THE MYSTERY OF THE MISSING MALIKI WALKBACK.

When the prime minister of a foreign government makes a comment that could be understood as critical of the foreign power conducting a military occupation of his country, there are helpful ways that comments could be walked back, and unhelpful ways that comment could be walked back. A helpful way would be a statement from the prime minister's office saying that Obama's plan has merit, McCain's plan has merit also, and nothing Maliki said should be understood as expressing a preference between the two. That sort of press release would seem independent, even statesman-esque.

An unhelpful way the comment could be walked back is if the retraction comes not from the prime minister, but from a spokesperson. And if it's released not by the prime minister's office, but by the press shop of the occupying military. And if rather than say what was wrong in the comment, or why it should be understood differently, they say, without giving examples, that it was “misunderstood and mistranslated,” and come off like a kid who's been forced to apologize but doesn't have a clear idea of what he's supposed to be sorry for. That's not helpful. That just proves the point of the original comment: The continued American military presence makes the Iraqi government look weak and manipulable, and it's in Iraq's interest for it to end.

Meanwhile, this is the 21st century, and when prime minister's give interviews to newspapers, the newspapers tape the interviews. And then when the papers are challenged, they release the audio tapes to other news organizations for verification:

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.”

Mr. Maliki’s top political adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, declined to comment on the remarks, but spoke in general about the Iraqi position on Sunday. Part of that position, he said, comes from domestic political pressure to withdraw.

“Foreign soldiers in the middle of the most populated areas are not without their side effects,” he said. “Shouldn’t we look to an end for this unhealthy situation?”

Maliki's quote is authentic. So too is the quote from his political adviser asking for "an end for this unhealthy situation," where "unhealthy situation" refers to the American occupation of Iraq. So too were the quotes from a week ago, when Maliki's spokesperson said "we need to agree on the principle of setting a deadline." This stuff isn't complicated: In the past week, the Iraqi prime minister, his spokesman, and his political adviser have all called for an end to the occupation and a public promise that the American troops will begin to withdraw from Iraqi territory. Folks can disagree with that argument, and uphold that in our position as enlightened imperialists, we need not listen to the government that we helped install. But at this point, the Iraqi government has made as clear a public play for withdrawal as they possibly could. We're long past the place where the direction of their preferences can be denied.