Maliki Memo

[Army Fencer]

"Bush Aide’s Memo Doubts Iraqi Leader"
New York Times

I am thoroughly confused on the timing and purpose of leaking this memo the day before the President meets Mr. al-Maliki. Really, who benefits from creating diplomatic landmines?

Whoever leaked this material should be shot.

While I am very much in favor of freedom of the press, this seems a little irresponsible of the New York Times.

[noodle]

al-Maliki canceled on the peace summit dinner
ABC News: Is There a Way Out of Iraq?

[jeff]

Also described at U.S.-Iraq summit abruptly canceled - Yahoo! News

Hard for me to figure motivations, though I think it goes deeper than we can see from external clues. Is it a deliberately sanctioned leak to help Bush apply more pressure to al-Maliki? Or to help him distance himself from al-Maliki and the worsening chaos in Iraq? Is it a way to undermine al-Maliki so the problems there are his and not ours? Is it to open a breach between al-Maliki and us to make him appear more "his own man" and not a US puppet, thus helping him? (suggested in the Yahoo story above) Is it to give a fig leaf to al-Maliki for not meeting with Bush, as demanded by Muqtada al-Sadr (so he can do as he's told by somebody he is obliged to, while saving face)?

As usual, let's blame the NYT for problems created elsewhere...

(ah, it's been a long time since there's been a rousing political spat here...)

[Inquartata]

Or is it more proof that the liberal media is eager to cause Bush trouble even if it retards the efforts against terrorism and results in more death and chaos? That it has no sense of shame or of honor, only the indiscriminate lust for Story? That it does not scruple to throw gasoline on a fire if it will sell more papers?

There, that ought to throw gasoline on the argument fire.

[jeff]

In that case they are merely acting in their own economic self interest, which we've been assured many times is equivalent to acting for the greater good, in all cases.

High test? Extra additives? Leaded or non-leaded?

[Inquartata]

But the media are oligopolists!

Seriously, if I had to guess I'd say that your last guess was likeliest: It was to create an out for Maliki to ditch the meeting after that piss-ant Al Sadr's ultimatum.

Of course, few will believe that this Administration is capable of such subtlety, so they'll just label it more bungling.

Maybe there's advantage of sort in that.

[Maeve_Mari]

But the media are oligopolists!

Seriously, if I had to guess I'd say that your last guess was likeliest: It was to create an out for Maliki to ditch the meeting after that piss-ant Al Sadr's ultimatum.

Of course, few will believe that this Administration is capable of such subtlety, so they'll just label it more bungling.

Maybe there's advantage of sort in that.

OLIGOPOLISTS!?!

Okay, that's one vote for the Bungle.

[umbrella]

easily countered with a different meeting at a different place.

I daresay, people cannot resist a bit of gossip now and then. But, I would try at least a little bit to hold my tongue during sensitive talks......tsk tsk tsk!!! Naughties.

[Army Fencer]

Hard for me to figure motivations, though I think it goes deeper than we can see from external clues. Is it a deliberately sanctioned leak to help Bush apply more pressure to al-Maliki? Or to help him distance himself from al-Maliki and the worsening chaos in Iraq? Is it a way to undermine al-Maliki so the problems there are his and not ours? Is it to open a breach between al-Maliki and us to make him appear more "his own man" and not a US puppet, thus helping him? (suggested in the Yahoo story above) Is it to give a fig leaf to al-Maliki for not meeting with Bush, as demanded by Muqtada al-Sadr (so he can do as he's told by somebody he is obliged to, while saving face)?

Interesting ideas. Those are far more intelligent than I could come up with.

As usual, let's blame the NYT for problems created elsewhere...

Well, at least it was after I blamed "The Administration." Next thing you know, you're going to accuse me of being a "right-wing nut job."

The Times doesn't share the bulk of the responsibility for releasing this leak: the leaker does. But the media question does interest me. The Times has a great deal of intelligent, patriotic, and professional individuals on its staff, and it is precisely because of this that their action seems strange.

But if the leak is not necessily a Bad Thing, as you and Inq suggest, there is no reason for me to question the actions of New York Times.

[jeff]

I think the question wrt the NYT is whether this or any story is so crucial to national interests that suppressing the story is more important than the conflicting national interest of freedom of the press and the importance of the public's knowing what their government is up to. I imagine that is weighed on each and every story with such implications - we can dispute any given decision that a news outlet makes, but I think the NYT and most others take that responsibility very seriously. Consider the Pentagon Papers as a good example.

Personally, I think this story falls well within the bounds of 'reasonable to publish'. Merely embarrassing the administration and Maliki with what they've been broadly implying in other communications with "we're going to have to get tough with him" messages isn't reason to censor. Censorship, by self or external is serious business too. New thread topic on "what is the criterion for imposing self-censorship", eh?

As for the whole "who to blame" - I'm just so fed up with the administration and the disaster they created that it's hard for me to take any finger pointing in other directions.

In this case, I think it's a good (if not guaranteed) bet that at least some factions in the White House wanted this to happen. Certainly they're smart enough at spin and message control to pull that off. In any case, my enumeration of possible reasons wasn't intended in a partisan sense.

Hmmm, I feel a neologism coming --- "oligopolista"

[Inquartata]

Is that a rock concert or something?