The news of the weekend is that Obama went to Iraq and also that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made a statement about Obama's plan to withdraw US forces from Iraq in 16 months. Actually I think the bigger story was how the New York Times reported it, this is what Matthew Yglesias had to say. This is what the Times wrote:
"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.”
Except, Der Spiegel translated it as "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....Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic." A little different huh? There was some backtracking but the statement stands and others have verified Der Spiegel's translation as accurate.
Brad DeLong comments on the comments of others on the topic. I think this helps prove the value of bloggers. If this had happened 10 years ago, who would have reported on the Times' mistranslation?
Oh and of course the White House was interested in al-Maliki's remarks, as was the McCain campaign. When Iraq is the central issue in the election (well probably after the economy), and the head of Iraq all but endorses Obama, as supposedly "a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, 'We're fucked'." Let's hope so.
No comments:
Post a Comment