2 1 min 10 yrs

Our Dave, together with his missus Samantha, seeming to think that they are getting the welcome they deserve.

Sorry mate, but we only have one Head of State, and we aren’t going to swap her for Mr. Slippery no matter how hard Dave smirks.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

2 thoughts on “Hubris, or fair-weather friends?

  1. I listened to the two “lads” trading laudettes on FoxNews yesterday.

    Interestingly enough, they both referred to each other by their first (CHRISTIAN) names numerous times.

    Especially, since it was an official State Visit.

    Yada, yada yada, DAVID……….blah, blah, blah, BARACK……

    Sounds like they’re getting really cosy.

    Maybe Obummer has “David” in mind as his V.P. in 2013?

    Betcha Benjamin Netanyahu didn’t get the “Bibi” treatment on his recent “scolding visit” to the Messaih’s homestead!

  2. The whole episode, as seen on the UK media, seems to be no more than a Third World parody of what State visits once were. No ‘class’, little respect, maybe a touch of faux cameraderie, all more like a lad’s get together than a serious meeting to actualy solve some of the more pressing problems that we have.

    Cameron, is a bigger and more deluded fool than even us sceptics thought, if he thinks that Obama is laying on this pantomime for anything other than selfish reasons.

    “Dave come on over, we’ll have ride in my airyplane and have a celeb dinner and a few beers. Now I know I can rely on your support over Syria and Iran, so we wont need to spend too much time talking ‘shop’, – and don’t forget to bring a few of the ‘lads’ along!”.

    That the whole shebang is getting very little coverage in the US media, is probably a good indicator that this not an election gimmick, but more of a ‘bribe in kind’, the sort that the Chicago crowd are so adept at. Unfortunately Dave is yet another UK PM who suffers delusions, – must be something in the water at No.10…

    I could be churlish and suggest that Cameron’s eagerness to force feed ‘freedom and liberty’, – at the expense of our young people’s lives, – to every reluctant recipient, might be less if he had offspring of a ‘serving age’, or at least of serving on the ‘front line’.

Comments are closed.