BAGnewsNotes

The Revolution Will Not Be Blogged

Oh, what happened to the simple life when it was just "us" against Cheney, Bush and the neocons?

Drawing arrows from both sides, FDL's Pachacutec made a valient attempt yesterday at Huffington Post to uphold the agency of that monolith formerly known as the liberal blogosphere (before the Democratic presidential race managed to pave two opposite lanes right through the middle of it).

Revealing our current, and unfortunate circumstances, Pachacutec -- in point number one -- outlined the fact that neither Democratic contestant is a Wellstone, a Feingold, a true progressive.  (Rather, either seems equally capable, once elected, of revealing an inner Lieberman.)  And in point number two, Pach, likewise, laments how few liberal blogs have managed to hew the true course, upholding: "behavior as a referee on the process and on the narratives propelled by anyone claiming a Dem label, and toward more of a partisan candidate sorting."

...Which reminds me of my favorite moment at YearlyKos '07 (which now seems like years ago):  Sitting around with some big name bloggers, what struck everyone out of the blue, and reduced everyone to dead silence, was the sudden prospect of: What if we win?  (And, who could have imagined that the break up of the unanimity and internal consistency of the liberal 'sphere might have sunk roots even before we won?)

Gore's Climate Problems

How outrageous Gore should be visually called out for harshly pointing fingers in a pic that was widely  published on-line ...

... while Bush, the legislation killer, sits beside the fireplace, amidst the pine cones, under George  Washington (for the millionth time)  with this sh*t eating grin on his face (visual link),  while earning notoriety for his ability to deal with nobody, and get  away with it.

Mark Sobel, a long time reader who keeps me up on such things, offered these possible captions:

Uncle Al Wants You.

Still Shrill After All These Years.

Fat Man Wary of Heat Stays Out of Kitchen.

Yes, Antonin, You Have a Question?

There, That Burning Bush.

President Vetoes Second Measure to Expand Children’s Health Program
US Democrats compromise to get support for energy bill
Democrats bow to Bush spending limit Iraq War Funding Imminent,Timeline Absent
Bush threatens to veto anti-torture Bill

(image: Xinhua/AFP Photo.  December 12, 2007 via chinaview.cn)

Getting Whupped

(click to take even  bigger advantage)

Know how you can tell Senate Democrats are really getting whupped?

It's when the Republican minority leader -- illustrating an article on Senate muscle flexing -- gets his picture in the paper stretching four columns in the print edition, anchoring his oversized office with such fine touches as....

1.)  that "working the phones" pose, the spread fingers emphasizing, perhaps, the difference between a 51 vote Democratic majority and a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority.

2.)  A remote-control device (reinforcing who's really in control).

3.)  The script for making Dems do what Repubs want ... and below that, the sports page, suggesting what a great game it is to play from behind.

4.)  A tri-cornered flag, not just honoring the military, the troops, the fallen and the Iraq war overall, but also driving home the point that Repubs still maintain leverage over war funding, and drive the security agenda too.

Any further whupping evidence that you see?

(image: Doug Mills/The New York Times.  December 2004.  via nytimes.com)

Nouri Hits Condi With A Ban

Better kick the Anbar take-over into overdrive, because we're losing Baghdad.  With the Ahmadinejad show heading for town, U.N. festivities got started with a discernible chill between Condi and Maliki.

And then I was wondering, with Iraq making noises about more U.N. involvement, how much has the agency's low profile been the result of the '03 Iraq bombing, the neocons, Oil for Food, or the fact Ban Ki-moon (circle) hasn't yet figured out how to get on Leno?

PR-wise, I'm keeping an eye out the body language in the expected mid-week Bush-Maliki photo op.

(image: David Karp/AP.  September 22, 2007.  U.N. Headquarters/New York.  Via YahooNews)

In The Modern Age Of The War On Terror

Guest post by Peter Hollander

In the modern age of The War on Terror, the masks are on the wrong people, and no one seems to notice.

The perps are visible, out in the open for all to see.  Yet Authority-- those fighting the war-- well... their identity is so important to the fight, the cause, it can't be known.

