"A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush"

Posted on Aug. 19, 2004

A lecture by Dr. David Aikman, former Time Magazine Senior Correspondent and auther of the new best-selling book, A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush"
July 7, 2004 at the American Center for Educational Exchange

(link to Aikman's biography: http://www.davidaikman.com/Biography.asp)

NOTE: Aikman's remarks are his personal opinion and do not represent or reflect any official statement by the U.S. Embassy.

I assume that your interest in this topic derives from the fact that … well, from many facts. First of all, we are in the year of a presidential election in the United States. Second, you have a president of the United States who is unusually outspoken in his faith expression, which happens to be a Christian faith expression. And third, it seems, according to many observers, that the results of this election could at least in part be decided by whether or not people with strong faith come out to vote.

Now, why is that important, before anything else? It's important because studies have shown that if you go to church regularly – which means maybe twice a month, three times a month or even every week – in the United States, you are twice as likely to vote Republican as you are to vote Democratic. It's a very interesting statistic, but people who are religiously conservative, who go to church, or even synagogue, for that matter – the Jewish component – are much more likely to vote for a Republican candidate for the presidency than are others. Another interesting fact that you may like to know – I'll just throw this out because it's a truth about the American cultural system that you should know – people in the United States who are not married are much more liberal politically than people who are married, especially people who are married with children. Their attitudes on all kinds of cultural and political issues are much more conservative than single people. So you have a very interesting constellation, a universe of viewpoints that are making up the American political mainstream.

President Bush is not the first president, by any means, who has publicly expressed his Christian faith. And I will refer to that in a moment because it's an important aspect of American history: that America's presidents, generally speaking, have been very strong people of faith. But this particular president is unusual in that, when he ran in the year 2000 – first he ran to get the Republican nomination for president, and then he ran as the Republican candidate against the Democratic candidate – he very early on in the campaign made faith a strong element in his personal expression, in his personal world view. I have written a book which I'll just show you right now called "A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush," which is quite well read in the United States these days.

I start the book off with a moment in the political campaign. Actually, it was in late 1999. Of course, the election year, as you know, was the year 2000. But the processes of the primary competition of both parties – primary competition amongst the Democratic candidates and the primary competition amongst the Republican candidates – starts really more than a year before the actual election date. And in December 1999, President Bush – well, he was then Governor Bush, the governor of Texas – was taking part in a debate in the city of Des Moines, Iowa – a television debate where the candidates were able to express their views on a number of different topics. And the debate was moderated by a famous American television man called Tom Brokaw, the anchorman of NBC, and by the local NBC affiliate anchor, a man called John Bachman. Well, they asked very ordinary policy questions in the debate: What is your view of trade policy? What is your view of relations with Russia? What is your view of relations with China? Those were very ordinary predictable questions.

But all of the sudden, without any warning, in the middle point of the debate, one of the moderators, John Bachman, the local moderator said, "And now I have a question which was given to me on a piece of paper by someone in the audience, and the question is – which I would like to ask each of the Republican candidates – Which philosopher has influenced you the most?" It's rather a revealing question, and the Republican candidates all gave quite sensible and predictable views. Mr. Forbes – Forbes was one of the candidates for the Republican nomination, a successful private businessman – he said that he'd been most influenced by John Locke. John Locke: a famous English philosopher who influenced the founders of the United States. And Gary Bauer said that he was influenced by the people who wrote the important initial documents of American history: the American Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and so forth.

Then they asked Bush. They said, "Mr. Bush, which political philosopher has influenced you the most?" And Bush said – without any kind of preparation – he said, "Jesus Christ, because he changed my heart." And everybody went, "huuhh (sharp intake of breath)." You know, many people criticized later, on television, criticized this expression because they said, "You know, this is a political debate. Why do you bring in religion, which is a personal matter?" Some people said that. But what was revealing was that this question had not been expected. They did not know this question was coming. Bush didn't know, his staff didn't know. Nobody knew. So it was kind of … you know, you are asked a question: Who do you love most? And you say it [respond] quite spontaneously and that tells you a lot about people you like, people you don't like. Well, it was important because it revealed that Bush, although a very experienced politician – he had been elected as governor of Texas twice, and the second election, the re-election, he won by a very big majority, the biggest majority of any governor, so he was a successful political figure on the American political scene – but here he is talking about religion. What's the connection?

Well, the interesting thing about Mr. Bush is that although he was brought up in a family that was traditionally [a] going-to-church family, a Christian family like millions of Americans. Lots of Americans go to church every week on a regular basis, and they don't make a big fuss about this. They don't tell everybody what they do, but nevertheless, they go. He was brought up in that kind of family where churchgoing was expected. But in his tradition, people did not talk about their faith publicly. Now, with Bush, what was interesting is that the first part of his life, when he was a young man, his character was not very mature. Some people would say today [that] his character is not very mature, but that's a political opinion. But most people agree that young George W. Bush used to drink a lot. He used to have lots and lots of girlfriends. In other words, he was a normal young man of no political or religious … well, he had political convictions, but certainly not a religious conviction. Then something happened in his life that became for him very important. Between the age of 38 and 40, he really changed his life, from being a person who would drink a lot, maybe too much, many times, to somebody who didn't drink at all. From somebody who went to church maybe, perhaps even taught the children in the church school, but whose life outside of the church was very wild. His language: very wild language. And he was a friendly person but nobody would say of Mr. Bush that he was a very devout religious believer. Nobody would say that. But at the age of 38, he began a process of change, and the change turned his life around and made him the man he is today, which I'm going to come to.

Let me talk about three things that happened to Mr. Bush. Most Americans are only familiar with one of these events, but they are quite important. In the first case, an evangelist, a Christian evangelist, came to the town of Midland, Texas, where Bush was living, and did an evangelistic meeting – a series of meetings, every night for one week. And this was quite a big event in a small American town. So people were talking about it on the radio. It was in the news. It was discussed. And Mr. Bush was driving his car listening to the radio and he heard this preacher on the radio. And he thought, "This is rather interesting." So he arranged through a business friend to meet with this visiting Christian evangelist.

Now this visiting Christian evangelist is a rather unusual man. Some people would say rather strange, but others might say, "Well, maybe not strange but unusual." His name was Arthur Blessitt; he's still alive. And Mr. Blessitt, the visiting Christian evangelist, travels around the world going on a walk. Going on a walk through many, many different countries. I think he's done it in China. And he carries a cross just like the cross that Jesus was crucified on except his cross has little wheels on it. So he walks along with it. And he is known for doing this. And when he carries the cross, he comes to a town and he has a series of Christian meetings. Okay. He didn't carry his cross to Midland, Texas, but he had a series of evangelistic meetings. And Mr. Bush heard this man on the radio and said, "I would like to meet him." And so he arranged through a business contact in the town of Midland to have a private meeting with Mr. Blessitt. At the meeting, which was held in the coffee shop of a hotel in Midland, Mr. Blessitt said to Mr. Bush, "You need to put your faith in Jesus Christ" – in other words, he gave a sort of evangelistic message. And Bush said a prayer with this evangelist, made what the Christians call a prayer of confession or a prayer of putting your faith in Christ, which many Christians think is a rather important thing to do.

There was no evidence in Bush's life that anything had changed at that point. Although he was sincere in his prayer, but still he went on drinking and still he went on using very wild language. But one year after this, a famous American evangelist – I think all of you have heard of him, Billy Graham – came to visit the Bush family vacation estate in the state of Maine, in the northeast of the United States. And Mr. Graham, Billy Graham, had been a frequent guest of Bush Senior, that is, the first President Bush, and he knew the family very well. And Mr. Graham used to have meetings where he would talk about problems of life, problems of growing up, problems of faith with the children, in other words, with Bush and his sister and his brothers and with their children, and this was a friendly occasion. But one year after the meeting with Blessitt, Billy Graham, the famous evangelist, went for a walk on the beach in Maine with Mr. Bush, and he said to Mr. Bush, "What is your relationship with God?" Well, that's a very personal question. You wouldn't say that to a person unless you knew them quite well, unless the person knew that you were a man of God or a preacher or something like that. But he asked this question, and Bush didn't know how to answer, because he realized that there were things going on in his life that still were not very good. He used to drink too much; his language was bad. And so that question by Mr. Graham set in a process something in the mind of Mr. Bush.

And the final event, the third event, happened the following year, on July of 1986. Mr. Bush was then 40 years old. They were celebrating the 40th birthday of Mr. Bush, which is in July of each year, and his friend Mr. Don Evans, who is now the Secretary of Commerce in the United States, was a businessman in Midland, Texas. And they were at a hotel in the state of Colorado, and as often happens in every country when you celebrate a birthday, they drank too much. They had many bottles of wine at dinner. You know, nothing wrong, you and I might say. But the next morning, Mr. Bush got up, as he always did, and he liked to go for a run. He's a very athletic person. And when he tried to go for a run in the morning after drinking all this drink, his body said, "I don't want to move." He felt very bad physically and he decided on the spot, [in] one moment, "I am not going to drink anymore alcohol for the rest of my life." You might say, "Well, you don't have to be quite so serious." But he said, "Nope, that's what I'm going to do." So the third event in Mr. Bush's life was he gave up drinking alcohol. Now this was very important for him. I don't think it's, you know… he doesn't regard this as a theological issue. He doesn't say, "Christians must not drink alcohol." Some Christians believe that. Some Christians in the United States believe that. Some Christians in China believe that. That's fine. He doesn't disagree with them. But for him, it was very important as a process in the change of character, because alcohol for Mr. Bush was a weakness and it prevented him from becoming a person of strong conviction.

So over a period of two years, there were three events that changed him from being just a regular person who went to church with the family to being a person who was very serious about his faith. Mr. Bush started going to Bible study every week with a group of men in the city of Midland, Texas. And his character really changed. Let me give you an example of this. If you had asked anybody in Texas in 1984 or '85, "What do you think is the future of George W. Bush, the son of the vice president of the United States?" they would have said, "Well, he's not very successful as a businessman. He tried to run for Congress and he was defeated. I don't think he's going to do anything in life." If you had said to them, "Do you know he's going to be president in the year 2000?" they would have said, "You are joking. It's not possible." Because until the change of life of George W. Bush, there was no sign that he was a serious person. He was intelligent, yes; he wasn't stupid. He'd been to the Harvard Business School; he'd been to Yale; he'd flown fighter aircraft in the Air National Guard. He was not stupid. He was quite intelligent but he wasn't going to go anywhere in life. That's what people would have said. So something happened to him between 1984 and 1986 that really changed his life.

Now you can argue, you can say, "Well, you know, religion is a private matter. Maybe it affects the way you are with your friends, with your family, but it doesn't really affect politics." And he would have said, "That's not true." He would have said – and many Americans would agree with him – that for him it became a very important issue because he became very serious about life in general. And he began to realize that if he was going to do anything, he had to really focus his life. Well, you know the rest of the story: his father was elected president in 1988; Mr. Bush ran for the governor of Texas in 1994 and won against a Democrat who was very popular, so that was very unusual. And he won again. So something had obviously happened in the life of this man that turned him from being a very ordinary person with no special skills to being a person who people began to say is a rather significant politician. And now he's president. And you can say that this president – whether you agree with him or disagree with him – is a man who very clearly takes his faith seriously. And why does he take his faith seriously? I mean, Can you not be a politician without having faith? He would say, Bush would say – and most Americans would say – "Of course. You can be an atheist and be a good politician." But, in his case, the change of character was a matter of belief in the Christian faith. And he would say – and you can disagree with him; that's everybody's right, whether you are American or Chinese – that faith changed his way of looking at life, of looking at the United States, of looking at the world.

