"Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plans"

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki doesn't say so directly, well not quite, but he makes it clear that he thinks Barack Obama's plans for Iraq are superior to John McCain's:

Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plans, Speigel: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with Speigel when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US 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."

Maliki was careful to back away from outright support for Obama. "Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business," he said. But then, apparently referring to Republican candidate John McCain's more open-ended Iraq policy, Maliki said: "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems." ...

Maliki has long shown impatience with the open-ended presence of US troops in Iraq. In his conversation with Speigel, he was once again candid about his frustration over the Bush administration's hesitancy about agreeing to a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. But he did say he was optimistic that such a schedule would be drawn up before Bush leaves the White House next January...

"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," Maliki told Speigel. "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."

He also bemoaned the fact that Baghdad has little control over the US troops in Iraq. "It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population," Maliki said.

Ezra Klein adds:

To really understand the importance of Maliki's comments, you need to consider their opposite. Imagine if Maliki had walked in front of the cameras and said, "at this stage, a timetable for withdrawal is unrealistic, and we hope our American friends will not bow to domestic political pressures and be hasty in leaving Iraq just as the country improves." It would be a transformative moment in this election. John McCain would talk of nothing else. The cable shows would talk of nothing else. Magazines would run thousands of covers about "Obama's Iraq Problem." Obama would probably lose the race.

Instead, the opposite happened.

Without the kid glove treatment the press gives McCain, the race would be all but over.

Here's part of the interview:

'The Tenure of Coalition Troops in Iraq Should Be Limited', Spiegel: The situation in Iraq seems to be improving. Spiegel spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki about his approval of Barack Obama's withdrawal plans and what he hopes from US President Bush in his last months in office.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Prime Minister, the war and its consequences have cost more than 100,000 lives and caused great suffering in your country. Saddam Hussein and his regime are now part of the past. Was all of this worth the price?

Maliki: The casualties have been and continue to be enormous. But anyone who was familiar with the dictator's nature and his intentions knows what could have been in store for us instead of this war. Saddam waged wars against Iran and Kuwait, and against Iraqis in the north and south of his own country, wars in which hundreds of thousands died. And he was capable of instigating even more wars. Yes, the casualties are great, but I see our struggle as an enormous effort to avoid other such wars in the future. ...

SPIEGEL: Germany, after World War II, was also liberated from a tyrant by a US-led coalition. That was 63 years ago, and today there are still American military bases and soldiers in Germany. How do you feel about this model?

Maliki: Iraq can learn from Germany's experiences, but the situation is not truly comparable. Back then Germany waged a war that changed the world. Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short. At the same time, we would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations. However, I wish to re-emphasize that our security agreement should remain in effect in the short term.

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: Immunity for the US troops is apparently the central issue.

Maliki: It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population. But other issues are no less important: How much longer will these soldiers remain in our country? How much authority do they have? Who controls how many, soldiers enter and leave the country and where they do so?

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.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. 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.

SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?

Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery. ...

Comments

[hari]

This interview is the beginning of the end of Bush legacy in Iraq.

Now, Obama has to be careful and listen...listen... and try to understand what motivates Iraqi thinking and why.

Spiegel interview is reminder to the German public that BO will be here in Europe and speak on Thur in Berlin.

The Lady Cancellor/Foreign Minister have both indicated in public statements that they welcome his visit and both of them will meet him. Merkel's spokesman made clear there will be no press conference ie. like with a sitting Head of State.

[2slugbaits]

Clearly Maliki isn't on board with McBushspeak. He uses (or at least the translation is) the word "timetable," which as we all know is different from "time horizon." In politics it's always important to point out a distinction without a difference.

[Peter Schaeffer]

One interesting question is why McCain gets such favorable treatment from the press? Answer. McCain espouses the elite media ideology on a long list of issues.

1. "Free" trade. He doesn't know a thing about it, but at least he rabidly supports it.
2. Open Borders.
3. Campaign finance reform.
4. Global warming.
5. Tobacco litigation.

[Dickeylee]

Peter, you forgot the biggest reason our gentried press supports McCain. He expouses the Washington insider views (and the millionaire talking heads)on Social Security going broke. They all belive it, every last one of them. I just pray for the continued good health of Bruce Webb, so his posts will continue to shine down the truth and talking points to yet once again beat back the talking heads and their vested interests

[Peter Schaeffer]

Dickeylee,

Biggest reason? When Bush tried to push for partial SS privitization in 2006, the media wasn't supportive. Why would they be more enthusiastic now?

