home

The Der Spiegel Maliki Interview Transcript

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:12:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
The Der Spiegel interview transcript has been released. I found this bit the most interesting:

SPIEGEL: How short-term [a period of continued US troop presence]? Are you hoping for a new [security] 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.

(Emphasis supplied.) Quite an indictment of the Bush Administration. Read the whole thing.

< Politico Defends Obama's Centrism | Sunday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Der Spiegel Maliki Interview Transcript | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Is the translation in this story correct? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:43:30 AM EST
    According to this story: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/index.html

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

    Or, is it possible that the interview was conducted through translators?  That could result in some little misunderstandings about the details that were being discussed.

    Under pressure from the White House (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:46:33 AM EST
    I would guess.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:47:06 AM EST
    It is not possible and the "clarification" such as it is, does not state what was "mistranslated."

    BTW, in IRAQ, Maliki is making no "clarifications."

    And the "clarification" so called was released by CENTCOM, not the Iraqi government.

    I believe Der Speigel has a tape so Maliki and the GOP is stuck here.

    Parent

    I'm sure that Der Spiegel has tapes. (none / 0) (#17)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:01:24 PM EST
    But unless the interviewer and Maliki were speaking the same language at the time (and they were both fluent in that language), then they were relying on a translator.  Misunderstandings about phrasing or some nuanced details might not have been noticed at he time.

    It will be nice to see what Juan Cole makes of this.  His site seems to be the best source for translation-required Iraq news.

    Parent

    You are assuming (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    that the Der Speigel translator is an incompetent.

    But I will say this, the word OBAMA does not require translation. Here is a question, what do you think Maliki said about Obama?

    Parent

    Highly unlike I would think. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Detlef on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:36:24 PM EST
    If you read the interview they were talking repeatedly about that topic.

    One wrong translation during the talk might be possible but not getting that translation error when they were talking about "a timeframe for withdrawal" again?

    Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short.

    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.

    As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months.

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

    That´s four examples from the transcript. Do you really think a translator would have mistranslated these statements exactly the same wrong way four times?

    Not to mention that they probably reviewed the tapes once the "misunderstood" claims were published.

    Parent

    The "correction". . . (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:49:27 AM EST
    ostensibly from an Iraqi spokesman, was actually issued by the US Military in Baghdad.

    Parent
    No no, it's an indictment of the American people (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Dadler on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:23:34 PM EST
    We elected this guy, we allow him to continue his lawless tenure...WE ARE ULTIMATELY TO BLAME.

    What I find amazing is the bold statements about us not leaving because our national genitals are so small we can't bear of the thought of even being perceived as not having kicked maximum ass and transformed everything into our image.  Talk about imperialism of the soul.

    But again, Bush has been enabled by us and no one else.  We tolerate him, we get what we deserve.

    Hmm, this really does seem (4.50 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    to box in McCain, doesn't it?

    I don't think it does (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Truth Sayer on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:39:14 AM EST
    When you distill down what McCain says it can all be summed up in one word - Victory.

    So what is victory? Most people including McCain I think would define victory as handing over Iraq to a democratically elected government capable of governing themselves and defending themselves and keeping Iraq free of terrorists - along with making sure "our interests protected", as Obama put it.

    So if that is the definition of victory how does what Maliki said box McCain in? The Iraqi's have long wanted sovereignty and now that their Army is becoming more capable that day is drawing nearer.

    Remember as mush as people do not want to admit we are all closer to what we all want because the surge is working and is giving space in a security sense and the political goals of the surge are slowly falling in place. Even Obama agrees with that.

    So box in McCain? No. McCain, unlike me, supported the surge. Obama did not. Seems to me that McCain was right and Obama was wrong and now as usual Obama is being forced to acknowledge that the surge worked.

    Obama:

    "In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda -- greatly weakening its effectiveness."


    Parent
    But McCain opposed withdrawal from Iraq (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:41:56 AM EST
    in the face of the democratically elected Iraq government's stated desire for just such withdrawal.

    That is McCain's problem.

    Parent

    Is it? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Truth Sayer on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:57:17 AM EST
    Iraq was not yet ready to take over for themselves at the time. So McCain was probably right.

    If we leave Iraq in a good state as I posted above the the vast majority of Americans are going to be happy about that. We may have been willing to cut our losses but in the end we would rather not see a problem left behind that may come back and bite us.

    So in the end, and in in retrospect, if we didn't pull out prematurely and the surge worked, and it has to a great extent, and Iraq is left as a functioning sovereign state, and Obama opposed all that led up to that and McCain supported it - how is that bad for McCain?

    Parent

    and then of course (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:22:18 PM EST
    the hitorical problem of the US taking Iraq from Dictatorship to a primitive but functioning democracy by an act of war.  Which of course Obama opposed from the beginning. We are in a political and ethical minefield because we've based our primary on the IWR vote, instead of something like UHC. If only we'd had a proper bastard like Nye Bevan who ran guns to the Spanish republicans and opposed Hitler from the beginning, instead of the oftie mishmash of compromising careerists.

    As a caveat: I do  think the war was too bloody and too expensive and criminal.  Eminent Jurist Geofrey Robertson summed it up neatly.

