Last Update: Friday, 03 December, 2010 09:15
the Daily Telegraph (UK):
President Barack Obama just plain rude to Britain. Don't call us
in future.
Posted By: Iain Martin at Mar 4, 2009 at 09:41:53 [General]
Posted in: Politics , Three Line Whip , Eagle Eye
Tags:
america, Barack Obama, Britain, Gordon Brown, Special relationship
Why couldn't President Obama have put on more of a show for his British guests?
He looked like he simply couldn't be bothered.
Number 10 may be content that they just about got away with the visit to the
Oval Office yesterday, as Andrew Porter reports from Washington.
But on this side of the Atlantic the whole business looked pretty demeaning. The
morning papers and TV last night featured plenty of comment focused on the White
House's very odd and, frankly, exceptionally rude treatment of a British PM.
Squeezing in a meeting, denying him a full press conference with flags etc. The
British press corps, left outside for an hour in the cold, can take it and their
privations are of limited concern to the public.
But Obama's merely warmish words (one of our closest allies, said with little
sincerity or passion) left a bitter taste with this Atlanticist. Especially
after his team had made Number 10 beg for a mini press conference and then not
even offered the PM lunch.
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, or the Japanese, or best
of all the Germans. The French will be able to offer you first rate support from
their catering corps but beyond that you'll be on your own.
When it comes to men, munitions and commitment you'll soon find out why it pays
to at least treat the Brits with some manners.
the Daily Telegraph (UK):
President Barack Obama dislikes Britain, but he's keen to meet
the Queen
Posted By: Iain Martin at Mar 6, 2009 at 12:44:22 [General]
Posted in: Politics , Three Line Whip , Eagle Eye
President Obama has been rudeness personified towards Britain this week. His
handling of the visit of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to Washington was
appalling. First Brown wasn't granted a press conference with flags, then one
was hastily arranged in the Oval office after the Brits had to beg. Obama looked
like he would rather have been anywhere else than welcoming the British leader
to his office and topped it all with his choice of present (*) for the PM. A box
of 25 DVDS including ET, the Wizard of Oz and Star Wars? Oh, give me strength.
We do have television and DVD stores on this side of the Atlantic. Even Gordon
Brown will have seen those films too often already.
This was coupled with Michelle Obama's casual choice of gifts for the Brown sons
- matching models of the helicopter which ferry her husband around. While Sarah
Brown had spent time choosing gifts for the Obama girls, Michelle had clearly
sent an aide to the White House gift shop at the last moment.
All in all, he doesn't think much of us, as I explained in my post here earlier
this week.
But what's this? Something, suddenly, seems to have made the Obama White House
perk up and start to take an interest in the Brits. The Queen has invited the
President to tea when he's here for the G20 in April. And he's in through the
front door of Buckingham Palace faster than a Harley Davidson roaring along
Route 66.
Note how the coolness of Team Obama disappears when a bit of regal glamour is
introduced into the equation. He might not like the Brits, but he can recognise
a global superstar when he encounters one. He wants to be associated with her.
He's shameless.
(*) If Obama, or someone in his inner circle, had spent two minutes thinking
about what present to get Brown then they could easily have come up with
something appropriate. He likes books. He loves American history. Get him a
signed first edition of a good Robert Dallek book such as the brilliant Flawed
Giant on LBJ. Come to think of it, Obama should read it too, if he hasn't yet,
as it reveals a great deal about how a Presidency can go so wrong.
from the American Thinker:
March 07, 2009
Please accept my apologies for the boorish behavior of Mr. Obama, my
President.
Cliff Thier
To the people of Great Britain:
Please accept my apologies for the boorish behavior of Mr. Obama, my President.
His astonishingly downmarket gift to your Prime Minister is truly embarrassing.
Mr. Obama should have treated Mr. Brown with far more respect than he did, not
least because Mr. Brown represented the people of your nation.
Sadly -- for us -- it seems that no one ever taught Mr. Obama good manners or
how to be a proper host. Worse, Mr. Obama apparently is ignorant of the history
of your people and the lasting gifts that you have given to America.
Please let me thank you for those precious gifts.
Thank you for your gift of radical and dangerous ideas of freedom for which your
people have fought and died.
Thank you for your gift of your navy's bringing to an end the Atlantic slave
trade -- the first use of a nation's navy for a solely moral purpose.
Thank you for your gift of standing fast while standing alone against the
terrible, murderous onslaught of the Nazis.
Thank you for your gift of standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States
during the 70 years of costly -- but finally victorious -- war against the great
sanguinary evil of Communism.
