Soft bigotry of low expectations? Cal Thomas said Snow and Bartlett "looked a lot better in those metal helmets" than Dukakis did
SUMMARY: On Fox News Watch, Cal Thomas stated that White House counselor Dan Bartlett and press secretary Tony Snow "looked a lot better in those metal helmets than [former Democratic presidential candidate] Michael Dukakis did in that tank some years ago."
On the June 17 edition of Fox News Watch, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas stated that White House counselor Dan Bartlett and press secretary Tony Snow "looked a lot better in those metal helmets than [former Democratic presidential candidate] Michael Dukakis did in that tank some years ago." As Media Matters for America noted, a photo of Bartlett and Snow wearing helmets and flak jackets, while accompanying President Bush on a June 13 helicopter ride between Baghdad International Airport and the U.S. embassy in Iraq, has been widely circulated on the Internet. It was also featured on Page Two of The Washington Post in conjunction with a "Washington Sketch" column by Dana Milbank noting that "the result was more Michael Dukakis than Mission Accomplished."
Here is the Associated Press photo:
As Media Matters also noted, CNN chief national correspondent John King reported on the June 14 edition of CNN's Live From ... that Bush also wore protective gear during the helicopter ride, but that members of the media "did not get to photograph him" because official personnel "didn't want us to get any pictures" of him entering or exiting the aircraft.
From the June 17 edition of Fox News Watch:
THOMAS: The whole -- and by the way, I thought Tony Snow and Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director and the press secretary, looked a lot better in those metal helmets than Michael Dukakis did in that tank some years ago.
Those helmets are not made of metal as Thomas claims. CGF Gallet Combat Helmets are made of Spectra fibres, similar to Kevlar.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
No argument that Dukakis looked like Touché Turtle.
Bartlet and Snow looked like Laurel and Hardy.
Oooooo! Big difference there, right Cal?
of the usual, "Where's the misinformation?" we get from the rightwing gestapo of MMFA critics.
FOXtapo
A New York City lawyer said that even though he had represented vicious clients including cold-blooded murderers and others who had swindled retirees out of their life savings, he had never received a death threat until he dared to represent......
the squeegee men ( the men who used to "clean" your windshield whether you wanted or not), and then he received many.
I don't understand why there is such intense namecalling over simply pointing out what is available for all to see by clicking on "about us" at the top of this page.
There is conservative misinformation out there, and some can even be found sifting through the other topics at MMFA.
What you are doing is harmless, so enjoy yourself.
is ask his fellow worker next door, some guy named Oliver North.
Thomas had this to say about Fox "news"
Thomas: "All of them are trying to copy FOX News now to be honest. Many of them are doing tabloid, more big lipped blonde's and all this kind of stuff. There's only so much of that trailer trash pie to go around."
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
Speaks volumes about Fox AND who they hire, doesn't it?
That Democrats look "silly" in military settings, while Republicans look both "natural" and "heroic".
It's all about appearance. If it were about actual GUTS, we'd have to tatoo "L" for LOSER on all the Rightwing chickenhawk's foreheads.
Since they can INVENT courage for themselves, while simultaneously belittling and smearing actual combat veterans who happen to be Democrats, then the APPEARANCE can take the place of REALITY.
The phrase "Cut and Run" is just another way of calling somebody a coward. Yet most of the people who use that phrase are probably the same ones who leap for their car door locks when they're stopped at a busy downtown traffic light and they see a guy in dreadlocks walking their way. CHICKENHAWKISM makes people in those helmuts look silly. You kinda wish they'd CUT AND RUN!
Snow looks like he cut the cheese, and Bartlett looks like he has the runs.
You got me Rusty! Still a sucker for the poo humor! I blew Jack & Coke out my nose.
Snow and Bartlett look like what they are: soft, middle-aged white men of privilege happy to send young men and women, disproportionately poor, off to die, while they pretend to an honor and a toughness that is beyond their comprehension.
...half of all soldiers soil themselves in combat. Having volunteered in a VA hospital, I have seen what remains of some soldiers when our latest war ends. So, war is terror is mutilation and young men and women rotting in the dirt, but Snow and Bartlett don helmets and get to pretend that they have a clue about war when their very profession is misinformation.
ARRRGGGGH!
They should go back to playing with their G.I. Joe dolls.
We missed you.
Your absolutely right. White men of privilege again sending other people's kids to maim and be maimed, kill or be killed. Maybe if anyone in the administration or pushing this war from the media sidelines had actually fought in a war they wouldn't have such a cavalier attitude about wart. They might be a little less cocky and a lot more humble when they make life and death decisions for other people's kids.
It's good to be back. If a public servant chooses to not serve in the military, I wish that there would other requirements: they could tend to bedsores of limbless vets. They could feed the vets that are homeless in our cities. They could attend the funerals of vets...or better still, deliver the message that someone's son or daughter or mother or father is dead.
But instead of acquiring a clue, these rich men don a helmet and take a ride in a tank and maintain an understanding of war that can be compared to a child that plays with his war dolls and believes that his pretty battles in the living room are facsimilies of war.
Any man that declares war sends other people's sons and daugthers off to die. FDR declared war and demanded that his 4 sons be put in peril. And FDR indirectly killed himself to serve his country at war. In his final campaign, he rode in an open car in an October rain...because the people needed to see a strong president. FDR's offering of his sons and his sacrifice in the rain are soooo beyond the neocons.
Tony Snow's father was a social studies teacher and his mom was a nurse, not sure about bartlett....what is this obession with "white privilege" all about....you mean he came from a middle class home, is talented, worked his ass off and rose to a high level in his profession all because of "white prviledge"....what a crock!
No...But it's always those that are white and have money that talk about these things. And yet, who goes to fight wars? The poor. Not these schlubs.
Does Snows FATHER have to do with whether or not Snow himself is a man of privelege? Are you going to even attempt to deny this is an apt description of Snow? True he did rise due to his facility to lie blatantly with some measure of sincerity, a valued comodity among rightwing screech monkeys. As for hard work, you really have to give me a break. Coal Miners work hard. Steelworkers work hard. Tony Snow LIES hard. He only breaks a sweat at the sight of Helen Thomas
ANYONE would look a bit "funny" in that gear, BUT at least Bartlett & Snow were wearing it for a REASON...not making a political ad like Dukakis did.
Cal Thomas was joking around, let's face it a LOT of jokes were made about Dukakis playing GI Joe in that outfit. LOTS of jokes were made about Bush when he landed in a flight suit on the Aircraft Carrier...MANY of you here are STILL making jokes about it. THIS thread is silly... I can't believe MMFA or ANYONE here would be OFFENDED by Thomas's humorous HARMLESS quip. I saw THIS program and that's all it was.
Are we getting a little thin-skinned here people?
makes one wonder if there is a scarcity of conservative misinformation out there these days if this makes press?
Right On have you noticed that lately it appears MMFA would rather OFFER Quantity rather than Quality when it comes to threads?
ALSO note MOST of the posts here [thus far] have DRIFTED off-topic BECAUSE there's NOTHING of SUBSTANCE here [on this thread's topic] to discuss/debate.
I responded specifically to what you wrote and you state that posts aren't germane. A couple of softies pretending to be soldiers and hiding in a tank is significant. We articulate our values in symbolic gestures. This isn't about helmets: it's about values: what the neocons value for themselves versus what they value for soldiers. This is NOTHING more important than a conversation about the distance between alleged values and manifested values. NOTHING. But it is a difficult conversation to have and I suspect it's easier for you to assert, "There's no story here. Pay no attention to the man beneath the helmet."
I'm at work and can't always RESPOND back as quickly as I'd like sometimes.
YOU did NOT respond SPECIFICALLY to what I wrote...you went off on a tangent.
