Skip to content

"Europeans Mourn End of Bush's Presidency"

Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, writes about the Brussels Forum in the SF Chronicle:
Many European leaders will be saddened to see President Bush leave the White House next year. No, they won't miss his soaring inspirational rhetoric, collegial foreign policy or sophisticated knowledge of the world. What worries many Europeans is that their free pass is about to expire. Not since Richard Nixon's final year in office have foreign leaders been so free to say no to Washington with few if any political repercussions. In fact, for the last few years, agreeing with the White House has held greater political risks than snubbing Bush and his aides.

Yes, most political observers (at least in Berlin) believe that it will be harder for European governments to say no to a new president. I, however, think that German and European public opinion on issues like Afghanistan or Iran is not going to change, when a new president is inaugurated in the United States. European politicians will find plenty of good (and not so good) reasons to say no. Besides, 2009 is an election year in Germany. Don't expect any changes in our Afghanistan policy until after the elections.

Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as Linear | Threaded

Anonymous on :

I fully agree with Joerg. Aside from Germany, I also cannot imagine Gordon Brown to become another american poodle. With him, the british focus in politics seems to have moved to the continent instead. When the new president is inaugurated though, I expect Super-Sarko to rush to Washington first. Speed is his main skill after all.

Zyme on :

Names names names - I forgot mine above.

Joe Noory on :

The names listed on the Brussels Forum reveal a pattern. I suspect they reached out to certain people assuming that a democrat would be in the white house next year given the limited number of right-leaning "headliners" like Zoellick. This has a 50/50 chance of working out badly for them. They would do better to cover both parties to get what they want: a potential proponent with connections whoever wins the election in November. That aside, apart from Afghanistan appearing low on the issues list, this really looks like a forum heavily weighted on the German and British issues that come up in a NATO focussed forum. It also looks like a laudable effort to disambiguate the relationship between the EU and NATO, if that's possible at this stage of an EU whose actual lines of authority and position among member states aren't yet clear.

Nanne on :

I also spot Bob Kagan and Michael Chertoff in the crowd. And, as Drezner gossips, Holbrooke seems to believe that he'll be in the state department regardless of who wins the presidency.

franchie on :

anonimous, yes, I am afraid that superSarko is doing that kind of cinema ; though he is my president, I expect him not to harm us, otherwise, he'll get the revolution, over the "baise-mains" with an alzammerish queen, over the hot-dogs barbecues with the neoconnerie... now, before he thinks to send more soldiers to help the neocons, he should check what they tell about us ; (the details are on my place)

Joe Noory on :

So Apghans have nothing to do with it, I guess. It's those "neocons" of course!... I see. Are you going to count Lebanon and regime change in Cote D'Ivoire in there as well? Let me ask you this: is there anything you find in the world that isn't the fault of America? Because not only does that sound like statistical possibility, but it sure helps you from ever having to think!

franchie on :

jojo, are you half-French, half-Brit, half-American, half-Arab... from ancestry ? so, as I already told you, if your not happy with us, get the fuck off, there are many places in the world thout would take profit of your science ; ah, might-be your not courageous enough, it's good to stay safe in France and spit on it ; "don't ask for what our country could do for you, instead of, ask yourself what you can do for our country, that could benefit for you and the whole society", get it ? and don't bias what I wrote on that board, I didn't say that was America's fault, but rather of a few retarded that think that earth is flat, and that this handicapt is France's fault you always argue with nothing to say, just polemic

Joerg - Atlantic Review on :

No more "name-calling" ("jojo") and getting personal ("might-be your not courageous enough") please. Let's continue to focus on the issues! Thanks!

franchie on :

Sorry, I'll optempere

Detlef on :

Just wait. :) Maybe Anatol Lieven in the [url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a47e1ac-f9b0-11dc-9b7c-000077b07658.html]Financial Times[/url] is right. [i]Why we should fear a McCain presidency By Anatol Lieven Published: March 24 2008 19:12 | Last updated: March 25 2008 16:27 It may seem incredible to say this, given past experience, but a few years from now Europe and the world could be looking back at the Bush administration with nostalgia. This possibility will arise if the US elects Senator John McCain as president in November. Over the years the US has inserted itself into potential flashpoints in different parts of the world. The Republican party is now about to put forward a natural incendiary as the man to deal with those flashpoints. ... Not just US voters, but European governments, should use the next nine months to ponder the consequences if Mr McCain is elected and how they could either prevent a McCain administration from pursuing pyromaniac policies or, if necessary, protect Europe from the ensuing conflagrations.[/i] (The same post is today in the [url=http://www.ftd.de/meinung/kommentare/:Gastkommentar%20John%20McCain%20Mega%20Bush/335398.html]Financial Times Deutschland[/url] in German.) P.S. Using BBCode for quotes/blockquotes looks horrible! After previewing it I changed it back to italics.

