This is equivalent to the archbishop of Canterbury going to Berlin, and apologizing to Hilter in 1938 for the bad things Churchill was saying about Hitler.While Chavez hasn't directly attacked us, neither had Hilter in 1938. Chavez is a danger to hemisphere. Not yet at the Bin Laden level, but a serious threat. For anyone to claim Chavez' last vote was legit, they would probably believe that Hitler ruled a democracy. You can see it in the violence directed at the latest anti-Chavez march.

So then whenever the press call Bush's home a "ranch", we can make fun of him since his "ranch" has no horses, 2-3 cows, and lots of shrubs?
Or the next time the press show him in front of a cheering crowd, we can go after the phoney President, since they're all handpicked supporters?
Or when he stands in front of a bunch of boxes that read "Made in America", we can stick it to him since all the boxes actually said "Made in China", but they got a makeover for the cameras?

I mean, anything the press do is clearly the fault of those the press photographs, right? I mean, thats clearly what you're saying here...

Zoomie:

Your argument would hold more water if those sorts of things weren't already happening. In many cases, with the connivance of the press.

For example, there was one incident, iirc, where there were, indeed, items labeled "Made in China" at a Presidential rally.

More to the point, there was the less-than-amusing story of the AP folks editing a tape to include "boos" against Bush. (Something that others have accused the media of doing against Hilary.)

As for whether the press or those being photographed are responsible, here's the question: Did Cindy Sheehan tell Al Sharpton to buzz off? I'd suspect that she was as vociferously opposed to his presence as Jimmy Carter was to Michael Moore's presence in the Presidential box at the Democratic National Convention.