You’re kidding me…
The Telegraph has a column up about how Obama’s lukewarm reception was explained by the fact that Obama is simply exhausted.
Let’s put that aside for a moment, because buried in the article is this quote:
The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.
The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: “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.”
I’m going to go knock my head against the wall for a little while…
It sounds like Obama’s hatred of the British may well be motivated by revenge.
But if so, he needs to realize that few other Americans are going to let him put family history ahead the needs of the country.
Apart from the reason, who thinks the snubs are deliberate?
Not only that, but the article said Obama was “overwhelmed” by all the responsibilities of the job of President. He hasn’t even had time to “fake interest in foreign policy”. He still thinks this crisis is a “great opportunity”
I’m beginning to think that not only did Obama and his team not understand what the job of President entails, but he is far to ambitious for what the team he has in place can do. To stretch an analogy, he is trying to run in the Olympic’s (and win) before he can walk.
I don’t think there has ever been a more ambitious first hundred days. He is not only trying to revive the economy, but change health care and way we generate energy. Any one of these would be hard but all three? And he is doing it without his entire team in place. That seems to be folly to me.
I think it would be better to concentrate on just one thing. Maybe even just a subset of the economic situation. Most of the time people who try to do to much fail at everything — and may even make things worse.
Six months? What leads you to believe this team can get it together in six months?
Flipping it, I think impeachment would take a lot longer too. So I’m still wondering at the six months timeline.
ho ho ho I’ll tell that to some of the British I know in the Mediterranean coast.
_Your decadency is now officialy certified, welcome to the club!_
…that Obama is simply exhausted.
I believe that, actually. It struck me during the campaign that he tired easily and I wondered how he would hold up if elected. Many successful leaders have crazy amounts of energy, but Obama isn’t one of them.
[sarc]But Sarah Palin – now that would have been a disaster[/sarc]
The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: “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.â€
What can you expect he must have got out of the bed the wrong side?!
No doubt the Telegraph will entice the US to speak more of why Britian is nothing special.
The USA … where is that now?
🙂
I spoke Friday with a local friend who is ex State Dept/FSO – who has absolutely no knowledge of the specific circumstances or intent of this visit – but conjectures, based on his knowledge of protocols both observed and breached, that the lack of ceremony was indeed a snub – but one directed at _Gordon Brown_ in his capacity as _politician_, not Great Britain.
Basically, my friend speculates that the White House read was that Brown is a lame duck politico who was attempting to use Obama to prop himself up, has deemed expendable, and was therefore accorded no special consideration.
The Prime Minister is only the head of _government_ in Britain, not the head of _state_. Disrespecting a head of state (in this case, “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, etc.”) would be an insult to the nation, and would be cause for consternation.
Drudge linked a piece (didn’t read) suggesting that Obama was interested in meeting the Queen; this is consistent with my ex-FSO friend’s thesis.
With respect to the Telegraph article: I agree with Marcus, something smells wrong. The quotes are just a bit too over the top.
Also, the Telegraph is reputed to be a Tory paper. Other blogs and columns in that paper also took offense to Obama’s short shrift. Why they are conflating Gordon Brown’s honor with that of their mother country is odd… unless… the diplomatic calculus of the White House did indeed parallel what my friend conjectured, and somehow the ground has shifted to negate that calculus.
There are really terrible tensions between the US/GB/EU right now due to the financial crisis. There is a great deal of finger pointing going on – sadly everybody is pretty justified in their accusations and lame in their defense. These are not normal times.
Still, I doubt this response to Brown by Obama was uncalculated or uncalibrated, nor was it necessarily negligent – though it could turn out to have unforeseen repercussions.
Since I took time in the last eight years to defend Bush from criticism I thought unfair, I’m happy now to defend Obama from same. I believe, sadly, I’ll have a surfeit of opportunity to level perfectly reasonable critiques in due course. But not today.
That may be so, but Gordon Brown’s fate as a politician is none of our damn business. Getting involved in the party politics of a democratic ally is a huge diplomatic no-no. It is not Obama’s job to tell Brown he’s a lame duck.
And yes, Brown is not head of state, but that distinction is meaningless here. Summoning one of her Majesty’s ambassadors and urinating on his shoes would not be regarded as a mere personal insult. Still less her prime minister.
Even if that were true, does it really reflect Obama’s promise of a new day for US foreign policy? A petty snubbing of the first representative of our closest ally (whatever the justification) is smart diplomacy? I don’t buy it. The upside is dubious at best while the down side is obvious, given the reputation Obama has crafted himself.
Yes, only the chosen one can go to a “foreign country”:http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,567804,00.html and be treated like a celebrity.
I notice that when Obama campaigned in London, Brown would only appear with the candidate in the garden, “not on the front steps.”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/26/barackobama.gordonbrown I suppose being allowed only around back, must have stung.
lewy14:
bq. The read I’m advancing is that Brown attempted to leverage tradition and protocol for his own partisan advantage, and Obama refused to be so played.
Of course he did, and so what? I would assert in reply that all foreign visits by heads of state are partially intended for domestic political consumption. What was different about this visit that justified the behavior of Obama and his staff?
“The Prime Minister is only the head of government in Britain, not the head of state. Disrespecting a head of state (in this case, “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, etc.”) would be an insult to the nation, and would be cause for consternation.”
Nicely nuanced, now I want you to walk into a working class pub in the UK and explain that to them, because I am doubtful that THEY will understand.
It is really fun to see the apologists for ‘The Won’ scramble here:
‘Oh, he is tired.’
‘Oh, it really is only the PM who is a lame duck anyway.’
Etc, etc, etc…
My take:
Rookies will make rookie mistakes.