PDA

View Full Version : "I'm not a King"


natisha
11-04-2010, 05:56 PM
No but you sure live like one. $200million/day???

Security Entourage Earning Epic Reputation Ahead of Obama India Visit


Published November 04, 2010
| FoxNews.com
http://www.baywindfarm.com/static/managed/img/Politics/artist_obama_110410_397x224.jpg

An Indian artist depicts President Obama at a studio in Thane, near Mumbai, India, on Nov. 4. (AP Photo)

A foreign force this size probably hasn't been in India since the era of British colonization.
But with a security entourage the size of a modest army supposedly buffering President Obama on his visit Friday, the Indian government is welcoming its long-awaited guest for three days of talks aimed at strengthening ties and trade between the world's two largest democracies.
The logistical details of the trip are mind-boggling and if not for an historic midterm election surely would have dominated the headlines over the past week. With the president and his staff making a point to stay at the Mumbai hotel ravaged by terrorists in 2008, the security arrangements have become the stuff of legend before Air Force One even takes off.
The details on the trip, extensively reported in the Indian media but strongly disputed by U.S. officials, read like lyrics for a hawkish version of "The 12 Days of Christmas."
The president will be accompanied by 40 aircraft, 3,000 people, a fleet of cars and 34 warships, according to a string of blow-by-blow news updates. The Press Trust of India quoted an official in the state of Maharashtra pegging the cost at $200 million a day.


Obama's said to have booked the entire Taj Mahal Palace hotel and, according to The Wall Street Journal, Mumbai officials have ordered coconuts plucked from palm trees outside a memorial the president is scheduled to visit to ensure there are no bumps on the noggin. In Delhi, the president's second stop, monkeys have been the subject of a municipal crackdown.
The Obama administration has pushed back on some of the more sensational claims about the trip.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor shot down the $200 million-a-day figure -- to put the outrageous sum in context, that's 5 million times Rachael Ray's recommended $40 a day.
"The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality. Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated," Vietor said.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell also outright rejected the claim that 34 warships would patrol the Mumbai coast while Obama is in town.
"I think there has been a lot of creative writing that's been done on this trip over the last few days," he said. "We obviously have some support role for presidential travel ... but I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd, this notion that somehow we are deploying 10 percent of the Navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia -- that's just comical.
"Nothing close to that is being done, but the notion that president would require security as he travels to India and elsewhere should not come as a surprise to anyone," he said.
A military official also told Fox News the warship claim was inaccurate. The official knew of no such plans and said, besides, a carrier strike group typically has 10-12 ships at most.
Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, stressed at a briefing last week that those precautions that are being taken are all rooted in security concerns.
"We take our guidance from the Secret Service and our security personnel as to what precautions are necessary to ensure that the president has a safe visit," he said when asked about the booking of the entire Taj hotel. "That decision ... is not made by us. It's made by the professionals who know what the requirements are. So we follow their guidance."
The Taj hotel was the scene of the final standoff between Indian commandos and terrorists who rampaged across the country's largest city during the 2008 attacks. That attack was staged by sea.
But Rhodes sought to quiet any suggestion that the administration is not confident in India's own preparations for the president's visit.
"I would underscore we think that India is a strong and safe and resilient country that is, with effective counterterrorism," he said. "But again, with respect to our security requirements, we're just guided by the Service."
Indian security officials are planning extensive measures to ensure the security of the president's entourage. The Times of India reported that Delhi police will send out 2,000 officers and personnel to secure the president's travel routes.
Obama heads to Delhi, India's capital, after participating in a business summit, a town hall with university students and other events in Mumbai. In Delhi, he is expected to dine with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife, formally meet with the prime minister and other officials and eventually deliver an address to the Indian parliament.
India is just the first stop on a multi-leg Asian tour through Indonesia, Japan and South Korea. The president is leaving just after his party suffered historic losses in Congress, in an election that saw the Republicans take control of the House and pick up at least six seats in the Senate.
In advance of his visit, the president released a statement Thursday marking the Indian holiday of Diwali.
"This holiday reminds us all that we should commit ourselves to helping those in need. For many, this is also a time to gather with family and to pray. To those celebrating Diwali in India, I look forward to visiting you over the next few days," Obama said.

Ragnar Danneskjold
11-04-2010, 06:11 PM
I understand that moving Presidents around is expensive. I don't mind. It comes with the territory in that job. I also don't begrudge Presidents taking trips all around the world, even being a little cavalier about it sometimes. It's something that Presidents do. Even totally PR-type and even vacation trips are fine. For example: President Bush secretly flying in to Baghdad to do Thanksgiving with the troops. Did it need to happen? No... Was it expensive? Absolutely. But it was one of the coolest things I've ever seen. That took big rolling brass ones to fly AF-1 down into that airport. If I'd been a soldier in that room I would've been standing on my chair yelling my lungs out too. They absolutely loved it. It was awesome. It was worth every penny.

But just... damn. What's with taking 3,000 people on an all-expense paid excursion to India? C'mon.... really? And right now? I understand that he's taking a bunch of executives on a business-building junket. OK. But 3,000? Are you kidding me?

I think some of the reported numbers are over-inflated, like $200M a day, but hell-- it could be a couple of orders of magnitude less and still be an obnoxious number.

vicklynn
11-04-2010, 06:14 PM
Going to see the troops is one thing.
This trip, nope, dont see it as anything that should happen.

WashingtonBoy
11-04-2010, 06:57 PM
http://factcheck.org/2010/11/ask-factcheck-trip-to-mumbai/

Q: Is President Obama’s trip to India going to cost $200 million per day?

A: This highly doubtful claim originated with one Indian news agency quoting an anonymous source in Mumbai. The White House says it is "wildly exaggerated," and there’s no evidence to support such a huge figure.

Remali
11-04-2010, 07:04 PM
It's on TV right now..... it's NOT true.... they can't confirm where that source came from...

Ragnar Danneskjold
11-04-2010, 07:19 PM
The precise figure isn't important. Whatever it is, it's an insane extravagance to cart 3,000 people halfway around the world, take over a couple of hotels, park 40-some odd jets at the airport... yada yada yada...

vicklynn
11-04-2010, 07:31 PM
The precise figure isn't important. Whatever it is, it's an insane extravagance to cart 3,000 people halfway around the world, take over a couple of hotels, park 40-some odd jets at the airport... yada yada yada...
Not only insane, its just plain stupid and a waste of money.

JackieB
11-04-2010, 10:10 PM
Not only insane, its just plain stupid and a waste of money.

I don't agree with this statement, Vick. India is a hugely important economic partner and has significant influence on our future. It's definitely in our best interests to work closely with India (and China).

My guess is that the truth is that they'll send whatever security entourage is necessary to assure the president's safety. Like RD, I've never begrudged any president his travel. It's part of the job as head of state. And in the new global economy, trips to India will probably be standard from here on out for presidents.

vicklynn
11-05-2010, 04:02 AM
I don't agree with this statement, Vick. India is a hugely important economic partner and has significant influence on our future. It's definitely in our best interests to work closely with India (and China).

My guess is that the truth is that they'll send whatever security entourage is necessary to assure the president's safety. Like RD, I've never begrudged any president his travel. It's part of the job as head of state. And in the new global economy, trips to India will probably be standard from here on out for presidents.
JackieB. RD also said quoteThe precise figure isn't important. Whatever it is, it's an insane extravagance to cart 3,000 people halfway around the world, take over a couple of hotels, park 40-some odd jets at the airport... yada yada yada... unquote.
And I agree, it is insane(I think stupid)to have that many people, jets, and take over that much space(hotels, ect), and spend, God knows, how much money to take this trip.
Your OK with that?

JackieB
11-05-2010, 06:25 AM
Your OK with that?

I'm OK with the president traveling to India.

We don't know how many people are traveling with him, how many airplanes, the Navy already said the ship estimate was absurd, etc. I would guess that the president travels with about the same contigent and equipment as President Bush did.

