1
   

Hail To The Chief ..... Or Not?

 
 
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2003 05:06 am
It is reported that many Britons are objecting to giving a warm enthusiastic welcome to the leader of slimy, lying, mass-murdering, land-grabbing, professional gangsters masquerading as politicians, not too unlike their own excuse for a government.

And, unlike the Clinton era, if there are large-scale demonstrations against the visit, what the heck? The TV footage can be edited for home consumption and reported as British national adulation - just as easily as the history of Jessica Lynch's heroic adventures in Iraq was rewritten!
Twisted Evil
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,955 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2003 07:05 am
Re: Hail To The Chief ..... Or Not?
John Webb wrote:
It is reported that many Britons are objecting to giving a warm enthusiastic welcome to the leader of slimy, lying, mass-murdering, land-grabbing, professional gangsters masquerading as politicians, not too unlike their own excuse for a government.


Lemme go out on a limb here, John, and guess that you are talking about George Bush.

I wasn't sure since you referred to him as a leader -- and I am convinced he is merely a puppet.

If I'm correct, and I am pretty sure I am -- BRAVO, John!
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2003 03:38 pm
It is reported that the Blair government is putting 5000 extra police on duty to protect the President from unfriendly Britons and to prevent embarrassing large-scale protest demonstrations getting anywhere near him.

Highly significant that Clinton needed almost NO protection and met cheering crowds everywhere ..... and still does?
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2003 04:01 pm
Shrub
I think it's his manner that causes many people to loath him. He has this phoney way of speaking that makes one feel that he is lying and knows it.
That little strut and smirk makes me Evil or Very Mad

Tony Blair & Bill Clinton are consumate PR guys with charm and charisma. Even when I disagree strongly with them I can still tolerate listening to them. They have the likeabilty factor.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2003 06:38 pm
Go take a lookat this graphic of his entourage.

How much do you think that's costing us?
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2003 06:42 pm
Way too freakin' much!!!!!
Couldn't this moron just use the Net? Somebody in his circle could set it up for him and he could read his script, right?
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 07:14 am
The President has said that during his visit, he wants to meet the families of British forces killed in Iraq.

This has created big problems for the British Government, because they are experiencing great difficulty in finding any family who does not believe this State visit to be no more than a cynical photo-opportunity during the run-up to next year's election and the invasion of Iraq to be nothing less than sanitized theft of their oil reserves.

Republican strategists are well aware of the boost given to the Reagan campaign, thanks to being shown on television with the Queen.

However, rumour has it that the Blair government are planning to avoid Presidential embarrassment by hiring actors to play the part of bereaved families and many others to join the 700 Presidential staff as cheering crowds for the cameras.
Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 09:57 am
John Webb wrote:
The President has said that during his visit, he wants to meet the families of British forces killed in Iraq.


That really is strange. He hasn't met with any of the families of Americans killed there yet.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 10:45 am
They (US security) wanted to close the whole West End of London for one of his jaunts. Fortunately my government declined the request (as it would have cost £millions in lost business, and affected millions of Londoner's days).

I saw on the news last night an interview with a US ex-pat group based in London, and they've coined the slogan 'Proud of my country, Ashamed of my president'. Which I thought summed it all up nicely.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 10:50 am
Q&A: London's plan to protect Bush


One of the largest policing operations in recent years is preparing to start in London to provide security for the State visit of US President George Bush. BBC News Online explains what will happen to the capital - and what protesters will be allowed to do.
What are the plans for President Bush's visit?

President George W Bush begins a three-day state visit to the UK on Wednesday 19 November.

The itinerary has yet to be publicised for security reasons, but a range of organisations are planning to stage protests over the war in Iraq.

Some 5,000 police officers are going to be on duty in the capital throughout the visit.

So what kind of protests are we expecting?

The principal organisers of the demonstrations are members of the coalition which led the "Stop the War" marches before the conflict.

In February, at least 750,000 people marched against the war, although nobody is expecting a similar number again.

However, what has been unclear until now is how the police were planning to handle protests, given the US administration's heightened sense of alert.

What has been going on behind the scenes?

Reports earlier this week suggested the US had demanded the Metropolitan Police shut down parts of central London.

But senior police officers have made it clear that this will not happen because they their job is to balance the president's security with the right to protest.

So London will not be closed down?

