« Is Obama still smoking while hiding and denying it? | Main | Recordings and Sen. Obama's "politics of purpose" »

Saturday, April 05, 2008

NYT chooses picture that reveals much about Dubya

From Fox News (emphasis mine):

White House officials are criticizing The New York Times for publishing a photo they see as editorially unfair.

Accompanying an article on Friday about this week's NATO summit in Romania, The Times included a very large photo — almost half a page in size — that showed President Bush standing somewhat alone. The shot was taken moments before the NATO group photo, as leaders were looking for their positions on the platform. But President Bush had obviously found his.

White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said, "Only The New York Times would choose a photo of the president standing alone during a week when NATO allies instead stood shoulder-to-shoulder with him on our security policies."

President Bush achieved two major goals during this week's summit: NATO leaders unanimously endorsed the proposed U.S. missile defense system in Europe and agreed to provide more troops for the war in Afghanistan.

Here's the picture, which accompanied this article, entitled "NATO Endorses Europe Missile Shield":

Bush at NATO meeting

With the additional information Fox provides, however, that I've bold-faced in the block quote above, this picture is indeed very characteristic of Dubya — a man whose presidency has been the opposite of Bill Clinton's in most respects, including Clinton's famous proclivity to ramble, delay, and show up late. If the next goal on the checklist is a group picture, Dubya goes ahead and hits his spot, leading by example and deed, not by mere rhetoric. With him, being gregarious doesn't get in the way of action.

International meetings like these are mostly photo ops anyway — based on instructions given by their respective principals, the diplomacy has mostly been done beforehand between the actual diplomats, whose bosses are then expected to shake hands, hit their spots, and smile for the cameras before the press conferences. George W. Bush doesn't have to literally glad-hand or arm-twist to remind anyone present that without American leadership — from its founding in 1949 to today — there would be no NATO, and certainly no effective alliance between America and the fragmented, argumentative, over-cautious, and self-obsessed European states.

The other leaders are mostly shown looking down to find their spots. Dubya was already in his. Next order of business?

Posted by Beldar at 04:00 AM in Global War on Terror, Mainstream Media | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to NYT chooses picture that reveals much about Dubya and sent a trackback ping are listed here:

» POLITICS/WAR: Metaphor Alert from Baseball Crank

Tracked on Apr 8, 2008 5:59:56 PM


(1) Semanticleo made the following comment | Apr 5, 2008 12:39:58 PM | Permalink

Don't blame NYT.

It must be hell finding a photo of the Presidunce in which he looks intelligent, or unifying.

(2) Beldar made the following comment | Apr 6, 2008 3:35:39 AM | Permalink

"Presidunce"? Gosh, that was just devastating, Semanticleo. Gives me chills. You must be very proud of that rapier wit. That taunt certainly outshines the Bush-43 Administration's success in getting broad international agreement on a major American initiative to provide protection against rogue states or terrorists who get access to missile technology.

I will sleep better at night, knowing that my country and the civilized world are protected by wits such as yours.

(3) JMW made the following comment | Apr 6, 2008 3:48:06 AM | Permalink


Well you must admit that W has come quite far from being a foreign policy neophyte during the primaries to his apparent stature of subtle indifference and projected power today.

Of course, obviously, other candidates on the opposite side of the aisle cannot accomplish this. :)

Having said that -- I for one will miss the guy; again, for the reason that he's obviously a decent human being versus the cruft that has risen to the surface in recent years. Unfortunately some of us value ideology more and don't see that the transition from an honest and basically decent ma to an ideologically-aligned but questionable soul will lead us down quite a dark path.

(4) sherlock made the following comment | Apr 6, 2008 3:52:29 PM | Permalink

I hope that someone will publish a book someday that documents the relentless character assassination that the media have subjected Bush to. And it isn't just the "serious" media either - look at how many comic strips take gratuitous slaps at him or his administration.

I am not a religious person, but I hope that GWB's faith helps him weather the storm - I know I could not stand what he has to go through.

I hope the tools in the media that mock him live long enough to see his face on Rushmore!

(5) Neo made the following comment | Apr 6, 2008 9:26:10 PM | Permalink

I wonder just what a President Obama or President Rodham would look like ? Probably as hapless the the rest of the group looks.

(6) Robert in BA made the following comment | Apr 8, 2008 9:06:29 PM | Permalink

Your honest and basically decent man oversees the most secretive administration in the history of the republic.
He also chose Cheney to be his VP, and Rove to be his point man.
Nothing honest or decent about ANY of that.

Boo-hoo. He started a war of choice that has led to the deaths and maiming of 100s of thousands of people. If those 100s of thousands were only made fun of by Saturday Night Live.

(7) spongeworthy made the following comment | Apr 9, 2008 1:06:55 PM | Permalink

A lot of people would read somewhere that the Bush Administration was the "most secretive" ever and think, "Hm. I wonder how they measure that. How do you compare a legally upheld claim of privilege to, say, sanitizing the office of a suicide or "misplacing" items under subpoena?"

Some people would question that claim and opt to disregard it on the basis of it's wobbly nature, it's clear reliance on subjective values. And others just take it in and repeat it unquestioned. Are they crazy or stupid?

(8) hunter made the following comment | Apr 14, 2008 11:03:51 PM | Permalink

I am amazed at the scum that floats up to pose an attitude about the NYT's blatant low-class editorial policy. It is almost as if bottom feeder lefties look for opportunities to show their true selves.
Keep up the good work,

(9) smoothjim made the following comment | May 3, 2008 5:32:03 AM | Permalink


In making the webforum rounds recently I've been noticing how Obama supporters, when questioned about his specific qualifications for high executive office, begin by citing his two Ivy League degrees.
It's interesting how this suddenly is an accomplishment after seven years of above.

I'll hold off on asking how The New Kind of Candidate who still hasn't been able to sow up his own party's nomination this late in the day is any more "unifying".

The comments to this entry are closed.