Already a subscriber? Log in
Writing in the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland wants to know what Bush has done to deserve a royal banquet, when his hero, Bill Clinton, had to wait until his last month in office to be treated to a measly afternoon tea at the palace. On this point, at least, we can agree. It is absurd that George W. Bush should be the first President of the United States to be invited on a full state visit. That rogues from dodgy republics in Eastern Europe and sub-Saharan Africa should have been favoured over the leader of the free world casts shame on the Foreign Office flunkeys who manage this aspect of the Queen’s diary. Bill Clinton should have been invited as the Queen’s house guest, too, never mind his philandering.
To oppose the recent war in Iraq is a respectable activity. To treat the leader of a friendly nation as a common criminal who should be denied a visa to Britain is not. Those who cannot stomach Bush the man might at least show respect for his office: the leadership of a free country which has twice sent its servicemen to their deaths in our defence. Not that the concept of respect will cut much ice with the anarchist tendency, which has more on its agenda than Iraq. The protests are being organised by the same networks responsible for the anti-globalisation riots of the past few years. Theirs is a protest against America in general, and indeed, against anything deemed to be powerful: capitalism, Western governments, democracy itself. President Bush embodies everything they detest about the modern world. For them, and for much of the Left, reasoned assessment about George W. Bush’s presidency has become impossible. He has become a caricature for evil and stupidity, and therefore by definition anything he does is wrong.
We wouldn’t claim George W. Bush to be America’s greatest leader. His steel tariffs, ruled illegal this week by the World Trade Organisation, were misjudged. He has to some extent undermined his efforts to build a world coalition by treating with disdain attempts to build international agreements on other issues. He possesses limited ability in public speaking. Yet in some ways his political judgment over Iraq has proved sounder than that of our own Prime Minister. It was Tony Blair who steered the case for war on to the issue of weapons of mass destruction. President Bush would have been content to go to war on the issue of regime change alone: a position that the Prime Minister is belatedly and with great difficulty trying to occupy in the light of the non-appearance of weapons of mass destruction.
George W. Bush did not begin the war on terror which, though few remember now, was waged in half-hearted fashion by Bill Clinton. But he has brought maturity and conviction to it. Where Clinton tried to fight the war on terror from 30,000 feet and said he ‘felt good’ about his missile strikes, President Bush has done what critics of America were until recently claiming the country would not dare to do: put troops on the ground to finish what he started. If the strength of the lingering resistance was underestimated, is there anyone who can honestly claim that Iraq is a worse place now than under the Baathists?
When he became president, George W Bush was mocked for his unworldliness in having deigned to travel to Europe only once. If that was a fault, next week he puts it right by spending three days in Britain, even venturing to Trimdon Colliery. It isn’t President Bush who is small-minded: it is the ragbag of malcontents who will turn out to jeer.
Also in World
Also by The Spectator
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in