Not at all, says the Metropolitan Police.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Andy Trotter insists the police have not come under any pressure from the White House, Buckingham Palace, Downing Street or anywhere else.

In a briefing on Wednesday, he stressed Sir John Stevens, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, had the final say on the capital's security - and not the US secret service. And that meant there would be no "exclusion zones".

"It is our intention to facilitate lawful protest," said Mr Trotter. "We must be one of the most co-operative police forces [in the world] as we facilitate 3,500 demonstrations every year."

But what about keeping protesters away from the president?

One of the concerns of protesters is officers would confiscate banners in similar circumstances to the October 1999 visit of China's President Jiang Zemin.

Sir Paul Condon, the then head of the force, later said some of his officers had acted in error when they prevented demonstrators from making their voice heard as the Chinese delegation passed by.

Today, the force says it has reviewed how that visit was handled and "refined" tactics to balance security and the right to protest.

So what does this mean in practical terms?


Asked whether protesters would come close to President Bush, Mr Trotter said: "There is no intention to spare anyone embarrassment [of public protests]. But we must be really aware of the security issues."

So, protest marches will be banned from Whitehall and Parliament Square (an order usually in place when Parliament is sitting) and the force will prevent large crowds blocking the president's movements.

Police officers are likely to close and open individual roads on a rolling basis to allow the president's cavalcade to move around.

But the entourage could "quite easily" pass peaceful protesters lining the pavements as police would recognise their right to be there.

Do the police believe there is any specific threat against the president?

The Metropolitan Police says it is handling the event in line with its heightened level of alert - but there is no specific intelligence of a threat.

It has drawn a comparison with May Day protests of recent years.

At each of those, the force says there has been intelligence of planned violence. So far, there has been no such expectation of violence for the president's visit.

However, Mr Trotter stresses officers will be authorised to use wide-ranging anti-terrorism powers to stop and search protesters.

The same powers were unsuccessfully challenged in the High Court after they were controversially used against arms fair protesters in September.

So we are expecting a peaceful if noisy few days?

The Metropolitan Police says that it hopes protests will be peaceful and law abiding. It has praised the leaders of the Stop the War movement for how they have worked with the police so far.

Mr Trotter said February's huge anti-war march had been so well planned and marshalled there had been fewer arrests in central London than on an average Saturday - and it was hoping for a similar situation again.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3264667.stm
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 10:56 am
Re: Hail To The Chief ..... Or Not?
John Webb wrote:
It is reported that many Britons are objecting to giving a warm enthusiastic welcome to the leader of slimy, lying, mass-murdering, land-grabbing, professional gangsters masquerading as politicians


Listen, I think you're wrong about this 'slimy' part.

Greasy? Probably. Splotchy? Most definitely.

But they give the appearance of bathing at least often enough to rid themselves of the slime they ooze.
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2003 04:31 am
It is to be hoped that Bush's personal security force will not seek to emulate their colleagues in Iraq and start bumping-off local residents in 'friendly fire' incidents during his visit to England? Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 12:17 am
John Webb wrote:
It is to be hoped that Bush's personal security force will not seek to emulate their colleagues in Iraq and start bumping-off local residents in 'friendly fire' incidents during his visit to England? Embarrassed

What an interesting comment. Read this:
Quote:
'Shoot-to-kill' demand by US

Martin Bright, home affairs editor
Sunday November 16, 2003
The Observer

Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity to armed American special agents and snipers travelling to Britain as part of President Bush's entourage this week.

In the case of the accidental shooting of a protester, the Americans in Bush's protection squad will face justice in a British court as would any other visitor, the Home Office has confirmed.

The issue of immunity is one of a series of extraordinary US demands turned down by Ministers and Downing Street during preparations for the Bush visit.

These included the closure of the Tube network, the use of US air force planes and helicopters and the shipping in of battlefield weaponry to use against rioters.

In return, the British authorities agreed numerous concessions, including the creation of a 'sterile zone' around the President with a series of road closures in central London and a security cordon keeping the public away from his cavalcade.

The White House initially demanded the closure of all Tube lines under parts of London to be visited during the trip. But British officials dismissed the idea that a suicide bomber could kill the President by blowing up a Tube train. Ministers are also believed to have dismissed suggestions that a 'sterile zone' around the President should be policed entirely by American special agents and military.

Demands for the US air force to patrol above London with fighter aircraft and Black Hawk helicopters have also been turned down.

The President's protection force will be armed - as Tony Blair's is when he travels abroad - and around 250 secret service agents will fly in with Bush, but operational control will remain with the Metropolitan Police.

The Americans had also wanted to travel with a piece of military hardware called a 'mini-gun', which usually forms part of the mobile armoury in the presidential cavalcade. It is fired from a tank and can kill dozens of people. One manufacturer's description reads: 'Due to the small calibre of the round, the mini-gun can be used practically anywhere. This is especially helpful during peacekeeping deployments.'

Ministers have made clear to Washington that the firepower of the mini-gun will not be available during the state visit to Britain. In return, the Government has agreed to close off much of Whitehall during the visit - the usual practice in Britain is to use police outriders to close roads as the cavalcade passes to cause minimal disruption to traffic.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: 'Negotiations between here and the US have been perfectly amicable. If there have been requests, they have not posed any problems.'

An internal memo sent to Cabinet Office staff and leaked to the press this weekend urged staff to work from home if at possible during the presidential visit. Serious disruption would be caused by 'the President Bush vehicle entourage requesting cleared secured vehicle routes around London and the security cordons creating a sterile zone around him'.

Meanwhile, negotiations are continuing between police and demonstrators about the route of the march. Representatives of the Stop the War Coalition will meet police at Scotland Yard tomorrow to discuss whether protesters will be able to march through Parliament Square and Whitehall. Spokesman Andrew Burgin said he hoped for 'a good old-fashioned British compromise'.

[email protected]

You have to wonder if they had an "incident" planned. Shocked
0 Replies
 
williamhenry3
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 01:01 am
Re: Hail To The Chief ..... Or Not?
PDiddie wrote:
John Webb wrote:
It is reported that many Britons are objecting to giving a warm enthusiastic welcome to the leader of slimy, lying, mass-murdering, land-grabbing, professional gangsters masquerading as politicians


Listen, I think you're wrong about this 'slimy' part.

Greasy? Probably. Splotchy? Most definitely.


"Unctuous" is a better word for Dauntless Dubya.


Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 03:22 pm
One suggestion which might appeal to those with a warped sense of humor is the proposal that Britons, objecting to the war and the visit, use the most embarrassing form of non-violent public protest available, by 'mooning' the President during journeys and walk-abouts.

Consider the media coverage? Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 03:36 pm
Did anyone else see Bush's comments this morning?

He took a few questions, and was testy as usual. But he was dumbfounded when a reporter asked something about him being "concerned" about the visit to London at what was an "awkward political time" for him.

"Awkward??" He was stunned. "Awkward political time? For me? For me?"

He just has not a clue about how he is perceived. He kept repeating "This is going to be a fabulous trip, and I'm looking forward to it."
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 04:28 pm
Very tempting to wonder if this is similar to the story of "The Kings New Clothes"?

Few in England want him, but no one dare tell him, in case the messenger gets sent to Quantanimo Bay.Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 05:37 pm
After a bit of reflection, I thought I might detail what I comprehend are some of the options we have for understanding Bush's mindset relative to his trip to London (as revealed in my post above) and with my estimation of the possibility or likelihood of accuracy:

A. The information (that this is an "awkward political time", in the words of the British reporter, for him) is not available to the White House or any staff members who consult with the President frequently.


(extremely doubtful)

B. He has no ability to understand how he is perceived.

(quite possibly)

C. He knows how he is perceived but does not care.

(quite likely)

D. Although he is in the best position of anyone on Earth to be fully apprised of the current political situation anywhere on Earth in real time, he has no ability to grasp the importance of this intelligence or to comprehend it when it is presented to him.

(certainly possible, given his and his advisors' history of interpreting intelligence)

E. His advisors do not feel that his being informed is an important part of getting decisions from him and, as a consequence, generally only pass information related to their/his agenda.

(very likely)

I'm sure there must be other possibilities as well; let's hear some of yours...
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 09:09 am
It has just been reported that (to support the President's 2004 election campaign with plenty of photo-opportunities) the numbers of extra police on duty in England is now being increased to FIFTEEN THOUSAND ..... and the more they cheer the President, the bigger their pay. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
williamhenry3
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2003 09:46 pm
Hail to the Queen!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Hail To The Chief ..... Or Not?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 10:32:53