Centerfield

How about the fallout from Maliki saying that report was in error, and a mistranslation of his position?

Now now, Joshua, why are you dragging in factual rebuttals? Maliki has explicitly rejected the overblown claim that he made ANY kind of endorsement of anyone, and he explicitly re-echoed the press releases of last Friday from the White House. See CNN. The only person whose position has changed to match long-standing doctrine* is Obama's, as he's "refined" his position to match events. He's trying to jump in front of the parade to claim that he's been leading it all along.

I "Drudge-ruled" this story when it first appeared. The "Drudge Rule" exists for very good and sound reasons, and Der Spiegel is just the kind of media source that fueled its creation.

[*--"As they stand up, we will stand down." Iraqi security control of provinces surpassed the half-way point this month with the turnover of the 10th of 18 provinces, and with Anbar provincial control expected in the next several weeks. Yes, I said ANBAR. Compare to a year ago.]

Here's a Times piece on the clarification.

Looks to me like it was ONLY negating the overenthusiastic construal of it being an Obama campaign endorsement, which it was obviously wasn't. Note that I've seen no quote in evidence that the Obama campaign made such claim.

Looks to me like his endorsement of the short withdrawal timeframe is still on the table, though.

Jon, go check my most recent post at SF. DS changed the text of their interview after they published it without noting the changes. The exact change is the EXACT point of rebuttal from Maliki's office. To wit, "...assuming that positive developments continue..." Maliki prefers a shorter time horizon to a prolonged one, provided things go well. (Hey, don't we all?)

But Obama's plan calls for a forced fixed timetable. You cannot "support Obama's plan" without supporting the core of it, that forced fixed timetable. Maliki did not do that.

IOW, DS RE-WROTE the interview AFTER publishing it, and THEN Maliki protested and issued a statement that they were misrepresenting his remarks. Even being charitable and using their second posted translation, DS's attribution of Maliki "supporting Obama's withdrawal plan" is clearly a major editorial stretch. Parsing nuance through three languages and shifting claims is a fool's game.

NYT cherry-picked their quote as well, and the audio has not been released for independent translation. One suspects that DS's translation is less than accurate in more than one spot. DS says they stand by their version--but don't say which version they stand by....

Tempest in a teapot.

This comment crossposted to both the centerfield and stubborn facts threads.

First, here's a crystal-clear clarification:- Iraq's government spokesman is hopeful that U.S. combat forces could be out of the country by 2010.

So, there you go. MALIKI has said that, in his judgement, the needed timeframe for occupation troops is likely to end soonish, Maliki sure wasn't sounding like that in '06, was he? Of course not - things have changed. The world always changes, of course.

As I saw you noticed on Stubborn Facts, Obama has changed^h^h^h^hadjusted his Iraq plan to include more of an uncertainty element based on facts on the ground. He also warns there will be a smaller, much longer-term force (presumably trainers and advisers, maybe even forces left in some bad spots). So, yeah, now they agree.

Shouldn't you be happy about this instead of dubious? We're getting close to winning. We can soon finally withdraw most of our troops without leaving Iraq to the mercy of gangs and extremists, except for a rump force for training and whatever bits of work may remain. Isn't this, er, GOOD? Now, maybe Afghanistan can have the beginnings of a chance.

Stubborn Facts thread

I've said from Day One that we would leave when they asked us to leave, and their being together enough to ask properly was a good thing. BUT...here's the point I have made over and over again.

Maliki did not "endorse" anything other than a hope that withdrawal would be possible in that time horizon. He did not "endorse" Obama's bail-out-regardless plan. Acolytes of the Obamessiah seem to have serious trouble making that distinction and acknowledging it. Becuase the CHosen One can do no wrong, I suppose.

Second point: Maliki is playing his own electoral game, and his words should be treated accordingly. He is not Obama's friend. He is not McCain's friend. He is his own friend, saying what he can to gain electoral advantage in his own situation. Like all pols, once re-elected he will throw much of his promises (express OR implied) overboard.

Third point: The Iraqi government will not ask us to leave entirely. They want our security forces available as backup and tripwire, and we're not going to do that without getting bases in Iraq in exchange. But they're not going to say that. This is the Arab world--we will be taking the roundabout road to get to the obvious in a face-saving manner. Face-saving for them that is, not us.

Fourth point: Maliki's is playing a dangerous game, trying to snuggle up to a candidate, and it can easily blow up in his face and Obama's. But he's not thrown in hard yet. He's doing the old "Arab smile," talking nice and in heavily hinting vagueries while keeping a knife clutched behind his back.

Last point: Obama's "plan" will only "refine" to conform to what's already been said by Maliki. That won't be Maliki "endorsing" Obama's plan. Other way around.

Oh, and the "clarification" is not remotely "crsytal clear." It's the same ifs, ands, and buts. The Obama plan has been completely unambiguous outside of Obama's usual tap-dancing.*

[*--"I didn't really mean what you think I said because I didn't really say what you think I mean." He's been doing that since he first hit the national scene. An empty suit.]

Lets say you want to make some cookies. You find a recipe online, but I tell you to use salt instead of sugar, vinegar instead of water, and to bake them for 3 minutes. You choose to ignore my advice, follow the original recipe, and watch them bake.

After a while, I come back into the kitchen, look at the cookies, and tell you to bake them for 5 more minutes. Sure enough, they are nice and delicious in 5 minutes. Should I be praised for helping to make the cookies?

This is another crossposted response to Tully, here and on Stubborn Facts, where Tully referenced a Max Boot article.

So, I guess Boot wasn't serious about democracy - he wants the Iraqi generals to run things, instead of having those nasty POLITICIANS who get involved in POLITICS and, oh, no, try to get good deals for their people instead of living with imperialist deals like what Bush wants and living with being treated like a teenager by the Administration.

Shouldn't you and he be showing at least be showing some respect for the leader of that democracy he spend so mucn time backing? Oh, but not if it doesn't hew to the AMERICAN Republican line.

On timeframes: the President assured the American people and the world that the Surge would be effective in about three months, and honest to God gone from Iraq in six months because it'd all be over so fast. Looking at things that way, Maliki's idea was pretty reasonable, wasn't it? You righties are positively amnesic about the 3-6-month Surge deadline.

You've become a perfect Yglesias in reverse on this issue. He called Maliki both a Bush stooge back then and not anymore. He can't possibly be an independent actor, can he? I challenge you to try and figure out NONPARANOID possible GOOD reasons why Maliki might take this course of action (I can think of 4 beyond popularity of it). Remember, American mistakes have consequences, just like everybody elses'.

This is my last post on this subject. There's about as much point to continuing this as to posting on an Yglesias war thread. Enjoy whatever denying facts instead of adapting to them gets you.

I don't play crosspost tag.

About the best I can say is that you should set the Koolaid down and back away from it slowly. You're ranting, and neither Boot nor I said those things.

You should know by now I respect very few politicians indeed, and question all of them anyway. Sub-ref logical fallacies for the rest.