Speaking numerologically, in the matter of American Georges, I submit, as I have previously, that the Current George is not our second, but, by virtue of our first President having been also a George, our third George.
Long Live George III !
Which George is probably rolling in his grave at that thought . . .
timberlandko wrote:Kara, in answer to your Clark query, there's lots. Here's just a teaser:
Quote:ELECTION 2004
Gen. Shelton: Clark 'won't get my vote'
Former chair of Joint Chiefs says Wes has 'integrity and character' issues
On the Shelton / Clark thing, check out these two brief "election diary" notes from TNR:
Quote: WHEN CHARACTER WAS KING
[..] the next time Shelton wants to talk about "integrity and character issues," he had better make sure he doesn't have a few of those to work out himself. [..]
Quote: HAIL TO THE VICTOR
[..] Among other things, Secor details how Hugh Shelton and William Cohen kept denying Clark access to the White House. She quotes former NSC official Michael O'Hanlon, who says, "[Cohen and Shelton] were abusing the chain of command prerogative in a way that was counterproductive to the nation's interests." [..]
Imagine the consternation and discomfort that would have fallen to a devout '30s Socialist on awakening from a long coma in 1974 to see a headline announcing the arrival of President Ford and Vice President Rockefeller at some function.
And down with the rapacious Georgian dynasty
The American ruling elite are far too sophisticated to allow names such as Ford or Rockefeller to occupy the top eschelons of government, except when they are called Ford, or Rockefeller.
In all respect, PDiddie, after having read the TNR articles and the referrenced Secor piece, I am discomfitted by the impropriety of returning, by way of response, the final two words of Mr. Froer's commentary. None the less, I shall refrain from doing so.
{edited to correct a bone-headed misspelling ... but then, most misspellings are bone-headed, aren't they?}
An undersize petard is scarcely entertaining.
I, too, am devilishly amused by the whole "dog" caper. It was quite clear to me, from the beginning, what Setanta meant. So the dust-up was a bit baffling. And then Gautam tut-tutted so beautifully -- you may not be Brit-born, G., but you are Brit-bred.
Quote:Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it is worth doing a little research on Leo Strauss, the guiding light and mentor of the intellectual neocons surrounding Bush.
Steve -- I was just listening to a description on the radio of Bush's arrival and musing about the extent to which this "state visit" will be another nail in the coffin of the royal family. It seemed to me that plenty of people are mad as hell that a politician of this nature was being given house room at the palace. Any sense of that where you are?
Steve, as we are by default permanently afflicted with Democrats, The US is in no need of external threat to ensure the stability of our political order :wink:
From what I've been hearing, the protesting is just as much about the British establishment as anything else.
Tart, I think a lot of people do feel that the Queen is being used as a bit part in an election campaign.
And a lot more are outraged at the expense. Why should we Brits pay for the fantastic security necessary when Bush visits, when its what Bush has done to the world that makes the rest of the world so mad?
We have got nothing out of Bush. Blair has given him everything and more, including now the first ever official state visit, to use in his election campaign.
It seems inexplicable. As for the Queen and monarchy...well I've a great deal of respect for the Queen personally (despite what you may have read in some of my posts...) because she takes the job seriously, and has over 50 years been a great ambassador for this country. The institution of monarchy is a different matter. I want to elect our head of state, so if Bush's visit presages the end of the House of Saxe Coburg Windsor, then thats fine by me.
Want any redundant Royals in your neck of the woods?
The Democrats may be an affliction, but they don't seem to be much of a threat. )!)
As you probably well realise, Strauss was serious about the necessity of an external threat to keep the the body politic in rude health.
Well, Bush is really lucky that he can spend as second US-president (after Wilson) some night aside the Queen, since "
a special German intelligence unit planned to blow up Buckingham Palace using exploding cans of processed peas. ."
Ooops, the sentence goes further on: .... MI5 papers released to the National Archives revealed yesterday. :wink:
Revealed: Germany's canny plot to blow up Buckingham Palace
Oh:
Buckingham Palace and the Foreign Office have said Mr Wilson's stay at the palace was not a state visit, making Mr Bush's visit a first.
