Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[tw]

A 29 Nov 2005 commentary that asks a rather accurate question:

Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone
What does it say about the president of the United States that he won't go anywhere near ordinary citizens any more? And that he'll only speak to captive audiences?

President Bush's safety zone these days doesn't appear to extend very far beyond military bases, other federal installations and Republican fundraisers.

Tomorrow, Bush gives a speech on the war on terror -- at the United States Naval Academy. Then he attends a reception for Republican party donors.

Today, he visits a U.S. Border Patrol office, then attends a Republican fundraising lunch.

Yesterday, he spoke at an Air Force base and a Republican fundraiser.

Before leaving the country on his recent trip to Asia, Bush made one last speech -- at an Air Force base in Alaska. A few days before that, he spoke at an Army depot in Pennsylvania. When he delivered a speech on Nov. 1 about bird flu, it was to an audience of National Institutes of Health employees ....

The last speech Bush gave that was not explicitly controlled by the White House was in downtown Norfolk on Oct. 28. ...

The one person officially charged with answering questions at the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan, has been oddly averse to meeting with the press corps lately ....

As many readers and bloggers have recently pointed out, McClellan hasn't done a full-fledged briefing since November 9. ....

So basically: Torture is in the eye of the beholder, and we will be the only ones beholding, ....

I am reminded how long ago those who know this stuff were warning us about George Jr. Way back when, the Norwegian foreign minister said that George Jr would destroy the Oslo Accords. He did.

They let him out for just one minute. He says, "No one expected the levees to be breached." ... when he was told the previous Saturday night that the levees would be breached (defacto president Cheney was probably furious.) But few back then few really understood what a mental midget looks like.

All hail Richard Nixon ... for same reasons.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What does it say about the president of the United States that he won't go anywhere near ordinary citizens any more? And that he'll only speak to captive audiences?

Just like his reelection campaign.

I have a friend who got to be one of those "lucky" enlisted guys sitting in the rows on the platform when W. spoke at an army base. My friend said the whole thing was rehearsed endlessly and that W treated the soldiers like shit. Refused to so much as shake a single hand or acknowledge them once the dog and pony show was over.

[tw]

From the NY Times of 30 Nov 2005:[

U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers
The Government Accountability Office found this year that the Bush administration had violated the law by producing pseudo news reports that were later used on American television stations with no indication that they had been prepared by the government. But no law prohibits the use of such covert propaganda abroad.

Where do Fox News and Rush Limbaugh daily get their talking points faxed from? Is this really new - or just proof of what is widely known?

Clearly the administration did not out Valerie Plame. Administration said so. I believe them .... while vomitting.

[lumberjim]

tw, off topic, but ......do you have some aversion to the word "the" ??? it seems that you rarely use it.

Well, he did use the word "the" twice in the reply just above yours, LJ. I think tw is making good progress in overcoming is his difficultywith the "the" word. He's trying. Leave the boy alone!

[Elspode]

Propaganda and warfare go together like birds of a feather. Its like peanut butter and jelly...soup and sandwich...Laurel and Hardy...Jekyll and Hyde...theocracies and totalitarianism.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

tw, off topic, but ......do you have some aversion to the word "the" ??? it seems that you rarely use it.

When Tiger Woods began changing his swing, I got inspired to fix my form as well. I clearly must learn to write with fewer words. Since "THE" was the first word I learned in 1st grade, then it seemed like a good place to start.

"The Cat in the Hat sat on the Mat". Let's see. "A Cat in the Hat sat on the Mat". Well it does change the meaning. "The Cat in a Hat sat on the Mat". Not good enough. "The Cat in a Hat sat on a Mat". Even better. It still says what was originally intended - with four less letters.

I am so amused and totally curious. Been experimenting with the elimination of extraneous "THE"s. Never thought anyone would notice. Leave it up to a 'Straight guy with a queer eye' to see it. BTW, not the 'Straight guy ....' . A 'Straight guy....'

Lumberjim, did you also notice Tiger's new swing? I am completely fascinated (and feeling a little exposed) that you noticed my change.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by tw

"The Cat in the Hat sat on the Mat". Let's see. "A Cat in the Hat sat on the Mat". Well it does change the meaning. "The Cat in a Hat sat on the Mat". Not good enough. "The Cat in a Hat sat on a Mat". Even better. It still says what was originally intended - with four less letters.

Anytime you swap the indefinite article for the definite article you are changing the meaning of a constituent.

[tw]

Originally Posted by grant

Anytime you swap the indefinite article for the definite article you are changing the meaning of a constituent.

... sometimes. In this case, the elimination of "THE" caused no change in what was intended. It may have caused a change in the many ways another could have interpreted what was written. But the missing "THE" caused no change in what the author intended to say. The one interpretation intended by the author remains intact without "THE". (And now my spelling checker is complaining about dangling prepositions. No one is happy with this language - or why lawyers make so much money.)

[wolf]

Some languages don't even bother with definite articles. English, however, is definitely not one.

[tw]

I'm not lying. You can trust me. I'm a religious fanatical extremist.

And so we believed everything he said - at least 25% of us who are also so religious extremist as to advocate and endorse torture.
From the BBC of 8 Dec 2005:

US blocks ICRC access to suspects
The US has admitted for the first time that it has not given the Red Cross access to all detainees in its custody.

The state department's top legal adviser, John Bellinger, made the admission but gave no details about where such prisoners were held.

Even a mental midget would never be this despicable. No wonder he needs Bolton in the UN. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition - did we.

[tw]

From the BBC of 7 Dec 2005:

US 'shifts' position on torture
The US secretary of state says the UN treaty on torture applies to American interrogators in the US and overseas, in an apparent shift in US policy.

The Bush administration has previously said the convention, which bans cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, does not apply to US personnel abroad.

Wow! Suddenly its no longer acceptable for Americans to Gitmoize prisioners. Clearly god must have told George Jr something he did not know. Now George Jr, god's chosen disciple, can tell us all how to be good Christians.

Where are the above facts in error? Foolish me. I thought religous extremists were good people. My mistake.

[tw]

From the BBC of 7 Dec 2005:

'Tortured' Australian speaks out
A former Australian terror suspect says he was caught up in the controversial US policy of transferring detainees to foreign countries for interrogation. ...

The US State Department has not commented on his specific allegations, but says it does not transfer prisoners for the purposes of torture.

And clearly enlisted men brought dog collars with them to Iraq so as to walk naked prisoners down the halls of Abu Ghriad. Clearly Americans at the highest levels don't condone torture - just like Saddam conspired to attack the World Trade Center. After all, did not an honest president claim that in his State of the Union address?

Honest, decency, morality, and god's chosen people. Yep. That's US. Therefore when we torture, it must be for the greater glory of god ... or maybe our leaders are corrupt?

[tw]

We have two choices in Iraq. Either withdrawl to let Iraqis *earn* the government they want. Or send 500,000 troops in right now to end the insurgency. No. With Generals repeatedly complaining they don't have enought troops, instead, George Jr has decided he will appease you. He announced troop reductions. Not many. Just enough to hinder military operations in Iraq. He announced exactly what the Generals don't want.

At least in Vietnam where an insurgency also grew due to American presence, still, Americans could be relatively safe in Saigon or on the road to Tan Son Nhat airport. In Iraq, Americans cannot go in most all of Baghdad and are easily killed on but a five mile road to the airport. Yet somehow, George Jr tells us we are winning this war.

Meanwhile, it would appear the administration is quietly seeking to get out of Iraq.

... America's ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad said Americans could talk to any insurgents except extreme Islamists or former loyalists of Saddam Hussein; also said that Mr Bush had given him permission to "open a dialogue" with Iran, which has a (debatable) degree of influence over iraq's main Islamist Shia parties, over how best to bring stability to the country.

That from The Economist of 3 Dec 2005. Well at least the administration is slowly conceding what this author has been saying for years. Even George Jr has conceded that these are insurgents and not his mythical Al Qaeda terrorists. At current count, the US now knows of at least 74 different guerilla organizations. Even the little and overhyped Zarqawi group is suspected, in only eight months, to have grown from a few hundred to a few thousand active supporters.

These are intelligence estimated that have been previously underestimated in this war - as they also were in Vietnam. IOW how much larger is the insurgency in reality.

Recently 10 American Marines were killed in one attack in Fallujah. How can this be? Fallujah only has four entrances. All checkpoint equipped even with explosive sniffing machines. And yet still insurgents harmed 21 Marines in one (of many) attacks by using multiple artillery shells. Hiding those munitions in wreckage from a previous attack. All this inside a city that the US said was safe and that is kept munition free by four heavily guarded checkpoints.

Ahhh, the president would not lie. We are winning the "Mission Accomplished" war that we won years ago. And yet still Iraq produces less electricity today than when Saddam ran the country. George Jr hopes you never learn such facts. But we are winning. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

"Trust me", he says. Somehow I find that to be a tortured conclusion. Suggested by something I think I may have recently read (or quoted).