From the New York Times:
Get real, people. That is not a naked woman reflected in Vice President Dick Cheney's sunglasses.
Click on the picture for the larger view. What do you think?
This is a "laughing on the outside, crying on the inside" post. The Iraq War has me dragged way down today.
Note: New picture added.
Grandmere--I agree it's a nekkid woman, but there are several things--the color of the lenses, the not quite fit of the reflected image to the lenses, the angle and the distortion on the right eye lens--that might be caused by photoshopping a real, but innocent, image.
ReplyDelete(I've always refused to register with the NYT and other papers, even my local one. So I'm ignorant of what the link says.)
Let's give him the presumption of innocence he tries to deny to others, shall we?
So, the picture is not big enough for me to actually see what it _is_. But I can tell it _is not_ the Virgin Mary or Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteIt might have been kind of interesting if an image of say the BVM or Jesus showed up.
ReplyDeleteKishnevi, the piece is very short. It says that if you blow it up, it is Cheney's hand on a fishing rod - oh, yeah - and that the picture was posted on the White House web site.
ReplyDeleteSusan, I believe you are correct about that.
Fran, that would have been interesting. It would have been a sign. Of what I'm not sure, but a sign, surely.
ReplyDeleteCan't bring myself to look that closely at his face. Sorry.
ReplyDeletePJ, I understand perfectly. The only reason I could stand to look is that much of face is covered up. You'd hardly know it was Darth.
ReplyDelete