Let me give you two examples. Many people criticize the United States government – and they have every right to criticize it, I would say – because of the invasion of Iraq. OK, why did Mr. Bush invade Iraq? Well, you know there are all kinds of theories: it was because the Americans wanted the oil, or because Iraq was perhaps supporting terrorists, or the Americans thought they had, the Iraqis had, weapons of mass destruction, which is the official position of the administration. But in many ways, the reason why this president invaded Iraq – and I would say the sort-of base reason – was that he believes in the concept of freedom. Now Mr. Saddam Hussein, everybody knows, was a very, very brutal dictator of Iraq. He killed many, many people, tortured them, put them in prison, used poisonous gas against the Kurdish people. He was really a very bad man. During the first Gulf War, he sent rockets against the state of Israel. Israel was not involved in the Gulf War. So why would Iraq attack Israel? A lot of questions would be raised. So Saddam Hussein, just about everybody would agree, was not a very nice man.

But I think you have to listen to the speeches that Mr. Bush has made as president, and what you hear coming up is a concept of freedom. And you can disagree with him – you have every right to disagree with him – but he says freedom is not something that America is trying to push upon the world, you know, trying to make every country in the world choose the American system of democracy. Bush would say, "No, you can have any system of government you like. But freedom," he would say, "is a gift of God to the human race." Now you may say that belief is silly or wrong or bad. But you have to understand that this concept of freedom is [a] very important element in the policy of George Bush, especially the policy towards the Middle East. Now why is it important to the Middle East? Because the Middle East is one area of the world where there are no democracies at all. There isn't a single Arab country that has a democratic system of government, not one. Now, some countries have parliaments – Egypt has a parliament, Jordan has a parliament. Some countries have a little bit of freedom of the press. Some countries have elections. But generally speaking, no country in the Middle East has what we would call freedom, liberty. You cannot go and say what ever you want to say on the street, whether you are a religious person or a non-religious person. And one of the effects of, one of the concepts that Mr. Bush has is: Nobody so far has pushed the boundaries of freedom in the Middle East. And that's what he's trying to do. You can criticize him. You can disagree with him. That's fine. But that's certainly an important element of what his policies are, and you have to say that that element is closely connected with is religious views that freedom is a gift of God to all human beings.

The second thing that is connected with the faith of Mr. Bush and is an element of the belief – again, you may disagree with this; that's fine – but he feels during the 1960s, many countries, and especially the United States, went through the American version of the Cultural Revolution. We all know what the Cultural Revolution was in China, and I think one would say it wasn't the same thing. But there was a change of culture, maybe not a revolution but a change of culture, in the West. Let me give you some obvious examples of it. The understanding of sexual freedom changed: it became acceptable to have relations, sexual relations with people who you were not married to. That was, generally speaking, disapproved [of] before [and] became approved [of] afterwards. All kinds of understandings of social relationships changed in the United States. And one of the things that changed was a view that if something is wrong in your life, it is somebody else's fault. Maybe it's the fault of the government. Maybe it's the fault of this group of people in society who are oppressing you. If something is wrong with your life you should blame somebody else; you should say, "I'm a victim! I'm oppressed! People are being terrible to me!" I'm exaggerating, of course. But he would say, Bush would say – and again you can disagree with him – that the culture of America became changed from a culture of personal responsibility to a culture of victim. A victim is a person who suffers from the persecution of somebody else, of the government or some other group. And Bush would say he wants to be president to change the culture of the United States, from a culture of being a victim to a culture of being responsible. Now his political opponents in the United States would say, "That is nonsense. We completely disagree with that. That is the wrong understanding of the way life is." And they have every right because the political democracy allows us to say what we think, to disagree with him. But that element is very much tied to his faith.

How can we say this? Because one of the things that Bush has tried to do in America, not very successfully so far, has been what is called "faith based initiatives" – the idea of including institutions of the churches or institutions of Jewish synagogues to help improve social conditions through those churches. Because, for example, there are some Christian groups that have programs for helping people with drug problems, problems of drug addiction, and some of these programs are quite successful, faith-based programs. And Mr. Bush would say it's important to use these programs where they work and to encourage them with government money and so forth. Many people in America oppose this. They say the government should have nothing to do with religion. We have a principal of separation of church and state, and that should continue. And if the government is helping church-based programs, then the government is becoming involved with religion and that's not right. So people disagree within the United States about this.

But it is not correct to say that Bush, because is a person of faith, is different from previous American presidents. In fact, if you go back to the history of the United States, from the very beginning, there is a very strong tradition of faith in the lives of the presidents. Not every president was a Christian; some were Unitarian. A Unitarian is a person who does not believe Jesus is the Son of God. President Howard Taft was a Unitarian. Some were deists. Deists believed God is somewhere up there, but we don't know whether Jesus is God so we call our selves deists. President Jefferson was probably a deist. President Washington was a member of a church but he did not take communion in the church. So although we would say he was a Christian, probably he was more like a Unitarian than a Christian churchgoer.

