Bush quick like ninja!

[Smith]

Throwing shoes is not going to justify using deadly force, even if they are being thrown at the President.

Having worked protective details before, I can tell you that the press, and their equipment, are heavily screened for weapons and explosives. By the time you get that close to the President, your shoes are the only things that you will have to throw.

The guy was trying to make more of a statement than anything else. In the Arab culture, hitting something with the sole of shoe is considered to be very insulting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1340131/Afghan-resistance-chief-hurt-by-camera-bomb.html

Yeah, after all that security the Secret service doesn't even need to be in there anyway. You do remember the same scrutiny was taken in a press conference in Afghanistan just before a camera mans camera blew up and killed staff and injured the anti-Taliban resistance leader? How about the shoe bombs on airplanes? I know there is a different level of security, but it is still very possible.

Also, the Secret Services objective is not to analyze and respond to the lowest threat but to protect the President with due prejudice. They should have at the least immediately been on the scene if not have taken this guy down. He should have never gotten more than his arm cocked back before they reacted. I see firings coming.

[Guest canynracer]

ROFL!!!

[Reservoir Dog]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1340131/Afghan-resistance-chief-hurt-by-camera-bomb.html

Yeah, after all that security the Secret service doesn't even need to be in there anyway. You do remember the same scrutiny was taken in a press conference in Afghanistan just before a camera mans camera blew up and killed staff and injured the anti-Taliban resistance leader? How about the shoe bombs on airplanes? I know there is a different level of security, but it is still very possible.

Also, the Secret Services objective is not to analyze and respond to the lowest threat but to protect the President with due prejudice. They should have at the least immediately been on the scene if not have taken this guy down. He should have never gotten more than his arm cocked back before they reacted. I see firings coming.

You noted some valid threats, however, none of those situations involved POTUS. Comparing the level of security around Massoud to that of POTUS as the "same scrutiny" is laughable. Security around the President is tight, especially when visiting countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. Everybody will pass through metal detectors, shoes/bags/equipment x-rayed, and everything searched by bomb sniffing dogs. The Secret Service is thorough. Very thorough.

I can tell you have never worked a protective detail. Protectees generally do not like the bodyguards hovering over their shoulders all the time, or usually at all, especailly at a press conference with a head of state. In those instances, the bodyguards will be usually be more out of the picture than normal. If the protectee is working a rope-line pressing the flesh, that is a different story. The bodyguards will be right there with the protectee.

The incident in Iraq only lasted about 3 or 4 seconds. I could see the Secret Service coming into the picture right after the guy released the second shoe. Remember, action is always faster than reaction. The Secret Service/Iraqi guards reacted as fast as they could. I highly doubt there will be any firings.

FYI: If Massoud would have proper security, and had the reporter's camera equipment searched by bomb dogs (like the Secret Service does with POTUS), he would still be alive today. Massoud's assassination was ordered by Osama bin Laden because he knew that Massoud would be a powerful ally of the United States. It was no coincidence that Massoud was killed 2 days before the 9/11 attacks.

[Smith]

You noted some valid threats, however, none of those situations involved POTUS. Comparing the level of security around Massoud to that of POTUS as the "same scrutiny" is laughable. Security around the President is tight, especially when visiting countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. Everybody will pass through metal detectors, shoes/bags/equipment x-rayed, and everything searched by bomb sniffing dogs. The Secret Service is thorough. Very thorough.

I can tell you have never worked a protective detail. Protectees generally do not like the bodyguards hovering over their shoulders all the time, or usually at all, especailly at a press conference with a head of state. In those instances, the bodyguards will be usually be more out of the picture than normal. If the protectee is working a rope-line pressing the flesh, that is a different story. The bodyguards will be right there with the protectee.

The incident in Iraq only lasted about 3 or 4 seconds. I could see the Secret Service coming into the picture right after the guy released the second shoe. Remember, action is always faster than reaction. The Secret Service/Iraqi guards reacted as fast as they could. I highly doubt there will be any firings.

FYI: If Massoud would have proper security, and had the reporter's camera equipment searched by bomb dogs (like the Secret Service does with POTUS), he would still be alive today. Massoud's assassination was ordered by Osama bin Laden because he knew that Massoud would be a powerful ally of the United States. It was no coincidence that Massoud was killed 2 days before the 9/11 attacks.

Thanks for the view form the ivory tower, but your argument doesn't hold water. The guy was taken down by other reporters while the SS were still entering the picture looking as if they are still assessing the threat. However you look at it, it appears they failed. This very well could have been a trial run for a future attempt (not necessarily bush). The SS have one job to be constantly watching an reacting to any possible threat. This is not some ordinary security detail and no matter what you have served on, if you aren't SS you aren't even close to the same league.

