This wasn't meant to be a ding on Bush as compared to any other president. The points were that (1) the trappings of the US presidency have become imperial, and (2) that, while I presume that the guys who do advance work for the president know what they're doing and therefore there were probably good reasons they didn't do the obvious and bring the guy into an RAF base, it was really stupid to do this in a way that needlessly antagonized thousands of people that we want as allies.

You miss the part where the PResident doesn't just pick his landing spot will nilly as if he were some imperial ruler? he goes where the host country likes him to go since they have to organize all their security, etc.

so, let the Euro's be pissed at their governments.

Because, the only way to really resolve the complaint is to not go at all. Some how, I think people would start getting the idea that we really didn't like them.

Funny how you never really hear anyone complain about when foreign dignitaries land here and fubar things up.

Jim,

Understand. But the “imperial” label just grates. Few Americans appreciate what that means. Most who use it are projecting, especially when it comes to Bush. This is a guy who has had fewer State dinners than any President in memory…at least I think so. He’s just not an “imperial” guy, especially when you compare him to the Clintons (remember LAX being brought to a halt while Bill got his hair cut?) and the palpable hauteur that emanates from both Obamas.
I don’t think he, or his staff, drove that debacle.
One thing few people realize is that after 9/11 a significant change occurred in how Air Force One was configured—the communications shortcomings in the wake of the attacks shocked both Bush and his immediate staff (to say nothing of the SecDef). The resultant “war footing” in the commo department I’m sure had a concomitant effect on the rest of the support processes for a traveling Commander-in-Chief conducting a global war against a demonstrably resourceful and asymmetric enemy.
Could we pare it down? Sure. But, again, whose gonna assume the risk? SecDef? Sec State? Justice? Homeland Security? Frankly, I don’t think the Secret Service would let him do that, or would do it under significant protest.
Now, I think the Heathrow venue was barking. The USAF always prefers AF One going to a secure field. Why they chose the busiest airport in Britain makes me wonder if something else wasn’t at play here. If it was our “fault,” by all means mea culpa. However, I think the UK was driving this, not the US.
In any case, my little ruse worked…I got another NRO’er to visit Jonah’s military guys’ milblog. Heh.