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

(CBS/AP)  A German magazine which published an interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stating his support for presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposed 16-month timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq is standing by its interview, despite statements issued by an al-Maliki spokesman claiming he was "mistranslated."

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.

[jtibabijo]

This is again for "Promaclaura" It is sad to blame the old men for the foolishness of his son. You should be ashamed to even think that Mr. Older Bush was a bad president. He showed confidence and greatness when he did not get to The capital of Iraq. Why? because he and his advisors knew that a civil war will followed and America will be tag the agressor. And history prove him right. If you remember November 11 did not start with Iraq citizen it was our allied Saudi''s citizen who hurted us and they learn it all from Afghanistan. What did we do in Afghanistan against the UNion Sovietic. We armed OBL. You see your response is not valid and Blaming the Older wiser Bush doesn''t have any merits. You can be proud to be a republican but give us Democrat some credit and Obama deserve it for not wanting to start a war in Iraq

[promaclaura]

As a matter of fact, I hold Bush senior responsible for the mess we''re in. Saddam should have been removed during the first Gulf War. We left the people of Iraq at the mercy of Saddam, where he and his henchman continued their reign of terror. Instead of removing him, we kept our troops surrounding Iraq and paid billions for a no-fly zone that allowed Saddam to hatch his evil plans and play cat and mouse for 12 years thumbing his nose at the UN (we were in Saudia Arabia which is why OBL said he attacked on 9/11). I believe it is hypocrisy for the anti-war crowd to pretend they care for the people of Iraq and left them under a tyrant. The price of oil is caused by supply and demand (and speculators). Since the middle east has got us where it hurts and we have no viable alternative, I''d say that the war for oil mentality is way off. How kind of Barack to be against a war that has allowed millions to finally have a voice. Granted it has been a mess, and the WMD (which Saddam pretended he had) were not found. To me this does not matter because he already proved his capability to make them and he used chemical weapons on his own people and killed thousands.

[parrot123-2009]

I almost feel pity for Malaki. Three times during the interview, he supported the 16 months concept. The magazine stands by the article and has evidence to support its stance (if it followed good journalistic procedures).
After the interview, someone got to Malaki which resulted in a very weak denial of what he said.
Posted by ramos937 at 04:20 AM : Jul 21, 2008

Wrong - That wasn''t the Iraqi but the puppet master -

The Iraqi spokesman''s statement was released not by the Iraqi government but by the U.S. military%u2019s Central Command press office in Baghdad.

[jtibabijo]

In response to "PromacLaura". I would like to point out that We invaded Iraq and did not find the WMD, than we stated the reason was to get to "Hussein". This is real hypocrisy to see how the Republican are so blinded that they will say anything. How could they forgot that Obama was against invading Iraq that is the same decision a wise man named "Bush senior" took. The republican (Bush and Mccain) wanted the war to increase the oil revenue of their Oil Man. and that is what had happened Now we are paying more than the $24.00 a barrel we were before the Iraq Invasion. Most likely "PromacLaura" must have some stock in the oil industry and now getting rich. The republican do not want the gravy train to come to a stop. They need Mcain to continue the Bush policies.

[promaclaura]

The claims that Maliki supports Barack''s policy''s on Iraq is a stretch on reality because it is something already in the works. I''m sure drawing down our troops has always been the goal for Maliki. Our President clearly stated time and time again that we would withdraw our troops when Iraq was ready to take over. Forcing out the foreign fighters with the surge created the scenario for the exit to commence. Nothing Barrack has done has brought the eventual pull-out to us any sooner as he would like you to think. Where''s the action? Did he vote for the surge which is the reason we can now move forward? No, he voted against it in response to the political weather here in the U.S. So stop putting the success of the surge and it''s obvious benefits as a notch in Barrack''s belt, he did nothing but pander. I am surprised how well he has blinded his following. Elected in the primaries to the "no war chant" and immediate withdrawel, he is now in the general election backtracking. Barack will disappoint many who drank the kool-aid when he does exactly what Bush or McCain would do, listen the the general''s on the ground (not looney bloggers or Bush Haters).

[harpoot]

I''m sure der Spiegel got it right. I''m sure Shooter had Kindasleazy call him up and slap his hands.

[jmurrieta1]

Maliki may be in line for some "friendly fire"!

[nextgenman]

I expect Al Maliki is trying to back track because Bush threatened him.

[neoconrcrazy]

the bottom line is the buhsit/cheney gang wants the US military in iraq, in strength, forever -

otherwise, how do they hold and control the prize?

iraqis know this and there4 will not, at least not yet, sell out their country to a one-sided "forces agreement".

let''s hope the present regime doesn''t get what their only objective was since the begining - control of iraqi oil.

[ramos937]

I almost feel pity for Malaki. Three times during the interview, he supported the 16 months concept. The magazine stands by the article and has evidence to support its stance (if it followed good journalistic procedures).
After the interview, someone got to Malaki which resulted in a very weak denial of what he said.

[brianbwb-2009]

McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said Saturday. "John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground."

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.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by dwmcgill

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.

[caliguy55]

Too bad. Karl Rove cannot spin out of this one. Fromwhat I read, the interview was conducted in English and thus there can be no doubt as to what Al-Maliki said. Obama 08!

[samthetvcat]

dwmcgill

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?

[omnibus66]

If the German newspaper recorded the interview, which is standard procedure, all they have to do is release the tape. Then knowledgeable translators can decide what he actually said.

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?

[dwmcgill]

Sam,

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.

[samthetvcat]

---"Now that it is virtually assured that BHO will become President of the United States with a Democratic Senate and House, what will be the country''''s position regarding pre-emptive actions to prevent American loss of life and influence?"---
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.

[dwmcgill]

Correction:
Interested to Know how we will address Iran, Russia (not our allies, friends), China, rising Socialism elements in South America.

[dwmcgill]

Now that it is virtually assured that BHO will become President of the United States with a Democratic Senate and House, what will be the country''s position regarding pre-emptive actions to prevent American loss of life and influence?

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.

[dwmcgill]

MCVet,

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?