No misunderstandings
There are no misunderstandings on our part. So, said No 10 this morning. In other words, tonight's speech will attempt to clear up misunderstandings on the other side of the pond.
Consider for a moment where those "misunderstandings" may stem from:
- first Gordon Brown appointed a foreign secretary who was happy for his concerns about the Lebanon war and doubts about the war in Iraq to be widely known
- then he appointed Mark Malloch Brown as Milliband's deputy - someone who the White House loathes with a vengeance after his years at the helm of the UN
- next came a speech in Washington in July by one of Mr Brown's closest Cabinet allies, Douglas Alexander, who stressed the importance of "soft power" over military action
- then came the first Brown/Bush summit at Camp David at which in public and, apparently in private too, the new PM was thought to be giving the president a very obvious cold shoulder
- next came the foreign secretary's party conference speech which sought to bury Blairite foreign policy, not to praise it (although as I wrote at the time it's not clear it signalled much real change).
Meantime Sarko has that he - and France - is more than willing to be America's new best friend.
Gordon Brown did want - and need - to distance himself from the most embarrassing and politically damaging parts of the Blair/Bush partnership but it's no wonder that tonight he feels that the Americans need to hear a few warm words.
I'm 
Comments
Of one thing we and the Americans can be sure. Gordon Brown's speech will be delivered with that level of sincerity, intergity and principle to which we have become accustomed.
Da'er Nick,
Sarkosi, of course, he has played the one up manship card, and left Brown in the lurch, Not surprising really, we have a lame duck as Primeminister, once youve lost public respect, its down hill all the way, his boat is sinking, and the life boats on the otherside of the Pond.
He would do well to direct those warm words to America generally, rather than the extremely dangerous Bush administration. Otherwise he risks being thrown out of office at around the same time as Bush, since he would sorely disappoint me and a large number of other potential Labour voters.
It seems to me that the UK being the US's closest ally is stating the bleeding obvious - all the concers listed are simply that the UK government does not look quite as craven as once it did.
Brown's speech really means "we will be obedient, you have nothing to fear" as no one in their right mind thinks that this is an anti-war government.
I have disagree, Gordon Brown does not do "warm words"
Well Gordy didn't want to be "Best Special No1 friends" with Dubya anymore, cos his mates don't like it, and says it's wrong. So he can't moan if Dubya has gone and found a brand new "Best Special No1 friend" across the Street.
The US is always teetering on the edge of a love affair with a reluctant France, who fears his hug but now is flirting wildly.
It looks as though Gordon has now become jealous of Sarko and his Gallic charms, and will sullenly offer some chocolates from an opened box, but it will be all the coffee ones that everyone leaves until last.
I, like many others, think that Mr Brown has wiped out all the "good will" he inherited by a series of cack handed policies, that have exposed his very real limitations as a person and politician.
To be fair to Gordon, most people in his position (coming into power after Blair) would be keen to show that they were not Bush's poodle, but doing that without the Americans noticing is more problematic.
It's important to be independent but flexible. The Prime Minister was correct to take a strong position on investing in political solutions to ending the military situation in Iraq, and now some sense of end-game is beginning to emerge on that putting relations on a firmer footing is welcome. There's some lag in public perception of the Iraq issue but I don't see why it can't be wrapped in calm and rational way especially if Iraq leadership and other stakeholders continue to mature.
As much as I disagreed with George Bush's policies and dislike his attitude, it's important to try and understand and remain open to communication. He may be a singular minded and insular individual at times but I'm sure he was sincere and meant well. If a shift in emphasis and relationship can help iron out mistakes and get on top of difficulties then this will be in everyone's interest. Emphasising some sense and politeness can only help calm things down and give space for more improvement.
Really, this says everything about how the Prime Minister is trying to frame his governance. He's focusing on quality goals, warm communication, and patience over the long-term. Some commentators have pointed out how the Prime Minister's vision lacks spark but the foundations are emerging and I fully expect a tipping point in Anglo-American relations, Iraq and other international affairs, and domestic policy to emerge sooner rather than later.
You can say what you like about Tony Blair at least he was decisive.
Brown may indeed be a lame duck but Bush is mortally wounded and will become increasingly irrelevant over the coming months as US election fever gets into full swing.
I have no time for Brown but surely he is a smart enough operator to actually be positioning himself for the next, almost certainly Democratic Party nominee, President rather than this one?
At least the USA appears to be sincere in their friendship, unlike most of the chancers in the EU.
The EU never has and never will be one harmonised nation, and nor should it be.
But back to the USA, we have to stay friendly with them, even if we do not agree their policies at times. We speak the same language and many beliefs.
As Paul wrote above in Point 3, Gordon Brown must direct his comments to the USA as a whole, since the Bush administration is out of steam and out of friends.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me...
...conventional UK policy of being US's close ally, but reserving the right to disagree with a particular administration over specific policies.
GORDON BROWN'S CONTEMPT FOR OUR ARMED FORCES?
YES. SHAME ON THE MEN IN SUITS WITH LAPTOPS THIS LABOUR GOVERNMENT HAVE SPAWNED, AND GIVEN CONTROL TO, IN UK DEFENCE DEPARTMENTS IN LAST 10YRS.
THIS GOV HAVE TAKEN UK TO MORE WARS THAN ANY VOTER OR CITIZEN OF THE UK COULD EVER HAVE IMAGINED IN 1997.
EXTRAORDINARY NEGLIGENCE BY GOVERNMENT MINISTERS. HOW HAVE SEVERAL MOD MINISTERS, IN LAST 10 YEARS, GOT AWAY WITH THEIR TOTAL NEGLIGENCE OF OUR ARMED FORCES?
WE DON'T HAVE CONSCRIPTION IN UK, BUT SAY WE DID? HOW WOULD U FEEL ABOUT YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER BEING DRAFTED INTO UK FORCES? HOW DIFFERENT DOES THAT FEEL.... WELL IT'S NO DIFFERENT, BECAUSE IT'S RESPECT FOR LIVES LOST FOR YOU AND ME.... OK?