My view is that SS isn't really an issue now. If it was, the Dems would have flayed McCain over his "disgrace" remark (which showed typical McCain ignorance of any domestic policy issue).

[Bruce Webb]

Did somebody say Social Security?

[Bruce Wilder]

MT: "Without the kid glove treatment the press gives McCain, the race would be all but over."

On Iraq, and foreign policy, in general, how McCain is treated, has been less important that a willingness in the News Media to channel Bush propaganda.

Martha Raddatz, of ABC, filed a report, ABC News: Obamas Iraq Plan: Mission Impossible?, supposedly channelling military personnel in Iraq, pretty explicitly attacking Obama on Iraq withdrawal, echoing the propaganda like that timetables should be rejected in favor of "conditions on the ground". She spoke about it on Washington Week in Review, as well.

Andrea Mitchell, Mrs. Alan Greenspan, has shoved aside NBC's usual Obama correspondent, to follow Obama abroad. Her "objective" assessment: "The bottom line is you have a Democratic nominee, presumptive nominee, who has the least foreign policy experience of recent presidential candidates, of anyone except Jimmy Carter, and he's got to prove himself." [No mention of George W. Bush, who had never been to Europe prior to becoming President.]

Matt Frei, on BBC World News America, interviewed Kenneth Pollack, asking his assessment of the candidates' Iraq policies. Not a hint that Pollack might have a prejudice, Pollack was able to give his assessment in the objective voice of a Brookings analyst.

This is a range of hostility to the Democratic nominee, of course, but also to the whole concept that occupying Iraq, while doing next to nothing to strengthen Iraq economically or institutionally, might have been a bad idea. That view, or the related view that Ken Pollack, Tom Friedman, or George W. Bush is somewhat less than competent or "serious", is simply not allowed to emerge in the mainstream media.

[Bupa]

Congratulations to Bruce Webb for the shortest entry yet by him on Social Security. Amazing self restraint.

And thanks to hari for drawing our attention to the Speigel article earlier today in the links for the day thread.

[Bruce Wilder]

Bush's "strategy" had been to keep Iraq weak enough, that its government would acquiesce in a perpetual occupation (and, of course, sweatheart deals for oil) in order to survive in power. To this end, the U.S. supported political division and prevented economically vital reconstruction from succeeding.

Maliki, with billions of oil money in the bank for finance civil war, and a marginally competent Iraqi Army in control of Bahgdad, Basra and the oil, is willing to gamble on an American withdrawal.

[Bruce Wilder]

digby at Hullabaloo: "The media atrocities are piling up in the cycle just as they always do. We see them in real time, we document them and it just goes on. One of these days we're going to have to figure out a way to derail the engine of this quadrennial train wreck before it leaves the station. But not this time. It just chugs along, doing its thing, turning politics into some bizarre spectacle that bears as much relationship to leadership and governance as an episode of Fear Factor."

We really do need to think seriously about what kind of Media reform might actually change this.

Do we try to reform journalism as a profession? Do we reform the FCC rules, try to reverse Media consolidation, or bring back the Fairness doctrine and public affairs requirements? Do we need to create some competing institutions of news journalism that do not depend so much on corporate sponsorship and advertising? (I am thinking of what the PBS NewsHour might have hoped to be, or what the British did with the Guardian or the BBC.)

Consider such horrors of op-ed land as Tom Friedman, Maureen Dowd, Charles Krauthammer or Jonah Goldberg, and ask, what would it take to get fired from a job as a major newspaper columnist? The Los Angeles Times actually fired Robert Scheer and hired Jonah Goldberg in 2005.

The quality and tenor of voices leading the national political discourse through major political news media is a serious problem in the U.S., with a profound effect degrading American government policy in all areas. Iraq is just the most egregious example.

[outsider]

Obama and McCain are neck and neck. Who says Obama will win? This in what should be a blowout year for Democrats!

The candidates are not officially picked yet, the attack campaign for the Fall has yet to tip its hand, the NeoCons still control political events and much of the news, October-November may administer a "surprise" that underscores Obama's lack of depth.

Let's not pin all our tails on one donkey

[Peter Schaeffer]

The real issue here is the apparent gap between McCain's long-term vision of the U.S. role in Iraq (bases for 100, 1000, or 10,000 years) and Obama's. I say apparent gap, because Obama has never made it clear where he stands on permanent bases to the best of my knowledge.

