April 25, 2004
GOBBLE REVIVAL
Just when the George W. Bush fake turkey fantasy seemed to have been completely played out, along comes Mark Lawson -- the pale pundit who began the whole fakeness debacle in the first place -- to revive it:
George Bush has so far struggled to locate his chosen photo: the turkey he was pictured serving in Iraq proved embarrassingly to be fake ...
Once again: the turkey was decorative, but real. Bush was pictured holding it, not serving it. Mark Lawson is a 100-kilogram albino axolotl, not a journalist. Pray continue, axo-dude:
President Bush's handlers might have consoled themselves that there was at least no risk of a bimbo picture coming out but, this week, there was much worse. America started to see the photographs Bush was dedicated to suppressing.
In a development which must have made Bush wish he lived under the British system of state secrecy, 350 of these censored images of the dead have been released to an internet lobbyist under freedom of information legislation.
Lawson himself is free of information. Those photographs included many images associated with the Columbia disaster.
The White House has claimed that they were protecting the dignity of the dead and the privacy of their families, but many families were desperate for their lost to have their moment on the evening news.
Name them.
Although John Kerry remains dangerously silent and vague for a man who plans to be in the White House in less than nine months, this may be seen as the week when George Bush lost control of his photograph album. The publication of the cadaver montage - in which Bush's face is made up of squares containing smiles and stares of military men and women who are now all dust - threatens to become one of the most powerful propaganda images in history.
It won’t. Besides which, it isn’t a cadaver montage; that would be a montage composed of pictures of cadavers. Lawson is incredibly stupid.
And now the coffin shots are out. Forced to explain how it can simultaneously be heroic to die for your country, but necessary to be shipped back in a silence and secrecy generally associated with shame, Bush may be on the way to becoming a president whose administration was snapped by photographs.
Lawson thinks Americans didn’t know people were dying in Iraq until they saw these photographs, and that this sudden realisation will shock them into voting Bush out. Memo to sad bastard Mark: they already knew, and Bush’s numbers keep climbing:
With large areas of Iraq in chaos, more than 700 US troops dead, and intense criticism of his failure to do more against al-Qa'ida in the first months of his presidency, George W. Bush might have expected to see his re-election campaign take at least a temporary hit.
Instead, Bush appears to have weathered one of the worst periods of his presidency with aplomb, and even increased his margin over Democrat challenger Senator John Kerry, according to two polls this week.
Imagine the reaction if Bush had exploited the return of flag-draped coffins for patriotic Presidential photo-ops; the anti-war Left would have condemned him. As it is, the clueless anti-warriors have thrust these images before a public largely committed to their troops, and who will most likely react by pushing Bush’s polling even higher.
(Via Peter Briffa, Michael Pollard, and reader Andrew Morton)
Posted by Tim Blair at April 25, 2004 04:15 AM"In this (Front Row's) brilliant half-hour format, Mark Lawson talks to his audience as though we actually have more than two brain cells to rub together ..."
Two brain cells for the whole audience sounds about right.
Posted by: J F Beck at April 25, 2004 at 04:26 AMBush should make a commercial with the thanksgiving photo.
Posted by: aaron at April 25, 2004 at 04:39 AMNo rational middle grounded person would fault him for taking a photo op.
Posted by: aaron at April 25, 2004 at 04:41 AM"cadaver montage"? Wow, just when I think people on the far Left can't possibly get more sick and twisted.
Posted by: Dash at April 25, 2004 at 04:50 AMThe worst part is the blatant hypocrisy. They want dead people in coffins because they know it worked well as propaganda in the past not for any other reason, and they would go even more insane if their premium propaganda was co-opted by bush for presidential photo ops as Tim says.
You can see the cynical politicking dripping off basically everyone who says that they want the pictures published.
Posted by: Scottie at April 25, 2004 at 05:13 AMLawson, like many others, buys into the myth that Americans can't stomach war casualties and that the very sight of flag-draped coffins will cause the country to lose its nerve. That's never been true. Americans are willing to endure far greater loss than what we're seeing in Iraq as long as they believe in what is being fought for.
It wasn't the bodybags that eventually turned the country against the war in Vietnam, it was the failure by the government to present clear-cut goals and a victory scenario to the American public.
