Why is "tremendous restraint" appropriate when someone has jumped the fence and is running across the lawn toward the door? Or are they just trying to act like it is, after failing to stop him sooner?
No shots were fired, and the White House guard dogs were not let loose to stop him, the officials said. After the events of Friday night, the Secret Service shut down pedestrian access to the part of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. Officials said the “enhancement of officer patrols and surveillance capabilities” in the area would continue throughout the review....Obviously, there was a security failure. This isn't the first time during the Obama administration that we've been able to see that the Secret Service has fallen short. A man jumps over the fence and runs through the door and they just look at him and decide he has no weapon or explosives? In fact, he had a 3 1/2" folding knife, which sounds more like a pocket knife and not a serious weapon, but that is not the point. No one should get the benefit of "tremendous restraint" in this situation.
The officers did not fire at him, having apparently concluded that he was not armed and did not appear to be carrying anything that might contain explosives. Agents on the roof also held their fire, apparently for the same reasons.
That restraint apparently allowed Mr. Gonzalez to sprint all the way to the entrance of the White House, where foreign dignitaries are greeted by the president. Agents stationed inside tackled him as soon as he was in the grand entryway....
ADDED: The linked NYT article compares this to an incident a year ago when the United States Capitol Police "shot and killed a woman who had driven her car into a barrier at the White House and then led police officers on a chase toward the Capitol." We're told the Capitol Police "came under sharp criticism." Are we supposed to think that "restraint" is admirable because they are afraid to take criticism and that they therefore risk allowing a violent person near the President?
Of course, it usually turns out that the person who jumps the barrier suffers from some mental illness that will stir some of us to sympathy if he or she gets shot or ripped up by the dogs.
पोस्ट्स
११९ टिप्पण्या:
Let the border patrol guard the White House fence.
Is it a failure if nothing really happens? I appreciate that they err on the side of caution, and in this event wasn't that justified?
They did not brag about their restraint in this situation: Does the White House have a War on Women?
Tremendous restraint is a euphemism for incompetence.
If he was black they would have sicced the dogs on him. It's a white thing.
It is turtles all the way down.
I think they're bragging about their tremendous restraint because they're still smarting from the incident John cites. Smarting with good reason, I might add. That was a real screwup.
"They did not brag about their restraint in this situation: Does the White House have a War on Women?"
That incident is discussed in the linked article, and I updated the post to speculate that the Secret Service is restraining itself because of the criticism that followed that incident.
The gvt has to do a cavity search to let me on a plane, but they can screen a running man from 100 yards???
"MadisonMan said...
Is it a failure if nothing really happens? I appreciate that they err on the side of caution, and in this event wasn't that justified?"
Wow. If the guy had a gun and pointed it at Obama and puller the trigger, but the gun misfired...then nothing really happened, right? And restraint would be justified.
What if Pope Francis climbs over the fence and dashes for the White House door?
This has to be planned for too.
The Pope is not happy with all the warmaking.
Obama is safe in any case because he's never home.
Thee man who jumped the White House railing Sept. 19 deserves the right to live in President Barack Obama’s home, just as the president is allowing hundreds of thousands of border-jumping Central Americans to live in Americans’ homeland, says a new tongue-in-cheek petition posted at the White House website.
“We urge President Obama to immediately and publicly recognize that Mr. Omar J. Gonzalez, an oppressed migrant, was merely looking for a better life when he entered the White House after going over the classist, divisive and needless fence,” says the petition, which was authored by D.A. King, founder of the Georgia-based Dustin Inman Society, which advocates for actual enforcement of immigration law.
“In the interest of White House diversity and what will surely result in adding to the rich tapestry of love and community, we further demand that the President reform the mean-spirited laws regulating access to the People’s House,”
From today's Daily Caller
I've carried a tiny pocket knife all my life. A 3 1/2 inch one, folded measurement I assume, is going to leave holes in his pockets pretty quickly.
If you don't have a pocket knife, you can never get anything open in modern life.
This suggests a nice practical joke for airline passenger meals.
I'd go with an all-dog security.
Replace the fence with an invisible fence, and let the dogs roam 24/7.
Dogs would also take care of unpleasant world leaders on their way out. Just let them out the dali lama door.
Dogs don't rip them up. They knock them down and guard them.
If you train them that way.
If you are hopping the fence at the White House then chances are you suffering from some sort of mental issues. No sane person is going to hop that fence.
However, mentally ill people can be dangerous. They can construct bombs and acquire guns. At one time I would have assumed that the people running the Secret Service would know this.
It appears that they higher ups have decided that they don't want the bad publicity of shooting an unarmed, mentally ill intruder and have imposed some very iffy rules of engagement.
My God, I am glad that we have a Secret Service that is disciplined enough to rationally assess threats and use minimal force. The Secret Service could teach a thing or two to way too many police departments in this country.
To lament that an obviously disturbed man was not shot down like a rabid dog at the first possible opportunity is truly despicable.
You have reached a new low, Ann.
If he got over the fence, shouldn't he be allowed to live there with his family?
High five, rwnutjob.
These guys are just turning a bug into a feature; kind of like in "Spinal Tap" when fewer fans show up to concerts, the band's "appeal" is becoming "more selective."
Wow. If the guy had a gun and pointed it at Obama and puller the trigger, but the gun misfired...then nothing really happened, right? And restraint would be justified.
As if the two things are the same.
Anyone who scales the fence should be shot dead. And we should all applaud that. Welcome to Curious George's America.
(See? I can create Strawmen Arguments too!!)
You have reached a new low, Ann.
Is there some sort of scoring system?
Do we really want the Secret Service to get a reputation for shooting first, asking questions later? If they did, people would be jumping the fence for the SS to shoot as a political statement.
All pedestrian access around the White House is going to have to be shut off with a second fence around that area. Make the entire zone enterable only after passing through airport-type security. All to easy to imagine scenarios involving multiple attackers.
To follow up on my earlier post, here's a link to what happened at the U.S Embassy in Saigon during the Tet Offensive.
He should have been shot, and there shouldn't even be any discussion about it.
I suppose the x-ray vision scanners on the fence ruled out the possibility that he had a bomb hidden in his underwear or shoes so there was no need to release the hounds.
What makes me shake my head is the fact that if a bomb HAD gone off or he had pulled a gun from his waistband and started shooting, the resident lefties would be screaming about the incompetence of the SS for allowing the event to happen.
He's the fucking president whether you support him or not (I don't) and the rules are clear. Make a nakedly aggressive move and we should, at a minimum, release the hounds and escalate the response from there.
Having Joe Biden as president for the next two year if anything happened to Obama? Yeah ... they woulda been justified in shooting this guy.
Once a a person is inside the White House fence the time for restraint is over. I don't want to have anything bad happening to our president.
The "tremendous restraint" (and the Professor should have had some comments on the subject of language and adjectives here) presumably consisted of not letting loose with assault rifles and submachine guns on the White House lawn.
-----To lament that an obviously disturbed man was not shot down like a rabid dog at the first possible opportunity is truly despicable.
You have reached a new low, Ann.----
If this kind of break-in isn't dealt with severely, it will become a weekly occurrence. Don't forget the plot the Australians just thwarted.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/18/us-australia-security-raids-idUSKBN0HC2FJ20140918
And don't forget this directly specific ISIS threat to the white house
http://viralnewschart.com/ShowLink.aspx?linkId=60959674
Continued events like this will reinforce the global impression that Obama is beyond weak.
"No sane person is going to hop that fence."
They will now.
I can visualize ISIS using one person to have a car accident right outside the WH to distract while a team of ISIS jump the fence, and run into the WH with chest bombs and incendiaries.
Yes four or so Muslim jihadist burn down the WH. Now that would be, uh, noticeable.
But does Obama or the SS care?
Perhaps restraint is justified if the jumper is apprehended immediately. That he made if into the building does not indicate restraint bur rather incompetence.
For those lawyers who need a definition of gross negligence.
Freder Frederson said...
To lament that an obviously disturbed man was not shot down like a rabid dog
This is the point. Cops shoot too many people who are disturbed or just not perfectly 'normal'. There appears to be vastly more deaths by cop than can be rationally justified based on the risk of death to either cop or public.
The SS are to be applauded for not killing the guy. They should have reacted quicker but by not killing him they have set a slightly better standard than their last effort.
Murder is bad and assassination, murder to reverse democratic elections, is worse, but I still think that we should greatly rollback presidential security. There's a cost to having the president as insulated and isolated as he is now, both in the effects of the bubble and symbolic democracy. This trickles down and the silly practice of giving every governor, mayor and senior bureaucrat a "protection detail" starts at the top.
I don't want to lose a president to murder -- any president -- but there are worse things and I suspect that we could rollback quite a bit of security without actually losing much in the way of effective prevention.
"Replace the fence with an invisible fence, and let the dogs roam 24."
Like assassins wouldn't shoot dogs.
If the SS shows this kind of restraint when the President is in the building, then we have a problem. Since he wasn't, I'm not sure we do.
"My God, I am glad that we have a Secret Service that is disciplined enough to rationally assess threats and use minimal force."
You're calling it rational only in retrospect. If that "rational" approach were the known standard, how could an actual assassin use that information? Once you answer that question, reassess your understanding of what was rational about what the Secret Service did.
Since you see yourself as Mr. Rational, that should be a fascinating exercise for you, and I await your response. But maybe you'll prefer to continue your hysterical raving about what a "new low" I've sunken to. These guys who pose as "rational" get so off-the-rails emotional sometimes. What's up with that?
That's another thing to which you can apply your purportedly rational mind.
If they could just look at a running man and see that he had no bomb, how come we all have to take off our shoes at the airport?
Maybe they should replace the single fence with a double one. Still open, but the right distance apart to make it difficult to get over both - at least in a single run.
And they are crackpots - ISIS, or whatever, have no reason to want to assassinate this president.
Or hire some out-of-work NFL players?
You're calling it rational only in retrospect
Don't you have an underlying assumption here that *if* the person had had a bomb, or another type of weapon, he (or she) would also not have been shot. There is a failure in logic here. That person A who did not have a weapon was not shot does not mean that person B who does have a weapon will also not be shot.
And as for why we take shoes off at airport, that's so people think TSA is actually doing something useful.
Read Your Bird
A Series of eBooks by Omar J. Gonzalez
"Why is "tremendous restraint" appropriate when someone has jumped the fence and is running across the lawn toward the door? Or are they just trying to act like it is, after failing to stop him sooner?"
Because he's a human being. I know:
It's still a difficult concept, for some, in slave country.
The racists criticize Obama's war tactics for the same reason,...
Freder, you don't have to shoot the guy to get on the case more quickly. Plus it seems that nobody was in the immediate position to shoot him if it had been required.
It turns out Gonzalez is a homeless vet with quite a few PTSD issues.
But suppose six trained terrorists come over the wall at once? Were they ready for that?
The praise of "restraint" sounds like CYA. I would have been more pleased if they had said they will review procedures and safeguards in light of the fact that the man actually made it through a door into the White House. That's what they should do, and probably what they are doing.
Supposedly he was in Washington trying to get some treatment from the VA. This ought to expedite his case.
I'm in favor of mining the White House lawn. This will add an extra level of adventure and excitement to the annual Easter Egg hunt and encourage the invited children to keep their weight down.
It sounds more like the SS guards at the White House have already been replaced by the Border Patrol.
Maybe he is from Oklahoma and wanted to take the White House tour Sooner.
I just hope he is not off the morning plane from Sierra Leon.