America's current presense in Iraq would be much easier for Iraqi's to accept if both sides were very clear that no permanent bases were contemplated by either side. However, that appears to exactly opposite of what McCain envisions.

Obama? Not clear, at least to me.

[hari]

After reading Bruce on how media is *corrupted* to not even ask a simple question of the establishment, reminds me, may be, I shld offer to do a *position paper* for Barack to understand how to attack the stablishment without meaning to be really *mean*.

Underlining Bruce's complaint is the intrinsic role of the military-induatrial complex with their ....(God knows!)... operational contracts in Iraq. If Barack is serious in what he says, they will surely put up a fight to last man, I think.

[Bruce Wilder]

PS: Obama? Not clear, at least to me.

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Iraq: "Obama believes . . . any strategic framework agreement [with Iraq], should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases."

[Peter Schaeffer]

Bruce Wilder,

Good. Let's hope he sticks with it.

[RW]

"Do we reform the FCC rules, try to reverse Media consolidation, or bring back the Fairness doctrine and public affairs requirements?"

Yes.

Reverse federal usury law preempting more stringent state regulation(s) and restore Glass-Steagall while we're at it.

[Bruce Wilder]

Outsider: "Obama and McCain are neck and neck. Who says Obama will win? This in what should be a blowout year for Democrats!"

Obama and McCain are not "neck and neck", except in the fevered imagination of the Media, which desperately wants a horserace. I say Obama will win.

Lots of people pay no attention to politics until the Conventions or the last three weeks (and I only wish I was one of them after so many months). As the attention-laggards wake up, we'll see Obama's poll numbers make their inevitable sunrise over 50%. If his trip thru Europe goes well, we may see the first Obama polls above 50% before the Olympics; we'll certainly see 50+% during the Democratic Convention. The Republicans will have their last hurrah, as well: if McCain is lucky, the telegenic Mr. Excitement in front of the excited hundreds won't hurt his own poll numbers. Soon thereafter, we vote (and, I suppose, the Fat Lady Sings as opera fans say).

McCain's poll numbers will never go below 40% -- that's an absolute basement for any Republican nominee -- and I'd be surprised if he gets less than 45% of the actual vote, including third-party candidates.

Considering that the candidates are headed toward a division of the vote, in which the difference between them will likely be no more than about 5 or 6%, having polls with a margin of sampling error of 4% has the advantage that, at least half the time, the pollster can claim the candidates are in a "statistical dead heat" or some such nonsense. It will be an extremely rare poll, though, that puts McCain ahead -- and, if you know anything about statitics, that tells you a lot.

Gallup keeps its daily tracking poll numbers close, by doing what it can to discourage "leaners" from expressing a definite opinion. You can get Obama-McCain 45-43, by keeping 12% of the people you talk to, from expressing an opinion.

Newsweek wrote: "The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows Barack Obama leading John McCain by only 3 points. What a difference a few weeks can make."

DHinMI explained in detail how this works in Newsweek Polls: A Tale of Two Countries:In one country, which Newsweek polled in June, the electorate is split R26/D38/I36. In the other country, which Newsweek polled a few weeks later, that country's electorate is split R32/D32/I36.

In one country, polled in June, 84% of the electorate is white. In the other country, polled a few weeks later, 88% of the electorate is white.

In one country, polled in June, 19% of the registered voters are under 40, 39% are between 40 and 59, and 42% are 60 or older. In the other country, polled a few weeks later, only 17% of the registered voters are under 40, 38% are between 40 and 59, and 45% are 60 or older.

In the younger, slightly more racially diverse and much more Democratic country, Barack Obama was supposedly leading by 15 points. In the country that is somewhat older, is somewhat whiter, and is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, Barack Obama is supposedly leading McCain by only 3 points.

[im1dc]

2lsugsbaits, good to see one of your clever tongue in cheek snarky posts again. I always learn something from you.

SPIEGEL's article is important, imo, b/c it indicates that next January when S. Obama becomes President Obama the world is going to look, feel and act far differently than today.

Already, > 3 months before the election, Obama has gained international cooperation for one of his most sensitive foreign issue policy's.

Dudes, thats BIG.

Contrast that to SoS Rice's comment today that Iran must choose between "cooperation and conflict."

Now that's just not how a SoS should speak to another nation in public, especially one with a hostile government but a friendly population. That is unless you are looking for an excuse to invade it.

Can't wait for Inaugural Day.

