With respect, Reuters reported the initial story
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCan...98009020080719 -- so, the ref to the Huffington Post was unfair.
The CNN article you posted does not indicate anything other than Obama's plan, which is, and always has been, to withdraw the combat troops (both candidates agree to a US military presence in Iraq for longer time - hence McCain's 100 years comment, which was taken mostly out of context) in 16 months with the safety of the troops dictating that time frame.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's statements were:
"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."
and the later adjustment via a spokesperson:
"the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements"
There is no inherent inconsistency with his spokesperson's clarification of Obama's time frame. The spokesperson never denied the time frame in the clarification; he merely reiterated it would be based on security, a position Obama has consistently maintained and a position Maliki alluded to with his initial statement of "the possibility of slight chamges." Maybe you think W's reference to a "time horizon" is different than 16 months based on security. I see no difference. Moreover,
Interestingly, the spokesperson did not address Maliki's quote that a McCain policy of “artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops” would “cause problems,” nor Maliki's conclusion that American Republican talking points in general are, at their core, mistaken: “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 that isn’t the case at all.”
Personally, I think we should try to leave Iraw as secure as possible, but no matter when we withdraw the combat troops, the six or so month (hopefully) transition period afterward will be. to say the least, difficult and likely very violent.
Here is the CNN article.
Iraqi PM disputes report on withdrawal plan
Comments follow White House announcement of "time horizon" for withdrawal
(CNN) -- A German magazine quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as saying that he backed a proposal by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months," he said in an interview with Der Spiegel that was released Saturday.
"That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," he said.
But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.
In the magazine interview, Al-Maliki said his remarks did not indicate that he was endorsing Obama over presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.
"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," he said.
"Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic," al-Maliki said.
The interview's publication came one day after the White House said President Bush and al-Maliki had agreed to include a "general time horizon" in talks about reducing American combat forces and transferring Iraqi security control across the country. iReport.com: What should the next president know about Iraq?
The Bush administration has steadfastly refused to consider a "timetable" for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
In a statement issued Friday after a conversation between Bush and al-Maliki by closed-circuit television, the White House said that conditions in Iraq would dictate the pace of the negotiations and not "an arbitrary date for withdrawal."
The two men "agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal," the White House said.
In an interview to air Sunday on "Late Edition," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "those goals are being achieved now, as we speak. And so, it's not at all unusual to start to think that there is a horizon out there, in the not too distant future, in which the roles and responsibilities of the U.S. forces are going to change dramatically and those of the Iraqi forces are going to become dominant."
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said al-Maliki had made it clear that such decisions will be based on continuing positive developments.
"It is our shared view that should the recent security gains continue, we will be able to meet our joint aspirational time horizons," he said.
The prime minister's remarks emerged as Obama visited Kuwait and Afghanistan before embarking on a tour of the Middle East and Europe to boost his foreign policy credentials. He also plans to visit Iraq.
The Democratic candidate says he supports a phased withdrawal of troops, promising to remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of taking office if he becomes president.
McCain does not think American troops should return to the United States until Iraqi forces are capable of maintaining a safe, democratic state.
He has been a strong advocate of the 2007 "surge" to escalate U.S. troop levels and says troops should stay in Iraq as long as needed.
McCain says Obama is wrong for opposing the increased troop presence, and Obama says McCain's judgment is flawed.
CNN's Julia Weber and Jamie Crawford contributed to this report.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...almaliki.obama
___________________________________________________________
I do find it interesting that you basically belittle the credibility of cites like CNN when those cites essentially get their quotes and stories from the AP or Reuters. Fox does as well. So, I fail to see how that makes the quotes in those articles anything but accurate. Then, you cite to articels by far right journalists and apparently prefer to take them on faith. That is having your cake and eating it too
