Wonder where the Bush Francophobes came from? Appears they go back a long way, like European-British Royalty pitted against all anti-royalty thought. Here are a couple paragraphs from Roy Adkins first chapter of "Nelson's Trafalgar: The Battle That Changed The World" that I think address this:
"The contest between France and Britain was essentially one between two states in the process of building empires. In France this was a conscious policy, at first to spread revolutionary ideology by conquest, but later driven by Napoleon's personal ambition. In Britain, the pursuit of the wealth and other benefits that derived from its colonies was paramount, and initially the acquisition of territory was far less important than establishing trading links. Chasing their separate goals, neither state considered how this would affect other countries unless forced to do so. On the Continent, France threatened, bullied and tried to subvert the governments of its neighbors, while at sea Britain used Naval might to take whatever was needed without any thought that this might be alienating allies who could be useful in the future.
In France, undemocratic revolutionary government had been replaced by the dictatorship of Napoleon; in Britain King George III had the larger share of power, although the country was nominally governed by Parliamentary democracy. By his skilful use of patronage, however, the king was adept at subverting Parliamentary attempts to cur his actions; he bribed men with honors, positions, rewards, and pensions, or intimidated them by threats to withdraw such privileges. Most other states in Europe also had hereditary monarchies, and many were linked in loose confederations or empires by virtue of the fact that their rulers came from the same family. In all cases, including Britain, no account was taken of the general population unless it rose in rebellion -- in which case it was invariably repressed with brutal force if the rulers still had power to do so. While European governments pursued their own self-interests, the people they governed often had different agendas; smuggling to avoid taxes and trade bans, and even fraternisation between opposing armed forces were commonplace." (end excerpt)
Not sure where author Adkins stands on today's politics, but he's easier on the British and King George III than I'd be.
This passage's interesting feature to me is that it helps me see that our creator of a Rich Royal Class King George, Bush II, is participating in an empire-building scenario in which he usurps the role previously played by France -- promoting revolutionary change, but only as a guise for covering the oil imperialism motive. At the same time Bush fomented Francophobia and suspicion of all that is French in order to proceed with this scenario, and I can't help seeing this as a an expression of a centuries' old rivalry between these two differing camps.
Let me sneak in here that I also can see the British King George III's techniques now in use by George Bush. For instance, Rep. Peter T. King, R-NY, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, was just punished by Bush for opposing the DUBAI PORT DEAL: Representaive King had been planning for months to go to the MiddleEast with members of his comittee this month (March 2006); all of the sudden out of the blue, Rep. King got an e-mail saying the trip was cancelled. How can such a thing be interpreted, if not as punishment or intimidation? Our King George's tyranny is so much like King George III's it's spooky.