It is apparently their policy not to automatically shoot someone who jumps the fence and runs towards the White House. Fine with me.
But it should also be your policy not to let an unauthorized person get through the door of the White House. In fact I think we can assume that is the policy.
So their policy of restraint from shooting was not coupled with a secondary means of intercepting the person.
That is a serious error, and should be treated as such. Instead they choose self praise for a flawed procedure.
Tranquilizer darts or birdshot would be more appropriate than .223 or .308 ammunition.
You guys need to think a bit before all this talk about shooting around the White House.
David,
"They choose self praise for a flawed procedure."
Reviews are necessary, as they always are, but your take is "flawed" as well:
This is slave country.
That no one got killed IS the new standard and, in that, they performed spectacularly.
I will remind you that Robert Gould Shaw was a avowed racist who ended up leading a black regiment into "Glory".
Whites can change,...
He's the fucking president whether you support him or not (I don't) and the rules are clear.
You have some serious reading comprehension problems. The president and his family were not home at the time.
I would think that the Secret Service would be more aggressive if there was an actual threat to the president or his family.
You're calling it rational only in retrospect. If that "rational" approach were the known standard, how could an actual assassin use that information?
I would assume, at the very least, that a rational assassin would at least know the whereabouts of his target. (Assuming it was the president and his family, they were on their way to Camp David).
As for your second query. I have no idea what I am supposed to respond to.
I hope I'm wrong, but what I see resulting from this incursion is a push by the Secret Service to permanently close the street in front of the White House to pedestrians and demonstrators. It's lamentable that they've already closed it to vehicular traffic. Now the other shoe is about to drop--at least if the Secret Service has its druthers.
Freder, you don't have to shoot the guy to get on the case more quickly. Plus it seems that nobody was in the immediate position to shoot him if it had been required.
I guess you didn't read the part about the snipers on the roof.
"The officers did not fire at him, having apparently concluded that he was not armed and did not appear to be carrying anything that might contain explosives.
Agents on the roof also held their fire, apparently for the same reasons."
Sheesh, read the damn article before you comment on it.
But it should also be your policy not to let an unauthorized person get through the door of the White House. In fact I think we can assume that is the policy.
It makes much more sense that they deliberately unlocked the door so they could jump him when he entered. Maybe that wasn't the best way to do it, but who am I, or Ann Althouse, to second guess.
That there would be a door on the white house that would be left unlocked is beyond comprehension.
David said...
Freder ... Plus it seems that nobody was in the immediate position to shoot him if it had been required.
Freder Frederson said...
Sheesh, read the damn article before you comment on it.
David's version is far more believable than the official statements, which is pretty unbelievable.
Freder: "I would think that the Secret Service would be more aggressive if there was an actual threat to the president or his family."
Not necessary.
After obama single handedly took out osama, what possible threat could emerge that obama would not personally take out with nothing more than a pair of fingernail clippers and almost "Godlike" smile?
They knew Obama wasn't at home so they were more willing to exercise restraint. Remember how they let a plane crash into the WH in the nineties? Clinton want home then either.
Of course now bad guys know that the ss really let's their guard down when the president it's off site so the guy might meet with a more rigorous response
If they could just look at a running man and see that he had no bomb
It would take a much larger bomb to do significant damage to the White House than a commercial airliner. And that is assuming that the shoe bomber's bomb, even if it had gone off, would have caused catastrophic damage to the plane. I doubt, with the amount of explosives you could get in the heel of a shoe, he would have done much more than blow his own leg off and maybe injure or kill a couple people around him.
David's version is far more believable than the official statements.
Yeah, a random blog poster who has no knowledge of the situation must know what actually happened.
It's a "no win" situation. If these are trial runs to surge the WH testing their security apparatus from the police on the outside to the Secret Service inside the perimeter then we fail no matter what happens. Lone wolf jihadists are taking notes. If the Secret Service tightens security inside the perimeter then what little contact Obama has with the unwashed masses outside the perimeter Obama can use that as an excuse for lack of transparency in his administration. Jihadists are taking notes. Maybe this is a diversion from the real target, only our enemies know. One thing for certain, this administration is known for lack of resolve, failure of will, worship of the false god of appeasement and belief that being a supplicant to the feelings of those who happily broadcast their intent to behead us will tactically help us win the war against radical Islam. They are wrong.
Althouse
"If they could just look at a running man and see that he had no bomb, how come we all have to take off our shoes at the airport?"
Good question. Here is another. They do all that cryptic writing onpaper tickets but, of course, none on electronic tickets on your phone.
Kabuki is answer to both.
The Secret Service is supposed to protect the President, not the property.
So, yes, not killing the crazy guy was the right call. The White House isn't a sacred shrine. It's just a place.
I'm not happy with the paranoia that surrounds presidential security. I understand that assassination is a real threat. Still, it makes the President look like some kind of despot. The bigger the motorcades and the more guards on the rooftops the less like a free republic we become.
Yeah Freder, The president wasn't there so fuck anything else. I mean it's not like the White House is a national treasure or symbol or anything.
How many hours a day to you have to practice to maintain the edge on your smug sense of superiority? Or does it come naturally?
And as for my reading comprehension ... fuck you. Comprende?
Note to David; I agree with you. When I was in the Navy during Viet Nam our security aboard ship whether under moored or underway was to establish a perimeter that was inviolate. Judging the speed of approaching craft as they approached the defined area of the our "kill zone" and respond accordingly. Day or night, accident or otherwise, the threat was eliminated. The U.S.S. Cole failed that test. The U.S.S. Pueblo failed the test for reasons beyond it's control. The EC-121 that was forced down failed because it was not protected against an aggressor. Sloppy tradecraft on the part of our forces was/is a direct result of political rules of engagement (ROE). The only red lines I see drawn in the sand are blood trails from our forces who operate under irresponsible edicts from politicians. Placing more emphasis on playing a losing game of attrition by catering to the anti-war crowd who have had it too good for too long at the expense of our "hated" military is begging for another 9/11. Cut the snipers some slack who are undoubtedly operating under questionable ROE. It would get worse under Hillary.
How many hours a day to you have to practice to maintain the edge on your smug sense of superiority?
Over you? micro-seconds.
It is hard for me to understand how anyone can think that not shooting a disturbed veteran is a bad thing. Surely, if anything lies outside the confines of partisanship this does.
I repeat:
Nothing got damaged and no one got hurt.
That's a success.
The controversy doesn't exist.
Except to those used to killing everything in their path,..
John Allen Muhammad was a disturbed veteran. So were Nadal Hasan and Timothy McVeigh.
Absolute Moral Authority, I reckon.
Poachers on the Royal Estate will be Hung or Transported.
It's just a house. Don't get too attached to it. It's been burned down once before. Does anyone think the White House is going to remain inviolate forever?
Our government is people, not buildings.
Nothing got damaged and no one got hurt.
THIS time. Rajiv Gandhi could not be reached for comment
Rajiv Gandhi was killed while doing a meet-and-greet in a village. So Presidential candidates aren't supposed to have any contact with the public?
" To lament that an obviously disturbed man was not shot down like a rabid dog at the first possible opportunity is truly despicable.
You have reached a new low, Ann."
======
Freder, there are places even an idiot like you would benefit from being secure, even to the point where you shoot a "disturbed person".
Some mental case tries forcing his way into a plane's cockpit in-flight. Some crazy person gets on an air base and is trying to force their way into the hanger where a nuke-armed B-1 bomber is housed. Some nut, unknown if he is armed/bomb equipped or not, tries penetrating the White House while the President is one room away..
---Because he's a human being. I know:
It's still a difficult concept, for some, in slave country.--
Which is why, when black people are murding each other by the hundreds for such trivia as athletic shoes and iPhones, one wonders if Black value life at any level.
