Recap: George W. Bush Speaks in Edmonton

Last night, I attended George W. Bush‘s talk in Edmonton, courtesy of Chris LaBossiere. Bush was speaking at an event titled “A Conversation with George W. Bush”. Like most events involving a current/former President of the United States, there was much spectacle surrounding it. Here is a short recap, and some of my thoughts on what the 43rd President had to say.

“This is What Democracy Looks Like”

Protesters gathered outside the Shaw Conference Centre, and across the street in front of Canada Place. They chanted, shouted displeasure at attendees, and at least one person was hit with candy. As I waited in line to get in, a protester repeatedly shouted “shame on you! shame on you!”, pointing at those of us in line. I found it amusing to think that, in almost every situation, I likely agree with their end goals; I just disagree on methods and means to get there. I wondered what the protesters were hoping to accomplish. Protest is a valid and valuable form of social action, but I think it loses its effect when overused. What was the point of protesting here? We all know Bush led the US into Iraq under false pretenses, that under his watch the government tortured prisoners. We know that he mismanaged the economy, running up increasing deficits while also cutting taxes, especially for the highest income earners. So again, what is a protest going to accomplish in this situation?

Protesting
Protesters outside the Shaw Conference Centre.

As we stood there being shamed, another part of the crowd chanted “This is what democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like!” I found this entirely appropriate. Some people exercise their democratic right to dissent and protest peacefully, another chooses to listen to a former leader speak about his time in office and his views on the world, regardless of how they perceive and judge his deeds and words.

After the Talk
Protesters remained until after the talk.

“Rational Discussion” on Historical Events
President Bush spoke for about 40 minutes, saying he wanted to have a “rational discussion on historical events”. He started with a few paeans to Canada, and some folksy, self-deprecating jokes. I was immediately reminded why, once upon a time, many people liked him. He seems very down to earth, and easy to relate to.

Bush talked about some of the major events from his two terms, framing them in the context of lessons. For example, he stressed the importance of how you handle the unexpected – using 9/11 as an example from his time in life. He said that he never wanted to be a wartime president – “no one should”, he wanted to be the “education president”. Instead, he was forced to turn to foreign policy.

He also talked about the economy, particularly how they responded to the financial crisis of 2008. In his view, the actions they took “saved the system”. I will note that he made good points about the importance of trade, and the dangers of retreating into protectionism when times get tough.

Foreign policy was a central part of his speech. He talked also of the importance of staying engaged in the world. As proof that countries can change, he gave the example of Japan, who 60 years before 9/11 was at war with the United States. In present times, Japan is a strong ally. He spoke of individual rights, especially women’s rights, and mentioned that he’s setting up a mentorship program for women in the Middle East through his new institute at SMU. He also spoke about the importance of hope – that when people become hopeless, they are susceptible to join terrorist groups. I actually agree with this, to a point – I see extreme poverty (and a corresponding lack of education) as being major drivers for recruiting terrorists. Poverty anywhere drives people to extreme conditions – crime, gangs, etc. Bush didn’t hone in on the specifics, but in broad terms, he was on to something.

Which brings up a really interesting point. If I knew nothing about him or his time in office, his speech would sound pretty good. Speaking not to the methods of how to achieve them, many of the broad themes and goals Bush spoke about would resonate with most people – even progressives. The importance of giving people hope, of not seeking out war, of supporting young democracies and individual freedom. Unfortunately, much of what he did in office contradicts or works at cross-purpose with these stated ideals. I felt a real cognitive dissonance as I listened to him speak.

He was also disingenuous at times. After his 40 minute talk, Bush was joined on stage by Kelly Hrudey, who sat down to ask him a few questions, mostly about the Iraq War. Bush stated that the US was in Iraq “at the invitation of a democratically elected government”, which ignores the fact that this government was installed (before later winning an election) by the Coalition, and that the US went into the country before anyone invited them in. He also made some tenuous claims about his treatment of prisoners, claiming that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detention facilities were treated very well, and arguing that the US is not bound by the Geneva Convention when dealing with those who attack them but aren’t uniformed combatants. He defended the use of certain interrogation techniques, which I assume most would consider torture (he didn’t specify which techniques), claiming they only used it three times, and they got valuable information that saved American lives. Based on what he said, I’m assuming the “three times” meant “three prisoners”, and he was talking about waterboarding, since he gave the example of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. President Bush’s last statement, about the use of these “interrogation techniques”, drew a standing ovation, which prompted a protester in the audience to shout at the crowd for applauding torture.

What Do I Make of All This?
Unlike many of the audience, I wasn’t there because I am a fan of President Bush (I saw pretty much every young Tory from my university days in the lineup to get in). Rather, I was curious to see what he had to say, as I feel it’s worth listening to anyone’s view, and I hoped he would shed some insight into some of the major issues from his term.

