Iraq's PM Governor al-Maliki's vote for Obama has been nixed.

Pity al-Maliki. He's about to get a visit from Obama; twenty four hours ago al-Maliki really, really, thought he was the head of the sovereign (state) Iraq. In an interview with the German mag Der Spiegel al-Maliki voted to endorse the Obama 16 month plan for the withdrawal of forces from Iraq - a vote that was nixed by the U.S. military Central Command press office.

How quickly can you count to ten?

Update below on the Tit-for-Tat. After meeting with Obama today, July 21st, 2008 - Iraqi officials re-affirms the Obama 16-month timeline, AGAIN.

Let's set up the voting booth at Der Speigel

Thinkprogress

Today, Der Spiegel reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has endorsed a 16-month timetable for the United States to withdraw from Iraq:

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"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. [...]

"The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," Maliki told Der Spiegel.

Not only is the plan now accepted by Iraqis, but as a Center for American Progress report explains, it is also logistically workable -- despite what reporters such as ABC's Martha Raddatz have suggested. Maliki's comments come as Obama begins his trip in the Middle East, which will include Iraq.

An important footnote to the hissy fit at the Bush White House is this: The White House press room inadvertently released to the media the Reuters article that al-Maliki backs Obama troop exit plan. The poor dear, bless his/her little heart, pressed the send button to the wrong list  and not the  intended recipients.

Clearly, the al-Maliki vote for the Obama plan puts Bush and McCain in a box nailed shut.

Ya think? They had to have this endorsement recalled. Quick, cancel this ballot!

Josh Marshall mused:

Big Deal?  No....Bigger

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.

Consider McCain's strategy, which is all bound up with Iraq.

All understand it is a given that the war is unpopular and that the vast majority of Americans want out as soon as possible. The big of wiggle room is just what's 'possible.' McCain has invested his entire campaign in support for the purportedly nascent Iraqi democracy al Maliki represents and the claim that Obama's support for a timetable for withdrawal irresponsibly risks losing the gains we've achieved and giving Iraq back to al Qaeda.

Here, with a brush of the hand and in so many words, al Maliki says, "No, we're good."

What exactly is McCain to say to that? He can hardly turn against Maliki or say he doesn't have a feel of the situation on the ground.

[.]

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. McCain may also say that his 'surge' strategy is what made all this possible. But fundamentally that's not a point Obama is arguing. The debate is about whether or not to leave. And on that count, Maliki has now placed McCain is an extremely precarious position.

(highlight added)

That retraction was not too long in coming but the surprise is in its origin.  Oh please be patient.

First some timeline from TPM. - Josh Marshall observed

Response of the Obama camp:  Game set

The Obama campaign's Susan Rice just put out this statement crowing thanking Maliki for his support of the plan ...

"Senator Obama welcomes Prime Minister Maliki's support for a 16 month timeline for the redeployment of U.S combat brigades. This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan."

:::  :::

Response of The McCain camp: Pretty Weak

"The McCain campaign has just come out with their response to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki's endorsement of Obama's withdrawal plan. I think the clotted, dodging-the-issue nature of the response communicates very clearly the box this has placed the McCain camp in.

ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain 2008 Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Randy Scheunemann issued the following statement:

"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."

Got that? Rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? Set aside for the moment that McCain doesn't believe in withdrawal at all. Scheunemann is betting on our believing that Maliki himself doesn't know what he means. "

:::  :::

The Bush White House: Satire Eight Paces Up on Reality

[.]Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, who the Times calls a spokesman for the Iraqi government, has released a statement saying that Prime Minister Maliki's statement was "misunderstood and mistranslated" and "not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq." But as the Times notes al Dabbagh did not specify what had been mistranslated.

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.

(highlight added)

Mistranslated huh?  These guys should know German translators do speak better English, Arabic and French, not to mention seven other languages, than some of us on this side of the pond.

That attempt to nix al-Maliki's words did not go down well with Der Spiegel

Iraqi Leader Stirs up US Campaign

Obama is pleased, but McCain certainly is not. In an interview with SPIEGEL, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki expressed support for Obama's troop withdrawal plans. Despite a half-hearted retraction, the comments have stirred up the US presidential campaign. SPIEGEL stands by its version of the conversation.

[.]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? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for 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.

(emphasis added)

Ben Smith, Politico asks:

 how much political leverage is there in the 51st state?

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.

I'll leave the last word with Matthew Yglesias

I think you had to regard some effort at walking back Nouri al-Maliki's strong endorsement of Barack Obama's plans for Iraq as inevitable. Thus, the only thing really surprising about this development is how little effort was made to make it convincing:

    "Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the Iraqi government, issued a statement saying Mr. Maliki's statement had been "as not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq," but it did not address a specific error. It did soften his support for Mr. Obama's plan and implied a more tentative approach to withdrawing troops. More of the statement, which came from the U.S. military's Central Command press office: [...]"

You can read the full statement at the link, but this summary really tells you what you need to know, namely that the walkback (a) doesn't involve Maliki on the record, (b) says the reports are inaccurate but doesn't name inaccuracies, and (c) was issued through CENTCOM. Basically, this morning we saw Maliki speaking in person and endorsing Obama's plan to end the occupation in no uncertain terms. By the late afternoon, an Iraqi government spokesman was pretending this never happened in a statement released by the occupying army. That's hardly even a serious effort at bamboozlement.

Now the question becomes: what happens when the CODEL currently in Afghanistan makes its way to Iraq? Meetings with Maliki are presumably on the agenda.

Update [2008-7-21 9:33:34 by idredit]::New details has emerged. It's very interesting. A must read.

The al-Dabbagh's statement came after the White House twisted arms.

NYT/IHT

Comment stings Maliki as Obama arrives in Baghdad

[.]

The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Maliki's words had been "misunderstood and mistranslated," but it failed to cite specifics.

"Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate," Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. "I have the recording of the voice of Maliki. We even listened to the translation."

But the interpreter for the interview works for Maliki's office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Maliki's interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Obama's position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Maliki's comments by The Times:

"Obama's remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."

He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

Maliki's top political adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, declined to comment on the remarks, but spoke in general about the Iraqi position on Sunday. Part of that position, he said, comes from domestic political pressure to withdraw.

[.]

Cancel that Memo to al Maliki. I think he now knows he's not the PM or the governor. But he's in a bind. What does he say to Obama who should be arriving within a few minutes. "Oh, for a spot of sweet tea."

What does he tell his people?

Betcha the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) negotiations will run out the clock.

So much for democracy. We could rename Bush and cronies as the keystone cops.

How insulting for al-Maliki. The U.S. days in Iraq are numbered.

Begin the count.