|"Mitt, just don't give me any of those bloody DVDs" AP Photo|
The US Media slammed Mr Romney for insulting the Brits by asking if they thought the Olympics would be successful, and if they had enough security. Mr Romney had some experience in this venue since he had managed the Olympics which were held in Utah a while back. His questions bore legitimacy as Olympics success is measured in a variety of ways, from attendance, to revenue, to safety. And, rather than being insulted by his remarks, it seems his opinion was sought by the Brits.
In this Olympic venture, Great Britain has been inundated by torrential rains and bad weather -- issues the Brits had likely not foreseen and definitely affecting attendance -- thus Romney's "success" comments.
|Empty seats filled with students and soldiers (c) Mirror|
Adding to weather problems has been the "empty seats issue" as thousands of seats remain unfilled at major events -- while vendors tell fans that the seats are sold out.
There is an official investigation underway.
But, let's examine Mr Romney's security question.
Seems the Brits were somewhat uncomfortable and felt the available police and security forces were inadequate to provide the security necessary for the Games -- particularly after the security firm G4S failed to deliver the 10,000 security personnel it had promised, and then, there was that little incident which was construed as potential terrorism two weeks ago.
|(c) David Horsey|
So, the Government called up 18,200 military troops to provide security.
Now, according to the Guardian and the McClatchy News, the force providing security consists of 36,000 soldiers, police, and private security personnel, augmented by an undetermined number of US security officers. In addition, thousands of new security cameras have been installed along with UAV/drones aloft constantly to monitor ground activity.
|HMS Ocean (c) Daily Mail|
To ward off a potential major attack, the Brits have stationed their largest warship, the HMS Ocean, in the Thames, along with a Surface-to-Air missile deployment -- perhaps to cope with an airborne threat. We'll assume the ship carries a large contingent of Marines and Special Operations forces as a quick reaction force to deal with potential terrorists.
And, the MSM has reported that Romney met with the British MI-6 [similar in function to our CIA].
Heaven help us! Why would he meet with the British Spooks?
Turns out the British Prime Minister had requested the meeting so he could brief Mr Romney -- the potential next President of the US, on Syria. This contradicts the American Press version of the event -- which accused Mr Romney of "blabbing secrets".
|MI-6 Clandestine Services [like DIA's Clan Services]|
In reality, Mr Romney, at their request, met with the full range of senior British officials, including PM David Cameron, Deputy PM Nick Clegg, Labour Leader Ed Miliband, and former PM Tony Blair.
Mr Romney's meeting with Sir John Sawers, head of MI-6, was at the request of PM Cameron; following the meeting at #10 Downing Street, Mr Cameron accompanied Mr Romney into the street where the contents of the meeting[s] were jointly disclosed to the Press.
So, the hand-wringing by the American Press establishment, our very own MSM, was all for show, once again, to accuse Mr Romney of being a lightweight in foreign affairs and in matters of national secrecy.
We do have to admire Mr Obama's expert manipulation of the MSM to try to discredit Mr Romney.
But, what we take away from this episode of deception by the US Press Corps is that the Brits seem to have lost all confidence in Mr Obama, and have turned to Mr Romney as the presumptive President come next January.
So, in contrast to what the US MSM has portrayed as a diplomatic blunder on the part of Mr Obama, we learn that our British Ally recognizes Mr Romney as someone they CAN trust, and have thus confided their closest secrets to him -- which they apparently have chosen NOT to do with Mr Obama.
Before we close, let's take a look at Mr Obama's history of insults with our British friends.
Shortly after his inauguration, Mr Obama made quite a show of contempt for the Brits by returning their 9/11 gift/loan of the Oval Office bust of Winston Churchill -- which act annoyed the Brits somewhat more than did Mr Romney's legitimate questions.
Mr Obama's rationale was that his Kenyan granddad had been imprisoned by the Brits during the Mau Mau rebellion -- which turned out to be untrue as his granddad sat out that conflict at a very safe distance; but it made for a great media splash for him.
|Churchill Bust -- 9/11 GB-US Alliance Symbol|
1) On the act of returning the bust, WH Communications Director Pfeiffer claimed the bust had never been sent back to the Brits, and to prove it, showed a photo of Obama caressing a similar bust in the WH "outside the Treaty Room".
But, those nasty Brits!
They responded that, in fact, they do have the bust that Obama tossed back to them and it has been on display in the British Ambassador's residence in DC ever since Obama returned it.
Charles Krauthammer gleefully reported that the bust that Obama was shown displaying was one given to Lyndon Johnson more than 50 years ago.
2) In exchange for several priceless gifts [an ornamental desk pen holder carved from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slaver HMS Gannet] presented by the British PM to the POTUS, Mr Obama gave him a 25 DVDs from the WH Gift Shop] -- which were unusable in GB.
3) And, ending a long tradition of friendship, Mr Obama snubbed the PM by not giving him face time, or even the traditional State Dinner.
The Brits have fought alongside us for nearly a century in WWI, WWII, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan. So, we are inclined to call them our Closest Ally. So, when Mr Obama called France Our Closest Ally, our British friends felt insulted -- but, we didn't see that reported by the US Press Corps.
|But, they're completely unbiased (c) hyscience|
We are disturbed that the US Press Corps seems to have become the close ally of Mr Obama -- to the extent that we can no longer trust any political news they report.
We also note that on nearly every digital page of The Washington Post, there is a digital Anti-Romney advertisement -- we assume posted by The Washington Post at their own expense.
[Do they list this as a campaign contribution?]
Freedom of the Press is paramount in this country -- but we are appalled when the US Press becomes a funnel of Political Propaganda from the Executive Office.