Cal Thomas joked about Dukakis. I pointed out MANY have joked about Bush and the two White House Fly Boys ...MY point was VERY simple. ALL 3 incidents have been joked about...BUT for some reason [I'd go with thin-skin] you guys are in an uproar about Thomas and making MORE of this than it warrants.
Now I need to get back to work. :-)
I think this is an issue partly because it all began with Dukakis. Dukakis was mocked. Now, the party that mocked him dresses its civilian softies in soldier clothes. Thus, the issue. I thought that this was apparent. What might be less apparent are the issues that I've raised: the notions of courage and privilege.
"I think this is an issue partly because it all began with Dukakis. Dukakis was mocked. Now, the party that mocked him dresses its civilian softies in soldier clothes."...by Holly
=====
Yes Dukakis was mocked--NO argument there, AND his "photo-op" is STILL the butt of jokes. But Holly YOUR bias is ALREADY showing when you call Snow & Bartlett "civilian SOFTIES". How would YOU have expected them to be outfitted? They weren't making a Political Ad they were flying into a [possibly] dangerous area. Did you expect PHOTOS of them in polo shirts and jeans?
I ALSO pointed out that a myriad of jokes were made at Bush's expense for that SILLY landing on the Aircraft Carrier decked out in a Flight Suit. He deserved as much (if not more) ridicule as Dukakis for playing "dress up"...
Cal Thomas made a JOKE. All he said was that Bartlett & Snow looked "a lot better" than Dukakis in their gear. It was a simple throw-away line, a humorous quip, AND not WORTHY of a thread here. OR of you & others making MORE of his "JOKE" than what it was.
NOT everything has deeper darker significance.
A joke...nothing more.
You seem a reasonable Rightie. I'll take what you wrote and work it like cud. Maybe, at the end of the day, I'll swallow a little of what you wrote.
My "softie" slam comes from the willingness of some politicians to send other Americans off to be maimed or killed or psychologically scarred, when they wouldn't bear that risk themselves...or even bear the risk of riding in a thin skinned vehicle, as most soldiers do. That suggests a softness. Again, reference the way MacArthur and FDR behaved. They bore risk as they asked others to bear risk.
What OTHERS [in the administration or media] might be ATTEMPTING to do or SUGGEST about this photo of Snow & Bartlett has NOTHING to do with what Cal Thomas JOKINGLY remarked.
See I'm CONCENTRATING strictly on the SUBJECT of this thread--which is Cal Thomas's off-hand humorous comment. As I just wrote to Tex [scroll down] I saw THIS program-- the ENTIRE panel were chuckling about the photo of Snow & Bartlett. Thomas SIMPLY joked that they "looked better" than Dukakis. The ENTIRE panel laughed INCLUDING the Two Liberals. I HONESTLY don't think Thomas was making a Political Statement here....I Believe he was commenting STRICTLY on their APPEARANCE.
I do appreciate that YOU are at least willing to mull my opinion over on this subject. In THIS particular instance I honestly believe Thomas was simply being funny. There was NOTHING nefarious in his tone of voice. AND no one on the show was outraged by his comment or read anything more into it.
I understand a need to underplay every instance of the Rightwing following its script, but it is important to note the PROMINENT PLAY, as well as the HYPOCRICY, of the Rightwing's dogged devotion to its invented storylines.
As mentioned before, the Republicans MUST have their people prominently displayed as COURAGEOUS and HONORABLE and looking very natural in their military garb (which they never earned).
Likewise, it is important to depict Democrats as COWARDS and TRAITORS, especially those who were decorated for valor in combat, if they dare to run for office or speak out against Bush's policies and/or "leadership".
So, it's not about these two goobers in their helmets, or even about the conspicuous LACK of any photographic evidence of Bush in HIS protective gear. It's about the STORYLINE, with GOPers portrayed as courageous while Dems are portrayed as silly and unnatural, or outright traitors, when in uniform.
