Bush in burqa?
posted at 5:38 pm on November 27, 2006 by Ian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Drudge is headlining this image:
The caption reads:
Women cry behind a coffin containing the body of their relative, in front of Imam Ali hospital in Baghdad’s Sadr city November 27, 2006. Their relative was killed during Sunday’s clashes in north Baghdad.
Update (Allahpundit): Either Confederate Yankee tipped Drudge to this or Drudge swiped it out from under him because he had it 90 minutes ago.
What are the odds that some random woman in Iraq would have a nose shaped like the president’s?
Pretty darned good, I’d say.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I’m still trying to find George in the photo..WTF?
james hooker on November 27, 2006 at 5:43 PM
Well they DO say everyone has a TWIN. Does it have to be a samesex twin?
No wonder they want to cover up their women…are they really women? After the escape of the terrorists in Gaza dressed in burkas anything is possible…
labwrs on November 27, 2006 at 5:44 PM
ROFL! He’s the one in the left rear. It’s obviously fauxtography, but a pretty damn funny one.
wearyman on November 27, 2006 at 5:47 PM
Now, THAT’S one gutsy approach to intelligence gathering.
Lone Star on November 27, 2006 at 5:51 PM
Thats either a photoshopped Bush, or a really ugly woman.
p0s3r on November 27, 2006 at 5:51 PM
Ian, I thought you were joking, at first. If you look closer at the image, you can see what appears to be photoshop “blending” marks.
americanpundit on November 27, 2006 at 6:19 PM
We’re doomed. Bush has converted. In more ways than one.
RushBaby on November 27, 2006 at 6:21 PM
Does anyone find the size of the two standing “women” alarming? She-W looks like she’s pushing 400 lbs easy and the other one on the right has gotta be at least 700. And that is not taking into account the slimming effect of black.
bloggless on November 27, 2006 at 6:23 PM
ughh.
this is where it becomes clear that fauxtography is coming to be to the rightwing blogosphere as anne coulter appearances and affirmative action bakesales are to campus republican groups.
the fact that anyone is on the lookout for fauxtography hard enough to think they’ve found it in this photo speaks ill of us. you’d think we’d be buisy coding new watchdog sites in preparation for the dem majority’s innauguration.
jummy on November 27, 2006 at 6:24 PM
It does look a lot like Bush to me.
Also, the face and the raised hand appear a bit “brighter” and sharper than the rest of the shot.
And what’s with the dark jagged areas on the top right (woman’s left) area of the veil/burqa/whatever?
In photoshop at 500% zoom that whole area appears darker, especially after desaturating the image and playing with the contrast.
Pretty damned fishy, I’d say.
Citizen Duck on November 27, 2006 at 6:27 PM
Thankfully Lila and Layla were there to inform the President to cover the meat before going outside, let’s he invite rape, during his recent visit to the Mid East.
Lone Star on November 27, 2006 at 6:55 PM
Oh God, not more of this “fauxtography” nonsense. This is about the lamest manufactured scandal ever. Get a life.
John on November 27, 2006 at 7:08 PM
The nose looks to big to be Bush. People have way too much spare time on their hands.
JammieWearingFool on November 27, 2006 at 7:09 PM
Confederate Yankee has a picture of Bush near the picture of the burka lady. It is clear the nose is not too big.
Also, usually a hijab doesn’t cover the mouth and niqab would cover the entire face. Looks like fauxtography to me.
tommy1 on November 27, 2006 at 7:20 PM
I’m waiting for the Bush–>Burqa–>Ahmadinijad animated GIF.
Allah–MAKE IT HAPPEN!
armylawyer on November 27, 2006 at 7:53 PM
tommy, citizen duck, why? honestly, why?
leaving aside that the photo is clearly not doctored, why? what would be the editorial point?
i’ll grant that there’s an editorial point in something as petty as giving condi “demon eyes”. or photographing a peepee note. but what would the supposed photomanipulator possibly be trying to convey by hiding bush’s face amongst some burkah-clad mourners?
there’s no sense to it at all and your senseless straining to identify fauxtography in this (and, for instance the “missing mic chord” bs of a while back) only leaves an opening for dickheads like john to dismiss the real journalistic abuses uncovered this summer.
stop it.
jummy on November 27, 2006 at 8:40 PM
chill out jummy, they’re asking a question… not jumping up and down shouting “we gotcha!”