    Manifestly unjust invasion against an unjust regime.

    Parent

    Well yeah (none / 0) (#32)
    by Truth Sayer on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:35:12 PM EST
    A good outcome will not change the fact that going into Iraq was not only a big mistake on Bush's part, but was also wrong. I don't think history will change that fact.

    But countries and people get into terrible messes sometimes and when that happens you want the best outcome that you can get. So you have two story lines here. One is one candidate was against the actions that will probably provide the best outcome, and the other was for those actions.

    The other storyline is one candidate was against the  war, and the other was for it. The caveat here is the one who was against it had no skin in the game nor any official government responsiblity to make a decision, while the other candidate did.

    One actually had to go to bat, while the other one was at home sipping a brew and got to say 'I never would have swung at that pitch'.

    Parent

    If you call it a good outcome (none / 0) (#39)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    In this one very restricted area we're looking a the possibility of an outcome that loosely corresponds to something both desirable and intended.

    But what other outcomes have we achieved:

    1. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead
    2. Many more put to flight as refugees
    3. Iraqi civil society more or less completely destroyed, with a large percentage of the professional class having abandoned the country
    4. Infrastructure ruinously damaged.

    I'd be ashamed to say that this was has resulted in anything that can be considered, on balance, a good outcome for Iraq.

    Parent
    I know that... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    ...but you are using the arguments of a liberal to convince a liberal. I'm in the choir so to speak.

    However all the public ever wanted was a victory.

    The issue of Iraq, will be balanced out on two topics:

    The costs of victory and the glory of victory.

    If Obama subscribes to teh narrtive of the surge actually working and the uccess fo the mission he can only hope that teh costs rather than the glory are in the minds of the voters.

    Parent

    Buying the propaganda (none / 0) (#50)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:18:47 PM EST
    To say that the mass media will shamelessly promote government propaganda and call this a victory (in some completely undefined sense) is a matter of course.

    What I challenge is the assertion (and I don't see how else to read the comment) that the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually resulted in a good outcome for the people of the US or Iraq.

    Parent

    Every survey that I ever read reported (none / 0) (#55)
    by hairspray on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    Americans wanting out of Iraq, but in an orderly and militaristically possible way.  The whole "cut and run' meme of the Bushco was meant to portray the Democrats as weak on defense.  I think that this playbook going on right now is not a good sign for the Democrats and it does look like the GOP thugs have done an end run around our 'anti-war' party/candidate.

    Parent
    Demi (none / 0) (#52)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:22:27 PM EST
    A valid question and point comes to mind...Do you think the U.S. should have permitted Imperial Japan to exist rather than obliterate it as it did (with as we are all well aware of with extremely high colateral damage - and I'm not just talking about the radiological avenue here)?

    Parent
    How valid is the analogy? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:57:19 PM EST
    I'm not sure how far the analogy holds. And I'm not quite sure of the thrust of your question.

    The facts about Japan's conduct are different from Iraq's. In particular:

    1. Japan had not only attacked but occupied other territory in other countries far exceeding the land mass of their undisputedly sovereign territory.
    2. Japan militarily attacked US territory.

    So, the case for us waging war against Japan seems to me to rest on an essentially different footing. So, yes I would say war with Japan was defensible on our side whereas our invasion of Iraq was not.

    But are you asking about the way we conducted the war against Japan? I accept the argument that the nuclear bombs were unnecessary and therefore unjustifiable. But I don't think occupying the country and removing their government was per se reprehensible. Beyond that, I'm not prepared to argue the particulars of how we waged the war against Japan.

    Is that hedging?

    Parent

    no, that;s not hedging, that was well articulated (none / 0) (#71)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:10:29 PM EST
    the answer to your question on Iraqi, U.S., and world benefit will be clothed in the language of economics - which is partly why most will not appreciate the real benefits that a stable Iraq will bring the U.S., middle east, and the rest of the world.

    Parent
    good post but the question occurs to me (none / 0) (#77)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:46:48 PM EST
    is iraq and will iraq be a functioning democracy? i don't think so. i see a strong man coming in or already there would will prove to be ruthless and hussein was.

    Parent
    hellothere (none / 0) (#80)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:09:37 PM EST
    No way. that could only occur if there is some catastrophic event destroys the Iraqi Parliament. They've got a healthy blossoming democracy going for themselves now, Maliki's authority and the authority of the government is growing stronger. They've had the success in Basra, which involved taking down Shia militias. Oil production has surpassed peak production under Hussein and the government is making money faster than they can spend it - projected budget revenues revised upwards to $70 billion for the Iraqi government's budgeted expenditure was based on $57/barrel at a slower priduction rate.

    The bottom line here is we may well have succeeded with Iraq.

    Parent

    positive news would be a nice change. (none / 0) (#81)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:13:59 PM EST


    Parent
    exactly - blame our press ... (none / 0) (#84)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:54:53 PM EST
    but, there's an entire political party that seems by in large to be heavily vested in the failure of Iraq for several obvious reasons not the least of which being justification for Obama's (and other party notables) positions of withdrawal and 'solemnizing' the Dem narrative of Bush's failed Iraqi debacle.

    See my post below for an actual statistical test of another posters data on U.S. military casualities that I conducted for the hell of it as an experiment.