I wasn’t sure what to make of President Bush at times during the speech. Certainly, I agree with Chris’ summation that he is an idealist. He talked in broad ideals, and as mentioned before, most would agree with them. Rather, it was knowing how his term played out, and some of the specific examples he gave (such as the comments on torture) that I fundamentally disagree with.

One of the instructive parts came towards the end. When asked for lessons he’s learned, Bush stressed the importance of “surrounding yourself with capable people”, then delegating. I have heard this characterized of Bush from a couple of political insiders. Bush is very much a hands-off leader, and likes to delegate. I think this could explain a lot of his presidency, at least in terms of foreign policy. He surrounded himself with people he saw sharing his broad goals, and from his comments on delegating, you could infer that he relied on them for the means to get there, especially since his circle of advisers (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.) were more experienced that he was.

Nothing in his speech made me think higher of his actions of president, but it was instructive to listen to his speech. Hearing someone’s perspective is never a bad thing, and gives you a better feel for why he made some of the decisions he did.

More coverage:
My Flickr set of the protests
Graham Thomson: Edmonton Gives Bush Warm Welcome
Unlimited Blog: Democracy Wins as George W. Takes Edmonton
Steven Dollansky: Thought George Bush was fantastic.

Also, if 1200 words on this isn’t enough for you, please ask me questions.

About these ads

2 Responses

  1. I agree with you that it is never a bad thing to hear someone’s perspective, but you have to be sure it is their perspective and not a performance. President Bush’s speaking engagements, besides being an income source, is an effort to redefine his legacy. I thought you illustrated it well when you said “If I knew nothing about him or his time in office, his speech would sound pretty good”.

    Where you refer to President Bush talking about poverty and hope, well, he just sounds like a guy speaking at his parole hearing, saying all the motherhood and apple pie things. It’s actions, not words that determine character and who and what you are. There is also a huge difference between being hands off and absent. He had a lot of vacation time.

    What concerned me the most was that “pillars” of the community where I live applauded torture as good policy. That is astounding and it disquiets me more than the crackheads that live down my street.

    It would have been an interesting evening of entertainment, but the other George, George Carlin is better.

  2. 1. Personally, I don’t think that Iraq was invaded on false pretense. Unquestionably, the justification given turned out to be based on incorrect information. And unquestionably, there was exaggeration (all politicians do this). But after 9/11, I believe that the US Government was paranoid about Iraq’s capability to strike out at the US.

    The US had dismissed weak warnings of 9/11 and then the planes did actually come. All of a sudden, all the other weak intelligence reports were given much more weight because no one wanted to make the same mistake twice. With Iraq, the UN had been kicked out from inspecting for WMDs, and when coupled with the weak evidence that Iraq was developing new WMDs, the US leadership was convinced they had to act. Because the evidence wasn’t solid, they exaggerated in order to make sure they did what needed to be done.

    Poor judgement? Yes. A poor philosophy of foreign policy? Certainly. But deliberate misleading of the public? I disagree on that point (at least on the question of degree—there was some exaggeration).

    2. You correctly point out that Bush’s comment about being in Iraq on the invitation of an elected government is somewhat disingenuous. Nonetheless, I think it’s important to note that the US was unable to stay in Iraq on its own terms with the revised Status of Forces agreement. The timelines, roles, and conduct of US troops in Iraq ended up being what the Iraqi government wanted (or a compromise based on that position), and not what the Bush administration felt was needed. I think the truth is currently somewhere in between US occupiers and Iraqi invitees.

    3. No one really remembers what neoconservatism meant 10 years ago. Neoconservatism, properly defined, is a foreign policy philosophy that believes that the core of US foreign policy is to spread democracy and freedom. Since many neoconservatives came from the conservative movement, they tended to combine this idealistic goal with a very pragmatic method: use of the US’s superior economic, military, and diplomatic power. I think that rubric is key to understanding the Bush presidency: idealistic goals, but a belief that they could only be accomplished through the use of force.

    4. In terms of the Geneva Convention not applying to enemy combatants, this is technically true. The Geneva Convention applies to uniformed military personnel affiliated with a sovereign country, not terrorists. I think both sides need to get over this silly debate since the answer is clear. The debate that should be had is whether it is morally and/or ethically acceptable to use coercive interrogation. On that count, I think it is much more difficult to justify the Bush position.

    5. In response to the comment above, I think the “vacation time” Bush spent has been blown out of proportion. A comparison was done of his vacation time to other presidents, and it came out as being about the same. The difference was that Bush would tend to go to his ranch for vacation (which were working vacations) while Clinton would go to Camp David since he didn’t own any property of his own at all (he lived in the Arkansas governor’s mansion for most of the decade prior to his presidency). The appearance of Bush always being on vacation was a bit of an unfair perception.

    6. I too am quite disturbed that Bush was applauded for his defense of interrogation techniques.

    - Mustafa Hirji

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 44 other followers

%d bloggers like this: