F330 GT wrote:

I usually try to stay out of the poltical bashing that goes on here but
paragraphs 6 of this article blows my mind. Hard to believe this is about our
president. Is he a freaking idiot or just stupid. This is a direct quote. Why
would he admit to this?


FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:

The Presidential Bubble

Published: September 25, 2003



Four progressive political groups sued the Bush administration this week,
charging that the Secret Service is systematically keeping protesters away from
the president's public appearances. They make a serious point about free speech
rights, but they also point out a disturbing aspect of the Bush White House:
the country has a chief executive who seems to embrace the presidential bubble.

Security concerns make it inevitable that a modern American president will be
somewhat cut off from the country he leads. He cannot insert himself into any
part of normal life without a phalanx of security guards.

Protesters cannot be permitted to get close enough to pose a threat, but they
ought to be able to get close enough so the president can see that they are
there. Sometimes seeing a glimpse of placard-wielding demonstrators is as close
as the commander in chief can get to seeing the face of national discontent.

At Mr. Bush's public appearances, his critics are routinely shunted into
"protest zones" as much as a half-mile away. At the Columbia, S.C., airport
last year, a protester with a "No War for Oil" sign was ordered to move a
half-mile from the area where Mr. Bush's supporters were allowed to stand. When
the protester refused, he was arrested.

Mr. Bush and his aides also seem to go to great lengths to underline the degree
to which the president closes himself off from the news media. In an interview
with Fox News this week, the president said he learned most of what he needs to
know from morning briefings by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice,
and his chief of staff, Andrew Card.

As for newspapers, Mr. Bush said, "I glance at the headlines" but "rarely read
the stories." The people who brief him on current events encounter many of the
newsmakers personally, he said, and in any case "probably read the news
themselves."

Some of this may be a pose that is designed to tweak the media by making the
news appear to be below the president's notice. During the Iraqi invasion, when
the rest of the nation was glued to TV, Mr. Bush's spokesman claimed that his
boss had barely glanced at the pictures of what was going on.

But it is worrisome when one of the most incurious men ever to occupy the White
House takes pains to insist that he gets his information on what the world is
saying only in predigested bits from his appointees.

Mr. Bush thinks of himself as a man of the people, but carefully staged
contacts with groups of supporters or small children does not constitute
getting in touch with the people. It is in Mr. Bush's interest, as well as the
nation's, for him to burst the bubble he has been inhabiting, and take a hard
look at the real world.



P.S. My last politcal post unless GWB shoots himself in the foot. (again)

Barry

Bush won't read a briefing paper more than a couple of paragraphs long.
He is a dunce.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Harry,
you might be intelligent, but you have a really bad case of fixation. You
either need mediation for obsessive compulsive disorder or one of similar
illnesses.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
F330 GT wrote:

I usually try to stay out of the poltical bashing that goes on here but
paragraphs 6 of this article blows my mind. Hard to believe this is
about our
president. Is he a freaking idiot or just stupid. This is a direct
quote. Why
would he admit to this?


FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:

The Presidential Bubble

Published: September 25, 2003



Four progressive political groups sued the Bush administration this
week,
charging that the Secret Service is systematically keeping protesters
away from
the president's public appearances. They make a serious point about free
speech
rights, but they also point out a disturbing aspect of the Bush White
House:
the country has a chief executive who seems to embrace the presidential
bubble.

Security concerns make it inevitable that a modern American president
will be
somewhat cut off from the country he leads. He cannot insert himself
into any
part of normal life without a phalanx of security guards.

Protesters cannot be permitted to get close enough to pose a threat, but
they
ought to be able to get close enough so the president can see that they
are
there. Sometimes seeing a glimpse of placard-wielding demonstrators is
as close
as the commander in chief can get to seeing the face of national
discontent.

At Mr. Bush's public appearances, his critics are routinely shunted into
"protest zones" as much as a half-mile away. At the Columbia, S.C.,
airport
last year, a protester with a "No War for Oil" sign was ordered to move
a
half-mile from the area where Mr. Bush's supporters were allowed to
stand. When
the protester refused, he was arrested.

Mr. Bush and his aides also seem to go to great lengths to underline the
degree
to which the president closes himself off from the news media. In an
interview
with Fox News this week, the president said he learned most of what he
needs to
know from morning briefings by his national security adviser,
Condoleezza Rice,
and his chief of staff, Andrew Card.

As for newspapers, Mr. Bush said, "I glance at the headlines" but
"rarely read
the stories." The people who brief him on current events encounter many
of the
newsmakers personally, he said, and in any case "probably read the news
themselves."

Some of this may be a pose that is designed to tweak the media by making
the
news appear to be below the president's notice. During the Iraqi
invasion, when
the rest of the nation was glued to TV, Mr. Bush's spokesman claimed
that his
boss had barely glanced at the pictures of what was going on.

But it is worrisome when one of the most incurious men ever to occupy
the White
House takes pains to insist that he gets his information on what the
world is
saying only in predigested bits from his appointees.

Mr. Bush thinks of himself as a man of the people, but carefully staged
contacts with groups of supporters or small children does not constitute
getting in touch with the people. It is in Mr. Bush's interest, as well
as the
nation's, for him to burst the bubble he has been inhabiting, and take a
hard
look at the real world.



P.S. My last politcal post unless GWB shoots himself in the foot.
(again)

Barry

Bush won't read a briefing paper more than a couple of paragraphs long.
He is a dunce.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
. net...
Harry,
you might be intelligent, but you have a really bad case of fixation. You
either need mediation for obsessive compulsive disorder or one of similar
illnesses.


I am surprised it took you so long to figure that out Bill. But I have to disagree
with the intelligent part though....Harry talks a good game but unfortunately no one is
home upstairs. Look up the definition of "village idiot" in the dictionary and Harry's
picture appears next to it.

Damn, the right wing twins. Together you might make 150 on the IQ scale.

"Jim -" wrote in message
news

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
. net...
Harry,
you might be intelligent, but you have a really bad case of fixation.
You
either need mediation for obsessive compulsive disorder or one of
similar
illnesses.


I am surprised it took you so long to figure that out Bill. But I have to
disagree
with the intelligent part though....Harry talks a good game but
unfortunately no one is
home upstairs. Look up the definition of "village idiot" in the dictionary
and Harry's
picture appears next to it.

Beyond Bush's admission that he doesn't read the papers.......(he isn't
interested in any opionions except those of his cabinet, apparently).....the
article does point out a
serious breach of first amendment rights and lack of equal treatment under the
law.

Pro-Bush demonstrators, and pro-war demonstartors (usually the same crowd)
have the local cops out "informally" flagging traffic for them, etc. I have
seen a number of occassions where the cops shut down intersections, etc, to
allow a Pro-Bush, or pro-war demonstration to occur.

Just prior to the invasion of Iraq, the anti-war protestors in Seattle staged a
large rally in downtown Seattle. The crowd was enormous. The cops tried to herd
everybody onto a short stretch of sidewalk that was obviously far too small to
accomodate the group. Everytime more than 2 or 3 people would inhale at once,
some poor schumck would be pressed forward and would be forced to set a foot
over the curb and into the street. Dozens of these folks, from young kids to
little old ladies, were arrested the moment a foot touched the ground beyond
the curb.
The charge was blocking traffic!

Some of the anti-war protestors were thrown face down on the pavement and
handcuffed with zip-ties. For (allegedly) blocking taffic.

If you had to be a cop to vote for POTUS, there's no doubt that Bush would
carry all 50 states and about 90% of the popular vote. :-(

I didn't see anything unusual about the twist the author used, typical
propaganda objective. If I was Bush, I wouldn't want these protestors near
me, saying something stupid like the war is about oil. Give your head a
shake, everyone knows the war has nothing to do with oil, but the U.S.
should take proceeds from the oil until all costs have been recaptured. Why
should the U.S. taxpayer pay for doing the biggest favor to that country.







"F330 GT" wrote in message
...
I usually try to stay out of the poltical bashing that goes on here but
paragraphs 6 of this article blows my mind. Hard to believe this is about
our
president. Is he a freaking idiot or just stupid. This is a direct quote.
Why
would he admit to this?


FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:

The Presidential Bubble

Published: September 25, 2003



Four progressive political groups sued the Bush administration this week,
charging that the Secret Service is systematically keeping protesters away
from
the president's public appearances. They make a serious point about free
speech
rights, but they also point out a disturbing aspect of the Bush White
House:
the country has a chief executive who seems to embrace the presidential
bubble.

Security concerns make it inevitable that a modern American president will
be
somewhat cut off from the country he leads. He cannot insert himself into
any
part of normal life without a phalanx of security guards.

Protesters cannot be permitted to get close enough to pose a threat, but
they
ought to be able to get close enough so the president can see that they
are
there. Sometimes seeing a glimpse of placard-wielding demonstrators is as
close
as the commander in chief can get to seeing the face of national
discontent.

At Mr. Bush's public appearances, his critics are routinely shunted into
"protest zones" as much as a half-mile away. At the Columbia, S.C.,
airport
last year, a protester with a "No War for Oil" sign was ordered to move a
half-mile from the area where Mr. Bush's supporters were allowed to stand.
When
the protester refused, he was arrested.

Mr. Bush and his aides also seem to go to great lengths to underline the
degree
to which the president closes himself off from the news media. In an
interview
with Fox News this week, the president said he learned most of what he
needs to
know from morning briefings by his national security adviser, Condoleezza
Rice,
and his chief of staff, Andrew Card.

As for newspapers, Mr. Bush said, "I glance at the headlines" but "rarely
read
the stories." The people who brief him on current events encounter many of
the
newsmakers personally, he said, and in any case "probably read the news
themselves."

Some of this may be a pose that is designed to tweak the media by making
the
news appear to be below the president's notice. During the Iraqi invasion,
when
the rest of the nation was glued to TV, Mr. Bush's spokesman claimed that
his
boss had barely glanced at the pictures of what was going on.

But it is worrisome when one of the most incurious men ever to occupy the
White
House takes pains to insist that he gets his information on what the world
is
saying only in predigested bits from his appointees.

Mr. Bush thinks of himself as a man of the people, but carefully staged
contacts with groups of supporters or small children does not constitute
getting in touch with the people. It is in Mr. Bush's interest, as well as
the
nation's, for him to burst the bubble he has been inhabiting, and take a
hard
look at the real world.



P.S. My last politcal post unless GWB shoots himself in the foot. (again)

Barry

Give your head a
shake, everyone knows the war has nothing to do with oil,

Hmmm. Why then, did we pick Iraq?
We now know that the war had nothing to do with the weapons of mass destruction
that were supposed to present an imminent threat. We now know that the
administration claims of knowing specifically just where to look for these
weapons (but withholding that info from the UN inspectors as a sort of test)
were at least blustering errors and arguably worse.
Even Bush has admitted that his admnistration could have been better stewards
of the truth ("we should not have used that line in the SOTU speech").

If it was about freeing an oppressed people from a tyrranical dictator- we seem
to have accomplished that. But if oil had nothing to do with it, why Iraq?
There are dozens of hell holes on the planet where the people are worse off
than Iraq. In most of those places, we wouldn't be dealing with people
demanding the dictator's return in the aftermath, like the thousands of Iraqis
who
marched and chanted for the removal of the US troops and the return of Saddam
Hussein just two days ago.

There's an up side to the anti-US, pro Saddam demonstrations, however. We have
introduced freedom of speech and assembly in Iraq. It's embarrssing that so
many are assembling to speak against the US, though.

Tuuk wrote:
I didn't see anything unusual about the twist the author used, typical
propaganda objective. If I was Bush, I wouldn't want these protestors near
me, saying something stupid like the war is about oil. Give your head a
shake, everyone knows the war has nothing to do with oil, but the U.S.
should take proceeds from the oil until all costs have been recaptured. Why
should the U.S. taxpayer pay for doing the biggest favor to that country.


It didn't have anything to do with the terrorists responsible for 9-11 -
if it did, we should have taken out Saudi Arabia.

It didn't have anything to do with chemical or biological weapons -
we didn't find any.
It didn't have anything to do with nuclear weapons-
we didn't find any.
It didn't have anything to do with the despot, Saddam Hussein-
we support despots all over the world.

Iraq has two products it exports - oil and dates.

Must have been the dates, eh, dum-dum?



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

" Tuuk" wrote in message
...
I didn't see anything unusual about the twist the author used, typical
propaganda objective. If I was Bush, I wouldn't want these protestors near
me, saying something stupid like the war is about oil. Give your head a
shake, everyone knows the war has nothing to do with oil,

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation