Obama's coolness with the British PM

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 7:16 PM Share

I wonder the arm's-length treatment if it has anything to do with the possibility that the Brits may have tortured his grandfather in Kenya while holding him for two years.

vielliesannonces/flickr

EXPLORE:BRITAIN, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

(5)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

GUY

12:08 AM ET

March 5, 2009

Whilst its an interesting

Whilst its an interesting theory I imagine not. Obama is a good enough statesman not to let things like that get in the way. I hope so anyway. Even with the Kennedy's and their IRA connections its never gotten too bad.

I think its more likely a result of Browns current dire political position. Simply he's a loser. Therefore why would Obama waste his greatest asset, his popularity, on someone who probably won't be in office too much longer.

RPM

12:57 AM ET

March 5, 2009

when the chips are down...

"Obama is a good enough statesman not to let things like that get in the way."

Let's see... In a single week we have snubbed our closest ally, stumbled over the explanation/spin related to a seemingly poorly-considered letter to our greatest rival over the past 60 years, and drawn concern among the fledgling democracies of Eastern Europe. Meanwhile we seem increasingly naive to the most serious threat - Iran. Vague speeches to adoring crowds are not diplomacy. This meeting with the PM was actual diplomacy - and he had an agenda that did not include being respectful of our most important ally.

Playing games with important semantics like "special relationship" is just plain stupid - and political, rather that diplomatic. The UK (and Canada) are the only nations we can really count on - particularly in Afghanistan (I've heard that the president plans to be successful there). The EU has ignored his initial request for additional support. He might need some real friends to make dream a reality.

So let's just reserve judgement on the proposition for a bit, shall we?

DATROY

10:38 PM ET

March 5, 2009

I've read this elsewhere, and

I've read this elsewhere, and if it's true it is the height of irresponsibility. He was not elected President to carry out personal vendettas for a wrong committed against someone he barely knew decades ago. My grandfather had all of his teeth knocked out by Black and Tans, and other members of my family were victims of British brutality in Ireland So what? Am I supposed to not like the British now? I really, really hope there's some other reason.

As for the British atoning for their sins, they've bent over backwards for years to make sure they do absolutely nothing that could even be interpreted as insulting or offensive to any group. Hence their completely absurd ban on Geert Wilders entering the country. You can strongly denouce his positions and his movie, but a ban on entering? For what? B/c it might incite violence? Shouldn't the focus of the government therefore be on those who would be reacting to a movie with violence? Britain has certainly done more to atone for their past, even if they go about it in entirely the wrong way, than countries like India have done to thank the British for the good things gained from colonialism - like modernity.

DATROY

10:39 PM ET

March 5, 2009

They told me if I voted for

They told me if I voted for John McCain we'd continue to alienate our closest allies, and they were right!

BLUE13326

11:19 PM ET

March 5, 2009

If true, he shouldn't be

If true, he shouldn't be president. He should be putting America first, rather than old grudges.