You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Obama Stiffs the Brits
2009-03-10
By Jack Kelly

Americans anxiously watching their 401ks melt away may not have noticed the Obama administration is off to a rocky start in foreign policy, too. We were told often during the campaign that Mr. Obama would repair relationships with foreign governments allegedly damaged by the "cowboy"diplomacy of George W. Bush. But in his first weeks in office, President Obama gratuitously has offended allies, and has made clumsy overtures — contemptuously rebuffed — to adversaries.

Most puzzling has been the back of the hand treatment the president has given to our closest ally.

Most in Britain were ecstatic when Mr. Obama was elected. None more so than Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who hoped proximity to The One would boost his own flagging standing in the polls back home.

It didn't work out that way.

"The murmurs began when President Obama returned to the British embassy the Winston Churchill bust that had been displayed in the Oval Office," wrote Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. "The fears intensified when press secretary Robert Gibbs...demoted the Churchillian phrase 'special relationship' to a mere 'special partnership' across the Atlantic.

"And the alarm bells really went off when Brown's entourage landed at Andrews Air Force Base," Mr. Milbank said. "Obama, breaking with precedent, wouldn't grant the prime minister the customary honor of standing beside him in front of the two nation's flags for the TV cameras."

It got worse. The White House initially cancelled a joint press conference with the prime minister on account of snow. This explanation was unconvincing to Toby Harnden of the London Telegraph, who noted "there are 132 rooms in the White House at least some of which, presumably, are free of snow."

When Mr. Obama did hold a truncated press availability from which most of the British press were excluded, he went right to questions, skipping the usual words of welcome for his guest. The hapless Mr. Brown didn't even get invited to lunch.

The president's "exceptionally rude treatment" of the prime minister will have consequences, predicted British journalist Iain Martin. "We get the point, sunshine. We're just one of many allies and you want fancy new friends. Well, the next time you need something doing, something which impinges on your national security, then try calling the French, the Japanese, or best of all the Germans."

We may need the help the Brits no longer will be so eager to provide sooner rather than later, because Mr. Obama's overtures to our enemies have been rebuffed.

There will be no thaw in relations with the U.S., and no concessions on its nuclear weapons program, Iran's intelligence minister made clear Feb. 1.

In a "secret letter," President Obama told the Russians he would abandon U.S. plans to put anti-ballistic missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic if the Russians would "help" with Iran. On March 3, Russian president Dmitri Medvedev flatly and publicly rejected the deal. Earlier, the Russians pressured Kyrgyzstan to deny us the use of an airbase vital to supplying our troops in Afghanistan, though Kyrgyzstan's president has indicated recently he'd be willing to reconsider if his palm is crossed with enough silver.

Since the Brits and the Canadians are the only others besides us doing any heavy lifting in Afghanistan, the slap to the British seems particularly ill timed. It may have been deliberate. In the first of his autobiographies, Mr. Obama said his grandfather was tortured by the British during the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya in the 1950s. Winston Churchill was prime minister at the time.

If the snub was deliberate, this is remarkably churlish behavior. If it wasn't, it is evidence Mr. Obama is not ready for prime time.

He's not alone. "Hillary Clinton raised eyebrows on her first visit to Europe as secretary of state when she mispronounced her EU counterparts' names and claimed U.S. democracy was older than Europe's," the Reuters news service reported Friday.
This is all pretty appalling. How's the "Anybody But Bush" slogan looking. Be careful what you wish for. "The One" and "The world's smartest Woman" - my goodness how 6 weeks have taken their toll on their images. I haven't checked yet, but weren't the oceans supposed to stop rising as well? What date was that particular metric to apply from?
Posted by:Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794

#14  IMNSHO - Proc 2K - the CASP will affirm it, but grant status to those wed in the interim, thereby pissing off everybody (nota bene: I support Civil Unions, but don't call it "marriage")
Posted by: Frank G   2009-03-10 21:51  

#13  But there is a big political difference between a democracy and a form of government such as ours.

Which will be amply demonstrated when the California Supreme Court overrules the Prop 8 vote demonstrated that we indeed have a ruling class. We have the facade of representative government which has forsaken representing anything but special interests.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-03-10 21:37  

#12  Thanks for the tutorial, OSfB7794! I only know some vague generalities about British history, so you helped fill in a gap or two in my knowledge.
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-03-10 19:52  

#11  <<< Meant to say that since Britain doesn't have a formal constitution, I'm not sure really what date to use as the start of their current form of government. Magna Carta? The end of the reign of Oliver Cromwell? >>>

It is a moving feast but the genesis of the current form was probably the 1832 Reform Act which had to address the issue of the massive movement in population as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution. Manchester has 250k population but only 1 parliamentary representative whereas south of London there were "rotten boroughs" with only a handful of voters and a seat in parliament.

In addition the House of Lords was never responsible. Not even now. But its powers as a House of Review have been continually limited until the most recent changes by Blair which gutted much of the tradition. Lloyd George helped as well early in the 20th Century.

The Magna Carta preserved the rights of property owners. The interregnum resulted in a more limited monarchy on the subsequent ascension which actually saved it relative to the fate of monarchies and principalities on the Continent in later centuries.
Posted by: Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794   2009-03-10 13:50  

#10  DoDo - to the extent that Bambi has any principles, they're definitely flexible.

JFM - none of the idiots in charge right now is suitable for the job.

The only joy I get from all this is thinking about the buyer's remorse people around the world who demanded we elect Bambi must be feeling that we stupidly did elect this clown, and with him his Clown Posse. At least we won't be suffering alone.... >:-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-03-10 13:44  

#9  Just to be clear, I'm only defending the accuracy of her statement.

I'm appalled that she went and said what she did, as I am appalled by the Obamas going out of their way to demonstrate their total lack of class during the Gordon Brown visit.
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-03-10 13:43  

#8  lotp

It would have been right for Bolton or Rice to say that given how much abuse the United Staes and the Bush administration had got from the Euros. But this isn't Obama's policy so the answer is that Hillary just gaffed and seems not to be suitable for the job.
Posted by: JFM   2009-03-10 13:39  

#7  Had Clinton said "Republic" instead of "democracy" the comment would have been more accurate. However, in either case it was a condescending remark and was understood as such. (Personally, I'm more embarrassed by the schoolgirl "reset button" stunt, which would have been stupid even if it hadn't been screwed up).

The bigger issue is the administration's emphasis on "change", "fresh start", "reset", etc. Successful foreign policy requires consistency. The administration is telegraphing to our friends that they cannot count on us, and to our enemies that our principals are flexible.

Posted by: DoDo   2009-03-10 13:37  

#6  Hillary was wrong for the simple reason that the United States of America is not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. If she means we are free and have elected governments and rule of law then okay. But there is a big political difference between a democracy and a form of government such as ours.
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2009-03-10 13:31  

#5  Agreed, JFM. On the other hand, given that she was in Brussels at the time I can't help but feel that it was a welcome rebuke to EU condescension and posturing towards the US.
Posted by: lotp   2009-03-10 13:18  

#4  Cornslik Blondie

What you say is true but polite people don't boast of having a bigger, nicer house than the people they are visiting and politeness is a job requirement for a diplomat. That is as in "if you aren't you don't get the job".
Posted by: JFM   2009-03-10 12:47  

#3  It's a dubious democratic tradition given the power of the monarchy through the Victorian era and the fact that the House of Lords is an appointed body to this very day.

Europe's democracy before the dubious E.U.? I give up -- would that be the Third Reich or the Roman Empire?
Posted by: Darrell   2009-03-10 12:44  

#2  Hit the damn submit button prematurely....grr.

Meant to say that since Britain doesn't have a formal constitution, I'm not sure really what date to use as the start of their current form of government. Magna Carta? The end of the reign of Oliver Cromwell?

But the point still remains, we've been at it for a while longer than most of the Europeans, even though they don't wanna admit it.
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-03-10 12:23  

#1  Ok, can't believe I'm doing this, but.....you could argue that ol' Hill was more or less correct when she stated that our democracy is/was older than parts of Europe's.

After all, we've had the same Constitution and system of government for over 230 years. Britain's had theirs longer, I believe, but the rest of the continent.....not so much.
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-03-10 12:19  

00:00