[eklipse]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...086397,00.html

'Shoot-to-kill' demand by US

Martin Bright, home affairs editor
Sunday November 16, 2003
The Observer

Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity to armed American special agents and snipers travelling to Britain as part of President Bush's entourage this week.

In the case of the accidental shooting of a protester, the Americans in Bush's protection squad will face justice in a British court as would any other visitor, the Home Office has confirmed.

The issue of immunity is one of a series of extraordinary US demands turned down by Ministers and Downing Street during preparations for the Bush visit.

These included the closure of the Tube network, the use of US air force planes and helicopters and the shipping in of battlefield weaponry to use against rioters.

In return, the British authorities agreed numerous concessions, including the creation of a 'sterile zone' around the President with a series of road closures in central London and a security cordon keeping the public away from his cavalcade.

The White House initially demanded the closure of all Tube lines under parts of London to be visited during the trip. But British officials dismissed the idea that a suicide bomber could kill the President by blowing up a Tube train. Ministers are also believed to have dismissed suggestions that a 'sterile zone' around the President should be policed entirely by American special agents and military.

Demands for the US air force to patrol above London with fighter aircraft and Black Hawk helicopters have also been turned down.

.....

I thought Bush and Blair were making the world a better, safer place? Why all the paranoia?

"kill the President by blowing up a Tube train" - WTF?!?

"battlefield weaponry to use against rioters" - HUH?!?

Things must be worse than FOX News leads me to believe.

[OldManMac]

If I had made as many enemies as he has, I'd be scared also.

Just think of the costs of protecting him; no wonder our budget deficit is skyrocketing.

[lil'babykitten]

And this is in a country that is supposedly an ally. What the hell would happen if Bush decided to visit Iraq?!?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
And this is in a country that is supposedly an ally. What the hell would happen if Bush decided to visit Iraq?!?

Halliburton would pay for his protection

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Halliburton would pay for his protection

But they would then bill the government.

[swrate]

Bush now needs an army to protect him?
is this democracy?
more like
a night mare paranoïa

[Sherwin]

Meh. You're talking like every US president since JFK hasn't had huge protection everywhere he goes.

It's just more visible to the press at the moment.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Meh. You're talking like every US president since JFK hasn't had huge protection everywhere he goes.

It's just more visible to the press at the moment.

many US presidents travelled all over the globe,

it would be interesting to compare the expenses of security

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by swrate:
Bush now needs an army to protect him?
is this democracy?
more like
a night mare paranoïa

Paranoia? When there groups filled with pig dogs foaming at the mouth trying to kill this guy?

I think JFK should have been a bit more paranoid.

[RooneyX]

Praetorian. Guard.

[Zimphire]

I honestly think people in here are upset because he wont be as easy to assassinate.

[adamk]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
... When there groups filled with pig dogs foaming at the mouth trying to kill this guy? ...

if only it were that simple... that sentence had no verb by the way.

from 'Enormous security' planned for Bush visit

Also this morning, we understand from the intelligence services in Britain that they have changed their threat-alert level. They say that this is due to information they've received that an attack is imminent in the U.K., with al Qaeda working out of North Africa.

i'm not sure if it is associated with the bush visit or a general threat. a cursory news search revealed nothing more about it. it may be a justification for beefier security?

adam

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by adamk:
i'm not sure if it is associated with the bush visit or a general threat.

AFAIK, it's a general threat.

[rezonate]

Fcuk that, I don't want the tubes to be closed cause a muppet is coming here; I don't want black hawk helicopters flying over London. Oh, just read, He won't be allowed all his prissy demands. Good!

What I'd like to see, if let's say the Saudi King visited Washington, would be for Saudi aircraft to patrol the air, since I guess that the Saudis would prefer their own people to monitor the skies.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I honestly think people in here are upset because he wont be as easy to assassinate.

You're mistaken.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by rezonate:
What I'd like to see, if let's say the Saudi King visited Washington, would be for Saudi aircraft to patrol the air, since I guess that the Saudis would prefer their own people to monitor the skies.

Heheheh.

[Echelon]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Heheheh.

you laugh, but it's not very witty if you consider the truth. Saudi's military sucks. Sure, they buy all the latest and greatest US hardware, but they still suck.

Wanting USAF planes over London was a way to ensure that the US could take quick and direct action if needed, and not have to go through British channels.

[Echelon]

Originally posted by swrate:
many US presidents travelled all over the globe,

it would be interesting to compare the expenses of security

and so have their wives, Hilary being the biggest spender for various jaunts around the world and during her Senate campaign.

[voyageur]

Bush's demands are truly appalling. Even more so is his inability to understand things from any other point of view but his own.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Echelon:
you laugh, but it's not very witty if you consider the truth. Saudi's military sucks. Sure, they buy all the latest and greatest US hardware, but they still suck.

Wanting USAF planes over London was a way to ensure that the US could take quick and direct action if needed, and not have to go through British channels.

Saudi Arabia was used as an example.

What the hell is a USAF plane going to do over London anyway? Fire precision guided missiles at the pigeons?

[Krusty]

Perhaps he should try to go incognito:

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Bush's demands are truly appalling. Even more so is his inability to understand things from any other point of view but his own.

There is a difference between not understanding, and not agreeing.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There is a difference between not understanding, and not agreeing.

what he understands is the need of new oil contracts.

he carries terrorist threats in his luggage.

[Echelon]

Originally posted by swrate:
what he understands is the need of new oil contracts.

he carries terrorist threats in his luggage.

props to you for using the English language, but you need to focus on the clarity and completeness of your thoughts and sentences, because you tend to do a lot of 'drive-by' snipings at Bush.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Echelon:
props to you for using the English language, but you need to focus on the clarity and completeness of your thoughts and sentences, because you tend to do a lot of 'drive-by' snipings at Bush.

You still can't manage to keep the crap out of your posts can you?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
What the hell is a USAF plane going to do over London anyway? Fire precision guided missiles at the pigeons?

Maybe deter or destory a hijacked airliner? Hijacking airliners is not a terrorist strategy that hasn't worked before.

Regardless, I think a British AF jet could provide the same security as long as it received such hijacking information soon enough.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Bush's demands are truly appalling. Even more so is his inability to understand things from any other point of view but his own.

You should understand that Bush is not in charge of his own security. Hence, they are not his demands.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I honestly think people in here are upset because he wont be as easy to assassinate.

You're projecting.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Maybe deter or destory a hijacked airliner? Hijacking airliners is not a terrorist strategy that hasn't worked before.

USAF planes didn't 'work' last time either.

Regardless, I think a British AF jet could provide the same security as long as it received such hijacking information soon enough.

Exactly.

[mr. natural]

Posted by eklipse:

What the hell is a USAF plane going to do over London anyway? Fire precision guided missiles at the pigeons?

Oh, man... that made my day!

[voyageur]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You should understand that Bush is not in charge of his own security. Hence, they are not his demands.

I'm sure the Brits find that very comforting.

[macvillage.net]

I don't see why anyone *needs* diplomatic immunity.

Political leaders, and their entourage, should not be exempt from the laws... there is no need for it.

If they act appropriately, there is no need for diplomatic immunity.

The only time diplomatic immunity is needed, is when someone means harm.

Nobody *needs* diplomatic imunity in the US... and US official needs it overseas.

I wish I had diplomatic immunity. I'd drive around and just hit people with my Car. If you can't get out of my way quick enough... your gunna pay.

There is seriously never a legitimate need. If Bush's snipers can't obey ROE & Laws in the country they are in... they deserve to be tried appropriately. No questions asked.

Same goes for the inverse. If Blair is in the US, with his guys... they should be subject to their own rules and regulations, as well as our laws.

[Mister Elf]

Let's face it, people. If someone wants Bush dead very badly, he's going to die. There is no security in the world that is foolproof; it all has weaknesses.

And also, those zoomies couldn't hit a pigeon if if flew up their engine .

[MacGorilla]

battlefield weaponry to use against rioters

Holy ****!

[Echelon]

Originally posted by Mister Elf:
Let's face it, people. If someone wants Bush dead very badly, he's going to die. There is no security in the world that is foolproof; it all has weaknesses.

granted it has its weaknesses, but solid security with a good display of strength can do much to deter the average violence-intending person or group. But I disagree with your premise--there are hardcore murders, assassins, and terrorists the world over who want Bush dead, and who have wanted other presidents dead, yet it is rare that they're assassinated, and I've yet to hear of one being assassinated by a foreign interest. So your theory doesn't stand up to analysis.

