely for a man with no military, no executive, no national elective office experience, no academic or legal tenure or journal submissions or significant cases. Just high educational credentials from 20 years ago, two books written about his unremarkable life, a gift for black preacher oratorical rythms when reading a TelePrompter, and all the powerful friends he made in Chicago.

Not that media would do anything except laugh at a white or Asian running for the highest office with similar credentials. Because he was black, he got the "full frontal Magic Negro treatment", as a black columnist put it...important early on not for his ability to muster black support, but because old school progressive Jews and young Lefties saw their moral redemption in a Magic Negro leading them through all the plot turns in fiction turned real that the Magic Negro is supposed to help guide whites through, and rallied to him.
And the media was so bad and so deep in the tank and so supportive of ditching Clinton and Edwards that they were lampooned for it. "Senator Obama, would you like a pillow for this debate?" "Senator Clinton, explain your Iraq vote yet again. Everytime we ask you, you seem evil and deceiving.." "Senator Obama, is your pillow comfortable..if not we can get you a different one".

2. Then came reports of the Great Man causing mass faintings at his rallies as besmitten women swooned as he dripped honey from his lips talking about their part in Change, they were the change they had been waiting for and only a transcendent man could show them that truth about themselves..

Then reports that some women were building religious shrines to him in their houses.

3, And of course, as Obama's ego and self esteem swelled, he and Axelrod's writing staff couln't resist the Messiah theme.
When he locked up the nomination, he spoke how future generations would mark that day as the beginning of his near Godlike powers to uplift America and the World. In deep sincerity and complete humility..I say we will restore all people...Future generations will study how this was the day when the sick finally began to be cured, that the jobless began getting good jobs, the Ocean's rise slowed, and the Healing of the Planet started.

Who could hear THAT and either not roll around laughing, or fall to their knees praying: "Oh, Black Messiah, we are not worthy! We are not worthy of you!"

Worry not, Rosenberg Democrat. I too will vote for him if he can cause the dead to rise, convert jugs of water into gasoline with just a touch of his hand.

Posted by chris ford | July 20, 2008 5:29 AM

The babbling of Chris Ford is officially a time honored internet tradition.

DNFTT

Posted by Davebo | July 20, 2008 6:32 AM

Behold the bleatings of the American bigot!

Chris Ford is our resident racist. The prospect of a black man winning the White House is so anathema to him that he has to hurl all the tedious, tired invective his tiny mind can summon.

I'm certain he speaks for thousands of other racist white men in this country.

Posted by Joel | July 20, 2008 7:25 AM

Be prepared for mixner & his ilk to now crow about how anyone who believed the Der Spiegel article was a credulous fool.

Just so we understand: Maliki in an unsupervised interview with a foreign news org = unreliable. A follow-up statement, not directly from Maliki or his government, but through an arm of the occupying army = emminently reliable.

But hey, who ya gonna believe, the ventriloquist or the dummy?

Mixner, are you so lacking in self-awareness that you don't see how stupid & credulous you appear?

Posted by raff | July 20, 2008 7:34 AM

McCain's people already admitted that Maliki is doint the politically popular thing

Why not use this as a face-saving way out of Iraq -?? Why would McCain want to stay?

What's the point?

Posted by Comment | July 20, 2008 7:38 AM

"Mixner, are you so lacking in self-awareness that you don't see how stupid & credulous you appear?"

Actually, it looks more like fear.

Posted by Joel | July 20, 2008 7:43 AM

Meetings with Maliki are presumably on the agenda.

Fredo should get a nice hot kiss from Petraeus.

Posted by John Emerson | July 20, 2008 7:48 AM

Why did McCain want to stay in the Philippines? Their government and people want the bases closed - The bases were not militarily useful anymore - they had cause trouble in the past. They were expensive.

Why did McCain want to maintain control of the Canal?

Bottomline - McCain just likes to have bases overseas. He likes the bases - then he comes up with reasons.

That's the irony of his attacking Barack for voicing policy prior to dog and pony tour of Iraq.

Does anyone really think McCain actually learns things on his Iraq tours?

Posted by Comment | July 20, 2008 7:49 AM

Worth noting that Der Spiegel hasn't backed down at all and it's not any old rag, but one of Europe's biggest and best weekly political magazines. All interviews that Der Spiegel conducts are submitted to he interviewee for review prior to publication. here is the interview in English translation, excerpts:

Maliki: (...) Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short. At the same time, we would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations. However, I wish to re-emphasize that our security agreement should remain in effect in the short term.

SPIEGEL: How short-term? Are you hoping for a new agreement before the end of the Bush administration?

Maliki: So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

SPIEGEL: Immunity for the US troops is apparently the central issue.

Maliki: It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population. But other issues are no less important: How much longer will these soldiers remain in our country? How much authority do they have? Who controls how many, soldiers enter and leave the country and where they do so?

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.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

Posted by novakant | July 20, 2008 8:11 AM

Dudes, the "walkback" isn't even worth arguing over. Journalists are credulous, but they're not as credulous as all *that*. When a vague statement, not by the original interviewee, is released by Centcom, it doesn't require a great deal of imagination to see the arm-twisting going on behind the scenes. Besides, slow news weekend. You going to ignore the story because of this wrinkle, or just report the wrinkle as a wrinkle? I think it becomes a footnote in stories about Maliki's embrace of Obama's plan.

And, if we weren't already completely jaded, the impact of the footnote would be to make us outraged at the way American military power is being used, once again, explicitly to serve GOP electoral aims.

Spencer Ackerman has the best line on all this, comparing Maliki to Gaius Baltar on Occupied New Caprica. I guess the metaphor is kind of circular, though.

Posted by Ted | July 20, 2008 8:26 AM

Gaius Baltar on Occupied New Caprica. I guess the metaphor is kind of circular, though.

Given that the Doughy Pantload and Spencer Ackerman are the only two people to watch BSG, its kind of an inside joke.

If I didn't know the position that Maliki finds himself in, I wouldn't have the slightest clue what the fuck Ackerman was talking about.

Posted by calipygian | July 20, 2008 8:50 AM

Der Spiegel stands by its interview (it refers to the Al-Dabbagh statement as "half-hearted"), and also points out that "Other major newspapers in Baghdad on Sunday, including the government affiliated al-Sabah, the independent daily al-Mashriq and Iraq's leading paper al-Zaman quote the SPIEGEL interview at length. There is no mention of al-Dabbagh's statement denying Maliki's support of Obama's withdrawal plans, but it may have come after the papers went to press."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566914,00.html

Posted by El Cid | July 20, 2008 8:52 AM

One of the major reasons the Bush administration attacked Iraq was to get permanent bases there and, in spite of everything that has gone wrong in Iraq, Bush and McCain have not given up on that. Centcom is speaking for the Bush adminstration, and not the Iraqi government.

Posted by Captain Video | July 20, 2008 10:18 AM

"That's hardly even a serious effort at bamboozlement."

But we can be confident that our clueless corporate media will be bamboozled by this. After all, if the U.S. government is saying this it has to be true.

Posted by CaptainVideo | July 20, 2008 10:25 AM

The "walkback" barely limps. That said, Obama should be very careful in using this gift from Maliki.

Very soon, the neocon memers will be saying the Iraqi government's resistance to its U.S. patrons is a sign of "instability," that Maliki is in bed with the Iranians, that Obama is in league with Muslims against the "forces of freedom," etc., etc.

Obama needs to triangulate this quasi-endorsement from Maliki with some comparable reinforcement from prominent Israelis and some U.S. military/counterterrorism folks (not Wesley Clark).

Every time McCain says, "surge," Obama should counter with "Afghanistan" and "Pakistan."

Posted by allbetsareoff | July 20, 2008 11:09 AM

The upthread reference to the late and sorely lamented Whiskey Bar prompted a quick nostalgic scan through the archive of same, turning up this highly apropos quote, dating from the first days of our Glorious Iraq Conquest:

Far be it from me to suggest yesterday's Iraq "liberation" is rapidly descending into tomorrow's Middle East quagmire. I couldn't be heard anyway -- certainly not over the chestbeating and the Tarzan cries from the freepers, the neocons and other assorted Bush babies. But at least consider this gem of a quote, plucked from deep down in the BBC reporters web log: One of my close Iraqi friends went up to an American marine and said to him: "I'm going to exercise my right of free speech for the first time in my life -- we want you out of here as soon as possible."

Funny how the simplest foreign policy lesson imaginable, reiterated across centuries of history, is so easily obscured and obfuscated and bamboozled even when it's as blatant as this quotation or yesterday's one from Maliki. No nation likes being occupied. The imperviousness of the War Party (emphatically including the Corporate Media) mindset to this simple fact brings another quote to mind:

TRAINER: I used to wake Ken up with a crowbar on the back of the head. But I recently found that this was too far from his brain and I wasn't getting through to him anymore. So I now wake him up with a steel peg driven into his skull with a mallet.

Posted by DrBB | July 20, 2008 11:36 AM

Well, then if you mean a sanctimonious, self-righteous twit like you, that is MOST pleasing.

Grow up.

And when you go around calling someone "Black this" or "Negro that" you start to sound like someone who is a little too fixated on Obama's color.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | July 20, 2008 11:40 AM

Meant to add: So far I see little evidence that even yesterday's peg-and-mallet moment is succeeding in stimulating much of an awakening.

Posted by DrBB | July 20, 2008 11:43 AM

M. Ford-
"...signing on completely for a man with no military, no executive, no national elective office experience, no academic or legal tenure or journal submissions or significant cases. Just high educational credentials from 20 years ago"

Sorry dude, since 1980 the Wit(less) House has been occupied by an insipid twit, a sellout (remember "Voodoo Economics", come join us,embrace the stupidity), a pervert, and a moron so stupid that the twit is a savant by comparison.

As H.L. said,
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

Since the other choice is Grampa McStupid, I say give the black feller a shot. Maybe his layre trainin' will give him the edge in comprehending reports with titles like "Savage willfully ignorant arabs plot to hijack airliners". Maybe he'll save the economy by turning off the printing presses in the Treasury. Maybe he'll point out that if the Feds are going to spend my tax money bailing out borderline criminal enterprises then those businesses will deploy a government pay-scale. Why the frack are the CEO's of fannie and freddie getting payed 15mil. when they can't fail, hell I can run a bulletproof business too.

It's a choice between the party of the Eternal Churning Printing Press or the party of a Program for Every Problem, I choose the one that will maintain the value of my retirement fund. I refuse to support a party that has NO POLICY reducing oil dependence, and is actually opposed to reducing oil consumption.

And if you're going to rant that they'll TAX-YOU! the devaluation of dollar has already outstripped the worth of the the Moron's tax cuts. Of course, you'd have to have passport to really notice, and I'm sure a cracker like you doesn't have one. So why don't you go back to hills, play with your snakes, and give the Party of Small Business back to the small businessman.

Posted by The Pale Scot | July 20, 2008 12:21 PM

The bigger problem is that CENTCOM and the U.S. military has now become has become a propaganda arm of the McCain campaign.

Posted by John | July 20, 2008 12:37 PM

The bigger problem is that CENTCOM and the U.S. military has now become has become a propaganda arm of the McCain campaign.

Posted by John | July 20, 2008 12:39 PM

I never cease to be amazed at how eager "conservatives" like Mixner and Ford are to have an official government propaganda agnecy and to believe as gospel everything they say. Isn't this supposed to be one of those things that conservatives are diametrically opposed to?

Posted by Alan in SF | July 20, 2008 1:07 PM

John, not to disagree with your point-- but CENTCOM is the US military.
http://www.centcom.mil/

Posted by beowulf | July 20, 2008 1:48 PM

Actually you can't call those "conservatives." A conservative is one who, examining the facts, comes to a rational, well-reasoned and non-reactionary conclusion. Those that call names and make up words to insult a person whose beliefs they neither agree with but cannot intelligently rebut are known as "belligerent idiots."
I enjoy debating various issues with actual "conservatives", but most of them are not talking about this development, oddly enough. As a matter of fact, a quick scan around the blogs reveals quite a dearth of intelligent or well-spoken support of McCain's actual positions (which have changed quite dramatically since the start of the primaries) and a whole lot of the schoolyard drivel that noone with an education would mistake for debate. Their desperation is growing increasingly evident, and that they're down to the wingnuts that lack even middle-school debate skills this early in the election cycle does my heart good. The mountain has moved, and they're under it.

Posted by Mike in Seattle | July 20, 2008 1:58 PM

Tony (above at 2:00 AM) said it all:

if [the media] actually covered the [Maliki interview] the way they should, it would be a knockdown blow to the McCain campaign, and nobody wants to undermine the infotainment of horse race political coverage with silly reporting of important events!

Ain't that the truth? The media wants a horse-race so it selectively emphasizes 'news' that makes things 'even'. And for the very reason they do this, you won't ever see this truth broadcast from the networks nor printed "above-the-fold" in newspapers, nor on the cover of magazines.

Besides us typing into these blogosphere echo-chambers (and "teaching our children well"), what can be done about this as a broader challenge?

Posted by Indepedents for Obama | July 20, 2008 2:34 PM

Tony (above at 2:00 AM) said it all:

if [the media] actually covered the [Maliki interview] the way they should, it would be a knockdown blow to the McCain campaign, and nobody wants to undermine the infotainment of horse race political coverage with silly reporting of important events!

Ain't that the truth? The media wants a horse-race so it selectively emphasizes 'news' that makes things 'even'. And for the very reason they do this, you won't ever see this truth broadcast from the networks nor printed "above-the-fold" in newspapers, nor on the cover of magazines.

Besides us typing into these blogosphere echo-chambers (and "teaching our children well"), what can be done about this as a broader challenge?

Posted by Indepedents for Obama | July 20, 2008 2:35 PM

Shorter Chris Ford, James Robertson, Mixner, and Other Right-Wingnuts Outside of the Reality-based Community:

We've managed to reduce violence from its 2006-2007 peak via a combination of allowing completion of ethnic cleansing of Baghdad neighborhoods, by ghettoizing those segregated neighborhoods with 17' high blast walls, by allowing several million citizens to be run out of Iraq, by allowing an even greater number to be displaced within Iraq, and by arming the militias we previously said we had to disarm. We now have violent attacks down to 1,300-1,500 per month, about the same as a full year after we invaded.

VICTORY!!!

Guys, when your policies cause complete and total chaos, you don't get credit for bring it down to a lower level of chaos. That would be like smashing up somebody's car due to your negligence, and then bragging what a great guy you are because you had it repaired even though it will never be the same as before. It's a bit pathetic that you can't figure that out.

"Next stop, Baghdad!" --John McCain, Jan. 2002

Posted by LFC | July 20, 2008 2:39 PM

It's depressing that there's a virtual blackout of this story in the corporate media, but it really doesn't matter. Obama's getting through to voters anyway and he's going to win. There's a landslide coming and the Republicans know it.

Posted by silver heron | July 20, 2008 3:24 PM

When Obama comes back--it would be unseemly to do it while he's still there--they should carpet bomb, so to speak, the airwaves with a commercial based on Maliki's statement.

Posted by latichever | July 20, 2008 7:00 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 7:54 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 7:57 PM

Gee, Patterco, I wonder what kind of countertops the editors of Der Speigel have?

You assholes going to give a dissertation about Bradleys not being able to run over dogs again or what?

The money phrase is still there:

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

As usual, you wingers are dumb beyond belief.

Posted by calipygian | July 20, 2008 9:33 PM

Gee, Patterco, I wonder what kind of countertops the editors of Der Speigel have?

You assholes going to give a dissertation about Bradleys not being able to run over dogs again or what?

The money phrase is still there:

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

As usual, you wingers are dumb beyond belief.

Posted by calipygian | July 20, 2008 9:33 PM

Gee, Patterco, I wonder what kind of countertops the editors of Der Speigel have?

You assholes going to give a dissertation about Bradleys not being able to run over dogs again or what?

The money phrase is still there:

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

As usual, you wingers are dumb beyond belief.

Posted by calipygian | July 20, 2008 9:33 PM

"There's a landslide coming and the Republicans know it."

Republican response: Well, we need that war in Iran now.

That's been the plan for, oh, the last three years, I'd say. Josh Bolton, the Chief of Staff, was said to believe so in 2006. They've been waiting for 2008 to start the war on Iran because doing it sooner would have jeopardized Republican Presidency chances once the war went bad.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 20, 2008 10:38 PM

From the IHT.

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

Posted by El Cid | July 20, 2008 10:44 PM