In Somalia, the American public didn't lose its nerve, the Clinton administration did. After the Blackhawk Down firefight in Mogadishu the American public was in favor of going into Somalia in much greater force but Clinton decided to bail out - something that has given everyone from Osama bin Laden to Mark Lawson the false impression that the American public can't handle war casualties.
Posted by: Randal Robinson at April 25, 2004 at 05:20 AMThe media only likes certain kinds of war-dead photos. Others it ignores.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 25, 2004 at 05:30 AM"And now the coffin shots are out. Forced to explain how it can simultaneously be heroic to die for your country, but necessary to be shipped back in a silence and secrecy generally associated with shame ....."
It's not silence and shame. It's privacy and respect for dead and the families of those who have fallen.
This guy has to be morally deficient not to understand the difference between dignified privacy vs. hiding in shame. He probably doesn't care. His point is to make Pres. Bush look bad. He doesn't care about the dead, and their families at all .. except when the dead can be used to serve his cause.
As has been mentioned before, the impact of seeing the coffins on the US public will be to urge Pres. Bush to use ALL/ANY means we have to finish our job in Iraq. If we need to level some cities to do this, so be it.
It's a 'different ballgame' from Vietnam in many ways. The biggest difference is we don't need to worry about the Soviets as we did in Vietnam.
The only restraint upon using ALL of our military power is concern for innocent Iraqi lives. However, if the US public is lead to believe (via coffin photos or stories) our soldiers are getting slaughtered the restraints will be removed.
We won't leave Iraq the same way we left Vietnam.
(...) many families were desperate for their lost to have their moment on the evening news.
Given the rest of his drivel, it's pretty obvious that he really meant that he wanted to see the pictures on the evening news, not "many families".
What an incredibly tasteless assumption to make, to say that the grieving families of killed soldiers would like nothing better than seeing them paraded on TV. But then, that's what we've come to expect from "journalists" of his ilk.
Posted by: PW at April 25, 2004 at 07:11 AM"In a development which must have made Bush wish he lived under the British system of state secrecy..."
I love how these guys fantasize that the friggin' President of the United States, in the middle of a war, yet, is going to break out in a sweat because of their lame efforts and little websites. Sure, buddy. Whatever.
Posted by: Ken Begg at April 25, 2004 at 07:23 AMThe White House has claimed that they were protecting the dignity of the dead and the privacy of their families, but many families were desperate for their lost to have their moment on the evening news.
There's absolutely nothing preventing those families from getting such media coverage. Once the coffins pass through Dover and are turned over to the families for burial, they can do whatever the hell they want -- including inviting Geraldo to the funeral. The military simply follows the wishes of the families at that point: if they want media coverage at the funeral (including those held at Arlington), Military District Washington facilitates that. Period.
So the dearth of media coverage of those caskets is evidence itself of where the sentiments of the vast majority of those families lie.
Posted by: Bill Herbert at April 25, 2004 at 08:02 AMAnd the 'artist' has said on his blog:
"War President Update
It's come to my attention that there are photos used in 'War President' of soldiers from other countries in the coalition that invaded Iraq. So I was mistaken when I stated the picture was composed of the US war dead. I was under the impression that this source was a color version of the Washington Post pictures, which turns out not to be the case. I apologize for the error."
Oh dear. Another plastic turkey methinks. Lefties losing the plot since they've lost the argument.....
Posted by: Dave T at April 25, 2004 at 08:19 AMThere seems to be a almost psychopatic indifference on the part of many commentators to the actual deaths in Iraq.Casualties are just statistics to be wielded in the political argument.
There is a sickness at the heart of left wing politics,it has no moral compass,it isn't for anything anymore.Politics has ceased to be a means to an end and is now the end itself.
I take it this guy isn't American?
One of the funniest pastimes on the web is to read non-American "insights" into the American body politic. They are invariably off the mark.
Let me explain it the casualty-averse issue:
If American deaths pile up and the government is seen to be fighting a war in which, for domestic, international or a combination of either reasons, the US is restrained from fighting with massive force, Americans become casualty-averse because we feel that our guys are dying so that idiot politicians can feel better about how the UN thinks about them.
IF, on the other hand, a lot of casualties pile up and the US is seen to be fighting without regard to political bullshit, the US will suck it up and go forward.
The BIG question at the moment, is which way Bush will go; however, the issue is not casualty related, per se.
If Falluja and Najaf are fought for and insurgents killed by the boatload, Bush has not problem. If he keeps fighting war by committee and truces, he is toast.
That is the mainstream, middle-class American view, and as they go, so goes the nation.
Posted by: KevinV at April 25, 2004 at 08:46 AMThey are probably the same people complaining about the pictures of Princess Diana being shown on tv.
Posted by: vinny at April 25, 2004 at 08:47 AMKevinV: My God, I hope you're right about that being the prevailing view. I live in New York, so I wouldn't know. But I do worry.
Posted by: bd at April 25, 2004 at 09:35 AMIf American deaths pile up and the government is seen to be fighting a war in which, for domestic, international or a combination of either reasons, the US is restrained from fighting with massive force, Americans become casualty-averse because we feel that our guys are dying so that idiot politicians can feel better about how the UN thinks about them.
Correct, but you left something out- if they get into that situation, the politicians will have to choose one of two courses of action if they want to be re-elected: 1) pull out, or 2) use massive force.
Domestic issues are not restraining Bush in Iraq, and he doesn't seem to give a damn what the UN thinks about him. So which choice do you think he'll pick?
Posted by: rosignol at April 25, 2004 at 09:58 AM...but many families were desperate for their lost to have their moment on the evening news.
They don't? I thought the PBS did exactly that. On Jim Lehrer's New Hour, which we get here on SBS, they regularly put up names and photos of American soldiers killed in combat, saying something like 'We put up the name's as they arrive and as details are confirmed.'
Posted by: TimT at April 25, 2004 at 10:09 AMMy experience with war casualties and calumnous columnists began 14 years ago when a young Navy SEAL friend of our family was killed in action.
He was an outstanding athlete, student, and patriot from a middle class Irish Catholic family. He turned down scholarships from Harvard and Boston College to attend the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He graduated with honors then entered the Navy as an officer where he became a SEAL.
When he died in Panama, the media portrayed his family as poor shanty Irish, made no mention of his academic qualifications, and said that he and other young men were 'forced' into the service by Reagan/Bush 'cuts in education', whatever that was.
No credit to his widowed mother for raising an exceptional young man, no smarts, no patriotism behind his decision to put his life on the line. No truth. Just another sucker for Reagan/Bush. I remember his brother, a Harvard lawyer, crying in the pub one night because you couldn't even recognize his dead brother in the media accounts.
So I don't believe any of these lefty columnists when they claim care, compassion, and concern for our (and I include UK and Aussie as well) men and women. They lie. I think they are evil.
Posted by: JDB at April 25, 2004 at 10:14 AMSo the dearth of media coverage of those caskets is evidence itself of where the sentiments of the vast majority of those families lie.
You're probably right about the "vast majority", but the dearth of media coverage is not necessarily an indicator of it. There are quite a few families of the fallen who disagree with the war and say so, loudly. If we have not gotten press coverage of their funerals it may be because:
1) even families against the war are reluctant to invite the media circus into their grief, or
2) the media is not interested unless they can get it wholesale.
Posted by: Angie Schultz at April 25, 2004 at 10:32 AMThere are quite a few families of the fallen who disagree with the war and say so, loudly.
How would you know about that, Angie? From the handful of families who have done so, and have thus gotten top billing on virtually every media?
Do you know any military servicepeople or their families personally, or is responding to my comment the closest you've ever come to interaction with a military person?
I hate to break it to you, sweetheart, but very few of us fit the Mother Jones profile.
Posted by: Bill Herbert at April 25, 2004 at 12:32 PMJeez, does this guy have some sort of computer program that he runs his columns through that makes all of the information exactly wrong?
Posted by: Sean M. at April 25, 2004 at 12:40 PMUh, Mr. Herbert, what's your problem? It looks to me like Angie was indeed referring to
"...the handful of families who have done so, and have thus gotten top billing on virtually every media?"
when she said there were "quite a few families of the fallen who disagree with the war and say so, loudly."
Maybe it's a good thing you've quit blogging. You seem to have lost perspective.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 25, 2004 at 12:46 PMThe photos have been 'doctored', I wonder if Time has any comments (ala OJ cover photo)?
Posted by: jeff at April 25, 2004 at 12:58 PMTim,
PM Howard just appeared in a surprise ANZAC Day (our Veterans Day for American readers) visit to Baghdad!
Expect the local journos to search for a 'fake turkey' event.
Posted by: me at April 25, 2004 at 01:44 PMI hate to engage in semantics, uh, Ms. Harris, but I do see a difference between "handful' and "quite a few" -- but maybe being too hung up on the "quite" is my lack of perspective.
The broader point I was trying to make was that Angie was suggesting that the Anti-War G.I. parent is somehow under-represented in the media, saying they are "reluctant to invite the media circus into their grief" -- as if those who support the war don't have a problem with that kind of thing.
That's nonsense. If anyone is under-represented in the media, it is the parent who still supports the war despite having endured such a loss. But I don't really need to perform a media content analysis to tell me that.
Posted by: Bill Herbert at April 25, 2004 at 01:52 PMIf you want to see what a cadaver looks like, take a look at Mark Lawsons photo on the BBC site linked by Tim. Talk about your dead fish bait lookin' sucker. He's it.
Posted by: Wallace at April 25, 2004 at 01:55 PMI thought he was kinda cute.
Oh, wait, I had clicked on the albino salamander. Nevermind!
Posted by: Sortelli at April 25, 2004 at 03:21 PMChrist.
The broader point I was trying to make was that Angie was suggesting that the Anti-War G.I. parent is somehow under-represented in the media, saying they are "reluctant to invite the media circus into their grief"
Yeah, you'd have a real point there, Mr. Herbert, if in fact that was what Angie had said. The problem is, she did not say any such thing as if it were a declaration of fact. You took what she said out of the context of her entire comment, which was a dig at the news media. I can only conclude that you didn't read to the end before going off half-cocked; or that you just didn't get it -- she was too subtle for you.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 25, 2004 at 04:23 PM
I think it's too bad that Bill quit blogging.
Posted by: Screamapiller at April 25, 2004 at 04:51 PMCalm down guys it's all a storm in a teacup. I think April was musing not arguing anyway and no need to go about attacking Bills blog.
I found you guys through it :)
There was lots of good posts on Bill's site.
pity its idle now.
The Clinton Administration also forbade such photos. Remember Kosovo etc.? The press doesn’t give a flying f about that & also does give a flying f about NOT reminding anybody about that.
The press doesn’t want to end up at actual funerals, interviewing actual families that might not give them the kinds of interviews that the press wants. Like another poster said, nothing stops the press from pursuing such interviews but the press wants the photoshots “wholesale.”
The disrespect that the US military is trying to prevent includes the political use of the photos.
And like another poster said, some of these journalists are evil.
Posted by: ForNow at April 25, 2004 at 06:20 PMIncomplete comment, corrected:
The disrespect that the US military is trying to prevent includes the political use of these photos of sets of coffins of members of many different families any of which may not want the photos politically used. One has to be lost in the folds of ideological imagery not to see how tastelessly & disrespectfully presumptuous such use of the photos is. Maybe there’s a family that would like it. Fine, then it’s not presumptuous. Go up to them & look them in the eye & ask them, whether you may photograph it once they have individual possession of the coffin. Gee, hmm, I wonder, why doesn’t the press want to do that?
Posted by: ForNow at April 25, 2004 at 06:36 PMCNN this morning had an interview with the brother of a man that was killed in Iraq. He detailed how he was against media coverage of the coffins being shipped home, he thought that was a private moment for the families and the soldiers given the duty to bring them home. He said there was ample time for coverage at the funeral- if the family so desired.
The most interesting point to me in the interview was that he stated that he was opposed to the war.
Kind of blew away my pre-conceived notions...
Posted by: Jack Grey at April 25, 2004 at 07:00 PMThe montage of dead soldier pictures making a
picture of Bush measures 40 x 30 = 1200 pics.
Not enough Americans have died yet so the newspaper
version I saw said "no picutre was used more than
three times in making this montage". You'd think
the lefties would wait until there were enough
casualties (1200) that they needed for their
silly montage before coming out with it.
Does anyone think for one moment that these idiots want to show the photos out of respect for these fallen soldiers? Give me a break.
Posted by: Rob at April 26, 2004 at 02:00 AMKeith Suter, on 2BL radio, roughly between 9:10 and 9:20, made mention of plastic turkeys. He said something to the effect of "Those opposed to the war will say at least [Howard] didn't have a plastic turkey". He didn't really say that Bush had a plastic turkey on thanksgiving so much as some view it that way, but it should include him in G.O.B.B.L.E.
Posted by: Andjam at April 26, 2004 at 10:51 AM