Bush Pulls Top Bodyguard From Scuffle

Demigorgon said:
What I find alarming is how easily the Prez coulda got whacked in a situation like this.

He goes in, the guards close ranks, and its over before his SS men know what happened.

Indeed. I can, to some extent, understand why the agent was so concerned, but it would appear that maybe he expressed his concern the wrong way.

On the other hand, the real clusterfuge was before, when the arrangements were made. Somebody dropped one there, and pretty hard.

Does anyone know if 'W' is one of the "easy" or one of the "hard" people to protect? I gather different presidents have presented different levels of difficulty to the Secret Service.
 
jj said:

Does anyone know if 'W' is one of the "easy" or one of the "hard" people to protect?
Why do you want to know?






"Hello, Secret Service? Listen, there's this guy..."
 
BPSCG said:
Why do you want to know?






"Hello, Secret Service? Listen, there's this guy..."

You're not funny.

I'm wondering if the guy in the picture was stressed by the need to protect someone who isn't easy to protect or not.
 
It seems like the assumption that a lot of people in this thread are making is that security arrangements were FUBAR'd in the planning stage and this is where things went wrong. However, isn't it possible that the planning had indeed taken place and agreements had already been made about these things, with this incident happening anyway? I don't think that the president pulling the SS agent inside with him really proves the point that the Chilean security simply did not know that the SS agents were "with" the president. The only thing this proves is that Chilean security didn't want to get into the same kind of shoving match with the US president that they got into with the US president's security force.

The way I see it, there are a few possibilities of how this happened. First, it could've been a communication breakdown between the US and Chilean authorities. Second, it could be a lack of communication in US security. Third, it could've been a breakdown of communication in Chilean authorities. Or, the fourth, there was perfect communication and the incident still took place.

Perhaps it is paranoid of me to entertain these thoughts, but I think it is absolutely possible that the Chilean security was aware of the plan, and simply trying to flex their muscle. Judging from the mockery of the US Secret Service agents, it seems fairly plain to see that there was already a negative attitude towards these guys. I suppose a good way to get a clue on this would be to find out if other world leaders were also denied their security teams.
 
Haw! Security seems to act like Jr. high school boys on the play ground. Taunting each other?? "Oooohhh you have to hide behind your president huh toughguy!"


Whats the normal protocol anyway?? Do foriegn bodyguards pack heat in the whitehouse?
 
Seeing as how 42 men have been President of the United States and nine of them have either been murdered or had attempts made, I don't blame the Secret Service for being difficult with anyone who would compromise their boss's security.

  • Murdered:
  • Lincoln
  • Garfield
  • McKinley
  • Kennedy

    Attempts:
  • Jackson
  • Theodore Roosevelt
  • Franklin Roosevelt
  • Ford
  • Reagan
 
BPSCG said:
Seeing as how 42 men have been President of the United States and nine of them have either been murdered or had attempts made, I don't blame the Secret Service for being difficult with anyone who would compromise their boss's security.

This is true.

That, among other things, is why I suspect that there was a protocol fluff before it all happened. Given that this is not an uncommon thing (agents protecting the head of a government) the situation may have looked more threatening than it was.

On the other hand, BPSCG, your "jokes" aren't the least bit funny.
 
jj said:
On the other hand, BPSCG, your "jokes" aren't the least bit funny.
Still annoyed about that, huh?

The first Mrs. BPSCG worked for a U.S. intelligence agency. Whenever we'd mention it at a party or something, people would say, "Really? What do you do there?"

The answer was always, "Why do you want to know?"

People laughed. Nobody ever freaked.
 
BPSCG said:
Still annoyed about that, huh?

The first Mrs. BPSCG worked for a U.S. intelligence agency. Whenever we'd mention it at a party or something, people would say, "Really? What do you do there?"

The answer was always, "Why do you want to know?"

People laughed. Nobody ever freaked.

I don't think the subject is funny. Things are bad enough in this country already without giving the people who want to take our civil rights any more excuses.
 
BPSCG said:
Still annoyed about that, huh?

The first Mrs. BPSCG worked for a U.S. intelligence agency. Whenever we'd mention it at a party or something, people would say, "Really? What do you do there?"

The answer was always, "Why do you want to know?"

People laughed. Nobody ever freaked.

I thought it was funny. Some folks can't take a joke.
 
fishbob said:
Let me check the rule book . . . yep, page 335 - the campaign is over. You are required to mock the president until next campaign season. If for any reason, the president has not done anything mockable, mock the VP or the speaker of the house.

Aren't they trying to alter the rule book to make room for Arnold?

:D :D :D
 
BPSCG said:
Seeing as how 42 men have been President of the United States and nine of them have either been murdered or had attempts made...
I count ten, including the attempt on Harry Truman while he was residing at Blair House (during the White House renovation).
 
BPSCG said:
Seeing as how 42 men have been President of the United States and nine of them have either been murdered or had attempts made...
(I'm going to word this carefully, so as not to be in violation of forum rules)

Hmmm. Nine out of 42 is more than 21%. So would it be fair to say that any one president has a 1 in 5 chance of an attempt by firearms, successful or otherwise, on his life? If so, isn't it about time, statistically, to expect the next attempt?

And if that's so, what's megabrain GWB doing inviting trouble by mixing it up with his own trigger-happy guards and the mercurial and notoriously trigger-happy Chilean security people?

*sigh*

I loathe GWB personally, but I'd really much prefer not to see him a victim of some angry shouting redneck with an Uzi.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
I count ten, including the attempt on Harry Truman while he was residing at Blair House (during the White House renovation).
You're right.
 
Zep said:
And if that's so, what's megabrain GWB doing inviting trouble by mixing it up with his own trigger-happy guards
Trigger-happy? Please enlighten me; when was the last time a Secret Service agent shot anyone? Can you say you've even seen one with a drawn gun since 1981, when Reagan was shot? And on that occasion, with three people lying wounded on the sidewalk and Reagan in his limo with a bullet just an inch from his heart, did the "trigger-happy" Secret Service return John Hinckley's fire?

Trigger-happy? That agent was trying to do his job, which is to personally keep his own body between the president and a moving bullet. How is that "trigger-happy"?

You seem to have a different definition of the term from the commonly-understood one.
 
Zep said:
And if that's so, what's megabrain GWB doing inviting trouble by mixing it up with his own trigger-happy guards and the mercurial and notoriously trigger-happy Chilean security people?

I wondered the exact same thing.
 
demon said:
Looks like Bush is still wearing his little prompting device under his jacket...slightly different place though...more upper right shoulder. Hope it didn`t get damaged...anyone hear his speech or anything after this incident? Was it worse than usual?:p

Nope.. Just the same taylor..
 

Back
Top Bottom