    The stats don't lie and the conclusion is nothing short than an utter reversal of the poster's claim. The bottom line is that the previous years average number of deaths/month has been halved compared to the same annual average taken two years ago. Although there may be a few sources for the drop, it would be a total dishonesty to claim that it is not in part due to the surge in troop levels. The comparson holds true whether we sample from different time frames or not.

    Parent

    i'd like to read more. can you give me (none / 0) (#86)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:19:55 PM EST
    some references. i know it's hard to get data that isn't politcally charged these days.  thanks

    Parent
    Whatever you say (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:33:30 PM EST
    If you want to think that, as you obviously do, I can not stop you.

    Parent
    Kind of a sneaky way (none / 0) (#33)
    by Truth Sayer on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:38:26 PM EST
    to say you can't disagree with me.

    McCain is in the superior position here in respect to how the aftermath of this screwed up Bush war may be brought to a reasonable end.

    Parent

    10 comments per day (none / 0) (#34)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM EST
    New commenters are limited to 10 comments per 24 hours.  You are at 12.

    Parent
    AH! (none / 0) (#35)
    by Truth Sayer on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:48:25 PM EST
    I was just getting warmed up. Just kidding. I've got other things to do anyway today.

    So how long does the 10 a day limit last? A week? Two? It's a shame that I may not be able to respond to people responding to my posts but that is the way it is.

    I would appreciate you posting how long the limit is thought. Thanks.

    Parent

    thirty days (none / 0) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:04:58 PM EST
    It is typically 30 days.  Have a good day.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:50:21 PM EST
    It is a polite way of saying I do not deem you worth dialoguing with. Now you went and made me do the rude thing.

    Parent
    "Surge" working? Nonsense. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by wurman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:26:21 PM EST
    It feels odd to read rightwingnutz talking points here at Talk Left.  Critics of the surge stated that sending more troops into Iraq would increase US casualties because the presence of US forces is the source of the problem.  Bu$hInc "surged."  Casualties went up.

    Jul 16, 2008, MSNBC on Iraq troops (link)

    The military surge there that began more than 18 months ago has ended. In recent days, the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in by President Bush last year, left the country.

    US Casualties Iraq (link)
    May 2003,   37 killed in action, 54 wounded in action
    Feb 2004,    19 KIA & 150 WIA
    Jul 2006,     51 KIA & 574, WIA
    Mar 2007,    33 KIA, 475 WIA
    Feb 2007,    88 KIA, 398 WIA--surge begins
    Jul 2007,     87 KIA, 654 WIA--a year ago
    Apr 2008,    54 KIA, 283 WIA
    Jun 2008,    30 KIA,  39 WIA--surge ends.

    Troop levels up, casualties up.  Troop levels down, casualties down.  Duh.

    Mar 13, 2008, LGen R. Odierno (link)

    Explaining the reduction in violence and its stra­tegic significance has been the subject of much debate. It's tempting for those of us personally con­nected to the events to exaggerate the effects of the surge. By the same token, it's a gross oversimplifica­tion to say, as some commentators have, that the positive trends we're observing have come about because we paid off the Sunni insurgents or because Muqtada al-Sadr simply decided to announce a ceasefire. These assertions ignore the key variable in the equation--the Coalition's change in strategy and our employment of the surge forces.
    [My underline]

    Critics, such as myself, DO CLAIM that al-Sadr's independent decision to back off indirectly made the surge appear to be effective.

    Finally, a note from on how the surge has cost so much in the war against REAL terrorism:  Adm. M. Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in VetVoice Jul 7, 2008 (link):

    Let me also say just a word about Afghanistan.  I am and have been for some time now deeply troubled by the increasing violence there.  The Taliban and their supporters have, without question, grown more effective and more aggressive in recent weeks and as the casualty figures clearly demonstrate. . .

    I've made no secret of my desire to flow more forces, U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can, nor have I been shy about saying that those forces will not be available unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so.

    That's straight from the horse's mouth: We can't send more troops to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan because they're all tied up in Iraq.

    The surge had 18 stated objectives, long ago.  It attained 3 of them.

    Parent

    you've engaged in an exercise (none / 0) (#83)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:44:28 PM EST
    of biased selection. You attempt to illustrate your position with one or two hand-picked examples.

    This is gonna be great...

    Suppose we trust the data in the link.  We can run a simple statistical test (independent samples t-test) to compare the mean number of deaths/month for the past year (40 deaths/month July 2007 to July 2008) with the mean deaths/month from the same period of time but 2 years ago (81 deaths/month July 2006 to July 2007), and we get a probability that these two means differ by pure chance 0.0001.

    In other words the fact of the matter is that the average number of deaths per month has been HALVED over the past year when compared to the same time frame beginning two years ago (i.e. we keep the sample size equalivent - 12).

    If we switch tactics and compare the last year average number of deaths/month with the average number of deaths/month from the onset of the war until June of 2007 (68 deaths/month), we get a probability that these two averages differ by pure chance of 0.004.

    In other words, even if we go back to the onset of the war and average the monthly death rates, we still see that there has been an overall 50% reduction in the number of military deaths/month in the past year.

    If we sample from the time the insurgency began in earnest, say, January 2004 we get an average number of deaths per month of 74 (Jan 04 - Jun 2006), which is statisitically no different than the average number of deaths per month from Jun 2006 to June 2007.

    The conclusion, therefore, is that the number of u.s. casualties/month in the past year have taken a dramatic significant fall when compared to the remainder of the war, the post-insurgency war, or even the year immediately preciding the past year!

    Parent

    I have 8 examples, not 1 or 2 (none / 0) (#90)
    by wurman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:58:22 PM EST
    They coincide with specific dates of changes in the nature of the invasion, the initial occupation time, the surge, the end of the surge.

    "Suppose we trust the data in the link . . . ?"  Why would you not?  That's your rhetorical ploy to imply that my information is rigged.  It isn't.  The numbers are widely published, readily available.  And your sham is indicative of the rest of the comment.  You can click on the months in that link & read the name, date of death, location, & action for those killed (though there are some un-named at the time of the data entries).

    You then select a couple of utterly unrelated timespans & extract some meaningless averages, which you label "mean" to imply that your statistical games are relevant & somehow compare with or apply to the 18 month surge figures.  It's not that they are handpicked by you (it wouldn't matter), they just don't fit events that are said to have been "changes" in status.

    Your own figures belie your conclusion.  If you average from the end of the invasion (not the beginning of the war) until the surge began (not your capricious "Jun 2007" pulled from some hat) in Jan 2007, then the "mean" prior to the surge is 66.8 monthly KIA, based on 43 months & 2,873 killed.

    Non-invasion combat operations have been active for 61 months, May 2003 to June 2008.  In that time 3,947 US personnel have been killed in action. That's 64.75 per month, an overall total average.

    The surge began in Jan 2007 & ended June 2008.  In that span 1,074 KIA, for a 60 per month average.  That's a 10 percent reduction from the average before the surge; a 7 percent reduction from the overall monthly casualty average.

    What you probably intended to show is that the last "n" months of the surge, rather than its average, attained some numerical success.  The last 9 months, Oct 2007 to June 2008 offer the lowest surge numbers.  It's difficult to determine at what "n" you can establish something: 3 months, 6 months, 10 percent of total months, who knows?

    Let's use 6 months.  Now if any other 6-month period offers KIA numbers within a similar order of magnitude, then the surge is/was no better than any other handpicked 6-month timespan.

    The last 6 months of the surge resulted in 212 KIA, 35.3 per month.

    And the first 6 months of the occupation (after the invasion ended), there were 222 KIA, or 37 per month.

    So the success of the surge is equal to the start of the occupation--not much gain there for 5 years of combat.

    The worst month in the surge was May 2007 with 131 KIA.  The worst month prior was Nov 2004 with 140 KIA.  May 2008 was the lowest month in the surge with 20 KIA.  Previously, Feb 2004 was the non-surge low at 19.

    Ya' know what?  Statistics expert . . . the high, the low, the mean & the mode make the surge look like what it is: "not much."

    And, actually, pulling the troops out at the "end" of the surge activates & completes the well known equation--more troops, more casualties; fewer troops, less casualties.  As the surge troops depart, the losses go down--just as Adm. W.J. Fallon was saying when he resigned.

    Finally, your last paragraph is indicative: the high casualties in the year prior to the surge were the reason for the surge & your last sentence actually includes 6 months of surge with 6 months of non-surge, i.e., the year before "the past year" (the surge was 18 months).


    Parent

    Totally false presumption... (none / 0) (#92)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:29:55 PM EST
    The surge began in Jan 2007 & ended June 2008.  In that span 1,074 KIA, for a 60 per month average.

    A completely and utterly false and misleading framework - though typical for someone who follows politics but knows little or nothing about military operations.  

    The surge was officially decided on in December of '06.  Preparations for the surge began to take place almost immediately, with some increases in operation tempo as the battlespace was prepared and the surge units began to arrive.  The entire surge complement was not in place until June of '07.  During preparatory and initial operations, there was a spike in US casualties, which the perpetually astounded (like Harry Reid, for instance) interpreted as evidence of failure - followed by the rather precipitous and continual drop in casualties up to the present day.  

    As you may recall, those initial signs of success were even held by some, who shall remain nameless, as so hard to accept they required a "suspension of disbelief."  That was in September of '07, a mere 3 months into the military surge, though 9 months into the domestic political anti-surge surge.  

    (McCain Supporter!)

    Parent

    Perhaps you should read my links (none / 0) (#96)
    by wurman on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    Quoting LGen R. Odierno from his Mar 13, 2008, speech to the Heritage Foundation (link):
    I returned from Iraq a little over two weeks ago, and trust me, it's great to be in Washington and in your company today. After nearly 15 months in Iraq--most­ly spent focusing on where we are and where we're going--it's a pleasure to step back and reflect a bit about where we've been. I'd like to speak with you about Iraq in 2007, to include the surge, its implemen­tation, and my assessment of its impact.
    [snip]
    From January to June 2007, the surge forces deployed gradually to Iraq, but we adjusted our strategy even before the first additional Brigade Combat Team arrived. Implementing the surge involved much more than throwing extra resources at a problem. It meant committing ourselves to pro­tecting the Iraqi populace--with a priority to Bagh­dad--while exploiting what appeared to be nascent progress against AQI in Anbar.
    [My underline]

    Ray Odierno was the Commanding General of the surge for 15 months.

    You not only don't know the elementary FACTS of the situation, you don't even know how to find them.  Your opinion is not supported by any of the information widely available & often published.  Furthermore, the Odierno speech is one of my links--which you didn't even bother to read.  Odierno believes the surge worked; I don't.  But we agree on when it took place.  And every one of my links clearly reference the 18-month timeframe from Jan 07 to Jun 08.

    When the general in charge of the surge says it began in Jan 2007 (to an audience of ragtag rethuglicanz, GOoPerz, & neokonz) then it did & my statement is irrefutably supported.

    Parent

    A pol, is a pol, is a pol (none / 0) (#3)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:41:56 AM EST
    as has been pointed out so many times here. Maliki is just a pol who on any given day has reversed his position from one in the morning to a different one at night. Sort of like, Obama's statement in the morning of Iran not being a threat, and by afternoon, they are a threat. He says what is expedient at the moment and dependent on who he is talking with. The difference here is his brand of "winning" is different from Bush's and McCain's. Our country wants to be the definer.

    Parent
    So what? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:42:28 AM EST
    It still puts McCain in a box.

    Parent
    But if McCain becomes (none / 0) (#7)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:44:32 AM EST
    pres. he becomes the negotiator, whichever direction he chooses to go. Obama, imo, will not just "pull the troops out no matter what." He's left the option up to the commanders on the ground. I don't believe McCain is boxed in anymore than Obama is.

    Parent
    Um what? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:48:10 AM EST
    You comment makes no sense.

    And is factually wrong - Obama did not leave it to "the commanders on the ground." You are not telling the truth.

    Why you are doing this only you can explain.

    Parent

    It's a gift box in some ways rather than a (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:26:54 PM EST
    trap for McCain. The pro-war postion has been historically vindicated, no matter what ahppen to McCain. It looks like the US did replace a thug with a functional liberal democracy.  See Maliki, he is just like any toady politician you'd find in the western world. ome form of democracy and pragmatism have found fertile ground in Iraq.

    If I were Bush I'd plan a ticker tape Victory Parade down Pennsylvannia Ave.

    Parent

    Obama has repeatedly said (none / 0) (#13)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:51:38 AM EST
    that he would "consult" "talk to" call it what you will, with his commanders on the ground to advise him of current conditions in order to see if he can give the order to pull the troops out. This is his "out" to leaving our troops, or a portion thereof, in Iraq.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:55:21 AM EST
    He will consult with them. Are you really arguing he should not? Your comment was not truthful. You said he would leave to the commanders on the ground. That is simply false.

    Please stop with the falsehoods.

    There are enough legitimate complaints about Obama. You do not have to tell falsehoods to come up with them.

    Parent

    If McCain is boxed in here, (none / 0) (#18)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:01:53 PM EST
    as you have put it,then so is Obama, however, my point is that Obama can "manuver in that box" using the advice of the commanders on the ground. In that sense, so can McCain and put the onus on those commanders.    

    Parent
    McCain is not boxed in (none / 0) (#21)
    by Truth Sayer on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:15:47 PM EST
    McCain is actually in the superior position here.

    See my post at the top of the thread

    Parent

    zfran din't argue that (none / 0) (#20)
    by Truth Sayer on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    Obama shouldn't consult with the commanders on the ground. He said the opposite.

    I agree with zfran on his main point that Obama is still going to leave more troops in for longer than he tells people because the situation there will dictate that.

    Iraq is moving in the right direction and progress has been made. But there is still progress to be made and you just can't say in Iraq's case that that progress will be accomplished on a date certain as that would be unrealistic.

    Yes some troops will be able to be pulled out along the way but probably not as many or not as fast as Obama is telling us. That is why he himself has hedged what it is he is promising.

    Parent

    btd, there are those who assumed that (none / 0) (#79)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:49:26 PM EST
    nixon was in a box regarding china. it proved not to be so. now maybe neither obama or mccain have that type of thinking or advisors more's the pity.

    Parent
    Maliki didn't change his real position (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Truth Sayer on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:01:06 PM EST
    He wanted a time table. bush would not give it to him so he went along with Bush on the time horizon. Once that was done he played politics and did an interview that reexpressed what it was he really wanted.

    Then when he got the phone call from Washington saying WTF he retracted what he said - but he still got to say what he really wanted to say. Good politics on his part. That is the way to play the game.

    Parent

    The retraction (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:16:59 PM EST
    came from a spokesperson.  The retraction was issued from CENTCOM.  The spokesperson has appeared at D.C. press events with Dana Perino at his side.

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Truth Sayer on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:23:25 PM EST
    Retraction or not Maliki said what he said and what he did was good politics as I posted.

    I'm really not concerned if he did retract it because even if he did it would be a forced retraction.

    Parent

    As Josh Marshall has said (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:28:01 PM EST
    the pre-waterboarding comments will be more believable.

    Parent
    Ribbon (3.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:23:34 PM EST
    Blatnatly false McCain talking points are not allowed here.

    Stick to the facts. McCain supported the Iraq Debacle from the onset and given that, UNLESS you are and were a supporter of the Iraq War from the onset, that means he was wrong from the onset.

    If you insist on arguing the McCain brief, please EXPRESSLY disclose that you are doing so. Otherwise, McCain falsehoods will be deleted as they are misleading at this site. They imply that McCain opposed the IRaq Debacle, which we all know he did not.

    your post (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:43:41 PM EST
    would be relevant if 1) I knew what "the McCain brief" is, 2) actually stated that McCain did not support the "Iraq Debacle" as you refer to it as, and 3) I had not actually stated that McCain has had it right from the onset OF THE WAR. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION?

    McCain was as critical as many Dems of the adminstrations handling of the onset of the war. You know, the war part of it.

    I don't care about the lead in to the war: Congress was privy to information you, me, all of these posters, and your annointed saint Obama were not. Heck, Obama is ON RECORD sharing this exact sentiment!

    What does it matter if Bush miseld most people? Why not just impeach him?  Go ahead.  He's not running for President!  McCain is.  And McCain is not Bush as you so oftentimes love to assert.

    So, who arguing who's brief?

    Parent

    Not An Endorsement? lol (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:48:22 AM EST
    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.

    So much for McSame's "qualifications" as CIC. My guess it that now Obama leads in world opinion over this military matter.

    BTD, please fix headline (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:06:39 PM EST
    and first sentence of the post.  It's Spiegel, not Speigel.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:24:12 PM EST


    Parent
    My view is that Obama is the one boxed in, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:25:02 PM EST
    due to his statements that he would pull the troops out in 16 months. Even with significant improvements in security, due largely to the surge (which Obama opposed), and apparent improvements in the quality of the Iraqi army, the Iraqis are not going to be ready for heavy US withdrawals by January.

    I don't see Obama being able to go against the advice of the US generals on the ground (and I can't imagine things will be improved enough for them to say it's fine to withdraw). I don't see Maliki agreeing to a quick and complete US withdrawal in January either. My belief is that opposing Shiite militias, some Sunni groups and Al Qaeda would run Maliki and the current government out of Iraq if the US wasn't in Iraq, at least as of this point.

    In any event, I don't think the troops and equipment can physically be pulled out that fast--according to what I've read and heard. And even Obama says he would leave troops in Iraq for various purposes, and my understanding that those purposes would require significant numbers of troops.

    For these reasons, Obama is already hedging his earlier bets and positions. Continuing improvements in Iraq may also allow any president to bring home more brigades sooner than was expected as of earlier this year.

    If you have troops (none / 0) (#29)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:30:52 PM EST
    based in [even] a [slightly] hostile Iraq you would need over 100,000.

    Otherwise they could get overwhelmed and cut off and cut to ribbons

    I'd complain as a commander if I didn't have 500,000 men anyway.

    Parent

    What are you smoking on a Sunday morning? (none / 0) (#37)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:52:57 PM EST
    According to Maliki, the US is now in a position to withdraw in an orderly manner, having achieved "victory" (the McCain position) rather than "defeat" (as under the Democrat unity position since '06), having "inflict[-ed]... a severe blow ... on al-Qaida and the militias."  Or read the rest of Maliki's interview, particularly where he compares the costs of the war to the likely costs of continued Saddamism, too.  

    Yet BTD sees this as an endorsement of Obama's policies rather than McCain's, imposing his own bold focus and peculiar interpretation on ambiguous remarks regarding the realism of short-term vs. long-term agreements.  Of course it's easier to deal with short-term goals than long-term ones realistically.  That's pure common sense, especially with a change of administrations coming soon on top of all of the uncertainties of war and peace in the Middle East.

    The big picture, clear from even from this excerpt and all the more from the entire interview, and clear to anyone who isn't blinded by partisanship and desperate for validation where there isn't any, is that, if Obama '02 had gotten his way, Saddam & Sons would still be in power and Maliki would be in exile or dead.  If Obama '06-'07 had gotten his way, Al Qaida, various militias, Iran, the Kurds, and any number of other foreign powers would be carving the country and each other up.  Instead, we have the basis for a victory - including return with honor of the troops instead of helter-skelter retreat amidst escalating carnage and chaos.  Yet this is somehow an endorsement of Obama's judgment?

    Sorry, you can't have '06 back.  Times change.  I think you should just be glad that the American people don't feel as under threat as they still did in '04.  If they did, Obama wouldn't have made it out of the primaries, much less be contending for the top job.

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    Ask McCain if he now agrees that we should withdraw from Iraq?

    If this is good for McCain, why is he not shouting to the heavens that he was right, based on Maliki's statement?

    Parent

    Of course McCain agrees... (none / 0) (#59)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:36:23 PM EST
    ...that the bulk of our troops should return from Iraq on success.  Return on success has been the US policy since before the surge.  And he has been "shouting to the heavens" that he was right, for months now, just a couple days ago, most likely next week, too - regardless of any particular statement of Maliki's (whatever it was - that's in dispute as you probably know).  He and his allies will continue to try to make clear that Maliki's confidence, and orderly withdrawal to whatever desirable level, wouldn't be possible without the strategy that he, McCain, fought for, and that Obama and the rest of the Democrats fought against.

    The problem of course is in simplistic formulations like "we should withdraw from Iraq."  If you're referring to withdrawing combat troops and supporting elements who don't have anything to do there anymore because we've won, then no one wants them to stay.  If you're talking about a residual force - possibly along the lines of the tripwire forces in South Korea or in the Fulda Gap during the Cold War, possibly something smaller, possibly larger - size and mission to be negotiated - that's something else again.  

    What's infantile is to suggest that having a time frame and goals, and eventually having real honest-to-God literal timetables, is now or ever has been the main issue.  An artificial timetable for retreat at all costs, subject at most to incidental tactical adjustments, under assumptions that the whole thing is/was falling apart, that "this war is lost," that further efforts would make things worse, often accompanied by the ludicrous fantasy that we could scare the Iraqis and others straight by running away at the highest possible speed - that's something completely different.

    Parent

    Elsewhere in the thread. . . (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:40:26 PM EST
    I believe BTD asked McCain supporters to identify themselves.  But this comment:

    An artificial timetable for retreat at all costs,

    raises the question, to me, of whether the commenter is actually John McCain himself.  The language sounds like it came directly from McCain's mouth -- or at least, a McCain talking points memo.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:44:37 PM EST


    Parent
    What is this Operation Rehab the War? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    My guess is that it'll either work or come very very close to working.

    Thing is Labour won the 1944 elections.

    Churchill was booted out by the electorate after winning ww2.  Of course Attlee had been the de facto PM through much of the fighting anyway.

    Teh War is over either way.  Even with CLAIM OF A WIN THE WAR PARTY HAS BECOME REALLY UNPOPLAR.

    Parent

    I think the part. . . (none / 0) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    Yet BTD sees this as an endorsement of Obama's policies rather than McCain's, imposing his own bold focus and peculiar interpretation on ambiguous remarks regarding the realism of short-term vs. long-term agreements.

    where Maliki says "Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is right" could fairly be described as an endorsement.

    Parent

    If... (none / 0) (#54)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:23:40 PM EST
    ...Miliki had said, or his statement could be summed up by the "snippet" (as Obama might like to say), then maybe it would be a problem - at least for those on the left who'd been attacking Maliki as an Iranian tool would have to work up a brand new set of talking points.  

    However, since all Maliki did, according to the latest disputed SPIEGEL version of the interview, is acknowledge that Obama's time frame ("Zeitraum" in the German, who knows what in the Arabic) might be a basis for discussion, it's a tempest in a teapot.

    Parent

    That Maliki is an Iranian tool (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    has nothing to do with it. The entire Iraqi government is an Iranian tool.

    Besides, you do not respect the facts of what Maliki said - that he wants the US to leave Iraq.

    If McCain can take yes for an answer, he can argue whatever he likes. IS he taking yes for an answer?

    BTW, I do insist that all McCain supporters start identifying themselves as such.

    Starting with you. Are you a McCain supporter?

    Parent

    Yes I'm a McCain supporter... (none / 0) (#61)
    by CK MacLeod on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:40:19 PM EST
    Please brief me on the rules:  Am I expected to put some warning label at the top and bottom of all my posts, something like the following:

    BEWARE, BEWARE, BEWARE!
    McCAIN SUPPORTER!
    IGNORE AT ALL COSTS!

    Or would you prefer that I took my thoughts elsewhere?  I have no interest in being considered a troll or treated like one.  If you'd rather "talk amongst yourselves," just let me know.

    Parent

    It helps in the shorthand (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:43:41 PM EST
    of blog conversation.

    See my Open Thread just posted.

    Parent

    Prime Minister Maliki speaks (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:07:06 PM EST
    very well and exhibits a knowledge of history in his comments on Germany after World War II and today and the same re Iraq from the revolution to today.  Do we have any comparable politicians here?  

    Skilled Puppet Masters (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:15:18 PM EST
    Is more like it. We will see what happens with the provincial elections in october or november, if they happen at all. And whether or not he signs a binding agreement with BushCo.

    Parent
    I wasn't referring to his politics. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:19:14 PM EST
    Here is a man who speaks w/o a script and teleprompter and makes a lot more sense to me than either Sen. running for U.S. Pres.

    Parent
    Feel Free To Write Him In (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    I think that he is a dolt.

    Parent
    Not "natural born." (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:46:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Neither is McCain. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:47:48 PM EST
    So I say, go for it!

    Parent
    McCain's been "natural born" (1.00 / 0) (#88)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:42:29 PM EST
    (legislatively) since Congress defined the term in 1790.

    (Insert McCain is as old as the Constitution joke here.)

    As for Obama though, he's got a different set of circumstances since his father does not appear to have been either a U.S. citizen (naturalized) or a permanent resident.

    For Obama the question is whether or not he was born in Hawaii - that is essentially what matters.

    If he wasn't then he isn't Constitutionally qualified to be President.

    Parent

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:24:52 PM EST
    McCain was made a citizen at the age of one year old by act of Congress.

    When he was born in the Canal Zone he was not subject to the law granting citizenship to any child born to American citizens overseas since the Canal Zone did not meet the test of being outside the jurisdiction of the United States.  On the other hand, since the Canal Zone was an unincorporated territory of the United States he was not a citizen by virtue of being born inside the United States (this was explicitly stated by US law at the time).

    The Congress recognized this problem and fixed it the year after McCain was born by declaring anyone born to American parents in the Canal Zone after 1904 to be a citizen.  But since McCain was already alive, this was a form a naturalization for him -- he can't ever be a natural born citizen since he was unquestionably not a citizen at the time of birth.

    Does anyone care?  I don't think so.  But it's no less true for all that.

    Parent

    Sorry guy, (none / 0) (#93)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:01:34 PM EST
    McCain's place of birth has nothing to do with it.  His parents were both U.S. citizens born and raised - his father a U.S. Naval Officer and under Congressional Act passed in 1790 he is therefore a natural born citizen.

    But of course the Obama campaign would love to throw you off the trail by muddying up the issue with McCain's place of birth.

    Parent

    Talex In Drag (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:12:54 PM EST


    Parent
    10 comment per day (none / 0) (#95)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:28:50 AM EST
    New commenters (those less than 30 days) are limited to 10 comments per 24 hours.  You are at 34 comments.

    Also, you are violating site rules by discussing puma and those comments will be deleted.

    Parent

    So What? (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    Obviously it would be a protest vote, may as well protest two things at once.

    Parent
    The U.S. Presidential campaign has (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:19:26 PM EST
    really narrowed the discussions here.  

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    Better watch out - you may be identified as a McCain shill or Hillary cultist soon.

    Parent
    Not Oculus (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:37:18 PM EST
    She has too much of a sense of humor. Doesn't take herself that seriously which pretty much rules out shill or cultist, imo.

    Parent
    I fail to see (none / 0) (#46)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:09:40 PM EST
    how this justifies the assertion that Bush and McCain have some how come to Obama's side of the issue.

    It doesn't change certain realities, 1) A timetable and withdrawal are NOT synonymous, 2) you can accomplish the latter without the former, and 3) in no way was the status quo position ever one of permament substantial presence in Iraq.

    Inaving Iraq (none / 0) (#47)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:14:49 PM EST
    the CW was that you break it you own it.

    according to Colin Powell--peronification of whatever the CW is at any given time.

    Parent

    Since when was Iraq ever not broken? (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:34:31 PM EST
    Bush decided to play nation builder - which we've decided to do from time to time (I'm being saracstic - we've been 'building nations' likes its our job for over 100 years) - and selected the easiest target.

    Ulitmately, was it right?  Was it wrong?  Whatever.  We're there now.

    It was a gamble, but the safest one, and it looks like it's going to pay off.

    Face it, Obama and BTD are desperate: that's exactly why they're doing their best to spin Maliki's words into meaning that Bush and McCain have adopted Obama's position.

    Anyways, Colin Powel at least recognized the principle of "owning it" which is a helluva lot mor ethan what you can say about Obama's stance(s)(s)(s)(s) on the subject.

    Parent

    Please disclose that you are a McCain supporter (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:39:33 PM EST
    And refrain from personal attacks.

    But start that tomorrow as you are suspended from my posts for the remainder of the day.

    Do not comment any more today in MY threads.

    I will provide an Open Thread ion a moment where you can comment.

    Parent

    oh the irony (none / 0) (#69)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:50:06 PM EST
    weren't you railing against FISA the other day?  Gag orders and such?

    Personal attacks?  Please.  My comments are well within the established range of what passes as acceptable for all here.

    As for my leanings, you have no right to know what they are. They shouldn't matter anyways. What matters is truthful information relevant to the topic of the post.

    Parent

    you ought to state that you (none / 0) (#78)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:48:14 PM EST
    support McCain.  it's fair.  I'm just trtting out the obvious arguments that McCain will employ and seeing what they might be made of.

    In no way do I support another Republican admin.

    Parent

    i don't think it's fair at all (none / 0) (#85)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:01:42 PM EST
    to require posters to post their preferences. I will say that I supported Kerry in 2004.  I will also say that the majority of us were quite cearly sold a defective product in 2002 and 2003.

    Withdrawal was a helluva lot more practical back in 2004 - before nearly 750 billion dollars had been spent there.

    Now it's 2008, we're actually seeing success in Iraq - and withdrawing unconditionally is totally unacceptable.  We're there, we've been there, we have to finish it now more than ever seeing as things are looking extremely promising these past several months.

    I really the left would move on from 2004.

    Parent

    Whose Puppet is Maliki? (none / 0) (#87)
    by santarita on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:24:06 PM EST
    Interesting interview.  If all that one goes by is that interview, the US should start pulling out combat troops right now.  Maliki sounds very upbeat.  He talking about good relations and doing business with German companies.  Why wait 16 months?  

    If there is a debate between Maliki and our generals, then since Iraq is an independent  nation, Maliki wins the debate.  Right?  

    He really sounds like someone trying to encourage relatives who have overstayed their welcome to pack up and find another relative to visit.

    If Maliki truly represents the Iraqi people, then it is time to come home.

    And I'm not a fan of McCain and will not vote for him.

    The Der Spiegel Maliki Interview Transcript | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment