How was George W. Bush Involved in the IMF Chief’s Alleged Sexual Attack on a Maid?

     

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, will be arraigned Sunday after a maid told police he sexually assaulted her in New York’s Sofitel Hotel. Charges include “a criminal sex act, attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment.”

As far as I can tell, George W. Bush had nothing to do with the alleged crime. So why did the New York Post run this photo with its report?


On Twitter, @JustA907Girl wonders why the Post didn’t use this more recent photo of Strauss-Kahn, a member of the French Socialist Party who is expected to challenge French President Nicolas Sarkozy in the 2012 presidential elections.

I’d prefer a pic of Port Authority detectives yanking the scumbag off his Paris-bound flight to haul his ass down to SVU, but I’m picky like that.

Tagged with: , , , , ,

6 Responses to How was George W. Bush Involved in the IMF Chief’s Alleged Sexual Attack on a Maid?

  1. Bruce Fancher says:

    C’mon, let’s not get all paranoid here. The New York Post is a right-of-center newspaper best known for conservative columnists in the opinion section and crime and scandal in the news sections. The picture of Strauss-Kahn with Bush is simply a much better picture than the picture with Obama. If I were the editor choosing a picture to run with that story I’d have chosen the picture where the subject’s entire face is visible and he’s looking more or less straight ahead to the one that shows him in profile, regardless of who’s standing next to him.

    • PA_Blue_Dog says:

      @Bruce: Really? You’d use a photo that has absolutely nothing to do with the story? Maybe that’s why you’re not an editor. While your comments about a “subject’s entire face is visible” is accurate, a better editor would have cropped W out of the picture entirely. It was cheesy journalism at its best and a real attempt at demeaning W at its worst.

    • Jenn Q. Public says:

      Well said, PA_Blue_Dog.

      Bruce, this was not a criticism of the paper’s partisanship or editorial slant–it was an observation about an inappropriate and misleading photo selection. It could be inadvertent, or it could be an intentional smear slipped into the paper by some low-level editorial flunky. Either way, it’s ridiculous and worth pointing out.

      And do a Google image search for photos of Strauss-Kahn. There are thousands, so the choice was not between one with Bush and one with Obama.

  2. Rochmoninoff says:

    Besides, an overall center-right alignment of a paper doesn’t mean that every employee there marches in lockstep. A Bush hater could easily be part of the team.

    It’s reasonable to assume that
    a) the choice was intentional
    b) it was either a dig at Bush or ironic.

    And when I contemplate the possibility it was ironic it makes me chuckle.

  3. King Nick says:

    WOW! A guy who could've been the next president of France rapes a woman and this is what you notice? And do you really think people who hate Bush still care that much?? Like the first thing the editor thought was "How can I tie this to Bush?"

    You're stuck in the past man!!! The rest of America realizes that Bush was a horrible president and has moved on, its time for you to join us in 2011. America is fucking collapsing man, we have no time to worry about what picture is chosen when a guy from France rapes a woman.

    If you like criticizing and discussing photos, maybe fashion is a better subject for you to write about. The rest of us are reading the words next to the picture and we understand that Bush had nothing to do with the crime (I like your misleading headline though, it fooled Google for sure!!!)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *