Scotland Yard seems to be pretty annoyed at a list of arrogant, paranoid, controlling, fascistic, thin-skinned demands being made by the White House for Shrubby’s upcoming UK visit.
The Bushies are hiding behind “security” issues as an excuse, of course but it’s perfectly clear that the real reason is that they don’t want any protesters to be seen on television cameras. In the US they already routinely herd protesters away from cameras and out of ear and eye shot of Dumbya in flagrant disregard of the First Amendment. Now they think they have the right to stomp on protesters in other countries as well.
UK posters, please tell me that you won’t cave in to this bullshit. Please tell me that the WH will not be sucessful in pursuing its Gestappo-like agenda. Please tell me that protesters will be hounding this little shit from the moment he steps off the plane until the moment he leaves. Please do not let your government accommodate a controlled, three-day PR event for the White House. Don’t let this little fucker, Bush (or more likely, Rove) tell you what you do and do not have the right to say in your own country or whwere you may or may not go in your own city.
Jezuz, what a load of transparent crap. If assassination was their real concern, then whatever useless thing it is that Bush is scheduled to do, it could be done from inside a secure location. There’s no need to expose Bush to anything public.
This is quite frightening, given the Bush administration’s poor judgment shown on other matters:
That article reads more like a gossip piece than a news piece.
Unclebeer, you’re a fucking retard, too, by the way, if you take that quote to mean that the US Secret Service has free reign to shoot whoever they want to with no repercussions and no responsibility on their (or the US’s) part. It doesn’t say that, and anyone not jaded by their extreme hatred of Bush would realize that such an arragement is completely impossible. The quote is probably more about divvying up responsibility between US and UK security forces.
Yeah! Stupid UncleBeer! Bush would never consider himself or his administration above the law, and has a solid track record of respecting the civil rights–especially the civil rights of foreign nationals! The man’s virtually a paragon of liberty: Under the Bush administration, no one has ever been held without trial, tried in a secret court, refused access to council, shipped off to another country to be tortured, or anything else bad like that!
Does anyone else envision the episodes of South Park where Jimbo and Ned were out hunting? “Look, Ned, it’s coming right for us!” Now put Jimbo and Ned in suits and replace the deer and bunny rabbits with suspicious looking Arabs
Well, that’s not exactly what I mean, TaxGuy, but thanks for the vote of confidence in my reasoning ability. Only a hyper-reactionary jerk would entertain even a fleeting notion that anyone believed what you ask if I do. I merely think it exceedingly stupid to permit a group of men, armed with automatic weapons, to be permitted to fire into large crowds of innocent people under any circumstances.
Indeed; it does not say that. Nor did I claim that it did. What then, explains your knee-jerk assumption that I might believe such a thing possible?
Possibly. But then it does say “Rules of Engagement.” Which, from a military standpoint, are the rules governing conduct of the participants in an action. Rules of Engagment are most certainly not administrative in nature.
And that article reads more like an editorial than a gossip piece to me.
It still sounds scary, Taxguy. It’s also a little fuzzy on what constitutes “threatening the life of the president,” don’t you think?
I notice you haven’t really addressed the substance of the piece other than to dismiss it as “gossip.”
Do you think it’s acceptable for the WH to demand that all marching be banned and that all access to Central london should be shut down? Do you really think it’s all about “security,” especially given the dubious tactics which have been employed against peaceful protesters in the US and the Bushitas’ almost psychotic need to control any and every aspect of Bush’s public appearances. These are the same people who ordered that the USS Lincoln be turned around before Bush’s flight suit stunt so that the San Diego shoreline would not be visible to televison cameras (this exposing the charade that the tailhook landing was somehow necessary because the carrier was too far off shore for a helicopter landing). There was no “security” reason for that, it was done purely to filter out an image which might be politically embarrassing. Why should we believe that the WH demands vis-a-vis the London visit are any different?
By Golly, **Ino]/b], I think you’re on to something! A faith-based protection! The Sacred Service!
Just imagine the political impact if, like, a whole wad of left wankers is marching in protest and whamm-o - they are smitten with boils and a plague of frogs and all thier first born turn gay, or something!
Would certainly give me a moment of pause to consider my political opinions vis-a-vis Divine Will!
These sorts of unreasonable demands are not new. When Clinton came to Uganda, the country was asked to suspend all commercial flights within eight hours of his approach and departure. Yeah, right…
