PDA

View Full Version : Another Frightening Bush Action


kat
03-20-2004, 02:17 AM
(taken from here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/19/22135/3823))

There are plenty of things a campaign must pay for, but the Bush campaign may be the first presidential campaign to employ a company that specializes in paramilitary protection. In reports filed today with the Federal Election Commission, the Bush campaign showed February receipts of $13.7 million, and cash on hand of $110 million (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=%3Cem%3Enm/20040319/pl_nm/campaign_bush_funds_ dc). Obviously much of that money will be spent on television advertising. But a quick look at Bush's FEC filing (http://herndon2.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00386987) shows something curious--they paid almost $200,000 to Vance International for "personnel services/equipment."

Vance International (http://www.vancesecurity.co m/index.cfm) may not be familiar to a lot of people, but they should be, because they are the Pinkertons (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/mh_blue.html) of our era. Vance was founded and until recently run by Chuck Vance, a former Secret Service agent who at one time was married to Gerald Ford's daughter. Vance used his Secret Service background in security and investigation to specialize in providing security during labor disputes. From the strikes at Pittston Coal, to Caterpillar, to Detroit Newspapers, if there was violence on the picket (http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/1998/08/17/focus5.html) line of a high-profile strike, it was most likely provoked by the maladjusted ex-soldiers, angry cop wanna-be's, and CIA rejects who wear the jack-boots of Vance's Asset Protection Team (http://www.vancesecurity.co m/services/services_assetprot.c fm):



Professional and responsive asset protection services has made our Asset Protection Team (APT) the undisputed leader in the field of labor unrest and major event security since 1985. APT provides security personnel who are trained to protect people and property during potentially disruptive situations, such as strikes, union organizing drives, and plant closings. In addition, APT supplies seasoned professionals during special events and emergency situations, including traveling exhibits, conferences, demonstrations, fund-raising events, and man-made and natural disasters. Discipline and restraint characterize APT, whose operations pioneered the use of photo and video documentation. Our capabilities include business interruption contingency planning and consulting, security personnel and services (e.g., access control, critical area monitoring, crowd control and observation, photo documentation, and emergency response), logistics support, and pre- and post-crisis counseling. Here (http://www.vancesecurity.co m/services/MATRIX.PDF) are just a few capabilities that Vance believes set it apart from their competition:



Client choice of uniform style ranging from discreet, non-threatening attire to full riot gear
Full-time executive protection agents and investigators
Evidence technicians and coordinators to cross-index photos and videotape
35mm and video equipment; long-range and night vision lenses available
Pre- and post-incident counseling by forensic psychologist
Provoking picket line violenceAsset protection isn't Vance's only business. They provide executive protection, investigate current and prospective employees, and consult on security matters for corporations, governments and wealthy individuals around the world. (They've just opened an office in--you guessed it--Iraq.) But George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their families and top aides already received protection from a pretty good outfit known as the Secret Service.

So, here's the question to the Bush campaign: What possible legitimate use do you have for a firm that specializes in high-tech surveillance, personal investigations, and paramilitary protection?

blueeyes
03-20-2004, 01:48 PM
Well, the surveillance and personal investigations sound like a good way to find out about a political opponent's past and current actions. As for protection, Bush need's someone to keep Democrats from clawing his eyes out. I don't think 200 thou would pay for much protection, though, so I'm thinking it's more for the first two. Of course, for all we know, he hired some ex-CIA bootsman to take out some moron in the Middle East.
Oh, the conspiracy theories, they attack!

Ves
03-20-2004, 07:43 PM
I may be wrong, but was it not this company that provided the Presidential Limo?

kat
03-20-2004, 07:46 PM
$200,000 may not be much, but $200,000 can go a long way when coupled with "other considerations" like government contracts. Maybe these guys will get a couple million to guard the Iraqi Governing Council when the CPA pulls out. Maybe they'll organize a coup somewhere in latin america.

Wolf Am Byth
04-01-2004, 04:37 AM
I like Mr Bush, he showed much patriotism after the attacks on his country. I would like to see him have more years as leader of America.

WhiteCrowUK
04-07-2004, 05:14 PM
I like Mr Bush, he showed much patriotism after the attacks on his country. I would like to see him have more years as leader of America.

But then theres the frightening inquiry that his country might not have been caught so unawares had he listened to terrorist warnings about Bin Laden from Clintons regime.

This is potentially a big deal as to whether the Sept 11th attacks got through because he wasnt keeping his eye on the ball. Certainly if I was an American citizen I'd be concerned.

wolf_feahters
04-11-2004, 02:55 AM
But then theres the frightening inquiry that his country might not have been caught so unawares had he listened to terrorist warnings about Bin Laden from Clintons regime.

This is potentially a big deal as to whether the Sept 11th attacks got through because he wasnt keeping his eye on the ball. Certainly if I was an American citizen I'd be concerned.

Or if Clinton had listened to terrist warning's while in office. Both side's are guilty.

Instead of going for the party line, look at the facts (love being independent).

Wolf Feathers

WhiteCrowUK
04-11-2004, 05:20 PM
Or if Clinton had listened to terrist warning's while in office. Both side's are guilty.


It is a big deal if you are currently deciding whether or not to give Bush another 4 years!

GhostBat
04-11-2004, 05:57 PM
Or if Clinton had listened to terrist warning's while in office. Both side's are guilty.

Instead of going for the party line, look at the facts (love being independent).

Uh...The facts are the Bush administration was given a plan of action by the Clinton administration regarding terrorist attacks. Not only that, Clinton prevented MANY terrorist attacks entering America. Did you see any 911's occuring while he was in office?

WhiteCrowUK
04-11-2004, 06:23 PM
Uh...The facts are the Bush administration was given a plan of action by the Clinton administration regarding terrorist attacks. Not only that, Clinton prevented MANY terrorist attacks entering America. Did you see any 911's occuring while he was in office?

I guess the facts are currently in question - hence the inquiry thats going on.

I guess peoples perception of guilt will be measured by if Bush gets voted back in come November.

wolf_feahters
04-18-2004, 12:55 PM
Uh...The facts are the Bush administration was given a plan of action by the Clinton administration regarding terrorist attacks. Not only that, Clinton prevented MANY terrorist attacks entering America. Did you see any 911's occuring while he was in office?

Yes, but not in america. During Clinton's term, they where killing American's in Africa, and the Middle East. Those are called training mission's.

Once again, both side's are quilty. Bin Ladin was all but handed to Bill, but he said "no thanks". And I'm sure there was more info then has been given to us, but I doubt any of it said "Sept 11, 01. Twin Towers. Pentigon. White House. Airplanes".

Most thought that the first plane was an accident. It wasn't untill the second, and then the Pentigon, that people started to think about it.

native_wolf
04-19-2004, 05:35 PM
Ok I may be young but from the details in that aticle one would think that Mr. Bush might just try to pull another Water Gate on us. But surely we wouldnt be blind enough to let that happen again...would we? Or perhaps Bush has just gotten a bit tyranical? I mean with all that high tech survallance stuff....one could get a close up view of American citizens. If confronted he might say its for the protection of the people. But how do we know that? We just have to trust the guy...something I'm not so willing to do after he dumped billions of dollars on a war that was supposed to have ended a year ago if Im correct. I realize that the peace must be kept in Iraq but our soldiers are not peace corps they are warriors. I think that all this equiptment is a way for Bush to get an edge on his compition for the election or...in his words protect the intrests of the country. But in realality its a violation of the right to privicy. Hey thats just my opion, I'm young, treat it as you will because most of you are older then me.