Roger L. Simon: Geldof on Bush

Bob Geldof accompanied George Bush in Africa and came up with a fascinating article for TIME. Geldof loves what Bush has done in Africa, but reviles what he did in Iraq. Even so, he likes Bush personally, as do many who have met him. What's interesting to me is that when I read this article and came to the parts Geldof had written about Iraq (Abu Ghraib,Guantanano, waterboarding.... the usual litany) I sensed Geldof didn't really believe them himself. He felt he was supposed to believe them. See what you think.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I found it interesting that when Geldof reflects on why Bush's accomplishments in Africa don't get any play, he says that "the press really isn't interested. For them, like America itself, Africa is a continent of which little is known save the odd horror."

Interesting to think that America itself would only be of interest to the press for "its odd horrors." Too bad Geldorf doesn't take the next step and wonder how much of his views on Iraq were formed by what is emphasized--and deemphasized--by the very same press.

Geldof also makes a point that Bush is not good at marketing. That might be true, Bush is more interested in results than perceptions. But then again it is a lot easier for a rock star to market something than it is for a Republican President with a hostile press to market something.

Overall, however, it was nice to see someone say something positive about the president and the country..for a change. Too bad Obama can not manage that. For a guy that is all about hope and love and all that stuff, he sure is gloomy. Yes we can...suffer and die.

"I sensed Geldof didn't really believe them himself. He felt he was supposed to believe them."

I think he believes them, all right. At the end of the day, he's still in the "make love, not war" camp.

Geldof's comment about America being unable to act unilaterally in Darfur displays an odd morality--that it's okay to go to war to defend his pet projects, but not to depose a virulent, genocidal, militant, terrorist-supporting state that had comitted repeated acts of war against the United States.

Besides, Geldof misses the larger point: that unless radical Islam is eradicated, Darfur will be the prototype for Islamic treatment of Africans.

Even so, I still get a sense of paternalism from both Bush and Geldof, as though neither of them really believes that Africa will amount to anything without solutions from outside. Isn't that just an extension of the old colonial argument? At what point do Africa's problems become the responsibility of Africans? (See Walter Williams's column: jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams022708.php3)

Bob has a permanent stage pass. Bob has to face other club members... for the rest of his life.

I agree with you, srlucado, but I was looking for a reason that an obviously intelligent person like Geldof would have such cognitive dissonance. I think Lem has part of the reason. We all want a paycheck.

It seems to me, too, that he doesn't really believe this anti-war tripe. Since he knows that his peers insist that anti-war rhetoric is a sign of "virtue," he is, in an odd, inverted way, again confirming that old saw that "hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue."

In some ways the Bob's dilemma mirrors Angelina's. In her WAPO article yesterday she tried to distance herself from the surge while at the same time praising the recent humanitarian successes in Iraq. Success wholly owned and subsidized by the surge.

It's the way opponents of the war separate AQ and Iraq. We must go after AQ - just not in Iraq.

Angelina couldn't quite bring herself to saying w/o the troops the humanitarian work won't get done and the refuges won't come back to Iraq. But when you read her article that is the only logical and inescapable conclusion.

The best - and worst - part of this excellent article is that Bob Geldof has just given us a better article about GWB than perhaps any mainstream journalist ever has. Bob Geldof. The guy who played Pink in "The Wall." That's who beat every trained professional journalist on a payroll in America today at writing a balanced and readable account of the man behind the Oval Office, even though he dislikes a solid portion of GWB's agenda. It's a slap in the face of Time Magazine, from within her own pages. Hire him for PJ Media, stat!

From that article, I got the sense that Geldof's opinions on the Iraq war are probably sincere and deeply-held, but shallow in the sense that they are sketchily-informed. But that's probably because he hasn't studied the issue as closely as he has African poverty.

Where I give both Sir Bob and Bono (who has also praised Bush for his African aid policies) credit is that, when it comes to their chosen bailiwick, they acknowledge what the evidence tells them and they don't hesitate to speak out when the evidence contradicts leftist/transnationalist dogma. That shows intellectual honesty.

I suspect that if Geldof were to give Iraq as much attention as, say, Michael Totten has, his opinions would be at least a little different.

I agree Lem. Geldof and Jolie are not stupid. They have been around enough hotspots in the world to know that real evil exists and it's not all caused by Whitey. They are also smart enough to know that they can't get knocked off the money teat or they will lose any influence they have much less all those personal comforts that money brings.

Haven't the Irish been default "neutrals" for awhile now? Odd given the cultural proclivities of some irish, but Bono and Bob probably default to staying out of foreign wars and not fighting -- at least in large group conflicts.

and now to something completely off topic, but Roger is my go-to guy on the movie scene: I had a good time watching "Beowulf", and I thought the monster thing was tied together really well (better than Tolkien's attempt...)(where did Angelina acquire that Euro accent anyway?)
however

why did they put in that grotesque anti Christian stuff? There is John Malkowich with a huge cross clanking around his neck, and when he isn't kicking his slave around, he absolutely exudes EEEEvil...; and muttering about the "Triune God"... when, let's face it, Beowulf was in essence, PRE CHRISTIAN!!! And the whole movie was a rifff on a story around the bonfire, the kind I like...

February 28, 2008: Geldof on Bush

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post