Visit to Chile

Caracarn · #1 (**permalink**) 11-22-2004, 05:04 PM

Bush's recent visit to Chile has given us a good look into the persona of this man.

From CNN: "Bush was posing for photos with first lady Laura Bush in the Estacion Mapocho Cultural Center when he heard a commotion and saw that one of his plainclothes security agents was being forcefully restrained from entering.
Bush reached into a small crowd, where people were arguing and pushing one another, and pulled the agent through the door of center.
Bush then turned around, cocked his head proudly at his maneuver and began to greet his hosts."

What an offensive act. Rather than telling his man to stand down for a moment while the situation is cleared up (the honorable thing to do), he disregards the host country's security agents in a ridiculous show of Texas bravado.

"Plans for a state dinner for President Bush at Chile's presidential palace were scratched Sunday after the United States insisted on security measures that Chile called unacceptable.....
For the Sunday event, the Secret Service insisted all guests -- totaling more than 230 -- pass through a metal detector, a top level Chilean Foreign Ministry official told CNN. U.S. officials did not dispute this account.
President Ricardo Lagos believed the measure was humiliating for guests, the Chilean official said.
Instead, Bush will attend a small dinner of about 20 people in Lagos' private dining room."

And then this. The Bush team attempts to treat 230 of Chile's most distinguished guests like schoolchildren or court visitors. Just twist the sword while you pierce a nation's sense of honor and dignity, why don't you?

Someone was right in saying "actions speak louder than words." We already know how little we can trust the words. His actions just complete the circle of a man with little sense. It boggles the mind to think how so many perceive Bush as a 'moral' figure.

Some of you may applaud these actions in the tradition of blind nationalism, naivety, and cultural isolationism. Well, if this and the past four years are any indication of what's to come, let's just sit back and observe the continued degradation in our global relations.

Tedminator · #2 (**permalink**) 11-22-2004, 05:20 PM

Quote:

"Plans for a state dinner for President Bush at Chile's presidential palace were scratched Sunday after the United States insisted on security measures that Chile called unacceptable.....
For the Sunday event, the Secret Service insisted all guests -- totaling more than 230 -- pass through a metal detector, a top level Chilean Foreign Ministry official told CNN. U.S. officials did not dispute this account.
President Ricardo Lagos believed the measure was humiliating for guests, the Chilean official said.
Instead, Bush will attend a small dinner of about 20 people in Lagos' private dining room."

The SecretService don't trust Americans in the USA, why should the Secret Service trust Chilians in Chile?

Quote:

The Bush team attempts to treat 230 of Chile's most distinguished guests like schoolchildren or court visitors. Just twist the sword while you pierce a nation's sense of honor and dignity, why don't you?

We are talking about the security of the president of the united states here, right? The bruised dignity of 230 distinguished party guests is worth it.

pinniped · #3 (**permalink**) 11-22-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caracarn";p=&quot

Some of you may applaud these actions in the tradition of blind nationalism, naivety, and cultural isolationism. Well, if this and the past four years are any indication of what's to come, let's just sit back and observe the continued degradation in our global relations.

OK, I'll do that. Hey, I'm no Bush fanatic but only if Chile is completely deluded would they expect anything less than a huge entourage to join him. If they can't deal with that then maybe there is something nefarious going on there. Just because some banana republic arms a bunch of goons with guns doesn't mean we have to capitulate.

JP5 · #4 (**permalink**) 11-22-2004, 07:29 PM

Got news for ya: we don't leave the personal security of our President to other nations. Never have. Never will.

catzmeow · #5 (**permalink**) 11-23-2004, 05:49 AM

for the people who work for him. This was a calculated affront by the Chilean security forces, and Bush dealt with it in a very American way.

Some of y'all are apparently afraid or contemptuous towards our cowboy roots. I'm not one of you.

Catz

EuP · #6 (**permalink**) 11-23-2004, 06:01 AM

...me neither.

Caracarn · #7 (**permalink**) 11-23-2004, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Got news for ya: we don't leave the personal security of our President to other nations. Never have. Never will.

Um, who said that we leave the personal security of our president to other nations? Did the Secret Service just say, "OK, we're on vacation so let's just sip margaritas while these other guys take care of things." No, I'm sure they and the Chilean security forces made all necessary preparations. I'm also sure that they could have guaranteed safety at this gathering without having people walk through a metal detector.

Caracarn · #8 (**permalink**) 11-23-2004, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow";p=&quot

This was a calculated affront by the Chilean security forces, and Bush dealt with it in a very American way.

Oh, please. Trying to frame this as the fault of the security guards is typical of the prevailing mindset that we can do no wrong.

Quote:

Some of y'all are apparently afraid or contemptuous towards our cowboy roots. I'm not one of you.

Afraid? No. Contemptuous? Well, maybe. That kind of behavior may work on capital hill, but we don't need it for international relations.

EuP · #9 (**permalink**) 11-23-2004, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Trying to frame this as the fault of the security guards is typical of the prevailing mindset that we can do no wrong.

And trying to frame it as the fault of anyone else is typical of the prevailing mindset that we're always wrong.

What, was it the Secret Service's fault that Chilean security tried to separate the American President from his protection detail?

catzmeow · #10 (**permalink**) 11-23-2004, 07:00 AM

much as I'd expect from someone who takes his name from Robert Jordan novels...

Quote:

Oh, please. Trying to frame this as the fault of the security guards is typical of the prevailing mindset that we can do no wrong.

A little more in-depth analysis on this issue from a great blog (Powerline.com):

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008685.php

Quote:

Dafydd ab Hugh writes:

Judging from your comments, I don't think you guys realize the seriousness of what happened in Chile. Let me put it into perspective: the president has been marked for death by hundreds of terrorist groups; he is in a foreign country, one where there have been near contintuous riots against America and against him, personally, over the Iraq War; as he's walking into a banquet hall, the local police intentionally cut him off from his security detail.

If the first thought that popped into your mind when you heard about that was not "assassination," then your mind is still laboring in a pre-9/11 world.

It's entirely possible that rather than "rescuing" his detained Secret Service detail, Bush in fact saved his own life. If there was a plan, if this wasn't just a random act of rudeness by the Chilean police (why would they do that?), then Bush's quick thinking may have forced the would-be attackers to abort the operation.

This little incident needs a thorough and complete investigation by Chile, as well as by the CIA. The incident the next day -- where the Bush team demanded everyone at the next banquet pass through metal detectors -- shows that they had the same thought I did (and we all should have had); the fact that Chile refused, even to the point of scuttling the party, is troubling, to say the least.

There are a lot of people out there who want to see George W. Bush dead; alas, there are a lot of heads of state who would not shed a tear. In this day and age, when armed local cops intentionally cut the president off from his security detail, that should be taken as no less a violent act that when an anti-aircraft missile battery "paints" an American plane with fire-control radar.

UPDATE: One of our readers writes from Santiago:
I am a US military officer stationed in Santiago, Chile. And while I think that there should have been better coordination to avoid the incident on Sat evening, each country's personnel were doing their job.

I have the utmost respect for Chilean National Police, and in fact, our US Special Forces have trained with many of them over the past four years and recognize them as the most professional force in Latin America.

Ths US Secret Service treats every foreign visit of the US President pretty much the same, not having the time to learn about individual police forces and their capabilities. Although an advance Secret Service team coordinated with the Chilean National Police before the President's arrival, what occurred was a result not having reached an an agreement prior to the event, forcing the issue at the entrance to the dinner, or there was a change/misunderstanding at the last minute.

Chile, and Santiago as its captial city, are without question the safest in South America. Chile is a sovereign country and, as such, can set protocols for security as they did for APEC. The choices for visiting govts are to abide with the protocols, discuss them and come to a compromise (which did occur on innumerable issues) or to not participate and try and force a change (as occurred at the Sunday night dinner).

Obviously, many foreign govts are ambivalent with regard to the "supposed threat" that exists against Americans and its head of state. Many Chileans are in that frame of mind. The Chilean Govt is also very proud of their military and police and felt the security was more than adequate. Without going into more detail, I would summarize by saying that I am a fervent supporter of the President. That each govts security representitives were doing what they felt was in the best interest of the respective govts.

Our president has every right, and is in fact obligated by national security concerns, to keep his security personnel with him at all times. That's a fact. All presidents are in that same boat.

Catz

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode