What is Obama's problem with Great Britain?

Winston Churchill rightly called the bond between Great Britain and the United States a "special relationship," and its strength has greatly served both countries and the cause of freedom around the world. Yet President Obama in just nine months seems to be doing his damnedest to damage that relationship at every opportunity. We all remember the details of what can only be described as high-level petulance:

  • unceremoniously sending back the Churchill bust without even a thank you note;
  • snubbing UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown in his first visit by not having a joint presser (which is quite odd coming from a guy whose desire to stand before the cameras and pontificate is unmatched in presidential history);
  • giving Brown the insulting afterthought gift of unusable DVDs while Brown presented thoughtful and meaningful gifts reflective of the long friendship of Britain and America;
  • sending lackeys out to say: "There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment." (No. If you want special treatment, it's better to be a thuggish dictator like Hugo Chavez, who has never had to beg for face time.); and
  • giving the Queen of England an iPod of his speeches.

It's a string of shameful embarrassments from the man who was supposed to rescue our foreign policy from the bumbling idiot from Texas who supposedly couldn't get anyone to like him or America. I note that Obama is quick to apologize on the world stage for every real (and mostly imagined) sin perpetrated by the United States — all of which happened before Obama arrived to redeem us, of course — but not only can he not apologize for his boorishness towards our greatest and most important ally, he keeps doubling down.

Via Scott Johnson at Power Line, we learn the latest instance of Obama giving Great Britain the back of his hand. Apparently, Gordon Brown had asked repeatedly to be granted a brief audience with The One, and was rebuffed by the Obama administration. Brown had to resort to scrambling through the U.N. kitchen and trapping Obama somewhere between the line cooks and the walk-in. This kind of treatment towards the leader of a country that has sacrificed 217 soldiers in Afghanistan — you know, that war Obama said was not a "war of choice" but one we "must win" — is disgraceful.

Or, as David Hughes of The Telegraph of London puts it in the headline of his blog post: Barack Obama's churlishness is unforgivable. The whole post is brief, but powerful, so I paste it here in its entirety:

The juxtaposition on our front page this morning is striking. We carry a photograph of Acting Sgt Michael Lockett - who was killed in Helmand on Monday - receiving the Military Cross from the Queen in June, 2008. He was the 217th British soldier to die in the Afghan conflict. Alongside the picture, we read that the Prime Minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes “face time” with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House.

What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America’s staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President’s graceless behaviour is unforgivable. As most members of the Cabinet would confirm, it’s not a barrel of laughs having to sit down for a chat with Gordon Brown. But that’s not the point. Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact. You might have thought that after the shambles of Mr Brown’s first visit to the Obama White House - when there was no joint press conference and the President’s “gift” to the Prime Minister was a boxed DVD set - lessons would have been learned. Apparently not. Admittedly, part of the problem was Downing Street’s over-anxiety to secure a face-to-face meeting for domestic political purposes but the White House should still have been more obliging. Mr Obama’s churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street.

Scott offers an apology to the British people. I extend the same, and ask again: What the hell is wrong with this guy? I took a little flak back in March when I observed the defining characteristic of Obama's foreign policy seemed to be to piss off our allies and curry favor with our enemies. Not much has changed. Obama's obsequious speech before the UN Wednesday was applauded most heartily by the worst tyrants in the world — the same tyrants who always seem to have nice things to say about President Obama but always had awful things to say about President Bush.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather British journalists had reason to praise my president, rather than call him out for churlishness and graceless behavior. And I rather British Prime Ministers didn't have to re-enact a Benny Hill sketch to catch up with an American president.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/6654

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I won't defend Obama's behavior

...because it's kind of inexplicable. I don't think we need to be obsequious to the Brits, but this is kind of weird.

If I had to guess, though, it might be because of this. It would certainly explain the return of the Winston Churchill bust; Churchill was prime minister at least part of the time Britain was brutally suppressing Kenya's Mau Mau uprising. (The UK wasn't really a force for light and good until it lost its empire; funny that.) The Queen was monarch during that time.

Doesn't explain being rude to Brown. But I guess I'd not feel a need to be overly nice about or to the people who tortured my grandfather.

RE: Mau Mau

Of course, I'm familiar with that. But as President of the United States, Obama needs to put even deeply held personal feelings aside in such matters. The presidency is not "his," it's ours. It's the nation's. He represents his country, not himself, in diplomacy.

And when you're president and the prime minister of a country that is sacrificing lives in a war you support and want to win (or even if you oppose the war and want to retreat) ... you take 15 minutes and you sit down and talk with him. Obama gave more time to the Sunday show anchors — hell, I think he's given more time to David Letterman alone — than he has to Gordon Brown.

It takes a lot for me to feel empathy for Brown. Obama's done the trick.

I believe the term is

Un-Fit.

Obama is unfit to be America's representative if he is carrying a grudge against a power that no longer exists, and is now supposedly what he wishes the US was more like.

But I'm not surprised. Obama is all about Obama.

Baldilocks is the Blogger Who's Go-to On This

She's got some very interesting musings on Britain, Obama's family, and African uprisings in the 50's that might shed plausible light on Mr. Obama's embarrassing treatment of the UK and her representatives.

.
"Don't confuse political savvy with competence or principles." -- RobbL, 2009

RE: Baldilocks

I'm familiar. See "Mau Mau" above.

No excuses. The title of this post was rhetorical ... and designed for gaining the un-Monkeyed eyes on the social networks.

The answer is simple

... all you have to do is examine the sum total of his "work" so far and understand his background and history. I simply consider him to be a personal enemy.

which one

seriously, which one? Obama or Whatshisface.

Ya gotta be a little more specific on this site.

BHO

Barack Hussein Obama -- mmmm, mmmm mm