Jonathan Freedland (Guardian Unltd): So who did invite Bush?

[Jack Rabbit]

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Wednesday November 12

So who did invite him?
George Bush's visit is a nightmare for Tony Blair - but not for the White House, which badly wanted it
By Jonathan Freedland

We all know the feeling. You glance at the diary and realise you have guests coming to stay next week, when nothing could be less convenient. They're coming from abroad, expecting to be entertained for several days and it's far too late to cancel. This is the last thing you need.
So spare a thought for Tony Blair, as he scans the calendar and sighs. There are the dates, circled and unyielding: November 18 to 21 - Bush in Britain. He knows what it will mean. His guest is the most unpopular US president in living memory. The anti-war movement will be back on the march, gearing up for its biggest outing since it brought up to 2 million Britons onto the streets in February. Blair will have to make yet more speeches like the one at Guildhall on Monday, once again defending the war on Iraq. And for a fortnight, starting now, all eyes will focus not on the domestic agenda by which his government will eventually be judged, but on the matter which has brought him greatest grief since taking office.
A Times poll yesterday found half the public regard Blair's closeness to George Bush as bad for Britain; next week will show the two of them standing shoulder-to-shoulder, in coverage that will be wall-to-wall. Blair must want to shout up the stairs to Cherie: "I never wanted him to come here in the first place. Whose bloody idea was this?"
As well he might ask. For no one seems ready to own up to this particular invitation. "It came up as a matter of routine," says a Foreign Office spokesman, "all American presidents get them in their first term." Except Bush's trip can hardly be described as routine. He will be the first US president to come here on a state visit - with all the extra lashings of ceremony and royal red carpet that that term implies. (There was big hoopla for Woodrow Wilson in 1918 but even that, the protocol experts say, did not quite count.) Working visits are common enough, but a royal welcome is not given easily: Bill Clinton had to wait till his final month in office before he had an invitation to take tea at Buckingham Palace. Bush will be staying there as a house guest.

Read more.

[pink_poodle]

1. ROTFLOL!!!! Pathetic. And this is the Resident of the ..................

world's biggest threat to peace and civilization?

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Here's some more

No, there is only one beneficiary of this visit and it is the Bush White House. With an election campaign looming, they are anxious to deflect the accusation that Bush is isolated. They want to show he has allies and friends around the world and few play better in the US than Tony Blair, whose American ratings put his home numbers in the shade.
That explains why Bush is keen to be seen with the PM, but not why he might want the full flummery of a state visit. A clue can be found in the text studied more closely than any other by the political operatives in the Bush White House: the campaign to re-elect Ronald Reagan in 1984. That made heavy use of TV footage which cast Reagan as a statesman, at home across the globe.

First of all, how is it going to look for Bush if Blair is handed his head shortly after the visit and the visit is given as the reason for Blair's downfall? Bush won't just look isolated, he'll look like a pariah.

And what good is it going to do Bush to be seen as a man who provokes near riots wherever he goes and needs so much security that he can hardly get out of Air Force One? What kind of backdrop are mass demonstrations against him going to make for his 2004 campaign?

Memo to our friends in Britain: If you really want to help us all out, Yanks and Brits and the whole world, please do whatever you can to embarrass this imposter who calls himself the President of the United States and assumes the right of an emperor. Make him leave with his tail between his legs. Make this a story not even Fox News can spin.

And then throw Blair out on his ear and let it be known in no uncertain terms that his relationship with Bush is the reason. We should be able to take it from there.

Thanks in advance, Mates.

[T_i_B]

8. I guess you need this Jack

http://www.stopwar.org.uk

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Thanks, TiB

I want it to be a rousing success.

send him packing

A worthy goal. Good luck.

[otohara]

3. "Look American's Don't Know Diddly"

Boy ain't that the truth! We knows who the Queen of England is, that's fer sure

[pink_poodle]

4. I think they meant that, Americans don't know anything.............

about how things work in the world or how anyone else feels. He hit the nail on the head with that statement.

[politicat]

5. Bit of a Sticky Wicket.... but....

Something about this line

"The Bush team want some royal shots like that of their own. Apparently they were particularly keen on an open-carriage procession down the Mall, and are said to be disheartened by London's suggestion that that might not be possible due to "security"."

worries the hell out of me.... He wants to be "just like the queen..."

(Even down to the nice frocks and darling hats, but that's another topic.)

The subliminal association of * with royalty is not good... he acts like Napoleon, and remember what he did....

And we Merkins like the royals far too much for our own good.... (so sayeth the ambivalent monarchist.... there are uses for it....)

[KoKo]

6. But, does hob nobbing with Royalty really turn on the freeps? Sounds old

fashioned to me. I think anyone under 50 is probably not going to give a hoot about him palling with the Queen. Everyone loved Diana. She's dead....and Charles is hanging around with a woman he can't marry.

Where is the "magic" in this? I don't see it. It's as if they are living in some time warp thinking most Americans are ga ga over Elizabeth. The only ones who even remember her when she was crowned are approaching nursing homes or in them. (I'm not being unkind here) I just think the world is very different, today than it was back then when people were "Royal Watchers." There's no glitter or glitz associated with them without Diana. And, Charles latest problems aren't much more interesting than...just gossip and tittering.

I somehow don't see Fundies getting all worked up about George palling around with the Queen whose an Anglican and riding around in a carriage.

It might backfire so bad just like his "Fly Boy" event that Rove will wish he had never thought of it.

Plus, I agree with poster here who is worried this is going to his head. He wants to be King of America, now? Or, maybe Laura wanted to see Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abby because she saw a book title about it...

[cliss]

7. this is so droll.

What more apt punishment than this. Here's where Blair's friendship with Bush really becomes a liability. "Honey, we've got company coming".

"With friends like that, you don't need enemies; you need security".

The whole notion about Bush visiting Britain had me puzzled for days. I even asked the question on one of these threads. Someone very kindly explained that this was Bush's way of thanking the UK and Australia for their "help" with the coalition. Boy, there's a friendship with a price tag, if I ever saw one.

Even with that explanation, I still was mystified why he would bother. There are several threads which clarify the utter stupidity of him going over there. He's going to cause much more chaos and riots than any PR could benefit him.

Not only that, this is going to cost the UK heavily. I'm assuming here they can't fill out an expense report and send it to the WH for reimbursement.

Talk about a lose-lose prospect. The man is radioactive.