Will President Barack Hussein Obama Bow To Any Other World Leaders?

Oh, yeah: Abdullah...the guy that Bush was photographed multiple times strolling with while holding hands, and even kissing in a disturbing display of man love...though to be truthful, it was probably less a homosexual PDA than a means of maintaining his administration's shady ties to the Royal Family. Or then again, perhaps it was a little of both... :)

@#1
No different than Barack Obama kissing Nicolas Sarkozy today
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0iDxEhz-Js

@sqlman It's not about Bush anymore. He sucked. It's because of him that we have Obama. Now it's Obama's turn. "Change we can believe in." Or as Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek says, "a way to hell."

@Sqlman,
Dr is right.
Late breaking news to all Obama supporters: Bush is no longer in office.

Yeah, because Czechoslovakia is such a sterling example of how a country should be managed that the world should hang on every word uttered by Topolanek...who, by the way, lost a no-confidence vote this week, leaving him a PM in name only ... :)

@notablenotices: but we weren't talking about Sarkozy; we were talking about King "Win A Dream Date With George Bush!" Abdullah. Weren't we? (And here are some photos of that previous love fest: http://media.photobucket.com/image/Bush%20holding%20hand%20saudi/myconsumerclub/231_saudi.jpg)

Yeah, Obama bowed, but it wasn't the show of submission some would think; it was, rather, a normal, appropriate, and protocol-driven sign of respect and courtesy. As always, the only folks making a big issue out of the whole thing are those on the Right who just can't stand the fact that the guy now in power is an affable, decisive, articulate, intelligent, well-liked, widely-respected, and effectual leader of the type Bush could never even conceive of, so their confusion and ire and grasping at small things is understandable (if not forgivable). FWIW, we call such things "sour grapes".

:)

sqlman,
You describe Obama as "affable, decisive, articulate, intelligent, well-liked, widely-respected, and effectual leader". Do you know who else was affable, decisive, articulate, intelligent, well-liked, widely-respected, and an effectual leader? Adolph Hitler. Just because someone is likable does not mean that his policies are best for the country. Why don't people understand that?

Also, did you just call a black man articulate? That's racist!

Anyways, that bow just looked awkward. I could understand a head nod or a small bow, but Obama looked like he was trying to lick his own shoes.

Actually, the context in which calling a black man articulate was called "racist" so widely a year or two ago was when expressing surprise that a black man could be "articulate." So who was the one person here expressing surprise over the articulate description and also drawing attention to the fact that Obama is black? If the shoe fits, wear it.

As for Obama licking his own shoes, it did not look like that at all. To describe the normal practices of another country in such denigrating terms looks like more proof of the above description.

@potatp: it's only racist to call a black man 'articulate' if one is doing so in comparison to all other blacks (who, in the racist's mind, are laregly inarticulate and slobbering fools). I wasn't. I was, rather, comparing Obama's ability to articulate--albeit sometimes haltingly--even the most subtle thought, as opposed to the famously error-prone and mangled babblings of his highly inarticulate predecessor.

And, no, being likable does not necessarily make one a great leader for a country in deep economic distress. But being likable--as opposed to, say, swaggering, brash, arrogant, cocky, and wholly unlikable--does make it that much easier to lead both the nation and the world out of this dismal financial swamp. The U.S. can't go it alone; Bush's many failed foreign policies proved that once and for all. No, to find our way out of this mess, we're going to need the support--and, yes friendship--of other countries. Obama's eminent likability will help make that happen.

:-)

@sqlman:
You missed the obvious reference to Joe Biden
http://www.observer.com/20070205/20070205_Jason_Horowitz_pageone_newsstory1.html

Don't take that comment personally! :-)

The racist thing was sarcasm guys. It was a joke.

