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

"getting" scary? You just noticed? :-)

Paragraph 6 is interesting indeed.

"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

All presidents use their staff to present daily briefing papers to get an
overview of world events. The briefing papers combine the info that is in
the newspapers and info from the different cabinets and intelligence
communities.

What is amazing is that he bothered to tell anyone he does not read
newspapers, even if other presidents did not bother to read anymore than the
headlines to see what the media considers important, at least they didn't
tell everyone.


"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

As usual, the NY Times decided to truncate a little bit of what he said in
order to put their "slant" on things. See for yourself:

--------------------------------------------------------------
NY Times:
As for newspapers, Mr. Bush said, "I glance at the headlines"

Bush:
"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving."
----------------------------------------------------------------

NY Times:
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."

Bush:
"I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably
reading the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the national
security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the
world stage."
---------------------------------------------------------------

NY Times:
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.

Bush:
I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid
democracy because of a good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot
of times there's opinions mixed in with news. And I...appreciate people's
opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the news
is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people
on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world.

(The NY Times chose not to quote the President's reason for not reading the
paper. Instead, they gave their own "spin" as to why he doesn't read the
paper.)
-----------------------------------------------------------

See, Barry? The NY Times article that you cite is a perfect example of
"opinions mixed in with news". Do you dispute the President's assertion
that the media mixes opinions in with news?

If you watched the Brit Hume interview or read the transcript
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98111,00.html), you'd get a very
different picture than the one the NY Times is trying to paint.

Just remember...consider the source. The NY Times has been caught lying on
several occasions lately. Maureen Dowd has been publicly reprimanded for
truncating or distorting quotes to fit her argument. Apparently, the entire
editorial staff seems to have the same problem.

Paragraph 6 is a truncated version of the actual interview, with editorial
opinion and spin mixed into it...all perfect trademarks of the NY Times.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"getting" scary? You just noticed? :-)

Paragraph 6 is interesting indeed.

"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

I have seen many events or lectures in person, than enjoy seeing the way the
newspaper slants the info to sell newspapers. Bush should have been smart
enough to understand that they would have used his comments to show how
"stupid" he is.

The reality of the situation is those that like Bush will continue to like
him, those who don't will still hate him. Most people don't want to allow
facts to distort they preconceived ideas.

Did you watch the California debate? Arnold seemed like he had a great
grasp for one liners, but not much of anything else.


"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
As usual, the NY Times decided to truncate a little bit of what he said in
order to put their "slant" on things. See for yourself:

--------------------------------------------------------------
NY Times:
As for newspapers, Mr. Bush said, "I glance at the headlines"

Bush:
"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's
moving."
----------------------------------------------------------------

NY Times:
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."

Bush:
"I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably
reading the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the
national
security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the
world stage."
---------------------------------------------------------------

NY Times:
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.

Bush:
I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid
democracy because of a good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot
of times there's opinions mixed in with news. And I...appreciate people's
opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the
news
is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are
people
on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world.

(The NY Times chose not to quote the President's reason for not reading
the
paper. Instead, they gave their own "spin" as to why he doesn't read the
paper.)
-----------------------------------------------------------

See, Barry? The NY Times article that you cite is a perfect example of
"opinions mixed in with news". Do you dispute the President's assertion
that the media mixes opinions in with news?

If you watched the Brit Hume interview or read the transcript
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98111,00.html), you'd get a very
different picture than the one the NY Times is trying to paint.

Just remember...consider the source. The NY Times has been caught lying
on
several occasions lately. Maureen Dowd has been publicly reprimanded for
truncating or distorting quotes to fit her argument. Apparently, the
entire
editorial staff seems to have the same problem.

Land of the Free???
You'd better ship that moniker north where it might have a better fit!

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.