PS To Outsider: You can't really believe McCain and Obama are tied nationally? The Pollster, Gallop, is good, but Presidental Polling this far out are completely worthless. It's better to check on where candidates are spending money and Obama has ratched up his spending in Virginia, 20 new offices, and in Missouri. That's two key Red States, its looking like they will go Dem and for Obama.

[ken melvin]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/19/the-aps-shift-isnt-sloppy-its-deliberate/

By: Steve Benen on Saturday, July 19th, 2008 at 10:00 AM - PDT

The Associated Press hasn’t been having a good year. It’s been striking, in part because it’s unexpected — the AP has not exactly earned a reputation of being the Fox News of wire services. For the AP to do so many poor reports in such a short time made it seem as if the outlet had undergone some kind of deliberate shift.

As it happens, it has.

[Ron Fournier, the new head of The Associated Press’s Washington bureau] is a main engine in a high-stakes experiment at the 162-year old wire to move from its signature neutral and detached tone to an aggressive, plain-spoken style of writing that Fournier often describes as “cutting through the clutter.”

Fournier calls the trend “accountability journalism” and “liberating … the truth.”

In principle, I couldn’t be more pleased. If the AP wants to bring accountability to campaign coverage, I’d be thrilled.

But I’ve seen the results of Fournier’s experiment. The AP is failing badly.

[hari]

Look you can't deal with Iran with an either/or proposition. It doesn't work like that with a +3000yr civilization....
Rice shld have some modesty and not become an *imposter* of test of will power in dealing with a recalcitrant nationalist mullah regime in Tehran.

Iran cannot stop their uranium project...because it is supposed to supply their electrical energy, as they claim.
So why not deal with their nuclear eneregy project and see how it develops.

In my view, given Israeli nuclear weapons (+150 warheads so far) there is no way anyone can really argue with China and Russia about symmetry in terms of regional power politics. It's Israeli strategic national interest which Rice is trying to protect from being dissipated - shld Iran in fact develop nuclear weapons.

Men like Solana (physicist by profession) knows you can't bluff with the present regime in Tehran - while Israel is making a total security mess in the middle east, in palestine to be specific.

So, try and get some nuance in your argument, Ms Rice, if you want to be believed and trusted not only in the region but world-wide.

Obama knows full-well Persian culture is distinct from the Arabs.

[2slugbaits]

Bruce,

Obama and McCain are not "neck and neck", except in the fevered imagination of the Media, which desperately wants a horserace. I say Obama will win.

Strictly speaking that's true; however, the race has definitely tightened over the last week or so. For example, the gurus over at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com are showing Obama still ahead, but down about 20 electoral votes from a week ago. Most of the recent polls are showing a tightening. Hopefully this won't last, but I never overestimate the intelligence of the American voter.

[Barkley Rosser]

Regarding Iraq something to keep in mind, especially in light of the "the surge is working" argument of McCain is that there is a long term trend for improvement there that has been going on independent of anything the US did. The surge simply accompanied and arguably made it worse, or at least not much better.

Where and what have been those trends? The first has been in Anbar province, where the local tribal leaders turned against al Qaeda in Iraq. This happened before the surge and had nothing to do with it. It was al Qaeda in Iraq stupidly offing some sons of tribal sheiks. That turned those guys off big time and moved them to stop supporting al Qaeda in Iraq, indeed to do just the opposite. Arguably the US providing them with arms helped, but the surge troops were essentially irrelevant.

The other has been in Baghdad itself. The problem there has long been ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods between Sunni and Shi'a as each purged the other from neighborhoods they dominated, with the Sunnis (and Christians) getting generally kicked out of the city, which went from 2 to 1 Shi'a to Sunni to 3 to 1 now. That process of neighborhood "cleansing" was largely complete by the time the surge started. The US troops may have aided in building the gated walls between the neighborhoods that may enforce the intergroup peace, albeit at long term damage to the Baghdad economy.

In other areas and ways the surge has not helped. Both the Sadrists and the remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq, mostly in the north now, use the presence of US troops as their raison d'etre for fighting. I think it is that al Maliki understands all this that he is fine with US troops leaving. We have become more of a hindrance than a help to his regime.

[Bruce Wilder]

"The Surge is Working" is so insane a summary of events or policy in Iraq that it maddens me every time I see it spoken or in print.

That U.S. national political discourse turns on this stupid slogan is an example of how much it matters, that our minds are trapped in the Corporate Media Propaganda operation. What does it even mean?

