Lost in Translation

I was out of town and missed the Maliki withdrawal kerfluffle over the weekend, but it looks like it was likely much ado about nothing anyway, and perhaps nothing more than a translation error, even according to the Obama-backing Times.

Frankly, I'm just glad we're at a point where Iraq is beginning to stabilize enough that we can realistically begin to discuss drawing down American assets in Iraq in victory—quite a bit different circumstance than the long-held Democratic Party position, which was (and still is) for a reckless withdrawal with all possible speed, regardless of what that withdrawal with mean to Iraqi civilians or to the region.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:30 AM

Comments

1 I have been watching the devaluation of the dollar with some interest. Yesterday I was reading on our response to the threatened British invasion of Egypt over the Suez and the fact that we stopped that action by threatening to devalue their currency. Could it be that we are facing something similar? The Bush administration has been very complacent over the loss of the value of our currency and the European Union has bent over backward to maintain high interest rates and thus a strong Euro and Pound.

Posted by: David Caskey at July 21, 2008 11:12 AM (H44J6)

2 A strong currency has both advantages and disadvantages. It hurts exports, but makes folks want to invest in your country's financial instruments (b/c a hard currency usually is the product of fairly high absolute interest rates).

So, if the Bushies are interested in promoting exports, then not propping up the dollar is not necessarily a problem.

The wild card, of course, is the private sector, which can devalue a currency far faster than most central banks can prop them up. The Europeans went to the Euro in part b/c of currency arbitrage (interestingly, George Soros was one of those folks) which devastated the "trading bands" that had governed relations among the pound, franc, mark, lire, etc.

Posted by: Lurking Observer at July 21, 2008 12:16 PM (MQiLC)

3 Lurking,
I realize the nature of the economics of currency. But my concern is that our current weak dollar is really bring down the economy. Certainly those interest that benefit from exporting have done very well, in fact the Dems should insist on a windfall profit tax on them! But if the president and his group began to talk of supporting the dollar, even that would help the current situation. That is unless they feel they are being attacked. It just seems that something is not right in this respect and is outside the usual economic forces.

Posted by: David Caskey at July 21, 2008 03:12 PM (H44J6)

4 Personally, if the official position of the full Iraqi government (meaning the parliament as well as the Prime Minister) is that we leave, I say we go... but I suspect the official position of the Iraqi government would probably be vastly different from what they tell reporters.

It's an old political dodge... tell reporters one thing, then do another. In fact, weren't there rumors that Obama's campaign had done that, say, with regard to NAFTA?

Posted by: C-C-G at July 21, 2008 07:01 PM (e+Bm0)

5 What does leaving "in victory" mean these days? The administration has changed the definition so many times, I can't keep it straight.

Posted by: Cheney's Other Priority at July 21, 2008 08:55 PM (VR9d+)

Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.006 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0042 seconds, 13 records returned.
Page size 6 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.