The Big Obama Administration Thread

Remove all ads!

Because the Founders were pragmatists. I don't think John Adams enjoyed bowing to the king; I don't even think he liked meeting with him. But Adams was willing to do what it took to advance the interests of his country. John Adams was a patriot first and the interests of his country always came first - even if it meant bowing three times to a despised tyrant.

 

Chandos,
presidents before him have not done that towards Saudi Kings, and US-Saudi relations have been good. From what I know Obama didn't bow to the Queen of England. Even if it was intended as a conciliatory gesture to the Islamic world it probably was a mistake. Presidents aren't mere emissaries or ambassadors. They, just like Kings, are also heads of state, equals.

 

I don't think it is a non-issue at all. It may be true that any gift may be criticized by one group or another, but at least a statesman's gift could be recognized by all as just that: a statesman's gift. Giving the ruler of a foreign nation something that could be bought in most any mall in the 1st world, or could even be ordered online without more than a few clicks and a credit-card, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the significance of the occasion. It's like the 3-year-old who gives their parent a dust-bunny for their birthday. The gesture is sweet, but it's not really the way to go. The 3-year-old is excused for being young and immature, and not really understanding things, but Obama can't be similarly excused. He's not a 3-year-old, he's an intelligent world leader.

 

Here are a few links that may prove helpful rather than the idiotic comments being tossed about by the conservative media. My suggestion, NOG, is to arm yourself with some real facts, rather than what the morons with an aganda would like us to believe. The fact is, NOG, is that the queen requested the iPod and Obama personalized it for her. You comment about something one can get with the "clicks and a credit card" is really nonsensical because almost anything can be bought, and I mean almost anything, with a few clicks and a credit card. Just look on eBay.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/what-does-one-g.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200904020002

They are chosen by the people thusly they are more than equal as legitimate heads of state. You know my feeling about the Saudis' and their tyrannical regime. I'm sure Obama did what the situation demanded. Do I think, personally, he should have bowed? I think when we bombed Iraq, we bombed the wrong country.

 

Chandos, thank you for being the first person in this thread to exhibit a little common sense regarding the iPod "controversy."

 

I would agree. Tyrannical or not, he was the representative of his state in all foreign affairs. Not treating him as such would not just be an insult to him, but an insult to all people of the country, and they would probably see it as such.

As for the entire IPod thing, I didn't follow it that closely. I'd guess the details would be the most important thing in such a case - it's not like the Queen can't buy pretty much anything she wants.

 

Sorry, LKD. I confused your post with NOG's. My bad. Please note that it has been changed.

 

I think you could have fairly directed that to me as well, given my earlier post. Thanks for the information, Chandos. Obviously the iPod was appropriate.

 

Chandos, thank youfor correcting me. I had not realized (or even considered the posibility) that the Queen had requested such a gift. As for the personalizations, are these pictures publicly available? As in, online? If so, then I again consider it nothing significant. If not, then it is a very fitting personal touch.

And as to things being available online, is that pen that was given to Obama, the one made from the sister-ship of the one the President's desk was made from, available online? That's the kind of thing that I think should be a gift to a head-of-state from another head-of-state.

As to the bowing, I only have a problem with it on one condition: if it is currently custom to bow before the Queen of England. I know that Obama didn't, but if that is simply because people don't do that sort of thing in the UK anymore, than it's not an issue. He acted appropriately to each head of state. If it is current custom, but he figured, as President of the United States, he didn't have to, then I have issue with him bowing before the Saudi King.

I'm guessing, though, that he didn't bow before the Queen because it is no longer custom to do so. Even as much as I dislike Obama, and I believe he has the potential to be a complete boob, I expect him to be at least that together.

 

NOG,
In the future whenever you may be distressed about Obama's actions you should consider the fact that it is most likely *you* who are under-informed about what is going on.

As intelligent as you are..Obama is more intelligent(I would bet large money on this assertion and doubt you would disagree - tell me if I'm wrong). As informed as you are(or believe that you are) Obama is more informed on the particular situation which he is dealing with.

