The balless "man" stays in his bubble": Where the President Isn't

[boutons]

ah, what brave, gutless asshole he is.
Don't give him any bad news or a chance to face opposition.
Staying in the bubble until the very end.

====================

Where the President Isn't

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com

Wednesday, December 14, 2005; 1:45 PM

Here's a problem with following the president around all day long: Sometimes the story is where he's not.

Reporting that President Bush steered clear of the White House's own Conference on Aging yesterday -- making him the first president ever to do so -- fell to the regional newspapers and NPR, not the big guys.

It turns out that had Bush attended, he would have been facing a very hostile audience.

So instead, Bush held a photo-op with a hand-picked group of seniors at a swanky retirement home -- and it was well covered by the usual suspects.
The White House Conference

Julie Rovner reported on NPR's All Things Considered: "The once-a-decade White House Conference on Aging is meeting in Washington this week, with the future of Medicare high on its agenda. Medicare was on President Bush's agenda Tuesday, too. But he skipped the White House conference -- making him the first president not to speak to delegates in the event's half-century history.

"While the conference on aging delegates was meeting in a hotel uptown, the White House motorcade set out in the opposite direction, to Greenspring Village, a high-end gated retirement community in suburban Virginia. . . .

"The White House team handpicked the seniors who met with President Bush at the closed meeting."

Stephen Nohlgren writes in the St. Petersburg Times: "While President Bush was in Virginia touting his new Medicare drug plan Tuesday, delegates to the fifth White House Conference on Aging demanded it be overhauled.

"Their paths never crossed.

"Unlike his three predecessors, including his father, Bush will not attend the four-day conference. The administration is well represented there, a White House spokeswoman said.

" 'The purpose of the conference was to develop recommendations for research and action in the field of aging and present a report with their findings to the president,' said spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo. 'The president participated at an event in Springfield, Va., to educate seniors on Medicare prescription drugs and encourage them to sign up with the program.' . . .

"Bush, Republican governors and Republican members of Congress appointed most of this year's 1,200 delegates, which makes the resistance to [the drug plan] particularly striking."

Larry Lipman and Ken Herman write in the Palm Beach Post: "Rather than embracing the Medicare drug law and Bush's call for private Social Security investment accounts, delegates at work sessions on those issues overwhelmingly rejected those positions.

"In nonbinding position statements developed at conference workshops, delegates called for scrapping the 2-year-old Medicare drug law -- which takes effect next month and relies on private insurance companies to provide benefits -- and replacing it with a government-run program similar to how Medicare covers doctor and hospital care.

"Delegates also vehemently rejected any proposal that would divert Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts. Such a proposal had been Bush's top domestic priority earlier this year, but has been largely abandoned since the summer."

Lipman wrote yesterday: "Shouts of protest Monday briefly disrupted the carefully scripted White House Conference on Aging as a handful of delegates demanded the right to introduce and modify resolutions from the floor.

"Many of the delegates -- some wearing red campaign-style buttons that read 'Fix Medicare Rx' -- want the ability to offer a resolution that recommends substantially overturning the Medicare drug law by providing drug coverage through the Medicare program rather than private insurers and by allowing the government to negotiate the price of drugs."

Susan Jaffe writes in the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "Robert Binstock, professor of aging, health and society at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, said President Bush's absence was a snub. It didn't help matters that Bush made time Tuesday to visit a retirement community in a Washington suburb.

" 'That he went to speak about Medicare in Virginia today, instead of an assembly of delegates from all over the country indicates that he's afraid to speak in anything but a controlled environment,' Binstock said during a session on improving the Medicare program, which provides health care for 43 million older and disabled Americans.

"Also this year, the rules have changed for delegates, so they cannot debate resolutions.

" 'They've convened the best and the brightest people on aging in the field but they don't want input from us,' said Helene Stone, a retired social worker who works for the Lorain County Council on Aging."

Sean Mussenden writes for the Media General News Service about the conference: "Social Security and Medicare were on everyone's mind.

"And so was the president who wasn't there."

From what I can tell, there's not a word about Bush's no-show -- or anything about the conference at all -- in The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, or even on the Associated Press or Reuters wires.

[JoeChalupa]

He'll get around to it...around election time.

[Oh, Gee!!]

He was probably making vacation plans

[SA210]

^^^ while he's on vacation

[Ocotillo]

More and more the one word to describe George W. Bush is coward.

[xrayzebra]

More and more the one word to describe George W. Bush is coward.

No, what is happening is that you should describe dimm-o-craps and some
so called repubniks as traitors to their country.

Bush hasn't backed down from anything. He stands behind his beliefs.
More than I can say for the dimm-o-craps, who have none.

[JoeChalupa]

No, what is happening is that you should describe dimm-o-craps and some
so called repubniks as traitors to their country.

Bush hasn't backed down from anything. He stands behind his beliefs.
More than I can say for the dimm-o-craps, who have none.

It is also a major flaw of his. His unwillingness to listen to others and admit he's made a mistake is not a sign of great leadership.
And I, as a democrat, stand behind my beliefs and not all repugnants stand behind their beliefs.

So a republican cannot speak out against Bush? If they do then they are not true republicans? Since when did "blind allegiance" become part of the republican party? Are republicans not allowed to think for themselves?

[xrayzebra]

he prefers to surround himself with people who support America, liberty, and the institute of marriage, and are against terrorororism, evil, and the slaughter of unborn millions.


Yeah, all things that are wrong according to dimm-o-craps and their
most ardent supporter McCain.

[SA210]

It is unpatriotic to question an imcompetent President. If you can't love your President for the liar he is, u obviously are against the troops during a time of war, and during Christmas.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Every time you question the war, a baby fetus is aborted.

[xrayzebra]

It is also a major flaw of his. His unwillingness to listen to others and admit he's made a mistake is not a sign of great leadership.
And I, as a democrat, stand behind my beliefs and not all repugnants stand behind their beliefs.

So a republican cannot speak out against Bush? If they do then they are not true republicans? Since when did "blind allegiance" become part of the republican party? Are republicans not allowed to think for themselves?

The USA is wrong, the USA
causes all problems, we kill innocent women, children and if we just got
out of everywhere and well just withdraw and never protect our interest
and got rid of all SUV's quite poisoning waters and killing forest and all the
poor animals and well just everything. You want the utter defeat of this
country, which I assume you live in, but would be first to try to bitch
after you lost what others have earned for you. Live a little longer and
come talk to me. I have been there, done that. And that is a fact. Not
the fictitious world you live in. The republican that is speaking out against
Bush is a friggin loser. He is the poster child of the left wing media. He wants to be President and is running now, just like Hillary. He will rue the
day he as Rush said: "come up with the Al Qaeda bill of rights". He is
also the one trying to come up with rights of those who enter this country
as illegals.

[Ocotillo]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16detain.html?oref=login)



Bush hasn't backed down from anything. He stands behind his beliefs.
More than I can say for the dimm-o-craps, who have none.

Under intense bipartisan Congressional pressure, President Bush reversed course on Thursday and reluctantly backed Senator John McCain's call for a law banning cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody.

You were saying?

[JoeChalupa]

But remember that he was against it, before he was for it.





Damn flip-flopper!! :cuss

[SA210]

Xray, I wanna support my country, but I know Bush is a liar. Do you have any extra Bush rose colored glasses I could borrow?

[xrayzebra]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16detain.html?oref=login)



Under intense bipartisan Congressional pressure, President Bush reversed course on Thursday and reluctantly backed Senator John McCain's call for a law banning cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody.

You were saying?

Does it surprise you that I agree with you. My preference would be he
call their hand. He did backdown. Backed Mccain, now that is another
question. Bush hasn't been the President I would prefer, since he hasn't
veto any bill as of this date, I am aware of. In this regard he reminds me
of Carter. He wants to be the nice guy and no one on the opposite side
will let him. Look at my sig.

[Ocotillo]

Yeah, actually you are more firm in your stand on that issue.

He could have vetoed the bill, Congress overridden the veto and he could still say he stood on principle but his hands are tied.

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, actually you are more firm in your stand on that issue.

He could have vetoed the bill, Congress overridden the veto and he could still say he stood on principle but his hands are tied.

Well not actually, it could have gone to the SC and they could have
passed a law, well made a ruling, which would have been a law. Like
I said in one of my earlier post, I am not in a good mood today. Seems
like no one in the media or Congress wants to protect this country. Which
makes many on this forum very happy..... :depressed

[Ocotillo]

This is the greatest country on the face of the earth. We do not need to resort to torture and human rights abuses to prevail in the war on terror.

If we use those methods, they win.

If we continue to stand on our principles, we will prevail.

[xrayzebra]

This is the greatest country on the face of the earth. We do not need to resort to torture and human rights abuses to prevail in the war on terror.

If we use those methods, they win.

If we continue to stand on our principles, we will prevail.

I really don't think anyone was wanting to pull fingernails off anyone.
Nor do I think anyone was going to do anything that would impose
cruel or inhuman punishment on anyone. But if you think keeping someone
awake for hours or questioning them for hours or putting a dog leash on
someone or making them take off their clothes is cruel, please someone
help me. Water boarding is pretty hard on someone, but it doesn't
kill them. Believe me when I say police work or questioning people is
not a pleasant thing. That is why when you see an arrest by police
by physical means causes some to gasp for air. It is physical and causes
harm to someone.

[Yonivore]

This is the greatest country on the face of the earth. We do not need to resort to torture and human rights abuses to prevail in the war on terror.

If we use those methods, they win.
I don't think the terrorists care. They're going to continue their acts of barbarity regardless of how high the moral ground we take. You're not earning any points for being nice.


If we continue to stand on our principles, we will prevail.
I guarantee you there is, as there has always been, a cadre of American Patriots -- either in the military or the intelligence agencies -- willing to do whatever is necessary to safeguard your sorry ass; even if the "Secretary will disavow any knowledge of their actions," and they sacrifice their own freedom in doing so.

If there is a ticking bomb located in an American city, counting down to an detonation that will kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, I don't fucking care if you start feeding the terrorists through a cheese slicer until they talk -- or don't talk (whatever the case may be) -- eventually one will sing like a canary.

[ChumpDumper]

eventually one will sing like a canary.Why? Wouldn't they just say anything to make it stop? How would anyone know it's the truth?

[Yonivore]

Why? Wouldn't they just say anything to make it stop? How would anyone know it's the truth?
It's called verifying the information -- it's not like you're asking for something that'll take 6 months of research to verify. It only "stops" for good if you tell the truth.

If you lie, they come back in a couple of hours and "ask" you again...maybe in a little different manner.

[ChumpDumper]

It's called verifying the informationHow do you do that in time?

What do you do if you find out it's wrong?

Torture him some more?

What if he lies again?

[Yonivore]

How do you do that in time?
Quickly.


What do you do if you find out it's wrong?

Torture him some more?
Yep; if you're certain he's got information that'll be useful.


What if he lies again?
You torture him again.

You know, Chumpy, this isn't someone the world is ever going to hear from again. He's not going to tell the U.N. or Amnesty International or Jacques Chirac what happened to him. He's going to be desert refuse for the scorpions and vultures to pick over.

And, the torture is going to be conducted by people who don't read the Congressional Record or the New York Times. They existed under Bill Clinton and they exist under George W. Bush...it doesn't matter if the President of the United States says we don't torture, it happens.

Skullduggery and wet ops are an American tradition.

[ChumpDumper]

You know, Chumpy, this isn't someone the world is ever going to hear from again. He's not going to tell the U.N. or Amnesty International or Jacques Chirac what happened to him. He's going to be desert refuse for the scorpions and vultures to pick over.Right, so if he's such a fanatic wouldn't he do anything to thwart these efforts to get information. Resisting first, stalling, lying, then repeating.
And, the torture is going to be conducted by people who don't read the Congressional Record or the New York Times. They existed under Bill Clinton and they exist under George W. Bush...it doesn't matter if the President of the United States says we don't torture, it happens.And exactly how effective has it been?

I think most folks think this just works like an episode of 24. It simply isn't so.

[mookie2001]

we kill innocent women, childrentrue, not on purpose but true

You want the utter defeat of this
country
never heard that one before, its almost like in somekind of playbook
a conservative playbook

Live a little longer and
come talk to me.
good one
way to...be old


He is
also the one trying to come up with rights of those who enter this country
as illegals.
your president is keeping the borders wide fucking open

[Yonivore]

Right, so if he's such a fanatic wouldn't he do anything to thwart these efforts to get information. Resisting first, stalling, lying, then repeating.
Who knows and who cares?


And exactly how effective has it been?
Well, if you go on the premise that torture has been used fairly consistently, I would imagine at least some of the intelligence successes during the Iraq war have been the result of a few yanked fingernails. Especially when you consider we had no human intelligence assets in Iraq or Afghanistan prior to 9/11.


I think most folks think this just works like an episode of 24. It simply isn't so.

I think you believe everything is by the book -- or should be.

[Yonivore]

You know, Chumpy, you also presume that everyone who has knowledge is an ardent, unwavering ideologue that wouldn't sell out his cause -- even under torture.

There are many, many peripheral people that have useful knowledge that don't hold the same fervency as do the Zarqawi's and the bin Laden's (even though I doubt they'd be able to withstand torture).

[ChumpDumper]

Who knows and who cares?You do, since you're the one so eager to torture.
Well, if you go on the premise that torture has been used fairly consistently, I would imagine at least some of the intelligence successes during the Iraq war have been the result of a few yanked fingernails. Especially when you consider we had no human intelligence assets in Iraq or Afghanistan prior to 9/11.Wow, that's exact.
I think you believe everything is by the book -- or should be.I question the effectiveness of torture and the ham-handed way the administration is denying and condoning torture at the same time.

[ChumpDumper]

You know, Chumpy, you also presume that everyone who has knowledge is an ardent, unwavering ideologue that wouldn't sell out his cause -- even under torture.No, idiot, I'm asking how effective it is. How effective was it when our troops have been tortured? What did they get from us?

[Yonivore]

No, idiot, I'm asking how effective it is. How effective was it when our troops have been tortured?
I'm sure a lot of American P.O.W.'s revealed everything they knew when tortured and, I'm just as certain there were military compromises because of that. Who's to say, I'm not aware of any government or military actually releasing a report on their successful torture techniques.

I think you're confusing torture for military intelligence with the type of torture practiced by Saddam Hussein which, as best I can tell, was for his own amusement or to humiliate his political opponents into saying what he wanted them to say before his killed them.


What did they get from us?
Who knows? The al Qaeda hasn't released that report yet.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sure a lot of American P.O.W.'s revealed everything they knew when tortured and, I'm just as certain there were military compromises because of that.Wow, more exact evidence from you.
I think you're confusing torture for military intelligence with the type of torture practiced by Saddam Hussein which, as best I can tell, was for his own amusement or to humiliate his political opponents into saying what he wanted them to say before his killed them.

Who knows? The al Qaeda hasn't released that report yet.I know you are too small-minded to think beyond the current conflict and couldn't dream that the armed forces didn't debrief POWs to find out the methods and efficacy of torture used on them. You're such a fan and so knowledgeable about torure, surely you have this information.

[xrayzebra]

Look at the statement and your reply.

Quote:




we kill innocent women, children


true, not on purpose but true

They do. Each and everyday.

[Yonivore]

Wow, more exact evidence from you.
Here's a good article (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1522812) that talks about the effectiveness of torture.


I know you are too small-minded to think beyond the current conflict and couldn't dream that the armed forces didn't debrief POWs to find out the methods and efficacy of torture used on them. You're such a fan and so knowledgeable about torure, surely you have this information.

No, I've never studied torture and, my whole argument isn't about the morality of it either. I just believe it has been effective in certain cases, and in special circumstances, it might be good to know how it was made to be effective in those cases.

It is one of those slippery slope things where, once you do it, you run the risk of letting it become the rule instead of the exception...that has happened time and time again in history and is, probably, what has led to it being deemed ineffective.

You seem to believe I'm arguing in favor of torture. I'm merely pointing out that it exists, will continue to be employed and has, on many occassions, borne results.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's a good article (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1522812) that talks about the effectiveness of torture."Torture had led Fawkes to produce a name that fed the false or wilful assumptions of the English government, but did not point to the truth."

Effective, indeed.

[SA210]

:lol

[Yonivore]

"Torture had led Fawkes to produce a name that fed the false or wilful assumptions of the English government, but did not point to the truth."

Effective, indeed.
Fawkes wasn't the only one tortured...

[ChumpDumper]

Fawkes wasn't the only one tortured...The article isn't about them, is it?

Look, you're for torture because Bush is. Don't be ashamed of it and don't be a hypocrite about it.

[Yonivore]

The article isn't about them, is it?

Look, you're for torture because Bush is. Don't be ashamed of it and don't be a hypocrite about it.
I'm for anything that works. I'll leave the efficacy of it to the experts.

In googling the effectiveness of torture, I found a few articles that talk about how it was effective in getting P.O.W.'s to "confess" to crimes for propagandist reasons or to do the bidding of the enemy by making demoralizing statements on the radio broadcast back to their troops.

I'm still looking for articles on the effectiveness of torture to extract information that will prevent a future act -- not address a past event. I do believe that is an entirely different circumstance.

Most of what I'm finding talks about torture to make prisoners do and say what you want. Please, if you can find something, post it...I'm all ears.

[ChumpDumper]

In googling the effectiveness of torture, I found a few articles that talk about how it was effective in getting P.O.W.'s to "confess" to crimes for propagandist reasons or to do the bidding of the enemy by making demoralizing statements on the radio broadcast back to their troops.Right. McCain signed one of those useless statements, and look where he stands on the issue.

[Yonivore]

Right. McCain signed one of those useless statements, and look where he stands on the issue.
I agree, I'm not talking about torture for propaganda reasons; I'm talking about torture, coersion, or other techniques that have been effective in thwarting a catastrophic event or in revealing an enemy strategy in advance.

I'm really trying to be civil here ChumpDumper.

[Yonivore]

Here's a pretty good discussion on the topic:
Article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/582xauup.asp?pg=1)


Anyone who has had serious pain intentionally inflicted upon him or her--and clandestine-service junior officers receive a small but sufficient dose in their training--knows that the truth has an imprint upon the brain that can withstand the distress, confusion, and loneliness of aggressive interrogation. Lies don't have the same tenacity. There is a reason why the former prisoners of war who briefed my junior-officer class on the pitfalls of imprisonment warned that the truth will come out. No professional intelligence officer alive wants to torture people. No moral man isn't repelled by the damage done to the victim and the perpetrator. But sadism and primitive notions of justice and salvation aren't the only reasons why men, particularly men in danger, have had recourse to torture for millennia.

[Ocotillo]

I don't think the terrorists care. They're going to continue their acts of barbarity regardless of how high the moral ground we take. You're not earning any points for being nice.




Screw the terrorists. You take the moral high ground for yourself and for like minded people. We need allies in the war on terror and that includes other nations and people in those nations.

Again, if we resort to their tactics, we are not different from them.

[xrayzebra]

Screw the terrorists. You take the moral high ground for yourself and for like minded people. We need allies in the war on terror and that includes other nations and people in those nations.

Again, if we resort to their tactics, we are not different from them.

I haven't seen much evidence that we have used their tactics. You know of
any heads we have chopped off? Degrading someone is not terror or
torture, happens here on this forum on a daily basis. Keeping someone awake for hours on end is not terror or torture, happens to new parents on
a daily basis. Putting dog collars on people is not degrading or torture,
they sell them for people to wear all over town and all the "cool" folks wear
them on TV all the time. Do you know of any acts where we have
run homicide bombers into crowds of shoppers? And, I don't want all the
crap about us bombing innocent people, war is war and will always be so.
Bitch slapping someone walking down the street is not a brave act. And
when you kill someone when they are in no position to defend themselves
that is exactly what it is.

[Duff McCartney]

If there is a ticking bomb located in an American city, counting down to an detonation that will kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, I don't fucking care if you start feeding the terrorists through a cheese slicer until they talk -- or don't talk (whatever the case may be) -- eventually one will sing like a canary.

If these guys are willing to fly into a building, then I'm sure they could give two shits about being fed through cheese slicers.

I think torturing is wrong, period. It doesn't say much about me, when I'd be willing to do the same thing the terrorists do. I will not lower myself like that.

[xrayzebra]

^^ read my post above yours.