Grave Doubts

The UK Guardian reports that the Bush administration expressed "grave doubts" to Tony Blair about the suitability of Gordon Brown as the Prime Minister of England. 

According to the Sunday Telegraph, Brown is said to have "harangued" Rice, then secretary of state, over US policy on aid and development in Africa. Rice reportedly alerted the White House which passed on its concerns to Blair.

No date is give for the meeting with Rice, who became secretary of state at the start of Bush's second term in January 2005. Blair announced in the early autumn of 2006 that he would stand down before the time of the Labour conference in 2007, suggesting that Rice's comments were passed on in 2005 or 2006.
 -------
 Brown eventually became prime minister at the end of June 2007. A month later he visited Bush at Camp David, causing mild offence by briefing that he would not handle relations with the White House in the same way as his predecessor.

In contrast to the jeans sported by Blair for a Camp David meeting with Bush, Brown made a point of wearing a suit and tie for his joint press conference. Bush addressed Brown as Gordon who then replied "Mr President". Brown described their discussions as "full and frank". 

Yes, good thing no world leader ever expressed "grave doubts" about the US government's leadership between 2001-2009... Hat tip to Ray!

Comments

[S O]

If I was a British, I would consider this to be an assault on British sovereignty.

[Ray]

You have an emotional point, S O, and I thought much the same thing, but Mr Bush was miffed that he didn't have another Mr Blair to influence. Even Tony Blair knew that Gordon Brown was only person to get Britain out of an economic mess it was deeply in at the time (notwithstanding that we're in one now!) Also, Brown laid a blueprint for other nations to follow- which AT THE TIME seemed miraculous.
As for Camp David and all that, Gordon Brown wanted to dispel the idea that Britain was going to cooperate with President Bush's ambitions and visions, as Tony Blair did. Gordon Brown was against the Iraq war, but didn't do much about it- perhaps he saw his destiny as getting Britain out of the aforesaid economic situation. It's history now, but yes, people ought not to choose or attempt to influence the choice of election or installation of leaders. Saddam...
It seems to me to be a dicey thing to do; it might give more trouble than it's worth.
That's not to say one can't express an individual opinion as a member of the public, but world leaders are supposed to be diplomatic. Gaffs lose votes.

[elizzar]

tbh i had, and still have (and feel vindicated unfortunately) grave doubts about gordon brown's ability to run a piss-up in a brewery let alone our country ... not that the other lot seemed much of an alternative ... alas that john smith died when he did, the only truly decent man in politics in the last 20 years ... praying the coalition is ok, a lot of their 'great repeal' stuff is good (restoring public freedoms), but the announced cuts, and the impending mental defence cuts (we are still at war gentlemen ...) are going to be painful (and we are back to the results of that git brown and his wacky economic adventures)
and for the record, i voted lib dem in my area the election gone, the guy had a decent chance of knocking the zanu-nu-labour guy out, i never expected the libs to ever get any power though!

[sheerahkahn]

I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Brown said in his "full and frank" discussion with Mr. Bush,
"You sir, are a fucking twit with delusions of adequacy, and I'll be damned if I'll let you ruin my country like you did yours. This is your war, fight it your damned self."
Well, I could hope at least.