Thank you for your gift of comfort by standing first and strongest with us in
the grim days after 9/11.
Thank you for your gift of sending real soldiers to fight and die alongside our
men and women liberating the 45 million people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
And, thank you for your multitude of gifts of science, literature, art and
music.
We will always be grateful for your friendship.
Politicians Fiddle While Rome Burns
By Nancy Morgan on (Mar 10, 09)
As the economy continues its downward spiral and hundreds of thousands of join
the ranks of the unemployed, Americans may rest easy knowing that our elected
officials are hard at work on our behalf…
President Obama took time out from pushing his massive spending and tax increase
package to announce his new focus on health care, accidentally
‘mischaracterizing’ the data, but making clear the government’s intention to
start tackling this new ‘crisis’.
One of the government’s first acts was to close down a New York doctor who had
the audacity to propose a private market solution by offering uninsured patients
a $79 flat fee for medical services. The government preferred to focus attention
instead on the innovative Healthy Penis campaign, recently launched in San
Francisco. (It pays for staffers walk around in giant penis costumes to promote
syphilis testing)
Despite the increasing number of crisis requiring his attention, Obama still
managed to find the time to attend to foreign affairs. In the interest of world
peace, he extended a hand to Russia, offering to consider scuttling America’s
missile defense system if Russia would, uh, help us with Iran. Russia agreed to
talk about disarming America. Period.
Meanwhile, politicians in Washington were successful in diverting attention from
the roughly $2.5 trillion investors have lost since Obama took office by
designating private citizen and talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, as enemy number
one. The 2.2 million jobs lost in the last four months were also overlooked, as
the orchestrated media frenzy examined the vital question: ‘Is Limbaugh the face
of the GOP?’
Stoically, Obama remained silent as Hugo Chavez ordered the expropriation
(theft) of an American owned company operating in Venezuela. He also refrained
from comment on the news that an American citizen was beheaded in Mexico.
Thankfully, Obama regained his voice to forcefully broadcast a new policy of
pursuing international tax cheats. Who better to pursue tax cheats than… sorry,
I digress.
Meanwhile, Obama’s new economic advisor took to the airwaves to reassure the
nation that Obama has a team of really smart people working to fix the economic
crisis. Why, she actually has a staff of 10 Ph.D. economists hard at work on it
right now. Whew!
Obama followed up by unveiling a new emblem that will be displayed on all
projects funded by the massive spending plan he just got enacted. (The vision of
a dog peeing to mark his territory entered my mind, but that’s just me.)
Obama wisely ignored news of Iran’s new nuclear capability and focused instead
on assuring the American people that, sadly, we are losing the war in
Afghanistan. The solution, he opined, is reaching out to the moderate Taliban.
As the hunt started for a ‘moderate Taliban’ Obama took the opportunity to
denounce the news that his appointment as head of a U.S. intelligence council
was identified as a member of the ‘Iran lobby.’ A big pshaw from The One set
that right.
Our other elected officials also made sure America knew how hard they are
toiling on the people’s behalf. Rep. Barney Frank announced that he will be
pushing for prosecution of the people who caused the country’s financial
meltdown. The fact that he himself was one of them didn’t seem to worry Barney.
Or the media.
Senate Democrats, meanwhile, in a show of bipartisanship, held out a hand to
Republicans, inviting them to join them in calling for a ‘truth commission’ to
probe whether the Bush administration abused its power. No word yet on which
Republicans have decided to be bipartisan.
Top dog Harry Reid exhibited his firm grasp of the people’s business by
proposing that the federal government take over the power grid in the country so
that it might string power lines all across the land. The fact that these power
lines would be designated “special power lines to carry renewable energy” should
allow the government to place them wherever they want, Reid suggested with a
straight face.
Reid then hurried off to a closed door meeting with actor Brad Pitt, where Brad
made an earnest case for nationalizing his “Make It Right New Orleans” campaign,
in partnership with Congress. The media then gleefully highlighted Harry Reid’s
first known instance of humor as he cracked wise with Brad Pitt before the
cameras. What a funny guy!
After the media finished its gigglefest, they moved on to highlight the
achievements of yet another public servant, Sen. Ted Kennedy, who was awarded an
honorary knighthood by the Queen of England. He will now be referred to as Sir
Kennedy. By everyone, I assume, except Mary Jo Kophecne who is otherwise
engaged, turning over in her grave.
Sir Ted gets his knighthood despite the fact that his father, Joe, lost his
job as ambassador to Great Britain at the start of World War II because he was a
Hitler sympathizer; and despite the fact that Teddy boy has been supporting the
IRA as they have butchered British Troops and citizens for the last 40 years.
(RJC)
Speaking of the Queen, we are informed that she has agreed to meet privately
with President Obama, despite the major disrespect shown by Obama to Britain’s
Prime Minister last week. Apparently the Queen accepted Obama’s explanation that
his rudeness was the result of him being ‘overwhelmed’ by the economic crisis.
Besides, his aides say, he is very tired. Which doesn’t bode well for any 3AM
moments, but I digress again.
One reason for Obama’s fatigue is being investigated by watchdog group Judicial
Watch.
“Barack and Michelle Obama have been throwing taxpayer funded parties nearly
every night with their ‘friends’ and supporters, with Michelle Obama even
exhorting them not to ‘break’ White House property,” Klayman’s announcement
said.
The media graciously overlooked Judicial Watch’s obvious racism by ignoring this
issue, focusing instead on launching a new national campaign to help the Obama
family name their new dog.
The media also did their part ‘for the people’ by playing down the threats of
war by North Korea, news that Iran has crossed the technological nuclear
threshold, the 15% increase in defense spending by China, the global meltdown
and the spillover of the chaos of Mexican drug wars onto American soil. After
all, they know ‘the people’ are much more interested in how Michelle Obama
manages to keep her arms so buff and if she has set a new fashion trend by going
sleeveless in winter. Inquiring minds want to know.
Obviously, Michelle is honoring her second amendment right to "bare arms".
(RJC)
All is well with our elected officials, thank God. In the face of overwhelming
and potentially catastrophic circumstances, our dedicated public servants toil
bravely on, humbly accepting an ever greater share of responsibility over this
nation and its people. I don’t know about you, but I’m sleeping much better
these days, just knowing they’re looking out for me.
And tomorrow, instead of figuring out how to survive now that most of my money
has disappeared, I’m going to the gym and work on my triceps - secure in the
knowledge that Obama and the rest of our elected officials will take care of
everything else.
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina.
By Nancy Morgan on Mar 10, 09
Taliban say Obama's call on moderates "illogical"
Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:17am EDT
KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan's Taliban on Tuesday turned down as illogical U.S.
President Barack Obama's bid to reach out to moderate elements of the
insurgents, saying the exit of foreign troops was the only solution for ending
the war.
Obama, in an interview with the New York Times, expressed an openness to
adapting tactics in Afghanistan that had been used in Iraq to reach out to
moderate elements there.
"This does not require any response or reaction for this is illogical," Qari
Mohammad Yousuf, a purported spokesman for the insurgent group, told Reuters
when asked if its top leader Mullah Mohammad Omar would make any comment about
Obama's proposal.
"The Taliban are united, have one leader, one aim, one policy...I do not know
why they are talking about moderate Taliban and what it means?,"
"If it means those who are not fighting and are sitting in their homes, then
talking to them is meaningless. This really is surprising the Taliban."
In Iraq, the use of Sunni Muslim community leaders to employ their people to
patrol their neighborhoods has been credited as one of the main reasons behind
sharp falls in violence.
Obama did point out that compared to Iraq, the situation was more complex in
Afghanistan, where nearly 70,000 foreign troops, 38,000 of them American, are
due to be joined in coming months by another 17,000 U.S. soldiers.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has been leading Afghanistan since U.S.-led
troops overthrew the Taliban in an invasion in 2001, welcomed Obama's proposal.
The number of foreign troops in Afghanistan has risen steadily since Taliban's
ouster after they refused to hand over al Qaeda leaders responsible for the
September 11 attacks on the United States.
So has the level of Taliban attacks against the government and foreign forces,
prompting Obama to term Afghanistan as a top foreign policy priority for his new
administration.
Some Western politicians and military officers now say the war cannot be won by
military means alone and a solution will have to involve some form of
reconciliation.
Yousuf said expulsion of foreign troops was the only solution for Afghanistan's
spiraling violence.
"Afghans know better how to decide about their destiny," he replied when asked
if the Taliban were willing to hold talks with Karzai's government should and
when the troops leave.
(Reporting by Sayed Salahuddin; Editing by David Fox)
TEAM OBAMA'S ANTI-ISRAEL TURN
By JOHN BOLTON
March 13, 2009 --
THE Obama administration is increasingly fixed on resolving the "Arab-Is raeli
dispute," seeing it as the key to peace and stability in the Middle East. This
is bad news for Israel - and for America.
In its purest form, this theory holds that, once Israel and its neighbors come
to terms, all other regional conflicts can be duly resolved: Iran's
nuclear-weapons program, fanatical anti-Western terrorism, Islam's Sunni-Shiite
schism, Arab-Persian ethnic tensions.
Some advocates believe substantively that the overwhelming bulk of other Middle
Eastern grievances, wholly or partly, stem from Israel's founding and continued
existence. Others see it in process terms - how to "sequence" dispute
resolutions, so that Arab-Israeli progress facilitates progress elsewhere.
Pursuing this talisman has long characterized many European leaders and their
soulmates on the American left. The Mideast "peace process" is thus the ultimate
self-licking ice cream cone - its mere existence being its basic justification.
And now the Obama administration has made it US policy. This is evidenced by two
key developments: the appointment of former Sen. George Mitchell as special
envoy for the region, and Secretary of State Hillary's Clinton's recent
insistence on a "two-state solution" sooner rather than later.
Naming Mitchell as a high-level, single-issue envoy - rather than keeping the
portfolio under Secretary Clinton's personal control - separates Israel from the
broader conduct of US diplomacy. Mitchell's role underlines both the issue's
priority in the president's eyes and the implicit idea it can be solved in the
foreseeable future.
Obama and Mitchell have every incentive to strike a Middle East deal - both to
vindicate themselves and, in their minds, to create a basis for further
"progress." But there are few visible incentives for any particular substantive
outcome - which is very troubling for Israel, since Mitchell's mission
essentially replicates in high-profile form exactly the approach the State
Department has followed for decades.
When appointed, Mitchell said confidently: "Conflicts are created, conducted and
sustained by human beings. They can be ended by human beings." This is true,
however, only if the conflict's substantive resolution is less important than
the process point of "ending" it one way or another. Surrender, for example, is
a guaranteed way to end conflict.
Here, Clinton's strident insistence on a "two-state solution" during her recent
Mideast trip becomes important. She essentially argued predestination: the
"inevitability" of moving toward two states is "inescapable," and "there is no
time to waste." The political consequence is clear: Since the outcome is
inevitable and time is short, there is no excuse for not making "progress."
Delay is evidence of obstructionism and failure - something President Obama
can't tolerate, for the sake of his policies and his political reputation.
In this very European view, failure on the Arab-Israeli front presages failure
elsewhere. Accordingly, the Obama adminstration has created a negotiating
dynamic that puts increasing pressure on Israel, Palestinians, Syria and others.
Almost invariably, Israel is the loser - because Israel is the party most
dependent on the United States, most subject to US pressure and most susceptible
to the inevitable chorus of received wisdom from Western diplomats, media and
the intelligentsia demanding concessions. When pressure must be applied to make
compromises, it's always easier to pressure the more reasonable side.
How will diplomatic pressure work to change Hamas or Hezbollah, where even
military force has so far failed? If anything, one can predict coming pressure
on Israel to acknowledge the legitimacy of these two terrorist groups, and to
negotiate with them as equals (albeit perhaps under some artful camouflage). The
pattern is so common that its reappearance in the Mitchell-led negotiations is
what is really "inevitable" and "inescapable."
Why would America subject a close ally to this dynamic, playing with the
security of an unvarying supporter in world affairs? For America, Israel's
intelligence-sharing, military cooperation and significant bilateral economic
ties, among many others, are important national-security assets that should not
lightly be put at risk.
The only understandable answer is that the Obama administration believes that
Israel is as much or more of a problem as it is an ally, at least until Israel's
disagreements with its neighbors are resolved. Instead of seeing Israel as a
national-security asset, the administration likely sees a relationship
complicating its broader policy of diplomatic "outreach."
No one will say so publicly, but this is the root cause of Obama's "Arab-Israeli
issues first" approach to the region.
This approach is exactly backward. All the other regional problems would still
exist even if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got his fondest wish and Israel disappeared
from the map: Iran's nuclear-weapons program, its role as the world's central
banker for terrorism, the Sunni-Shiite conflict within Islam, Sunni terrorist
groups like al Qaeda and other regional ethnic, national and political
animosities would continue as threats and risks for decades to come.
Instead, the US focus should be on Iran and the manifold threats it poses to
Israel, to Arab states friendly to Washington and to the United States itself -
but that is not to be.
President Obama argues that he will deal comprehensively with the entire region.
Rhetoric is certainly his specialty, but in the Middle East rhetoric only lasts
so long. Performance is the real measure - and the administration's performance
to date points in only one direction: pressuring Israel while wooing Iran.
Others in the world - friend and foe alike - will draw their own conclusions.
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton is an American Enterprise Institute senior
fellow.