Why Does Obama Bow Like a Weakling?

-By Warner Todd Huston

And for the award for the bowing-est president evah goes to: Barack Hussein Obama. Give him a round of applause, folks.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen and Democrats, too, this most supplicating of all presidents is at it again, bowing to the Chinese in a recent meeting. What is wrong with this man?

Here are the “best hits” of our weakling president lowering himself and our nation in front of kings, tyrants and foreigners the world over…


Bowing to Saudi tyrants


Bowing to foreign emperors


Bowing to communist dictators


Bowing to communist representatives


Bowing to simple mayors of U.S. cities


And today we get more bows to Chinese dictators

Seriously. What is wrong with this man?

This president is making us less safe every day. Let’s hope the work Bush did holds us over until we have an opportunity to oust this most dangerous of presidents in 2012.


This just in, the Obama Bow gauge.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Obama is an embarrassment.

  • Thinking bout your post, there is no problem with him man! I guess the problem is in you!

  • In reply to four:

    LOL, well one might point right back at you for your sycophancy for The One and wonder what is wrong with you? You know, I'd do that if we are all indulging pop psychology and all. But, really I can't tell anything much about you from your post and wouldn't presume to psychoanalyze you. But, I can tell one thing I think. You have an aversion to proper grammar. That does say something, I suppose.

  • In reply to four:

    This is now the FIFTH TIME our President has bowed to a foreign leader and the foreign leader did NOT bow back.

    Had Mr. Jintao returned the bow, this would have been a positive display of mutual respect. Because he did not, this becomes a disturbing show of one-sided deference inappropriate for our President in the face of a foreign leader.

  • In reply to four:

    Thank you for being part of the problem. The problem that makes it impossible for thoughtful Americans to discuss REAL problems we all face.

    Allow me to illustrate how big a fluff piece this is for you and the right wing noise machine you copied it from:
    http://thelonggoodbye.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/bush-in-china.jpg
    http://www.stolendroids.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bush_bow.jpg
    http://www.reformation.org/en-bush-king-abdullah.jpg
    http://dohiyimir.typepad.com/bush-abdulah.jpg

    non-issue... but go ahead and act as if the world is ending.

  • In reply to chillustration:

    Wow, are you disingenuous. Not one of your links shows Bush doing the same type of stuff that Obama does to every foreign dictator, enemy, or king he meets! Try again and next time gives us some links that are relevant!

  • In reply to chillustration:

    Ok, not that I like obama, personally I don

  • In reply to asdfghjkl:

    I understand what you are trying to say. I only ask this question: can you think of any other president that was attacked because he didn't bow to foreign leaders? I can't think of any. So for your idea to work, we'd have had to see other presidents criticized for not bowing. But, since there's never been a president attacked for not bowing that doesn't excuse Obama for bowing every where he goes. Oh, and if you'd bother to look at some other posts here you'll have seen that I HAVE attended protests and been involved otherwise. So, nice try, but next time offer an informed opinion.

  • In reply to asdfghjkl:

    Can you explain to me what Bush did that was so wonderful? Other than destroying the weapons Saddam didn't actually have, I can't think of one thing he did that was constructive.

  • In reply to Cheryl:

    "I can't think of one thing he did that was constructive"

    See, with a phrase like that you prove you are not really worth bothering with. EVERY president does things that are constructive. Much as I despise CommieObamie, much as I hated Clinton and Carter, even I must admit that they did some things that were good. (For instance, Carter successfully engaged with Sadat; Clinton did a fairly good job with the economy; Obama has not done too badly in Afghanistan thus far). But with such an ignorant claim that Bush did NOTHING well that means you are wholly uninformed, hopelessly partisan, and more or less a typical left-winger that has no real idea what they are on about. You are not interested in actual debate and truth you are only interested in your hate.

    You are not willing (and probably not able) to look at history, judge with an unbiased eye, and make a logical conclusion. In fact, I'd guess you know a few things you didn't like about Bush and have no knowledge whatsoever about ANYTHING any other president has ever done. In other words, you have no knowledge by which to make a comparison. But in that you are a typical lefty.

    So, I'll pass on your mindless, partisan, left-wing clap trap. But come on back when you want to get serious, won't you?

  • In reply to asdfghjkl:

    You remember who was president on 9/11 right? Or are you that ignorant. (Yeah... we were super safe under Bush.)

    After W. played cowboy all over the world, I say we need a president who at least acts as if he has respect for other people and countries. Before they're all as pissed at us as Bin Laden was.

    YOU and your hateful kind are making the world a dangerous place.

  • In reply to nixhexison:

    See, above, little Danny boy, see above.

  • In reply to asdfghjkl:

    (And I'd just love to hear it explained how starting neverending wars on simultaneous fronts makes us somehow "safer". Unless you mean that nobody will bother attacking us anymore when the economy finally runs its way into the ground and W. and his millionaire buddies hop off to an island paradise, laughing at you.)

  • In reply to asdfghjkl:

    Dude, you have wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much time on your hands!

  • In reply to mikechi59:

    Apparently so do you. Get a job.

  • In reply to mikechi59:

    You sir are an idiot. Bowing does not make anyone less safe.

  • In reply to milicz:

    ... and thanks for that in depth, intellectual comment.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    As much as your silly post deserves.

  • In reply to milicz:

    ... and as much as you are intellectually able to offer, too. So you have that going for you which is nice.

  • In reply to milicz:

    What precisely makes you think that bowing actually makes us any more likely to be physically attacked?

  • In reply to docleo83:

    Obama is showing all our enemies that he is submissive to them. This is the wrong message to send and begs enemies to treat us lightly. One does not have to be antagonistic to prevent being mistreated, of course, so I am not saying I want him to be haughty as president, but acting like a whipped dog invites being treated like a whipped dog. This makes us less safe.

    Name one other president that spent his entire presidency bowing in supplication before the leaders of other nations? (And don't say Bush because he simply did not do so) And also don't give me any song and dance and tell us that you think bowing is "respectful" because then you'll have to show me photos of other nation's leaders bowing in supplication before the other leaders THEY meet. You'll have a hard time finding such photos, I'll wager.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    What I'm calling into question here is the logical leap from "a President shows deference" to "this will incite attacks" which I do not think was adequately established in the preceding article.

  • In reply to docleo83:

    In my opinion, it's a logical leap to say that what he is doing is merely "showing deference." He is not showing deference, but weakness. Weakness provokes enemies. Trying to dismiss this as some mere gesture of politeness is absurd. Like I said, it was just your average, every day politeness this sort of behavior would be going on all the time. But it most decidedly does not.

    Let us invoke George Washington, the father of the country who said (and I paraphrase) the best way to assure peace is to be ready for war. In other words, it's peace through strength. Obama is most certainly not showing strength. World leaders DO NOT bow to each other. Only servants or people of lesser status bow.

    Obama makes a mockery of his important position by bowing for foreign dictators while giving the back of his hand to our allies.

    All of this makes us less safe.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Ok, lets say that I grant your entire point, and say that Obama's bowing does constitute a direct display of weakness. Let us a assume that a display of suplicatory social behavior by our executive directly generates an impression that the American Government is unable or unwilling to mount an effective military response in the face of an outside threat. What I would like for you to do is define exactly what kind of attacks you see this inciting, from whom, and when.

  • In reply to docleo83:

    That is an impossible task you ask of me under any circumstance. If I knew what other countries will do and when, I'd not be sitting here in the middle of the night writing a blog, I have to say!

    But, we've already seen what Obama's weakness has wrought. We've launched into a lopsided nuclear agreement with Russia, with Russia getting the better end of the bargain. We've seen the Iranians and North Koreans step up their efforts toward belligerence. We've seen the EU begin to assert a stronger hand (re, their recent decision to shut down our bank tracking of terror $, for instance). We've seen a lot of evidence that we are no longer being taken seriously by other nations and Obama's bowing and scraping to foreign dictators reinforces that appearance.

    But, I will not say here (because it would simply be impossible to say so with any degree of veracity) who will attack us and when.

    In fact, even if Obama has made us weaker, there is no certainty that anyone will take advantage of it. Being weak is one thing, but it takes an opposing fore to take advantage of it and I can't claim I KNOW that one will. But that they more easily CAN is enough for me to castigate this weakling president for it.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    3 times I have asked I have asked you to meet me on the field of honest and logical debate sir, and three times you have declined me by resorting to logical falsehoods. As the Christians say, I will no longer cast my pearls before swine. I will leave you to your awkwardly incomplete grasp of international relations theory and trouble you no more on this issue.

  • In reply to docleo83:

    Yeah, riiiiight. What would you know of "Christians"?

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you, MAT 7:6.

  • In reply to docleo83:

    You should read more than your one favorite quote because you are violating the Bible right here on this thread. You have failed to...

    "Listen to what is wise and try to understand it.
    Yes, beg for knowledge; plead for insight.
    Look for it as hard as you would for silver or some hidden treasure."
    Proverbs chapter 2

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    How precisely am I violating the Bible? As for your second point: I did in fact beg you for knowledge, 3 times and each time you refused to offer it up, resorting instead to base trickery and misdirection rather than answering my simple questions.

  • In reply to docleo83:

    Just like a liberal thinking the sentiment is all you need to be in the right. You begged, I suppose, but then you refused to try to understand. When you didn't get the precise, predetermined answer that was written in your left-wing play book you put your fingers in your ears and yelled "la,la,la" at the top of your voice so that you wouldn't hear. This is why there is no such thing as debate with a leftist. Unless the answers follow their programing, they cannot participate effectively. I feel sorry for you that you can't think freely.

  • In reply to docleo83:

    Will you point out to me exactly where you answered my question then?

  • In reply to docleo83:

    Sigh. Just read the above threads. It is pretty clear that I answered your question.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    No sir, it is not. What is clear is that I asked you for specifics, and you gave me unfounded, unspecific, moralizing platitudes.

  • In reply to docleo83:

    No, you asked for an impossible answer and then declared victory when the impossible could not be fulfilled. I replied with a logical overview of Obama's actions and where it could lead us to trouble. The answers were clear. You just couldn't hear them with your fingers in your ears.