The fact that there is so much controversey over the I-pod and a bow lets me know that Obama is doing a fantastic job. It's like Cliffs notes for political information slackers. Critics surely wish they had something better to talk about.

 

Cool, first warrantless wiretaps are ok for obama & now this, Obama to Appeal Detainee Ruling.

Didn't he spend most of his campaign talking about how disgraceful Bush’s handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay was? Asserting that they required access to federal courts and that military detentions were not necessary?

Now he has a change of heart & wants to do it the same way as bush. Thats just too funny.

 

Um.... Obama is appealing the ruling. He is going through the courts to do this. It's kind of silly to say that he is trying to deny the detainees access to the courts, when he is appealing a ruling made... in the courts. It's not the same thing as Bush did because Bush just ordered the detainees held - there was no court ruling made to be appealed.

Obama was critical of Bush and holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, but that's because it turned out that some of these people had actually done nothing wrong and were held without cause for 7 years. Obama never said that you couldn't detain someone, only that once doing so you actually put this person on trial and don't stick him in a prison somewhere for the better part of a decade.

Turning to a slightly different issue, how about Obama giving the OK to take out the three pirates with snipers if they had the chance? The buccaneer stops here! Wasn't one of the slams against Obama that he would be weak in military and terrorist matters (and I think the pirates would certainly qualify)? Don't mess with the Big O!

 

People, people! Let's focus on the real issues here. Like is the Obama's new dog really from a rescue shelter?

Another broken campaign commitment. Not only that, but the dog is a Portuguese water dog. "Water dog". Kinda similar to "Watergate", isn't it?

Oh, those evil-doers in Washington...

 

On the second part, I readily agree. Obama-et-all are surely more informed of the current practices in Saudi Arabia and the UK than I am. On the second note, I find intelligence a hard thing to compare between specialties. I'm quite certain there are a great many mechanical, physical, and natural systems which I could much more readily understand than he, while at the same time I don't doubt his grasp of legal systems and politics far extends my own. That being said, I try to never underestimate anyone's ability to thoroughly screw things up. This way, I'm rarely disappointed, but frequenlty pleasantly surprised.

Ah, but Aldeth, the point is that Obama is now arguing to deny these prisoners access to the courts. Yes, he's arguing it through the courts, but he's trying to deny them access nonetheless.

Yes, it seems Obama is turning out to be very much not what many expected. I look forward to some interesting years.

 

Yeah, I'm not happy about this, either, and find it more than a little surprising that he would make such a request. I really wonder why he feels it is so important that we not allow these prisoners habeus corpus.

 

IMO, he's been shielding the GWB administration. Otherwise, the GWB people would be held legally accountable for all the crap they did over the last eight years. I think there is a backroom deal in all this -- Poltics as usual, it seems. But that's just my opinion.

 

Probably true. Although by pursuing Dubya for all of the stuff he did, it would open himself up to the same treatment once he leaves office. I'm not sure that's a precident that he (or any other president) wants to set.

 

Possibly, although imo GWB left a more... controversial legacy than most US presidents. I think Obama is just trying to toe a middle line here and please, or at least not totally alienate, people on the right. Given the crises his presidency faces at the moment, he is probably trying not to incite any opposition where it is not necessary; a strong opposition on one topic may spill out into different areas.

 

I doubt there was any back door deal. No sitting president wants to see the power of the presidency diminished. If the courts want to restrict the power of the presidency, then only one court shoud be allowed to do so. President Obama is quite savvy in Constitutional law and simply requiring the proper court to make the decision.

On the political side, any unpopular decision about GITMO needs to come from the courts.

Aldeth: He is still weak on military and terrorism -- but he is showing he trusts his military leaders. And that's good.

Splunge: when you combine that with the Biden puppy scandal it really shows a disturbing trend in current administration. They clearly hate wayward pets and would rather see the mangy animals exterminated -- shelters will just turn into massive pits of death. This will be forever seen at the administration that killed puppies.

 

Oh certainly - one event does not make one into an experienced military leader. However, this was seen as his first test - and one that he definitely passed. While the pirate thing didn't do anything regarding his poll numbers (still right around 60% approval rating), I haven't heard anyone say that he handled the situation poorly.