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.

[Mr. Silverback]

I'm horrified by his immigrationstance as well, but I'm getting a little tired of all the whining and hatred directed at this man when he defeated actual open traitors to the United States in two straight elections. Anything but "Here's what we should do to prevent bill X or promote policy Y" is sounding like "WAAAAAAAAAAAAA" after years of Bush-bashing BS.

[Carry_Okie]

When one elevates what they do to the level of a moral crusade, one opens oneself to observation of the clear instances in which there is a total failure to abide by those principles.

[nutmeg]

bookmark

[Freee-dame]

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

I did not know until his funeral that Gerald Ford was either an All-American National Champion football player or that he was a Phi Beta Kappa. I knew that he had been a good athlete, but not a great athlete. Nor did I know until watching early Sat. Night Live shows that the mocking of him was cone every week.

The MSM had complete power back then. The difference now is that they have given up even the pretense of lack of bias.

[Mr. Silverback]

There's that whining noise again...I wonder if something's wrong with my computer...

[oust the louse]

Ivan, I always enjoy your threads and appreciate your candid opinion. This is very refreshing and thoughtful stuff!
All the best to you!

[Carry_Okie]

Oh goody, more blind fealty. /s

Maybe you should read Romans 13 again, as it doesn't say what you apparently think it does. It's about obedience to rabbinic authority and paying the Temple tax, not the state.

[skr]

I'm feeling very sorry for the British troops. Have they stopped saying God save the Queen, too?

[skr]

His goals, he said, were to see what history can teach us today and to “pander to you powerful opinion-makers”.

LOL! Thanks for the article, MadIvan. I'd hate to have deal with what he goes back to work to after lunch.

[roses of sharon]

Good point.

The MSM has run this country for 40 years, how else did a oversexed immature used car salesman like Bill Clinton now get cast as our "Brilliant Bad Boy" former President. The MSM write the script.

[petitfour]

Thanks for posting this!

A good friend of ours and favorite professor/historian has been privileged to be summoned to this White House on several occasions. I wish he would write about his experiences as well. As it is, he was interviewed by his local newspaper about the first trip. I'm not sure anyone knew about the second occasion. The President seemed to enjoy the second session immensely and had to be interrupted in order to "have lunch with the Prime Minister" (Tony Blair). He seemed to want to continue talking with the historians rather than meet with PM Blair. Our professor got a big kick out of it. :)

[Mr. Silverback]

Actually, what I said had nothing to do with Romans 13. Moreover, I do not reject Bush-bashing because I think God told me to be all nicey-nice and never say anything negative about a government leader. What I said had to do with Freepers whining about the President when we could have had two guys who would have the same position on the border and be in the process of losing a world war and pretty much advancing every other bad agenda you can think of. All of you Bush-bashers have forgotten The Toon, and that a man can be good and honest without having the right ideology in every area. I even provided a specific example of what a positive alternative would be, but you kept whining.

However, it is necessary that I correct your lack of understanding of the command in Romans 13.

Take a look at this, from verse 4: "But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing."

When did rabbinical authorities bear the sword? Do you know, BTW, what Roman authorities had their servants do with the sword?

If Paul is talking about rabbinical authorities, why did Jesus tell His disciples to "go the extra mile" and "render unto Caesar"? To elaborate, if by promoting Church authority Paul is saying "Feel free to tell the government to jump in a lake" then he is directly contradicting his Lord.

Now, let's look at verse 6: "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing."

Why is Paul telling people in Rome to pay the temple tax, which was charged in Jerusalem? After the church was scattered by Paul in the early days of the movement, how much of an issue do you think the lack of Temple tax payments by Jewish Christians from Rome would be? Why would he be talking about that instead of talking about a spirit of rebellion in a Roman church under persecution?

[MinorityRepublican]

bttt