Reply With Quote
He'll get around to it...around election time.
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.
Last edited by boutons; 12-15-2005 at 07:38 PM.
He'll get around to it...around election time.
He was probably making vacation plans
^^^ while he's on vacation
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.
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?
Yeah, all things that are wrong according to dimm-o-craps and their
most ardent supporter McCain.
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.
Every time you question the war, a baby fetus is aborted.
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
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 fic ious 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.
link
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?
But remember that he was against it, before he was for it.
Damn flip-flopper!!
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?
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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 ing 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.
Why? Wouldn't they just say anything to make it stop? How would anyone know it's the truth?eventually one will sing like a canary.
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.
How do you do that in time?It's called verifying the information
What do you do if you find out it's wrong?
Torture him some more?
What if he lies again?
Quickly.
Yep; if you're certain he's got information that'll be useful.
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.
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.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 exactly how effective has it been?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.
I think most folks think this just works like an episode of 24. It simply isn't so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
