Travelgate...has begun. Some facts

[nadinbrzezinski]

Ok here are some facts as there is a SMALL kernel of truth that applies to all Presidents.

When they travel abroad here are some things that always happen.

1.- Secret Service advance team. These folks go there up to three months to scout all threats and coordinate with local teams.
2.- Not one but two planes in the Air Force One fleet. The one carrying POTUS and a ready spare, decoy.
3.- Three to five C-5 Galaxies to transport ALL the ground vehicles.
4.- Five Marine Ones, decoys, ready spares.
5.- ALL the personnel to maintain all this crap.
6.- Secret Service Detachement.
7.- Presidential Staff, from low level cooks at AF 1 all the way to communications and cabinet level.
8.- Renting whole floors or even a whole hotel is STANDARD for security reasons.
9.- I forgot the mid-air refuelers for all that crap and figter escort.

And to the residents in India, it is a PAIN, due to all the damn obvious and not so obvious security. No POTUS don't travel cheap but it is part of the damn fucking budget... See all that is part of DOD and a minuscule part of that budget.

What galls me is the fucking double standard... When Bush went on any foreign trip it was the same way and I do notnbegrudge this to POTUS... It is part of Empire and Imperial projection. Period.

Nadin

But I expect hearings if they can milk the outrage...

[meegbear]

1. They'll have hearings whether they can milk the outrage or not

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. On this particular issue

We are going to see impeachment.

[sellitman]

4. I agree. Impeachment hearings in

10-9-8-7-6-5.......

[backscatter712]

8. No, not without control of the Senate they won't.

They'll throw a few hearings, the Rethugs will howl and screech about the costs, there will be a lot of noise on FAUX News, but in the end, everyone will stop paying attention except the Beckerheads who'll continue to watch Glenn draw up conspiracies on his chalkboard.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. The house indicted, the senate did not convict

The base wants it. Daryl Issa will go there.

[backscatter712]

19. If they're gonna try it, let 'em! It'll backfire again!

Remember when they tried it last time - the Rethugs were the ones looking like assholes and seeing their polls going in the toilet.

They may want to impeach, but they've got no grounds. Obama has not committed an impeachable offense, so any attempts would have to come from shit they made up - which WILL be called out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Let's play how low can your pols go

[sharp_stick]

5. Nah too easy to disprove

The hearings will be on something that the WH can't blow off with a secret level accounting sheet.

[Posteritatis]

11. Bear in mind you're talking about a House that plans to "refute" global warming. (nt)

[sharp_stick]

15. True

I gave them too much credit.

[aquamarina]

3. Sorry, I don't have tv - who's leading the screaching on this?

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. The right Reagan even brought it to msnbc

It is a false story, alternate universe... They create these false flag... You and I will see go mainstream soon...

[DCKit]

6. I live on the waterfront in DC.

When Bush* Sr. was busy losing to Bill Clinton, I was working nights and unable to sleep during the day due to his three to five trips a day in-and-out of DC.

Jr.* not only needed all of the above, but spent even more time flying and used more decoys. Thankfully, he was on vacation so often, few of his trips ended up impacting the DC area.

[JohnnyBoots]

14. All those trips to Crawford cost like $80K - one way.

[DCKit]

36. $80K? You're dreaming.

I worked with a guy who retired from the AF and crewed on AF-1. Fifteen or so years ago, he told me it cost $600K every time they start those engines.

Remember, it's TWO 747s, all the support vehicles, staff, press and security.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. History doesn't quite repeat itself, but it echos very loud.

The 1993 White House travel office controversy, referred to as Travelgate was the first major ethics controversy of the Clinton administration. Seven employees who served at the pleasure of the President and could be dismissed without cause were fired. Such employees usually remained in their posts for years. The investigation lasted until 1998.

Not the same thing, but the 'Gate scandals are starting before the 112th swears in.

Republicans, if anything, are efficient at heaping on the shit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Absolutely, scandals are easier than... Actually doing

The people's bidness. Of course not ours, and this shit is about protecting corporations... There will be no hearings on BP for example, that be like unseemly. This is to keep the dems out of kilter.

[Ozymanithrax]

18. If Democrats are busy fending off subpoenas...

and paying very high legal fees, they will have less time to work on substantive issues.

Politics is War.

[bigdarryl]

10. Stupid ass Bachmann I guess thinks he need no security

[Posteritatis]

12. It's Bachmann; I imagine she'd love the implications of him being unprotected. (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Bingo! It's the democrat thing you see.

[Qutzupalotl]

28. That's exactly how we should frame it.

Why do Republicans want the president to travel without security?

[ljm2002]

20. You are right...

...the question is, how do Obama's travel plans compare to those of previous Presidents?

I don't know the answer to that. But of course we all realize that the POTUS will be bringing staff, and security personnel, and >1 jets. I don't recall any POTUS traveling solo on a state visit!

I had someone ask me the other day, "Is it true the President is travelling to Mumbai and spending $200M per day?" I asked him if he knew how many people traveled with Bush on state visits and how much those cost. That is, if we are going to critique the cost of a Presidential state visit, we must do so in relation to what other Presidents have done. The response? Crickets.

I pointed him to factcheck.org where the story was debunked in short order. But it pisses me off that anyone would fall for that swill.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Depends on where

Security in Mexico was like insane due to the threat level... I am sure to Canada it is lower. It is the same for all presidents for the last 20 years or so.

[Posteritatis]

24. It's still pretty visible here, at least under Bush...

Snipers, bans on open windows, huge (if understandable) disruptions, etc in a large area around wherever he's staying, at least the two times he was in my town. We had similar things when Clinton was in town, but they felt less intense.

Weirdly enough, Rice had a thicker, more visible security detail than any president I've ever seen visit here, though. It was mindboggling.

[Posteritatis]

23. Doesn't quite answer your question, but..

I was looking for something similar earlier and came across this chunk of Wiki's commons:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_countries_visited_by_US_presidents

It doesn't give visit numbers or the like, but at least with the recent presidents you can probably safely assume a roughly similar amount of security and, from there, go by the number of countries visited. There isn't a map for Obama yet, though (or, frustratingly, Reagan), but I've had the impression he's spent more time at home than both his immediate predecessors, though.

Some of them are pretty interesting otherwise, like how little Truman travelled, and how you can see the state of geopolitics all over Eisenhower's map.

[MilesColtrane]

25. But, but....what about the brazillion warships and gold plated spy satellites with lasers?

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. I am sure some ships

moved from the money zone to the Indian Ocean, again the little grain of truth. Again this is SOP though.

[littlewolf]

26. I don't think their will be hearings ... you don't here

anyone but bloggers/talk radio yapping about it ....
it is part of the program ...

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Hmm that is exactly how the original travelgate started

whip the base, they demand it.

The original travelgate dug up nothing, but went on for six years and three congresses.

[the redcoat]

27. There will never be hearings because hearings would publicly prove them wrong nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Facts never get in the way of kabuki theater

hearings are kabuki red meat for the base.

[Cosmocat]

32. Is this a joke or some kind of satirical post?

This crew had the MSM basically accusing Nancy Pelosi of using the air force for her personal air fleet, having people do lines of coke of her chest ... ect ...

[Diclotican]

33. nadinbrzezinski

nadinbrzezinski


It is expensive to have a president, specially the president of the United States, who many for many reasons maybe have some problems with.. But compared to what might happend, if he are not protected and secured from extremist, home and abroad, not to say terrorist who want to blow him, and most americans up in flames I doubt the current US president is that expensive at all.. It is all in the budgeds anyway I belive.. I not the traveling of the US president a part of the Dept of Defence or something like that. As The 89th airwing is part of the military? I would rather have a safe US president, than a dead president.. We do not need a new Kennedy case in US I belive


Maybe it is not that bad having just an monarc after all then.. Our king is allmoust "on the free" compared to the US president. Compared to the rest of the royal houses in Europe, and the world, our royal house is "poor" and on the cheap, both Sweden, Denmark, UK, and the rest are far mor expensive than the Royal house in Norway. And I doubt that our king is that a big target all over the world either... Sometimes he even drive his own car, a Volvo but not excactly a Volvo 244;) between parts of our little country - he was even taken in a speeding control a couple of years back, and had to paid a fine for the pleasure of driving to fast!. Even when he can not be punished by law becouse he is "over the law" in many cases. But he opted to pay the fine, becouse he wanted to set an example, that even the King have to pay his fines, when he was doing some wrong - and also posible becouse it would not be good taste to not pay the fine in the public.. In fact both he and his wife, the Queen can allmoust go downtown Oslo, without bodyguards - and our late king Olav got a few points when he once was asked why he was not driving in protected cars, and at least have a couple of bodyguards with him at all time.. He famousely say, Why should I bother, I have 4.5 million bodyguards present at all time. He scoret many points that day.. And most of us have allways tried to respect the private life of our royal familiy.. I have sometimes seen them and said hello to them both,as they was walking around a place here where I live, The home of the Crown Prince are "just down the block" from where I live:P So they are out in the woods a lot, they like the nature and are using it frequently.. For the most part not many notice them, as they are "ordinary" or at least as ordinary as peopole can be, when they are kings and queens and royals... They are nice, even tho the Queen can be somewhat of a stiff, but she is probarly a nice woman if she is in the right of moods.

But yes, it is a double standard, when they now is talking about how expensive it is to the US president to travel, when they was not doing that when GWB was president.. Not to say, how expensive the wars have been.. Billions, and billions wort of money down the drain, for what?

Diclotican

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Trillions of dolars

just a slight correction.

And the cost comes from Empire. This security bubble did not exist in the early part of the 20th century and ... Lincoln walked with NO security fro the WH to the War department during a civill war no less.

The modern US President is like having Caesar visit...

When te empire finally falls, and it will... the cost will also go down.

[Diclotican]

35. nadinbrzezinski

nadinbrzezinski


Still, a lot of money, if you count in all the money spent on the Empire US have... And as you point out, most of the security boble was not part of most of the 20th century either. It was after Kennedy the security boble was invented, where the President not allways was going into contact with the rest of the public. I know that both Secret Service, and our own security was scared to near death, when Clinton was in Oslo in 1998, and walked around in public as with friends... And even eat something in a lockal bakery. It was really a mess the couple of days he was in town, but also alot of fun I guess;)

Wel, the 1860s was maybe less dangrous to a president than today?. Even under a sivil war.. I guess it was few automatic weapons out then... Today a skilled shooter can kill a man from 2km distance.. In Lincons time you would be lucky if you managed to shoot a man if you was 50-150 Meter ahead of him....


True, but I doubt that even when the emperors of Rome was around, the money spent on security was that mutch, for the most part, it was not from the public the roman emperors had the danger from, but from his own familiy and his own inner sircle.. Many Prefects who was fearing for his life, killed his master and commander.. Even bodyguards who was familiar with the emperors tacs and tics sometimes killed the emperor if he was not carefull enough...

That is maybe alos the case with the new emperor, it is not from the outside the greatest danger to the presidents life is coming from, but from the inner sircle around him. And one need just one, to make a mess out of everything.. As Nero, Caligulia, Commondus and many others of emperors learned the deadly way... More than 20 emperors was killed by their "own" after Augustus startet the empeire....

Diclotican

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Of course that is the fact

The bubble started to form with FDR... and actually after McKinley got killed.

It got bad AFTER Kennedy as you point.

And I got to be in Mexico City when BO went to visit last year... oy...

And it was worst than possibly Oslo because the Cartels were a very real threat.

[Diclotican]

38. nadinbrzezinski

nadinbrzezinski

True, it started early I guess, but until Kennedy I belive the US president was a person who could be contacted for most peopole, but also the danger who was present when McKinley and FDR was in office war limited to some special groups, who was clearly known, and for the most part also used metodes was known.. Not that they was not dangrous, for its time they was dangrous as few I guess... But again, before Kennedy most of the presidents was rather safe.. And the questnings around Kennedys dead is still rather interesting I would say, and I doubt that we wil know the whole truth, before either archives is opened, or some are willing to risk it all to tell the truth..

I belive that when president Obama was in Mexico last year, it must be a hell, mostly becouse the real danger the cartels present for the US president.. Compared to that, a trip to Oslo for Clinton was like a trip in the park, mostly becouse the level of danger in Oslo was limited, it was some arrest before he was arriving, from the real "troublemakers", but for the most part the visit got ahead and was peacefully.. Even when Obama was in Oslo, it was rather peacefully compared to many other City's around the world I guess.. Norwigans are not that dangrous to the rest of the world anyway;)

But, the two wisit by an american president, Clinton and Obama, it was two of the most important security actions in Norway since World War Two.. And I worked well, mostly becouse the two parts The Norwigian Police and the counterparts from US, worked well togheter, and was profetional both before, under and after the presidents had leaved the country. The Secret Service was really proes some police was telling after the show was over, and the president was out of the country...


Then it was back, to just protect our King, his family, and other very important peoples in Government who is more easy to protect than the US president..

Diclotican