Adversary Or Ally

Which one is the historical adversary and which one is the ally? Oh yeah.

I suppose this is what they call smart diplomacy.

The Anchoress sums it up perfectly.

I miss the swaggering cowboy. He may have been tongue-tied; he may have screwed up with an errant backrub, but he didn’t bow to royalty, he didn’t give embarrassing gifts to allies, he didn’t show the Dalai Lama the back door. He never said to a visiting ally (paraphrased) “I’m gonna go have dinner with Laura, and if you decide to obey me, I’ll be around.”

He didn’t shove his finger in the face of another country’s prime minister.

But he was considered the boor.

Oh, puke.


  1. Bush bowed to China, as well. In full commie regalia no less:

    In the picture with Harper, I'm looks like Obama is telling Harper to back off Ann Coulter.

    Also, I still don't get the love affair with the Dalai Lama. Where in does he fall in the heirarchy of the Catholic Church?

  2. Craig: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In the face of Communist China, an atheists regime, the Dalai Lama is closer aligned to our faith. In fact, Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy. Buddhism -- some Buddhism, anyway -- is a practice of contemplation and inquiry that doesn't depend on belief in God or a soul or anything supernatural. Therefore, the theory goes, it can't be a religion. So, one can be a Catholic Buddhist.

  3. Craig: Re: "In full commie regalia no less:" That is not a commie regalia. That is pre-Mao fashion of the Chinese monarchs & emperors. Commie gear is either militaristic or extremely plain - like those of the proletariat. An Bush's was not a subservient bow but an amicable one.

  4. Craig, it actually looks like Bush is looking at his newly acquired gift. This is not a bow at all.

    Rick, there is no such thing as a Catholic Buddhist, nor can there be (at least from what I can remember) for the very reason you state, it "doesn't depend on belief in God or a soul or anything supernatural." Buddhism believes in the achievement of enlightenment that one can achieve on his own. It makes man the ultimate being. Catholics, of course, believe in the necessity to rely on God and trust in His mercy and love to achieve ultimate satisfaction and eternal life. The two do not mix.

  5. Rick and Wayne,

    I admit Bush does look like he's trying to figure out how the buttons work on his new-fangled empirical (definitely not commie) duds.

    If Barry Hussein was photographed in a similar pose with a similar costume, however, what do you think wingnuts would claim was going on?

    Funny that you think the Dalai Lama is somehow less hellbound than the Chinese PM. I think alot more Catholics would agree with Wayne's perspective.

  6. Ahh but this is not the first bow, it is one of many.

    It is also critical to note the context in which this posting appears:

    Pres. Obama is viewed by many as having bowed to our traditional enemies/competitors both metaphorically, as an expression of his foreign policy, and physically-in person- many times now.

    At the same time, he has insulted and been dismissive of the British, chided the Israelis and stuck a finger in the eye of the Australians (as many of them now, cycloptically, see it).

    He has apologized over and over again for the US, and for such things as being an “arrogant” country, even “derisive” of Europe, for just one example. Simultaneously, many see his purposefully conciliatory tone towards China, Russia and others as a form of appeasement.

    Others disagree, but it is impossible to successfully argue that he has appeared TOUGH on the countries which jeopardize our national security and interests while being CLOSE with our traditional allies.
    That would be as erroneous as his comments about the peaceful nature of Islam, which also seem both out of place, and as a form of the same kowtowing that he appears to be delivering to the Chinese.

    When George W. held the hand of the Saudi king, conservatives and liberals both went nuts. That is b/c many on both sides of the aisle believed that the US was “beholden” to Saudi oil. And there is a picture of him being “beheld.”

    So. Point is, it is not as if there is a double standard here. It only seems that way, because G.W. was never seen as soft on those who would do us harm and was never seen as insulting to our allies.

    Who knows? Maybe G.W. even bowed MORE. But he didn’t do it with his policies at the same time, so, if he did – no one cares.

    So, given the context of Pres. Obama’s controversial national security policies, which many find to be dangerously naïve, soft on our enemies and hard on our allies, all the bowing and scraping…well…rubs some the wrong way. Ergo these kinds of photos and the concomitant angst.


Post a Comment