    But, let's say I didn't answer your absurd, impossible question. Let me ask one of you in return...

    What did anything that George W. Bush did cause anyone to attack us?

  • In reply to docleo83:

    Firstly, I appologize if there has been some kind of miscommunication about what I am after. I was not trying to get you to offer some kind of conrcrete prediction of what attacks we would be subject to as a result of appearing weak. Rather, what I wanted to know was the mechanism by which appearing weak would incite attack, and from which groups. Which is to say, what is it about appearing weak that you think makes attack more likely? I am not asking for factual predictions, merely your own interpretation of the political power dynamics involved.

    As for your own question, I do not believe that I ever claimed that Georg W. Bush made us any more vulnerable to attack, perhaps you are confusing me with someone who commented on this post before I joined in. My personal opinion of George W. Bush's foreign policy decisions is that while they were monstrously inneficient, and probably not worth the lives or money that they cost, but did have the net effect of leaving us marginally less likely to be attacked than we were before 9/11. I believe that the initial invasion of Afghanistan was both strategically and morally sound, but that the decision to divert resources to Iraq BEFORE the pacification and rebuilding of Afghanistan was complete prevented either conflict from achieving its most desirable outcome.

    As for the more...ephemeral aspects of President Bush's conduct, specifically his general lack of deference to other world political figures, which some (but not necessarily myself) might see as belligerent, I do not think that it influenced the likelihood of an attack on the United States one way or the other. I do however believe that in the middle and later years of his administration it cost us numerous opportunities for strategic and economic cooperation which could have significantly reduced some of the strains we now find ourselves laboring under.

  • In reply to docleo83:

    Thanks for your reply on Bush. I disagree with your interpretation, of course, but one can understand your point of view.

    As to who might attack us (and remember this is not necessarily an attack here on our own soil, but could be) we have Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and your various al Qaeda/Islamofascist terror networks any one of whom could easily be emboldened by Obama's weakness. We were attacked on 9/11 due to Clinton's weakness, remember.

    Appearing weak causes enemies to become bolder in their agendas. Appearing weak with China, for instance, could easily lead to the Chinese taking over Taiwan, for one. Or expanding their influence in the Pacific Rim. Appearing weak could induce Australia to imagine that the U.S. no longer has their back and could drive them into China's arms.

    Appearing weak could embolden al Qaeda to reconstitute themselves and push their plans to attack our homeland into high gear.

    Appearing weak could induce North Korea to take a chance and put military pressure on South Korea.

    Appearing weak could give Iran the idea that they could step up their terror war in the mid east, or even drop the subterfuge altogether and directly engage Israel.

    Appearing weak could induce Russia to try to expand its influence further -- Putin wants to reconstitute the power of the old Soviet Empire, we all know.

    All of these things put our troops in danger, put our citizens in foreign lands in danger, and puts our interests and way of life at risk.

    I am not predicting that any of these things WILL happen because no one knows the future, but a weak America makes all these things more likely, not less, and this makes us all less safe.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    The perception of weakness that you are so afraid will get us attacked, is being perpetuated most by the people, like you, claiming it will harm us. If you (and those like you) were really so afraid of this so-called weakness, shouldn't you be trying to hide it from our enemies? Just calling a spade a spade.

  • In reply to jjstev3:

    You may be calling it a spade, but it certainly isn't logic.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Thanks for admitting it.

  • In reply to jjstev3:

    Ha, just like a half-sentient leftist unable to understand English. I pity your cretins, I really do. Now get back to the porn you usually use the Internet for.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    You should rethink your commitment to clarity. Don't blame me for not assuming your (used correctly, I don't have cretins, yet) meaning. Next time, you should proofread your posts before asserting that others are in error.

  • In reply to jjstev3:

    No, seriously. Learn to read. It will really help you in the future. Perhaps English isn't your native tongue. If so, then really study it harder. If it IS your native tongue I can only point to you as yet another example of why the left-infested educational system we have is a failure. Sad, but true.

  • In reply to jjstev3:

    Sir I am surprised at all the negative comments you have gotten. You are writing the obvious AND even put pictures for people to see. Smart move since most of his supporters have low IQ's. How can any American NOT be ashamed and humiliated when our President bows like that and it is not even returned. Why were they not returned: Because heads of state do not bow to anyone (well if I were president I would still bow to the Pope). Custom calls for a hand shake and smile and few pleasant words. You should of also wrote that bowing is not a sign of respect in Asia!!! Look it up! (Not you sir but others here who do not like your article) Maybe, just maybe America will finally agree with you when videos of Obama hugging the CEO of BP saying 'Good job, Boss" surface, and of Obama kissing the Iranian dictator on the cheek saying 'Im sorry for being mean'. Give it a year or two...

  • In reply to mrnice:

    Oh, it's not so surprising. ChicagoNow is a Chicago blog platform, after all, and Chicago is a left-winger's paradise. It isn't surprising that most of the folks that come to the ChicagoNow blogs are left-wingers. Thanks for your points and reply, though. I appreciate them.

Leave a comment