POLITICS: UK Leader of Opposition "Banned" From Meeting Bush, page 1

posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 08:42 PM

link

Michael Howard, the UK Conservative Party leader, has accused the Bush administration of "banning" him from meeting the US President.
Howard says the senior Bush aide, Karl Rove, told him "You can forget about meeting the President full stop. Don�t bother coming, you are not meeting him."
The White House was apparently furious that Howard had criticised Tony Blair over his position on Iraq.

scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com

A DEFIANT Michael Howard last night vowed to carry on holding Britain and America to account over the ongoing quagmire in Iraq after it emerged he had been "banned" from meeting President George Bush because of his stance on the conflict.

In an extraordinary statement, the Tory leader accused White House officials of trying to "protect" Tony Blair in the face of calls for him to resign as Prime Minister over the Iraq war.

The Tory leader has also been told he will not be welcome at the crucial Republican Party convention this week, which will signal the start of Bush�s attempt to be re-elected President in November.
The simmering row threatens to rupture the traditional alliance between the Tories and the Republicans during a critical period in Anglo-American relations. But Howard launched a fightback with an outburst against Bush aides, and insisted that he would carry on doing his job as he saw fit. He also underlined the fact that, despite his party�s historic links with their conservative fellow-travellers in the United States, he would be fully prepared to work closely with a government led by the Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

These are strange times. The Conservative Party have always been the traditional allies of the US republican Party.
The present White House attitude indicates that they do not give Michael Howard's Conservative Party much of a chance at gaining power at the next UK general election, which may be held as early as next May.

[edit on 8-29-2004 by Valhall]

[edit on 8-29-2004 by Valhall]

koji_K

posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 08:53 PM

link

either that or they don't give themselves much of a chance

but seriously, i think this is poor judgment by the white house.. they're kind of shooting themselves in the foot, because it's very possible there will be a conservative government in the UK soon, and even if not, they are damaging their alliance with the tories and looking reckless in so doing.

-koji K.

kegs

posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 09:36 PM

link

I found this pretty interesting. Howard was extremely pissed off.

As Zero Lift said the UK conservatives are the natural partners of the Republicans. The criticism of Iraq issue doesn't really wash with me; leaders of both countries have put a brave face on each others disagreements in the past. To me this indicates one of two things, either Bush is sure Howard is never going to be Prime Minister in his time, or he's sure he's not going to be the next President. My moneys obviously on the former. Either way Bush is pretty sure he's never going to have to deal with Howard.

[edit on 28-8-2004 by kegs]

zero lift

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 09:38 AM

link

I agree Kegs, and it also works the other way.

By making this row public Michael Howard is either very sure Bush is not going to be re-elected, or he's very sure he (Howard) is not going to be elected

Strange days indeed.

zero lift

cstyle226

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 09:57 AM

link

If you ask me, there's nothing strange about it. The current administration doesn't appreciate dissent. And imagine if the UK, the only real ally providing a decent amount of troops left the coalition??

How would we invade Iran next year?

[edit on 29-8-2004 by cstyle226]

infinite

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:00 AM

link

lol howard is an idoit and im not suprised by this. There is more chance of me taking over the world with a large number of bunny rabbits armed with turnips then Howard winning the next UK general election.

weirdo

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:01 AM

link

l heard they band him cos he was going to reveal the 666 mark behind Bush`s head

thematrix

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:08 AM

link

From all the story's I've seen lately, it seems like they are shielding Bush, at all costs, from any critisisme and meetings with people that aren't 100% seeing it his way.

Why would this be?

- Are they trying to keep him in that imaginary vision of the world of his?

- Is he truely that heavy on meds to control his anger and delusions? So that its dangerous for someone who doesn't agree with him to meet him?

- Are they afraid Bush will say something to the visitor that shouldn't be brought out or shouldn't be said?

What other reasons could there be for him being kept so shielded from the outside world?(that is a question, give some idea's to why they wouldn't want to shield him, this is not a rhetorical one)

chebob

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:20 AM

link

I don't like Howard, and I don't like the Conservative party. But at least this situation shows he has greater strength of value than Tony Blair. No matter how much I hate Howard, he is a much better p[erson for standing up for what was right, unlike Blair who succumbed to political peer pressure.

weirdo

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:44 AM

link

Michael Howard is the old type of Politician that does not need coaching from PR people before meeting the opposition.Unlike Bush and Blair he can think for himself and win arguments using his brain.Bush would be ripped to shreads and shown to be another American mistake that has been misleading the American people and the world.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 01:56 PM

link

Well, neither Bush Nor Blair are typical of thier perspective parties. Bush has even strayed away from typical Republican tactics, hes a new breed of con. Even his daddy was totally different.