It's all perspective, Vick. This isn't about how much stuff he's taking with him, it's coming up because so many despise this president. Just like President Bush was criticized for landing on an aircraft carrier in a fighter jet. The left screamed that it was irresponsible, expensive, etc. I didn't care.

vicklynn
11-05-2010, 10:29 AM
I care, no matter who is president.

natisha
11-05-2010, 01:42 PM
I'm OK with the president traveling to India.

We don't know how many people are traveling with him, how many airplanes, the Navy already said the ship estimate was absurd, etc. I would guess that the president travels with about the same contigent and equipment as President Bush did.

It's all perspective, Vick. This isn't about how much stuff he's taking with him, it's coming up because so many despise this president. Just like President Bush was criticized for landing on an aircraft carrier in a fighter jet. The left screamed that it was irresponsible, expensive, etc. I didn't care.I brought this up mainly because he was telling people not to waste their money on Vegas trips, how he relates so well to the masses blah, blah., though I do despise him too, now that you mention it.

Tiz
11-05-2010, 02:09 PM
This President and his wife have really partied hearty since they made the White House. Golf nearly every weekend, concerts, parties, trips. It seems like more than usual, but that could be because we're in the "deepest recession since the Great Depression", per Mr. Obama. Us, that is, not them.

JackieB
11-05-2010, 02:23 PM
You guys crack me up. This all comes from one anonymous media source in India. Yet that's enough journalistic integrity for Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the four (or however many) of you, and millions of other Americans.

You don't see the irony? The liberal media is so biased and distorted with its facts, but is correct enough in this case to pick it up and run with it. There is virtually nothing about this story that we know to be true in terms of what it really costs. We don't know the number of boats, planes, anything. We really have no idea how this entourage compares to how other presidents have traveled and they are right not to tell us since it's a matter of national security.

So now we're up to "Golf nearly every weekend"? That's a lot of golf, Tiz. Some 52 days a year? It's probably more like 5-10 a year.

You guys are my friends and I don't want to be at odds with you over politics like we have been in the past. And I hope I don't come off as arrogant. But I hope you don't ever have to call me out for carrying on about something like this that is utterly unsubstantiated.

Tiz
11-05-2010, 02:36 PM
I think most of the people commenting are reserving judgment until the facts are in. I know I am.

I did exaggerate the golfing though. He only played 43 times up to August 4 of this year. That's 43 times in the first 80 weeks he was in office. So a little more than every other weekend. It just seemed like nearly every weekend.

JackieB
11-05-2010, 03:24 PM
I did exaggerate the golfing though. He only played 43 times up to August 4 of this year. That's 43 times in the first 80 weeks he was in office. So a little more than every other weekend. It just seemed like nearly every weekend.


Really? I stand corrected on that point, then. That's close enough for me. That's a lot of golf. I don't mind because he can do what he wants with his free time, but I shouldn't have called you out on it. You weren't that far off.

I didn't mind when Reagan went to his ranch or Bush to his. I recall some study showing that there really isn't a lot of difference in how effective a president is based on how often he is in his office. They are always working anyway. I agree that the golf is a perception thing during a recession, though.

natisha
11-05-2010, 03:27 PM
Really? I stand corrected on that point, then. That's close enough for me. That's a lot of golf. I don't mind because he can do what he wants with his free time, but I shouldn't have called you out on it. You weren't that far off.

I didn't mind when Reagan went to his ranch or Bush to his. I recall some study showing that there really isn't a lot of difference in how effective a president is based on how often he is in his office. They are always working anyway. I agree that the golf is a perception thing during a recession, though.Bush quit playing golf after 911, he said it didn't seem right.
P.S. JackieB- I love you

WashingtonBay
11-05-2010, 03:39 PM
I don't begrudge the president travel, golf, dinners, and events. It's part of the job. The Bushes had their off-white house retreats. Obamas don't really have one, do they? Did they even own a home in IL? If so... is it not a compound that can be secured and visited now? Either one of those might be true. That means they vacation more publicly, probably.

I'll withhold judgment because at least some of this has been called wrong, maybe the 3000 people (the part I think is grossly out of whack) is wrong too. I don't begrudge the rental of the entire hotel, which I did see confirmed. If the Secret Service decides they can't secure the hotel otherwise, then rent the whole thing. They get the call on that.

Tiz
11-05-2010, 05:02 PM
Yes, they have a million plus dollar home in Chicago purchased from the Rizzo guy that I think is in jail now.

J, yay! I'm right! I love that.

natisha
11-05-2010, 05:08 PM
http://abitare.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/obama1.jpg

They own the lot next door also

In case you plan on taking a sightseeing trip to see it in person, don't. The entire area around it for 4 blocks in each direction is now under strict security control by the Secret Service.

WashingtonBay
11-05-2010, 05:39 PM
So they do go there? or it's just under security anyway?

Looks like it's in town, and not easy to protect.

natisha
11-05-2010, 06:45 PM
So they do go there? or it's just under security anyway?

Looks like it's in town, and not easy to protect.According to what I read you have to prove you live there or have some reason to be there. The area is secured all the time. It is in town.

natisha
11-05-2010, 06:52 PM
Check out--virtual globetrotting-- really interesting

Obamas address is 5046 South Greenwood Ave, Chicago , IL

Ragnar Danneskjold
11-05-2010, 07:05 PM
So they do go there? or it's just under security anyway?

Looks like it's in town, and not easy to protect.

I don't think they go there very often, at least not since he became POTUS. Securing it is just part of what the Secret Service does.

What they'll do is close off all the streets for a block or so in every direction, set up checkpoints that everybody has to go through. Local residents will get an ID passcard to get them through, and likely everybody that lives within a few blocks has gone through a background check (whether they know it or not). They all now live in a "gated community" whether they like it or not. On the whole... their insurance rates ought to go down. There's virtually no chance they'll be burglarized. :)

I remember reading a fascinating article about the Secret Service showing up after the 2000 election at the Prairie Chapel Ranch in Midland... and all the stuff they had to do to the property to secure it. They're a very thorough bunch of dudes. Granted... that place was already off by itself and probably not so hard to lock down. But still... now the all the acreage is loaded with motion sensors and surveillance gear.

vicklynn
11-05-2010, 07:10 PM
put the addy in and it didnt find it...

natisha
11-05-2010, 07:40 PM
put the addy in and it didnt find it...Try virtual globetrotting & under search type Obama house

vicklynn
11-05-2010, 07:45 PM
Buzy neighborhood. Lots of appts in the area.

natisha
11-05-2010, 07:52 PM
Buzy neighborhood. Lots of appts in the area.Check out other celebrity homes

natisha
11-05-2010, 07:53 PM
Buzy neighborhood. Lots of appts in the area.I think those are town houses, like row houses, not cheap

JackieB
11-05-2010, 10:29 PM
J, yay! I'm right! I love that.

And I admitted it. :) My wife often says that's one of my finest qualities. How often I will say "You were right about that..."

Natisha,
I love you, too. And Tiz. But not Ann Coulter.

Tiz
11-06-2010, 04:11 AM
*kiss* I love you too, Jackie.:)

The admitting of the wrongdoing gene is rare in men. You're lucky you have it, and wives do loooooove that ability.

natisha
11-06-2010, 05:46 AM
And I admitted it. :) My wife often says that's one of my finest qualities. How often I will say "You were right about that..."

Natisha,
I love you, too. And Tiz. But not Ann Coulter.A smart man learns to say that. If you say it often does that mean you are wrong often?

Thanks.
Good thing you don't luv Ann, RD has a 'thing' for her.

natisha
11-06-2010, 05:47 AM
*kiss* I love you too, Jackie.:)

You kissed a married man!!!

JackieB
11-06-2010, 08:26 PM
A smart man learns to say that. If you say it often does that mean you are wrong often?


Well, often enough when you figure that we've been together for almost 30 years.

natisha
11-06-2010, 08:54 PM
Well, often enough when you figure that we've been together for almost 30 years.I have a saddle that I've been with for 34 years. It's dumped me a few times but it's always come back.