[CxofxJFm]

This surprised me. Is it because of the release of the Lockerbie bomber or is there more to it?

The juxtaposition on our front page this morning is striking. We carry a photograph of Acting Sgt Michael Lockett - who was killed in Helmand on Monday - receiving the Military Cross from the Queen in June, 2008. He was the 217th British soldier to die in the Afghan conflict. Alongside the picture, we read that the Prime Minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes “face time” with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House.

What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America’s staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President’s graceless behaviour is unforgivable. As most members of the Cabinet would confirm, it’s not a barrel of laughs having to sit down for a chat with Gordon Brown. But that’s not the point. Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact. You might have thought that after the shambles of Mr Brown’s first visit to the Obama White House - when there was no joint press conference and the President’s “gift” to the Prime Minister was a boxed DVD set - lessons would have been learned. Apparently not. Admittedly, part of the problem was Downing Street’s over-anxiety to secure a face-to-face meeting for domestic political purposes but the White House should still have been more obliging. Mr Obama’s churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street.
Barack Obama’s churlishness is unforgivable - Telegraph Blogs

[Precturge]

Agreed, that was a monsterously bad move.

[CxofxJFm]

Agreed, that was a monsterously bad move.

Obama rebuffing Brown or the release of the bomber?

[Precturge]

Obama rebuffing Brown or the release of the bomber?

Both!

But, yeah, dissing our closest ally.

[lookanddiscover]

Our closest ally, sometimes.

1956 Suez -the USSR was a our closest ally (because we were both trying build the Aswan High Dam) and our NATO allies, France and the UK, were on the other side.

Thatcher had to keep Reagan at a distance during the Falkands War because of the initial US support to Argentina. While in this country it wasn't a big problem in the UK it was a larger issue for the Prime Minister.

[ultimda horaf]

From the BBC this morning, former appointment secretary (guy who made and kept Blair on appointments) spoke about how these UN meetings are glorified Photo Ops and heads of state like Blair, are scheduled down to intervals of 30 seconds. So Brown didn't get his photo op ='(

Undoubtedly on one of the many British/American summits they will find ample opportunity to discuss everything from fish and chips to Brightside's bouncing breast girl.

Much Ado About Nothing.

[ultimda horaf]

I also wonder how many people who criticized what they considered Obama's "soft" response to the release of the Lockerbie bomber (London purportedly pressured the Scottish government to release him) are now going to criticize him for what they consider his snubbing of Brown.

[Viafdrear]

Agreed, that was a monsterously bad move.

I agree. He's the POTUS, he really needs to be more professional than that.

[elton]

From the BBC this morning, former appointment secretary (guy who made and kept Blair on appointments) spoke about how these UN meetings are glorified Photo Ops and heads of state like Blair, are scheduled down to intervals of 30 seconds. So Brown didn't get his photo op ='(

Undoubtedly on one of the many British/American summits they will find ample opportunity to discuss everything from fish and chips to Brightside's bouncing breast girl.

Much Ado About Nothing.

Oh, forget the BBC, I'd much rather believe an opinion column from the Torygraph.

[Dwencejed]

I think it should be pointed out that the Telegraph is (if I'm remembering correctly) the wack-job left wing paper over there; they are not really interested in continuing our "special relationship" -which, honestly consists of the President telling the PM to do something and the PM doing it.

I really wonder how long this DVD thing is going to go on; Gordon Brown is an exceedingly boring human being, but he apparently likes to watch movies. So they got him a bunch of movies. It's the fist time I've ever seen someone castigated for giving a thoughtful gift.

[elton]

Actually, from what I remember, the Telegraph is traditionally a conservative-leaning paper (and I hesitate to align them with conservatives in the US, because the US has a special place in the world when it comes to the whackjobs we call "conservatives"), so I'm not surprised that they're using any little thing they can to get their panties in a bunch about Obama, this "incident" included.

And I don't get the outrage over the DVD thing either.

[ultimda horaf]

The BBC thing was not an opinion piece. It was a "This is what happened" piece. I'm not sure what the guy would have gained from lying.

The BBC is as boring as watching paint dry. You're not the first person to make the BBC-->Tory connection. The other guy I know who says it speaks through an Irish Nationalist perspective and in that regard the BBC is as "fair and Balanced" as some other newz outlet I can think of. But no surprise there.

[elton]

^ I was agreeing with the BBC, and disregarding the Torygraph.

[ultimda horaf]

BBC--> Tory is back to 1....