By the way folks, perhaps the person in question is just the offspring of this meeting we all remember.
RightWinged on November 27, 2006 at 10:11 PM
RightWinged: LOL
baldilocks on November 27, 2006 at 10:30 PM
…stupid questions.
jummy on November 27, 2006 at 10:55 PM
There’s definately skin color differences. Drudge took it down, but heck, who knows, it’s probably fake.
Vincenzo on November 27, 2006 at 11:13 PM
Why not? Aristotle said something along the lines of the mark of an educated mind being the ability “to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it.”
The photo looks fishy to me, so I not only entertained the thought that it might be fauxtography, I went ahead and commented on the specific points I found to be anomalous.
So please, insert your right hand into the general area of your sphincter and kindly unwad your panties.
RightWinged said it nicely, so I’ll quote him here:
Not so hard, is it?
Such histrionics. You made me lolirl.
Citizen Duck on November 27, 2006 at 11:54 PM
…stupid people.
I don’t really care, and I’m not sure one way or another on this, but you came in to this thread with a stick up your ass for some reason. I don’t even know if Ian is asking seriously, whether it’s PS or a Bush look-alike, it’s still worth a post. I mean, it’s one thing to say “I think it’s real”, it’s another thing for you to bitch about what they post here. It’s their blog.
RightWinged on November 27, 2006 at 11:56 PM
Hilarious
SouthernGent on November 27, 2006 at 11:57 PM
just imagine… or don’t that someone actually thought here to be a hot babe and she/it probably has 25 children and 1,000 grandchildren !
retired on November 28, 2006 at 12:02 AM
The comedy continues:
Take a guess whose blog that’s from…
Need a hint? Their handle on hot air rhymes with “dummy”
Citizen Duck on November 28, 2006 at 12:10 AM
“is it wrong for me to ask questions?
is it wrong to seek the truth?
i can’t blindly accept their version
i can’t base my logic on proof
like charlie sheen and gloria estephan
i have to know what really happened on nine eleven…”
what are comments for then?
Take a guess whose blog that’s from…
is there something controversial about that?
jummy on November 28, 2006 at 1:03 AM
First of all jummy, you should specify who you’re quoting with each quote.
But what are comments for? I just explained it. You can come say “it’s obviously real” or even “you guys are nuts, it’s not photoshop, it’s real”. But to bitch and moan about the post itself (which is what you’ve been doing) is retarded. People have blogs to talk about what they want to talk about. You can come comment on your differing opinion about the subject matter, but to come to a blog and bitch about the topic? Just ignore it and go read a different post. You get what I’m saying now?
RightWinged on November 28, 2006 at 2:16 AM
dudes, comments not appearing is really getting old.
RightWinged on November 28, 2006 at 2:17 AM
whatever. i’m over it. the damage is done. next time anyone tries to talk about adnan hajj they can expect to be met with a bunch of evasive wisecracks about the “librul media” photoshopping bush into a burkah.
jummy on November 28, 2006 at 2:40 AM
thanks, that one came through now
RightWinged on November 28, 2006 at 2:54 AM
Oh irony, thy name is jummy.
Do I really need to spell it out for you? Okay, that was a bit rhetorical, it’s obvious that I do.
You rail on your blog concerning “anti-speech censors” and then attempt to silence the viewpoints of others who might hold a viewpoint on a given issue that differs from your own.
Get it now?
Brilliant! My questioning this photograph is exactly the same thing as questioning the wealth of photographic, video, and scientific evidence (as well as the evidence of my own eyes) that points towards nineteen Allah-addled jihadis as the cause of 9/11!
You’re quite the sleuth, I must admit, jummy!
Citizen Duck on November 28, 2006 at 3:06 AM
Here’s George at one of his Ramadan feasts. Fauxtography? You decide.
Valiant on November 28, 2006 at 7:29 AM
Bush goes deep, DEEP undercover.
Valiant, I remember that picture, that old guy looks just like him!
Tony737 on November 28, 2006 at 10:39 AM
It is him- done by the Photoshop geniuses at peoplescube.com.
Valiant on November 28, 2006 at 10:42 AM
Comment pages: