White House Manual: President Shouldn't See Protesters

dennis_t

CAGiversary!
For all those who still think Bush is a tough guy with a clear grasp of reality, who can take criticism and deal with those who disagree with him:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101662.html

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 22, 2007; A02

Not that they're worried or anything. But the White House evidently leaves little to chance when it comes to protests within eyesight of the president. As in, it doesn't want any.

A White House manual that came to light recently gives presidential advance staffers extensive instructions in the art of "deterring potential protestors" from President Bush's public appearances around the country.

Among other things, any event must be open only to those with tickets tightly controlled by organizers. Those entering must be screened in case they are hiding secret signs. Any anti-Bush demonstrators who manage to get in anyway should be shouted down by "rally squads" stationed in strategic locations. And if that does not work, they should be thrown out.

But that does not mean the White House is against dissent -- just so long as the president does not see it. In fact, the manual outlines a specific system for those who disagree with the president to voice their views. It directs the White House advance staff to ask local police "to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route."

The "Presidential Advance Manual," dated October 2002 with the stamp "Sensitive -- Do Not Copy," was released under subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech at the West Virginia State Capitol in 2004. The techniques described have become familiar over the 6 1/2 years of Bush's presidency, but the manual makes it clear how organized the anti-protest policy really is.

The lawsuit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word "Bush" crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said "Regime Change Starts at Home," while hers said "Love America, Hate Bush." Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized. The federal government settled the First Amendment case last week for $80,000, but with no admission of wrongdoing.

The manual demonstrates "that the White House has a policy of excluding and/or attempting to squelch dissenting viewpoints from presidential events," said ACLU lawyer Jonathan Miller. "Individuals should have the right to express their opinion to the president, even if it's not a favorable one."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that he could not discuss the manual because it is an issue in two other lawsuits.

The manual offers advance staffers and volunteers who help set up presidential events guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be " extremely supportive of the Administration," it says. While the Secret Service screens audiences only for possible threats, the manual says, volunteers should examine people before they reach security checkpoints and look out for signs. Make sure to look for "folded cloth signs," it advises.

To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create "rally squads" of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with "favorable messages." Squads should be placed in strategic locations and "at least one squad should be 'roaming' throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems," the manual says.

"These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators," it says. "The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site."

Advance teams are advised not to worry if protesters are not visible to the president or cameras: "If it is determined that the media will not see or hear them and that they pose no potential disruption to the event, they can be ignored. On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the President, or has the potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken immediately to minimize the demonstrator's effect."

The manual adds in bold type: "Remember -- avoid physical contact with demonstrators! Most often, the demonstrators want a physical confrontation. Do not fall into their trap!" And it suggests that advance staff should "decide if the solution would cause more negative publicity than if the demonstrators were simply left alone."

The staff at the West Virginia event may have missed that line.
 
At this point, is it really a shocker to hear that the president is handled with kid gloves, never even being allowed to see that anyone disagrees with him? 'Free Speech Zones', the surgeon general thing a month or so back, he doesn't read the paper, the TV's in the white house are all tuned to FOXNews, the evidence of his willful ignorance (either by his own will or that of his handlers) is as long as your arm and grows exponentially every month he's in office.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']For all those who still think Bush is a tough guy .[/quote]

I always thought he was a wimp just like his dad.
 
Because it is always wise to directly engage those protesting in generally puerile displays.

THEY ARE SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER YOU KNOW
 
Right-wingers regularly addressed Clinton at speaking engagements. He listened, then responded to them politely.

He apparently isn't a dainty and delicate flower like Dubya, who seemingly will get the vapors if faced with any sort of intellectual opposition. Clinton also understood that he was the president of the entire country, not just one political party.

[quote name='RollingSkull']Because it is always wise to directly engage those protesting in generally puerile displays.

THEY ARE SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER YOU KNOW[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Right-wingers regularly addressed Clinton at speaking engagements. He listened, then responded to them politely.

He apparently isn't a dainty and delicate flower like Dubya, who seemingly will get the vapors if faced with any sort of intellectual opposition. Clinton also understood that he was the president of the entire country, not just one political party.[/quote]
I seriously, seriously, doubt that any of you would be praising the president if Bush had a policy of confronting protesters.

With a media that has frequently proven hostile to the president and not enough in his Perform: Oratory skillz to churn out rejoinders immediately, one has to play to their strengths.

Not that I am in favor of the president engaging protestors. There is a way to have a sane debate, and having a shouting match with a guy carrying a sign trying to create a moment to give the 24 hour news cycle another 12 or so hours of coverage and debate is not the way to do it.
 
I doubt he is the first or last president to do this, but he is the dumbest one to write it down in a book!
 
I'd probably respect him more if he actually allowed the entire spectrum of the American populace to attend his speaking engagements, rather than just his most rabid supporters. Then at least I'd see he had the courage of his convictions, and was willing to face a hostile crowd and try to persuade them to his way of thinking.

Or to put it in FoxNooz terms: How can he face al Queda when he can't even face a heckler?


[quote name='RollingSkull']I seriously, seriously, doubt that any of you would be praising the president if Bush had a policy of confronting protesters.

With a media that has frequently proven hostile to the president and not enough in his Perform: Oratory skillz to churn out rejoinders immediately, one has to play to their strengths.

Not that I am in favor of the president engaging protestors. There is a way to have a sane debate, and having a shouting match with a guy carrying a sign trying to create a moment to give the 24 hour news cycle another 12 or so hours of coverage and debate is not the way to do it.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']I doubt he is the first or last president to do this, but he is the dumbest one to write it down in a book![/QUOTE]

It's SOP (not exposing POTUS to hecklers/protesters), but there have been some who have confronted it head-on.
 
[quote name='dennis_t'] and was willing to face a hostile crowd and try to persuade them to his way of thinking.

[/QUOTE]

I don't know if you've noticed, but he's not the best public speaker. ;)
 
"I seriously, seriously, doubt that any of you would be praising the president if Bush had a policy of confronting protesters."

"Confront" like with machine guns or "confront" with arguments and debate?

Seriously though, I would definitely priase the preisdent for confronting protestors in debate. The English form of government does it in what I think is called QUestions and Answers where the house of Lords just fires off a bunch of questions and the prime minister has to answer them. Its Shaqfuin' great.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']I'd probably respect him more if he actually allowed the entire spectrum of the American populace to attend his speaking engagements, rather than just his most rabid supporters. [/quote]

That happened once. Some former CIA guy started asking the hard questions about the real facts of Iraq and the president lieing to us to get in a pointless war. Bush did his famous "What? I can't hear you", anytime he doesn't like the question be pretends he doesn't he it and then tries to change the question.

This was also the same time someone asked how many innocent people in Iraq have died and the president calmly and not giving a fuck went "Uhh... 30,000".

You wonder why they fucking want us killed!

And remember the president is "pro-life", we can't even fucking "kill" a stem cell to save lives.
 
bread's done
Back
Top