President of The United States Bows to Saudi King Abdullah

[SF-TX]

This is either the epitome of a clueless president, or symbolic of something much deeper. Either way, I find it rather disturbing for the President of the United States to bow before any foreign leader, especially the King of Saudi Arabia.

The bow occurs at 0:55:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...audi_king.html

[ShpBtch]

poor white trash AH LA "Joe Dirt" but one thing my sharecropper Mother always told me was I was never to bow to anyone...including the Queen of England.

I'm not judging or anything but I'm pretty sure only sheep bow.

[steel71]

This day and age, and we still have kings and queens floating around this planet--- the masses are asses..

[ksgbobo]

I dont get this guy. He is the President of the United States. Who the hell does he think he is bowing to some foreign monarch? Or to anybody for that matter. Ridiculous, just ridiculous, it makes me sick.

He probably thinks he is patching up all the "wrong" the Bush administration did over the years.

[nmap]

Clueless? With lots of staff and ample opportunity for briefings? And - with a reputation for intelligence?

Perhaps the supposed intelligence of the POTUS is overrated. There are hints, such as the extensive use of teleprompters, that this is the case.

Unfortunately, I cannot help suspecting the more troubling possibility.

[charlietwo]

Originally Posted by nmap

And - with a reputation for intelligence?

Perhaps the supposed intelligence of the POTUS is overrated.

I would argue that this term 'intelligence' has been hijacked by individuals incapable of translating their inner dialogue into anything worth listening to when it comes out of their mouths.

I know there's a quote out there about how knowledge without wisdom is a dangerous thing... unfortunately for our President, and the United States, you need actual experience to possess knowledge

c2

[Sigaba]

I'm convinced that Peter Sellers and Jerry Kosinski are laughing their asses off as we live through the twenty first century update to Being There.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I'm convinced that Peter Sellers and Jerry Kosinski are laughing their asses off as we live through the twenty first century update to Being There.

I traveled with my parents when dad was in MI. When mom and I went, we got packets that were extensive in such things as customs and protocol.
What to and not to do and all that.. some of the stuff I have seen in the past few days just appalled me. Perhaps I am much to much a stickler for manners. I believe they are important.

Back in the late 1990's when QEII visited Tampa. I got an invite to the reception. The Queen's advance person, made sure all of us women knew
the proper curtsey and what was and was not acceptable. Touching her Maj was not, unless she touched you first. I noticed that clip where Michelle O put her arm around her Maj. first... amazing lack of proper protocol those two have.

I just have to wonder why state is not not helping this man do it right. I don't care what he is... and what he is is highly subjective...but he represents MY country and as such I expect him to do it right.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by armymom1228

I traveled with my parents when dad was in MI. When mom and I went, we got packets that were extensive in such things as customs and protocol.
What to and not to do and all that.. some of the stuff I have seen in the past few days just appalled me. Perhaps I am much to much a stickler for manners. I believe they are important.

Back in the late 1990's when QEII visited Tampa. I got an invite to the reception. The Queen's advance person, made sure all of us women knew
the proper curtsey and what was and was not acceptable. Touching her Maj was not, unless she touched you first. I noticed that clip where Michelle O put her arm around her Maj. first... amazing lack of proper protocol those two have.

I just have to wonder why state is not not helping this man do it right. I don't care what he is... and what he is is highly subjective...but he represents MY country and as such I expect him to do it right.

Armymom--

Like you, I was really upset over that incident. Then, after reading some of Richard's and AFCHIC's comments, I did some research at the London Times website. I read an account that the Queen initiated the contact and that the first lady reciprocated. There was even a snippet of video in which the Queen seemed perfectly at ease with the gesture. <<LINK>>

It is my preference that this president in particular do more things 'by the book.' However, if he and his wife set up a dynamic in which the Queen of England herself feels a bit more comfortable--it took her forever to figure out what to do regarding the passing of the Princess of Wales--then I don't have much of a leg to stand on.

On the other fracking hand, he's got some folks in his own country that he should do more to put at ease. It is inconceivable to me that this president is more concerned with how he's viewed by unknown persons on the other side of the world than folks in this country because they happen to live in red states. So what? To paraphrase Sojourner Truth, aint they Americans too?

Yes, there are many who are never going to like him, his politics, or his policies. That doesn't mean these individuals, his fellow citizens, don't deserve his unequivocal best-effort to earn their respect. "Change" is not getting people who would have voted for you anyway to sing your praises.

Yeah, I'm bitter. And not just a little.

The video I saw on TV showed Michelle O, initiating the hugging or whatever you wish to call it.

I have to be careful in my assessments as I realize, this is one POTUS not only do I have grave reservations about his person, politics and motives..but that I just plain don't like the man. Therefore I am well aware that I am overly critical of his behavior. OTOH. Teddy Roosevelt has a quote that I am quite fond of.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919)

TR also said: Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president

Originally Posted by Sigaba

On the other fracking hand, he's got some folks in his own country that he should do more to put at ease. It is inconceivable to me that this president is more concerned with how he's viewed by unknown persons on the other side of the world than folks in this country because they happen to live in red states. So what? To paraphrase Sojourner Truth, aint they Americans too?

Yes, there are many who are never going to like him, his politics, or his policies. That doesn't mean these individuals, his fellow citizens, don't deserve his unequivocal best-effort to earn their respect. "Change" is not getting people who would have voted for you anyway to sing your praises.

Yeah, I'm bitter. And not just a little.

You are kidding me right? Remember we are dealing with a man who wrote his own autobiography by the time he was, what?, 40? He thinks highly of himself. Therefore, why should he care what us peons think. After all we are mere taxpayers, beneath his notice.

[Richard]

Anybody here ever been POTUS?

I've personally come to think of winning that job as being similar to Tessie Hutchinson's 'winning' The Lottery, and - much like what I've read in this thread - the reactions of Americans in general to any POTUS as being symbolically similar to Tessie's fate...and to what Shirley Jackson herself experienced with its publication in The New Yorker in 1948.

In Come Along with Me, Jackson recalled the hate mail she received in 1948:

One of the most terrifying aspects of publishing stories and books is the realization that they are going to be read, and read by strangers. I had never fully realized this before, although I had of course in my imagination dwelt lovingly upon the thought of the millions and millions of people who were going to be uplifted and enriched and delighted by the stories I wrote. It had simply never occurred to me that these millions and millions of people might be so far from being uplifted that they would sit down and write me letters I was downright scared to open; of the three-hundred-odd letters that I received that summer I can count only thirteen that spoke kindly to me, and they were mostly from friends. Even my mother scolded me: "Dad and I did not care at all for your story in The New Yorker," she wrote sternly; "it does seem, dear, that this gloomy kind of story is what all you young people think about these days. Why don't you write something to cheer people up?"

The New Yorker kept no records of the phone calls, but letters addressed to Jackson were forwarded to her. That summer she began to regularly take home 10 to 12 forwarded letters each day. In addition, she also received weekly packages from The New Yorker containing letters and questions addressed to the magazine or its editor, Harold Ross, plus carbons of the magazine's responses mailed to letter writers.

Curiously, there are three main themes which dominate the letters of that first summer—three themes which might be identified as bewilderment, speculation and plain old-fashioned abuse. In the years since then, during which the story has been anthologized, dramatized, televised, and even—in one completely mystifying transformation—made into a ballet, the tenor of letters I receive has changed. I am addressed more politely, as a rule, and the letters largely confine themselves to questions like what does this story mean? The general tone of the early letters, however, was a kind of wide-eyed, shocked innocence. People at first were not so much concerned with what the story meant; what they wanted to know was where these lotteries were held, and whether they could go there and watch.*

Sounds like a familiar pattern. Why would anybody want to be POTUS when it looks as if it's a lot more fun to be a dart than to be the dart board?

Richard's $.02

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lottery

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by nmap

Clueless? With lots of staff and ample opportunity for briefings? And - with a reputation for intelligence?

Perhaps the supposed intelligence of the POTUS is overrated. There are hints, such as the extensive use of teleprompters, that this is the case.

Unfortunately, I cannot help suspecting the more troubling possibility.

Teleprompters....did someone say teleprompters....

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Richard

Why would anybody want to be POTUS when it looks as if it's a lot more fun to be a dart than to be the dart board?

Ego.

TR

[Sdiver]

Originally Posted by armymom1228

I just have to wonder why state is not not helping this man do it right. I don't care what he is... and what he is is highly subjective...but he represents MY country and as such I expect him to do it right.

Well look who he has as SecState and I'm sure you'll find your answer.

Originally Posted by Sdiver

Well look who he has as Sec State and I'm sure you'll find your answer.

That was a smart move Sd. It neutralizes two of his biggest critics. Who, as is happens, are well known to be team players with the Dem's.

A person can be extremely intelligent, but not good at speaking extemporaneously. He is both, its obvious. Watch him stutter and dig for an appropriate comment. Look at that slip on one of the Sunday talk shows, "my Muslim faith" has been played over and over, and soundly dissected and re-dissected by the right. Is he or isn't he, and what did he or did he not mean by that slip of the tongue. It bored me to tears eventually.

I have to agree with Richard being the dart is a whole bunch more fun.