Bush's Mysterious Iraq Policy

The White House was none too pleased.

Sabrina Tavernise and Jeff Zeleny write in today's New York Times: "Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Mr. Maliki's advisers on Saturday, said an American official. . . . After that, the government's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine's rendering of the interview.

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

"But 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.

"The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. 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.'"

Furthermore, Brian Murphy writes for the Associated Press this morning: "Iraq's government welcomed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday with word that it apparently shares his hope that U.S. combat forces could leave by 2010. . . .

"Iraq's government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, . . . said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of a congressional fact-finding team."

Oops

Steven Lee Myers blogs for the New York Times: "The White House is quick to distribute its point of view in e-mail messages with headings like 'News You Can Use,' 'In Case You Missed It,' and 'Setting the Record Straight.' So it was a surprise on Saturday morning when the White House distributed an article by Reuters that offered an endorsement of Senator Barack Obama's Iraq policy by the leader of Iraq.

"' Iraq PM backs Obama troop exit plan,' the headline read. . . .

"Turns out it was a mistake by the White House clipping service, which had intended to distribute it internally but instead sent it to thousands signed up to receive the administration's press releases, transcripts, statements and other documents, drawing attention to an interview that might otherwise have received less."

Euphemism Watch

How long will it be before "time horizon" and "aspirational goal" no longer appear in quotes in news stories -- in other words, until they get treated as if they actually mean something? Here's a little background on these two phrases of calculated meaninglessness.