« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The liberal media does it again. Maliki's withdrawal comments misinterpreted
Am I the only one not surprised by the news that Nouri Al Maliki, the Iraqi PM minister, did not back Obama's withdrawal plan as reported by a German magazine, and uncritically repeated by the liberal media here in the U.S.?
Through Al Maliki's spokesman, we learn from CNN that,
his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."
Liberal blogs such as this one pretended to care about Al-Maliki has to say, but now they will likely claim that he has no say in the appropriate duration of our presence in Iraq.
Hypocrites.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/index.html?section=cnn_latest
Advertisement
Comments (22)
I think this is a case of who or what you believe. Der Spiegel has come out supporting their version of the story while CentCom says they got it wrong. FYI CNN got their info from CentCom.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,566888,00.html
Translation:
In the interview, Maliki expressed support of Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. "That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of changes."
Maliki was quick to back away from an outright endorsement of Obama, saying "who they choose as their president is the Americans' business." But he then went on to say: "But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."
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. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki's comments "should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates." The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.
A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? The Atlantic Monthly was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.
SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation.
Maliki's comments immediately hit the headlines of US papers and Web sites across the country, partly the result of a White House employee inadvertently sending out a news alert to its full media distribution list. The White House said it was an error and that it was meant to be sent internally only.
July 20, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Opps all the of the Der Spiegel comments should be in block quotes.
July 20, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. "CENTCOM" didn't say the German magazine got it wrong. Iraqi government's spokesman said it.
You want us to believe that the Pentagon made the claim, which isn't true. Be honest.
July 20, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. Does this sound to you like a statement that originated in Iraq, or like an initiative coordinated in Washington, that they got an Iraqi spokesman (not Maliki himself) to sign off on?
July 20, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you kooks simply state your conspiracy theory, to the effect that CENTCOM is lying about the PM spokesman saying what he says?
You know you would sound too crazy if you said it. That's why you keep just hinting it.
July 20, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And breaking news to you my friend: Foreign ministers often address the press VIA THEIR SPOKESMAN. Do you know what "spokesman" mean? They speak for the person they work for. That's what they get paid to do. PM's and presidents don't go around calling journalists to tell them what they believe. They are busy people.
July 20, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So not US Central Command (CENTCOM) is 'the press'?
I'm quite sure Maliki can speak for himself, and did.
July 20, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The disparity is rhetorical only. Clearly the Bush Administration and the al-Maliki government have agreed to a "time horizon" for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Maliki's support for Obama's plan is completely consistent with this "time horizon" framework, so there is no reason to question der Spiegel's account, especially since it was accidentally sent to American reporters from the White House, which apparently gave it credence.
The statement from Ali al-Dabbagh released by CentCom identifies no error in der Spiegel's account of the al-Maliki interview. It is highly likely that the Bush Administration pressured the al-Maliki government into backing away from the Prime Minister's near-endorsement of Obama.
Face it, Andrew, you're a fucking McTroll, as I have long suspected — you're all lip service to Obama, but always in the tank for McCain's talking points.
July 20, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
AFAIK al-Maliki speaks perfect English.
There was no 'mistranslation' and reading the interview I can't see how there is any 'misunderstanding' either.
July 20, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
This reminds me of the incident where the Canadian government "withdrew" their classification of the United States as a nation where torture is practiced....after their classification was publicized in the blogosphere and made it to the media. Obviously, phone calls had been made.
July 20, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The White House "accidentally" emailed Maliki's Obama-supportive comments to all of the White House correspondents.
Then according to published timelines, Maliki "retracts his statements at 1:30 a.m. claiming he was "mistranslated." Message relayed via the US military's Central Command -- er, General Petraeus?
How convenient...
Der Spiegel produces a detailed transcript of the conversation which shows Maliki was the one who brought up Barack Obama and not the interviewer.
How inconvenient...
I'll take the "inconvenient truth" for $1000, Andrew.
July 20, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew is a McTroll. I will boycott his posts in the future. Enough is enough.
July 20, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link to the transcript that Jade mentions:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852-2,00.html
Maliki's references to a timed withdrawal are repeated, emphatic and precise.
Unless Der Spiegel made up the whole interview, no misunderstanding is possible.
For example:
SPIEGEL: "Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?"
Maliki: "As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
Obama has already said the 16 months is subject to refinement depending on facts on the ground, so his position and Maliki's are identical.
Maybe it's spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh's statement that's been "mistranslated."
July 20, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"liberal media"?????
Welcome GOP troll. Clicked on the McCain troll link, did ya?
July 20, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, liberal media. The director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism marveled today at the media's imbalanced coverage favorable to McCain:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080720/ap_en_tv/ap_on_tv_obama_s_trip
July 20, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction. I meant to say favorable to Obama, as it's clear in the words of the PEJ director.
July 20, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Yes, liberal media. The director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism marveled today at the media's imbalanced coverage favorable to McCain"
Tom Rosenstiel did not "marvel today at the media's imbalanced coverage favorable to Obama (sic)." I expect a retraction and correction from you.
Rosenstiel never said that the coverage Obama received was more favorable than the coverage McCain received. He simply said there was more coverage of Obama, and as Ripper notes, more coverage does not equal more favorable coverage.
Here's the link to PEJ site that does a weekly review of the media coverage. http://journalism.org/node/11881
As you can see the headline for this past week was: PEJ Campaign Coverage Index: July 7 - 13, 2008
Gaffes Drove the Campaign Narrative Last Week, with the leading story covered: Jesse Jackson's negative comments about Obama, and subsequent blowback.
This is the typical problem with republicans, you lazily rely on second or third hand information, then you deliberately exaggerate and distort a statement made by a respected organization to lend credence to your ridiculous and false claim. If you could only do the kind of basic rsearch necessary when making a claim, you might save yourself further embarrassment. But I guess your party reflects the qualities of its supporters.
July 20, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
July 20, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
How convenient of you to make your case with half-truths and omissions. The title of the study you cite (inexplicably using the analysis of AP's television writer instead of the original source) is "Obama Makes More News Than McCain, But It’s Not All Good."
http://journalism.org/node/11537
And while the numbers you cite are consistent with the Project's "significant presence" measurement, the more telling number is the "Main Newsmaker" measurement, which shows a narrower gap in coverage.
As the study notes:
You're the worst kind of troll, Andrew. You're a concern troll.
July 20, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you disbelieve Maliki when Bush's own Press Secretary issued a release saying the same thing?
July 21, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
3 recs got this on the Recommended list? Seriously?
Be that as it may, I propose striking the phrase "liberal media" from our vocabulary, even in jest. It's just too depressing at this point.
July 21, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment