Full Version: Iconic images
The left has been hammering the President for his landing on the the USS Abraham Lincoln. They called it a photo-op and a kick off for his presidential campaign. They complained about the cost! Which is amazing because the left loves to spend our money and as it turns out it was only a few thousand dollars more to land in the jet. They said it was pure theater.
Well, In the time of our Fore-Fathers (sorry thats not politicaly correct anymore) Words were the most powerfull way to get a point across. Today in the modern age we are bombarded with images and words and sounds at a breakneck speed. Over stimulated, we have become somewhat numb to all this information. What sticks in our minds are symbolic, if not iconic images. Ossama bin-Laden understood this quite well when he attacked the symbol of capitalism (the Twin Towers) and the symbol of Freedom (He was aiming at congress) and the symbol of our military might (the pentagon) When we think about Terrorism our minds keep going back to those towers coming down. Its hard to get them out of our minds eye. Well, now we have another symbolic image, the image of a President landing on an aircraft carrier, a warrior against the evil that plagues our world. He is in the fight, He cares, He holds those who fight for freedom in the highest esteem, he is flexing our collective muscle to show the world how easy it is and how determined we can be.
Now, when I think of the war on terrorism I will no longer see New York in my minds eye I will see a President in the act of protecting me.
Our president is sending a message to all who would get in the way of Freedom.
A very powerfull symbolic message.
Well, In the time of our Fore-Fathers (sorry thats not politicaly correct anymore) Words were the most powerfull way to get a point across. Today in the modern age we are bombarded with images and words and sounds at a breakneck speed. Over stimulated, we have become somewhat numb to all this information. What sticks in our minds are symbolic, if not iconic images. Ossama bin-Laden understood this quite well when he attacked the symbol of capitalism (the Twin Towers) and the symbol of Freedom (He was aiming at congress) and the symbol of our military might (the pentagon) When we think about Terrorism our minds keep going back to those towers coming down. Its hard to get them out of our minds eye. Well, now we have another symbolic image, the image of a President landing on an aircraft carrier, a warrior against the evil that plagues our world. He is in the fight, He cares, He holds those who fight for freedom in the highest esteem, he is flexing our collective muscle to show the world how easy it is and how determined we can be.
Now, when I think of the war on terrorism I will no longer see New York in my minds eye I will see a President in the act of protecting me.
Our president is sending a message to all who would get in the way of Freedom.
A very powerfull symbolic message.
My question is, should we choose our political leaders because they understand symbolism? Any decent advertising agency could have pulled this or half a dozen similar stunts. The only thing this tells you about Bush is that he has to rely on stunts.
It would be more to the point if he fully explained what he intends to do about the situation he has brought about in Iraq.
And with regards to the American voters, why exactly the Pentagon is spending more money now that it did during the cold war, whilst the American economy struggles.
IF I were an American, that is what I would be concentrating on. Not GW Bush's 'courage' in using a jet instead of a helicopter.
It would be more to the point if he fully explained what he intends to do about the situation he has brought about in Iraq.
And with regards to the American voters, why exactly the Pentagon is spending more money now that it did during the cold war, whilst the American economy struggles.
IF I were an American, that is what I would be concentrating on. Not GW Bush's 'courage' in using a jet instead of a helicopter.
You know, I don't understand why anyone is having a meltdown on this issue.
Why are people so upset that the President of the United States, Commander and Chief, went to an air craft carrier? Why didn't they get upset when he went to North Carolina and saw the Marines? Why don't they get upset when he uses Marine 1 to fly to his home in Crawford from Fort Hood or Waco? Why didn't they get all uppity about the President going to Fort Hood and having photos <oh my a photo op> taken of him, his wife and the two former POWs?
Oh, and the big deal about the flight suit? Well, if you would notice, when the President (no matter who) goes to any military post, he usually get's a jacket that has the unit's logos on it, along with his name. Why hasn't anyone gotten upset about all the money used to get those jackets made? That costs money too!
And what about the cost in lost training hours to the military personnel that have to set up something everytime a president visits their post? What!!?? Do you think those soliders were just standing around twiddling their thumbs waiting on something to do? No folks, they had to stop training to set up the chairs, the loud speakers, and then stand around waiting for the man to arrive.
Let's be smart about this -- most any time a president does something, or goes somewhere, it's going to cost money. Whether citizen's money from the local coffers of the City, of just the cost of the fuel for Airforce 1.
Personally, I'm about as sick of this story as I am with the Scott Peterson story.
Jo
Why are people so upset that the President of the United States, Commander and Chief, went to an air craft carrier? Why didn't they get upset when he went to North Carolina and saw the Marines? Why don't they get upset when he uses Marine 1 to fly to his home in Crawford from Fort Hood or Waco? Why didn't they get all uppity about the President going to Fort Hood and having photos <oh my a photo op> taken of him, his wife and the two former POWs?
Oh, and the big deal about the flight suit? Well, if you would notice, when the President (no matter who) goes to any military post, he usually get's a jacket that has the unit's logos on it, along with his name. Why hasn't anyone gotten upset about all the money used to get those jackets made? That costs money too!
And what about the cost in lost training hours to the military personnel that have to set up something everytime a president visits their post? What!!?? Do you think those soliders were just standing around twiddling their thumbs waiting on something to do? No folks, they had to stop training to set up the chairs, the loud speakers, and then stand around waiting for the man to arrive.
Let's be smart about this -- most any time a president does something, or goes somewhere, it's going to cost money. Whether citizen's money from the local coffers of the City, of just the cost of the fuel for Airforce 1.
Personally, I'm about as sick of this story as I am with the Scott Peterson story.
Jo
I don't think the Demos who complained have much of a case. These are typical campaign tricks on both sides, but apparently they work on some voters. Others think it is all too silly for comment.
CLOSED.
We already have a debate question regarding this issue here:
Bush on the Lincoln. Please join us there to discuss this further.
Also, for future reference, all new posts MUST start with a question for us to debate. This is debate forum, not a blog or rant spot.
We already have a debate question regarding this issue here:
Bush on the Lincoln. Please join us there to discuss this further.Also, for future reference, all new posts MUST start with a question for us to debate. This is debate forum, not a blog or rant spot.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.