Sqlman, I completely disagree that every country has to like the USA to revive the economy. In fact, any feasible economic recovery plan will result in many countries being very pissed at the USA. The only way to effectively revive the economy is by lowering corporate tax rates to attract businesses (thereby creating jobs), opening up the borders (immigrants earn at least minimum wage, pay taxes, and become part of a cheap labor force which would also attract companies), and legalizing hemp/marijuana (creates a whole new industry at least as large as tobacco and alcohol AND creates jobs for unskilled workers). All of those policies would make other countries mad at us. Obama will not lower corporate tax rates, he won't open up the borders, and he has specifically said that he won't legalize marijuana. Seems like he is too concerned with being likable and not concerned enough with reviving the economy.

The only recovery plan I have seen from Dems is to borrow money from China and give it to companies that have already proved to be financially irresponsible.

what's the deal here?

should he have punched him in the face right away? a "world leader", as you call him yourself? of course, a US citizen doesn't have to play by the rules of respect, I know ;-)

IMO, it is a civilized way to show someone else your respect - even if you do not agree politically. it might be unfamiliar to you, but there are different ways to greet in different cultures. Inuit would have used their noses, the French like to kiss on the cheek - which the POTUS did too - so, is he gay?

I just can't understand that behaving like a respecting person is interpreted as a weakness. that's beyond my knowledge and understanding of diplomacy.

I'm tired of this "it's just a part of their culture" crap. Did the Saudi King bow to Obama? NO! So if bowing is such an important part of their culture why didn't the King do it?

kruijs,
You asked, "so, is he gay?". Actually he did kiss Mr. Sarkozi but not Mrs. Sarkozi....

The video shows lots of different forms of greeting and respect. There's much hand shaking, hugging, some cheek kissing, shoulder patting, head nodding, and one unrequited deep waisted bow.

President Obama bowed to the Saudi king, because that is how one pays respect to the Saudi king. The Saudi king didn't bow to Obama because that is not how we in our culture pay respect to our President. Geez.

In reference to your phrase "In a gesture of dhimmi subservience," in the background: you are implying that "dhimmi" refers to a lower caste. That is not at all what it means, and it is not applicable in any sense to this situation. "Dhimmi" refers to an Islamic system of protecting non-Muslims in Muslim countries. Clearly, the US is not a Muslim country, and President Obama did not make a gesture of "dhimmi subservience,: but simply a gesture of respect to another leader. Perhaps you learned a new word, but you don't quite know what it means yet.

@emmag:

Don't they throw shoes at the king to show their respect? :-)

Hee hee... I like what Biden said: Barack Obama is offering charming but insubstantial fluff.

"you are implying that "dhimmi" refers to a lower caste."

WRONG. You may be inferring that, but I certainly wasn't implying that. I didn't imply anything. I came out and said "In a gesture of dhimmi subservience...". The term dhimmi was used as an adjective to enhance my description of his subservient bow. It has nothing to do with your fantasy of some kind of lower caste. I don't know where that came from. A dhimmi is a subservient subject who pays tribute to his Muslim ruler, and is a second class citizen to the Muslims. With poetic license it fits here.
:)

@potatp
I noticed that too, made me think ...

:-)

Saudi King Greeting Spurs Obama 'Power Bow' Craze
by Scott Ott

(2009-04-03) - When the most powerful man in the world bent at the waist, and lowered his gaze to greet a Muslim monarch at the G-20 summit in London this week, he could not have known how the gesture would catch on back home. But that's just what's happened.
The so-called 'Obama Power Bow' has become a new craze embraced by the rich and famous, as they continue to emulate everything about their chic new American president.
Saudi Arabian King Abdullah received the traditional expression of fealty and servitude from the U.S. commander in chief with evident glee, smiling broadly - his grin superseded only by that of French President Nicolas Sarkozy who looked on with apparent admiration and a touch of envy.
Now, from the offices of Wall Street to the corridors of power in Washington DC, executives, senators and corporate leaders have taken to kowtowing to their subordinates as an expression of ultimate power.
"When you approach a man and lower your head like that," said one unnamed CEO, "and you expose your unprotected neck, it's like you've got swagger on steroids. If the guy had a sword, he could chop your head off and you're saying, 'I'm not afraid of you'."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president was not actually bowing, but "merely assumed the position before the Arab king in an effort to see if he could find common ground."

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3470

"give it to companies that have already proved to be financially irresponsible."

wups, sounds that someone is urging for some kind of regulation - someone I didn't expect to do so.

btw, if the way Obama "bows" for Muslim leaders would be all that severe - would Rasmussen have been the next NATO secretary general?

@#22:

Read it again... if anything, I interpret that as urging regulation of the government, not by the government.

@numbertwentyfour
I guessed you would try to avoid any kind of regulation?

Why no, not at all. I am all for regulating the government! :-)

let's see: would you have made this statement, say, four months ago?

Ok, that was the short answer. Here is what I mean:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

-=-

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

-=-

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

-=-

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

-=-

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

-=

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

-=-

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

-=-

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

-=-

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

-=-

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

@notable
you're overshooting with your copy/paste session. can we have the intermediate version of your personal opinion on "government", "regulation" and "of" resp. "by"?

Ok, I admit, that was a very long version. I will try again.

Here is a quote from one of the American founding fathers:

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry

In other words, unrestricted politicians will take liberties with our freedoms. It is important for citizens to regulate this tendency by selecting their representatives wisely, and remind them they will be voted out if they try to overreach.

It boils down to individual responsibility. I want to be responsible for my own actions - if I make smart choices, I will reap the benefits without the government there to ration them. If I make poor choices, it is a risk I take, and I do not expect, and should not want, the government there to lessen the impact of a bad decision - if it were any other way, a bad decision would be more attractive, and, by the same token, good choices would loose their appeal.

It doesn't look like bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia made any difference in this editor's opinion:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=121129&d=3&m=4&y=2009
Let’s face it: The so-called new plan is nothing but Bush’s old wine in Obama’s new bottle. So much for the “Change We Can”! Looks like the pundits who mocked our boundless adulation for Obama and celebration of “change in Washington” were right after all.

...

I hate to spoil the party so early in the day but it seems this administration has become a prisoner of the overarching, disastrous legacy of its predecessor.

...

it’s disappointing to see our prophet of change who promised a revolution at home and around the world is walking, eyes wide shut, into the trap set by the Bushies. Save for a new, euphoric spin by the State Department’s mandarins, there’s little new in Obama’s “new” Af-Pak policy. In fact, it’s set to perpetuate the tattered and failed legacy of a failed presidency.

...

But does Obama honestly think his plan offers the key to the conundrum of Afghanistan-Pakistan? The new strategy is supposed to be the outcome of weeks and months of rethink. To most of us though, it looks and sounds like recycled Bushspeak. “To the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you,” said Obama looking directly into the camera, reminding you of a certain “with-us-or-against-us” Texas Ranger.

---


And so on. Maybe he should try the "full prostration on ground" option next time!

Wow, I never would have believed it. Nice question!! I think he is bowing to the OIL... As he knows we will be on oil for quite a while.

Nice comments everyone.. I agree with its meaning...

Remember this?

The President's Inclination: No, It Wasn't a Bow-Bow
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/19/weekinreview/the-world-the-president-s-inclination-no-it-wasn-t-a-bow-bow.html

...
It wasn't a bow, exactly. But Mr. Clinton came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan.

...
There was that curtsy, during the Reagan years, when Lenore Annenberg, herself the chief of protocol, forgot herself entirely and did a little dip to greet a visiting Prince Charles. That prompted a stern warning from Miss Manners against those who might mock the effort that "was once put into freeing Americans from the necessity of bending their knees." Soon afterward, when Nancy Reagan greeted Queen Elizabeth II behind closed doors, her press secretary acknowledged that Mrs. Reagan had bowed her head but insisted, "It was definitely not a curtsy."

...
Administration officials scurried to insist that the eager-to-please President had not really done the unthinkable.

"It was not a bow-bow, if you know what I mean," said Ambassador Molly Raiser, the chief of protocol.
[Read the full article at the link]

'The White House today again denied that President Barack Obama had submissively bowed last week to Saudi King Abdullah, updating the official version of events to portray it as a “torso flexing move designed to administer a friendly head butt to the Muslim monarch — an amped-up version of the fist-bump he often shares with the First Lady.”...'

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3517

President Barack Obama has bowed to the Emperor of Japan and revealed his childhood affection for green tea icecream as he pushes stronger US ties with Asia.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6567670/Barack-Obama-bows-and-talks-of-green-tea-icecream-as-he-pushes-US-ties-in-Asia.html

I can't believe it's not satire

Why's that? Do you have something against green tea ice cream?

Oh, wait, I'm sorry. I suppose the Right will now be upset that Obama didn't walk up, slap Empress Michiko on the ass, then high-five Emperor Akihito while grinning like some West Texas wannabe frat boy buffoon. Though you guys likely won't be quite so mad as with the previous photo, since, you know, neither the Emperor nor the Empress have black skin or wear a thobe.

Who beat me to the punch? I knew there was going to be at least one bow in Japan, but forgot to add to my position B4 the trip.

How low will he go?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html

The pic:
http://www.drudgereport.com/

Obama's botched bow

Bad enough that Obama bowed down to another head of state yesterday. Even worse, he did not bother to learn how one bows in Japan, and just winged it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/obamas_botched_bow.html

Yes, according to the right wing LA Times,
"Very low bows like this are a sign of great respect and deference to a superior.

To some in the United States, however, an upright handshake might have looked better. (See Cheney-Akihito photo, right)."

It's not just the right criticizing Obama. It's a pretty well rounded criticism I see going on.

My, how the ‘press’ has changed.

Flashback: New York Times blasts Clinton for … almost bowing to Akihito:

“THE WORLD; The President's Inclination: No, It Wasn't a Bow-Bow” - New York Times, June 19, 1994

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/19/weekinreview/the-world-the-president-s-inclination-no-it-wasn-t-a-bow-bow.html

Obama desires the world love him.

Look at what notablenotices found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U6fL7Y4BZA

The Submissive One did it again!

Obama Bows Before Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao...
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20091118/i/r3100408959.jpg?x=400&y=280&q=85&sig=D34F4tkrlJgAMShzwJxVNA--

Wow.....this really sucks.

I wager that our president bows twice.......and I loose!!

Hope n' Change

@Erik - I hate to kick you when you're down, but:
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff182/darleenclick/blog%20images/ramirez_20091117.jpg

:-D

^5 to FOF.....

What's sad is the truth in it.

In re: Notable’s find noted in #44 brought to us by FOF -

Wonderful find.

Would have been a bit better had it ended with General of the Army Douglas MacArthur and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, USN accepting Hirohito’s surrender. (in his tux)

He's the latest one
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/toon-of-the-day-1.html

Not a surprise, but quite revealing to get to know, what blogs you're following.

oh, and why hasn't nobody from the right requested settlement yet, and still Erik is betting large on the "more than 2 bows" as if it had happened already? either it hasn't happened yet, or Erik is betting on an known outcome.

We haven't requested settlement yet because he's only bent over twice since the first bow of submission to that Arab guy. If you believe the president is finished bending over, 3% on 2 more bows, or 1 full prostration on ground is a fantastic price.

@drzinternet - hee hee... funny

but, f_o_f, tell me, you weren't aware of that blog yet? hmm. but, not a surprise, but quite revealing to get to know, what users you're dangling after.

and, urm, who is "we"?

well, I'm not counting, but a single bet, resulting in a spike of +55% on an option, usually is a clear indication of gaming. which brings me to this question: it doesn't matter from now on, whether he does a prostration on ground or simply bows the next time, right?

LOL..........Barry O isn't near finished.

Oh kru....What you can see isn't all of it.

I've had over 17k on 'More than 2 bows or prostrations'

"...or Erik is betting on an known outcome."

Duh!

@kruijs - Of course I've heard of atlasshrugs... I was laughing at the cartoon of the Anointed One bowing to the Burger King.

The "we" was in response to: why hasn't nobody [sic] from the right requested settlement yet

Correct, per my understanding, a prostration or another bow results in option 3... but if during the next three years the prez can resist the urge to bend over then it settles on option 2.

@drzinternet - please correct me if I'm wrong.

I hope Obama does continue to bow where and when appropriate. Perhaps if Bush had showed a little mutual respect to leaders of other countries and other cultures--that is, aside from the hand-holding, boot-licking he performed for the Saudis--the United States wouldn't be hated and reviled quite so much as it is in many places throughout the world. National security doesn't only come from greater defense spending; there are many other components to an overall strategy for which Bush earned a grade of 'F'.

Just like Former President Richard Nixon, a Republican, who can be seen in a Life magazine photo from 1971 bowing to Akihito’s father, Emperor Hirohito, who ruled when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.

In an online State Department posting from 2007 titled “Protocol for the Modern Diplomat,” envoys are advised to be aware of greeting rituals such as kisses, handshakes or bows and to follow a country’s tradition. “Failure to abide with tradition may be interpreted as rudeness or a lack of respect for colleagues,” it says.

What's wrong with the POTUS following a Protocol issued by the Sate Department during the George W. Bush years?

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/obama-s-bow-did-the-president-grovel-1.1595604

I remember to have read somewhere that the US President should not bow to a non-democratic leader, like a king or emperor or clerical leaderships because it would contradict the US' understanding of democracy. Personally, I can follow that argument. But OTOH, I understand any decision to follow a protocol which shows respect to foreign leaders too.

@fof, I'm surprised that the cartoon seems to be new to you. and with "we", you mean "anybody from the right"?

@Erik, no offense, I was just asking, and recognize that you aren't betting on a known outcome.

>sql #60
That appeasement strategy usually works pretty well...

‘Iran plans enrichment sites in defiance of UN’
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_sc/ml_iran_nuclear

@FOF Yes, I got 2 also.

@sql #60- Have you thought of going into politics. Your constant "spinning" of issues borders on the psychotic. Even Obama fans and those familiar with Japanese protocol have criticized him. Yet you "hope Obama does continue to bow where and when appropriate," in other words, to make a fool of himself, and by extension of the US. In cases you haven't noticed, his kowtowing to the emperor wasn't considered appropriate. In fact, quite the opposite.

@Erik: So: it's "appeasement" to follow established and respectful protocol? Let's see:

ap-pease'-ment noun 1) the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous.

Hmmm...perhaps I'm missing something. But, okay, I'll take your larger point: that Obama should comically strut around the world stage with his cowboy hat cocked low to one side, high-fiving and ass-slapping and shoulder-rubbing every nation's leaders...oh, wait, Bush already tried that. Yeah, that worked really well for him and for the United States, didn't it?

@drzinternet: thank you for recognizing the qualities in me that would qualify me for higher office. Thanks, but no thanks; I'll stick to posting insightful and intelligent commentary here and elsewhere. ;-)

Sql......I see you’re still cutting and pasting from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

Too bad that you didn’t include the rest of the entry:

“The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany between 1937 and 1939.
Appeasement has been the subject of debate for seventy years among academics and politicians. The historian's assessment of Chamberlain has ranged from condemnation to the judgment that he had no alternative and acted in Britain's best interests. At the time, these concessions were widely seen as positive, and the Munich Pact among Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy prompted Chamberlain to announce that he had secured "peace for our time".[2] The word "appeasement" has been used as a synonym for cowardice since the 1930s and it is still used in that sense today as a justification for firm, often armed, action in international relations.”

@Erik: I'm a frequent contributor to Wikipedia* under several different names and in several different areas; simply throwing Wikipedia out there in a disparaging way doesn't work. Having said that, though, let's look at something you included: "At the time, [Chamberlain's] concessions were widely seen as positive, and the Munich Pact among Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy prompted Chamberlain to announce that he had secured 'peace for our time'."

Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

At any rate, before you stray to far off the track--as you so often do in such matters--I want to remind you that I only defined appeasement for you because you wrongly used the term in regards to Obama's recent displays of presidential protocol and decorum. So, in a nutshell: A) Showing respect is not the same thing as appeasement, so please stop acting as if it is. B) Appeasement isn't always a bad thing, so please stop acting as if it is.

* - You ridicule me for going to Wikipedia...yet you clearly did the same thing yourself. Pot? Kettle. Kettle? Pot... ;-)

kru>
Indeed, I ridicule Wikipedia...and you, for constantly citing it as some sort of fountain of facts and knowledge.

But I digress.

Yes, I clearly did the same thing in consulting wikipedia. I went to that sight on the assumption that it was where you got your definition of “appeasement.”

And guess what?

There it was...an exact quote, minus more pertinant information that you excluded in your post and still refuse to see. Specifictly:

“The word "appeasement" has been used as a synonym for cowardice since the 1930s and it is still used in that sense today as a justification for firm, often armed, action in international relations.”

Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

No American president has spent more time abroad in his first year in office than Barry O..

But what does he have to show for all his gallivanting across the world stage and countless apologies for America's past?

Almost nothing, except for adoring crowds, and bemused monarchs surprised by groveling bows from the most powerful leader on the face of the earth.

It is a monumental task to come up with any concrete foreign policy successes from Barry O.

On the Iranian nuclear crisis, arguably the biggest threat to international security of the Obama presidency, his strategy of engagement with the mullahs has only emboldened them and renewed their determination to press ahead with their nuclear weapons program.

On Afghanistan, Barry O’s dithering on whether to send more troops is seriously damaging America's standing as a world power, and undercutting the fight against the Taliban.

As for the global War on Terror, it no exists.
It has been replaced by the "Overseas Contingency Operation," the sort of name given to a glorified U.N. peacekeeping operation.

The humiliating surrender to Moscow's demands over scrapping Third Site missile defense, and the decision to throw Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus in the face of Russian intimidation, will erode faith in the United States across the Atlantic for a generation.

In a further snub to Europe, the president couldn't even be bothered to attend the ceremonies marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall - one of the greatest events in the history of the past century.

Before he took office, the president boasted of "restoring" America's "standing" in the world. He has succeeded only in weakening America's defenses, eroding Washington's alliances, and embarrassing the United States with a series of diplomatic gaffes and humiliating mea culpas.

The Obama administration has embarked on a staggeringly naive appeasement strategy towards some of the most brutal and dangerous regimes on the face of the earth, from Tehran and Caracas to Khartoum and Rangoon.

The world needs powerful U.S. leadership in the face of an array of deadly threats, from the Al Qaeda network to state sponsors of international terror. Sadly, all it is getting are TV spots, motorcades and contrition.

From a legitimate source, Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ap·pease
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ap·peased; ap·peas·ing
Etymology: Middle English appesen, from Anglo-French apeser, apaiser, from a- (from Latin ad-) + pais peace — more at peace
Date: 14th century
1 : to bring to a state of peace or quiet : calm
2 : to cause to subside : allay <appeased my hunger>
3 : pacify, conciliate; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles


That’s right -
“to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles.”


Hope n’ Change

Erik, you meant sqlman, I think.

My mistake, Kruijs. You are correct.

He's such a sensitive chap
President Obama told me to stop ‘demeaning’ him, says Rep. Conyers
...Obama’s decision to challenge Conyers highlights a sensitivity to criticism...
...Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, “[Obama] called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal...
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/71075-conyers-obama-told-me-to-stop-demeaning-him

O-bow-ma Finds Someone To Bow To In Copenhagen
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/12/18/o-bow-ma-finds-someone-bow-copenhagen
Check out the video. After his brief, listless and cliché-ridden speech in Copenhagen ["time for action, not words," "we should live in the future, not the past"] that aired live on Morning Joe today, Pres. Obama makes the hand-shaking rounds on the podium.

He continues the glad-handing off the podium, until he spots someone and breaks into . . . a bow [screen cap after the jump]. With all the mulling around, it's hard to determine exactly what's going on. It looks like he might have been exchanging bows with a man in the scrum surrounding him. But PBO's bow seemed to go beyond the perfunctory head-nod that in the circumstances surely would have satisfied, say, Japanese etiquette.

[More at the link...]

lol
Obama critics found something they could label "Bow" in Copenhagen.

But, hey, seriously, come on, that's silly!

http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/12/obama-once-again-bows-to-dignitary-as.html

www.weaselzippers.net/.../obama-bows-again-this-time-in-copenhagen.html

Sure looks that way to me.

Isn't it wonderful that all we have to debate is how respectful the President is as opposed to how ignorant, aggressive, or asinine?

So let me see if I can get this right: Obama is leading this nation rather quickly out of near financial ruin brought on in no small part by the Cheney administration; he's almost single-handedly raised the nation's status abroad--so badly damaged by eight years of Bush--which is as important to our national security as any other facet; he's pulling our troops from Iraq, where they were sent on a pack of lies created and massaged by Bush; he's adding troops to Afghanistan, where military commanders have long said they needed to be to take care of those who were actually behind the 9/11 and other terrorist attacks; he's spearheading health care reform, long neglected by the 'compassionate' Right; and he's doing his best to force something(s) meaningful to be done about global warming. At the same time, The GOP is in tatters, with infighting and the realization that they face the triple whammy of an aging and decreasing membership, a growing--and rightfully-earned--reputation as "The Party Of No", and the utter lack of any viable 2012 Presidential candidate. All that--and so much more--yet the best you guys can come up with is a lengthy discussion about respectful gestures the President occasionally makes to foreign dignitaries?

Um...okay. If that's all you got, I reckon that's all you got. Kinda sad though, no?

Wow the statist's are sensitive on this one! You know they are nervous when they instantly go into full circle-the-wagon mode and start getting defensive at the news! LOL

Obama is leading this nation rather quickly out of near financial ruin

lets see about that say late next year. this is far from over imo.

he's almost single-handedly raised the nation's status abroad

what exactly do you mean by that? what new friends do we have now that we didn't have in the past? same question for enemies. if by status you mean more liked, then i guess you might have a minor point.

he's pulling our troops from Iraq

yea same as bush was going to. (does S.O.F.A. ring a bell?) only difference is obama is annoucing it loudly and proudly. which could come bak to bite him in the butt.

he's spearheading health care reform

which you roundly critized just the other day as being a bonanza for the insurance companies. you agreed with howard dean.

he's doing his best to force something(s) meaningful to be done about global warming.

i'm glad he's failing. i'll give him an A for effort tho.

The GOP is in tatters, with infighting

yea its the GOP who can't get their members (with super majorties in both houses) to pass cap & tax, and are trying to buy 60 votes in the senate to get HCR passed.

so throwing in a lengthy discussion about respectful gestures the President occasionally makes to foreign dignitaries might be a bit of piling on, but we're nothing but a bunch of kool-aid drinking zombies who follow the orders of beck and limbaugh so cut us a break. :O)

"A visibly angry Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet at China and other developing nations Friday, declaring that the time has come 'not to talk but to act' on climate change," Politico.com reports.

Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s first closed-door meeting with world leaders in Copenhagen to forge an agreement to slow climate change had a notable absentee: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

While the U.S. leader and Wen later met privately for almost an hour, China’s premier didn’t show up for a second meeting with Obama and other leaders this afternoon, adding to speculation the world’s two biggest producers of greenhouse gases are far apart on an agreement to fight climate change....

Wen’s absence from the morning meeting with Obama and almost 20 other world leaders stemmed from displeasure with the U.S.’s demand that all major emitters verify their actions to cut greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, said a delegate who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the talks.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&sid=ap9r.wegLncA

Maybe Wen didn't show up to the meeting because he wanted to follow the president's advice and not talk. But in any case, isn't it terrible that President Bush is alienating foreign leaders with his imperious my-way-or-the-highway approach?

Oops, I meant President Obama.

WSJ

Do Mayors count as world leaders?!?!

U.S. President Barack Obama bows to Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio at MacDill Air Force Base on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010 in Tampa, Fla.
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//100128/480/b07861589f354ce698c3bf88b741d692/

@f_o_f:

I wonder if Mr Obama would still have bowed had he known about this:

Iorio says she won't issue any more CAIR Day proclamations
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/jun/11/111851/iorio-no-more-cair-days/news-breaking/

Future world leader:
http://feedyouradhd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/020210obamahead.jpg