But many other presidents have been very strong Christians. Take Abraham Lincoln, the most famous American president. Very interesting story: according to Lincoln's own words, when Lincoln became president, he was not a Christian. He said that. He didn't go to church. He didn't consider himself a Christian. But he became a Christian. He turned into a person of Christian faith after seeing the terrible, terrible suffering of the soldiers on the Battle of Gettysburg, which was a famous battle in 1863 in the American Civil War. Thousands of soldiers on the Confederate side died, and thousands of soldiers on the Union side died. And Mr. Lincoln, as president, was walking through where the battle had taken place, and it struck him that this was absolutely terrible that so many people had died in this important event. And in that process, he said, he became a Christian. And those are his words. And, of course, Lincoln was assassinated, somebody killed him. It's interesting, I mention this in my book, Lincoln was killed on Good Friday. Good Friday in the Christian language is the day on which Jesus died. It's celebrated by Christians all over the world.

Many other presidents were very strong Christians. President Woodrow Wilson, who was president during World War I, was a strong Christian. President Jimmy Carter, who ran for the White House in 1976, was the first person to run for president who, when he was running, said, "I am a nuclear scientist, I'm a farmer, I'm a business man, blah blah blah, and I'm a born again Christian." And the journalists in Washington, who don't know very much about religion, said "What does a born again Christian mean?" And they went to the telephone and called up their aunts and uncles and their relatives in Iowa and the American heartland, and they said, "Please can you tell us what a born again Christian is?" I'm exaggerating, of course, but generally speaking, we have to say that the tradition of faith in American politics at the presidential level in the White House is very strong and goes right back to the foundations of America.

And there is one element in this that is extremely important, and it's important in the presidency of Mr. Bush. That is the belief that was voiced by George Washington and also by Thomas Jefferson, that the leader of the United States must look to the Almighty, to God, for guidance and support, and that if Providence, it would be called, or if God's will is on the side of the United States, then the United States will be all right. But if America moves away from the will of God, then it is walking a very dangerous path. And this concept comes up in the life of almost every single president. Look at President Eisenhower during World War II. He made a prayer which he, and President Roosevelt, who was president in World War II, made a public prayer that God would help the cause of the United States against the fascist enemies in Germany. Now, most people today would say, "Well, that was all right because the fascists were bad and the Americans on the whole were better than the fascists. So it was good to pray." But there is a strong belief that the leader of the United States, whoever he is – if he's Republican or Democratic – should be very conscious not to do something that is really against the will of God. Well, you say immediately, "Well how do you know what the will of God is? Do you have a special connection, a telephone line: call up and say, 'Hello God, you know, this is President Bush speaking. What should I do in Iraq? What should I do in the China policy?'" Of course not, of course not. And this president is very careful to say he doesn't you know, he doesn't claim that God speaks to him. But he says that he prays.

This is very important. America as a society is a very religious society. America's leaders of the cultural points in society [are] very secular. Let me say that again. The ordinary people of America go to church in very large numbers: about 40 % of Americans go to church every week. But if you work for the United States, if you teach in a university, if you work for a foundation like a Rockefeller Foundation or the Ford Foundation, if you are a journalist, probably you don't go to church, or not very often. And so the leadership of culture in the United States is secular: doesn't believe in Christianity generally. I mean there are some exceptions. The mass of the people are very religious. And this has been expressed by a sociologist called Peter Berger in this way: America is a country of Indians – because India is a very religious country – ruled by Swedes – Sweden is a very secular country, people don't go to church very much. So America is a country of Indians – that is, that people like most ordinary people in America are like the people of India: they are very religious. But the people at the top, who rule them, in the universities, are like Swedes: they don't go to church; they are very secular. So you have to understand that America is a very complex mixture of faith and secular point of view. And some people say there is a cultural battle going on, a cultural war, between the people of faith on one side and the people of secular expression on another.

But in general, every American president has been a person who, since the beginning of American history has said, "People should have faith. Faith is a good thing." And it really doesn't matter, in some ways who is … well, in some ways it does, of course, it matters who is, who wins the election. But the nature of American society is going to continue to be one in which large numbers of people have very strong faith, and occasionally somebody will come up for … will start running for political position from that community. And this particular president, President Bush, he often has a chance to meet with ordinary people. He shakes the hands of people on what we call a rope line. A rope line is a line put up by the police to separate the ordinary people from the important people or from the politicians. And most American political candidates will shake hands with everybody in the crowd. And when he is doing a rope line, people will often say to President Bush, "Mr. President, I am praying for you." And he changes every time he hears this. He really changes. He stops. He engages with the person. He becomes very interested and very grateful and very personally connected. So this president believes very much in prayer. He feels it's very important for whoever is leader of the United States and obviously for himself. So you cannot understand American politics without realizing that this is an important element.

Now his opponent in this election, Mr. Kerry, he may be a man of faith or not, I don't know. He's a member of the Roman Catholic Church. But obviously in Mr. Kerry's life, faith has not played such an important role as in the life of Mr. Bush. And Mr. Bush, you can disagree with him – a lot of people do. But the fact is, you cannot understand this White House without understanding the importance of faith. And in many ways, you cannot understand America without realizing that faith plays a very big role in society.

And let me sum up by saying that America is not a country of historical chance. America is a country of ideas. Unless you had the ideas of America's foundation, you would not have American society today. America stands or falls – some people would say, it falls – on whether it implements the ideas on which it was based. And among those ideas that make America very strong, people would say, is the idea of faith, and freedom of faith. The very first English people who settled in North America were people fleeing restrictions of their Christian faith in England, the so-called Pilgrims or the Puritans. And every generation has brought new waves of immigrants to America: Catholics, Jewish people from Europe, who have gone to America because it's a place where they can practice their faith. But when you have freedom of faith, you …

(tape ends)

Q&A Session

May I ask you a personal question?
Of course.

Are you a Christian yourself?
I am, yes.

(inaudible) Republican, Democrat or (inaudible).
I'm independent. (laughter) I would say I was politically conservative in many areas, but not in all areas. So if you ask me a really pointed question: "Will I vote for this president in November?" the answer is, "Yes, I probably will." Will I vote for every Republican president or candidate? Probably not. Most Americans are a mixture of one or the other.

What do you see in the future in the life of President Bush?
What is the future of the life of President Bush? Well obviously, it is connected with whether he is re-elected in November 2004 or not. If he is re-elected, obviously, the second four years of his presidency are going to be as marked by an effort to solidify what he believes are some of the things he's accomplished in the foreign policy and to work more on the domestic policy of the United States. If he is not re-elected, in a very interesting way this president is not going to be depressed. He's not going to run away and say, "Oh this is terrible. I've lost the election. Nobody loves me. Everybody hates me. Life has no future."

This is a president whose life is not governed by success or failure in politics. He obviously wants to win. But it's interesting, in the year 2000, do you remember there was that big controversy over the results of the election in Florida. And may people said, "This is terrible. I mean here you are: is it Gore is it Bush? What a terrible uncertainty." And he said, "If I lose, I go back to Midland, Texas, and I become an ordinary person again. NO BIG DEAL" – as the Americans say. And to a strong extent, this man's view of himself is not dependent upon whether or not he succeeds in politics. He obviously wants to succeed, but I think he has a bright future even if he does not win.

Do you know him personally? (inaudible)
I don't know him personally. I've shaken his hand, but that's not the same as knowing him personally. But when I started to do the book, I contacted the White House and I said, "I want to do a book about the faith of President Bush." And they said, "Oh no, no, we don't want this. This is an election year coming up, wait until November 2004. Then you can write a book." So I said, "I don't think you have that luxury. I don't think you have that free time. Because whether or not I write a book, people are going to write some very negative books about you." And they have, of course, and this movie Fahrenheit 9-11 and so forth. "So you have to decide whether or not you want to get your story out or not." And they thought about that, and they saw what was being written, and they said, "Okay, we agree. We will allow you to interview about seven people who know Bush very well and who know his faith very well. And we will allow them to talk to you and you can talk to them and get information." It included … the book is based on information I got from his mother, from two pastors of churches he went to in Texas, from a very popular singer, Michael W. Smith, who knows Bush very well, from Mr. Don Evans, the Secretary of Commerce, who has known him in his Christian life for 20 years. And these people were very helpful. They were encouraged to talk to me and they did talk to me. So, that's how I did it.

Can you tell us your opinion about the film "Fahrenheit 9-11"?
I haven't seen it, so I can't tell you from personal experience. I know many people who have seen it, and I've read much about it.

This is a propaganda film. It is not a documentary, as we understand the term documentary. For example, if you do a documentary…. I did a television documentary on the Middle East peace process, the problems between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And it was a documentary and the BBC aired that program. Why was that not propaganda? Why was it called a documentary? It was because we talked to both sides. I was interested in finding out all the positions of all sides, and presenting them fairly. And that's what journalism, good journalism, is. The definition of good journalism is: if you go to a person with who's views you disagree and you say, "What are your views on this or that?" you write it down. And then you say, "Are those your views on A or B or C?" And the person says, "Yes, that's what I believe." That is good journalism.

Mr. Michael Moore has not done journalism at all. Nor has he done documentaries. He's done propaganda. And he admits this. He's made some very explosive remarks about Americans. He thinks Americans are the most stupid people in the world. Maybe they are, but if they go to see his movie that demonstrates the point.

He talks about Osama Bin Laden as the good guys and the Americans as the bad guys. He depicts life in Iraq before the American invasion as peaceful, lovey-dovey society and everybody is nice to everybody else. That's nonsense. Life in Iraq before the American invasion … we know after the American invasion it was difficult and dangerous, and it is difficult and dangerous today … but before the American invasion it was full of fear. I mean lots and lots of people were dying in prison every week. That was the truth about life in Iraq. Just talk to Iraqis. I have talked to Iraqis about life under Saddam Hussein. It was terrible. It was like life under Stalin. I won't say anything else but …

Do you have any insights on how Bush would respond to this common perception that I run into about for why Iraq in peculiar. There are so many dictators in the world, why not any other Qadaffi, other dictators in the Middle East who deny freedom. Why Iraq? And is this a continuation of his father's agenda to finish off what happened in Kuwait?
Of course, I'm very familiar with the argument: "Oh, he had to do to Saddam what his father did not have … did not make the decision to do … he had to finish the job." But I don't think that's the case.

First of all, on the question of weapons of mass destruction: Alright, they have not been found in Iraq. But the fact is, the United Nations for years had documented the program of Saddam Hussein, of Iraq, to develop weapons of mass destruction, the fact that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, the fact that Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against its own people, is not in question. Everybody knows they did. Whether they destroyed them or hid them, we don't know. And you have to ask the question: "If Iraq was getting rid of its weapons of mass destruction, why did they not allow the United Nations to see that? Why did they keep the inspectors out?" After all, the only reason the Americans went in was because they claimed that he was developing weapons of mass destruction. If he had given them all up, all the Iraqis had to do to convince the world of this was to say, "Come in. Come and have a look." But they didn't do that. I think they went to Syria actually, but that's a private view.

And the second reason he went in is that Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction on the international scene. He'd used weapons against Israel, and he was paying money to the families of suicide bombers amongst the Palestinians. In other words, Saddam Hussein was not an innocent observer of the international scene. He was deeply involved in many of the problem areas of the Middle East. He was a dangerous man.

