Maliki Goes Obama's Way While NYT and WP Wait--For What?
As of 9 pm Saturday night, the nation's major newspapers are weirdly reticent about Prime Minister al-Maliki's striking (make that extremely striking and indeed extraordinary) statement to Germany's Der Spiegel that a timetable for US withdrawal from Iraq makes sense: "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." According to this major magazine, "In his conversation with SPIEGEL, he was once again candid about his frustration over the Bush administration's hesitancy about agreeing to a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops."
At this writing, CNN has acknowledged that Maliki said he agreed with Obama, though noting also that "a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks 'were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.'" Uh-huh. We await Der Spiegel's release of the transcript, and the particulars that Maliki's spokesman rejects.
But the news cascades, or rather the absence of news does. At 9:08 pm, the NYT has yet to acknowledge the Maliki statement in anything more than a sidebar online piece to the effect that the White House mistakenly sent out the word in an e-mail blast to reports. So, according to the NYT, this is a story of a White House gaffe, not a story about how the most legitimate political authority in Iraq sides against the Bush administration and its would-be successor, John McCain.
The WP carries Garance Franke-Ruta's blog mention of Maliki's support of Obama's position, but so far, that's all. We await the morning paper.
Update 9 AM: Await no more. Both the NYT and the WP shoehorned the Maliki report into their p. 1 pieces on Obama in Afghanistan. Garance Franke-Ruta reported it on her valuable WP blog, "The Trail." The LAT not only fronted the Maliki Spiegel interview but gave it the headline.
The NYT home page has a set of links below it's piece on Obama in Afghanistan, entitled "White House Mistake Calls Attention" to "Report That Iraqi Backs Obama Plan". The first part of the line (White House Mistake Calls Attention) links to the afternoon article about the White's house's goof-up and quotes al-Maliki's pertinent statements. The second part (Report That Iraqi Backs Obama Plan) links to the 6:28 update with extensive reporting on the interview, Obama's response, and includes links to Der Spiegel and a later update with the following comment by Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, who apparently did some frantic cutting and pasting from Bush talking points to create a one-sentence masterpiece of political backpedalling:
July 19, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maliki needs a new spokesman, one who can speak a human language.
July 20, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Todd,
I'll bet as soon as Malaki made that statement Cheney picked up his phone and dialed Malaki's number.
July 20, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too many Times reporters are stuck in the McCain tank to get out and see the Obama sunshine. Perhaps if the just scaled the ceramic rods and escaped, they might just become relevant again.
July 19, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happened to impartiality in writing the news? The NYT and WaPo are as bad as Faux News
July 20, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly, per my own completely unscientific survey, the FoxNews Web site was the first to list this as the top story and the story said it could greatly benefit Obama. MSNBC has been almost silent and the NYT buries it in their blog. These are the two media channels the right always says are in the tank for Obama. ABCNews, for whom the right has a new found respect after that horrible primary debate, also had it as one of their top stories, although the link actually went to Tapper's blog. (the FoxNews story was a news story, not blog entry)
I think the TradMed in this country is jealous that some German mag got the scoop. They're also going to spend as much time possible fact checking this because they don't trust Der Spiegel. That could explain the slow response. But the TradMed blogs are talking about it a lot...and the people who write/contribute to those are the folks who often show up on the Sunday shows.
Of course, CNN moved this to a secondary story as soon as the denial/non-denial - courtesy CENTCOM - came out. It fits their need to have a "he said/she said" narrative. Although, in this case, it appears to be a "he said/our occupiers told us to say that he really said this" narrative.
And as I read on another blog's comment section, isn't it very interesting that al-Maliki made these statements during a week in which Obama is going to be visiting Iraq and gave them to a publication in a European country that Obama is also visiting this week? Does al-Maliki think Obama is going to win? Does he want Obama to win?
Most telling bit of information - The Corner has been COMPLETELY silent on this. They aren't even posting on other topics. Ditto Malkin.
July 20, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and the day (or 2 days?) after the WaPo's lead editorial was about how naive Obama is re: his withdrawal plan, I'm far from shocked that they are downplaying this story.
July 20, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this story will be downplayed anymore. The comment about the Germans getting the story is probably right on. Newspapers are proprietary about where they get their scoops. And they're jealous.
That said, with Obama heading to Iraq in a few days, this story has SERIOUS legs. Maliki can't backtrack too much himself with Obama about visit. So Centcom cobbles together a vague "clarification" from Al Dabbagh that doesn't really alter the Der Spiegel interview.
July 20, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is obviously a big story (huger than huge as Josh said). There is something I noticed about the NY Times many years back and that is when there is a major change in the narrative (the collapse of the Shah's regime in 1979 is when I first noticed it) they can be maddenly slow in recognizing the change. They specialize in defining the narrative, but are not so good at identifying those cusps when new narratives are being created.
Now this is a change that means Obama's vision for the future is becoming the new narrative. How can any paper that is dedicated to "balance", accept what just last week was just a partisan position as the new reality? It is great for us, in any case. However, I just would not expect either the Times or the Post to recognize or admit to this for a while yet.
July 20, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait!, you mean the Liberal Media isn't trumpeting Maliki's alignment with Obama all over their front pages???
The world gets curiouser and curiouser.
July 20, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
now it's "he said/centcom said"
the spin and attempts at spin on this one range from the blatantly desperate to the not-so subtle.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Maliki's remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately." We have yet to hear specifically what it was that was mistranslated, and der Spiegel stands by the story.
slightly more interesting is how CNN is doing their part. at 2:58pm EST Sunday it's still up on their homepage as "Iraqi PM quoted as backing Obama's plan." when you click on the link, the headline changes to "Iraqi PM disputes report on withdrawal plan."
more disturbing is the third entry in the 'story highlights' at the top which reads: "Comments follow White House announcement of "time horizon" for withdrawal." now that's our boys workin the spinner alright. glad they finally caught up!
you see, Maliki wasn't really harpooning the whole McBush agenda while simultaneously agreeing with the assessment of Obama. Since the derSpeigel article didn't make news until saturday he was actually expressing his appreciation that Bush and McCain had won the war for us (as we were told on FRIDAY) which of course means we can think of starting to think of bringing some of our troops home maybe sometime out on the "horizon."
so you see this proves that Bush and McCain were right all along, and Obama's plan for an unconditional surrender was just dangerously foolish and had nothing to do with us winning.
i know it sounds crazy, but my guess is that by tuesday you'll have seen and heard a lot of it.
unless of course britney gets another weird haircut.
July 20, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look for Der Spiegel to get pissed off at the accusations against them and print the entire transcript in bold type.
July 20, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Maliki's comment is perfectly in keeping with Iraqi public opinion. Hard as it may be to believe given our news sources, the Iraqis want us out.
Iraq may not be much, but it is theirs, not ours. Your average Iraqi knows this and doesn't want foreigners riding around in MRAPS running the country. Really.
My wonder is not the comment, but why it seems so surprising over here. When was the last time you heard an Iraqi notable suggest that a hundred year occupation would be a good thing?
This is inevitable, and yes, it pops John McCain's balloon, as it should. Obama will be the next president, and I for one can only hope this definitively turns the page on the Bush era.
July 20, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts concerning this event is that it disrupts the oils industries plans to have control of Iraqi oil and have the US military for free security. Bush may be embarrassed but more likely, he is angry and afraid of losing his plan. I think Bush will find some way to retaliate. Bush's personality requires such a response.
July 21, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink