Should the President be allowed to use security as a fig leaf to suppress dissent and corral peaceful demonstrators hundreds of yard aways from his appearances, while allowing only supporters to surround him?
Here’s the link to the story from that thread, which is a Pit thread.
Unless there’re some unreported extenuating circumstances this guy was just standing in a crowd of people, many who were also holding signs. But if there are extenuating circumstances of some sort, why not charge him with whatever charges are relevant to those?
I’d devote a heck of a lot more consideration to your OP if it’s title hadn’t included the incredibly gratutitous and irrelevant “yellowcake”.
Your OP also makes the unsupported assertion that Bush was directly responsible for deciding to prosecute Bursey. The best you can really say is that someone in the Bush administration is (admittedly) being an asshole and wasting taxpayer’s money on a prosecution that has no intrinisc merit.
Given the bad publicity that’s going to result, and the potential mileage that political foes of the Bush Administration could get out if it (if they had any brains), I’m actually sort of surprised that person or persons responsible hasn’t gotten his ass kicked.
Well, howzabout “Landslide George”? Or “Commander Bunnypants”? Or my own personal favorite, “Fearless Misleader”? The difficulty is in coming up with an appellation that carries the exactly nuanced degree of respect to which he is entitled. Perhaps you have a suggestion?
If you start out a debate with an epithet, it is the equivalent of writing "this is an * ad hominem * argument". Most people will decide that the poster is immature or biased and discount what they have to say. This is not to say that the immature and biased don't occasionally have a point (even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes) but that's not the way to bet.
If your argument has merit, you don’t need the “not nearly as clever as you think” appellations.
I dont think its so much a matter of keeping the Occupant from unpleasant cognition so much as keeping such signs of dissent from the TV cameras. The image of approval and grateful solidarity is almost as important as the fact.
All this talk of intelligence errors and so on has distracted the media from the real political threat: the growing discontent and frustration amongst our soldiers and most especially amongst thier homeside spouses and relatives.
A sign saying “President Bush, you suck!” is one thing. A sign saying “Why isn’t my son home yet?” is quite another.
While I think that these actions are shameful and possibly illegal, “crushing dissent” and similar descriptions are inaccurate. There’s a big difference between hunting down critcs and prosecuting them, and prosecuting a critic that sought you out.
Read the OP again. Only those with dissenting views were kept away. Bush supporters were allowed within the perimeter. If the intent was to screen out terrorists, it was pretty stupid. All a terrorist had to do was wave a flag and say “God Bless George” and they would have a front row seat.
I guess you could do that yourself, Sam. All you’d need to do would be to refute the defence case that other protesters with signs favorable to Bush were allowed to stay, or else provide some other evidence that Bursey’s behaviour was in some way threatening to the president, beyond the mere presence of the “No War For Oil” sign.