Prime Minister of Iraq Maliki backs Barack Obama's withdrawal plan

And the White House emailed the story out apparently by accident!

The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive distribution list a Reuters story headlined "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine."

The story relayed how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the German magazine Der Spiegel that "he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months … ‘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,'" the prime minister said.

I thought McCain was supposed to be the stronger candidate on Iraq?

blogs.abcnews.com...

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
And the White House emailed the story out apparently by accident!

The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive distribution list a Reuters story headlined "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine."

The story relayed how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the German magazine Der Spiegel that "he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months … ‘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,'" the prime minister said.

I thought McCain was supposed to be the stronger candidate on Iraq?

blogs.abcnews.com...

Will Jewish Zionism Bring Armageddon

www.iamthewitness.com...

Actually no, in proper fashion the US media misrepresented what Maliki said.

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.”
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

www.cnn.com...

I'm sure it was just an honest mistake Drontek, and not another attempt at some Obama propaganda by the MSM.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by LLoyd45]

Source

I don't think anything was "misinterpreted. Here's part of the interview with Maliki:

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.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. 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.

And what happened in the White House?

Embarrassingly for the White House, it mistakenly sent out a Reuters clip of the Maliki interview to its general press list with this headline: "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan -- magazine." Whoops. As NBC's Patty Culhane noted, either the Bush Administration wanted make sure every single reporter who covers the White House knew that the Iraqi prime minister is publicly back Obama's war plan, or someone meant to make the staff aware and instead sent it to reporters -- which is what happened. A staffer confirmed that he accidentally sent it to the wrong group and he's been getting calls ever since...

So, instead of sending out Maliki's words to White House staff, he accidentally sent it to his "general press" email list. Good!

The reason Maliki's backing down on his words is probably because the Bush White House jumped all over him about it. Maliki's just stuck between loyalties, it appears.

The reason Maliki's backing down on his words is probably because the Bush White House jumped all over him about it. Maliki's just stuck between loyalties, it appears.

If we leave, Maliki and his government will die in the ensuing war. The reality of the sittuation is that we will need to be there at least a few more years to make sure their military can handle it on their own. Thats a fact and Obama's plan doesn't address that. I have SERIOUS doubts Maliki wants us to leave in 16 months.

reply to post by Dubyakadubla


First off, what does Dubya's post have to do with this topic?



on topic:

I saw this last night - great news!
What is McCains strong points now?

And who's opinion would matter more? Bush..i mean McCains...or the Iraqi guy who has to deal with the aftermath of America leaving.

Unless of course we are going to be so bold to tell another country of grown men what to do with themselves.....


This is phenomenal news.
And i really don't care if it wast "accidental" the fact of the matter is, it was said, and if there was a conspiracy to hide his words, in favor of McCain, that should be what you concern yourselves with.

If this were the case, it would show SEVERE war mongering on the part of this conservative administration.

Actually, yes, in proper fashion the US government distorted what Maliki said.

Another interesting detail, noted by the Times. al-Dabbagh's statement was released by CentCom. I do not know how often Iraqi government statements are released by CentCom.

So the US Central Command releases Maliki's spokesman's statements now?

You left out this convenient part:

"Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. 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," he said.

"Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic," al-Maliki said.

No one is saying Maliki endorsed Obama to be President. He is in favor of short timetables like the one Obama is offering.

It's worth noting that Der Speiegel magazine is sticking by its conversation. Had there been some big mistake, I'm pretty sure they would have retracted it.

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
You left out this convenient part:

Who are you talking to?

I'm a bit confused by your post. What source are you quoting?

right. so he claims. translation. right...whatever...the puppet must not speak without the puppetmaster pulling the jaw strings. there were quite a few people doing analysis this morning of both the question he was asked and his answer. conclusion. this is pure backpeddling.

al-Maliki is only voicing the general thoughts of the independently thinking puppet government the USA installed there in Iraq.
get the occupiers out in a year or two, keep the oil fields for the Iraq nation...as a national & strategic resource of/for Iraq--- not for the USA or the international oil corporations pleasure and profit.


as far as the hopeful 16 month time frame...
lets look a little bit at that -->
Susan Rice- is the National Security Advisor for Obama right now...

She made a more 'clarifying statement'... clarifying that the 16 month time frame was not really for the Extraction of all USA fighting forces...
the 16 month window is the time frame for the re-deployment of 'Combat Brigades'

that says to me that the majority of troops will remain in Iraq, but be moved (re-deployed) to the froontier bases that have been built... so as to allow the Iraqi forces to assume greater responsibility in tyheir city areas=
but have an 'in theatre' presence/ back up, of up to 100,000 USA troops ready to respond if Iraq gets in trouble.


the 16 month 'window', where USA troops go to background military bases will allow , as Susan Rice states, the US military to restore itself (to full combat readiness ?),
it all sounds all peasant and like the troops are coming out of the war theater right?!

no sir.... its all diplomatic spin on words !


[S Rice as Nat Sec Advisor for barrack
and C Rice as Sec of State for GWB&Co...
the transition is going smooth and is somewhat familiar & palateable, wot?]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
You left out this convenient part:

Who are you talking to?

I'm a bit confused by your post. What source are you quoting?

Dronetek. The source is from here:
talkingpointsmemo.com...

That should be no surprise, one of the campaign promises of just about every successful candidate in the Iraqi elections has been to get US troops out ASAP.

Something Bush hasn't mentioned.

They're also not too eager to sign the "security deal" that involves the US using Iraq as a military base until the end of time...

al-Maliki is no fool, he knows that the US right wing wants to use Iraq as a permanent garrison to complete the PNAC plan to "reshape the Middle East", and he wants no part of it...

I just saw an MSNBC interview with an Iraqi. He said that if Obama talked to regular Iraqis, they would disagree with is 16 month plan. Realizing that their relative peace is thanks to the US presence. The interview they suddenly ended.

Thats strange, a 2 minute long interview with one question?

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Dronetek]