LA Times did not report that Maliki statement came only after Bush administration contacted his office "to express concern" over comments in Der Spiegel
SUMMARY: In a story on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's assertion to a German magazine that Sen. Barack Obama's 16-month timeline "would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal," the Los Angeles Times reported that "a Maliki spokesman said the magazine, Der Spiegel, had misinterpreted the prime minister's comments." But the Los Angeles Times did not note that the Maliki office's statement was issued only after the U.S. embassy reportedly contacted Maliki "to express concern."
In a July 21 article on Sen. Barack Obama's trip to Afghanistan and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's assertion to a German magazine that Obama's 16-month timeline "would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal," the Los Angeles Times reported that "a Maliki spokesman said the magazine, Der Spiegel, had misinterpreted the prime minister's comments." But the Los Angeles Times did not note that the statement was issued only after the U.S. embassy reportedly contacted Maliki "to express concern," in the words of The Washington Post. Furthermore, The New York Times confirmed the initial reporting in its own translation of the comments.
In a July 21 article, the Post reported:
On Saturday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was quoted in the German magazine Der Spiegel as embracing Obama's 16-month withdrawal timetable, causing a stir at the White House. 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. Later in the day, a Maliki aide released a statement saying the remarks had been mistranslated and misunderstood, though without citing specifics. Der Spiegel issued a statement standing by the quotations.
The New York Times also reported that the White House said the embassy contacted Maliki's office:
Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., said that embassy officials explained to the Iraqis how the interview in Der Spiegel was being interpreted, given that it came just a day after the two governments announced an agreement over American troops.
"The Iraqis were not aware and wanted to correct it," he said.
Additionally, while, in his statement, Maliki's spokesman said that Maliki's initial statement had been "misunderstood and mistranslated," The New York Times reported that "the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki's office," and not Der Spiegel, the magazine that reported the comments. The New York Times continued:
And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki's interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama's position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.
The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki's comments by The Times: "Obama's remarks that -- if he takes office -- in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."
He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."
From the July 21 Los Angeles Times article:
Central to Obama's strategy is a plan to remove combat troops from Iraq in a set time frame, although he has said he would fine-tune his tactics depending on conditions in Iraq and advice he gets from military leaders.
One military leader stepped into the debate Sunday. Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday" that setting a two-year deadline to pull all troops out of Iraq would not be advisable.
"I think the consequences could be very dangerous in that regard," Mullen said. "I'm convinced at this point in time that making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important."
Obama's expected Republican opponent in November, Sen. John McCain, seized on Mullen's remarks. One of McCain's foreign policy advisors, Randy Scheunemann, said in a prepared statement: "Barack Obama says he wants a 'safe and responsible' withdrawal from Iraq, but is stubbornly adhering to an unconditional withdrawal that places politics above the advice of our military commanders, the success of our troops, and the security of the American people."
Iraq's prime minister, Nouri Maliki, had appeared to approve of Obama's plan to close out the war. In an interview with a German magazine published Saturday, Maliki said the 16-month deadline "would be the right time frame for a withdrawal. ..."
But on Sunday, a Maliki spokesman said the magazine, Der Spiegel, had misinterpreted the prime minister's comments.
Ali Dabbagh said Maliki had told Der Spiegel that improved security in Iraq would permit the exit of U.S. forces within certain "horizons and timelines" -- language that more closely tracks the Bush administration's position. There was no mention of specific dates. In an unusual step, the U.S. military gave the Western media an English translation of Dabbagh's statement.
The White House announced Friday that President Bush had agreed in a video call with Maliki the day before on a "general time horizon" for withdrawing U.S. combat troops, a softening of his long-standing opposition to deadlines.
Please ... MM is being disingenuous here.
The Der Spiegel story broke during the day on Saturday. On Sunday, the LA Times ran a prominent page-one story with the headline, "Iraqi's PM embraces Obama's withdrawal plan," and the piece said NOTHING about the claim that Maliki's remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately"!
C'mon. The cheerleading for Obama at the Times is easy to see.
the piece said NOTHING about the claim that Maliki's remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately"!
That's because they weren't.
The interpreter was al Maliki's, not Der Spiegel's. And Der Spiegel provided the NY Times with a tape recording of the interview, which was then independently translated and confirmed the accuracy of the original Der Spiegel account.
...As the Times notes, upon reviewing the taped interview in the original, it was Maliki and not der Spiegel's interviewers who raised Obama's name.
link (primary source links are available)
O.K., but by Sunday morning, there had been no "independent" review by anybody. (Though a lot of what the NY Times does is far from unbiased. See this breaking news.)
The L.A. Times purposefully and maliciously mislead its readers by not including the objection by Maliki's spokesperson.
An objection that only came LATER, after the s*it hit the fan at the White House, about Malicki endorsing Obama's plan!
Face it guys, the republicans are such a disaster that all they can do is lie.
Yet another question is, "Which account?"
Der Spiegel changed a key quote from the interview after it was published!
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are like employees who are just hanging around until their last day of work, looking to cause as much trouble and steal as many things as they can, up until their last day at work.
Someone needs to send them home now: just tell them to pack up their stuff and go now, never mind hanging around until January causing trouble, just go now... we'll get along just fine without you: leave now!
"horizons and timelines"
Guess they had to change the wording so that Condoleeza Rice could understand it.
Actually, I think "horizon" fits in perfectly with the track record of the Bush administration.
A "time line" implies certain checkpoints or markers along the way, accomplishments coinciding with pre-determined points in time, all which reckon an attainable goal.
Whereas "horizon" implies a mythical destination where earth meets sky. Sort of an "end of the rainbow" for the Bush admin which promises a pot of gold if we could just overcome the pessimistic democrats who want to surrender to physics...
Think "WMD", and I think you'll see where "horizon" fits Bush nicely.
Look at this openly right wing stupidity!
During a segment this weekend, Fox News’ Brett Baier said that “the high price of gas may be costing your kids some of their education. We’ll explain here.” At the same time, though, the word education was misspelled on-screen as “eductaion.”
Now you know why we need a liberal bias in journalism, your bias can't even spell properly!
Let me see,JohnnyMac says today that Iraq and Pakistan share a border.The administration now claims they want a "time horizon" Maliki agrees with Barack"before he got the call"
Everything seems peaches and cream to me.As a matter of fact I am calling my job right now,giving them a "time horizon" for when I will be at work tommorow.
Any truth to what's posted on the website of investigative journalist, Matt Drudge (reportedly known to insiders as "Matt the Hat"), regarding the liberal main stream media NYT's decision not to publish an essay by the Maverick, written in response to St. Obama's NYT editorial?
If the NY Times was "an organ of the left", I would read it.
And conservatives have always believed the NY Times to be an organ of the left which it makes it odd that the McCain camp went to the Times for some space. He should have went to the Washington Times or National Review or some other right-wing rag.
I disagree with your portrayal of the NYT's as a liberal paper, so please what is your point here?
What reasons did the Times give for rejecting the article and accepting Obama's. This to me smells of another attempt by you not to start an honest discussion but attack under the guise of asking a question. The NYT's is not a liberal paper. Remember Judith Miller ?
Not really. I just went to drudgereport, and saw the excerpt. It's short, but there's quotes in response from the NYT. Their reasoning sounds pretty specious
The breaking story is on drudge
Enough said...
Dude, you can read it yourself. The times rep said something like the Maverick's op-ed offered nothing new in terms of policy, while Obama's did . . .
That's what's posted so far. I don't know their reasons . . . Stay tuned!
Well, the NY Times is a private newspaper, and they can print, publish, and put out there whatever the editors choose to put out there. It's really that simple. They don't owe it to anyone to put anything in their paper. Again, since McCain himself drubbed the NY Times when they ran their story about his involvment with lobbyists, and in particular a certain woman, why does he run to them now? It would be a simple matter of him going to the NY Post, and the WSJ, and I'm sure that they would have no problem running his editorial in their papers to rebut what Obama said.
Aside from that, editorial pages and opinion columns are just that. Opinions and editorials, and they should not, repeat, should not bear out what kind of bias a paper may or may not have in their actual reporting. For example, I enjoy the WSJ and find their articles and information fairly accurate, and done with good reporting. Their editorial page though is like a right wing radio show all of the time, with no dissenting opinions, ever. The NY Times editorial pages tend to lean to the left, although there have been plenty of right wing nonsense in there as well.
southernflowerchild,
An interesting point you made? Would you be so supportive of NY Times if the case were reversed or would MM(vl) be screaming from the depths of hades?
I've held onto the belief that if the NY Times wants to publish something from McCain, fine. It's their paper. Same thing for the NY Post. Same thing for the WSJ. Same thing for any other paper out there. They can put into their paper, whatever it is they want. Would I be screaming about it if it were the other way around? Nope. Would this website, don't know, maybe, but you're holding up a strawman argument against something that might have happened, but didn't.
Let me re-phrase separately here for you. If the NY Times has published an op-ed from McCain, and didn't publish one from Obama, I would be in the "with" crowd for that story.
How's that?
Magnolialover,
I have always stated that when people ask nicely, I will refrain from having some fun with the monikers. I will gladly do so in your case.
Thanks for the advice about my name-twisting affecting the quality of my positions. However, most who respond to my comments probably would rather that I not visit here at all, regardless of how I chide them about their handles. The content of some of those responses to me are often filled with venom and hatred that are claimed to be the purview of conservatives. I will call a marxist a marxist and a liberal a.....well in Obama's case, not the most liberal anyway but never with the nasty overtones shown to me.
I will continue to tease and cajole and yes, make fun of the silly names people have attributed to themselves. The purpose being to show the folly of believing in marxist/socialist ideology and to lighten things up while showing a better way.
So heretofore in your case, magnolialover it will be.
There are times when you have good questions, and good discussion, but there are many other timses where you're way off the reservation, so to speak.
Magnolialover,
I call myself a conservative and I try to honestly define what that means. Me and my ilk are called facists, nazis and worse here. (Actually those are leftist on the political spectrum) When I call marxists just that, I try to be honest and explain that marxism is about state control of industry, limitation on the variation of political thought, economic and personal liberty, purposeful decimation of history and exceptionalism of the ideals of western thought, belief in all corporate explotation of the masses, and so on. http://www.bartleby.com/65/ma/Marxism.html
On this site when I see that people are for those ideals, I call them as I see them. I usually consider left, liberal. socialist, marxist as being the same even though that might not be technically true. I just think that debate needs to be honest and let's face it, calling someone a liberal is like using an epithet. Why not be proud of what you believe, define it and defend it, ... rather than deny where your belief system is based?
Of course I agree that they have the right to run columns from whoever they please. However, IMO, it shows glaring bias if the story on drudge is true and that they decided not to allow Maverick's op-ed for the reasons asserted. Maverick's one of the leading two candidates in a close presidential race. It's not like he's Bill O'Reilly or someone of that merit. Papers all hold themselves out to be institutions that perform a public service, informing the public on key issues. Whether it's an opinion piece or not, because of the position they're in, the Maverick's and Obama's thoughts on the war is news in and of itself. And only running Obama's views presents only one side of the story to the NYT's audience. It's bias, and of the type that's routinely compliained about by liberals on mmfa
Would you honestly be holding to your position if the shoe were on the other foot, and, say, the WSJ denied an Obama op-ed that was offered in response to an op-ed by the Maverick? In allowing only Obama's op-ed, the so-called reputable news organization is clearly choosing sides. They take a substantively biased approach to their campaign coverage. If they hold grudge against Maverick for his badmouthing the paper than they are petty, and shouldnt let that get in the way of their coverage.
Would you honestly be holding to your position if the shoe were on the other foot, and, say, the WSJ denied an Obama op-ed that was offered in response to an op-ed by the Maverick?
I would say "typical".
Did you see my other response?
I did say, that for myself, if the shoe were on the other foot, I still wouldn't care, and would hold it up as the WSJ or some other editorial page saying they can print and or publish what they want.
Bear in mind, once again, the NY Times didn't say they wouldn't publish something from McCain, they apparently wanted his piece more polished. I think a fun question would be to ask the Obama campaign if their first draft were accepted, and they didn't have to revise and re-submit it.
And only running Obama's views presents only one side of the story to the NYT's audience. It's bias, and of the type that's routinely compliained about by liberals on mmfa
The NY Times opinion pages lean to the left and its been that way for a long time. McCain should just go with a right-wing rag to express his opinions or go on FOX News.
As far as the 16 month timeline, isn't Maliki late to Obama's party? I mean Obama has been calling for a 16 month withdrawl timeline for 48 months now. He called for it before the surge worked and now that it has worked, what a wonderful thing to finally be right Senator!
Yeah, but those bombs are only killing Iraqis, so it's not as important. Violence has been down for a little while, most people have pinned it on, not so much the surge, although I will say that the extra troops has probably helped, but they have also said that Sadr telling his folks to knock it off has had more to do with the drop in violence than just about anything else.
Then again, Afghanistan is starting to hop again.
But magnolialover, if we followed Obama's perscription, we would not be there now seeing how the surge worked. Hussein would be in power, his boys would still be raping and killing at their whims, that load of yellowcake that was recently shipped to Canada would still be in Iraq and the "food for oil program' would still be making millionares at the UN. We would still be wondering if he would be building the next WMD, our oil supplies would probably be threatened and making the prices of gasoline go through the roof (but the democrat party would still refuse to access our own resources) and whoever we chased out of Afghanistan would be finding haven in both Pakistan and Iraq.
Instead, at great cost no doubt, we have beaten the terrorists where Osama said they were going to take the fight and have given the whole of Iraqi people, a chance to decide for themselves how to govern themselves and become a vibrant economic entity where nothing had existed before.
Aspirational time horizon = time table
Hey! That looks like fun! Mind if I give it a try?
If we followed the Bush prescription, we'd have a resurgent enemy in Afghanistan and lose all the ground we'd gained so far, we'd have a completely shattered country in Iraq without concrete leadership and with a citizenry who - probably including the 25 million or so expats who were forced to flee their own country - wanted to see the U.S. gone, we'd have a reputation throughout the world as an imperialist nation, we'd have $4.50 gas, a stock market at 2005 levels, and a plummeting dollar which is in danger of being discarded as the monetary standard for oil. We'd have over 4000 funerals for former soldiers, over 600,000 funerals for former Iraqis, and one terrorist who was responsible for the deaths of 3000 american civilians running around free.
Instead, and at great cost, no doubt, we have...uh.... uh oh. I screwed up. Seems I used all my "did -happens" where my fantasy "would-have-happeneds" should have been. I'm still not very good at this prognostication game. I have to wonder though - why is it that conservatives can always envision more clearly future events as spurred by liberal policy than they can a future spurred by their own?
"But magnolialover, if we followed Obama's perscription, we would not be there now seeing how the surge worked. Hussein would be in power, his boys would still be raping and killing at their whims, that load of yellowcake that was recently shipped to Canada would still be in Iraq and the "food for oil program' would still be making millionares at the UN. We would still be wondering if he would be building the next WMD, our oil supplies would probably be threatened and making the prices of gasoline go through the roof (but the democrat party would still refuse to access our own resources) and whoever we chased out of Afghanistan would be finding haven in both Pakistan and Iraq.
Instead, at great cost no doubt, we have beaten the terrorists where Osama said they were going to take the fight and have given the whole of Iraqi people, a chance to decide for themselves how to govern themselves and become a vibrant economic entity where nothing had existed before.
You do realize that because of the war, sectarian violence, and terrorist attacks that have taken place since 2003, our kill rate is much much higher than what Saddam and his boys did. You DO know that right?
Yellow cake was never going there. That was proven I don't know how many times over the last years.
He wasn't building WMDs. Remember? We didn't find any, plus we started him off on that path. We didn't get any oil from Iraq in the first place. It didn't come to the US, so that wouldn't matter either. Saddam and his entire government was contained, and posed no threat to anyone in the region, let alone the United States.
Guess what chief? The people we chased out of Afghanistan have found haven in Pakistan and other neighboring countries, and are re-constituting and getting stronger again. Didn't we just lose 9 US soliders over there this past week?
We have destroyed IRaq, with no good plan in putting it back together. We have turned brother against brother, son against mother, and neighbor against neighbor. This is what you guys don't realize.
It's sad that you think the things we've done over there were "good" things. They haven't been, and they were definitely not the "right" things.
magnolialover,
You said:
You do realize that because of the war, sectarian violence, and terrorist attacks that have taken place since 2003, our kill rate is much much higher than what Saddam and his boys did. You DO know that right?
I say:
I guess these figures include the sectarian violence that you mentioned but are realistic enough to include the mixture of terrorists that were hiding amongst the populace. It is awful what Al-Quaeda is willing to do to its own.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
The numbers you claim do not match the horror that Saddam had foisted on the people of Iraq. Remember that these are only counting the mass graves discovered as of 2004.
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html
You also said:
Yellow cake was never going there. That was proven I don't know how many times over the last years.
Oh contraire, I say:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080705/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_yellowcake_mission
We knew it was there since 1991 but uncertain what he was capable of doing with it.
And you said:
Guess what chief? The people we chased out of Afghanistan have found haven in Pakistan and other neighboring countries, and are re-constituting and getting stronger again. Didn't we just lose 9 US soliders over there this past week?
And I respond:
No doubt that the fight that Al-Quiada lost in Iraq has been reconstituted in Pakistan. But still the group has been weakened internationally and unable to mount the defense of Islam that Osama hoped for. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/10/the_darkness_has_bec.php
This is what has been done by Iraqi's to prove bin Laden's (if he has not yet acheived room temperature) failure to unite Iraq against the Americans:
In Ramadi, "the city that al Qaeda leaders once declared the seat of a new Islamic caliphate and capital of the Iraqi insurgency," the Anbar Awakening held a march honoring Sheik Sattar Abu Risha, the leader of the movement who was slain by al Qaeda 40 days ago. The parade lasted four two hours and Iraqi government officials were in attendance. There were no attacks on the procession.
"Al-Qaeda never wanted to see the sons of Anbar to unite and form security forces. Now I think we have broken their back by building the police and security force," said Sheik Ahmed Abu Risha, the brother of Sattar who succeeded him as the leader of the Anbar Awakening. "Let them come forward and show their faces.... Let them come out, we will fight them."
Dare you say the Surge has worked?
And finally you said:
We have destroyed IRaq, with no good plan in putting it back together. We have turned brother against brother, son against mother, and neighbor against neighbor. This is what you guys don't realize.
And I responded:
I think the above story shows that Iraq is not destroyed, but becoming a partner of the nations who are rejecting terrorism. If you believe Iraq was better off under Saddam......yikes!
The NY Times has stated that they rejected his first draft proposal for the article. They also stated that if he wanted to re-write it, and put more ideas into it, and less criticisms of his opponent, they would review it again, and probably run it. It's called editing what goes into your paper. I'm sure that Obama's first draft didn't get accepted either, as first drafts normally don't get accepted into, well, anything.
Not to mention that they've run 7 previous op-ed pieces from McCain in their paper.
Yea, "WE report,You decide." Hahaha! I think I'll have another bubble durbin!!
Saw a bit on FDL. Appartently with everything else the editor wanted John to definer victory in Iraq. The nerve!
Shoe on the other foot dept. The majority of MSM, the pundits with their own shows tv or radio have been denighing the liberal voice for decades.
John will show up on the NYT if he wants to. If John Edwards were to show up on Rush's show for a true freeforall, you'd feel the whole earth shift.
Question: "What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?"
McCain's Answer: "Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."