previous post next post  

Dang! W just can't do anything right!

By Dusty (AKA Attila of Argghhh!) on June 15, 2008 | | Comments (3)

Another whinge from the peanut gallery.

You have NO idea what goes into hauling The Man around. Clinton's entourage took every single flyable C-5 to get all the wheeled iron (from the Man's limo to the USSS SUVs) from Point A to Point B. Then there's the requirement to carry comm capabilities, staff, supplies, emergency medical equipment, and a bunch of other crap.

Who comes up with all this? The Prez's preferences are just the tip of the iceberg...the rest of the log tail grows like any other one designed by several different and competing Departments. Obama will have a similar train...probably bigger to accommodate the Press Office staff that will be needed to handle the gaffes. Two 75s tricked out for instantaneous non-line-of-sight, 100 Terabyte per second throughput ought to do it.

Now, putting the Boss into Heathrow DOES sound a little weird for just the reasons he cites--a large city full of pissed-off Europeans not to mention the additional security headaches. That said, the 'Peans hate George anyway. A 100,000 more isn't going to make a difference. Plus, where the Queen's Government decides to put Air Force One is THEIR decision, not ours. Hmmm...

And yes, Britain, you are now European. Lay down. You're dead. (See: Here)

Now, given the fact that the Prez is Target Number One for every serious enemy and the millions of assorted loons out there, his safety takes a bit of a kit. So, to avoid irking London travelers on a Sunday, how much more risk should the Commander-in-Chief be exposed to, Mr. Manzi? Just curious.

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

3 Comments

By Jim Manzi on June 15, 2008 9:06 PM
This wasn't meant to be a ding on Bush as compared to any other president. The points were that (1) the trappings of the US presidency have become imperial, and (2) that, while I presume that the guys who do advance work for the president know what they're doing and therefore there were probably good reasons they didn't do the obvious and bring the guy into an RAF base, it was really stupid to do this in a way that needlessly antagonized thousands of people that we want as allies.
 
By kat-missouri on June 15, 2008 9:45 PM
You miss the part where the PResident doesn't just pick his landing spot will nilly as if he were some imperial ruler? he goes where the host country likes him to go since they have to organize all their security, etc. so, let the Euro's be pissed at their governments. Because, the only way to really resolve the complaint is to not go at all. Some how, I think people would start getting the idea that we really didn't like them. Funny how you never really hear anyone complain about when foreign dignitaries land here and fubar things up.
 
By Instapilot, Attila, Whatever on June 15, 2008 9:58 PM
Jim, Understand. But the “imperial” label just grates. Few Americans appreciate what that means. Most who use it are projecting, especially when it comes to Bush. This is a guy who has had fewer State dinners than any President in memory…at least I think so. He’s just not an “imperial” guy, especially when you compare him to the Clintons (remember LAX being brought to a halt while Bill got his hair cut?) and the palpable hauteur that emanates from both Obamas. I don’t think he, or his staff, drove that debacle. One thing few people realize is that after 9/11 a significant change occurred in how Air Force One was configured—the communications shortcomings in the wake of the attacks shocked both Bush and his immediate staff (to say nothing of the SecDef). The resultant “war footing” in the commo department I’m sure had a concomitant effect on the rest of the support processes for a traveling Commander-in-Chief conducting a global war against a demonstrably resourceful and asymmetric enemy. Could we pare it down? Sure. But, again, whose gonna assume the risk? SecDef? Sec State? Justice? Homeland Security? Frankly, I don’t think the Secret Service would let him do that, or would do it under significant protest. Now, I think the Heathrow venue was barking. The USAF always prefers AF One going to a secure field. Why they chose the busiest airport in Britain makes me wonder if something else wasn’t at play here. If it was our “fault,” by all means mea culpa. However, I think the UK was driving this, not the US. In any case, my little ruse worked…I got another NRO’er to visit Jonah’s military guys’ milblog. Heh.