Be better than the slave masters, respect yourselves!
The Crack Emcee said...
David,
. . . .
This is slave country.
That no one got killed IS the new standard and, in that, they performed spectacularly.
I will remind you that Robert Gould Shaw was a avowed racist who ended up leading a black regiment into "Glory".
Whites can change,...
Whites can change, and many have. Shaw was a racist and an abolitionist. The two coexisted in the same mind quite easily. Indeed the white officers leading the black regiments were almost uniformly racists.
But Shaw at least fought and died with his men. Yet except for the symbolic post mortem sanctification, they died in vain. The white regiments following them, which were supposed to exploit the advantage the 54th Massachusetts had gained, failed to advance. This was partly because they were out of position because of incompetence and bickering among their white leaders. But it was also because the white regiments were reluctant to attack a fortified position. The 54th Mass. had been given that doomed task, in order to "prove" that blacks were willing to fight for their freedom.
The Colored Troops of the Civil War are now lionized and glorified. In one sense they should be. They did the best they could and many of the troops were brave and worked hard at all tasks they were given. But these units were also ill led in battle, and ill used mostly as labor, grave diggers and prison guards. At one point on Morris Island, where the events of "Glory" took place, the Union higher brass had to intervene to get the white units to start working on fortifications again. They had pretty much farmed out all the labor to the blacks.
Nowadays the United States military is the closest thing we have to a post racial meritocracy in this country. If you can get it, that is. Blacks now enlist in numbers disproportionately low to their presence in the population. The recruiters are frustrated because so many young black men are ineligible due to drug history or use, criminal involvement and low educational attainment. But once in people are judged on their merit. That is the diametric opposite of the US military in 1865.
Some things have changed, and some have not.
"Which is why, when black people are murding each other by the hundreds for such trivia as athletic shoes and iPhones, one wonders if Black value life at any level."
Bullshit. You get upset if Crack generalizes from the KKK to categorize the entire white population. How is your comment any different? The violent minority is not the emblem of the whole group.
And if you think the killings are about iPhones and shoes, you need to look more closely. It's much more elemental than that.
They have like an intercom system around the perimeter; so the Secret Service can talk to you. Perhaps they already had some threat assessment.
Does it seem like these are "probes" of SS reaction to intruders? What about the guy who drove through the gate and ignored orders to stop?
I don't like this one bit. The WH has to be a tempting target to Jihadis.
I think we should waterboard the guys, or drug them, or whatever, we might even "torture" them by making them stand for extended periods of time.
At 2:47 a.m. on January 31, 1968, 19 Vietnamese terrorists (commonly known then as Viet Cong) dressed in civilian clothes blasted a hole in the wall surrounding the U.S. Embassy in Saigon.
U.S. soldiers killed several as they entered the grounds.
The Viet Cong armed with automatic weapons fired rocket-propelled grenades at the Chancery and carried more than 40 pounds of plastic explosives.
Because their leaders had been killed, instead of trying to enter the building, they took positions around it. Ultimately, they controlled the entire compound for hours but never actually entered the embassy itself.
The battle went on until dawn when most of the invaders were killed by arriving soldiers, including Airborne Rangers dropped on the roof by helicopter.
The shocking psychological impact of this event is what led many Americans to believe the war was unwinnable.
That famous photo of the Vietnamese general shooting the "civilian" in the head? It happened the next day. The "civilian" was a terrorist who had just killed a South Vietnamese colonel. And his wife. And his six children
"I repeat:" - Crack
HA ha ha ha ha! Thanks for the tip.
Unknown,
"Which is why, when black people are murding each other by the hundreds for such trivia as athletic shoes and iPhones, one wonders if Black value life at any level."
Yes, I know:
Like Cliven Bundy admiring white's work from afar, you do "wonder"...
David,
"Bullshit. You get upset if Crack generalizes from the KKK to categorize the entire white population. How is your comment any different? The violent minority is not the emblem of the whole group."
