< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: The Times: "Bush is far removed from the caricature of the dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy"

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Friday, July 01, 2005

The Times: "Bush is far removed from the caricature of the dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy"

In person Mr Bush is so far removed from the caricature of the dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy of global popular repute that it shakes one’s faith in the reliability of the modern media.

The obligatory trip round the Oval Office is now so much of a ritual that he approaches it with the wry, self-mocking tone of an ersatz tour guide.

It’s an executive office, he points out, a place where decisions are made. “So the first decision I had to make was what colour the rug should be.”

The next thing he learnt about the presidency, he says, is the importance of delegating: “So I asked Laura to design it.”

It is, he notes, a soft yellow, like the radiance of the rising Sun. “It says an optimistic person works here.”

His mood alters, though, as he turns from the brilliantine carpet to the brooding figures that adorn his walls — great war leaders in whom he obviously seeks inspiration. Abraham Lincoln looks down from his wall beside the main entrance. On the other side of the room a bust of Winston Churchill, a personal gift of Tony Blair to the current occupant, stares across at today’s successor to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The Times: The Bush Interview

For proof of Liberal (big 'L', as in pro-Democratic Party) bias in the US media, try here, or this book, or (there are many others). Unfortunately I can't find online versions of some of the better academic studies. In recent years the rise of Fox News has allowed other opinions to make it on to the airwaves, but print media is still dominated by Liberals. The NY Times especially seems to be running a series of 'stories' (poorly disguised propaganda) portraying the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan as 'rapidly deteriorating', generally based on a few more suicide bombers blowing themselves up this month than the previous month.

Interesting reading: The Russian General Staff wrote a history on the Soviet-Afghan war from a Marxist-Leninist point of view (see summary at end of that page).

RUGBY:
But he is non-committal, so I ask him if, as a former owner of a baseball team, he would have liked a piece of an English cricket club. “I never watched cricket. I did play rugby at Yale, though — at full back,” he volunteers.
IRAQ:

So we made a decision to protect ourselves and remove Saddam Hussein. The jihadists made a decision to come into Iraq to fight us. For a reason. They know that if we’re successful in Iraq, like we were in Afghanistan, that it’ll be a serious blow to their ideology. General (John) Abizaid (Commander of US forces in the Middle East) told me something very early in this campaign I thought was very interesting. Very capable man. He’s a Arab-American who I find to be a man of great depth and understanding. When we win in Afghanistan and Iraq, it’s a beginning of the end. Talking about the war on terror. If we don’t win here, it’s the beginning of the beginning. And that’s how I view it.
UPDATE: James Guthrie has an old B&W newspaper clipping of Bush tackling high.

Posted by Antarctic Lemur | 7/01/2005 02:53:00 AM