I was just wondering what people's reactions were to the President of the United States genuflecting before the King of Saudi Arabia.

(Or do you doubt that was what he was doing? If so, any alternate theories?)

Hi Vicki:
I haven't seen the footage. It's evidently not a big deal here. They showed Obama with the President of Turkey on the news. I do know that Abdullah is half as tall as Obama and he may have been bending down to talk to him. Both Obamas were taller than Prince Phillip of Great Britain, and he is tall. If I see some footage, I'll be back.

Artemis

You can see a still photograph and also video footage here

The still photo is rear view, and clearly shows the president's bended knee - which is why I refer to the president "genuflecting", rather than simply "bowing". (To me, the king looks surprised, the man to the left amused.)

The video (at 0:53 seconds) makes it clear that the president is not stooping to speak, or to pick something up, or to gaze at something on the floor, etc. (Which, if one had only the still shot to go by, might seem plausible.)

*What* the president did seems to be undeniable. The significance (or insignificance) of what he did is currently being hotly debated.

The American mainstream media isn't going to show anything that has the potential to embarrass the Obamas. Remember that Michelle Obama actually touched Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in public view somwehere other than her gloved hand just a few days ago. That's a major-league no-no, even if the Queen seemed to invite the contact. (What might happen out of view of the cameras is a whole different matter.)

And we heard about it over here, but the media didn't jump down Michelle's throat over it. I don't know how Britons feel, but most Americans didn't think it was that big a deal. England is our friend, right? And they have to put up with all of our idiocy.

Barack Obama isn't being held to the same standard of behavior that his conservative predecessors were. If George Bush had behaved in this manner, he would have been excoriated in print and on the small screen for days. This - we don't hear very much at all about it. Why? "It's not a big deal." Or, "He's still new, still learning." Or, "Who cares? It's not like he fired a missile at him or something."

For the most part, the US media is not objective. We'll continue to receive biased reporting on the Obama administration for the next four years, unless he does something so exceptionally stupid that it can't be ignored. I don't think this falls into that category, so by "definition" it's not a story.

Barack Obama is going to break a lot of rules in his presidency and set a lot of precedents. Some of them will out of ignorance (because either he wasn't briefed properly or he didn't listen), and some will be Barack being Barack. My impression is that this falls into the latter category, but that's just my impression.

Whoever the president is (I didn't want Obama to be president) I don't think our president should genuflect to a ruler of another country. I don't know why he would do something like that and IMO it was a dumb idea. I also think that Michelle Obama putting her arm around the Queen of England shows a distinct lack of class. I think someone needs to sit down with her and teach her some etiquette.

Tara

Actually, I had the wrong Abdullah (there are so many of them) in mind. I was thinking of the King of Jordan, who is shorter than his wife. But the Saudi King? Yikes. I don't know what he was thinking.
I agree with Terry's thinking.

Artemis

Actually, no it's not. The Palace specifically issued a statement to say, no it's not. The Queen initiated the contact. If I remember rightly, there's some archaic nonsense about not talking to the Queen before she speaks to you, first and contact probably follows the same rule, but Michelle made no breach of any protocol that anyone is aware of.

Furthermore, the only place I saw this cause a fuss was on the US news media. I didn't even know it had happened until I went into HuffPo and saw it there.

It was barely mentioned here in the UK and the tabloids which did mention it were taking an amused and affectionate tone with it. There was certainly not much in the way of outrage.

As for the Turkey visit - haven't seen the footage, but I suspect it's just more fuss over nothing. :p

If people want to see something Obama is doing wrong, they'll be sure to find it, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

LabRat

I have no doubt there exist people who hate Obama so much, they will go out of their way to find any error they can. Likewise, the president has supporters who are so faithful, they will find a way to dismiss, downplay, or deny any errors at all.

Hopefully, the people on these boards can look objectively at the footage and have an intelligent conversation regarding the appropriateness of President Obama's actions in an open and honest manner, without being accused of purposefully looking for errors nor close-mindedly denying them.

The first step, of course, would be to actually look at the video in question.

