Obama snubs our greatest ally

[Davemcc]

oh, and apparently the prussians and french have been looking for a reason to go to war it could have been a fart in the wrong direction

I'm not suggesting that Britain and America will go to war (again), simply showing how the tone of diplomatic meetings can drive public opinion which in turn drives the direction of politicians. Blair took a lot of heat in Britain for his steadfast commitment to the US and that was a huge factor in driving him from office. This may play out in such a way that the Brits will consider the Yanks a bunch of ungrateful SOB's and hang the US out to dry in the UN, NATO or WTO. To be fair, Bush pushed a lot of friendly nations into an anti-US posture. Obama seems determined to push away the rest. Seriously, which nations are currently strongly allied with the US right now?

As to Obama's advisers, these are the same numbnuts that thought they could censure Russia in the UN security council for it's invasion of Georgia. At the time, I suggested that this idiotic response should preclude Obama from ever becoming president. This latest incident only reinforces that belief.

 

[jostenmeat]

Are you guys sure you aren't making a mountain out of a molehill? I will admit that it is considered a blunder . . . but this type of . . . I don't know, sensationalism (?), is almost on par with the National Enquirer.

FWIW, if only a lame excuse, lower expenditures are part of the new presidency. Heck, there were even NPR reports on how all of the parties were being catered with "blue collar" foods, so to speak, no more caviar, etc. Is it possible that he was advised not to shower them with super pricey gifts, in order to hopefully maintain the "public impression" that the new presidency is one of moderation, and not one of over spending? If that was the case, I'm sorry it seemed to backfire so terribly.

I'm waiting for a REAL blunder by Obama, and will await some of you guys to jump all over it. Keep your trigger finger ready. I'm sure they are!

 

[dronezero]

Nice list of DVD's if somebody gave me those, I would be happy. Granted a Region 1 player to play them on would be nice also.

They weren't Region 1.

It's not like White House staff went down to Walmart to pick the dvds up, as the OP asserts.

 

[sploo]

As jostenmeat has pointed out - mountains and molehills.

Speaking as a Brit, I can tell you that politically, militarily and financially, the UK needs the US far more than the US needs the UK - i.e. a lack of UK support wouldn't make a whole lot of difference to US operations around the world.

The Brown/Obama meeting made the news here, and yes, it was registered that the meeting was cordial, rather than the Blair/Bush "love-in", but it's really not made waves.

I'm sure it'll yank a few anti-Obama chains, but right now, Brown is (rightly or wrongly) being blamed for the UK banking crisis, and Obama is still seen in a very positive light by many (quite possibly because he's not Bush). As such, he could probably call Brown a one eyed Scottish idiot (google it) and get away with it.

Oh, and if anyone thinks that giving someone in the UK some (allegedly) region 1 DVDs is a slur they really need to get some perspective on the important things in the world. Should it really be considered important - don't worry; multi-region players and NTSC capable TVs are very common here. If the office of the Prime Minister couldn't get hold of that kit, then I'd really despair...

 

[darien87]

I love that you guys have nothing better to do than ***** about stupid crap like this. You're all butt-sore over McCain getting spanked and you just want to show how unhappy you are.

Bottom line is, the last shmuck that you guys so blindly supported, turned this country into such a joke that the VAST majority of Americans thought that this guy that you hate so much was the best option to turn things around.

Deal with it.

 

[darien87]

As jostenmeat has pointed out - mountains and molehills.

Speaking as a Brit, I can tell you that politically, militarily and financially, the UK needs the US far more than the US needs the UK - i.e. a lack of UK support wouldn't make a whole lot of difference to US operations around the world.

The Brown/Obama meeting made the news here, and yes, it was registered that the meeting was cordial, rather than the Blair/Bush "love-in", but it's really not made waves.

I'm sure it'll yank a few anti-Obama chains, but right now, Brown is (rightly or wrongly) being blamed for the UK banking crisis, and Obama is still seen in a very positive light by many (quite possibly because he's not Bush). As such, he could probably call Brown a one eyed Scottish idiot (google it) and get away with it.

Oh, and if anyone thinks that giving someone in the UK some (allegedly) region 1 DVDs is a slur they really need to get some perspective on the important things in the world. Should it really be considered important - don't worry; multi-region players and NTSC capable TVs are very common here. If the office of the Prime Minister couldn't get hold of that kit, then I'd really despair...

Finally, a voice of reason. Pretty sad that it has to come from someone out of the country.

 

[mike c]

On point, as always Dave.

It was intentional, he doesn't seem to like the Brit's or Churchill:
"The Times of London immediately traced Obama's "disdain" for Churchill to Kenya, where Obama's grandfather was caught up in the Churchill-led suppression of the 1950s Mau Mau Rebellion..."

i knew there was a reason and not simply a "blunder"

I'm not suggesting that Britain and America will go to war (again), simply showing how the tone of diplomatic meetings can drive public opinion which in turn drives the direction of politicians. Blair took a lot of heat in Britain for his steadfast commitment to the US and that was a huge factor in driving him from office. This may play out in such a way that the Brits will consider the Yanks a bunch of ungrateful SOB's and hang the US out to dry in the UN, NATO or WTO. To be fair, Bush pushed a lot of friendly nations into an anti-US posture. Obama seems determined to push away the rest. Seriously, which nations are currently strongly allied with the US right now?

As to Obama's advisers, these are the same numbnuts that thought they could censure Russia in the UN security council for it's invasion of Georgia. At the time, I suggested that this idiotic response should preclude Obama from ever becoming president. This latest incident only reinforces that belief.

maybe Obama is trying to get back the other allies and kicking out GB from the bed, after all, there's only so much space on the bed

As jostenmeat has pointed out - mountains and molehills.

Speaking as a Brit, I can tell you that politically, militarily and financially, the UK needs the US far more than the US needs the UK - i.e. a lack of UK support wouldn't make a whole lot of difference to US operations around the world.

The Brown/Obama meeting made the news here, and yes, it was registered that the meeting was cordial, rather than the Blair/Bush "love-in", but it's really not made waves.

I'm sure it'll yank a few anti-Obama chains, but right now, Brown is (rightly or wrongly) being blamed for the UK banking crisis, and Obama is still seen in a very positive light by many (quite possibly because he's not Bush). As such, he could probably call Brown a one eyed Scottish idiot (google it) and get away with it.

Oh, and if anyone thinks that giving someone in the UK some (allegedly) region 1 DVDs is a slur they really need to get some perspective on the important things in the world. Should it really be considered important - don't worry; multi-region players and NTSC capable TVs are very common here. If the office of the Prime Minister couldn't get hold of that kit, then I'd really despair...

nice to hear a british POV. didn't know there was one here on AH. good thing i didn't say anything bad about brits

 

[Alex2507]

nice to hear a british POV. didn't know there was one here on AH.

We actually have a prominent well respected Englishman here at AH.
Not that sploo isn't prominent and well respected.
It came out wrong.

 

[highfigh]

FWIW, if only a lame excuse, lower expenditures are part of the new presidency. Heck, there were even NPR reports on how all of the parties were being catered with "blue collar" foods, so to speak, no more caviar, etc. Is it possible that he was advised not to shower them with super pricey gifts, in order to hopefully maintain the "public impression" that the new presidency is one of moderation, and not one of over spending? If that was the case, I'm sorry it seemed to backfire so terribly.

I'm waiting for a REAL blunder by Obama, and will await some of you guys to jump all over it. Keep your trigger finger ready. I'm sure they are!

If someone can explain how spending close to $800M (in receipts) for his campaign and $150M for Inauguration Day any kind of indication of lower expenditures for this presidency, I'd like to see it. That alone would have been the first phase of The Bailout but at least it was mostly privately funded.

Diplomacy is nothing, if not saying and doing the things that make the other side feel all warm and fuzzy. If someone gives you a gift that's really nice, it's bad form to give something that's really cheap. If he had intended to save money on things like these, he should have informed Brown of that, in advance. Also, returning Churchill's bust was not only rude, it was done as an attempt to remove a reminder of the previous President.

"in order to hopefully maintain the "public impression" that the new presidency is one of moderation, and not one of over spending? If that was the case, I'm sorry it seemed to backfire so terribly."

Moderation, eh? Obama doesn't know much about that. This administration is about giving things to people who should be able to get them for themselves but feel that they're entitled to them, paid for by everyone else. That's like taking a collection for charity and paying themselves for doing it, but not forking over a single penny of their own. This Presidency and Congress have already cost me a lot of my retirement savings- I can't freakin' wait to see what the total cost will be. IMO, after the six month mark, he'll start saying "You'll have to tighten your belts and give more", while he really should be saying "We'll have to...".

 

[krzywica]

If someone gives you a gift that's really nice, it's bad form to give something that's really cheap. If he had intended to save money on things like these, he should have informed Brown of that, in advance. Also, returning Churchill's bust was not only rude, it was done as an attempt to remove a reminder of the previous President.
.

If that was the case and he was or is trying to cut back on spending, you can buy a cheap gift (or have one made) that is much more thoughtful that this. Its like forgetting about a potluck at work on your way to the office and go ^%#& better stop at the Citgo and grab a bag or two of Doritos. Everyone knows you forgot, and that means you don't really give a crap.

 

[jostenmeat]

If someone can explain how spending close to $800M (in receipts) for his campaign and $150M for Inauguration Day any kind of indication of lower expenditures for this presidency, I'd like to see it. That alone would have been the first phase of The Bailout but at least it was mostly privately funded.

Diplomacy is nothing, if not saying and doing the things that make the other side feel all warm and fuzzy. If someone gives you a gift that's really nice, it's bad form to give something that's really cheap. If he had intended to save money on things like these, he should have informed Brown of that, in advance. Also, returning Churchill's bust was not only rude, it was done as an attempt to remove a reminder of the previous President.

"in order to hopefully maintain the "public impression" that the new presidency is one of moderation, and not one of over spending? If that was the case, I'm sorry it seemed to backfire so terribly."

Moderation, eh? Obama doesn't know much about that. This administration is about giving things to people who should be able to get them for themselves but feel that they're entitled to them, paid for by everyone else. That's like taking a collection for charity and paying themselves for doing it, but not forking over a single penny of their own. This Presidency and Congress have already cost me a lot of my retirement savings- I can't freakin' wait to see what the total cost will be. IMO, after the six month mark, he'll start saying "You'll have to tighten your belts and give more", while he really should be saying "We'll have to...".

I still think that this "gift" is a mountain made of a molehill. However you want to interpret my post.

Bush is and was so thoroughly hated in Europe, you have no idea. I used to live there for a couple of years. Bush could buy the other family haute-couture, whatever, it wouldn't matter.

read sploo's post.

Otherwise, as has been stated, there are more important things to worry about. I do not expect Obama to be perfect, for no one can, but to jump all over this like it's the beginning of WWIII is a tad overstated.

Or maybe it isn't to you. God forbid that my friends declare war on me for having bought less than ideal gifts.

 

[highfigh]

Bottom line- we can't afford to offend anyone and he should have thought of that.

 

[sploo]

Bush is and was so thoroughly hated in Europe, you have no idea.

...This may play out in such a way that the Brits will consider the Yanks a bunch of ungrateful SOB's and hang the US out to dry in the UN, NATO or WTO. To be fair, Bush pushed a lot of friendly nations into an anti-US posture....

I think it's worth pointing out the gap in perception between many in the US and the rest of the world. US politicians are incredibly skilled in presenting America to the American people (as an international force for good), but the reality of the actions on the ground are often very different. Sometimes the actions are deliberate, sometimes they're unfortunate interpretations of genuinely helpful behaviour.

In the UK at the moment, there really seems to be a growing feeling of having been taken down a dark path by the Bush government. Namely that Blair's ego was massaged by the neocons, and that took us into conflicts of limited positive value, and great losses. Also that we've ended up being complicit in the torture of prisoners. That those directing US operations in Afganistan and Iraq (at government level) never actually paid any interest to the UK point of view, and just used us to give a veil of legitimacy to their actions (i.e. we have coalition, we're not doing this alone).

I'm not claiming that any of the above is fact, just that this is the perception. For that reason, the idea that the Obama presidency is treating the UK badly must be put into perceptive. Having said that, as highfigh pointed out "we can't afford to offend anyone and he should have thought of that" - given that there's really little to gain from a perceived snub, yes, perhaps someone in Obama's administration should have advised on avoiding possible insult.

As Davemcc noted "Bush pushed a lot of friendly nations into an anti-US posture". The US is a massively powerful country, with incredible capacity for good. The problem is that, rather than being respected by your enemies and loved by your friends, the actions taken by US governments often result in you being hated by your enemies and feared by your friends. Sometimes that power is the problem - friendly nations know the US has the strength to do what it wants, even in the face of opposition. So, you can either stand behind the US (like Blair did with Iraq), try to stand in front and stop it (no one's stupid enough to do that), or stand at the side and criticize (most of the rest).

Not that sploo isn't prominent and well respected.

Infamous dear boy, infamous.

 

[mudrummer99]

Really? Our economy is tanking (as YOUR president leaves office), the world hates us (on the heals of a war YOUR president started, with what have been shown to be outright lies, I might add), and you are worried about something that could be construed as a snub? Gain some perspective on the world and bring real news here.

Mike

 

[lsiberian]

We actually have a prominent well respected Englishman here at AH.
Not that sploo isn't prominent and well respected.
It came out wrong.

No it came out just right We all know how they oppressed the Ape kingdom.

 

[darien87]

Really? Our economy is tanking (as YOUR president leaves office), the world hates us (on the heals of a war YOUR president started, with what have been shown to be outright lies, I might add), and you are worried about something that could be construed as a snub? Gain some perspective on the world and bring real news here.

Mike

They've got nothing better to do. I find it hilarious that small things like this are all they can find to complain about. But hey, they gotta complain about something, right?

In 60 days Obama already did more to help this country than anything Bush did in the 8 years he had the job.

Go listen to some more Rush Limbaugh.

 

[lsiberian]

I think it's worth pointing out the gap in perception between many in the US and the rest of the world. US politicians are incredibly skilled in presenting America to the American people (as an international force for good), but the reality of the actions on the ground are often very different. Sometimes the actions are deliberate, sometimes they're unfortunate interpretations of genuinely helpful behaviour.

In the UK at the moment, there really seems to be a growing feeling of having been taken down a dark path by the Bush government. Namely that Blair's ego was massaged by the neocons, and that took us into conflicts of limited positive value, and great losses. Also that we've ended up being complicit in the torture of prisoners. That those directing US operations in Afganistan and Iraq (at government level) never actually paid any interest to the UK point of view, and just used us to give a veil of legitimacy to their actions (i.e. we have coalition, we're not doing this alone).

I'm not claiming that any of the above is fact, just that this is the perception. For that reason, the idea that the Obama presidency is treating the UK badly must be put into perceptive. Having said that, as highfigh pointed out "we can't afford to offend anyone and he should have thought of that" - given that there's really little to gain from a perceived snub, yes, perhaps someone in Obama's administration should have advised on avoiding possible insult.

As Davemcc noted "Bush pushed a lot of friendly nations into an anti-US posture". The US is a massively powerful country, with incredible capacity for good. The problem is that, rather than being respected by your enemies and loved by your friends, the actions taken by US governments often result in you being hated by your enemies and feared by your friends. Sometimes that power is the problem - friendly nations know the US has the strength to do what it wants, even in the face of opposition. So, you can either stand behind the US (like Blair did with Iraq), try to stand in front and stop it (no one's stupid enough to do that), or stand at the side and criticize (most of the rest).




Infamous dear boy, infamous.

You know you can be pissed at us all we want, but you guys chose to go along. And I believe Blair is more to blame than bush. Blair had far more experience with Iraq than Bush. He could have been a voice of reason. Instead he gave one of the greatest speeches for a war I've ever heard. Seriously that was a good speech, but they made a mistake. Still Iraq will be better for it. Though the cost was great. No one can say Saddam didn't have it coming. And no one knows what would have happened if we hadn't gone into Iraq. The situation could be worse.

Historically speaking England and Europe has dragged us into more and bigger messes. gallipoli is a must watch for any person.

 

[Tarub]

GET THE #@*; OUT!!! ....Mister know everything cry babies!

 

[Davemcc]

Historically speaking England and Europe has dragged us into more and bigger messes. gallipoli is a must watch for any person.

So true but we get blamed anyway...how is that fair???

 

[rnatalli]

I think it's worth pointing out the gap in perception between many in the US and the rest of the world. US politicians are incredibly skilled in presenting America to the American people (as an international force for good), but the reality of the actions on the ground are often very different.

It isn't that our politicians are skilled, it's that the American public is far more gullible than many in the world.