In fact, we need the caption to remind us who is who.

(Story background: German Police Arrest 3 in Terrorist Plot - link. image: Uli Deck/European Pressphoto Agency.  September 2007.  via nytimes.com)

Nancy's Pull To Give In

As profoundly upset as I am by all the tent-folding in advance of the much-touted Iraq War September showdown, I thought I'd briefly survey the visual consequences.

Many of you will recall Nancy Pelosi's clever inaugural photo-op upon gaining control of the House.  That image cleverly positioned Pelosi and the Democrats as the guardians of America's children and the conscience of future generations.  And from there, the new Speaker had the President and scandal-ridden Republicans on the ropes for months.

What defined that momentum was a willingness to swing freely and let the hawks fall where they may.  Vanity Fair, for example, touting "blue as the new red," portrayed Nancy in front of the Capitol dragging a red scarf -- as if trailing the trophy skin of the former Republican majority.  Of the numerous examples of the blood letting, Pelosi -- in a mothers role -- punked Bush at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner in March for his lightweight belligerence, and visually one-upped him in May by actually staging a signing ceremony for a war withdrawal bill before Bush had a chance to veto it.

With Pelosi's agressiveness in confronting the war having evaporated over the past weeks and months, however, the newswire photo above, taken yesterday, is as curious as it is painful.  In the shot, a baby snags Pelosi's necklace during a photo op challenging the President not to veto a children's health bill.

Gonzales: What Goes Around Comes Around

(Typically, the crashing-and-burning of any part of the Bush Administration is foreshadowed from the beginning. In honor of today's resignation of the AG, let's flip back the picture album thirty months to The BAG's visual confirmation hearing coverage of February 2, 2005.  This post was originally titled: "The Two Faces of Alberto Gonzales.")

Having mentioned Antonio Gonzales yesterday, I thought it was worth talking a closer look.  In doing so, I guess I'm actually going to post this picture.  I've been holding on to it for weeks, concerned that if I used it, people would find it cute.

I think it is illuminating, however, in a number of ways.  While it shows a picture of Gonzales' son making a face behind Senator Leahy's back, the boy's striking similarity to his father makes him look like a double.  Given that the senior Gonzales also looks remarkably young, the Gonzales in the foreground might as well be the persona the public isn't supposed to see.

If you've been following Gonzales' confirmation hearing to become Attorney General, you know the debate over the nomination was postponed from Tuesday to today (Thursday).  The reason for the postponement was to allow the Democrats more time to gather opposition.  The cause is right there in the photograph.  It would have been one thing if Democrats were merely troubled over Gonzales' view that the President is above the law.  The real dissent, however, stems from the feeling that Gonzales disrespected the Judiciary Committee through evasive answers and repeated refusals to respond.

Gonzales' response to many written questions was that he had not conducted a search for the requested documents. As Senator Kennedy explained:

"The documents we want may exist, but he's not going to look for them. There's nothing more arrogant to say to this body.... It's an insult not just to the Senate, but to the American people."

It was also disclosed last week that Gonzales, in response to a direct written question, failed to disclose his role in a legal arrangement allowing then-Governor Bush to avoid disclosing a D.U.I. conviction as part of a jury duty appearance.

The Senator whose question he snubbed is the man Gonzales himself could as easily be standing behind wearing Junior's expression -- the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy.
](image: AP Photo/Susan Walsh in Yahoo News)

Cots Of War

It's almost 9 AM in New York and I just flipped on C-SPAN 2's coverage of the Iraq debate.  I keep wondering if Lindsey Graham -- who is struggling to keep his eyes open -- will actually keel over from exhaustion in the middle of his speech.

So much for impressions with the sound off.

Regarding impressions, Harry Reid's maneuver to force an overnight session to debate the war-- currently in its 15th hour -- has produced this surprising image out of the customary roll-out-the-cot ritual.  I actually gasped at first glimpse.  My first association was this one, followed by something along the lines of this, then this.

Was Reid that clever to force such an image? Was it happenstance? Did the photographer, Stephen Crowley, suddenly see it after the customary this?  Or, is the war and the end game and the tip-toeing around by the Senate now creating such poignancy that a room full of cots in the Capitol might as well be Dover -- or Arlington?

(image: Stephen Crowley/The New York Times.  Washington. July 17/18, 2007.  nytimes.com)

All The Noose That Fits To Print

After a near revolt by Senate Repugs this week over Iraq, intense WH pressure brought them back into line -- at least until September.  But so?  Trapped between saving face and saving their political skins -- and did anyone mention, saving lives? -- these people understand too well they're finished.

One reason we know that is because of the tightening circles.

Consider these shots by NYT photographer Brendan Smialowski, the first from Monday, the second, from yesterday.  Both  emphasize the same social behavior -- the huddle.  If the contexts are widely different, however -- the press all over McCain or Senate Republicans trying (out in public) to keep their act together -- what they exhibit, besides fear and tension -- are human animals either cornered or closing in.

The metaphors for each are legion.  In the case of pro-war martyr McCain, the photo will likely be remembered as his political final hour.  He's not just "surrounded," but "hunted."  Regarding the despairing and spineless Republican Senators (plus turncoat Lieberman), the pic -- straight out of the survivalist handbook --  speaks of "circling the wagons."

(images: Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times.  Washington.  July 2007.  nytimes.com.  caption 1: Senator John McCain strongly denied Tuesday that he would end his troubled presidential campaign.  caption 2: At the Senate Thursday to monitor Iraq were, from left, Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina; Joseph I. Lieberman, Independent of Connecticut; and three other Republicans, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Trent Lott of Mississippi and Christopher Bond of Missouri.)

Then The Planes Hit The Buildings, Mr. Shadow President

Along with the 'spheric attention lately to Dick Cheney as the "fourth branch of government," there seems to have also arisen a renewed interest in the Cheney-Bush relationship.

Last week, Digby summarized the (delayed) storm over the Cheney power grab, lamenting the fact that the MSM still hadn't noticed.  She came back on Sunday, however, to highlight an in-depth WAPO piece detailing the Cheney ("just don't call it that") shadow presidency.

Although we've been excavating these visual dynamics for years, the recent candor and clearer vision is leading to more pictures being reviewed and still more shaking loose.

My fuel for the fire is a lesser known portrait of the pair, shot by the White House, immediately after Bush returned from Offutt Air Force Base following the 9/11 attacks.  It seems fairly obvious the hyperkinetic Bush is offering Cheney a rather grade-schoolish enactment of how these two planes approached the World Trade Center towers.  (Like Cheney didn't know?)  And Cheney, in his typically stoic style, is doing what?  I'd call it an archetypal example of his playing along.

In any case, most of my observations are embedded with the photo.  What I thought you would also be interested in was how closely this shot mirrors a couple others in the damning WAPO piece.  Specifically, for example, take a look at the first photo featuring Cheney with Colin Powell.  The caption reads:

Vice President Cheney, standing behind the president's desk during a July 2003 meeting, circumvented Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in 2001 on the military commissions order.

Having seen many examples of Cheney standing close to or behind the President's desk, it's hard not to read these images as someone with the instinct for, if not, an actual grip on the seat of power.

(image: Eric Draper/White House.  November 2001.  whitehouse.gov. caption: Upon returning to the White House from Offutt Air Force Base, President Bush and Vice President Cheney discuss the attacks on America while secure inside the operations center in the White House.)

Eating It's Young. Falling On Sword. Whatever, Pace Is Gone.

The reason Puppy's Peter's out, in just two pictures:

(Oh yeah, more writing on the wall: 1, 2.)

(image 1 unattributed.  image 2: Shawn Thew/European Pressphoto Agency. Washington. April 16, 2006. nyt.com)

On The Latest Episode Of "As The White House Turns" : The Would-Be Diplomat Vs. The Wannabe-Dictator

When I saw this, I thought: That's it.  There's the money shot.  I mean, the idiocy of it aside, is there a better picture of why American foreign policy is so schizophrenic?

'Is it your turn to see him?'
'Is it mine?'
'Could you just move over a little bit, you're cramping me here.'
'Burn in hell.  Yeah ... and I just wrote it down.'

If these two still have plenty of time to further screw things up, the consolation, at least, is that it's so much more transparent now.

Anyway, FAIR has a nice post, split evenly down the middle.  First, it cites a WAPO article serving as mouthpiece for Cheney's latest obsession (linking Iran with the Taliban).  Then it hails Newsweek for the latest cat scratch -- which is where this photo came from.  In that piece, which is just short of delicious for the denial of infighting (and for calling out Cheney and his latest interagency blah blah blah heavy breathing over the Taliban), we get to hear Condi's not-so-veiled push back on the big "noise" machine.

By the way, I don't believe the Newsweek suggestion that Condi is winning, if by a hair.  Pushing the point, the mag quotes Rice as saying (in reference to "The Decider" ): "When I'm speaking, I'm speaking on his behalf."

Condi, whenever you're speaking for him, it's only by half (and that's on a good day).

(image: Khue Bui for Newsweek.  msnbc.msn.com.  article dated June 7, 2007.)

"This Is The President, Reid! Step Away From The Chamber, And Keep Your Hands Where I Can See 'Em"

Here's an example of the power and magic of the political picture.

In the more abstract, logical part of the mind, one understands that Harry Reid must simply be gesturing to reporters to let him speak.  However, in the cognitive neighborhood from which we tend to react to things like Dems caving in over dropping withdrawal timetables from war funding bills, there comes the tendency to interpret a picture as much in terms of story dynamics, as simple interview protocol.

This photo, in fact, manages to activate still one more property of the political picture.  Call it the "meaning in the eye of the beholder" effect.

If your a more centrist Democrat, for example, Reid's gesture reads more like "steady as she goes."  (That's in the Emanuelian sense of: “[With benchmarks and reporting requirements in the funding bill,] I view this as the beginning of the end of the president’s policy on Iraq.”

To an anti-war liberal, on the other hand(s), what you're more likely to read into Reid is plain surrender.

(h/t: japandrew. image: Doug Mills/The New York Times. Washington. May 22, 2007.  nytimes.com)

Dick The Lesser

There was a curiously innocuous image on the White House photo gallery yesterday.  It's featured a shot of Dick Cheney disembarking Air Force Two in Japan.

Was it just incidental that he's portrayed as small and distant, or that, in spite of the trappings, there's a lack of personal welcome?  Or, is an unconscious editorial reflex at play?

After all, Cheney could soon become an even bigger White House liability if Scooter Libby gets convicted.  (For more visual tone setting, notice Dick's expression, and the enclosing shadows in this weird shot at Tuesday's NYT.)  Of course, the visual minimization might also relate to Cheney's loss of pull suffered in the power struggle between himself and Bush/Rice.  And then, the anonymity could also reflect Cheney's lack of credibility in chatting up the N. Korea deal, considering how vehemently he opposed it.

Clearly, the Administration could have portrayed the V.P. more grandly (or else, skipped him entirely).  Instead, with this "seen a thousand times" runway shot, he is featured in a new role: typical run-of-the-mill Vice President.

(David Bohrer/White House.  Tokyo, Tuesday, February 20, 2007. whitehouse.gov)

Stand Up Or Stand Down?

If subtle, this shot in yesterday's NYT was surprisingly weighty.

The accompanying story reviewed the confirmation hearings considering the nomination of Adm. William ("Who said anything about Iran?") Fallon to command U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf.  Primarily however, the article (Senate Allies of Bush Work to Halt Iraq Vote - link) summarized the intense political battle behind a proposed Senate resolution to oppose Bush's troop escalation in Iraq.

What makes the photo intriguing -- featuring bipartisan Bush escalation critics Hagel, Lugar and Biden (the first two, Republicans)-- is its thoroughly bipolar nature.  At the confrontation point, are these guys going to master the fine print, honor their seriousness and determination, and push ahead ... or are they going to duck?

(Stephen Crowley/The New York Times.  January 30, 2007.  Washington.  nytimes.com)