As the next president comes in, one of the things we will uncover is just how widespread the systematic perversion of the government into an arm of the Republican party is. In this instance it’s the Bushies pushing Iraq’s Maliki to walk back what was clearly an endorsement of Sen. Obama’s strategy in Iraq.
The statement by an aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling his remarks in Der Spiegel ‘misinterpreted and mistranslated’ followed a call to the prime minister’s office from U.S. government officials in Iraq.
Of course, as the current administration comes to a close, they’ve been adopting the Democratic position on much of their foreign policy - from Iraq to North Korea and Iran - because what they’ve pushed is such an amazingly miserable failure.
UPDATE: More on how the White House/GOP is pushing a made up retraction on this story. Even for them, this is mighty disgraceful.
But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.
The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”
He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”
I was waiting for that!
After 6 years of slogging it out in Iraq, fighting the liberals every step of the way, we have now won the peace. Now we can start to consider leaving, and of course the libs start saying “See, we told you we should leave!”
ROFLMAO
You really haven’t been paying all that much attention then, have you?
Of course he hasn’t. Learning hurts his brain, so he avoids it.
Oliver once again combines gullibility with stupidity, in a classic liberal stance. There is no evidence that the WH pressured Maliki to change his remarks, which were hardly an overwhelming endorsement of Obama in the first place.
And Maliki doesn’t even speak for the Iraqi govt, according to the libtards, so what’s the big deal?
You leftie morons all make me laugh.
Maliki voiced support for Obama’s approach and frustration with McCain/Bush’s at least three times with three different phrasings in the Der Spiegel article. And each and every time he was mistranslated and the basic meaning of his words was apparently not, possibly even the very opposite of, what was reported.
Yeah. That makes perfect sense.
So much hostility to a story that you think is a joke.
“Oliver once again combines gullibility with stupidity, in a classic liberal stance. There is no evidence that the WH pressured Maliki to change his remarks,
The ‘retraction’ was a lie. Simple as that. Der Spiegel released a transcript that showed there was no mistranslation error. And when someone lies, one must wonder why. In this case, it seems clear that Maliki was told to retract his statement, but who did it? The White House is the obvious choice, and it is not like this would be unusual for them. You would have to be stupid and gullible to not think the White House was somewhat responsible.
“which were hardly an overwhelming endorsement of Obama in the first place.
Someone working with the McCain campaigned was quote about this story as saying, “We’re fucked.’ (They were quoted anonymously, obviously.) So they seem to think it was a big deal.
“And Maliki doesn’t even speak for the Iraqi govt, according to the libtards, so what’s the big deal?”
I would love to hear you back this claim up. Show proof that the majority of liberals think Maliki isn’t in charge in Iraq. Don’t bother posting one or two quotes say Maliki’s government is legitimate due to ethnic boycotts of the elections. That isn’t the same thing.
“You leftie morons all make me laugh.”
What is that saying… “Small minds, simple pleasures.”
Have fun on the junk heap of history.
“There is no evidence that the WH pressured Maliki to change his remarks…”
blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/20/maliki_aides_statement_came_af.html
“The statement by an aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling his remarks in Der Spiegel “misinterpreted and mistranslated” followed a call to the prime minister’s office from U.S. government officials in Iraq.”
“There is no evidence that the WH pressured Maliki to change his remarks…”
blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/20/maliki_aides_statement_came_af.html
BWAAAAHAHAHA!
Ding! You win The Obvious prize, CSS. Isn’t that Russian for “I am an RNC thinktank troll.”?
FAIL.
My turn (after ranting about the New Yorker cartoon, or rathat about the ranting about the cartoon in response to Oliver’s good advice to cool it) to say this isn’t such a big deal.
Mind you, Maliki’s support for Obama’s position is a big deal. Not, for the benefits of the idiots and trolls, because one is an admirer of Maliki, but because it shows the clear direction of politics in Iraq.
But, you know, you just can’t endorse a candidate in some other country’s election, especially a powerful one that’s still occupying your country. It just isn’t done. And in addition to that traditional nicety, it’s almost sure to cause more trouble than it solves; in particular, to cause trouble for the person you’d like to support. Which is why it Isn’t Done.
So, he had to back off and say “Gee, no, I wasn’t endorsing him or anything, how could you think that?” No doubt the Bushites were crude in pointing out these niceties to him. But he leaves no doubt, especially if his answer really was a vague as the “had been misiterpreted” bit, which way the winds are blowing in Iraq.
Once again we see that a “puppet” is not so stongly controlled as everyone wants to think. Sometimes they get honest, or patriotic. Sometimes they get scared. They are not to be relied on, which is a good thing.
“And Maliki doesn’t even speak for the Iraqi govt, according to the libtards, so what’s the big deal?”
You wanna explain this comment in further detail?
“As the next president comes in, one of the things we will uncover is just how widespread the systematic perversion of the government into an arm of the Republican party is.”
That’s assuming anyone bothers to investigate this administration. At this point, I think the bulk of the Democratic Party wants to just “get past” Bush and not hold any of the administration accountable for anything, because if they perform investigations Rush Limbaugh will say mean things about them. I like to think Obama will give Conyers anything he asks for, but I can’t be certain of that.
Still, it’s something I’m going to go to platform meetings and hammer. I doubt it’ll do much good, but at least I can say I tried.
Ford chose to “get past” Nixon, and our country is still feeling the consequences of that action. And Bush already gets an air of legitimacy that Nixon didn’t simply by finishing out his term.
BWAAAAHAHAHA!
Ding! You win The Obvious prize, CSS. Isn’t that Russian for “I am an RNC thinktank troll.”?
FAIL.
What the hell does that even mean. Well, by ultra con standards, since I don’t understand what you’re saying you must be wrong, so whatever.
“What the hell does that even mean.”
That’s what I wanted to ask, but I decided I wasn’t going to get a satisfactory answer, so I decided to play a bit of WoW instead.
I probably should be doing work now, but I’ve reviewed 8 DVDs this week and wrote short summaries on a dozen more and I just need a break.
He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”
Hmmm…that would suggest to me that we have reached a point where the Iraqi PM thinks they can move forward without us. Is the whole thing still a miserable failure?
“Hmmm…that would suggest to me that we have reached a point where the Iraqi PM thinks they can move forward without us. Is the whole thing still a miserable failure?”
Yes. It was built on lies and the costs were way too high and it took way too long to get to an acceptable outcome. One, by the way, that is not ensured.
and it took way too long to get to an acceptable outcome.
And that suggests to me that you agree that an acceptable outcome may be at hand.
Do lefties have some sort of genetic defect that prevents them from making internally consistent statements?
Is the whole thing still a miserable failure?”
Yes. It was built on lies and the costs were way too high and it took way too long to get to an acceptable outcome. One, by the way, that is not ensured.
“yes (it is still a “miserable” failure), it was built on lies and the costs were too high and took way too long to get an acceptable outcome
If we have an acceptable outcome, how is it a failure?
Couldn’t you have been at least honest and said, no it isn’t a failure, but the reason we did it was a false premise and I think it took too long. That would at least leave room for a reasonable discussion.
The final little chestnut “is not ensured” is classic libtard…unless we have a guaranteed outcome, we shouldn’t even try….
Did the cognitive dissonance of that final graf leave you a little uncomfortable “CS”? I mean, as a guy who writes for a living?
You leftie morons all make me laugh.
Dave in Boca:
Lefties aren’t part of the anti-science, ant-intellectual, anti-education crowd. Then again, reality has a liberal bias so your jealousy is understandable, if stupid.
One thing I have not heard mentioned yet on this thread is the possibility that al-Maliki and the Parliament (which I read some months back supported a timetable) have probably begun responding to the desires of their respective constituencies, many of whom understandably chafe at having a large western occupying force in their country.
Now that quite a few neighborhoods are no longer mixed religiously (I’ll try to find a link for that if somebody wants to debate the point), I’d be curious to know how public opinion breaks down from Sunni to Shi’a MPs.
“yes (it is still a “miserable” failure), it was built on lies and the costs were too high and took way too long to get an acceptable outcome
If we have an acceptable outcome, how is it a failure?
All depends upon one’s preferred measuring stick. Of course if one was for and always for the war, if Iraq doesn’t become a parking lot and even if they have some strongman take over after we leave, one will be more inclined to say, “hey, we’re Musharraf’s ally too.” If one was against the war from the beginning, one will be more inclined to say, “Hey, wait a second, that’s not what you said would happen. All this liberator/WMD/peaceful liberalised democracy stuff didn’t happen, so we failed.”
we have now won the peace.
Anybody else think this is just a little bit presumptuous? Even the conservatives around here have to know we haven’t won the peace until it’s peaceful after we’ve left.
Hi Parthenon…
All depends upon one’s preferred measuring stick.
For this particular discussion, I am using whatever stick C.S. used when s/he decided that we had arrived at an acceptable outcome, while complaining that it “took way too long.”
I won’t presume to speak for CSS but I imagine he’s alluding to the time when Dep.Sec.Def. Wolfowitz (IIRC) claimed that the occupation would be measured in months, not years. I’m sure Wolfowitz wasn’t alone in that assessment.
This may be part of the problem - Americans were lied to consistently in Vietnam by a chickenshit administration (things are going great! - see, we’re killing 10 VC for every one dead American, there’s your proof). For some reason unknown to me, this administration pre-war made some very definite statements about what would happen and how long it would take, without allowing themselves any sort of strategic flexibility. That made them look collectively like liars and fools when it didn’t happen that way. In late 2002, if they were seriously considering this, they at least should have said “You know, we might be there a long time, we might be spending a fortune, and there could be some serious casualties on both sides.”
“If we have an acceptable outcome, how is it a failure?”
As any sentient person knows, these two are different. The war is a failure at accomplishing any of its objectives (whatever they were) but there can be an acceptable way to extricate ourselves. One that starts with an immediate timetable for withdrawal.
“If we have an acceptable outcome, how is it a failure?”
Let’s see here..
4,000 U.S. casualties from an “imminent threat” - Check.
Cost of war that “would pay for itself” - Check.
Atrocities - Check.
-So its gotta be about the democracy! Y’know, democracy for those filthy wogs that were going to be “glassified” in the early stages of the invasion when it wasn’t going to be a “cakewalk”.
Destroying the village in order to save it. Brilliant.
These assumptions about Iraqi stability are based on the faulty idea that U.S. troops can just sit there forever. You are all aware that at some point in the night the babysitter goes home? And for Iraq, there are no parents coming.
Parthenon: “All this liberator/WMD/peaceful liberalised democracy stuff didn’t happen,”
it didn’t? Even the NYT says it has.
Oliver continues to move the goalpost, without acknowledging that he is doing so.
Iraq has progressed immensely. Originally the goal was a self-sustaining government, then internal security, now it is when we go home.
Oliver, do you consider Europe a failure? We never went home, “babysitter” still there. How about Japan, ditto.
Just admit that you were against anything the republicans did, and will continue to call the sky “gray” if the republicans say it is blue, and be done with it.
it didn’t? Even the NYT says it has.
The Times said (recently) that we liberated Iraq, it is now a peaceful liberalised democracy and that the previous regime still had usable WMD’s? Good gravy! How their standards have fallen through the floor!
do you consider Europe a failure? We never went home, “babysitter” still there. How about Japan, ditto.
Just admit that you were against anything the republicans did
This has nothing to do with anything so shallow as political parties, sir. We all hope Iraq pulls it together. It is presumptuous in the extreme, however, to say Iraq has settled down, and it will be presumptuous until they no longer need us there. Japan, while it has American bases (which actually are a benefit to the economies of the nearby Japanese cities), does not have American soldiers patrolling the streets and sweeping for IEDs. (Nor, by the way, does Europe.) They have to deal with occasional sabre-rattling from N. Korea but are in no danger of going up in flames domestically.
Me: “…and it took way too long to get to an acceptable outcome.”
Scratch: “And that suggests to me that you agree that an acceptable outcome may be at hand.”
No. We could get an acceptable outcome, but it is far from a sure thing. It is unlikely that the three ethnic groups in Iraq will work together, which still cause troubles in the region for a long, long time.
Additionally, ‘acceptable’ is a pretty low standard to have. Getting a C in school is acceptable, it is not a success.
Duh: “If we have an acceptable outcome, how is it a failure?”
Because of the costs. An acceptable outcome at an unacceptably high price is still a failure.
It is simply a matter of cost / reward analysis, which is not a hard concept to grasp. But given your name and your action here, clearly out of reach for you.
“The final little chestnut ‘is not ensured’ is classic libtard…unless we have a guaranteed outcome, we shouldn’t even try….”
No, duh, ‘is not ensured’ means we do not have an acceptable outcome yet, and one shouldn’t assume we will get there. There is still a very high probability of complications.
However, the military has done all they can do. We have to leave it to the Iraqis to complete the job politically. If they can’t, the presence of American troops will not help.
Scratch: “For this particular discussion, I am using whatever stick C.S. used when s/he decided that we had arrived at an acceptable outcome, while complaining that it ‘took way too long.’”
Hey, I was just going along with your claim that we’ve already reached an acceptable outcome. I even gave a caveat with regards to that point.
To clarify…
Even if you think the Iraq situation is ‘acceptable’ right now, it doesn’t necessarily mean the Iraq war was a success.
If you think a stable Iraq is what is needed to be acceptable, then we have not gotten there yet.
The military presence of the United States in Iraq is not helping the situation enough to be worth further deployment there. In fact, this has been true for a while now. Arguably from the very beginning.
Did I miss anything?
My goalposts have and always have been the kill/capture of Al Qaeda, the terror organization that killed 3,000 Americans. Anything besides that is a failure. The Bush administration compounded that by invading the wrong country, on the wrong pretenses, with insufficient forces to do the job. They then proceeded to pursue that failed strategy to the tune of thousands of American and Iraqi casualties and a less secure homeland. Now they’ve slowed down the violence, but at the cost of plugging the entire US military in the region. In case you didn’t notice, we don’t have 300,000 members of our military in Europe and Japan, and neither of those countries were blowing us up after the declared end of mission accomplished.
Conservatives have shown themselves to not care about our national security as long as Republicans win re-election. Some of us think it might be a good idea to kill the bad guys and not occupy the wrong country for extended periods of time. Crazy, I know.
Iraq is going to have an internal crackdown of some sort, the tribal and historical tensions practically dictate that. There are no Jeffersons and Franklins there. The choice we have is a crackdown with U.S. casualties or without. I take the latter.
There are no Jeffersons and Franklins there.
But there might be a Ho Chi Minh.
“Hmmm…that would suggest to me that we have reached a point where the Iraqi PM thinks they can move forward without us. Is the whole thing still a miserable failure?”
Up until last week, talk of withdrawal from Iraq was met by conservatives with howls of retreat and defeat. Now all of a sudden withdrawal is evidence of victory? The only way you guys can maintain that position is if you disregard and distort the reasons why Maliki is now pushing the withdrawal position.
Maliki is not asking for a US troop withdrawal because he thinks the mission has been accomplished. He is asking for a troop withdrawal because it’s now the only way to accomplish the mission. Two different things. The Iraqi people want us out and that is the position of Maliki’s political opponents. Advocating a timeline for withdrawal is Maliki’s last chance to survive the upcoming elections and beyond.
Maliki has, in other words, accepted and vocalized what opponents of the occupation have always said: the US presence is more of an obstacle to political and social stability in Iraq than it is an agent of that stability.
As he told Der Spiegel: “Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic.”
Realistic because the longer US troops stay without a clear departure date, the harder and harder it will be for Maliki to forge the kind of political alliances he needs in order to hold the government, and the country, together. If we were to stay indefinitely, as conservatives were arguing just a week ago, whatever gains in security might have been accomplished by the surge would be washed away in renewed resistance to what Iraqi’s perceive as an occupying force.
The right simply cannot bring itself to accept that we have always been a part of the problem in Iraq. At every stage of this disaster we have done nothing but make it worse.
Even the much vaunted surge was founded not simply on increasing the number of US troops but by arming and supporting tribal chieftains in the country in direct contradiction to the goal of creating a unified, centralized Iraqi government. The tribes turned on al qaeda not because they love the US, but because they saw al qaeda as a more immediate threat to their traditional leadership in Iraq after years of turning a blind eye to the terrorists attacks on US forces. The US was willing to arm and pay these tribal leaders to suppress al qaeda even going so far as to create separate tribal security forces outside the authority of the central Iraqi Army for the sole purpose of short term expediency, without regard for the long term stability of the country. Now, for all that they’ve done to suppress al qaeda in their own provinces, those same chieftains are opposed to any lengthy US presence in Iraq and they are putting pressure on Maliki to press for withdrawal or lose the elections and legitimacy. The longer we stay, the greater chance that those tribal leaders will turn on us and the Maliki government.
As the left has said all along, the only way for Iraq to make any real political progress is for the US to leave. That’s it. Nothing has changed in the left’s assessment of and prescription for Iraq. It’s the right that is now, once again, flailing around in an attempt to spin reality in its favor.
“Iraq has progressed immensely. Originally the goal was a self-sustaining government, then internal security, now it is when we go home.”
What’s so amazing about this sentence is that you think we’ve put in place either a “self-sustaining government” or “internal security.”
Violence in Iraq is down but violence is still occurring at levels that should horrify any rational, sentient being. Seriously, you guys think that bringing violence down to 2004-2005 levels constitutes “internal security”? It’s a good thing but it ain’t “internal security.”