BTW the security details were not in comparison but examples of similar attempts and possible scenarios.

[Reservoir Dog]

Thanks for the view form the ivory tower, but your argument doesn't hold water. The guy was taken down by other reporters while the SS were still entering the picture looking as if they are still assessing the threat. However you look at it, it appears they failed. This very well could have been a trial run for a future attempt (not necessarily bush). The SS have one job to be constantly watching an reacting to any possible threat. This is not some ordinary security detail and no matter what you have served on, if you aren't SS you aren't even close to the same league.

BTW the security details were not in comparison but examples of similar attempts and possible scenarios.

Since you seem so well versed on running protective details, exactly how many have you worked on?

[Smith]

Since you seem so well versed on running protective details, exactly how many have you worked on?

How many Presidential details have you been on? you do realize the absurdity of the position right?

BTW never made the claim, just an opinion and observation, which I think is about all anyone here has.

[Reservoir Dog]

How many Presidential details have you been on?

None. But I have previously worked for the US Department of State, and have worked on about 20 protective details for the SecState and many other foreign dignitaries. Also worked a couple of concurrent details with the Secret Service. I have worked pretty much every position in a protective detail.

BTW never made the claim, just an opinion and observation...

That's what I thought.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

I'll calmly submit that Dubya's failings were almost equally those of commission and omission.

Acting on equivalent of playground impulse and disregarding wise counsel.

Pretty much a failure of the entire "wisdom to know the difference" part of the Serenity Prayer.

I'd love to read historians' take on him in 25 years, but I'm unlikely to be around to do it, and I wouldn't bet the farm that the US will either, in any semblance of what we call sadly still call America even now.

As far as O, I doubt he will be able to effect much good in this now inevitable decline, but like all those who hold the eerie power of the POTUS, he certainly has the ability to equal Dubya's debacle, but really is unlikely to exceed it.

Our "democratic republic" has become so crooked and elitist, and our increasingly ineffectual role within the worldwide play of population vs. resources has devolved to such a point, that a POTUS now has little chance of overall significant positive impact, but a disproportionate ability for the opposite.

Indeed, as much as I'd hate to see it, the "socialism" of a New Deal/WPA type effort might be the only thing that staves off a drastic thinning of our population in the near future. Unfortunately, in the 30's there was light at the end of the tunnel from that kind of effort, but I fear the tunnel now holds little difference at the other end. There's no more there there.

And that's my take on the news from Lake Woebegone. Good night and good luck to all of us.

- OS

You're getting closer to just letting it all hang out, aren't you?

Go ahead. We won't ride you too hard.

There are just a few issues I'd like to address. First, from your other post, Obama isn't liberal. Not in any sense of the word. He's a statist and a leftist. A collectivist. The collective can only survive by destroying the individual. Obama will still want a huge, obnoxious, overbearing government sticking its nose up our butts. He'll just want that government to prop up all manner of alternative viewpoints and minority interests. How liberal is it to celebrate transsexualism while denigrating the humanity of a Southern Baptist?

Secondly, I dislike the preemptive apologia so many people like you are currently offering. "Obama probably won't do much because of the Bush legacy," etc. With executive order, Obama could do quite a bit, actually. Wreck the firearms community, for example. With his appointments to major federal agencies, he could set in motion programs and policies that would take generations to shake off. He'll do plenty. None of it will be worth a flip, either.

Thirdly, I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand the terrible mess FDR created with his huge expansion of Federal power, and his failed attempts at a populist quick fix in the early 30's. You seem to consider yourself to be erudite. What is your defense of something like Smoot-Hawley?

FDR prolonged the Great Depression. He didn't solve it. Marxism never solved anything. It's simply going to take about a hundred and twenty-five years for this nation to see the error of it's collectivist ways. Most nations who've suffered under communism had it crammed down their throats in a single generation by a bloody conflict of some sort. We, here in this nation, have been having it spoon-fed to us since about the beginning of the last century. Basically since the creation of the Fed and the destruction of our money.

FWIW, I offer none of this as a defense of the republicans.

[Oh Shoot]

(Abominable_Hillbilly): You're getting closer to just letting it all hang out, aren't you?

(OhShoot): Not sure how to answer that. Is my fly open?

Go ahead. We won't ride you too hard.

Yeah, you will

Obama isn't liberal. Not in any sense of the word. He's a statist and a leftist. A collectivist.

