eh?


"jps" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

It'd be an outrage if that were happening to Christians who
were protesting abortion.

High fiving Harry again. Was it not Hillary who had a person with a
camera
arrested and jailed for taking her picture at a speech? Same as I think
BC
did to some heckler in the midwest.

So, I cannot have a thought similar to Harry's without you silly RWers
claiming that I'm following my master?

The guy arrested was a known rabble-rouser who'd been a nuisance at the
school at which she was speaking (or maybe it was Gore) and this little
asshole was videotaping the speech, which was strictly forbidden and
posted
outside the event.

Bush's bubble keeps rabble-rousers MILES away. They don't just prevent
people from taking pictures.

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