Right or Wrong: Obama Bowing

4/5/2009:

Hoboken411 reader MidnightRacer was wondering what it meant when President Obama bowed down to the Saudis…

What does this mean?

Should one head of state deeply bow down to another? And if one bows and the other only wanted to shake hands, what does that communicate?

I’m not sure if you saw the video of the group photo during the G20 summit, but before the 20 leaders of nations sat down for the snap shot, they socialized as the cameras rolled. In the following clip, Obama and the King of Saudi Arabia see and walk towards each other. The King of Saudi Arabia raises his hand out in front as they approach to shake Obama’s hand (protocol for equal leaders of nations), but Obama instead bowed deeply, all the way to waist level in front of the Saudi King.

This begins at 0:50 (see far left of screen), and the bow happens at 0:54 in the clip.

All U.S. Presidents are told protocol before every meeting, so no confusion there. Is this even allowed in the U.S. Constitution, to bow down deeply to another leader of another nation? Lower staff maybe, but not heads of states.

The bowing down goes along with his disparagement of the U.S. to the leaders and Europe, while asying that Europe are the leaders of the world. Sometimes I have to wonder if this guy really doesn’t like America. Recall the campaign and his mentors. Also, there’s a link between who paid for Obama’s Columbia University education (Havard?) which the Saudi’s prefered not be made public years ago for fear of it being taken the wrong way.

Read more here.

Leave a Reply

309 Comments on "Right or Wrong: Obama Bowing"

matt_72
Member

rag – I think you don’t get what Katie was referring to when she revived this thread or the implications of it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044375842145565.html

Read the editorial. This stuff happens, it pretty much means nobody will ever want to put their name on anything b/c they don’t want to be held accountable at a later date b/c someone who disagreed w/ their decision decided to prosecute them.

matt_72
Member

[quote comment=”150915″]And maybe I am reading you wrong, but are do you think it is a bad thing for the executive branch to be required to consider the legality of their actions prior to executing them?[/quote]

They did consider the legalality. They consulted w/ the DOJ and the DOJ provided them w/ approval based on the law, their interpretation of it (as well as precedent), etc… and signed off on the CIA’s actions. What Obama is doing though is opening the door to the prosecution of the DOJ employees for the legal work they did b/c he disagrees with their legal opinions and the Bush policies in general. That is the problem. It isn’t a matter of legality, it is a matter of interpretation of what is legal and he wants to go after the folks who have a different interpretation than his own. This opens the door to reprisals happening every single time the White House changes hands – very nasty business.

Obama is perfectly w/in his rights to change policies, but to prosecute folks whom he disagrees w/ is almost Chavezistic in character. It is going to leave a very nasty taste in people’s mouths and next time Republicans get in the White House, some Democrat will pay the price.

rag246
Member
rag246

I assumed no such thing Matt. You assumed I did.

Back to the facts: BoA shareholders were screwed by a back room deal very similar to the kind that are screwing Hoboken taxpayers. Republcrats, DEmublicans, same thing to me on this one.

If and when Roberts is voted out, and it becomes obvious that he broke the law many times over, you will be screaming for his head on a stake. Just like you will be screaming for Obama’s if it is determined he evaded taxes, got a BJ in teh oval office from an intern, or whatever.

The irony that you fail to see is that your outrage and “concern” over this policy is more politically motivated than the policy itself. I think that’s funny. Anyway, I don’t care too much about the issue. I think if Obama wastes too much time going after the previous admin, with so many bigger fish to fry, he would be committing political suicide. Plenty of rope to hang himself with there. His choice.

Katie_Scarlett
Member

[quote comment=”150915″]And maybe I am reading you wrong, but are do you think it is a bad thing for the executive branch to be required to consider the legality of their actions prior to executing them?[/quote]
No, but I believe there is a fine line. And that saying it’s ok to prosecute the previous administration’s officials opens up a pandora’s box that will lead us down a bad path. It’s one thing for investigations to go on, it’s quite another for the president to publicly condone a political witch hunt.

FWIW, I was 19 or 20 when the Clinton/Ken Starr crap went down. And EVEN THEN I thought “This is ridiculous, they’re prosecuting him about a bj???”

Now what we have is the benefit of 20/20 hindsight used to determine whether what went on at the time was necessary, beneficial or even legal.

That bothers me a lot.

rag246
Member
rag246

And maybe I am reading you wrong, but are do you think it is a bad thing for the executive branch to be required to consider the legality of their actions prior to executing them?

wpDiscuz