iron mouth. good, tasteful coverage of this.
too much of this on the internet is being too strident.
don't get me wrong: the BushMob is aware of symbolism and exploits it like no other government ever -- my favorite example is asscraft's ordering that the justice department's statue of Justice be covered, sterner foreshadowing than even television writers use -- so there must be some significance.

The parka at auschwitz is less clear to me than shrouding justice, as far as propagandistic symbolic magick go.

I'd like a wider shot before determining ritualistic significance.

But a bit of biblical bibliomancy to the tune of "what the hell was dick thinking?" yeilds Numbers 7:81, a clause in the sentence spanning 79-83 describing "the offering of [prince] Ahira," at the dedication of "the Dwelling" in the Sinai. Ahira's offering consisted of silver dishes containing "fine flour mixed with oil", a gold cup filled with incense, and, picking up at the selected verse, "81 one young bull, one ram, and one yearling lamb for a holocaust; 82 one goat for a sin offering; 83 and two oxen, five rams, five goats, and five yearling lambs for a peace offering."

Creepy. Maybe dictionary bibliomancy too: notice, vt., ... to comment upon: Note ... review; ... treat with attention or civility ... to rake notice of: mark ... give formal notice to.

These both seem curiously apt, combining the verse mentioning the holocaust offering with the notion of taking notice of, and yet, of course he was there taking notice of the holocaust: that's what the memorial event was about. As often with bibliomancy, a perfectly on point answer that seems to be merely obvious.

Although the "sin offering" goat does not appear until the following verse, then the exegete could read:

Cheney['s calling attention to himself by odd] appearance at formal ceremony marking a milestone in the historical Holocaust, is, itself, an act of formal notice that he's the, subsequent, sin offering goat.

I think that's about as far as I want to take this session of public divination, leaving gentle reader and host to their own streams of free-association.

Parka over a suit, bad choice.

And what were they commemorating again? 'Cause the last I heard this was about 1.1 million dead, not worrying about what folks are wearing.

Cheap shot.

At least you now admit that it was a mistake made by the Vice President. How one looks is important. How one appears makes a big difference as to how one is percieved. As much as I understand that it really isn't fair that people make these types of judgments--I acknowledge that they do. How you look counts--especially at a time when our diplomatic stature is at an near all time low.

The point of all of the criticism is that this is about 1.1 Million dead and it is the Vice President who didn't seem to take that into account. Its not about politics here--its about our image abroad and how I want the leaders of my country to represent me at something that I think is very important.

I will say something postive about Reagan here. Although I disagreed with the Bitburg thing when it happened. (I'm old), Reagan understood appearance--never, never, never in one million years would he have did what Cheney did. Respect can be delivered by appearance. I wish this Administration could understand that. They don't understand how to do things that might be unpopular while appearing to be on the level. Reagan did and America retained its position in the world despite the fact that many millions around the world hated Reagan. He was never popular in Europe, but the Europeans still respected him and the United States at the end of the day. Now, pfft.