[osiris]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Maybe deter or destory a hijacked airliner? Hijacking airliners is not a terrorist strategy that hasn't worked before.

Regardless, I think a British AF jet could provide the same security as long as it received such hijacking information soon enough.

RAF is top notch.
Besides, what good are US jets when they can't even stop a few hijacked airliners.

Perhaps Bush should just get one of those Pope-Mobiles and call it a day.

IMO Bush (and most politicians these days) require far too large of a barrier between the citizens who express their right to protest and the politician in question. As barriers are built, protestors efforts fall upon deaf ears.

And the very fact that our leaders require such protective measures is not a good sign for democracy . All this running and hiding from unknown invisible enemies.

oyvey

[swrate]

Originally posted by Echelon:
props to you for using the English language, but you need to focus on the clarity and completeness of your thoughts and sentences, because you tend to do a lot of 'drive-by' snipings at Bush.

I didnt mean to sound that way,
I am rather disappointed the way the administration deals with terrorism, (and I hold a few others responsible)

Terrorism is becoming a growing resistance.
I never believed that by sending soldiers, on the battle ground the problems would be solved.
Special Units should have been sent.(Maybe I was influenced by James Bond's efficacity)
The USPresident 43 didnt have the guts to speak with Saddam before the war ----even though he was invited.
The administration didnt listen to the nations opinions who differed, because of their history or experience on the ground... War should of been debated and if absolutely nessecary post-poned until the next year.

I always wondered:
If some Prez army went to the USA, or UK decreating: USA or UK have WMD, their Prez is a dictator, lets throw him out? And then we can make some deals for economic expansion?
(often meaning we will get rid of the population) to use YOUR land
What would you do?
Wouldnt you stand up and fight for your nation, your history your culture your own right to the expansion of your country?
Many would.

In the background: sanctions.
The humanitarians and many nations pleaded for a halt in those sanctions which killed millions of Iraqi, mostly children (no medication, no way of cleaning the water).

I was thinking about the administration's luggage and plans.
(Haliburton and Co as mentionned elsewhere, the Eurasian pipeline projects)

Soon the planet will be out of black oil, they all know it.
China wants parts too.
So now to travel high protection is needed. Secret agents.

Traveling with CIAS's FBI agents of this and that, spies to find out etc... global contracts

I used to dream democracy becoming close to freedom.
Now it looks more like martial laws, with the need of military agents
When I read many of your posts,
I am glad not to live in the USA ... (sorry if I hurt some of you)
I hope the situation will improve because the rest of the world usually follows,
restrictions, repression

A US president once suggested to build a shield against nuclear radiations to protect USA and Canada. A lot was invested in defense
BTW does anyone of you recall this?



Is that a little more complete and clear?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by swrate:
I didnt mean to sound that way,
I am rather disappointed the way the administration deals with terrorism, (and I hold a few others responsible)

Terrorism is becoming a growing resistance.
I never believed that by sending soldiers, on the battle ground the problems would be solved.

That doesn't legitimize terrorism. It in no way excuses or makes it an acceptable practice.

Special Units should have been sent.(Maybe I was influenced by James Bond's efficacity)
The USPresident 43 didnt have the guts to speak with Saddam before the war ----even though he was invited.

Efficacy. No 'i', no 't'. Any and all offers from Iraq to the US prior to war were considered. Of course such offers were only made once soldiers were in position, so it was the threat of the use of force which actually elicited an offer. Additionally, all previous offers were not genuine, so why should one elicited under threat of force be genuine? I do not know, but I do know that such offers were evaluated, considered, and decided upon their merits.

The administration didnt listen to the nations opinions who differed, because of their history or experience on the ground... War should of been debated and if absolutely nessecary post-poned until the next year.

The administration did listen to the other nations whose opinions differed. It took them into account, and made a decision. That decision differed from the opinions of some nations, but those nations were heard.

I'm impressed that you accept war as an acceptable last measure. Most Europeans do not.