I watched the video in question. That was an extremely deep bow to the ruler of a foreign nation. Definately not something the president of our nation should be doing.

Tara

Well I watched it and wouldn't call it obeisance. It was quick and probably too deep to be proper, but people were milling about. It was an informal moment before a photo shoot. Heck, I've seen Generals in full Army and Marine uniforms hug each other in a public meeting. It doesn't really signify anything. If the whole room was watching Obama approach Abdullah in a formal situation, that's a different animal.
And for the record, I didn't vote for Obama.

Artemis

Americans shouldn't bow at all unless there's a round of applause to respond to. Definitely not to people.

As for Michelle touching the Queen, well, in the photo I saw it was one of those side-by-side hugs for the camera, and understandable that Mrs. Obama would reciprocate the gesture the Queen had made. And hey, it's better than bowing or curtseying.

I'm inclined to roll my eyes and move on, but clearly enough people thought it was a big deal that the palace felt the need to issue a statement of "it's not a big deal."

I was more interested in that lovely state gift of an iPod, thoughtfully pre-loaded with audio and video of Obama's greatest hits. Dude, when you need a last-minute gift, don't go to Wal-Mart. They've got some really fancy department stores in and around DC. Someone on the staff should have been able to find their way to one to pick up something nice. I'd be embarrassed to give that sort of thing as a wedding present, let alone to a foreign head of state.

PJ

At least the movies will play - as opposed to the reportedly Region 1 DVDs the PM got...

So the DVDs didn't play. But that's okay, 'cause the PM is going blind anyway, so what difference does it make, really?

PJ
who would really like to think that the President knows more than she does, but is starting to doubt it.

For what it's worth, here are my thoughts on the bow:

Obama did not greet any other dignitary in a similar manner. He greeted Queen Elizabeth, for example, with a handshake and a nod of the head. Thus, it seems obvious that he did not greet King Abdullah as he did because he thought it was proper protocol for greeting royalty.

I have to ask myself what is special about the King of Saudi Arabia that would cause Obama to bow to him in this manner. I do not believe, for example, that this greeting has anything to do with America's dependence on Saudi oil. So, what else could it be?

The very first impression that I got when I saw the video was that Obama was kissing the King's hand. The scene immediately reminded me of that of a Catholic kissing the Pope's ring.

"Custodian of the Two Mosques" (or "of the Two Holy Shrines") is a pious title previously claimed by various caliphs, and now held by the King of Saudi Arabia. The King of Saudi Arabia is considered the protector of the two holiest cities in Islam: Medina and Mecca. It has traditionally been the custom to kiss the hand of the Custodian of the Two Holy Shrines.* Could this be what Obama was doing?

If so, why? One answer, obviously, would be that Obama is a Muslim. Mohammed was known to have given approval for Muslims to feign conversion when it is expedient to do so, as long as their hearts remained true to Islam.

However, there are other explanations, too. Perhaps, like the Episcopal priest, the Rev. Ann Holmes , who recently proclaimed, "I am both Muslim and Christian," Obama feels it is possible to follow both religions simultaneously. Or, perhaps even though his conversion to Christianity was genuine, the bow was a reflex reaction, a case of "old habits die hard." Maybe he was just showing his respect for Islam.

Whatever his current relationship to Islam, it is my belief that Obama was not bowing to the King as Head of State, but rather as Custodian of the Two Holy Shrines. The motive was religious more than political (IMHO).


*I thought Pam's comment about hoping her president knows more than she was amusing, in light of the fact that Obama was apparently unaware that King Abdullah made a decree back in 2005 eliminating the custom, as he declared that bowing before a king was an unseemly act of idolotry.

Oh Pam, I love that!!

And I truly feel if it had been Bush instead the media would be ALL over it.

Sue

No American is supposed to bow to any foreign ruler, period. Not a rich man (or woman) or a poor one, and definitely not the President of the country.

Nan

P.S. And yes, I have seen the video. It was unquestionably a bow.

Oh, not the Obama is a Muslim conspiracy theory again... :rolleyes:

Wendy, I couldn't care less about whether Obama is a Muslim, a Christian or a worshipper of the Sun god. My objection is that he bowed before a foreign ruler. Period.

Nan

Wendy,

As mine was the only post to mention Islam, I assume you are referring to me.

Rather than mocking me, disparagingly calling my analysis a "conspiracy theory" and rolling your eyes, I would ask that you engage in civilized conversation with me.

I mentioned various possible explanations for Obama's actions:

1) he is a Muslim
2) he is a Christian who believes Christianity is compatible with Islam
3) he is a Christian who, being raised a Muslim in his youth, gave a conditioned response upon meeting King Abdullah
4) he is a Christian who wished to show respect for the Islamic religion

I also provided explanations which I discarded, and explained why I believed these were inadequate:

1) he was following what he believed to be proper protocol when meeting royalty
2) he was being obsequious to the Saudis because of our dependence on Saudi oil

In addition, I solicited alternate ideas from other members of the boards.

Frankly, I believe my willingness to entertain all possiblities which fit the facts shows an openmindedness on my part, which your response lacks.

My post was an attempt to engage in an intelligent discussion and analysis of what happened. I have no problem whatsoever with people providing reasons why any or all of my suggestions should be discarded, nor with them offering alternative suggestions. You have done neither.

Obama unquestionably has Muslim relatives and spent time in a Muslim school (madrassa) in Indonesia while in single digits. It's part of his life experience.

And given the number of people in the world who claim to be Christians on account of what mum & dad took them to church when they were little... well, religious self-identification can be rather dodgy at times, and sometimes old habits take over. Or something. I haven't a clue, really. But I don't feel it should be out of bounds to wonder about it.

PJ

Since he is our president, whether we voted for him or not, I kind of view it as our job to keep an eye on what he's doing and what his past is. I know I watched Bush pretty closely and I voted for him! They are, after all, politicians and therefore not to be trusted.

Tara

For me, this is interesting stuff to speculate about.

Like Pam, I think that the religious experiences of a person's childhood influence, albeit often subconsciously, adult values and behaviour. (along with other childhood experiences, too, of course )

There's no doubt about Obama's childhood Islamic experience , just as there's no doubt about his Christian experience either. And there's no doubt that he's played the religious card very skillfully in his political careeer. He's not the first leader to do that - any first year Poli Sci student will tell that the religious card is one that has to be played well ( Was it Charles II who gave up his Catholicism, sayng that England was worth a mass? I've got that quote a bit off, and hopefully someone will correct me on it)

I found the video interesting because Obama's behaviour here is different. I'm guessing that most Americans don't approve of their leaders bowing to foriegn leaders.

I"m also really curious about why this incident has not made either the MSM or various websites like Salon, Slate, Huffpost etc. Given the coverage of Mrs. Obama's encounter with the queen, it seems odd that this parallel incident has been ignored. Why is that? Is it that the video has been faked? Or is it that the media is still protective of Obama's image. (Terry's point ) Has it been picked up by Al Jazeera, does anyone know?

c.

The latest news I heard about Al Jazeera was their selective quotation of Obama to make it look like he had said he was a Muslim.

What Al Jazeera reported: [Obama] talked about the contribution of the Islamic faith in the life of American Muslims and then he personalised that message by saying 'I know because I am one of them'.

What Obama really said: The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them.

I could not find anything by Al Jazeera regarding Obama's bow before the king of Saudi Arabia. However, on youtube, there was a comment in Arabic in the comments section under the video. I was curious, so I ran it through Google Translate, and it said something to the effect of "You are among your people, O Custodian of the Two Holy Shrines."

I mention this youtube comment, not as proof that Obama is a Muslim (it is NOT proof of any such thing), but only to address the question of what the Muslim world might be making of Obama's bow before the king.

I think it was a Henri, who converted *to* Catholicism in order to rule France. I seem to recall the saying as "Paris is worth a mass".

The point remains the same, of course. Any time religion is important to the voters, it's important for politicians to take that into account.

