More on Maliki’s quote/non-quote, correction/non-correction

Ben Smith’s Blog: Political News about Democrats and the 2008 Election - Politico.com

So while there’s been some suggestion that Maliki was playing domestic politics, this seems like the opposite. (Who plays domestic politics in the pages of Spiegel?) Maliki is playing international politics, American politics even. While some may object to that, it may be a sign that he intends to be a player in the American election from now until November, and realizes how much more leverage he has now on the next president’s stance toward his country than he will after our election.

Too many ins and outs. Everyone is gonna get way, way in the weeds, and pick out what they want.

Me? I must point out that the correction or clarification released through CENTCOM by Ahmed Chalabi’s buddy, Dabbagh, struck me as the most humorous aspect of this whole business. “Humorous,” not necessarily “of zero credibility.” But couldn’t they have done better? I wonder what time it was in Iraq when they trundled Dabbagh down to the CENTCOM press office. I envision the middle of the night, but I don’t really know.

At any rate, in all fairness, in a kerfuffle that is cloudy at best, Ben’s take seems the best that anyone can draw: Maliki’s comments were meant for U.S. domestic (i.e. political and electoral) consumption.

While the obvious take would be that he favors Obama, I really don’t know. Further, if Ben’s analysis is correct, even if Maliki was trying to help out McCain, by some less obvious path, would it matter much.

Update: As I read more, and a couple more stories appeared today, I want to revise my thoughts. First, it’s becoming quite clear that Maliki is trying to 1) play in U.S. elections, and/or 2) gain concessions from the Bush administration. (See this AP story.) Second, the “denials” are pretty weak. (See Yglesias.) The main point of my revision is that I think this story, i.e. Maliki’s statement, does have meaning. Also, I recommend my readers take the “Aha, see, he didn’t mean it” with a grain of salt. I’m not in the mood to link & argue all the details, but anyone who wants can follow them from easily.

Comments

  1. Patterico wrote:

    Hot Air captured the following passage from the English translation of Maliki’s Der Spiegel interview:

    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. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

    Here’s how the exchange reads now:

    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.

    There is no explanation of the rewrite.

    Spiegel says: “SPIEGEL stands by its version of the conversation.” That’s great . . . but which one?

    Posted 20 Jul 2008 at 8:06 pm

« Personal Update - Greek
Do the troops hate Obama? »