--------
Europeans care about peace, but they believe it can be attained through talking. In his book "Of Paradise and Power," historian Robert Kagan argues that America and Europe no longer share a common worldview. Americans believe it is necessary to use force when force is necessary. Europeans - in large part because they don't have the option of using force - believe that force is never necessary. America is from Mars, Europe from Venus, Kagan writes.


"Europeans have done something that no one has ever done before: create a zone of peace where war is ruled out, absolutely out," Karl Kaiser, director of the Research Institute of the German Society for Foreign Affairs said in the Chicago Tribune last year during the lead-up to the Iraq war. "Europeans are convinced that this model is valid for other parts of the world."


Kaiser's rosy version of history perfectly reflects the unreality of the European point of view. First, the United States has maintained peace in North America since 1865. Second, what about that whole mess in the former Yugoslavia that consumed most of the 1990s and still requires U.S. troops to keep the peace? But whatever, we're talking worldviews, not facts, I suppose.

-- Jonah Goldberg
-------

As slogans, "rush to war" and "unilateralism" are catchy. But they are also false.

If anything, Bush has been *inching* his way to war. It was as a candidate for president that he first laid down his marker: "If I found in any way, shape, or form that [Saddam Hussein] was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take him out. I'm surprised he's still there." That was in December 1999 -- more than three years ago.

I always wondered:
If some Prez army went to the USA, or UK decreating: USA or UK have WMD, their Prez is a dictator, lets throw him out? And then we can make some deals for economic expansion?
(often meaning we will get rid of the population) to use YOUR land
What would you do?
Wouldnt you stand up and fight for your nation, your history your culture your own right to the expansion of your country?
Many would.

Except that the premise you give is very different from that which took place in Iraq. Iraq had a dictator. A known cruel dictator who was in the practice of getting rid of his own populace. An unelected leader who would never be removed from power without external intervention.

The US President and the UK Prime Minister are not dictators, and cannot become dictators, because they can both be removed from office- either by their term ending and not having enough support to win election again, or by removal- impeachment in the US, and similar procedures in the UK. The only US President who came close to dictator status was FDR, who had four terms- and those were elected terms in accordance with election law. FDR attempted to stack the Supreme Court in his favor, is quoted as saying he had broken so many laws he could be impeached hundreds of times over, and more- but he was elected.

So right there, your premise falls flat. Further, the US and UK are not in Iraq to get rid of the citizenry. They are there to rid Iraq of the element which has placed the citizenry in such danger- Saddam Hussein and the weapons programs which the UN Inspectors had documented many times over in the past.

In the background: sanctions.
The humanitarians and many nations pleaded for a halt in those sanctions which killed millions of Iraqi, mostly children (no medication, no way of cleaning the water).

Sanctions were put in place to force Hussein's hand. They only seem to work when a ruler either cares about his populace, or cares about keeping his populace happy so they don't overthrow him. Hussein cared about neither, so sanctions were ineffective.

I was thinking about the administration's luggage and plans.
(Haliburton and Co as mentionned elsewhere, the Eurasian pipeline projects)

Soon the planet will be out of black oil, they all know it.
China wants parts too.

Peace is not just the absence of fighting. It includes normalized relations with other countries, including normalized trade.

A nation at peace with the world will trade with the world. Pipeline projects and such are about establishing normalized trade with the rest of the world.

Halliburton once had ties to the Vice-President. He severed those ties before the campaign. Halliburton is one of the few, if not the only company in the world capable of doing the tasks they are now doing. Who else would you get that possesses the knowledge, resources, and trained staff to do the job they are doing?

So now to travel high protection is needed. Secret agents.

Traveling with CIAS's FBI agents of this and that, spies to find out etc... global contracts

Actually, that has always been used, and always been needed. If John Hinckley can take a shot at the President in an attempt to impress Jodie Foster, anyone can.

I used to dream democracy becoming close to freedom.
Now it looks more like martial laws, with the need of military agents

Democracy is just tyranny by the majority. A constitutional republic equally represents the minority- the problem is that more freedom means less government, and ever since the 1930s government has grown.

When I read many of your posts,
I am glad not to live in the USA ... (sorry if I hurt some of you)
I hope the situation will improve because the rest of the world usually follows,
restrictions, repression

A US president once suggested to build a shield against nuclear radiations to protect USA and Canada. A lot was invested in defense
BTW does anyone of you recall this?

A missile defense system to shoot down incoming nuclear missles was proposed, twice. Such has never been implemented. Especially since a viable dirty-bomb is a threat now, I don't see how a missile defense would address that threat. I also don't see how a shield could defend against a threat already within the shield. Could you provide more information?

[petehammer]

How many times has the poster formerly known as Uday's Carcass (now, apparently Echelon) been banned? I'm curious.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by petehammer:
How many times has the poster formerly known as Uday's Carcass (now, apparently Echelon) been banned? I'm curious.

Several times! twice if you just count the recent ones.

[swrate]

Originally posted by vmarks:
That doesn't legitimize terrorism. It in no way excuses or makes it an acceptable practice.

that explains a lot....
thanks for the long reply

The non census approach, violence,
I don’t believe in violence, even though it may be necessary in some rare cases.
imao ,the soldiers should never of left that early, without an international consensus.
The war was well thought of, no doubt, but the rebuilding era was left to improvisation.
I was not for the intervention, but I doubt leaving now would ease matters.

War acceptable? No,
I am revolted, generally speaking about how easily we resort to violence.
I think its not giving a good example to future generations.
In Europe the majority of the masses was against a war.
So was the rest of the world, if you read the details of the votes.
And the votes didn’t always reflect the populations ideas who, in many cases were more opposed to war(according to the statistics) then their government.

I am very mixed about some of the statements you make.

Bush and Blair for example, are not dictators, and can be voted out. Good news.
Saddam was voted in also.
Wonder what we will be saying of them in the next decade, hope it will all have been for the best.
I am scepticall.
Do you know exactly what it involves on the ground ---those constructions?
Huge infrastructure.
Arguments between sheiks, deals, moving villages, other consequences?

Trade , import/export
We have been trading since the beginning of time, food, materials, precious stones, often on the back of local populations, without respecting them much.
Some islands near India for example, are now exploited for rare woods, so the Indian government has built roads.
The 35 tribes were moved around, and, because they cannot live as before, they commit collective suicide.
Excellent at aiming special fish, they now fish elsewhere differently and drink rice alcohol to forget. In less then a decade, thousands of them have disappeared.
The Indian government is now trying to pass laws to protect them as they are the last human species of some of the earliest tribes to have lived on this planet.
Oh yes, part of the island was used by the army. So they had to evacuate the area, (their attested land since over 3000 years)



Sanctions: the part of Iraq were Saddam lived, the population was healthy and increasing steadily. (approx.1/3 of Iraq) The problems were other parts of Iraq, who were dependant on humanitarian aid.
(make the people dependant then you can control them)

Saddam was a dictator, yes, making sure the Kurds and Shiites would not take over.
The last years, his men did that job for him, Udday, Usay ……
It has been said Saddam spends his time writing books.

And the documents of Blix, the last reports were not relevant WMD, yes, no, maybe…..
The goal of the UN was to keep them (Hussein gang) under control, with regular reports.
Now,
The soldiers protect the citizens,,,,,, by trying not to get killed, they are tense, nervous, make mistakes, and are sometimes a danger for the population as much as the rebels----


The problem in Iraq seems to me now even more complicated to solve then before the war, and terrorism is... expanding.
Doctrines are used to defend a cause, the leaders rally fighters with magic words
Get rid of the XY oppressor! Freedom! Holy war! Revolution! Economy!(depends where you stand)


The Iraqis and Muslims of the area will have to not feel as if they were cheated----socially, economically and religiously, a challenge for whoever gets involved.
Maybe, maybe Halliburton’s are the best ones to be able to do the job...
When the rigs are on fire and the oil is running are they the only specialists? Iraqis, Saudis, Kuwaitis never learnt that skill?
Or don’t the locals have the means to build the infrastructure to export enough quantities of barrels?
Petrol that we all will be happy to use without even thinking of the blood behind it.
Nations are so dependant on oil

So when Blair and Bush shake hands, and make their deals about Iraq, without owning the land, I feel upset.
But its not the only bloody deal, right?


People entering a foreign land and threatening with weapons are seen as invaders (at least I will see anyone doing so on my land unless I have hired a team to get rid of another team) Iraqis are not sure of who has hired who to do what.

And yes,
The shield is out of context now, you are right, I think this was at the end of the Reagan administration,
But then the cold war stopped being a threat.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by swrate:
I never believed that by sending soldiers, on the battle ground the problems would be solved.
Special Units should have been sent.(Maybe I was influenced by James Bond's efficacity)

I have it on very good authority that "Bond" has been in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf war. And it didn't work. Thus the assumption that there were other effective methods of removal are inaccurate.

Who dares wins, etc.. But not that time.

[BlackGriffen]

Sherwin has it on good authority, eh? You wouldn't happen to be a Bush administration stooge, would you?

I admit, though, that the U.S. government couldn't assassinate Saddam Hussein if he walked up and knocked on the WhiteHouse's front door. Do "exploding cigars" ring a bell?

Interestingly, this just in:

_LONDON, Nov. 17 (Xinhuanet) -- British protesters against US President George W. Bush's upcoming visit were permitted Monday by the authorities to stage a march past Downing Street, parliament and the government ministries in central London.

____The requirement for such a route was previously turned down by the police who have announced "unprecedented" security operation following warnings of a possible terror attack.

____"I would consider it to be a triumph for democracy and the peace movement," Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, one of the main demonstration organizers, told reporters.

____Lindsey German, a spokeswoman for another organizer Stop the War coalition, said the demonstration would be peaceful, dismissing fears that it might be infiltrated by terrorists plotting an attack on Bush.

____It is expected that tens of thousands of people from all over Britain will join the "Stop Bush" mass march in central London on Thursday. They will also topple a mock statue of Bush in TrafalgarSquare at the time.

____Bush will pay a four-day visit to Britain on Nov. 18-21 to lobby for help from his staunchest ally amid escalating violence in Iraq against US troops and mounting outcry for a quick transferof sovereignty to Iraqis. Enditem

Heh heh heh. I wonder if Blair is planning on a local backstab of Bush for fun and electoral profit?

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by swrate:
that explains a lot....
thanks for the long reply...snip

excellent post, swrate. almost poetic though its about a tragic situation.
well stated, and cogent.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Sherwin has it on good authority, eh? You wouldn't happen to be a Bush administration stooge, would you?

No, I was a Major administration stooge.

For at least until 1997, 'twas us, not you guys who had the wet boys in there trying to pop him. You're not allowed to do that kind of thing - we are.
It got close, but no banana - hence the man's plentiful personal defences and paranoia.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
No, I was a Major administration stooge.

For at least until 1997, 'twas us, not you guys who had the wet boys in there trying to pop him. You're not allowed to do that kind of thing - we are.
It got close, but no banana - hence the man's plentiful personal defences and paranoia.

Don't confuse "not allowed to" with "not able to."

BlackGriffen

[Dave Brasgalla]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I thought Bush and Blair were making the world a better, safer place?

Although it is now too late, might it not have been an interesting, perhaps enlightening experience for the President to have had to sign a waiver of parole rights (if arrested in Great Britain) before landing, thence to be forced to stand on a table for shoe x-rays and examinations (whilst the First Lady was separately interrogated), and finally fingerprinted as the first action in starting a file on him?

I mean, just for him to see what it feels like to be on the other end of things, right? Who knows - it might even have made him feel "more at home".

Just a thought.

[BlackGriffen]

The one true sign of a bully - he can dish it out, but he can't take it.

Poor little Bushy wushy doesn't want the image of the Brits, our close allies, heckling him in Americans' minds. Wouldn't want to appear like the weak minded little turd he is before an election, would he?

When do you think they'll announce that Bush will only be there by telepresence?

BlackGriffen

Edit: Tried to fix link, but there wasn't an error on my part. UBB just doesn't like the URL, I guess. Here it is, raw:

www.mirror.co.uk
news/allnews/content_objectid=13631331_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-BUSH%2DPULLS%2DOUT%2DOF%2DSPEECH%2DTO%2DPARLIAMENT-name_page.html

Edit2: God damn you, UBB!

Edit3: Let's try splitting up the URL, server in one line, path in the next.

[Lerkfish]

that link is broken for me, blackgriffen.

[thunderous_funker]

I believe its the same Mirror article host here