I've always thought that accounted for Obama's membership in Trinity; it was a force in local Chicago politics, and a prime spot for networking and politicking. From what I've heard of the theology espoused there, I'm not sure I'd call it Christianity, except in the "we should kill whitey because Jesus says so" sense. Still, not my place to judge. They'll face judgement along with the rest of us.

My take is that the media has always been protective of Obama (to the point of fantasizing) and aren't ready to give that up yet. When you invest that much effort and emotional energy into gaining a result, it's hard to give it up. (It's the same reason, for instance, women don't want to leave crappy boyfriends -- "I know he doesn't treat me right, but I've invested so much time in this relationship, I can't just leave!") And nobody likes to admit to being wrong about something important.

PJ

Incredibly, the White House is denying the bow ever took place. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

First this:

"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Then this exchange between a reporter and White House press secretary John Gibbs:


LOTHIAN: When the President met with King Abdullah, there was something that took place which I believe the White House explained was just the president being taller than the king. We took a look at the video, and it does appear that the president actually bowed to King Abdullah. Did he bow or didn't he?

GIBBS: No, I think he bent over with both, to shake -- with both hands to shake his hand, so I don't--

LOTHIAN: -- one hand --

GIBBS: Well I... [laughter]

LOTHIAN: Did he bow or didn't he?

GIBBS: No. But I think this meeting was like a week ago, right?

LOTHIAN: That's right but this is something a lot of people are talking about today.

GIBBS: I can only imagine it is of great cause and concern for many people struggling with the economy.

============

For me, the most important part of the above exchange is Gibb's final statement. This statement, more than any other, clearly defines the difference between a liberal and a conservative.

Liberals look to the government to regulate the economy, provide jobs, distribute wealth, provide for the poor, etc. A liberal will ask, as Gibbs did, why anyone would be obsessing over "old news" concerning what is at best, a misconception, and at worst, an unintentional protocol faux pas. "Who cares how the President greeted the king? If you are going to ask questions about the President, ask what he is doing about the economy!"

A conservative looks to the free market and private enterprise to do what the liberal looks to government to do. A conservative believes the main role of governement is to promote domestic tranquility and provide for the common defence (ie. protect us from enemies domestic and foreign). For a conservative to see the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States of America bow down before a foreign power is mind-boggling.

No one has responded, and I do not know if anyone is even reading this thread any more. Perhaps interest has petered out...

I just wanted to clarify that, as a conservative, I certainly do recognize the government's role in promoting the general welfare. However, our Constitution makes it clear that it is the legislative branch which is charged with this duty. And even there, I strongly disagree with liberals as to what the Congress can, or should, do.

Regardless of the disagreement over what Congress should be doing about the economy, one thing is sure... the MAIN role of the President, as defined in our Constitution, is not that of creating jobs, nor of "fixing" our economy, neither of which is even mentioned in said document. Rather, the Constitution states that the President is our chief executive, with the power to make treaties, appoint ambassadors, meet with foreign ambassadors and public ministers, appoint judges, etc. As Commander in Chief, he is the head of our armed forces, and directly responsible for the country's defence. Thus, to me, it is self-evident that how the President conducts himself in the presence of foreign Heads of State is most certainly not a trivial matter, nor is it incidental to his function as our chief executive.

I'm still reading, Vicki.

I think Pam has a point when she suggests that Obama's connection with Wright was motivated more by political interest than by religious committment. (and btw, thanks Pam for identifying the source of that quote. ) There was an excellent article in the New Yorker last summer that looked at ward politics in Chicago and Obama and Wright (among others). I posted a link to it at that time, but this morning I'm too lazy...

Vicki, thanks for the transcript of the press conference. It's a tad dismaying in its avoidance of the question. That type of approach from the administration of the man who promised to do politics differently is a bit of a disconnect - more 'old style poltics'.

As well. the Press Secretary's scold about the triviality of the "is it a bow" question shows a disrespect for the press which is odd in a liberal. Also, given the Obama admin's frequent ref to the trivial "new puppy" issue (yet again on the news) it seems inconsistent.

bow wow

c (sorry for the pun, but temptation... )