Bush wonders where his poodle went

November 11, 2007

Here’s an unexpected turn of events: the Bush administration wants England to be more like France when it comes to a conflict in the Middle East.

The Bush administration is losing patience with Gordon Brown over Iran, with senior American diplomats frustrated by his reluctance to declare bluntly that the Islamic state must never be allowed nuclear weapons.

Allies of Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, have told The Sunday Telegraph that the Prime Minister should emulate France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy and warn that Iran may face military action, in order to help avert a new war in the Middle East.

The concerns reflect growing irritation in Washington, from the White House down, that Mr Brown will not match his more robust private conversations on Iran with hard-hitting public statements that would put pressure on the Teheran regime.

The Heritage Foundation’s Nile Gardner, a former Margaret Thatcher adviser, said, “Britain is clearly losing influence in Washington after Tony Blair. Brown is the invisible man in terms of his profile here. It should be of concern in London that France is muscling in on traditional British territory.”

No one misses Tony Blair like George W. Bush. It’s kind of sad, really.

How humorous that Bush believes he has a French poodle, but laments the loss of his English one. Sarkozy, though a conservative, will retain France’s traditional independent streak. Bush should know better than to put their relationship on a pedestal, it will bite him one day. Britain understands the quagmire Bush dragged them into with Iraq and is loathe to make the same mistake again. To quote W himself, “Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice … we won’t get fooled again.”

  • Unfortunately, he can’t freedomize and British foods here because nobody emulates British cooking. That only leaves the rub-the-shoulders reacharound or the Saudi handhold. Unfortunately Bush doesn’t find Gordon cute enough for either.

    The UK is just destined to become the newest member of the Quadrangle of Evil.

  • This is not the result…”would put pressure on the Teheran regime.” If the regime is not building a nuclear weapon then this would not do anything but piss them off. If they are secretly trying to get to a point of building a nuclear weapon,,,this this also would do nothing but piss them off. Having 3 barjking dogs instead of two doesn’t change things much. What Bush is really after is to be able to say we have international support for attacking Iran, and we would not be attacking Iran for the reasons Bush is giving and our nation knows this.
    Good on Brown for so far not being part of the barking dogs or part of instigating WWIII. The more these dogs bark the more diplomacy is off the table.

  • It should be of concern in London that France is muscling in on traditional British territory.

    I think it’s going a little far to say that France is going to replace Britain’s function as our western Europe sidekick internationally. The whole story here is that Britain isn’t doing what we want it to. I’m not really focused on our relations with Europe as a general thing, but that’s what it looks like to me.

  • The Heritage Foundation’s Nile Gardner, a former Margaret Thatcher adviser, said, “Britain is clearly losing influence in Washington after Tony Blair.

    Gardner must have taken a dip in de Nile — he’s all wet. Britain under B-liar never had much *influence* with Bush; he was the recipient of gracious condescension. Nobody has any influence over Bush, with the possible exception of Cheney. Bush is the Deciderer, the rest of the world should just, humbly, bow to his dicta. Bliar did; Brown’s less inclined to do so, so Bush gets pissed off with his minions (who are unable to make Brown dance to Shrub’s tune), and the minions, in turn, get pissed off with Brown.

  • Unfortunately, he can’t freedomize and British foods here because nobody emulates British cooking.

    Freedom Muffins!

  • Allies of Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, have told The Sunday Telegraph that the Prime Minister should emulate France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy and warn that Iran may face military action, in order to help avert a new war in the Middle East.

    They don’t even pretend to care about reality anymore, do they?

  • Brown is probably looking at the polls every time he pushes away from Bush. Blair left Brown a mess mid-term (Brown is partially responsible as well), and I think Brown would like to get elected on his own.

  • Everyone I know in France – and I know a few – hates Sarkozy as “Bush with a French accent”. Everyone I know in the UK – and I know quite a few – is happy as hell that Brown is keeping George The Lesser at arm’s length.

    The rest of the world’s just waiting the 435 days left till they’re rid of the worthless asshole and his crew of criminals, among the leading of whom is every white supremacist’s worst nightmare about affirmative action (incompetent idiot gets raised to high position because of race), Condosleeza Rice.

    Sarkozy proves that the French are always ready to fight the last war perfectly.

  • Tom Cleaver wrote:

    white supremacist’s worst nightmare about affirmative action (incompetent idiot gets raised to high position because of race), Condosleeza Rice.

    I wouldn’t call her an incompetent idiot, she’s just not the right person for the job. She shouldn’t be in a leadership position with so much responsibility. On the other hand, she’s the basic type Bush and Cheney want, subervient to them and not really an intense critical thinker about policy, so in that sense, she is the right person for the job. And as far as being an incompetent idiot, she’s hardly a standout among that crew- she just happens to be the black one.

  • Bush wonders where his poodle went…

    He’s in Pakistan.

    I was wrong the other day claiming that the US dollars flowing to Musharraf were ultimately slush funds and kickbacks for certain American military corporations.

    According to this TPM post (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004658.php)
    the money is apparently going directly into Musharraf’s Swiss bank account.

    That explains this bit of Bush braggadocio the other day that rang stupid in so many different ways:

    You can’t be the president and the head of the military at the same time,” Bush said, describing a telephone call with Gen. Pervez Musharraf. “I had a very frank discussion with him.”

    Given the TPM story we now know the missing context.

    Basically Bush said to him:
    If you don’t start behaving we are going to cut your Swiss bank account cash flow and divert American middle class taxpayer money elsewhere…

    One thing you can say about poodles:
    They got a sharp nose for cash.

    And all of you who think that Bush is all hat and no cattle need to refigure.
    The chimp can sure herd them doggies:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=OuzYaaO1RE0

  • Pingback: The American Street » Blog Archive » National Intelligence Estimate: Cheney Isn’t

  • Everyone I know in France – and I know a few – hates Sarkozy as “Bush with a French accent”. — Tom Cleaver, @ 12

    Tom, that says less about the French, than about you and the company you keep 🙂 All of my acquaintances in France are *also* very, very unhappy with Sarkozy — we “compare hysterectomies” (your Bush, my Sarkozy, oy vey) quite frequently. All the same… Sarkozy did get elected, so the majority of France doesn’t agree with us.

  • Bush’s raptures over his new French pal are less amusing than the Conservatives’ abrupt volte-face from their previous position of snarling hatred for everything French, and the characterization of the French military as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys”. The rush to be the first on the Red-State Block to sport a beret and smoke Gauloises is extremely droll, while their snub of the British (who are doubtless not so hurt that they stay awake nights) should be an object lesson to all in “what have you done for me LATELY?” politics.

  • Am I missing something? Because it seems to me that what I’m seeing is a need for unity in diplomatic negotiations. That’s what all the quotes were about, anyway. It’s like how China’s reticence in dealing strictly with North Korea delayed the process so much, only this time we need to win over Russia (and now Britain) as well. There isn’t much mention of “OMG Iran must be bombed,” only a preference of going into Iran over Iran acquiring a nuke. To me that seems reasonable. Am I completely off base here? If so, I probably missed some articles – could someone point me to them? Thanks.

  • Math_Mage

    Yes, you’re missing something.

    It is illegal under international and US law to unilaterally attack a country or to conduct aggressive wars. That is the primary and foremost war crime.

    Furthermore, the Bush administration has absolutely no standing to object to another country’s development of nuclear power and even nuclear weapons, and that includes Iran.

    Under what authority to prevent it do you believe the Bush administration thinks they have the right to “go into Iran over Iran acquiring a nuke”? The US has no standing or authority — legal, moral, philosophical, or otherwise — to object to another country’s development or “proliferation” of nuclear weapons for a very good reason. Under the NNPT, the US agreed to nuclear weapon non-proliferation and agreed to divest itself of nuclear weapons with inspections to ensure its compliance. It has done neither one, and in fact has increased its arsenal and developed new ones in violation of the NNPT. The same is true for China, Russia, Great Britain, and France. This is the elephant in the room. If Iran should not develop nuclear weapons because they might use them against another nation, no country should have them, for any country could use them against another nation. Only the US has.

    And so nuclear weapons proliferation has continued, essentially making the NNPT null and void. India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan have all developed and proliferated nuclear weapons since the creation of the NNPT, and no one bombed them for doing so. Since none of them were signatories to the treaty, they avoided that legal complication. Iran did sign the treaty and is complying with inspections of their facilities.

    Israel is the midEast nuclear bully and its ally is America, the world nuclear bully, so no one with half a brain should wonder why Iran might want them in self-defense. If Iran DOES develop nuclear weapons, and by all accounts, they’re still years from that, they’re only following the tradfition of violating the NNPT as the US, France, Great Britain, China, and Russia have done all along.

    See the consequences of breaking treaties?

    • Comments are closed.