I diaried this two days ago. Maccabee did an excellent take just yesterday. The ACLU learned about this back in late June.
So why in the Blue Hell is the Washington Post just getting around to writing about this now?
At least they give it a Whedonesque opening:
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.
Oh, and in case you're wondering, they still manage to look at the bright side of Cobra Commander's Gestapo tactics:
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."
So almost two months before the five-year anniversary of this thing, two months after the ACLU posts a copy on their website for all to see, and after (at least) two diaries about it within the same week, the Washington Post determines that its a story worth telling the American people.
That damn liberal media.