7/21: Maliki Madness

The political blogosphere is buzzing about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's apparent endorsement of Barack Obama's 16-month troop withdrawal plan. Liberal bloggers are portraying Maliki's statement as a turning point in the U.S. Presidential race, calling it "a huge, huge deal" and "a body blow to what's left of the [John] McCain campaign". Josh Marshall writes:

"The premise of John McCain's campaign is that Obama's timetable for withdrawal from Iraq shows his naivete and threatens to squander the improvements on the ground in the country. But Maliki, who is constantly presented as the embodiment of what we are trying to foster and build, disagrees. No amount of teeth-gnashing spin from the McCain camp will get around that fact."

Many conservative bloggers are arguing that Maliki's remarks were "mistranslated," as one of his aides subsequently claimed (liberal bloggers aren't taking the aide's statement seriously, noting that it was issued by the CENTCOM press office following a call from U.S. officials). Other conservative bloggers are arguing that the key point is not that Maliki supports a timeline for withdrawal, but that McCain's support of the surge made such a withdrawal possible.

IRAQ: A Game-Changer?

Liberal bloggers were buzzing on Saturday about Maliki's interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, in which he appeared to endorse Obama's 16-month troop withdrawal plan:

"'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.'

Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

'Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems.'"

• Crooks and Liars' Nicole Belle: "This is a huge huge huge deal."
• The Huffington Post's Tom Hayden: "In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq's prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate's 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq."
• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "The fact that Iraq's prime Minister has endorsed, by name, Barack Obama's plan to withdraw most U.S. troops from his country in 16 months is a huge, huge deal. Most commentary has focused on the political repercussions -- as a GOP strategist succinctly put it to Marc Ambinder, 'We're fucked' -- and that certainly seems to be the case. How can John McCain paint Obama's plan as wildly naive or irresponsible when the Iraqi government favors it too?"
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Will McCain accuse Maliki of making decisions before visiting Iraq and knowing the facts on the ground?"
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "Is the quasi-endorsement of Barack Obama's withdraw timetable by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a transformative event in the campaign? Marc Ambinder -- and his Republican source -- certainly seem to think so. [...This will] put McCain on the defensive on foreign policy, which is especially problematic as this was one of the few issues where he had the opportunity to play offense. Getting the boys home -- which seemed like a slam-dunk winner for the Democrats six months ago -- might not have been one by November. Polling in key swing states had begun to show slight majorities opposed to a specific withdraw timetable, and unless the Republicans do an exceptionally good job of winning the spin war, this will change all of that."
• TPM's Marshall: "I've spent a couple hours now trying to process the probable impact of Prime Minister al Maliki's explicit endorsement of Barack Obama's 16 month timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. My first instinct is always to try not to overstate the impact of momentary developments. But I don't think it's enough to say this is a huge development. It's huger than that. In a stroke, I think, al Maliki has cut McCain off at the knees in a way I'm not sure his campaign strategy can recover from."
• Marshall went on to make a prediction that would prove prescient: "I would not discount the possibility that the White House will muscle Maliki into a retraction of some sort. But I think it will be difficult for that to seem to be anything other than what it is. What he said pre-waterboarding will always appear more genuine than whatever statement came later."

IRAQ II: You Can't Spin Your Way Out Of This One, McCain

Liberal bloggers panned the McCain camp's response to Maliki's remarks, which was written by McCain's foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann:

"The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama's views had prevailed."

• Ezra Klein: "And we really wouldn't be in a position to discuss withdrawal today if Senator Obama's original views had prevailed and we hadn't invaded Iraq. Meanwhile, the crucial determinant of withdrawal is 'victory and honor?' Seriously? Our strategy in Iraq should be based on how good it makes us feel?"
• Marshall: "I think the clotted, dodging-the-issue nature of the response communicates very clearly the box this has placed the McCain camp in. [...] Scheunemann is betting on our believing that Maliki himself doesn't know what he means."

Several liberal bloggers are calling attention to the fact that McCain said in 2004 that the U.S. should leave Iraq if the democratically elected gov't of Iraq asks the U.S. to leave:

Question: "What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?"

McCain: "Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."

• Klein: "The McCain campaign is going to have some trouble worming away from this 2004 Council on Foreign Relations transcript."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Game over. In 2004, McCain previously stated that if the Iraqi government asked us to leave, then we should leave. As such, he now agrees with Obama."

IRAQ III: The Non-Denial Denial

Liberal bloggers are criticizing the statement issued by a Maliki aide which asserted that Maliki's remarks were "misunderstood and mistranslated" yet which did not cite a specific error:

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "This, of course, is ridiculous. First, the statement did not point to a single error in the transcript. Not one. Second, Maliki made three separate comments about the superiority of Obama's policy. Were they all the result of some kind of mistranslation? Third, if Maliki's comments had been misunderstood, why didn't the follow-up quote Maliki at all? And finally, the clarification was, humorously, published by the U.S. military's Central Command press office, not the prime minister's office."
• Marshall approvingly quotes The Politico's Ben Smith, who writes: "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."

Liberal bloggers are claiming that the [George W.] Bush administration pressured Maliki's office into issuing this "clarification," noting that the statement reportedly "followed a call to the prime minister's office from U.S. government officials in Iraq":

• Marshall: "What a surprise. Bush administration officials leaned on Maliki's office to issue [the] 'clarification.'
• Oliver Willis: "As the next president comes in, one of the things we will uncover is just how widespread the systematic perversion of the government into an arm of the Republican party is. In this instance it's the Bushies pushing Iraq's Maliki to walk back what was clearly an endorsement of Sen. Obama's strategy in Iraq."

Liberal bloggers are also pointing out that Der Spiegel stands by its translation of Maliki's remarks:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Der Spiegel stands by its story. [...] As well they should. They had an on-the-record interview in which Maliki's remarks were not at all ambiguous and during which time he repeatedly returned to the subject of thinking that Obama's proposals are the right framework within which to proceed. Against that there's a non-denial denial, in another person's name, issued by CENTCOM. Considering that Maliki in effect lives and works inside a CENTCOM controlled military installation, that's some exceedingly weak tea he served up."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Did Der Spiegel translate Nouri al-Maliki's endorsement of Barack Obama's 16-month troop withdrawal plan correctly? Maliki's spokesman backtracked under pressure from the U.S., but Der Spiegel gave tapes of its interview to the New York Times and it looks like the magazine got it right. [...] Maliki may or may not regret having said it, but he said it."

IRAQ IV: His Words Were Twisted!

Most conservative bloggers are taking Maliki's aide at his word when he says that Maliki's words were "mistranslated":

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Lots and lots of people have noted this but it is worth emphasizing anew that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not say what a lot of people gleefully report him as having said. [...] Instead of agreeing with the Obama plan as was initially reported, Maliki actually agrees with the Bush Administration plan. One would reasonably imagine that this correction should receive more attention than the initial, incorrect Spiegel report putting Maliki in line with Obama. People have all the access they need to the actual Maliki translation. It only remains to see whether they are good enough to report it."
• Gateway Pundit: "Wow!...What a major mistake by the mainstream media. It's as if they are rooting for Obama or something. They mistranslated Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki on withdrawing US troops again."
• RedState's Mark Impomeni: "A statement from the Prime Minister's office [makes] clear that the German magazine Der Spiegel got it all wrong. In their rapture at the thought that their golden boy had conquered Sen. John McCain on the one issue on which he holds a distinct advantage over Sen. Obama, national security; many media outlets, bloggers, commentators, and pundits of the left declared the remarks to be the death of the Republican presidential campaign. [...] We now know that Maliki did not endorse Obama's withdrawal timeline. The headline writer at Der Spiegel did. What Maliki did was call for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq as early as possible. That's no surprise announcement from an elected head of state with political considerations, and it is certainly no surprise from Maliki, who has been calling for an end to the occupation almost since he was sworn in."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "[Maliki's] spokesman explained that the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continued improvement of security. This is the position of the White House as set forth following a meeting last week between Maliki and President Bush. It is also the position of John McCain. Obama's position (to the extent he has a consistent one) is different. He favors withdrawal pursuant to a timetable without regard to whether security continues to improve, though he might be willing to push back the exit date a bit."
• Commentary's Max Boot: "It's good to see an Iraqi government spokesman explain that Prime Minister Maliki's comments to Der Spiegel, in which he seemed to endorse Barack Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, 'were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.' [...] That is, in fact, the position that Senator McCain (whose campaign I advise) has been pushing all along. He has been arguing for a 'conditions based' withdrawal as opposed to the fixed timetable demanded by Obama. If Iraqis are ready to assume all responsibility for security by 2010, then it would be perfectly fine to withdraw most U.S. troops, and no doubt President McCain would do so. But it's dangerous to commit to such a rigid timetable when it's impossible to envision what the situation will look like at that time."

IRAQ V: The Maliki Muddle

Not every conservative blogger argued that Maliki's remarks were mistranslated:

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein thinks it's "undeniable" that Maliki's statement helps Obama: "It seems to me undeniable that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki provided a huge boost to Obama when he said, 'U.S presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months...' [...] In recent weeks McCain has been winning the Iraq issue by making Obama seem like a rigid ideologue who would withdraw troops at a reckless pace, regardless of the advice of commanders or facts on the ground, just to satisfy the left. What the Maliki statement does is provide Obama something he can point to coming from somebody who speaks with authority on Iraq, suggesting he isn't so naive by advocating a 16-month timetable."

Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau takes Maliki at his word, but disagrees with him: "I respect PM Maliki for his courage in doing a difficult and dangerous job. But my chief concern when it comes to America's role in Iraq -- and determining what that should be -- isn't doing what the Prime Minister wants. [...] My chief concern is America, and doing what's in America's best interests. Leaving Iraq quickly would be a wonderful thing. But most important is leaving Iraq in a way that allows us to meet our objectives -- first and foremost, making sure that the country is secure, able to defend itself, and resistant to Al Qaeda's threats or Iran's blandishments. If we can achieve that in six months, then all the better -- bring the troops home. If it takes 24 months or even longer, then it strikes me as a foolish squandering of the sacrifices our troops have already made to pull out at 16 months...yes, even at the behest of PM Maliki."

Other conservative bloggers are downplaying the significance of Maliki's remarks and arguing that a troop withdrawal is only possible because of McCain's support of the surge:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "This is sort of a teapot tempest, I think. It's easy to understand why Maliki wants to be seen as pressing for the departure of U.S. troops, now that things are going well. [...] The even more important point is that Obama has been demanding a more or less immediate withdrawal from Iraq since at least October 2005. If his counsel had been followed then, or at any time up to the present, the results would have been disastrous. It is only because Obama's defeatist position did not prevail, and the administration instead implemented the opposite strategy as urged by John McCain, that it is now reasonable to talk about withdrawing most or all troops by late 2009."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "I think the remarkable part of the first day of coverage wasn't the Maliki muddle, but the degree to which McCain successfully inserted himself into the debate and, even from home, kept pushing and counterpunching Obama. [...] The drumbeat of statements from the McCain camp and his surrogates kept him in the news and the dialogue about the surge's success going. His foreign policy message did break through: his surge worked."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Enthusiasm Over Electability

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini:

"The media isn't attempting to bury McCain like it buried George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole, through bad polls. They're trying to bury him on the intangibles, chief among them the energy and grassroots enthusiasm gap between the two candidates. I believe this shift from hard data to intangibles is a function of the Internet-driven base mobilization era in which we now live. The media has basically conceded that the election will be patterned after 2000 and 2004, in that it will be close. In close elections, polls can't tell you who'll win as reliably. So the emphasis is on derivative factors like the GOTV operation or crowd size or enthusiasm which will enable one candidate to outperform the polls. The [Karl] Rove model, which (1) the media buys into, and (2) places a heavier emphasis on an energized base over tacking to the center, has perversely redounded to the benefit of Obama, who has the energized base this year."

LEST WE FORGET: Belated Responses

From Overheard in the Office:

Worker #1: [Sneezes.]
[Several moments pass.]
Worker #2: Oh...Bless you.
Worker #1: Thanks, Merry Christmas.