BERLIN, July 20, 2008
Der Spiegel Stands By Maliki Interview
Refutes Iraqi Gov’t Statement Released By U.S. Military Claiming Prime Minister Does Not Endorse Obama Withdrawal Timetable
-
Photo
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. (AP)
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Exclusive: Obama In Afghanistan
Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama speaks with CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan about his visit to the Middle East and the War on Terror in Afghanistan.
-
Photo Essay
Week In Iraq Photos
A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
-
Interactive
Iraq: 5 Years At War
Five years after the U.S.-led invasion, the war wears on.
Ali al-Dabbagh, the chief spokesman for al-Maliki, said in a statement Sunday that the prime minister's comments were "not conveyed accurately" by Der Spiegel.
Al-Dabbagh said al-Maliki did not endorse a specific timetable but instead discussed "an Iraqi vision" of U.S. troop withdrawals based on negotiations with Washington and "in the light of the continuing positive developments on the ground."
He added that Maliki’s comments has been “misunderstood and mistranslated," without detailing which parts were affected.
The Iraqi spokesman's statement was released not by the Iraqi government but by the U.S. military’s Central Command press office in Baghdad.
The Der Spiegel article, released Saturday, quoted al-Maliki as giving apparent backing to the withdrawal plans discussed by Obama - the Illinois senator and likely Democratic nominee who has pledged to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months if he is elected.
"That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," al-Maliki was quoted as saying. "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems."
Asked when U.S. forces would leave Iraq, he responded, "as soon as possible, as far as we're concerned."
In the interview, al-Maliki said he was not seeking to endorse Obama.
Today Der Spiegel said it was standing by the accuracy of its interview.
"A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had 'misunderstood and mistranslated' the Iraqi prime minister, but didn't point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred," the magazine said, which also noted that several media organizations, including CBS, had pointed out the confusion or tepidness of the spokesman's rebuttal.
"SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation," it said.
Sadiq al-Rikabi, an adviser to al-Maliki, said later that Iraqi officials do not intend to be "part of the electoral campaign in the United States."
"We will deal with any administration that comes to power," he said.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Saturday: "In the interview, the Prime Minister made clear that any decision will be based on continuing positive developments - as he and the president both did in their joint statement yesterday. It is our shared view that should the recent security gains continue, we will be able to meet our joint aspirational time horizons."
On Friday, the White House announced that President Bush and al-Maliki had agreed to set a "general time horizon" for bringing more U.S. troops home from the war.
Obama's Republican presidential rival, John McCain, has supported Bush administration policy opposing a set timetable for taking troops out of Iraq.
"Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders," McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said Saturday. "John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground.
"Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama," Scheunemann said in a statement.
Just days ago McCain told reporters on his campaign bus that al-Maliki "has exceeded a lot of the expectations."
"I think that much to the surprise of some Maliki has proved to be a more effective leader," McCain said Tuesday in New Mexico.
The national security adviser to the Obama campaign, Susan Rice, said the senator welcomed al-Maliki's comments.
"This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan," Rice said in a statement Saturday.
“It’s important for the McCain campaign that Maliki is not seen as endorsing Obama’s specific plan,” said CBSNews.com senior political editor Vaughn Ververs. “The attempt to clarify Maliki’s comments by the Iraqi government helps, but the confusion created is probably beneficial to Obama as he continues his tour of the region.”
Obama arrived on his first visit to Afghanistan on Saturday, less than four months before the general election. He also is expected to stop later in Iraq.
McCain has criticized Obama for his lack of experience in the region. The Arizona senator has suggested he would pursue an Iraq strategy "that's working" - a reference to the troop buildup credited for sharply reducing violence in the country.
Al-Maliki is scheduled to visit Germany next week for talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel and business leaders amid a renewed German push in helping to rebuild Iraq. Berlin had opposed the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from Iraq After Saddam
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: July 6?July 12
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 29-July 5
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 22 ? June 28
- Latest in Iraq After Saddam
- Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
- Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
- Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 59 CommentsI also predict that liberals, as always, will ignore that fact, but it will be apparent to all that Obama''s stature will be greatly diminished.
I also predict that liberals, as always, will ignore that fact, but it will be apparent to all that Obama''''s stature will be greatly diminished.
