The British continue to comment over the weekend in the Guardian over how Bush treated blair like "his poodle" as they say. Do you think they're trying to say, "like his bitch" but don't want to sound anti-woman? Is it because the poodle is seen as a particularly girly looking dog, or is because a poodle is intelligent yet still subservient?

I can understand why they're pissed though:

When Tony Blair offers himself as a Middle East peace envoy, he is casually rebuffed by the American President between bites on a bread roll. Told by Bush that 'Condi is going', the normally fluent Blair is reduced to inarticulate jabbering. 'Well, it's only if, I mean, you know, if she's got a... or if she needs the ground prepared as it were... Because obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, if it were, whereas I can go out and just talk.' Yeah, just talk.

It was awful for Tony Blair to be caught asking for permission to go to the Middle East. It was dire to hear George Bush saying he wouldn't let the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom go out - not even on a pointless trip. It looks even more humiliating when the French Foreign Minister is going.

I found a full transcript.

I have a question for the Brits though. Yes it's embarrassing that your Prime Minister is Bush's pet and all, but isn't it more embarrassing for us that Bush is our president? After all he talks about how he's just going to make up some speach on the spot (as if he has a talent for this) and everything else he says makes him sound like a simpleton. Or does that make it more embarrassing for the Brits because their PM is "poodle" to such a total and complete jackass?