I say allegedly because it is from a less-than-reliable source, otherwise known as a Scottish tabloid newspaper, I'm posting it because it is mildly amusing: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/page.cfm?objectid=12733974&method=full&siteid=89488 Bush visiting London would be like pouring petrol onto your barbecue,
I believe that all along that Bush, Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar had planned to meet at a neutral site. Looks like it'll be the Azores.
Bush visiting any given nation now would be like that. Why the heck do you suppose he hasn't travelled outside the U.S. since 9/11/01? No one can guarantee his safety. It's a tough job being the steadfast defender of freedom and democracy AND the most loathed man on Earth all at the same time.
Hmm, I suppose so. But it is a bit serious if you can't even visit the capital of what is supposed to be your closest ally (at least in the military sense). The other thing I read which was relevant to this was in the Times last week. It said that Colin Powell isn't visiting foreign capitals because he is terrified of what Rumsfeld et al might say in Washington in his absence. Even if I agreed with their ideology, I would be worried by the lack of contact the senior figures in the US are having with the outside world. A phone call only tells you so much.
Re: Re: Bush told to stay away from London (allegedly) This is a weak excuse for Bush not to have traveled outside the U.S. U.S. presidents have traveled to all sorts of dangerous hell-holes in the past. The truth is, Bush has not traveled outside the U.S. because he would do more harm than good. It's ridiculous, isn't it?
Re: Re: Re: Bush told to stay away from London (allegedly) GringoTex, with a corner on what is truth. Just ask her.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush told to stay away from London (allegedly) Oh geez, the effeminate smack. Gringo is a Texas rancher, just like lots of other manly men. (Did you unholster your gun, there, Gringo?)