Posted by OneAmerican- at 02:16 PM : Jul 20, 2008
Uh Huh! You have been SO right on SO much up to this point!! ROFLMAO Let me guess YOU still think Iraq is the "Front" in the War on Terror? Honestly, all of us have grown to expect you bootlickers to just repeat what you are told without thinking but I''m beginning to believe you aren''t capable of actually THINKING! Repeat after me! IRAQ was a LIE!! IRAQ was a FRAUD! The REAL enemy, the one that attacked us is in ANOTHER Country!! Keep repeating that until it sinks in and for gods sake throw away the confederate flag pins!! Now let''s let Shooter know you got boot polish ALL over your face!! SIEG HEIL BUSH You really aren''t the sharpest knife in the old drawer any you there Sparky... I mean thinking that 80% of this nation is "Liberal"?? How stupid is that!!??
LOL I guess the Government wasn''t able to release this?? ROFLMAO Who in their right mind can''t see what''s going on here... just another in a LONG LONG line of distortions and cover-up''s by the WORST in our nations history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by MCVet at 02:25 PM : Jul 20, 2008
+ report abuse
These Neocon Cheerleaders and Apoligists have nothing left but repeating Tired Lies over and over again, hoping some Dimbulb somewhere will believe them....
LMMFAO....they''re so over it''s hilaaaaaaaaarious....
Everyone place Barack Obama''''s web site in the favorites.
Thenlog-on and make a huge donation.
Then e-mail all your friends to do the same.
That''''s right now, people! Go. Do it and report back here in 15 minutes. Or would you rather die under 8 more years of McSame (assuming he lives that long).
Posted by notmudrose
******************************************************* Great suggestion. I just put my $25.00 in and I discovered that with my donation, I could end up with an expense paid trip to the Convention in Denver at the end of August.
************************************************************
I guess this makes it pretty clear about what is going on here. Well, clear to those of us who don''t walk around with our hands covering our ears and eyes anyway.
*********************************************************
And we invaded the country and bombed the s**t out of it to give them freedom. They are now a sovereign nation, but the US Government will be the only ones allowed to make statements.
The current administration if following OBAMA''S blue book. Just look at the IRAN negotiations, The reinforcement of troops in Afganistan, The time table (Time horizon as they want to call it) withdrawal in IRAK. My question to you is: WHO HAS THE BEST JUDGEMENT TO LEAD?????
BARACK OBAMA OF COURSE
Iraqi''s (yeah the current regime that we helped to put in power) do not want us there long term.
What is so hard to accept about this concept. They are under the impressuon that it is their country. Whether or not the "spokesman" agreed to 16 monts is irrelavent.
So what? Like somebody pointed out, he''s the US''s puppet - we''re pulling HIS strings, not the other way around. Al Maliki''s looking out for HIS best interests, not ours. I think the only people who think this ''strengthens'' Barack don''t get how the right think at all.
Posted by starleo14672 at 03:50 PM : Jul 20, 2008
And all the while, McCain is telling us we''ll be in Iraq for 100 years.
Who has better judgement?
IMO,
Obama!
A 16 month withdrawal has only gained more popularity because the surge in fact succeeded in tamping down violence. Barack was against the surge.
Shrub is a megalomaniacal loon who''s thirsting to initiate armageddon on Iran so Jesus will return to Israel, hence going to the table by comparison looks pretty good to equally megalomaniacal loony toons Ahmadinejad. Barack''s a wimp.
When Bush invaded Iraq, all the terrorists flocked to Iraq to go where the troops were and there was chaos; once order was restored, they fled back to Afghanistan. Barack thinks if he starts going after them in Afghanistan they''re just going to magically fall in love with him as much as he''s in love with himself, and they''re not going to go back to Iraq and set up base where there''s then going to be a power vacuum.
Barack''s just taking his talking points from all of us - so why don''t we change the talking point to getting out of Afghanistan. He won''t back away from escalating there now because he''s triangulating to win the election. But after he wins, he''ll stick his finger in the wind so we should tell him which way to go.
---"Obama says pull the troops out of Iraq in 16 months. Now Bush is going to pull some troops out yea Obama. Obama says talk to Iran and bush has said never, now Bush wants to talk to Iran. Yea Obama Obama says Afghanistan is where we should have put are attention in the first place. Now Bush is going to send more troops to Afghanistan. yea Obama"---
Posted by starleo14672
Are people really applauding Barack or aren''t you really applauding yourselves? Because that''s been the Dem platform for like 3 years now. Everybody''s just congratulating themselves on their superiority LOL
I think the Right looks at this type of statement and recognizes that the only reason the Dem position is able to exist is because the Republican position was something else.
I also predict that liberals, as always, will ignore that fact, but it will be apparent to all that Obama''s stature will be greatly diminished.
I predict that it will be a blood bath in November for the Republicans. Wing nuts like you are destroying the Republican party. The swing voters are not impressed with your retoritic.
Neo cons do your self and the Republican party a favor leave now while you have nothing. Soon you will be an cancer on the GOP.
I think the Right looks at this type of statement and recognizes that the only reason the Dem position is able to exist is because the Republican position was something else.
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 04:48 PM : Jul 20, 2008
You know you constantly are snipping and picking at what American''s, you do REMEMEBER them don''t you?? Well American''s who DO NOT agree with the Party and the Fuhrer are Always wrong. DO YOU ever ONCE indicate why we were lied into the war, why our economy is on the rocks, why we have a record debt, why our justice department was made into an Arm of the "Party".... NONE of this is address... you just snipe at your neighbors because they will snap to and shout SIEG HEIL!!
Neo cons do your self and the Republican party a favor leave now while you have nothing. Soon you will be an cancer on the GOP.
Posted by antoniof123 at 06:56 PM : Jul 20, 2008
Oh it is far to late in some states my friend. In the State I live in and states to our north independents far our rank Republican''s. They find the Fascist, you called them Neocon''s but I prefer the McCarthy Era name, to be just as bad as we do.
Posted by MCVet
McVet, I''m not GOP either. And I''m shocked to hear you supported the war. Is that what you believe that you were lied to? Like were you ever okay keeping the saber-rattling mass-murdering Saddam Hussein IN power? Because that was what it meant to be against the war in Iraq.
All I''m doing is pointing out that escalation in Afghanistan is exactly the same unwinnable exercise in nation-building of a country rife with civil strife and corruption. I know that people are tired of 8 years of George Bush rule, and I know how promising it looks to have somebody different on the cusp of grabbing the reins. But there''s a whole new generation of troops who are pointing out that war is hell and that if Bin Laden and the taliban can hide out in sovereign Pakistan, then what the heck is the point of surging in Afghanistan. If we ignore that point because we''re scared of losing an election, then how are Dems any better than Repubs?
Man felt unloved, hurt and shame in his heart. Man could not deal with all of this. Man because of these emotions and feelings could not accept that God loved him not until Jesus, God manifested in the flesh, came 2 town. He healed and loved and accepted man while he was walking in this world. He cured people of their diseases he showed man the meaning of love all the while Satan wanted him dead and out of the way. He stirred up the people 2 crucify Jesus. This was his place and he was not going to allow Jesus 2 have any part of it. Then it finally happens, Satan got what he wanted, where one person comes running down the road crying out in the streets -They have killed Jesus.- The people who had hope could not understand why Gods son had 2 die on a cross of all places. That was until Jesus made it plain 2 them later on. It was Gods justice being satisfied at the cross, our sin debt was paid in full, This plan was Gods wisdom, his love is what made it happen and his power is available 4 everyone 2 call on Jesus as Their Lord and Savior, our assurance rest in the fact that salvation is all of God. The cross is the finish work of Jesus! All we have 2 do is accept it by proclaiming it by calling out loud 4 Jesus 2 save U. Will U turn and call on Jesus 2 save you? Will U let Jesus shine through your life 2 shock the world with his love?
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Go bible-thump with your own kind.
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 07:12 PM : Jul 20, 2008
It''s not a matter of how I felt about Saddam it''s about the LIES and the deception. As someone who left 15 very good friends in Vietnam, I can tell you NO dictator is worth ONE American Life unless the Security of this nation is in the balance and IF that''s the ONLY option left. To step up and say you were for what Bush did is simply denying the right of the People to be told the TRUTH about why their family members are dying. It was a LIE and a FRAUD... is now and will always be. Sieg Heil Bush
Posted by babooph at 07:36 PM : Jul 20, 2008
ROFLMAO I have no doubt that the Fuhrer and Shooter Threatened him. That''s the ONLY way they know... the problem with doing that, since it''s SO OBVIOUS the people of Iraq want us out, you can never have a friend like that. We have NO business "Telling" the people of Iraq how to govern themselves... NONE at all.
I agree that the Republicans will get hammered in November. Someone has to take the fall since no one wants to hear that our own choices have led us this point.
On Maliki, the important message is that Iraq leadership is now confident enough to start seriously discussing self-determination. Everyone should be elated about what that could mean.
As for Iraq, they are taking serious strides in protecting themselves (while our surge contributed).
-Shrub Booosh
Time to go, Peanut Brain.....LMMFAO
Posted by MCVet
Okay, I understand what you''re saying. Maybe it would be more accurate for me to say that whenever one advocates NOT taking action against a country or leader who aren''t our friends, there comes with that policy-position if implemented a level of anxiety that perhaps on some level people think is worth going to war to avoid. And that if that''s the case, that same dynamic which was present before the invasion of Iraq is also present now as we discuss escalation of Afghanistan rather than phasing out nation-building in the middle-east, and that''s something people need to acknowledge within themselves if they keep advocating war and then denouncing it on grounds that our leaders are self-serving after-the-fact.
Thank you once again mcvet for your service!
If Bush were the monster you propose, your ''voice'' would have been silenced long ago (not that any balanced American should wish that), don''t you think. The only voice that is threatened on this page has been Providence-J''s.
I read many passages from the Koran on this site and anyone attacking them was shouted down as a red-neck Neo-Con. What does that make the person shouting down someone quoting from the Bible?
It will be a different discussion then since it is always easier to be the sub-commander and critique.
Interested to now how we will address Iran, Russia (not our allies, friends), China, rising Socialism elements in South America.
Interested to Know how we will address Iran, Russia (not our allies, friends), China, rising Socialism elements in South America.
Posted by dwmcgill
The Dem position used to be to turn inward to and focus on strengthening our base at home by growing the economy, shoring up the border, giving the troops a much-needed rest. And that was based on the fact that Shrub has been trying to be dominator of the world the last 8 years such that Russia and China have been shoring Iran up financially with huge contracts for their oil as a hedge against the US rise in influence in the region.
It doesn''t seem like a position Barack will likely adopt because he keeps pushing right and triangulating. So probably you on the right could name your platform, and he''ll probably adopt it.
Defending at our own borders is an easy question to answer (Reps and Dems). The more appropriate question is the one asked....namely, how do we project power and influence in order to head off a fight on our shores. If that makes me a "right-winger" in your mind, so be it.
I don''t think that the US military PR people were present at the interview. How is it that they suddenly know what was said?
Sorry, I didn''t mean that as a pejorative - I get called ''far-left'' all the time even as I''m showing support for Mitt Romney, so I meant no disrespect :)
Yeah, well I guess that''s like the trade-off - there''s exerting one''s influence around the world to give off the appearance of strength and influence, but with that comes with a big financial pricetag which effectively weakens our actual power. We''re flexing our muscles in the middle-east, but now the Europeans Chinese and the Arabs are buying our landmarks and our iconic businesses.
You make a really good and legitimate point - I guess that''s just my personal preference to focus instead on our economy, because without it we don''t have any influence with which to exert. But yeah there is definitely a price to pay . . .
I guess when I say let''s stop the nation-building in the middle-east, I''m including in that the fact that that promise of withdrawal also has the potential to be used as leverage in asking the Iranians to open up reactors for inspection in return from our withdrawal from the region. Withdrawal and acceptance of the Iraqi and Iranian relationship could also be used to insist on our continued influence in the region and first dibbs on oil or drilling rights. Scaling back in Afghanistan could be used to ask Russia to stop supplying weapons and nuclear material to Iran, etc.
Like, can''t we flex our muscles on the cheap?
What makes you a right winger is believing and repeating the BS about projecting "power and influence in order to head off a fight on our shores."
The real reason the US is meddling in foreign affairs is simple corruption, as proven by this article from the London times.
"Payne, a top fundraiser for Bush who has accompanied the president and vice-president on foreign trips, was covertly filmed by The Sunday Times offering to arrange meetings with Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, and other senior officials for a former dignitary from central Asia who wanted to relaunch himself politically.
Related Links
* Bush lobbyist in %u2018cash for access%u2019 row
* Hotshot who can get you into White House
* Stephen Payne and his contacts
Payne said the foreign politician should make a $250,000 payment to the Bush library, plus another $450,000 for his lobbying firm."
Central Asia? Sounds like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, or some other nearby nation.
The facts on the ground, Mr. McSame, are that we shouldn''t even be there in the first place, as all the reasons for the invasion have been proven to be lies.
This is the only fact that matters.
After the interview, someone got to Malaki which resulted in a very weak denial of what he said.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 59 Comments