Barkley Rosser tries to understand "The Surge" as a military venture, but the sad truth is that "The Surge" originated as a PR strategy, a way to kick the can down the road, avoiding an admission of failure and defeat, and prolonging that war through the end of Bush's Presidency.

The next steps in that PR strategy, always predictable, have already been rolled out: Obama will withdraw, and in so doing, will snatch defeat from the Jaws of Republican Victory.

It's a sweet irony that Maliki can now endorse Obama's withdrawal policy.

[hari]

Suppose Obama is so clever that during his visit today in Baghdad, he requests Malik/PM to accompany him to meet with Ayottala Sistani (in Basra) - to pay his respects to the spiritual leader - and to illicit his views on ending US military occupation of his country.

Can you imagine the NYT/WP headlines?

[Barkley Rosser]

hari,

That would indeed be "illicit."

Sistani will not even meet with al Maliki. Why would he damage his moral authority by going even further and meet with a US presidential candidate?

[Peter Schaeffer]

BR,

http://historiae.org/sistani2.asp

Sistani and Maliki: Towards a More Active Role for Najaf?
By Reidar Visser (http://historiae.org)
29 April 2006

On 27 April 2006, the Najaf office of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani released a pronouncement or bayan which may be of greater import than any other document issued by Sistani since October 2004.

The new pronouncement, published after a meeting held with prime minister designate Nuri (aka Jawad) al-Maliki, may mark an end to a long period of silence from Sistani. After an interval of active involvement from June 2003 to November 2004, the Najaf ayatollah has in the subsequent period been distinctly hesitant with regard to direct interference in Iraqi politics. His pronouncements have been few and reluctant (as in the case of the October 2005 referendum on the constitution), or related to greater issues involving the Shiite faith and its holy precincts rather than the question of designing a new political system for Iraq (a tendency seen in his pronouncements on the caricature drawings of the Prophet Muhammad, and in the aftermath of the February 2006 terror attacks in the Shiite shrine city of Samarra.)

Iraqi TV reports Maliki-Sistani talks, call to demilitarize holy cities
http://news.manta.com/articles/description/200709071102510_56446100_0-0304

"Sep. 7, 2007 (BBC Monitoring) -- Published by ALIRAQ Iraqi TV station Al-Iraqiyah TV Within its 1700 gmt newscast on 5 September, Baghdad Al-Iraqiyah Television in Arabic carries the following reports: - "His Eminence Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Sistani has called for demilitarizing holy cities and considering them safe havens. These remarks by his eminence were cited by Prime Minister Nuri Kamil al-Maliki after he met with the supreme religious authority in the Holy City of Al-Najaf today. Sayyid Al-Sistani underlined the need to activate the national reconciliation plan as well as his support for the measures taken by the government, particularly in the area of security.... "

[hari]

@ BarkleyRosser -

I appreciate your legitimate question.
However my point was essentially to illustrate how BO can seek to gain from an audience with Sistani - something McCain will never do, I suspect.

[hari]

...Moreover there is adequate state reason to demonstrate a bit of modesty and cultural appreciation/understanding of how the internal system works in Iraq, in particulr.

Peter Scaffer - thanks for evidence because it scores the point that in order to diffuse anti-American hatred (arising from GWB invasion and occupation) and to begin building some bridges toward reconciliation in the Arab world. It will always now be a long term occupation of State Dept.

[hari]

spelling - Peter Schaeffer! Excuse!

[Peter Schaeffer]

hari,

No worries.

[hari]

There is a new development on Spiegel interview with Maliki that was reported on Saturday.

US Military Command in Baghdad has now released a dementi that Maliki was misinterpreted in Spiegel interview. Speigel has issued a notice on its blog that it will now publish the entire text of the interview on Monday 21 July 2008. It sticks by Maliki's repeated insistence and demand for a fixed date for removal of US occupation forces....

It seems what was issued by US Military Command in Bhagdad has not (yet) appeared in any of local Baghdad papers today -including newspapers supporting Maliki's Govt.

WH intervened and spoke with Maliki on the Spiegel interview and followed by the dementi issued by US Military Command in Bhagdad.

[I'll leave the commentary to you to follow up]

[hari]

On CBS Face The Nation - Barack Obama gives his first interview from Kabul and also refers to Maliki interview... and demand to fix a date for removal of US occupation forces.

[Bruce Wilder]

U.S. Media, determined to prove to all that they really are just a giant Republican propaganda machine, has been remarkably reluctant to see Maliki's remark for the Big News event that it obviously is.

Even a perennial press apologist like Kevin Drum has noticed.