The STORYLINE is a fraud, a slander, and a farce, but is adhered to religiously. Because this is yet ANOTHER example, it needs to be noted into the record. That you think it too unimportant to rate a thread only shows you wish for the Rightwing FICTIONAL storyline to prevail without any opposition.
I saw this program and HEARD Cal Thomas make this COMMENT. It was said in jest AND without malice. The ENTIRE panel was chuckling about Snow & Bartlett and how they looked in their protective gear. Thomas SIMPLY made a HUMOROUS quip about how they "looked better" than Dukakis had. It was quick & painless and NOBODY on the panel [including the TWO LIBERALS] got bent out of shape about it.
I THINK you and others HERE are reading much TOO much into what Cal Thomas said. And YOU as usual are going OFF TOPIC and using this as an opening to another one of your long rants.
The "STORYLINE" of THIS thread concerns Cal Thomas's comment, a harmless funny remark. YOU are ATTEMPTING to read MORE into it.
Save YOUR outrages for the MORE egregious remarks made by Conservatives.
This was a light-hearted comment--a JOKE. Nothing more.
Ridicule is a powerful political tool. One of the most effective. Thomas was doing as Tex said maintaining the story line by turning the attention from a photo of two guys looking silly in THEIR military garb to ridicule of a dem 18 years ago looking silly in military garb. A Dukakis gaffe from 18 years ago was relevant in WHAT WAY?
The FIRST time I saw the photo of Snow & Bartlett I thought of Dukakis.
The Dukakis "photo-op" has NOT exactly been tucked away in mothballs for 18 years. It inevitably seems to RESURFACE during campaign seasons whenever some Political Candidate makes a political ad or is photographed in a particular way that draws a laugh BECAUSE of their APPEARANCE. Do you remember the photos of John Kerry when he was crawling around dressed in a "spacesuit"?
There was SOME concern from Kerry's (then) campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill that the PICTURES might prove as EMBARRASSING as Dukakis's Tank photos.
Again, I BELIEVE Thomas simply made an off the cuff humorous quip. IF you'd rather believe OTHERWISE, that of course is YOUR prerogative.
Do you really think there is a democrat that exists that wouldnt get this kind of treatment from the press? Do you really believe Gore OR Kerry deserved the ridicule they got from the press as opposed to the soft treatment Bush got? It is a PATTERN, one well thought out and carried out time after time. This is what they do EVERY time since Clinton. Dean, Kerry, Gore, whoever it is, the press finds something to ridicule about them and portray them in an unflattering light. Gore is actually a pretty honest politician. Now I didnt vote for him, he always seemed a bit conservative for my tastes since his days in the Senate not to mention overly politically cautious but he was HONEST, even his political enemies would have agreed with that before the 2000 run. Yet despite outright LIES from Bush, the storyline became Gore is dishonest. Yes I think the pattern is clear and enough for me to be suspicious of this kind of ridicule
Thomas has to go back to 1998 to dig up this old gaffe that seems to keep on giving to the right. Also why the press is always keeping the story line that when dems do it its a photo op gone bad and when republicans do it its machisimo at its finest. Personally I think Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber both look like scared schoolboys playing army in the photos
when y'all grow up you will be able to understand these complex thigs.
ALL 3 incidents have been JOKED about...Dukakis & his tank...Bush & his Aircraft Landing...and these 2 White House Boys in the helicopter....ALL dressed in a variety of Military gear.
So you're OFFENDED by what Thomas said???
TRY staying on topic and tell me WHY what Thomas said has YOU so rattled?
I was simply correcting your spoon-fed conclusion that that trip was anything except pure photo-poop for our kneeling pResident.
to make a political ad out of wearing a flight suit. and it failed. I'd would be impressed if he was at the controls of the S3 but it wasn't that way.
...could be sensible, but it could also indicate tunnel vision...and a lack of perspective.
Ike was a great warrior, but when Ike retired, he retired the uniform. He understood the rationale for separating civil service and military service. And he knew that once he retired from the military, he was no longer entitled to wear the uniform. To do so would dishonor the sacrifice of those that serve.
The pic of the 2 mouthpieces wasn't for a political ad, but it's very, very political...and that's my MM makes a point of it.
In the the same vein, even though MacArthur was vain and made major military blunders, he put himself in peril. He would wade through the surf when bullets and shells were in the air. His men bore risk. He shared that risk. But Snow and Bartlett crouched in a tank...in flack jackets...and helmets. The notions of courage and leadership have been lessened by the neocons. Would MacArthur have traveled in this way? Did Ike slip into a flight suit and pose for a pretty pic? Bush, Snow, and Bartlett aren't entitled to wear the gear. They aren't soldiers. They weren't soldiers. And honestly, I'd rather put their lives at risk than the lives of more young men and women. Save the body armor for someone that serves the military.
they keep forgetting the Order of Cinncinatus
I answered YOUR above post and would just be repeating myself HERE.
What a pathetic topic to even discuss/ comment on/ debate. Just shut up
go back to your hole now
I was talking about the comparison Thomas made about Dukakis. To say something like "Well at least these guys looked better than Dukakis..." is pointless. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.
the comments made by Thomas were petty.
Being compared to B.O. is actually quite saddening to me as I despise him and his kind.
...could come from the importance of this topic. This topic is a gateway to salient issues, such as the delusions of coddled and swaddled middle-aged men and courage, real and feigned.
and I find it interesting that some feel they are able to judge what is relevant vs "puff".
I make that statement in refence to Jeter's comments in the thread. While most cite Jeter as one of the "more reasonable" of the conservative mindset around here, I personally think that that bias shows in the commentary about this story and other items mentioned on MMFA as of late. To me, if MMFA decides it's good enough to mention, then it must be of some interest. (Remembering also that MMFA makes no bones about it's bias/perspective on what it reports on)
Holly, it seems like you probably hit a nerve with regards to your comments about men of privilege sending others off to die to keep them in their positions of power (i'm paraphrasing...)
we're supposed to be these "enlightened" beings on this planet... Sometimes i'm not so sure about that when we repeat the mistakes of the past (In reference to humanity in general with us fighting and killing each other in the name of things like money and religion)
Besides, what does Dukakis have to do with the idiots in charge now anyway - Oh, they all like to dress up and play soldier?
If you're going to got there, then W looked just as silly up on the aircraft carrier with the "mission accomplished" sign. But the MSM would never say that..
It's nice to be back with my MM buds. I've been, as I posted about a month back, finishing the Great American Novel.
Anyway, yes, I hit a nerve. The helmets and the flightsuit and the cod piece are all symbols. I wouldn't don a soldier clothes, not even for Halloween, because I'm not entitled. And if I were a politician, I wouldn't allow myself to be wrapped in body armor and then plopped into a tank. It's unseemly. It's cowardice. We don't double wrap our soldiers in armor. Rather, most of them move in thin-skinned vehicles or by foot. But Snow and Bartlett bunker in a tank and pretend that they've risked war. Bush struts like a castrated rooster on the deck of a carrier and pretends that he has a clue what it means to fly into combat.
And these Righties, in missing the significance of these symbols, miss the sacrifices made by our soldiers and aviators and sailors. It dishonors the troops to don their uniforms and it dishonors their sacrifices to not stand beside them, but rather crouch in a tank.
If I hit a nerve, then good, for I'm ashamed of Snow, Bush, and Bartlett, even if they're not men enough to be ashamed of themselves.
When did Snow and Bartlett put on the uniform of our soldiers? I have only seen pictures of them in protective gear. They need not be ashamed for the reasons you stated. These two did not put on a military uniform as far as I am aware. Did they? You also say they pretended to risk war—when did Bartlett or Snow even allude to the idea that they risked war? I am sorry but this is such a non-issue. These guys wore the appropriate gear for the trip and they certainly did not present themselves as any kind of hero for doing so…too much is being read into this silly photo some photographer snapped of these two. I have no problem with cracking jokes about how they look in the photos—I mean really look at them… not exactly hero making pictures. But to start ascribing thoughts and wrong doing to them based on this picture weakens the real case to be made about this war.
There were comments made from Fox News on the bravery of George Bush going to Iraq which implied that those who went with him were brave. Holly's comments were fair and on target since this administration likes to show symbols such as GWB prancing on an aircraft carrier in military gear. One reason that her comment was fair is that this war has been raging for more than 3 years. The administration and defense department has not given the soldiers in the field the proper body armor, yet they have enough for the White House entourage. This was nothing more than the administration attempting to sell this war and act like warriors. They are not and have never been warriors. I agree with Holly, they should be ashamed of themselves.
I think this administrtaion, congress, and anyone else responsible for allocating the funds needed for proper equipment should be ashamed that the United States sends their soldiers into combat with sub-par protective equipment. My issue is more with reading too much into this picture. Frankly I doubt they are too happy it is out...it is not exactly flatering or gives the imagine you mention they try to portray. I think there is a certain amount of bravery in going into a war zone. Does it negate the lousy decisions of this administration--of course not. But I can say personally if I was working in this administration and told we were going to Iraq I would have called in sick. So in that sense I do think it takes guts to go there. Obviously no where near the guts of our troops who are actually fighting this ill-conceived war on the ground and the front lines. I just wished we weren't deflected from the more important issues by what in my opinion is pure sillyness and has us debating this picture instead of debating the harm they may have done by making this trip and the awkawrd position we put the new government in. Maybe the silly picture is doing what the administration wants after all...keeping us from talking about the real issues. Sometimes I think we fall to easily in line with where they want to take us.
And they've created this illusion of honor and strength. They've also tried to create the opposite illusion of the cowardice and treachery of all who oppose them.
The ones who've created the illusion knew nothing of war. All they learned, they learned recently at the expense of the lives of tens of thousands of American who will never be whole.
These are the people who are at this moment defining bravery and patriotism by photo-op. I feel that George W. Bush and his press agents are fair target. They've brought it on themselves. Insults are the least that they should suffer for all of the misery they've caused.
You think this photo in any way defined bravery and patriotism? I think the disconnet I am having with you and Holly is the way I see this photo. To me they did not come off looking too sharp. I think they come off as a total joke in this picture so I guess that is why I don't see it as part of the plan to symbolize bravery and patriotism. I think if that was the intent they missed by a mile.
Exactly. The STORY here is that Bush and his men COURAGEOUSLY placed themselves in harm's way, and had to wear ... gasp! ... PROTECTIVE GEAR.
Any criticism of their "appearance" has to be met with a return to the STORYLINE, that being that Democrats are the sissies and the cowards, while the GOPers are REAL MEN who look danger in the eye.
The STORYLINE is a LIE, but the MEDIA stands ready to remind the public that, if a GOPer looks a little awkward, it's not nearly as bad as a Democrat earlier. This preserves the STORYLINE.
In the world of political PR, it's called "false framing," and it's the mainstay of the GOP/Media collaboration.
In the context of a war and in the confines of a helicopter, you can't see the symbolic value of what they wore? Snow and Bartlett controlled the cameras in that helicopter (I made multiple mistakes earlier when I stated that they were in a tank.). They elected to permit the photo. What was the purpose of that gesture? What was the purpose of Cal Thomas's statement? What these men did was done with deliberation. It was done for effect. But is it righteous effect? As far as risking war, why were they there, if they weren't risking war? But it's an illusion. Bush and company snuck into Baghdad. Compare this to MacArthur in the surf. Or FDR in the rain. Our notion of leadership has shifted. We no longer expect courage from our leaders. Rather, we settle for their pretending to be something they are not. And MM swung its spotlight onto their pretense.
you couldn’t resist the silly moniker jab. I expected more from someone with the ability to turn such an amusing phrase. Oh well, life is full of these little disappointments ain’t it. I think you have let the great American novel writing endeavor go to your head…you are now making up your own reality of what occurred. You can certainly do so but it is pure fiction. What do you expect them to wear—bull’s-eyes? As far as the symbolic value…nope sorry don’t see it…they don’t seem to be symbolizing much more then a need to pass wind. I have very little respect for this administration and its decisions but I think you are being silly. I would agree with you that the trip itself was questionable in its purpose. On the face of it seemed a good move to add legitimacy to a new government but in actuality it put the new government in a precarious position of being linked to this administration. Just one more example of the lack of forethought that goes into decisions by this administration. Of course like most things there is the PR component to any decision but that is a diversion from the real issue. The new government appears to be trying to bring order and diplomacy to the area but the link to this administration will not aid them in that endeavor. I think that is the really important story not these two guys looking silly in their protective gear. But hey it’s just my opinion... maybe it would be better to create a fictitious reality and debate the philosophical meaning of that fiction.
No.
But we can dream, can't we?
...that I did it now and got it out of the way rather than wait, for it was inevitable.
Now, it's possible that I am seeing things. Isolation can have one conjuring ghosties and ascribing uncommon significance to common practicalities. For example, perhaps wearing a helmet and a flak jacket is just a practical gesture rather than a symbolic gesture.
But I do believe that there are few chance happenings and that most of what we convey is conducted in actions rather than words. For example, when a man enters a room of men, within a matter of minutes, his submission/dominance will soon be established. This will be done largely without words and this phenomenon is well-documented.
Consider now the possibility (just the possibility: nothing more) that Snow and Barlett, the primary storytellers for the White House, are telling a story with that particular picture. I'm just considering that this story isn't apt.
And I suggested earlier that this story isn't the equal of stories told by other politicians. Here's an example: Jackie Kennedy, on the ride to the hospital in Dallas, did her best to keep Jack's brains in his skull. She knew he was dead, but she still composed herself and composed what she would say to the reporters, that there was for a brief shining moment called Camelot. Now, that's trial by blood and after Jackie initially fled the convertible, she remembered what she was and what was expected of her. I suggest that BushCo have forgotten what they are, what they bear, and what's expected of them...and it shows in their cavalier poses.
As far as my position being "pure fiction," nothing is pure and all fiction is seated in truth.
And sorry about the moniker jab. You seem to want to chat, and I share that desire.
I mean that sincerely as a compliment. You raise interesting points and questions. I agree with you that Bush and co lack the seriousness expected of their position. The swagger, the arogance is not a show of strength but rather the sign of their lack of awareness of the situation and it repercussions. I find it amusing that they often equate Bush's mannerisms with being man-ly. Honestly he acts like the kind of guy we laugh at when they walk into the room as trying too hard and missing true man-liness by a mile. I don't see anything noble about the trip they took. I think it was a strategic mistake in winning the peace in Iraq but it does look like it was a pr win for some of the more gullible among us. Looks like for some it takes only a little media hype to make them forget why they were growing dissatisfied with this administration and their actions.
...and I sincerely appreciate it.
Yes, I sometimes think the American majority can be distracted with sock puppets, especially if they're gay sock puppets.
And I agree that Bush is more a caricature of manliness than a man. Reagan could pull off a pose, but he was a professional actor. He knew how to strike a pose on a horse and make it seem manly. Bush poses and seems a poseur.
And I further agree that the visit was ill-timed and that the photo distracts from the visit's collateral damage.
As far as I can determine, Cal Thomas, Dan Bartlett, and Tony Snow have never served in the military.
Michael Dukakis -the man who was relentlessly mocked for wearing a helmet- served in the U.S. Army, in Korea.
...suggests that they bear a little risk. I suspect that the risk they bore was minimum. What do you think accompanied that helicopter?
Remember that MacArthur wore khakis and a corncob pipe when he waded ashore. The book, "American Ceasar," didn't praise MacArthur, but it did honor his courage in the surf. GW's predecessor, GWashington, also manifested physical courage. But this administration seems indifferent to our national heritage of courage, to our history of leaders willing to brave danger for the sake of things greater than their skin. Now, I'm not suggesting that Bush and Snow and Bartlett risk their skins to satisfy me. I am suggesting that we all have chances to be brave and these men passed, so they should be very wary of pretending and we should be very vigilant of pretense. If we accept pretense, we deserve it.
I agree with you but I don't think the best way to shatter the pretense is by aruing the matter symbolically. I think we shatter the pretense by addressing the reality of the trip and what it has potentially caused the prime minister (or whatever they are calling him) of Iraq. There are people who consistantly buy into the pretense of this administration and it seems that we can not break their illusions but perhaps a good dose of reality may wake them up. I'm dreaming aren't I? Anyway it seems like we fall into the trap of nitpicking and it makes us easily marginalized.
Would it be safe to say that the whole trip was a bit of a "snow-job" (well, another attempt at one) from the administration?
Seems to me that that's where this is going in assessing the whole purpose of W's sneak adventure to Iraq....
If I'm wrong in my impression, please let me know..
ps. pun intended in the quotes above..
I think this trip was primarily a PR stunt but that is not what concerns me. I think PR is to be expected. Don't really have a problem with PR...although I do have a problem when people buy into it to such an extent as to deny reality. What concerns me is the lack of forethought in this PR stunt. It seems they didn't look past the PR purpose to the actual reality of what they were doing. PR is fine but when it hinders the actual mission there is a bigger problem.
"It seems they didn't look past the PR purpose to the actual reality of what they were doing. PR is fine but when it hinders the actual mission there is a bigger problem."
Yes, PR is necessity, on various scales, but when public relations matters more than international relations, that doesn't just open Pandora's Box. It opens the box, turns it over, and shakes it.
But sometimes it's the little stories that tell a lot.
That Dukakis photo, I've heard it mentioned on righty radio within the past few months.Still used.
If Cal Thomas wanted to simply "make a joke, nothing more", he had two perfect subjects.But they're on his side of the aisle, so he went back a few decades to dig up a well-worn incident, and divert attention.
Other factors in this;Dukakis servrd in the military, and was not involved in cheerleading our country into an illegal war.
And he might have looked a little goofy in his helmet (kinda like McCoy on Law & Order), but he didn't look like he was launching a corn loaf like snow.
Sorry, I figure everyones gone, I'm just spouting to myself, i'm back to the poo humor
And it was a worthwhile post.
Bartlett looks like he's about to puke like that guy in the helicopter in Full Metal Jacket... maybe they're watching someone shoot civilians down below? Get some! Get some!
Snow's main concern looks to be keeping Bart's puke off himself...
I wonder how HE would look in one those "metal helmets" . . . and since he, as far as I can verify, never served in uniform {hm, big surprise}, we don't have any old pictures to judge him on . . .
These things are pretty subjective.
1) If I had a chance to get in a tank for a ride: in a heartbeat. And I don't have a Y chromosome. I would really love to catch some of the snarkers on a trick offer to go for a tank ride and see how fast they would put that helmet on.
2)Dukakis would have been CIC. Doesn't seem like a bad idea to have some experience with what kind of equipment the military has.
I will say that the subjective agreement on the anatomical functions Bartlett and Snow had going on is near universal.
....Dukakis looked a lot less silly than noted Republican Calvin Coolidge (Thomas's namesake?) did in the Native American chief headress.
I believe one of Dukakis's advisors noted after that election that another Democrat from Massachusetts, JFK, might have had a point about politicians and hats.