July 15th, 2007


On properly defining precise levels of toadiness.

A few days ago, the British Foreign Office minister, Lord Malloch Brown, caused waves by hinting for a second that Britain might not be quite as much of a pathetic, snivelling lackey to the U.S. as they currently are, by saying...

"For better of worse, it is very unlikely that the Brown/Bush relationship is going to go through the baptism of fire and therefore be joined together at the hip like the Blair/Bush relationship was." 

The merest suggestion that Britain might not be willing to go through fire and be joined in lockstep with the U.S. apparently caused waves amongst Britain's handlers, however, because British Foreign Secretary David Miliband quickly rushed out with this statement to quell controversy:

''We have a choice about it of course, but our choice is that Britain's national interest is best served by a strong relationship with the United States. 'It's very straightforward. Our commitment to work with the Americans in general and the Bush administration, in particular, is resolute.''

Apparently, the new Brown government are particularly fond of working with George W. Bush... or at least with any foriegn president who comes along, with no consideration as to how poor a leader they might be, or how damaging their policies are for the British people, the people of the U.S., or the people of the world in general. They aren't just slaves to U.S. foriegn policy... they're willing accomplices.

So, are the British joined at the hip, or is that too mild of an assessment? I have to admit, my initial thoughts upon hearing this were something a bit different.