Priceless quote from the BBC:
Oh, er… that’s alright then…
Heh. All this fuss about ‘the armed guards’. Yep, we all remember the bloodthirsty Secret Service and how they riddled Leon Czolgosz, Sara Jane Moore, Squeaky Fromme, Charlie Guiteau, Sirhan Sirhan, Lee Harvey Oswald, and John Hinckley with bullets after they shot or tried to take a shot at the VIPs they were protecting.
Oh, wait…
Re Nixon, I doubt the exact words “I have a secret plan to end the Vietnam War” came out of his mouth (it’d be interesting to reread the actual speech that spawned this) - but it was clearly suggested by Nixon that he had ideas cooked up that would end the war, though of course no details could be supplied during thhe campaign.
According to an essay on militaryhistoryonline.com (one of numerous online sources referring to the “secret plan” claim:
" Nixon implied during his speech that evening that he had a “secret” plan to end the war and succeeded in attracting the attention of the press.(6) He denied however, that there was a magic formula to achieve peace and he tried to avoid the political trap of providing a concrete plan.(7) For the growing anti-war faction (known as doves) and moderates in the country, Nixon spoke less of escalating military measures and protecting vital interests and more of taking non-military steps towards peace. For the pro-war advocates (known as hawks) and conservatives, he continued to talk about keeping firm pressure on Vietnam and winning the peace. To all Americans, he spoke of “peace with honor.”
In other words, classical bullshit.
It was called “killing all the Vietnamese”.
would’ve worked , too.
I hope you are aware that London is in the UK, not the USA.
Nixon’s secret plan was the so-called “Madman theory,” which entailed convincing everyone that Nixon was ready to dispatch Fat Boys around the world at the drop of a hat. Didn’t work.
I was going to say the same thing. How many hundreds-strong armed foreign security forces does the US regularly allow on its soil?
Just to clean this one up a bit…RFK’s bodyguards did shoot at Sirhan Sirhan. Czolgosz and Guiteau were before the creation of the modern Secret Service. It would have been one helluva shot to get LHO after his third shot. Moore, Fromme, and Hickley were physically subdued so quickly there was no need for a shot. Now, the Secret Service did off one of the two Puerto Ricans who were attempting to assassinate Truman…
Anyway, this is hardly the point. Few (not none, but few) police in the UK are armed, and the British police force has made it a point to keep it that way. That’s why there’s a concern about armed police protecting Bush…the UK does not have a long-standing experience with them, and is suspicious of them by nature.
BTW, one reason for increased UK criticism of Bush (aside from the fact that he lets the wild-eyed Christian Dipshit Right control his foreign policy) is his very, very over-the-top security plan for the London visit. The Secret Service was denied “shoot-to-kill” rights, along with requests to bring Black Hawk helicopters, fighter jets, US troops, and fucking TANK MOUNTED HEAVY WEAPONS.
Can you see how this would offend another nation’s citizens? How would the average right-wing mouthbreather react if Putin wanted to bring a small army on his next visit? Who has the historical perspective of a squirrel?
Mehitabel, it’s knobs like you that make real Americans look bad.
jjimm is right again. I believe no PM has ever been killed in the UK, and they do it all with clubs. Huzzah! I will now eat a fried cod in honor of our transatlantic friends.
No, we lost a PM to gunshot back in 1812 - Spencer Perceval:
It was reported on ITN on Sunday night that the US Secret Service wanted to shut down the whole Tube network and to mount ant-aircraft batteries on the roof of Buck House. In one of the daily papers it also said that a radio jamming device has been installed in the palace and now the Queen cannot watch television.
OK, the tanks and planes and stuff I didn’t know about. I thought that trabi was astonished at the very thought that the President’s security had–gasp!–guns, which seemed pretty naive to me, especially since there’s pix of gun-slinging Metro police all over the media. I was trying to reassure him/her that the Secret Service does NOT have a history of randomly spraying gunfire in defense of their charges, even when the charge has been shot dead. That’s all. I agree that the more extreme security request were silly, but in a city where the Mayor himself refuses to meet with the President and calls him ‘the greatest threat to world peace’ on a planet where Kim Jong Il still draws breath, I can understand why they would make them.
i am a lady archy always a lady, so does that mean I can still be a “knob”?
The Queen doesn’t have cable?:dubious:
I like the way Bush requested wall reinforcements and bullet-proof windows in Buckingham Palace… now THAT’s fucking nervy.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/18/bush031118
I hope I linked that right.
Not that I place faith in anything the Guardian has to say without corroboration by responsible press outlets.
But when one has the “wild-eyed Dipshit” Left saying things like “I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we’ve most probably ever seen. The policies he is initiating will doom us to extinction.”, and the statement comes from the mayor of the city the President is visiting, then some non-usual security precautions might be advisable.
If it hasn’t already, I expect the Guardian or similar purveyors of looneyness to explain to us that the armed security surrounding the President is really in London to intimidate people into not protesting, and that heavy weaponry is ready to be turned on anyone who so much as raises a protest banner anywhere in town.
ermm, have you ever read the Guardian? You might disagree with what is written in the opnions section but it’s reportage is unrivalled.
I hear tell she’s got some pretty racy DVDs.
Shot in the lobby of the House of Commons, even! Could I be more wrong? You bet! The mini-gun the SS wished to bring is actually really cute! And it needn’t be mounted on a tank!
Kim Il Jung has the Taepodong missile with a range of 3.000 to 6,000 km, and may or may not have nukes.
GW, by comparison, could rapidly launch thousands of nuclear weapons at the target of his choosing. The Bush League is pushing to revive research into low-yield “bunker buster” tactical nukes, which would make nuking offending objects/world leaders much more probable.
GW is on my side, and I’m on GW’s side, despite the nasty things we say about each other. But calling him the most dangerous man in history is factually correct, just as King Klinton was TMDMIH during his term.
I just heard an NPR reporter paraphrase Bush’s comments about the protests as saying he’s thrilled to be travelling to a democratic country where people have the right to protest.
Did he actually say this? Did the fucker actually say this?
Maybe if it’s so goddamned exciting for him, he can tell his secret service goons to quit with the Free Speech Zones back home, then.
Daniel