More governmental incompetence. The FBI, the CIA, and now a glimpse into the dim bulbs who manage the Secret Service. -- The Philadelphia Talk Radio Politics and Opinion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 22:35:52 07/25/03 Fri
Author: SurveyGuy
Author Host/IP: pcp03884941pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net / 68.32.204.89
Subject: More governmental incompetence. The FBI, the CIA, and now a glimpse into the dim bulbs who manage the Secret Service.

President Bush's Secret Service buffoons
by Michelle Malkin
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33751
Shame on the Secret Service. This week, it investigated renowned editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez like he was some left-wing homeless crackpot who had sent President Bush an anthrax-laced death threat � all because Ramirez drew a provocative cartoon that was clearly intended to defend the president.

[Snipped ... click link above to read whole commentary]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> SurveyGuy, I enjoyed Michelle's article. She is among my favorites. Did you hear about the man who was kicked off of British Airways recently because he wore a tag which stated "Suspected Terrorist"? His girlfriend, seated separately, ten rows away, was also kicked off the flight merely because they knew one another. I think it is clever to wear such a tag. -- William, 23:47:56 07/26/03 Sat (cache-dl03.proxy.aol.com/205.188.209.39)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> After my wife and I and our two small children were sent to a separate room before the airlines would accept our baggage, to have our belongings rifled through by hand, then through airport screening, then frisked, our shoes inspected, etc., before all the other passengers and passersby at the airport boarding area, I feel like carrying a name tag wich also says "Suspected Terrorist", because that is exactly what we are! -- William, 23:48:58 07/26/03 Sat (cache-dl03.proxy.aol.com/205.188.209.39)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> That is what we are to the airport security people and the government busy bodies, even though we do not fit the profile of a terrorists, especially an Islamofascist terrorist. Another guy made a small card, about the size of an index card, 3" by 5", metalic list of the Bill of Rights. When he comes through the airport screening he pulls it out and "gives up his rights" in order to board the aircraft. That list gives people an opportunity to read what our bill of rights states. -- William, 23:51:00 07/26/03 Sat (cache-dl03.proxy.aol.com/205.188.209.39)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> There is no uniformity and too often no common sense when it comes to airport "security." I ready the "suspected terrorist" article as well. Like the secret service not understanding the cartoon, the understandably humorless air personel displayed why we perhaps shouldn't trust them with hot beverages either. When rigid rules superceed thought, it is worse than the Prussian army ... and they wonder why air travel has declined. -- SurveyGuy, 09:43:45 07/27/03 Sun (pcp03884941pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.32.204.89)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Here is the cartoon they responded to -- what do you think?

-- SurveyGuy, 22:25:05 07/28/03 Mon (pcp03884941pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.32.204.89)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Kind of in poor taste, actually, IMHO - even though W's expression speaks volumes (as does the label on the back of the would-be assasin). But I also think the Secret Service way overreacted without checking things out properly first -- context is a lost art of understanding. Nobody remembers history, so the Vietnam reference was lost in favor of hairtrigger/knee-jerk responses, whereby one goes to the trouble of straining out a gnat only to swallow a camel. -- Spock, 12:41:53 07/29/03 Tue (user-vc8fm1s.biz.mindspring.com/216.135.216.60)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> And don't forget the sign that says "Iraq." Ramirez actually had to explain the cartoon to a Times reporter. The problem is that the message is too difficult for minds that function at a primitive level -- but what of their managers?! Sometimesbeing provocative may be called distasteful. Clearly these are allegorical images. He needed to put a tag on the gun labelled "Distortions" to compete the story for the Secret Service. Taste has nothing to do with it. -- SurveyGuy, 21:04:37 07/29/03 Tue (pcp03884941pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.32.204.89)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> How about if the gun had a little flag sticking out from the barrel that said "Lies?" Does that make it more tasteful? I thought it was a powerful image required to convey the message, but alas it seems to have failed to do so. -- SurveyGuy, 09:33:53 07/30/03 Wed (pcp03884941pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.32.204.89)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> SurveyGuy, I did read the cartoon after I read your post. Thanks for posting it here. I don't see the problem with this cartoon. There is the clear implication, for those who might be aware of the current news, that politics are targeting Bush, as is actually taking place here in the US these days. Some of the Dems, especially those who are running for president, wish to bring Bush down a few notches. The Dems are weak on terror and Bush is stronger than they are so they have to deconstruct Bush and his appearance of strength. -- William, 03:11:54 07/30/03 Wed (cache-mtc-ah04.proxy.aol.com/64.12.96.169)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> What gets me is that they are adding a lit match to gasoline and contributing to the extension of problems here and abroad as well as throwing the Iraqi people to the wolves by prolonging the problems there by feeding into them by siding against our president and US soldiers.

Sometimes splitting hairs is not the best and most prudent thing to do. Now is the time for unity and a show of resolute intentions, not petty, destructive, counterproductive political rangling falsely parading as patriotism or concern. -- William, 03:15:01 07/30/03 Wed (cache-mtc-ah04.proxy.aol.com/64.12.96.169)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Spock, people are so dishonest, cruel and vicious to demonize Bush, Blair, the US, and those who actually take steps to fight thugs like Saddam, the Ba'athists, bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the soldiers and others who actually fight these thugs, calling Bush "Hitler" while greviously denying Saddam Hussein is anything like Hitler. They demonize the US for taking steps to protect itself. These same people think it is a good idea to go out and send troops to be killed for "humanitarian" reasons in countries or for reason which we did not chose for our own security (e.g, Liberia, Bosnia, etc.) -- William, 03:24:40 07/30/03 Wed (cache-mtc-ah04.proxy.aol.com/64.12.96.169)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]