Hullabaloo

Thursday, September 24, 2009

 
Don't Know Which Way To Turn

by digby

According to a Dutch newspaper, Obama refused to met with British Prime Minister five times. And Hot Air is jumping mad:

The reason is that Scotland’s leader - not Brown - recently released Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi recently. Brown supported this decision because it would improve Britain’s relationship with Libya (the power of the almighty dollarpound).

Megrahi should obviously never have been released. But insulting a loyal ally because of one (admittedly big) mistake isn’t exactly what I’d call smart diplomacy.

Especially not considering the fact that Obama has no problem whatsoever meeting with Iran’s, Venezuela’s and other anti-American dictators who have sponsored and continue to sponsor terrorism against America.

Many have speculated in recent months that Obama may treat Britain badly because of his personal history. Unlike most Americans he has no personal bond with this country.

Perhaps there’s something to that explanation, but you wonder how it is that he does treat, say, Venezuela well since he and his family have no personal history with that country either.

Here is my guess of why he rebuffed Brown not once, not twice but five times: Brown supports the war on terror, Obama does not. Obama holds Brown (partially) responsible for the Iraq War. He believes this war to be unjust. And as has become clear due to his constant bashing of his predecessor George W. Bush, he has nothing but contempt for those who decided to remove one of the worst dictators in modern times from power.

That or he simply sides with those he considers ‘the weak’ automatically; even if they’re enemies of the West.

Of course, it's highly unlikely that this story is true, but nonetheless, it's certainly evoked a confused response.

First, one would assume the 101st keyboarders would all be so aghast at the freeing of a terrorist who blew up an American Airplane full of people that they'd be thrilled by a president who delivered a little slight to those who did it. Who's the appeaser now, eh?

On the other hand, how could they be supportive of someone who "has no personal bond" with Mother England the way that Real Americans do. Not being white and all. (Or American, for that matter.) Of course, his mother's family goes back more than six generations to Kansas, Missouri and Illinois, but then they probably don't have much of a "personal bond" with mother England either. Besides, the "American identity" comes through the father --- everyone knows that.

As for siding with the weak, I thought Iran and Venezuela were mortal threats. If they are actually weak, it doesn't really matter if Obama sides with them or not. (Of course he isn't "siding" with them at all, but again, if they are weak, who cares if he is or isn't?)

And let's face it: you can count on one hand the number of people who don't have contempt for George W. Bush. That's doesn't settle anything. And seeing as Obama chose a Vice President and Secretary of State who voted for the Iraq war, I'm not sure it makes sense that he would diss a British Prime Minister for doing exactly the same thing.

The right is very discombobulated by this new Democratic president on foreign policy. They can't wrap their minds around the fact that so far, he's behaving like a run of the mill establishment hawk (as Greenwald thoroughly documents here) --- which is how they all act to one degree or another. So they flail about incoherently attacking and defending in different directions simultaneously without really knowing who the enemy is. It's fascinating.


.
digby 9/24/2009 12:30:00 PM |