Ugh.

[prog]

Worst president ever. Well, maybe, maybe not (I wasn't alive when Harding was in office, so who can say), but still, when your security team thinks it would be a good idea to shut down the city you're visiting and set up a sniper network, despite the fact that said city is the capital of one of America's strongest and most long-time allies, then I might suggest that you may be doing something wrong.

Comments

worst president EVER!

[xymotik.livejournal.com]

short comment follows (I could spend hours writing the long version):

Trust me, our Great Leader is significantly worse than Harding. Harding (and Grant) were disconnected dopes who let their cronies loot the govt. Bush and Cheney are letting their cronies loot the world--and that's just for starters. Based upon his policies and impact on the American people and the world, the only American president who was worse than Bush was Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy. Even Reagan's administration was more responsible. I have to add that Harding and Grant at least won a plurality of the votes, too.

Isn't the Guardian great?

Curious...

[cnoocy]

Are you basing the Davis judgement just on the fact that he was the president of the Confederacy, or on other policies as well?

Re: Curious...

[xymotik.livejournal.com]

Goddammit, my "brief" response is longer than LJ allows for comments. Go get it here.

Why?

[keimel.livejournal.com]

Why do they need such security? After all, it's illegal for any private citizen in the UK to own a gun. This gun law has certainly increased security and allowed people to walk about freely anywhere they want. Why would anyone need protection?

And aside from that, doesn't clearing zones of safety for a diplomat (read King George II (he did not win the popular vote)) define "Target will be ((here)) - please shoot all weapons ((here)). " Yes, security through obscurity is not always the best model, but in the interest of protecting someone, isn't some measure of anonymity useful?

*shrug*

Hope you enjoyed the sarcasm.

Re: Why?

[prog.livejournal.com]

My thoughts aren't so much a reaction to the presence of security, as they are to its itensity, and what this implies about international opinion towards this country's leadership.

When's the last time a traveling American president, on visiting an allied nation, requested a security detail so heavy and disruptive that it seems more appropriate for visiting an active military theater?

Re: Why?

[xymotik.livejournal.com]

I don't want to defend Bush at all, but the security level in the past may possibly have been higher than we realize. Even when veep candidate Gore came to visit Bangor in '92, there were snipers visible on most of the rooftops surrounding Pickering Square. And while it is true that Bush has only himself and his own administration to blame for inflaming the people of the world by causing the Stupidest War in American History, there are still plenty of al-Qaida nasties out there, in addition to all the other normal crazies (Ford, Reagan, the first Bush, and Clinton all had attempts on their lives too). Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, was British.

I just love the fact though that they wanted a diplomatic ememption in case the Secret Service "accidentally" killed an innocent. Oops, so sorry, my bad.

[(Anonymous)]

GE MiniGun. We bring good things to life.

President Tush

[millerwolf.livejournal.com]

I really preferred how Richard Nixon dealt with protesters... that day he went outside into a crowd of them in the early 70's and sweated like a pig as he argued with them. That was cool. If they really are "peace protesters", they would know better than to bring any harm to the President.

But, I guess you just can't trust anyone now-days.