An Open Can Of Worms

By Cernig

Oh what a scurrying there has been since Iraqi PM Maliki found a pony called Obama and told Der Spiegel that "the tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited" and that "Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all."

That the media were tipped off by an accidental Bush administration email hasn't made it any easier for the Bush/McCain axis of Imperialism to bear - but they've tried to walk back Maliki's words.

But after the Spiegel interview was published and began generating headlines Saturday, officials at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad contacted Maliki's office to express concern and seek clarification on the remarks, according to White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

Later in the day, a Maliki aide released a statement saying the remarks had been misinterpreted, though without citing specific comments.

That statement was released and aggressively pushed by CentCom's PR folks, who appeared to be working hand-in-glove with the McCain campaign to mitigate the damage.

The thing is, no-one but the loyal few believes them. Not even the folks at the reliably-Right Politico

It's almost a convention of politics that when a politician says he was misquoted, but doesn't detail the misquote or offer an alternative, he's really saying he wishes he hadn't said what he did, or that he needs to issue a pro-forma denial to please someone.

The Iraqi Prime Minister's vague denial seems to fall in that category. The fact that it arrived to the American press via CENTCOM, seems to support that. It came, as Mike Allen notes, 18 hours later, and at 1:30 a.m. Eastern, a little late for Sunday papers; his staff also seems, Der Spiegel reports, not to have contested Iraqi reporting of the quote, even in the "government-affiliated" Iraqi press.

The notion this was a misquote also bumps up against Der Spiegel's standing by its reporting, and providing a long, detailed transcript.

And the real reaction of McCain's campaign to Maliki's statements? Marc Ambinder:

to argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren't equivalent to Iraq's, but... Malik isn't listening to the generals on the ground...but the "hasn't been to Iraq" line doesn't work here

... Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked."

Yes they are - not because they can't put some reasonable doubt into their loyal supporter's heads on this occasion, but because internal political considerations mean that this will be far from the last similiar statement heard from Maliki and other Iraqi leaders. Maliki has opened a can of worms and now they're going to be wriggling everywhere, impossible to contain by any amount of media spin.

Comments

[Ron Beasley]

This must have taken BushCo and the McSame campaign by surprise. I also have no doubt that Maliki meant to say what he said and intended it to impact the US elections. The "clarification" was so badly done that only the wingnut bloggers and the Weekly Standard will be willing to give it any credibility. I think I will try to watch FOX today and see how they handle it - they have surprised me more than once recently.

[Patterico]

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?

[Steve Hynd]

Hi Patterico,

What difference does it actually make? The Iraqi Green Zone elite will flip-flop if it means their own asses are on the line. Quelle surprise!

If there are no positive developments won't it mean that the Surge has failed in the long term, that it was a flash in the pan, anyway?

Conservatives have long taken the opportunity to argue that the US must stay if iraq gets better and stay if Iraq gets worse. Maybe the argument should have been the other way around all along, eh?

Regards, C