San Francisco’s rejection of “Deport the Criminals First” has resulted in three deaths in San Francisco:

The man charged with killing a father and two sons on a San Francisco street last month was one of the youths who benefited from the city’s long-standing practice of shielding illegal immigrant juveniles who committed felonies from possible deportation, The Chronicle has learned.

Gavin Newsom has blood on his hands.

Thanks to aunursa.

As I noted in a previous post, Hot Air quoted the English translation of Maliki’s Der Spiegel interview as follows:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

So, by the way, did The Hill, and lots of other people.

Then, without explanation, Der Spiegel changed the translation to this:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. 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.

That’s the version currently being quoted by the entire U.S. media, and it eliminates the qualification: “Assuming that positive developments continue . . .”

Now, via DRJ comes this from the New York Times:

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.”

[Said in the voice of the Count from Sesame Street:] Three versions! Ah ha ha ha haaaaa!!

I trust the New York Times implicitly, which is why I see no reason for them to release the actual audio of the tape, to see if anyone disagrees with their translation. We don’t want to double-check things ourselves; we want to be told what the truth is. And yes, I’m entirely serious about that. (Click the links to see just how serious.)

UPDATE: What is the point? A number of people are making a big deal of the fact that the statement from Maliki’s office was issued by CENTCOM, after the U.S. Government contacted Maliki’s office. It is relevant, then, that Der Spiegel’s original translation contained exactly the part that Maliki’s office insists was left out of the final version — namely, an explicit condition that Maliki’s agreement to a rough 16-month timetable “[a]ssum[es] that positive developments continue.” In other words, Maliki’s support for withdrawal depends on conditions on the ground.

Hot Air captured the following passage from the English translation of Maliki’s Der Spiegel interview:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

Here’s how the exchange reads now:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. 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.

There is no explanation of the rewrite.

Spiegel says: “SPIEGEL stands by its version of the conversation.” That’s great . . . but which one?

SHOCKING POSTSCRIPT: The L.A. Times ignores the earlier version — as does the rest of the world, apparently.

Nor does the L.A. Times report that Maliki’s office disputes the rewritten Spiegel translation.

I said it was shocking! And I meant it!

UPDATE: A reader writes with a link to an L.A. Times story that does indeed mention the dispute, that was published before I published this blog post. It is mentioned in passing, in the 12th paragraph of an article about a related topic: Obama’s decision to stick to his goal of a quick withdrawal. That is certainly an appropriate way to handle a development that casts doubt on a front-page above-the-fold story in the Sunday edition. Seriously!

UPDATE x2: Thanks to Instapundit for the link. A third version has now appeared courtesy of the New York Times. More here.

UPDATE x3: Der Spiegel’s rewrite undercuts the argument that Maliki’s walkback resulted from U.S. pressure. In fact, his walkback — which merely points out that he “said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements” — is exactly what Der Spiegel initially reported that he had said.

Posted by WLS:

I’ll fill in this context later, but for now I’d like to know the manner in which commenters here would interpret the following language if you were a City Clerk being asked to validate an initiative for placement on the November election ballot.

“For Initiative Special Elections. A special election for an ordinance by initiative power shall be called within ninety days of filing of the petition if signed by duly registered voters equal in number to at least fifteen percent of the votes cast for mayor in the last regular mayoral election, and if such petition specifies that a special election be called; provided that if the clerk certifies less than fifteen percent but at least ten percent, the proposed ordinance shall be submitted at the next general election or scheduled special election. No special initiative election shall be held if an election is scheduled within one hundred eighty days of submission of the proposal.”