And not to repeat myself but what Maliki is saying is that if we want the Iraqi government to succeed, we need to set a timetable for withdrawal. He is definitely not saying that everything is cool, he’s got it under control, so we can go. The government, in other words, is hanging by a thread. Any political stability in Iraq is dependent on a US troop withdrawal, it is not the other way around.
What’s funny is that the ultra cons are yelling about this like this is new. News flash, they wanted us out for over a year now.
it didn’t? Even the NYT says it has.
Wut?
Oliver, do you consider Europe a failure?
I know alot of conservatives that think so.
How about Japan, ditto.
That just isn’t fair, because One Piece can be used to justify anything wrong with that country.
What’s funny is that the ultra cons are yelling about this like this is new. News flash, they wanted us out for over a year now.
Yes, but isn’t this the first time the PM has gotten behind it? The somewhat snarky/perhaps realistic conventional wisdom back in ‘07 was that the MPs were listening to their constiuents, while PM al-Maliki was playing the Iraqized role of Ngo Dinh Diem. It’s possible that political pressure on him is reaching critical mass. That has to be a tough game to play, trying to satisfy the people and one’s American allies/overseers.
“That has to be a tough game to play, trying to satisfy the people and one’s American allies/overseers.”
Actually, it’s only tough if your American allies/overseers are demanding things that run contrary to the will of the Iraqi people. Of course, if the goal of all this was to create a sovereign, democratic Iraq, one has to wonder why we’d be running so counter to the will of the Iraqi people in the first place.
After 6 years of slogging it out in Iraq, fighting the liberals every step of the way, we have now won the peace.
All this time I thought they were Islamofascists Jihadi gay abortionists.
That just isn’t fair, because One Piece can be used to justify anything wrong with that country.
HA!
“Hi, we’re the Americans and we’re here to help you build a free, democratic, sovereign nation. But only if you agree with us always.”
Oliver, do you consider Europe a failure?
I know alot of conservatives that think so.
How about Japan, ditto.
That just isn’t fair, because One Piece can be used to justify anything wrong with that country.
I hereby declare the above comment to have won the thread.
Though I would have picked “Boobobo Bobobobo”, or however it’s spelled.
Jesus, you kids and your “Mangos” and “Japanimation.”
I thought that was a weird typo on first pass. Thank god for the google or I might really be showing my age!
Just noticed the text in the Firefox Title Bar for this post:
The Disinformation Machine >> Oliver Willis
Truer words were never written.
“Just noticed the text in the Firefox Title Bar for this post:”
You just noticed that? The same format is used in every thread on this site, and you just noticed it.
Wow, you are fucking stupid.
Please, for your own sake, shut up and let the adults talk. Perhaps you will learn something.
Just noticed the text in the Firefox Title Bar for this post:
The Disinformation Machine >> Oliver Willis
Truer words were never written.
You’re right: the disinformation machine IS much larger than Oliver Willis.
Nevertheless, Maliki did endorse Obama’s withdrawal plan… so Oliver is right, and you are wrong.
You just noticed that? The same format is used in every thread on this site, and you just noticed it.
Wow, you are fucking stupid.
I know that reading comprehension is not your strong suit, CS, so I’ll try to explain using simple words that even you can grasp. I was pointing out what the text for this particular post said. I’m aware that the same format is used for every post. Idiot.
Perhaps you will learn something.
Possibly from Quaker, Sean or Parthenon, to name just a few. Not from spittle-flecked, ranting, ego-centric douchebags like you.
First of all…
“Spittle-flecked”?
Secondly, I understood your point, and it is pathetic.
You could make the same ‘point’ for Advice From The Losing Team thread as well. Or the Convenient Negro! thread. In fact, it would be funnier on the latter than this one.
“Perhaps you will learn something.”
“Possibly from Quaker, Sean or Parthenon, to name just a few. Not from spittle-flecked, ranting, ego-centric douchebags like you.”
No need to go on a rant just because you said something stupid.
“Spittle-flecked”?
As in foaming-at-the-mouth. I’m sure in your mind you’re calmly and rationally addressing your opponents’ statements, but in reality your attempted rebuttals come off as angry rants from someone on a major coffee jag.
Never call someone ‘wrong’ or ‘mistaken’ when you can call them ‘a fucking sub-human idiot’, eh CS?
You could make the same ‘point’ for Advice From The Losing Team thread as well. Or the Convenient Negro! thread. In fact, it would be funnier on the latter than this one
The first one is good but the second one just demonstrates what a racist you are.
No need to go on a rant just because you said something stupid.
Says Mr. “Wow, you are fucking stupid”. You are hilarious, I’ll give you that.