The End of a Lie: How Moonbat Incompetence Created a Joke Without End
- Posted by Beth on August 6th, 2006 filed in Blogs, Funny, General, Iraq, Moonbats, Stupid, The War, WTF
Tags: Bush, moonbats, leftards, idiotarians, Raw Story, Peter Galbraith, liars, books
If they believe this, I’ve got a bridge to sell.
In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.
Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam–to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”
I’m not linking to Raw Story, because I don’t link to retards. These people will believe anything.
James Joyner also notes this, which if Raw Story and the sheeple would have found if they were the least bit curious–or intellectually honest:
Commenter Dave E found two Bush speeches from the fall of 2002 where he used the terminology. Most significant was his UN Speech to rally support for action against Saddam, which contained this line: “If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.”
Gaze at all the idiots. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAA!!!!
Ace of Spades HQ says:
Another Great Liberal Fairy-Tale About Bush
John Kenneth Galbraith’s son, named after his father (Moron Galbraith), tells an amusing tale that, on the eve of the War in Iraq, someone attempt to explain to Bush that there were four or five different religous/ethnic factions in Iraq….
http://crabapple.cc says:
The End of a Lie: How Moonbat Incompetence Created a Joke Without End
A new book from a Bush-deranged moonbat–and former ambassador–makes a laughable claim about how Bush is totally clueless. I mean REALLY clueless.
Meanwhile, barking moonbats are linking to the “Raw Story” like crazy, buying the story hook, line, …
Purple Avenger says:
I don’t suppose Galbraith works for or has a significant interest in Reuters would he?
slinkybender says:
Peter Galbraith is an agent of Kurdish nationalism, always has been, always will be.
Even Clinton pushed him out.
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Reutergate / Adnan Hajj says:
[...] I’m pretty much doing this list for my own purposes, because I’m getting scattered all over the place and can’t keep track of what I’ve written any more! (Need sleep…) And if you weren’t around this weekend, just scroll down. There is actually other stuff posted here as well, like this laughable shi’ite. Oh, and one more thing, before I forget this point (again): In the “talkback” to the Jerusalem Post article about “Reutergate,” this is said: This photo makes it seem as though downtown Beirut is being hit. That is the biggest lie- there has been no report that Beirut has not been hit, only a southern dahiyeh (suburb or settlement) south of Beirut. That dahiyeh is occupied by Hezbollah. [...]
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The Nutroots Strike Back! says:
[...] See, I mentioned in a comment over at Ace’s yesterday or today (don’t ask me to find it, there are too many comments there to dig through) that this whole Up In Smoke/Reutergate thing was fishy. I question the timing! I thought that Adnan Hajj was a Rove plant, and he doctored the photos to deflect attention away from the fact that Peter Galbraith’s Bush-bashing book is being fact-checked by Rethugs! But NO! anyway, sure sounds like a deliberate set up to me to have general distrust of the horrific pictures we see from the war. [...]
Andisheh Nouraee says:
How does Bush reading those words indicate that he understood the distinction between Sunni and Shi’a Islam? That he lumped Sunni and Shi’a together with two ethno-linguistic groups, Kurds and Turkomans, could indicate that he thought that they, too, were ethno-linguistic distinctions.
Beth says:
Andisheh,
Again, if you think that, you are simply hopeless. Try a little intellectual honesty.
Seriously. And I’m being nice. ::sigh::
Andisheh Nouraee says:
You can call me whatever name you like, but how about actually dealing with the substance of what I wrote.
For the sake of argument, let’s ignore Galbraith’s charge. We weren’t there so we can’t know.
Let’s just go on facts that we can understand via public record.
The Bush Administration clearly didn’t grasp the threat posed by the Shi’a/Sunni divide in Iraq, or else it would have planned for it for effectively. I don’t think they screwed that up on purpose. There’s no conspiracy there. I think it genuinely surprised them.
With that in mind, and with Wolfowitz’s testimony in front of Congress about Iraq not having a history of ethnic strife, there’s frankly nothing shocking about hearing evidence from a third-party to indicate that Bush didn’t fully understand the difference between Sunni and Shi’a. Did it happen as Galbraith portrayed, I don’t know. But it’s just not shocking to anyone who’s “intellectually honest” to suggest that it might have happened.
The administration didn’t understand the seriousness of the religious divide in Iraq. If you’re “intellectually honest” you can’t run away from that fact.
Beth says:
I don’t plan on calling you names, Andisheh. I think we’re just going to have to agree to vehemently disagree on this. You’re really “misunderestimating” Bush as his detractors always do, though. Even if he WERE that stupid as Galbraith and his cheerleaders say, you’d have to believe that he lives in a complete vacuum, doesn’t read anything, is deaf, is blind. I think we all know that’s not the case. It’s one thing to disagree with his policies, but to turn that into some kind of “Bush is dumb” thing is just silly. It doesn’t add to your argument; it just makes your point–opposing Bush policy–look weak.
Did it happen as Galbraith portrayed, I don’t know.
It’s in Bush’s words, in the record! Obviously it didn’t happen! Re the “Sunni and Shi’a together with two ethno-linguistic groups, Kurds and Turkomans,” indicating he thought they meant the same thing, if that’s what you WANT to believe, it’s a free country. You’re obviously missing the context, though. Surely you can’t deny that “Kurds and Turkomans and others” were persecuted? I think you’re reading WAY too much into that to think he thought they were all the same thing! Just because it theoretically COULD HAVE (if he were stupid) been that way, doesn’t mean it IS that way. Everything in the realm of possibility (however remote) does not equal reality or even probability. Sorry, but again we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I think the whole idea is preposterous and based on fantasy.
Kinda reminds me of
“that depends on what the definition of the word is, is.”