Saturday, February 24, 2007

20/20 hindsight. How does Obama stack up?

Pretty damn good.

No one is perfect, but can you imagine if we had had this man as President over the last six years? Also, who says that the debacle in Iraq could not have been predicted?

At the time of this interview with Obama, President Bush did not know that there were such things as Sunnis and Shia. I am totally serious. He did not know there were two main branches of Islam. This gem was recounted by an ambassador that Bush appointed to a European country. I cannot remember the specifics, but I can find them. If you need me to document this assertion, leave me a comment. I can.

Update: Leo pointed out that Bush referenced the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds in a speech in 2002. Having used the two branches of Islam in a speech, it is hard to believe that Bush did not know of them. Leo also pointed out the name of the ambassador who cast the aspersion on Bush. I stand corrected. Unless you believe that Bush used the branches of Islam in a speech and did not care about their relevance. Hummm....

4 comments:

Leo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Leo said...

Is this the ambassador you are referring to? Gailbraith

Note that in a statement to the UN Bush did use the terms in September 2002 Bush speech

I would like to see the information that contradicts his understanding.

I am impressed though with the byte from Obama. He does seem to have good sense. Thanks for sharing it.

Andrew said...

Thanks Leo, I will try to find the reference. I was stunned at the time. But it was a year ago or so. I suspected that the President was a big picture guy, but to not know the two major branches of Islam... too much. Perhaps the quote was not credable.

Andrew said...

Yup, it was Gailbraith. I read the speach that the President made. At least his speachwriter knew that there were differences in Islam. I suspect that Bush did also. After Cheney's comments, it is hard to believe that they did not know that it would be a quagmire. Why, knowing that Saddam did not have a connection to 9/11, did they work the Iraq angle so hard? It is a mystery to me. I have to admit, I sense I am missing information here. Why, why , why was Iraq so critical?

A wedge between Syria, Iran, and Saudi? They did not need a wedge. Iran is Shia and Saudi is Sunni.

Water? With desalination and lots of oil, is water that big a deal?

Isreal? Did Isreal want us bogged down so we would feel their pain? Did they want a buffer? Perhaps this is an angle to persue. It sure does explain Leiberman, as Voyager points out.

Well it is late