Joerg - Atlantic Review on :

Thanks, Detlef. Very interesting. I am annoyed by the BBCode as well, but it is good spam protection. Does anyone know who McCain's running-mate might be or his Nat. Security Advisor and Sec of State etc.

Elisabetta on :

rumours abound about Condolessza (spelling) Rice.

David on :

Condoleezza would be the dream candidate for the Democrats. I imagine a continuous video loop of her on Meet the Press solemnly warning about Saddam's "Mushroom Clouds". Next to Cheney she was the most effective liar. But every lie is on tape.

Elisabetta on :

I dont know that you should be too celebratory yet. She was provost of Stanford (though the faculty hated her) and does have a Ph.D in IR or some similar toss discipline. She is a coherent and focused public speaker with foreign policy views that run down the middle of State Dept. She is more centrist than any other Republican VP in the last quarter century: GHW Bush, Quayle, or Cheney. Her co-workers seem to respect her and no one vehemently dislikes her outside of the Kos kids' house nigger/aunt jemima fringe. Remember if the Republican party gets 30 percent of the black vote, it wins in almost every potential national election scenario. It might even increase the Republican's influence amongst Hispanics, especially new Mexicans in the SW--thinking Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. Dont know if you can find it on youtube anymore, but Condolezza brought Jack Straw to the Ala-Tenn game in T-town and spontaneously the entire stadium started chanting her name. A local daughter of B'ham who almost died in the bombing of the 16th street Baptist Church and now returns to the State of the "cradle of the Confederacy" to universal acclaim and affection. That is the stuff effective cheezy political ads are made of.

Pat Patterson on :

Also Sec. Rice was taught by Amb. Albright's father, Josef Korbel, who praised her as the best student he ever had while she studied at the University of Denver. So that would make Amb. Albright the second best. I've noticed that the giddiness of a potential Obama victory has mellowed somewhat into simple insults.

Don S on :

Well, trash-talk about the current US President and nostalgia for past ones is a European tradition, at least where the GOP is concerned. The ritual conversion of the GOP candidate into der Fuhrer seems to be beginning anew....

franchie on :

Don, your green, wait, this autonmn you'll get yellow, brown, and "chauve", juanita Banana will be the next tube in DC ; I bet... you prefer Elvis...

Don S on :

A canrd, franchie, but always with you a surreal canard? I don't prefer Elvis, I prefer Johnny Cash! Or Sinatra of course....

franchie on :

hehe, I am a black coin-coin in a yellow-submarine

Joe Noory on :

That doesn't make any sense. If it doesn't translate, just say it in French.

franchie on :

Joe, (eh, I made it) that's a codified language, hehe, you must show your white foot to become an initiated member

Pat Patterson on :

Joe N-Actually franchie has insulted himself as the reference to the "white foot" is from ancient Rome. Slaves from all over the world were brought in through via Appia gate under yolk but not before stepping into trays of chalk dust to indicate their slave status. If that slave prospered or became free the native citizens or aristocracy referred to that white foot much as today we might refer to someone as a hillbilly or nouveau riche. A rube from the country in other words!

franchie on :

Mr Patterson, Professor, don't you know that's in the three little piglets tale that you find this request, yeah your historical background is very well researched, though, in the occurence, your trying to see bias, where it's only in your mind ; I am sure that Joe didn't see this in your eyes's

Joe Noory on :

I'm not going there because it's personal, and I have no interest in encouraging it. Rage all you like at me about my opinions, but I do request that at least one of the intellectual decendant of Cartier show more sense than a CGT zombie trying to play "provoc" with anyone who will entertain them.

franchie on :

quite funny how you handle the "plebe" in your chic mentality, yeah, I guess I am one of these slaves that had the honor to get the initiation of the chalk dust LIMO don't forget, progresses start from the "base", even the language, of course, history, that can't understand a golden boy

