That doesn’t follow, logically. Of course, an unpopular and disliked leader is more likely to be an assassination target than a popular and well-liked one. Duh. This does not mean he’s “asking” to be shot at; it just means he sucks as a leader.
I find your ideas intriguing. Have you a newsletter I might subscribe to?
What makes the OP think that nobody has tried to assassinate GWB? For all we know there may be an attempt every few weeks. With all his obsession with secrecy, I doubt he’d broadcast to the general public every time someone tries to kill him.
But what happened to the wannabe assassins? Are they found in an alley full of 9mm holes with a crack purchase in their hand? Is there a mental ward/jail full of detained people without a trial? I don’t think the SS or FBI just warn assassins off, do they? There would be trials or leaks about attempts from family or associates.
Would attempts be bad for GWB? I’d imagine fence sitters might move a bit to GWB’s side so his rating would improve slightly, especially after the spin doctors have finished.
Not the kind of thing you could readily cover up. Your typical would-be assassin doesn’t have anywhere near the resources to get close the the President in private; thus far every presidential assassination or assassination attempt that I’m aware of has been done in public. You just can’t conceal that sort of thing. We may not be made aware of all the details, but the event itself would be impossible to cover up. That doesn’t negate the possibility of a private assassination attempt, of course, but how likely is that really given the extraordinarily high level of security surrounding the President in his private venues?
This is like asking why somebody hasn’t killed Bono because he’s almost as popular as John Lennon was. You’re trying to ascribe rational logic to acts of insanity.
It’s not like people shoot Presidents for rational reasons. John Hinckley shot Reagan to impress an actress he had never met - do you think he considered Reagan’s political agenda before doing that?
What makes you say that? Look Here
Nutjobs don’t get provoked by good, logical reasons. Nutjobs get provoked by nutjob reasons! Look at all the previous presidential assassins, successful and would-be. They mainly had personal reasons. How universally hated Bush is, or how much harm he’s actually done, are irrelevant.
If you get a chance, watch a performance of the Stephen Sondheim musical Assassins.
They probably wouldn’t bother with a trial or an American prison for assassins or even suspected assassins under this Administration; they’d just send them to some place like Syria or Egypt to be tortured and held in some dungeon, or just ‘disappeared’.
No, that’s saying that if you’re unpopular, you’re increasing the odds that somebody is going to dislike you enough to try to kill you. If someone tries to kill you, odds are it’s because he really doesn’t like you. If there are lots and lots of people who really don’t like you, the odds of one of them disliking you enough to try to kill you increases. That’s rather simple logic. I don’t think it actually holds up, due to a variety of other factors, but it’s a completely reasonable assumption, and it’s not at all the same as saying that anyone is “asking” to be killed.
For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. knew that his actions would provoke a segment of people who he knew to be dangerously violent. He absolutely had to know that any prominent leader of the civil rights movement would be a target for assassination, but he didn’t let that stop him. That doesn’t mean that he was “asking” to get killed, but he was in a position where the chances of him being killed were pretty damned high. If he had made it through the entire civil rights movement without anyone taking a shot at him, that would be pretty remarkable.
Will someone please send out word through the sekrit channels that it’s time to move ahead to the next page in the Republican playbook? This one is sooo January. Oh, and drink more Ovaltine.
Starving, could you stop trying to warp every thread on any political topic into another piece of evidence of the vast liberal conspiracy to destroy George Bush? This thread was about Presidential assassinations - it’s not a sign of political ideology that it’s centered around the current President.
Just wanted to make a combined comment on these two posts … I got a close look at some of the SS precautions surrounding Dan Quayle in ~1991, and found it very interesting. A lot of things they were doing I didn’t understand at the time … The type of precaution that Doctor refers to were pretty obvious; I thought at the time that, were I a rational assassin, I’d back off and try to find a better time. The things I didn’t understand, I realized later, were aimed at the Hinckley-style nutcase (rather than someone making logical plans), and were there to get him to reveal his intentions before the VP was in a vulnerable position. (I have no intention of getting into details, but they really were quite ingenious.) So, ratatoskK really has a good point here–Q.E.D. wonders how they could keep a foiled attempt secret, because he has a vision of someone yanking out a gun and pulling the trigger, and SS agents piling on him, with the TV cameras rolling all the while. But I don’t think that’s at all likely to happen any more. What happens is, before the potential target shows up, and while the cameras are still warming up, a nondescript-looking guy is quietly led off by a couple plainclothes agents. Nobody would notice a thing, and quite possibly nobody would ever hear about it …
Sorry. I could have sworn…you know, given the thread’s title and all…that it was about Bush.
:rolleyes:
It is about Bush. He’s the President. And we’re discussing Presidential assassination. Hillary Clinton isn’t the President. There’s no ideological agenda being pushed here other than your own.
I think the correct answer to the OP is, “Because the Secret Service is very, very good”.
Every time someone takes a shot at a president, the Secret Service adapts. After Kennedy was shot, Presidents stopped driving around in convertibles. A whole host of procedures were changed after Hinckley shot Reagan. And you can bet security was increased dramatically after 9/11.
There are probably lots of people who are trying to get at Bush - just like there are people trying to get at every president. They’re just not as good as the Secret Service. Some get caught, some get scared away after seeing the situation, and some simply never get the opportunity to act because the Secret Service has all the bases covered.
If I were Bush, I’d be most worried about my retirement. Presidents no longer get lifetime Secret Service protection after they leave office, and while it lasts the protection doesn’t extend down the chain of family as far as it used to.
If the question really is why hasn’t someone** tried** to assassinate GW Bush, I’d agree with the poster on page 1 of the thread who suggested that we’d likely not know unless the attempt was made in a public forum. Ditto for Hillary Clinton.
Why would the Secret Service make it public? It seems to me it would only risk others making similar attempts in the way that public school shootings became a tragic “fad” of their own.
Oh, I disagree. This, from the first paragraph of the OP:
“I’ve been thinking about this lately - Bush seems to be the most universally hated president of the past 100 years or so. Moreso, he’s one of the most actively dangerous, as he’s done so much to harm the U.S. already and is looking to do more in the name of his Iraq war.”
Both of these observations are born of personal belief, not fact. I’m not pushing an ideological agenda; I’m showcasing hypocrisy, bias and hatred…both on the part of the OP and other contributors to the thread.
There are oodles of political threads on this board in which I’ve made no comment whatsoever, so your characterization of my posting behavior further above is erroneous.
Further, this is a public message board and I’m perfectly well entitled to offer my observations in regard to whatever is going on in a particular thread. Given that there is no “Moderator” tag under your name–yet–kindly do not presume to try to characterize what I’m allowed to post and what I’m not.
Then start a thread and find out.
It was a rhetorical device, dear. I already know the answer.
Also, you people might want to take note that until you resurrected my little observation your attempt to be public scolds, I had contributed nothing further to this thead. But I do thank you for giving further voice to my comments at this late stage in the thread.