US wants a 3day shutdown of central london for Bush.

My favorite part of the article is the picture of GWB they included:



He looks like he's trying to pinch a loaf after a trip to Golden Corral.

 

So we're now in the same league as the Chinese? C'mon. There is no President in our history that would insist on this kind of junk. There's no President in our history that wouldn't have the guts to appear before protesters. Sure, you take basic security precautions, but you don't sacrifice the ideals of democracy. This is ridiculous and reminds me of the cowering in Air Force One on 9-11. Wimp.

 

He has no problem lobbing cruise missiles half-way around the world, but is too big of a wuss to stand up to Americans and Brits who disagree with his politics. He'd rather shut down half a city than hear his name used in vain.

That should tell you everything you need to know about this guy.

 

couldn't have said it better myself.

 

you're assuming this is the president's call to make...usually details regarding his security are not his call to make. they're made for him by those in the secret service who are assigned to cover him.

 

And obviously these people are working overtime nowadays!

Can't wait to see how the secret service plans to shut down New York next year.

 

Somehow I feel lqwakefan is running the state department now.

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?threadid=67984

 

yeah...i'm not saying they're right...but then again, i'm not presuming to know more about defending the life of the president of the united states of america than the secret service is.

how about this...if they had knowledge of some threat...or some reason to believe his life were in danger...but ignored it because they didn't want to step on anyone's toes...and he was shot and killed...wouldn't we all be attacking the secret service for not doing their job?? this is another damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario that americans love to sit back and pick on.

 

if shutting down downtown London for 3 whole days is what is required to ensure Bush's safety, then he doesn't need to be there, make other arrangments.

 

Exactly.

 

Doesn't it say something when our coalition "allies" are having such a problem with Bush coming around?

He's heckled by the Australian parliament (while members wall out on his speech), now shutting down London for three days to avoid those pesky protesters?

Yeah! He's a uniter!

 

fair enough...but that's starkly different than saying, "hey...our president is a wimp." he's simply not in charge of his own security.

 

The Secret Service is part of the Executive Branch, no? There are many examples of Presidents going against the recommendations of the Secret Service when it involves their own actions.

This is not so much presidential safety as it is political. Go read Gore's speech in the other thread.

 

ok...are you asserting the president has control over his security? i don't know the answer to that question, but i'm assuming he doesn't...the standing of the secret service in the executive branch, notwithstanding.

it's only political because you're making it out to be political. i have no idea what is commonplace in security, particularly since 9/11, for the president.

 

Security is one thing. This is the President of the United States -- his security is *the* most important aspect of this visit. But shutting down half of London for three days? London is as big as New York City!

This has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with stifling dissent. From the leader of the world's most powerful democracy, no less.

 

the article is calling it a "virtual shut-down." any clue what that means?? i mean, we can guess...but do we have any more details as to specifically what they're asking for?

 

You can't honestly believe that Bush realisticly requires this much protection? This is in London mind you, a stauch ALLY's capitol city!

Since the security requests are so unrealistic, there is only one other conclusion that can be drawn, that Bush doesn't want any visable sign of opposition to his policies being shown to the American people on TV while he is there.

when you step back and look at the big picture here, that Bush never answers tough questions, never allows himself to be in situations where he would be embarrased by protesters, and now this bizarre request for London, it all starts to point in one direction..

 

He doesn't have control of his security in the day-to-day stuff, but he does have control in the sense that if the SS comes to him and says, "We don't want you to do X and if you do Y, we have to do Z," then he can say, "No, I'm doing X and I'm doing Y, and you're not going to do Z." For chrissakes, FDR made public appearances when the whole world was at war and there were hordes of German and Japanese (though some of the latter were locked up)immigrants living in this country. It is crazy to me that people who disagree with Bush's policies are thought of as potential assasssins. It happens here as well... Supporters are allowed close, protestors have to be miles away and out of sight. Nixon's "Imperial Presidency" had nothing on this guy.

All that said, I read the Newsweek article on Cheney over lunch and I now consider it of paramount importance to keep Bush safe at all costs until he is turned out next November. To have a lunatic like Cheney with anymore power would be a disaster orders of magnitude beyond which we have now.

 

how much??? what are they asking??? we have a very broad, generalized article that makes the claim they're asking for a virtual shut-down of the city. how, at this point, do you know if they're being reasonable or unreasonable? have we heard anyone from the administration or from secret service comment on this?? so far..i see that he won't be riding in an open carriage (damn him!! damn him!! damn him!!! that tyrant!!!), the Yard is keeping all of its personnel ready to help while he's there, and there will be some exclusion zone which has yet to be defined. outside of that and the broad sweeping generalization, i have no idea what is really being asked for here...and neither do you.