Joe Noory on :

I though the take was that the very opposite would be true - that a Democrat in the WH would require action on the part of the Europeans. A robust US foreign policy gives European governments a good shield against having to contribute manpower and monies in that they can appear to oppose the measure, and that that has the appearance of taking action on the subject. As for Franchie: no offense taken on this end, but if you really care to know I am a foreign born American of Lebanese citizens who has spent decades in Europe, with much of my family's past tied to the UK, France, and Germany and relatives and friends scattered around the EU. You'll find much of that sort of experience on both sides of the pond, but since there was so much immigration to North and South America, you'll run across it more frequently as a final settling location of many who have wandered.

Don S on :

"Richard Holbrooke, who was a U.N. ambassador under President Clinton, declared the entire exercise "journalistic gibberish."" Holbrooke is absolutely correct. With the Beeb leading the pack as usual. They see themselves as wolves but in realitiy are no more than coyotes - although chihauhuas may be the more apt simile in this case....

Merkel-3 on :

So interesting here, EU citizens mourn to BUSH's incoming departure. WHat the Yankee is up to? Check this : http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/bg2109.cfm Under Chancellor Merkel's personal leadership, the European Union breathed life back into the rejected European Constitution, recasting it as the Reform Treaty.[1] It still contains the building blocks of a United States of Europe and will shift power from the member states of the EU to Brussels in crit­ical areas of policymaking, including defense, secu­rity, and energy--areas in which the United States finds more traction on a bilateral basis. The treaty is a blueprint for restricting the sovereign right of EU member states to determine their own foreign poli­cies, and it poses a unique threat to the British- American Special Relationship. Above all, the treaty underscores the EU's ambi­tions to become a global power and challenge Ameri­can leadership on the world stage. .... What the United States Should Do In its policy toward Europe, the U.S. should: Avoid any tacit, public, or diplomatic en­dorsement of the European Reform Treaty. U.S. leaders and diplomats at all levels must not give EU members or EU elites the impression-- in public or in private--that the U.S. supports further European integration. Understand that the Lisbon Treaty is a politi­cal process intended to realize a United States of Europe. This treaty is not about the function­ing of the European Union, but rather an evolu­tion of political integration. The U.S. must abandon the long-held view that the European Union is a valuable global partner. Recognize that further European integration and the relentless and unstinting drive behind ever closer union threatens U.S. stra­tegic interests. Congress should hold hearings to analyze the Lisbon Treaty's implications for the transatlantic alliance. Explicitly state that building enduring bilateral alliances is a U.S. foreign policy priority. The Administration should build bridges between peoples by facilitating safe and secure travel by implementing legislation passed in 2007 to reform and expand the Visa Waiver Program. Congress and the Administration should encourage com­mercial and political interchange between Amer­ica and its friends and allies on a bilateral basis as an important foreign policy priority. Work with key European allies, especially the United Kingdom, to reaffirm NATO as the cornerstone of transatlantic security and to ensure that the Bucharest Summit in early April is successful in putting NATO once again at the forefront of the transatlantic alliance. At the Bucharest Summit, the United States should spe­cifically reaffirm the minimum benchmark for NATO members' defense spending (2 percent of GDP). It should also make the Allied Command Transformation Initiative the primary agent in determining members' military transformations. The Administration should make clear both that the U.S. will not back the ESDP as the price for French re-admittance into NATO's military com­mand structure and that re-admittance will impose certain obligations on France. Support calls for the United Kingdom and other European Union member states to hold referenda on the Lisbon Treaty as part of the ratification process. In line with the Labour Party's commitment and as part of a strategy to reinvigorate public trust in government, Prime Minister Gordon Brown should undertake a free and fair referendum in the United Kingdom. *********************** With US instruction on EU's evolution. With the Judas of UK devastating activity within EU, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel will never achieve its goals . Being an insignificant servitor instead of an equal partner is a pathetic and unavoidable fate for EU. No matter Clinton ,BUsh or whoever. There is no big difference. US will never and ever compromise on its hegemmony.

Zyme on :

Yes that would be reasonable steps for an american government. But you forgot one aspect: There is little Washington can do here today. The european process has become independent. Even today the majority of laws passed in every member state stems from Brussels. Brussels already has its own budget, currently around 130 billion Euros a year. Also the EU receives the tariffs paid for products that enter its realm. Such points should make its ambitions clear. With the Lisbon Treaty in effect, another huge step will be made towards a united Europe. We don´t even have to discuss the location of a european capital. As regards a name for this contruct, I think the label of Empire would be appropriate. Plus we would also have a term for the future of european nation states: Pronvinces. Of course you will never read these terms in an official document. Now that public support becomes less clear than in earlier decades, it has become important to deceive the peoples about the EU´s real nature and proceed without creating big headlines. Gordon Brown has shown that public interference via a referendum will be out of the question. Maybe just like Tony Blair, his personal ambitions in a united Europe have prevailed over the effect his policy has among the British electorate. Among the 27 member states, only Ireland will hold a referendum.

Kevin Sampson on :

An interesting point I had not previously considered, now that the various national governments which signed the North Atlantic Charter have been subsumed by the EU, does the charter still have any legal standing?

Álvaro Degives-Más on :

NATO is grounded in the UN. As is the EU, if you look at the small print. I can assure you that the finer points of legal hierarchy in international relations are anything but lost on the specialized "eurocrats". Just another tidbit: the stupendous body of legalese precepts in the [i][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquis_communautaire]Acquis Communataire[/url][/i] is a very carefully crafted mandatory equivalent of the orientation session (including signed receipt of the corporate employee manual) you will find in larger companies. You don't just "relinquish" stuff on accession to the EU - you deliberately go through a long, staged negotiation process (which on a practical level also tests available resolve of the prospective member's intent to accede) during which you make things transnationally compatible. And that's a two-way street, as it only can be.

Kevin Sampson on :

'NATO is grounded in the UN. As is the EU, if you look at the small print. I can assure you that the finer points of legal hierarchy in international relations are anything but lost on the specialized "eurocrats". Just another tidbit: the stupendous body of legalese precepts in the Acquis Communataire is a very carefully crafted mandatory equivalent of the orientation session (including signed receipt of the corporate employee manual) you will find in larger companies.' Which matters because...? 'You don't just "relinquish" stuff on accession to the EU - you deliberately go through a long, staged negotiation process (which on a practical level also tests available resolve of the prospective member's intent to accede) during which you make things transnationally compatible. And that's a two-way street, as it only can be.' Yes, it's a two way street between the EU and the supplicant. The US is not involved, so I don't see why we would be bound by anything to come out of this 'long, staged negotiation process'. At any rate, I don't see how any of this has any bearing on my original question.

Álvaro Degives-Más on :

If the implicit "yes" I provided wasn't clear enough a response, I take it this explicit one should do it. But, since we're crossing Ts and dotting Is: it's relevant because it's providing a diplomatically guarded and therefore implicit argument that it's slightly amusing to see someone seemingly suggesting the collective failure of the accumulated body of knowledge of presently twenty-seven countries who therefore, somehow, would manage to have such a bad collective case of ADD that while working on the EU end, they overlook this other "NATO" thing which, oh look, suddenly has lost its "legal standing" in the process. Some places actually exist in this solar system where governments walk and can chew bubblegum [i]at the same time.[/i] And lastly, there's no "supplicant" involved. Such a term is a token of clientelist optics that have no place in international relations of the twenty-first century among adult and mutually respecting nations. So yes, there's a reason I mentioned "applicant" because you really have to apply for admission to the club. Provided your application [i]request[/i] has been favorably evaluated, something in which, as you also eloquently point out, the US plays no meaningful role. As Turkey is also increasingly finding out, [i]vis à vis[/i] its accession pipe dream. Won't happen in this first half of the century, and probably not in the latter half, either, barring extraordinary developments (which can't be good at all).

Kevin Sampson on :

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Let me try a different approach. Let us suppose that the US, after a massive overdose of rohypnol, were to invoke Article 5 of the Charter. Would the European signatories need the permission of the EU defense establishment to respond? Now, when you reply this time, try providing some actual support for your personal assurances that the supermen in Brussels thought of everything. References to the pertinent sections of the relevant treaties would do nicely.

Álvaro Degives-Más on :

We don't have a failure of communication; we have a failure of commanding the facts. Article 5 [i]has already been invoked.[/i] Very shortly after 9/11.

Anonymous on :

In other words, Euros just want an excuse to buck the United States at every turn. (Because envy is blind.) Thanks for admitting that. But if I were you, I'd mourn France's seduction of the UK. Germany should have known better than fornicate with her. No more Axis of Weasels, Sarkozy reminded the British today that France is a nuclear power too. His arithmetic is one, two, three nuclear powers teamed up in a new axis. (Until turncoat France turns again.) Ah, old Europe...never changes.

franchie on :

Anonymus But you have changed too, your evengelical crusade is the worst thing that could happen to our enlightened countries,that's why I'll stay awake, and watch out so that my country fellows do not participate in such crazy wars do the cleaning in your country first ; don't invoque that we turncoat, while we are just sane

Joe Noory on :

I don't know how many times this has to be repeated: jihadists are fighting a religious war. The US is not fighting a religious war. I wish I understood the psychology of these inversions, but is seems geared specifically toward a world view averse to treating objective problems with objective action, preferring subjective, verbal rationalizations as a response to objective physical threats.

Anonymous on :

Joe "I don't know how many times this has to be repeated: jihadists are fighting a religious war. The US is not fighting a religious war. I wish I understood the psychology of these inversions" jihadists is a term for discribing islam expensions ; for evangelists, the term mission is used ; Though, while one is physically agressive, the other is morally agressive, At the end, you'll get the same result, wars, that are sponsorised on/by religious beliefs, that, in finale, are a minds regression ; do you think that the evangelists will remain soft if they manage to be the first lobby in a western country ? they'll do idem as the jihadists : regression for the women rights, regression for the society liberties, powdered with creationism, then back to the dark middle-ages mentalities ; Galileo the second would not have the right to claim that the earth is round. Arent' theses evengelists that think that there will be soon an apocalypse ? they'll provoke it, because they are also associated with the weapons manufactures ; arms that aren't anymore swords, but sophisticated technologies, of course the research programs for the arms would be still on, needed for such agendas

Álvaro Degives-Más on :

I think it's a pity that Joel Brinkley doesn't elaborate much beyond belaboring the truism that "Europe and the United States, like it or not, remain deeply dependent on each other - no matter the issue, no matter who is president." And it's a pity, because there's a lot more to dig up; for example, while it's true that there's an unmistakable reluctance in European capitals to "step up", let alone "take over" (for one, as the fringe benefits don't appear either clear or convincing) it's also true that there's an increasingly [i]globalizing[/i] effect of European political and legal discourse, i.e. also in the US; the European Commission-borne antitrust case against Microsoft is just one interesting case in point, where a bark from Brussels (with the threat of a real bite) affects "business as usual". And that's completely aside from macro-technological growth as exemplified by Galileo, Jules Verne or the A380. On the other hand, I can't hide my annoyance at the somewhat despondent tone that emanates from contemplating the shards of what used to be a fairly solidly underpinned popular trust in US leadership on the Eastern side of the Atlantic. I could engage on any number of rich angles here, but I'll just highlight a prominently featured one in Blinkley's article: Afghanistan. Anyone in the US harboring hopes of an increased European participation level in the military catastrophe that is Afghanistan on account of a non-Bush named resident in the WH is bound for some sever disabusing. There are two very simple reasons that participation is, at best, tepid: one, the fairly broadly existing conviction throughout Europe that Iraq was such a colossal mistake that moving too close in alignment in Afghanistan only begs for much unappreciated collateral damage. Unless the US itself raises its presence there, and deals in a less duplicitous and more effectively manner with the remake of Faust in Pakistan, there's simply no "national interest" weighing in favor for a heightened and deepened participation in Afghanistan (and the trans-Caucasian region as a whole, by the by - unless foregoing "non-proliferation" is an acceptable trade-off for scoring some diplomatic brownie points abroad). The second reason lies in a profound lack of trust among Europeans that a change of the guard in the WH will also necessarily imply a less Manichean approach to combating international terrorism. Taking cues from the Venezuela/FARC complex as an illuminating example, I don't foresee significant changes, other than signaled "predisposition", espoused "warmer relations", and declarations toward "a firm but shared commitment to achieving the same goals". I'll also just obliquely point to Kyoto, Bali and similar climate change related protocols, which have simply raised the bar too high for the US to catch up, e.g. given existing troubles on the economic front, after lost decades of foot dragging, kicking and screaming (and losing precious opportunities for the development of renewable resources and related technology). In all, that's why Afghanistan [i]will remain[/i] a lofty topic for forums like the one that inspired Brinkley's dull enumeration of the obvious, without much more to look forward to over the next (and at least the first) US President's term, than circumstantially inspired flirting and mouthing of "partnership" vernacular, particularly those European government leaders most in need of a foreign policy coup outside the EU. Let's make no mistake: much in the same way that Gordon Brown currently presents an attractive target for Sarkozy's orphaned affection at home, the whole Iraq malarkey can be attributed to the dangerous [i]Geltungsdrang[/i] of a few overachievers in Europe: Blair, Aznar, and Berlusconi. Their memory has all but faded - less so the lessons that lie in the ruins of Iraq: a fatally flawed war can't be "sold" profitably on the merits of trans-Atlantic courtship alone. Again, I can't stress the single most outstanding feature that outlives the optimism seemingly prevalent in the US about Europeans warming up to "a more sensible" President in the WH: deep-seated jadedness, or skepticism, or cynicism. They point in the same direction: Europeans don't by that hype trumps reality. They're reminded by the ever present tokens of their grim history, and not in the least by the still fresh memories of several massive, genocidal wars on their soil (with earth shattering consequences for the reconfiguration of the entire state model to boot) and therefore any talk toward will somehow overpowering reality has an adverse ring to it. In US vernacular: don't come with ideas of impressing with a new guy (or gal) in town. [i]Show[/i] me the money. I'll close here with such an example, a hidden sting that seemingly flew past Berkley, even while he offered it in a quote. I'll highlight the part in question, and leave it up to the reader to grasp the significance of nuance (yes, that infamously typical word of cheese eating surrendermonkeys): [quote]Speaking about global warning, for example, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister, plaintively declared: "It's my strong belief that we need strong cross-Atlantic cooperation [i]to face these challenges appropriately and effectively[/i]."[/quote] There's many a slip between "appropriately" and "effectively". My suggestion to US foreign policy advisers is to focus more on that nuance, and [i]a lot[/i] less on the mojo of new rock star power, baby. Surely, Europeans will miss Bush. But a few magnitudes less so than they already miss his more reality-based predecessor.

Álvaro Degives-Más on :

(I'd like to add my humble apologies to the reader for a few annoying typos and two colossal run-on sentences, left in the wake of overeagerly hitting "Submit Comment")

franchie on :

"Surely, Europeans will miss Bush. But a few magnitudes less so than they already miss his more reality-based predecessor." Surely no, we miss people like Eisenhower, Nixon (yes)... I can't think we'll miss a Bush and his lobbies friends, or even Clinton I guess, those were the last authentic leaders

Álvaro Degives-Más on :

Obviously I didn't present the predecessor of today's has-been as an absolute reference. But I'm curious why an at best mediocre chess player such as Nixon would ever deserve to be situated in the vicinity of the water President Eisenhower walked on. Nixon and W have a lot in common, especially their condition as players, not masters of the game.

franchie on :

the difference that Nixon has with W, was "intelligence", for forecasting geopolitical politics, and managed to prevent a civil war in the US to happen

Álvaro Degives-Más on :

Managed to "prevent a civil war"? By stepping down you mean, surely? You can thank more sensible incarnations of Congress and the Supreme Court for that. About the "intelligence" part, it was him believing he had it which was the fundamental cause for his downfall, leaving decades of turbulence and a revanchist Cheney in his wake. Putting Eisenhower and that machiavellian mistake in the same sentence ought to be punishable offenses.

franchie on :

no, intelligence means clever in the occurence, recognition of China, De Gaulle's friend, (though DG was difficult in the selection of friends :lol:)... and watergate wa still possible at that time, nowadays, impossible !

Álvaro Degives-Más on :

The circumstance that Watergate could "happen" isn't attributable to Nixon's bidding. As to playing ye olde divide and conquer, the enemey of my enemy being a circumstantial ally, I don't think that's a token of particular intelligence, either: just a pragmatic Realpolitiker. As much as he was a smart aleck, him buying into his being "clever" is what imperiled the Presidency - for that reason alone he should be locked near the bottom of the list of worthy memorable presidents.

franchie on :

well, may be I am too romanesque, been too impressed by the movie about his bio

franchie on :

probably, he was Nixon's guru if my memory is still OK

franchie on :

the 007 scenarist, what a fine team :lol:

Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

Form options