Okay. Fine. I have no probs with that definition.

Obama will still want a huge, obnoxious, overbearing government sticking its nose up our butts.

Yep. Although Dubya increased size of fed gummit, by just about any measure, more than any Rep OR Dem certainly since FDR.

Secondly, I dislike the preemptive apologia so many people like you are currently offering. "Obama probably won't do much because of the Bush legacy," etc.

If you'll re-read, I said "I doubt he will be able to effect much good" and "has the ability to equal Dubya's debacle, but really is unlikely to exceed it."

This is not BECAUSE of the Bush legacy, just compared TO it. Bush didn't cause what I see as the inevitable decline of quality of living, he just hastened it along.

With executive order, Obama could do quite a bit, actually. Wreck the firearms community, for example. With his appointments to major federal agencies, he could set in motion programs and policies that would take generations to shake off.

All true enough. But in total scheme of things, still unlikely to have overall detrimental impact on total population any worse than Bush. Of course, I'm quite concerned about the firearms issues - but it still remains to be seen exactly WHAT he'll be able to do about them. I was trying not to narrow my focus just to issues so pertinent to TGO (but probably should).

Thirdly, I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand the terrible mess FDR created with his huge expansion of Federal power, and his failed attempts at a populist quick fix in the early 30's.

I'm not lauding the whole thing, no. On the other hand, how is (as I see it) throwing away a trillion dollars of MY money to inefficient and corrupt financial institutions and failed industries a better plan? Call it what you like, but the government now is a "partner" in these endeavors, might as well go ahead and admit we're nationalizing them.

You seem to consider yourself to be erudite.

I don't believe I've ever expressed my self-estimation here, so I'll have to assume that's your evaluation!

What is your defense of something like Smoot-Hawley?

I'm not an economist. Finer points of protectionism, export/import trade balance, etc are beyond me. I'm not a historian. Hell, I'm not even a total news junkie. But, simplistically, seems if we can't compete in world wide economy, then we can't - means falling standard of living here. Only alternative is to produce everything we consume - which we can't. Or consume ONLY what we make - which also means falling standard of living here.

Which all supports my main thesis that the population/resources upside-down pyramid has to topple. It's really an environmental issue at heart, but will be translated economically. Much quicker way for world population to crash, planet shrugging billions off like fleas. Not the Second Coming, not the end of the world, not the end of man. Just a correction. Soon? Dunno. But it will.

Oops, did I get off track here in an already seriously off track thread?

FDR prolonged the Great Depression. He didn't solve it. ..

You could well be right. My only point there was that something similar might could stave off the Great Thinning here, if indeed this should be the beginning of it. For a while.

FWIW, I offer none of this as a defense of the republicans.

The two-party system has become tyranny, and the selection process of the American Idol President is long outdated, and indeed, not even constitutionally mandated.

- OS

[Mike.357]

FDR prolonged the Great Depression. He didn't solve it. ..

I had never heard this until this election cycle

[Smith]

I had never heard this until this election cycle

Pretty well established fact in history circles. That being said, most "scholars" hold FDR in a god status and tend to gloss over this "small" issue.

[raydog1]

Too bad the Force is not strong with all Bush staff members:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3797092/White-House-Press-Secretary-Dana-Perino-gets-black-eye-as-shoe-venir-in-Baghdad.html

[Guest Guntrainer]

Having worked and trained with folks who do Diplomatic Protection, I can guarantee you the SS was exactly where they were told to be!

If you think the SS did not come through, you are very wrong. I can assure you, they have worked and drilled with Pres. Bush.

He saw the threat beforehand and reacted to it as quickly as anyone I have seen. He has been prepped by the best.

If you freeze frame the incident, before the idiot had his arm cocked, Bush had visually locked on him and was on full alert. The look on Bush's face was, "Is that all you got?" (WHEW)

[Guest db99wj]

I think it would have been the funniest thing ever if Bush would have caught the shoe, and chunked it back!

[Guest rlrm777]

I would have loved to see W grab the shoe, jump down in the audience and beat that jerk's a$$ with it.

How many years you think we'd get for throwing something at a head of state over here?

[raydog1]

If you freeze frame the incident, before the idiot had his arm cocked, Bush had visually locked on him and was on full alert. The look on Bush's face was, "Is that all you got?" (WHEW)

I was watching that with my mother and we must've replayed it about a dozen times just to see that bad-a$$ look on his face. Don't mess with Texas baby!

[Guest sling]

I had never heard this until this election cycle

Err..yeah. It was called "The New Deal." Pretty much straight up