Was there a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda? At some level, yes. Did Saddam Hussein have anything to do with 9-11? Probably not. But were some of the Al-Qaeda operatives trained in Iraq? Yes. Did the Iraqi government approve of what happened at 9-11? Yes. The Iraqi newspapers were full of praise for what Al-Qaeda terrorists did in New York. And, by the way, many Chinese died in 9-11, in New York. I don't know how many Chinese citizens. [Darrell Jenks: I think over 10. I can't remember the exact figure, but you are absolutely correct. The Chinese government had a joint commemoration.] Chinese citizens died in 9-11, as a result of Al-Qaeda's activities. And so, you have to say that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man.

Now, you can argue, "Well, we could have left him alone. After all, the president of Syria may have terrorists in his country. But Syria is not a threat to the world. Just sort of leave them alone, [and] eventually they'll go away." Perhaps. But perhaps not. And if you are the president of the United States, even if you are the president of China … Let's take that situation. Imagine China, imagine a 9-11 situation in Beijing, with terrorists, perhaps from Xinjiang, let's say, flying a plane into the Jingguang Center. (laughter) If the Chinese government said, in response to that action, "We are very concerned about Country X because we know that the people who flew the planes had contact with terrorists or contact with government officials in Country X." The people of China would say, "That's right! The Chinese government has every right to be concerned with countries that are used as a base for operations against China, against the people of China."

Any country must be very, very concerned about the danger from countries where there are people who are planning operations against them. It's quite normal and natural. So I don't think this was, I would disagree with Mr. Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9-11." I think this is a very normal operation.

Following up on Bush's motivations for going to Iraq, you had touched on freedom as motivating factors. But he is also very criticized, especially among (the) liberal media, about use of the word "evil" and calling countries "evil," calling (inaudible). You maybe touched on this on his sort of religious conviction about what "evil" is, if that was also a motivating factor for the attack on Iraq?
Going back to the original notion of America as a country of Indians ruled by Swedes, the Swedes of the United States, to use that term, do not believe there is evil. They don't believe there is a thing like good or evil. Maybe there are people who do some bad things, but it's because of bad sociology or bad upbringing or a bad past in their family life.

But if you ask ordinary Americans, and I think that if you ask ordinary Chinese, "Are there some people who are really evil?" Everybody would say, "Yes!" We all meet people in life who are terrible people. Not everybody. I mean most of us are a mixture of good and bad. But there are some people you meet who are really bad. How can you explain a person who murders 21 people or 30 people? And that's happened in China, and certainly happened in the United States. How do you explain that? Sociology does not do a very good job of explaining.

And when it comes to good and evil in the United States, most Americans believe that there is evil. For example, how do you explain in World War II the activities of Adolf Hitler? That doesn't … you cannot explain Hitler in the context of … well, you can partially explain his actions according to German history or what happened in World War I and the Versailles Treaty, and Germany was badly treated by the people who won World War I. That would explain why Germans supported Hitler. It will not explain why Hitler tried to destroy all the Jews and all the homosexuals and all the people who had physical or mental handicaps. There are certain things about the society that Hitler devised which were terrible, terrible things.

Now, if you use the value of evil and good – it's a religious question, I agree – but most people, even if they are not of religious faith, are comfortable with the terms good and evil. So, you may say the leader of one country does not have the right to call another country, another country's leaders evil. But common sense tells you that certain leaders in history have been very evil. Stalin was one. I won't go any further. They did terrible things. How do you describe that? What word do you use? Do you use the word "bad policy"? Do you use the word "mistaken policy" maybe?

But I think all of us in this room know the difference between an honest mistake and really serious intentional wrongdoing. An honest mistake is if you are driving a car and, by mistake, you hit somebody or hit another car. You don't want to do that. It's a terrible mistake. You feel very sorry. But intentional evil is when you are driving a car and you see somebody in the road and you steer your car at that person. That is evil. I think you can use those words to describe some people on the international arena.

Mr. Aikman, just now you analyzed the reason for the Iraqi war, and one of the reasons was the concept of freedom. The concept of freedom, I think the key is that (inaudible) only American standards, or international standards? Because people might have different understanding (inaudible) how to manage the freedom – with the law or the Constitution or regulation? But then, that's sometimes hard to judge. Although it is hard to judge, in what way to let the people have freedom? (inaudible)
I agree with you it's a very complicated question. It's a good question. And even societies that we consider are free are having debates all the time. Take the United States, which is quite a free country. People are arguing who should decide what the education system in a school is, who should decide whether you can have freedom of abortion or not? These are issues that are constantly being discussed and debated. That's true. And who is to say that the American system of freedom is better than anybody else's? That's also a good question.

But, nevertheless, what I think you cannot say – and what Mr. Bush believes – you cannot say, "This group of people" – let's say the Arabs or the Russians or the Chinese or the North Koreans – "cannot operate in freedom. They don't have the capability." You cannot say that. Many people have said about the Arabs, "Oh, you know, they can never do freedom." But Mr. Bush says, "That's not fair. It's not right to say they are incapable of freedom." Given if you had the right institutions, if you have the right environment, if you have the security, he would say, and I agree with him, every people in the world is capable of freedom. They may choose different ways of governing freedom. They may choose this system of parliamentary system or a presidential system. But there are certain standards of freedom.

And I have to say, I've been a journalist all of my life. I find that human beings are the same all over the world in three respects: everybody wants freedom, everybody wants justice, and everybody wants truth. Now, how much freedom? How much justice? How much truth? That's a matter you can debate. But there is something in the human spirit that says, "If you tell lies – whether you are a government or a private person – that is wrong. If you cause injustice to people, that is wrong. If you restrict what people can do – now obviously a government has to restrict some people; it has to put robbers in prison or murderers in prison …" But generally speaking, I think everybody would agree that you need some balance of these three elements. And I've found this true in every society I've ever been in. And I think most people would find the same thing.

According to the American standard, Britain and France are democratic countries, but their attitude over the Iraq war is different. Can you analyze why?
I think in the same way that people disagree with each other on what is the best method of doing all kinds of things with foreign policy. The attitude of Britain was to support the United States, that it was a good thing to invade Iraq. The attitude of France and Germany and Russia and China was, "No, you should not use force in the international arena unless you are attacked by some other side." The American reaction was, "We have already been attacked by one group of people, the terrorists, Al-Qaeda. And if we do nothing against Iraq, Iraq will provide terrible weapons to people who will attack us again." And you can disagree with that, but that was the position the United States took.

It is perfectly normal for democratically ruled states to disagree with each other. Nations that are quite free disagree with each other on, for example, on trade matters all the time. But usually the issue is decided not by conflict but by the rule of law or by trade discussions or something like that. In the case of Iraq, the United States tried to get the United Nations to support the invasion and did not succeed. And then decided that the threat of Saddam Hussein was so serious that it had to act alone. Again, France disagreed. But it's interesting that the recent vote in the United Nations – Security Council resolution in favor of the transfer of Iraqi sovereignty from the United States coalition forces to the Iraqi regime – was 15 to nothing. Everybody agreed, "Yes, Iraq must have its own government." And there was no disagreement.

I want to know what happened to Bush in the year 1985, and what changed him into a Christian?
That's a good question. What changed Bush in 1985? First of all, something happened in the previous year, as I mentioned: his meeting with the evangelist in Midland, Texas – Mr. Blessitt. That was the beginning of a change. But Mr. Bush in 1985 began to go to Bible studies in Midland, Texas. He had this conversation with Mr. Graham. He began to think very seriously about his life. And, of course, the following year, he stopped drinking. So I think he thought, he began to realize, there was a contradiction – maodun – between what he believed, or what he said he believed, and the way he lived his life. And in 1986 that contradiction was resolved. But in the process of 1985, he was thinking this over and reading the Bible. And he thought, "Well, I think the Bible probably has the right answer."

Mr. Aikman, through your introduction, I fully agree or believe that Mr. Bush is a religious person. But I just don't understand why such a U.S. president who is so (inaudible) on religion could do such a thing that he refused to sign the Kyoto agreement about climate, which is also surely aimed at the commonwealth of the humankind. I don't understand why he can make such an action. And I also want to ask: If he achieves the victory in the presidential election, will he change his position?
The Kyoto [Protocol] is an interesting agreement for two reasons. First of all, before Mr. Bush came to power – he came into office in 2001 – the United States Senate had refused to sign the Kyoto [Protocol]. So the decision was made by the United States elected legislature before he came into office. Many Americans then felt, and many Americans feel today, that the Kyoto [Protocol] was hypocritical because most of the countries were not going to respect it in their actions, and there was no way of enforcing the agreement internationally. It expressed good intentions, but if the countries that sign the piece of paper are not going to do anything, and you know that they are not going to do anything, you are not being very moral, or right, or a Christian, to sign a piece of paper that you know is not going to be implemented.

Now, there are many Americans who would disagree with that. Many Americans would say the Kyoto [Protocol] was valid and the United States, because it has such a fast consumption of natural resources, should sign the Kyoto [Protocol].

But many others say, "Many other countries which have signed it are not carrying it out, so why should we be the only one to carry it out if the other countries are not doing so?" And that, I think, was the reason that caused the United States Senate, initially, to refuse to ratify the agreement, and caused the Bush Administration to agree that this was not an agreement that was going to be carried out internationally anyway so why should the United States limit its own activities to satisfy an international community which was being hypocritical about it.

Thank you for your introduction. So you said that George W. Bush is a man of faith. So what kind of faith? Since, in my view, if you call a man a man of faith it is different from saying he is a religious man. So what kind of faith? Is it Christian values, or is it a mixture of Christian values or some other (inaudible). So what kind of faith?
Well it's no secret: Mr. Bush is a man of Christian faith. What kind of Christianity? It is Protestant Christianity. What kind of protestant Christianity? It's evangelical Protestant Christianity. What does evangelical mean? Evangelical means that you are supposed to share your faith with as many people as possible, that you believe the Bible is the word of God and various things down the line.

But there are two interesting facets of Mr. Bush's Christian faith. The first is, his Christian faith is actually very ecumenical What does ecumenical mean? Ecumenical means accepting people of other faith positions. I have heard Mr. Bush give a speech where he basically said, "If you have any faith, it's a good thing." So presumably, in theory, you can believe that the moon is made of cheese and you are a person of faith. No, I'm exaggerating, of course. But Mr. Bush is very sympathetic to Jewish people. He's very sympathetic to people of Muslim faith, Islamic faith. And he insists that the war he is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a war against Muslims, it's a war against some elements of Islam who have adopted their faith as a religious ideology.

Also when it comes to Christianity, Mr. Bush is a member of the Methodist Church. The Methodist Church in America is not like the Baptists or the Roman Catholics. It's a very broad denomination that accepts many different views of Christianity in the different churches. So …but I think his Christianity is considered acceptable and indeed real by most of the Protestant Christians in America who go to church on a regular basis. That doesn't mean to say they will all vote for him. They won't obviously, but his faith is considered real.

There is one prediction of the November elections (inaudible) Junior Bush will follow, possibly follow, his father's example: win the war, lose the election.
That's possible, certainly. But it's also possible that he will win. And we don't know yet because many things can happen in the few months between now and November. A lot of things can happen that we cannot predict. For example, let's suppose you take the Iraqi situation. It's possible that the new government of Iraq may succeed, may effectively limit the operation of the insurgents against it, may win the support of all of the Iraqi people. We know already that the government of Libya has abandoned its program of weapons of mass destruction. You could say that the Libyan government would not have made that decision that Qaddafi made if it had not been for the invasion of Iraq. You may say the invasion of Iraq was wrong, but it persuaded the government of Libya to give up its weapons of mass destruction.

So all kinds of things can happen between now and November which could affect in a positive way, from the White House's point of view, the Bush situation in November. Now things can go wrong also. I mean, I can think of many things that could happen that would cause the American people to vote for Mr. Kerry. But I don't think at this stage you can say for sure that he will go the way, the same way, as his father.

Two questions. They are not meant to be related even though they may sound related. First question is, you mentioned earlier that he had many girlfriends in his younger days. Post-conversion, how is his relationship with the opposite sex, with his mother and his wife. Second question is, you seem paint a picture, you seem to justify his every action that the world disagrees with. What is your personal view of some of his biggest political mistakes (inaudible)?
The first question, I think every body would agree, all the observers of his life would agree, that Mr. Bush has been a good family man since he got married. He got married in 1978 and nobody has said of Mr. Bush as they said of Mr. Clinton, "This is a man who spends a lot of time with women who are not his wife." Generally speaking, everybody would say that his relationship is very good with women, and his relationship with his mother is good.

What is his biggest mistake? Well, I don't know. But I would think that he has not been very successful in persuading many other countries around the world that the American policy in Iraq and in the Middle East is a policy that will do more good than harm. He has not succeeded, I think. He has not succeeded in persuading Americans domestically that his faith-based policies are good. Generally speaking, the opposition has been sort of limited to small minority groups. But nevertheless, he has not gotten huge support for his faith-based policies on the domestic front. I would say his policies on the economic front have been good in spite of the fact that the political opposition, Mr. Kerry, has made the case quite effectively that those policies have not been successful. But if you look at the creation of jobs in the United States over the last few months, I think, by November he will have won the economic argument. He will have won the case that his economic policies were correct.

Many other things, I don't know, I mean there are many problems he has not solved in the United States. He has not solved the problem of poverty. He has not solved the problem of the rising gap between rich and the poor. He has not solved the problem of persuading the world that the United States is conducting polices which it hopes are beneficial for the rest of the world. I mean there are many areas where he has a lot of work to do. And if he gets re-elected, he will spend his time doing it, I'm sure.

Mr. Bush is a member of the (inaudible) Skeleton … [Darrell Jenks: the Yale Skull and Bones club]. And Mr. Kerry is a member of the Skull & Bones. Is there some relation about the (inaudible) of Bush?
It's an interesting question. For those of you who don't know, at Yale University there is a secret society called the Skull and Bones [Society]. This club goes back a very, very long time by American standards – back to 1833. It's a secret society of Yale undergraduates from the time of their senior year onwards. And once you are elected a member – well, you are not elected, you are chosen – of the Skull and Bones Society, you are a member for life. And if you are a member of the Skull and Bones Society you are not allowed to discuss the society outside of the group. You are not allowed to discuss it in the media.

Mr. Bush was made a member in his senior year. His father was a member, and his grandfather was a member. Some American presidents, some American congressmen, senators, members of the Supreme Court were members of the Skull and Bone Society. People think, Well, Mr. Kerry was a member of the Skull and Bone Society, so here you have a secret society of an American university influencing who rules America. But I don't think it's as mysterious as that. It's true that they have certain ceremonies, which are kind of, I think, maybe rather childish, involve things going on in darkness and so on. But the difference is that Mr. Bush since becoming a member of the Skull and Bone Society in 1967 – he graduated in ‘68 from Yale – has not gone back at all. He's not gone back once. His father has gone back many times to the Skull and Bone Society, for dinners and things like that.

But I think President Bush, or Mr. Bush, when he became a Christian between 1984 and 1986 decided that the kind of relationship he had with members of the Skull and Bones Society was not as important as the kind of relationships he had as a new or a reconverted Christian. And I think his Christian commitment has been much greater than his membership in that Society. I don't think that membership is particularly important. Mr. Kerry, same thing. I think Mr. Kerry has made many other connections outside of the Skull and Bone Society that are more important today to him and his political career than his membership in this society.

Mr. Aikman, another question about the Iraqi war. So you just give some explanations why America (inaudible) this war: it's very simple because "We refused the inspectors go inside the Iraq, so we must hide something." But I think this reason cannot stand because you don't let them in then you hide something. This is not true. And this is also against traditional law because you cannot judge other people's plans because you don't let other people (inaudible).
But in the case of Iraq, following the first Gulf War, the United Nations had made three resolutions on Iraq, which everybody agreed to in the Security Council, saying that Iraq had been in violation of the program to destroy of remove its programs of weapons of mass destruction. This was not something that America alone decided. The United Nations made three resolutions agreeing that Iraq had been in violation of international law following the first Gulf War. Again, in the first Gulf War, the United Nations concluded that Iraq was wrong to invade Kuwait and having been expelled from Kuwait was required by the international community to abide by a program of control and inspection of weapons of mass destruction.

So, this is not a case if a country that is entirely innocent, that has never done any wrong and is being required to open up its doors for inspection by the international community. This is a country which the international community has agreed was already in violation of international law, had already used weapons of mass destruction, and was required by resolutions of the United Nations to open up its facilities for inspection. And did not do so. So whether or not the Americans were correct in invading Iraq – of course you can say they were not correct – you have to say that Iraq was in violation of international resolutions on its weapons program. And again you have to say, what would possibly be the interest of Iraq, of Saddam Hussein, if he had really destroyed...

(tape ends)

NOTE: Aikman's remarks are his personal opinion and do not represent or reflect any official statement by the U.S. Embassy.