Lunch in the White House with George

The Sunday Times ^ | March 4, 2007 | Irwin Stelzer

[MadIvan]

No matter how many years one spends in Washington, lunch with the president of the United States is an exciting prospect. Entering through a special door not accessible to tourist riffraff and the tight security only heighten the sense you are entering a special realm.

Ubiquitous aides guide you efficiently down corridors lined with portraits of past occupants to the Old Family Dining Room where Churchill and Roosevelt brainstormed in the second world war. With its oriental rugs and dark polished furniture, the White House is like a smart English home.

I was there to attend one of George Bush’s frequent lunches for small groups of writers, historians and journalists to discuss an issue or book that has caught his eye. It was an intimate affair: the historian Andrew Roberts and I had to squeeze our chairs together to allow the vice-president, Dick Cheney, to pull his up to the table.

“Do you think that when Gordon Brown steps into Tony Blair’s shoes our relationship with Britain will change?” I asked Cheney as we waited for the president. “I really don’t know much about Brown,” was the response.

And then in came the president. Bush is taller than he seems on television and chirpier. He is also refreshingly free of the pretence so common in this town. “Let’s eat,” he said and explained we were gathered to discuss Roberts’s book A History of the English-Speaking Peoples because “history informs the present”. His goals, he said, were to see what history can teach us today and to “pander to you powerful opinion-makers”. Such humour is typical of the man. In addition to Roberts and myself the group included the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, neocon Norman Podhoretz and theologian Michael Novak.

The president divulged with convincing calm that when it comes to pressure, “I just don’t feel any”. Why? His constituency, he feels, is the divine presence, to whom he must answer. Don’t misunderstand: God didn’t tell him to put troops in harm’s way in Iraq; his belief only goes so far as to inform him that there is good and evil. It is the president who must figure out how to promote the former and destroy the latter. And he is confident that his policies are doing just that.

He is well aware that this view is a political nonstarter in Britain. Bush remembered that it was Alastair Campbell who was reported to have said “We don’t do God”. And he frowned as he recalled that Blair’s advisers had dissuaded him from saying “God bless you” as he sent British troops off to Iraq.

All of this led the president to turn the conversation to the old question of what exactly is “evil” and what constitutes “good”. The discussion centred on Novak’s contention that although there is indeed evil, there is no such thing as absolute good. The president didn’t buy that line. Bush’s formulation is that we are engaged in a war between absolute evil and good principles. These principles, the president said, are practised by imperfectly good men.

I then asked what the relationship of the US and the UK would be in a postBlair world. Roberts told Bush that the United States would have no problem with Brown, who is pro-American. David Cameron, was another matter, said Roberts, citing the Tory leader’s speech on the fifth anniversary of September 11, calling for an end to Britain’s “slavish” relationship with the United States.

Bush was unperturbed. The special relationship is “unbelievably powerful”, he said, and transcends such differences as exist between any president and prime minister. “Who would have thought that a left-of-centre prime minister and a conservative president could combine as we have done to try to bring democracy to Iraq?”

But the president did want to know more about the extent and reasons for the rise of antiAmerican feeling in Britain. “Is it due simply to my personality?” he wondered, half-seriously (he is unoffended when made the butt of a joke). “Is it confined to intellectuals?” asked one guest. Roberts said no British intellectual would style himself such and Bush quipped: “Neither would a Texas politician.”

The president was told that antiAmericanism was caused to some extent by dislike of Bush but was also due to the war in Iraq; antiIsrael, pro-Palestinian sentiment, laced with some covert antisemitism; and resentment of American power. I added an anecdote, recalling that my wife Cita and I abruptly left a posh London dinner party when the guests began attacking Bush and the US. “Many thanks for that, but you’d better not move to New York City or you will starve to death,” said the president, to a chorus of “Amen” from the New Yorkers at the table.

On to Roberts’s lessons of history. First: do not set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. That led to the slaughter of 700,000 people in India, with the killing beginning one minute after the midnight deadline. Bush wondered if there were examples of occupying forces remaining for long periods other than in Korea. Roberts suggested Malaysia where it took nine years to defeat the communists, after which the occupying troops remained for several years. And Algeria, added Bush, citing Alistair Horne’s A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962 for the proposition that more Algerians were killed after the French withdrawal than during the French occupation.

Second lesson: will trumps wealth. The Romans, the tsars and other rich world powers fell to poorer ones because they lacked the will to fight and survive. Whereas the second world war was almost over before Americans saw the first picture of a dead soldier, today the steady drumbeat of media pessimism and television coverage are sapping the West’s will.

Third lesson: don’t hesitate to intern your enemies for long periods. That policy worked in Ireland and during the second world war. Release should only follow victory.

Lesson four: cling to the alliance of the English-speaking peoples. Although many nations are engaged in the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan, troops from Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are doing the heavy lifting.

The closing note was more sombre. Roberts told Bush that history would judge him on whether he had prevented the nuclearisation of the Middle East. If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries would follow. The only response was a serious frown and a nod.

One hour after we had taken our seats the president said, “Have to go to work”, mingled for a few minutes, and left. I was left with the impression that he is a man comfortable in his own skin; whose religious faith guides him in his search for the good. Unlike his television persona he is a fluent speaker and well read. Ultimately he believes that the president must be “the decider”, and that’s fine with him.

[MadIvan]

President Bush is a good man. It's a pity much of the world doesn't know him as well as they should.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Ping!

[SE Mom]

Excellent piece- thanks for posting it!

[sockmonkey]

Thanks for posting. It was a nice read for my Sunday morning wakeup.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Bush’s formulation is that we are engaged in a war between absolute evil and good principles. These principles, the president said, are practised by imperfectly good men.

Nicely stated.

Thank you for posting this.

[CaliGirlGodHelpMe]

Thanks, Ivan. Your posts and views on the President are much appreciated.

[Condor 63]

I added an anecdote, recalling that my wife Cita and I abruptly left a posh London dinner party when the guests began attacking Bush and the US. “Many thanks for that, but you’d better not move to New York City or you will starve to death,”

I don't get it.

I never have.

Disagree with some of the man's policies I can understand. I do some of that myself.

But dislike the man? Hate the man?

I just don't get it.

[rabidralph]

Thanks, MI. That's one of the most evenly written articles I have ever read about the president. A true lack of pretense or prejudice from the writer.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

"That led to the slaughter of 700,000 people in India, with the killing beginning one minute after the midnight deadline."

The British did do a pretty bad job with the partition of India.

[MadIvan]

It was not the British who wanted partition, it was Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who demanded an independent Pakistan. The results have been pathetic.

Regards, Ivan

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

"Although many nations are engaged in the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan, troops from Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are doing the heavy lifting."

In Iraq, South Korea has more troops than any of those on the list besides Britain (the UK).

Does New Zealand have any troops in Afghanistan (they don't have any in Iraq)?

[MadIvan]

The Kiwis sent their Special Forces, I believe.

Regards, Ivan

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Appreciated.

[maica]

Thanks for posting this. I hope British readers of the Sunday Times finish the article, because important information is in the final paragraph.

One hour after we had taken our seats the president said, “Have to go to work”, mingled for a few minutes, and left. I was left with the impression that he is a man comfortable in his own skin; whose religious faith guides him in his search for the good. Unlike his television persona he is a fluent speaker and well read. Ultimately he believes that the president must be “the decider”, and that’s fine with him.

By the way the author is Irwin Steltzer. The Times' headline writer forgot to include a space after his name.

Lunch in the White House with George
Irwin Stelzerbreaks bread with a relaxed president and discusses good, evil and anti Americanism. ‘Is it me?’ says Bush

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

It will make a lot more sense once you understand that extreme liberalism is a mental disorder. Don't attempt to use the logic of a sane man to understand the insane.

[ops33]

Love this quote, "He is also refreshingly free of the pretence so common in this town."

Just another reason why I love this President so much and pray for him everyday.

[ClaireSolt]

I am finding help in understanding in the description "malicious narcissism." I first encountered it reading Tammy Bruce, but have found out that the term was coined by Eric From, "The art of Loving". It explains a lot, but narcissism is untreatable and incurable, I think.

[Condor 63]

It will make a lot more sense once you understand that extreme liberalism is a mental disorder.

The problem is I know a lot of moderates who feel the same way about Pres. Bush.

I just don't get it.

[Moonmad27]

Thanks for posting that. It makes me feel much better about the President during these days when hatred of him is being fanned by lefties to a high heat.

[McGavin999]

It's a shame much of THIS country doesn't know him as they should.

History will be very gentle with him, and very harsh on us.