I've explained my M.O. a number of times, but they never catch on - easier to blame me than search their own souls and police their own behavior.
"And if you think the killings are about iPhones and shoes, you need to look more closely. It's much more elemental than that."
Like music to my ears,...
" easier to blame me than search their own souls " - Crack
More unintended irony from the master.
tim in vermont,
"More unintended irony from the master."
No - I know why I'm doing what I do - the racism I've found here for years.
And, considering that's the case - and I definitely include you in the group - why do you do what you do?
If it's to fight racism against blacks, THAT's where the irony comes in,...
Crack,
I don't care about racism against the blacks, or whites, or browns, or Asians, or trees, or cats, or fish... whatever.
I care wither you are gonna spend your time getting even for what you see as injustice, valid or not, or if you are gonna spend your time GETTING AHEAD IN LIFE.
For you see, if you want to rise above all racism then you must rise above yourself and go. Get a job, get a life, get a family. Become part of society and help others as you prosper.
See sitting around crying won't make things better. Look at Condi Rice. Heck I'd vote for her for president cause she has get up and go and even though she saw so much racism she overcame that and made something of herself.
You might wanna try that route for a change.
Here's a paradox. You can't criticize the Germans for being Nazis without to some extent adapting a Nazi ideology. There are some people who are naturally and incorrigibly evil. The mistake was labeling them as Jews. The incorrigibly evil race was clearly the Germans.
William:
"The incorrigibly evil race was clearly the Germans."
No offense, but WTF?
The Germans bought into Naziism, by and large, as a nation and as a culture, not as a race. If their race was evil, what do we make of Rommel, who served the Nazis so ably while detesting them, and belatedly tried to do something about them? Or, to take less morally complex cases, what do we make of Stauffenberg? Of Dietrich Bonhoeffer?
I can't think of anyone I take seriously who thinks the Germans were evil as a race. They bought into Nazism as a group of people collectively making a conscious choice. Hitler said what most of them wanted to hear, so most of them supported him. Naziism was a uniquely German phenomenon - but many non-Germans bought into it, and at least a few Germans gave their lives to stop it. A small minority, maybe, but enough to disprove a racial analysis.
First - having to do with the original post - I loved the tweet I saw re-posted that said since he made it over the fence and into the building he should be able to live there.
Second - Every other post is turning into the Crack Show. This is getting pathetic. Like watching an amateur version of Al Sharpton's show every day. I always liked the conversation here because of the intelligence and wit shown (yes, often on both sides of a discussion). It often gives food for thought. No offense, but really, how stupid are you folks to fall for Crack's stale spiel?
This is a truly depressing set of posts.
Althouse is complaining that the cops didn't shoot a disturbed veteran and some morons actually support this insanely fascist position. It doesn't get much lower than this.
It was pizza and hookers day at the Secret Service office in the White House. Consequently no one was manning the security cameras. Usually someone is manning the security room videos, but it was Chicago deep dish pizza.
Althouse is complaining that the cops didn't shoot a disturbed veteran and some morons actually support this insanely fascist position.
So true. Secret Service should always use their telepathic powers to diagnose the perp before shooting him.
[so easy for you to monday morning quarterback facts that were not in evidence at the time]
"The incorrigibly evil race was clearly the Germans."
Yeh, the Swiss and Amish were in it up to their necks.
"No - I know why I'm doing what I do - the racism I've found here for years."
I disagree, just as you disagree that I know why I am doing what I do.
I see idiocy on the internet festooned in self importance, I point it out. You qualify.
"This is a truly depressing set of posts"
Glad you are depressed ARM. Something came from this thread, anyways.
We all know that the idea that anybody would be probing the security at the WH is a ridiculous fabrication of right wingers, right?
Cops don't kill enough vets? That's a problem for this country?
"This is a truly depressing set of posts"
Glad you are depressed ARM. Something came from this thread, anyways.
We all know that the idea that anybody would be probing the security at the WH is a ridiculous fabrication of right wingers, right?
tim in vermont said...
Glad you are depressed
Wingers, now all for killing vets. How partisanship twists minds, Lesson #5,379,803.
Don't get hysterical ARM. Have a piece of pizza.
Try one of the hookers.
Rusty said...
Don't get hysterical
I guess you're right. I mean, what's a dead vet or two to you guys. You didn't care how many were killed in Iraq, why worry now?
I guess you're right. I mean, what's a dead vet or two to you guys. You didn't care how many were killed in Iraq, why worry now?
Throw some cold water on your face and come on back after you've calmed down.
Now that you understand the role of partisanship in "twisting minds" have a look at your own.
Oh, I forgot, you are a non-partisan centrist, just like Obama.
Rusty said...
Throw some cold water
Why not just acknowledge that you are willing to believe anything, no matter how vile, if you think it will provide some partisan advantage to your team.
The whores of FOX.
CNN is reporting he had 800 rounds of ammunition in his car, some guns, an axe, and a map of the White House.
I think he was just smart enough to sound crazy after being caught.
Also, I'm glad the Secret Service was able to determie from a distance that he wasn't armed.
Fail.
Prosecutors alleged Monday in federal court that a man who jumped a fence and ran into the White House’s unlocked front door Friday night posed a threat to President Obama and was keeping 800 rounds of ammunition, two hatchets and a machete in his car,
ARM, I thought you liked Obama, and here you want people like this to have access to his living quarters...
Oh excuse me. He was found three different times with these things in his car.
This time he had the ammo. Previously he had the sniper rifle.
Harmless.
Well done, Secret Service. Yet we pay for whatever they want to do based on trust with no disclosure.
It is funny that ARM has managed to a picture of Aristotle look stupid based just on association with ARM's rantings.
Why not just acknowledge that you are willing to believe anything, no matter how vile, if you think it will provide some partisan advantage to your team.
Why don't you just acknowledge that your willing to get yourself to believe anything and make an emotional case out of it.
NOBODY DIED
You simpering fool.
tim in vermont said...
ARM, I thought you liked Obama, and here you want people like this to have access to his living quarters…
The president wasn't there. It would be reasonable to assume that the SS knew that, having just seen the helicopter take off.
But, you know, why not just waste a vet for the fun of it.
Rusty said...
NOBODY DIED
which apparently is a bad thing based on many of the inane comments on this thread, including those of its initiator.
NOBODY DIED
That's what Archduke Ferdinand's security detail said when the first assassination attempts failed and the Archduke's motorcade motored on.
what's a dead vet or two
Nasal Hasan would have been nice, before he went on his rampage.
How many soldiers did he kill? Thirteen? Fourteen, counting the pregnant enlisted woman?
How partisanship excuses anything, Lesson #5,379,804.
There, fixed it for you.
furious_a said...
How partisanship excuses anything,
But there is nothing to excuse. They didn't kill a troubled vet. This is a good outcome.
Cops killing citizens is the failure, how difficult is this to understand?
" why not just waste a vet for the fun of it."
That's your interpretation, a sick one at that. How difficult is it for you to accept the fact that there is a terror organization with dozens, if not hundreds, of adherents in the US who have declared that they were going to kill Obama?
How difficult is it for you to understand that part of attacking a well defended installation like the White House is to probe its defenses and its reactions to intrusions?
Putin has been doing this a lot recently, for example, by buzzing Alaska with strategic bombers.
But it is never about the big picture with you unless the "big picture" is "America bad, rest of the world good."
tim in vermont said...
How difficult is it for you to understand that part of attacking a well defended installation like the White House is to probe its defenses and its reactions to intrusions?
How difficult is it for you to understand that this isn't what happened?
Paranoid delusions are not a legitimate reason to kill a citizen. It is incredible that any American has to argue this point.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा