Iraq: The Lost Generation

"Everywhere you go in Baghdad these days you see children begging, children working, children who should be in school. The real disaster of Iraq will come when this generation which knows fear, sectarianism and whose heroes are extremists, grows up."

Iraq: The Killing Fields

"People argue about how many Iraqi's have died since 2003. Even conservative estimates say that 90,000 Iraqi's have lost their lives. This is one of the faces of the in Baghdad. This cemetery here used to be a park. It was converted into a graveyard just two years ago. People couldn't play here anymore and so this place is a kind of make-shift cemetery. There have been more than 3000 people buried here in the last two years."

Iraq: The City of Walls

I came to investigate the America military's report that violence is falling in Baghdad. That life in this city is improving. That the US surge has transformed the city. But it has taken me a month to just to organize safe passes through my city. It's a journey that would be impossible for a foreign journalist. What I found contradicts all the official reports. Baghdad is a city where one street is at war with the next. Where the people are more desperate than I have ever seen them. It has been transformed into a city of walls.

The Translation: Maliki hearts Obama

You gotta give credit for Bushco trying to treat the international media the same way they do at home: let something slip, claim it was taken out of context or misunderstood and then change the entire story. Unfortunelty, there are real journalists in the international media. A fact that Bushco did not anticipate.

The NYT reports,

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

So, the "correction" that was being pushed by Washington suggested that it was a translator for the magazine who made the "unspecified" error. But it was a translator who works within the Malaki office who did the interview. The audio recording is there and Malaki clearly states,

"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."

And I love this part.

"Who[ever] wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

Eat it Bush and McCain. For a GOP that is blaming McCain for not having a "theme" or any real strategy, this looks pretty bad for them. They tried to spin it, got caught BIG TIME and now we must wait and see how McCain will roll.

Obama, McCain and The Der Spiegel

I figured I would wait until the full media narratives set in and the Sunday morning talk shows had finished up before commenting on the Malaki statement essentially endorsing Obama and his plan to get out of Iraq.

First, The Der Spiegel (the same magazine that battled East Germany during the the division of Germany) ran this article where Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki seemed to endorse Obama's plan for withdrawal.

Here is some of the transcript.

SPIEGEL: How short-term? Are you hoping for a new agreement before the end of the Bush administration?

Maliki: So far the 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. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

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 time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

This was said and was accepted as truth for hours and hours and all the major US news outlets carried the story on their front page. Then, in a bizarre change of events, there was a claim that Malaki was misquoted and did not say any of that. What? The "correction" was submitted by an Iraqi official, however, when you look at where that "official" released this "correction", the story becomes a little trickier and a lot more deceptive.

"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 time frame 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."

So, US Central Command is issuing official Iraqi government statements now? Bush tried to plant this seed and discredit the magazine, but they are standing firm. Here is their complete statement.

In the interview, Maliki expressed support of Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. "That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of changes."

Maliki was quick to back away from an outright endorsement of Obama, saying "who they choose as their president is the Americans' business." But he then went on to say: "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."

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? 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."

We can assume that since they have the entire transcript, they also have audio or maybe even a video of the interview. I would love to see the "Iraqi spokesman" clean that up. I can't believe that the White House made the Iraqi "clarification" come through its own military command (Central Command). Are they getting this brash that they can not even try to be subtle anymore?

This denial has forced Der Spiegel to release their full interview and now they're going to have every big news organization in the world hiring translators to check and see whether or not Der Spiegel was sloppy or the administration was lying... and judging from the CentCom's non-denial denial, it's easy to see who's going to come out the winner on this one. If there was any chance there was a mistake in the translation, the CentCom statement would have been a LOT less garbled and would have cited specific instances of misquote. But they didn't and that's because they knew they couldn't find anything.

I'm seriously shocked by how poorly the Bush administration is handling this. All they've done is made this into a MUCH bigger story than it would have been otherwise and set themselves up to look like lying fools...AGAIN.

Do not be fooled. This is a huge blow to McCain, Bush and the Iraqi governments susceptibility to Washington pressure and one that will be hard to spin. All Obama has to do is stick to the original narrative and refuse to back down. Expect the GOP to smear Germany and call the Der Spiegel communist or socialist or something else that fires up their base and the MSM.

Obama Fires Back

Apparently Obama understands the need to make things as clear as possible for the sound-biting, faux-news reporting, McCain narrative driving Media. After a week of fielding absurd questions about his Iraq stance and having to defend one of the most ridiculous attacks of this season, he decided to put it in writing in the NYT for all those out there who are still whining. Of course, most of those who claim that Obama flopped can't read and only watch talking heads spew garbage about the size of their manhood rather than listen to a solid and strong position.

He starts out pretty much giving his typical stump.

"THE call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States. The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown."

We know this stuff and it's shocking that he STILL has to remind people of it. Then again, McCain is slowly fading into the same Alzheimer induced path that his lover Reagan quietly drifted into.

"In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness. But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge."

He lays out his clear opposition to the surge not by condemning some of it's successes, but by saying what a crutch it has been to the Iraqi's and what a detriment it has been to our military.

"The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009. Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government."

He's right on target here. Move our troops out, let NATO troops keep the peace if needed and take care of our real business where it is needed. He is not allowing McCain and his Media push the McCain narrative that leaving is equatable to surrender. McCain has got to let his Vietnam-era Domino Effect dribble go and realize that the world has changed and there is no room for his dated leadership.

Iraq Deals a Blow to McCain

Here is that Hardball interview that I mentioned earlier.

Here is part 1.



Here is part 2.



I have been pretty proud of Matthews since the primary season ended. He does not let people waffle around. This guy Pete is a douche. I can't believe that he's spinning this as a pro-McCain development. That simply will not work.

McCain v. Maliki

Well this would certainly shut McCain up. He wouldn't have a thing to offer if this is realized by the Iraqi's. Of course, McCain and the GOP will try to pressure them into allowing the US to stay there and continue to gain control of the region and its resources.

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington. It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would give militant groups an advantage."

The Bush administration does not have a say in this. Bush propped this government up and championed the purple fingers, so he has given up his say all around. And what will McCain do? He's the one that wants Iraq to be like Korea or Japan. Again, it does not matter what McCain wants. Iraq is a sovereign nation with an occupying force who, if asked, must leave or face serious repercussions from the international community.

"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates."

This is the test for the GOP. Do they really want to "finish the job" and make sure that Iraq is democratic or do they just want to gain total and unchallenged geopolitical control of the resource-rich Middle East? This will be their test and if Iraq chooses to be allies with Iran, than that is their choice to make, not ours.