Obama’s First Six Months’ Accomplishments: Part 1
by Joe Woody - December 8th, 2009.Filed under: Politics.
I often get forwards in my email inbox dealing with political issues. Many of them are immediately disputed by a quick Google search, while others contain part of the truth without any context. However, I recently received one that really caught my eye. It was entitled Obama’s First Six Months’ Accomplishments and included 27 negative points of his presidency so far. I, like most Americans, seem to be a bit skeptical of Washington no matter who is in the office, and even though I voted for Obama, I don’t fall in line with the Democrats on every issue.
So, instead of outright dismissing the email, I wanted to take a look at each of the issues, find out to what degree they are true, and what I think of them. It will take a bit of time to really delve into each point and do enough research to form a response, so I might not make it through all 27 points in this first point, but I will give it my best shot. Here we go…
1. Offended the Queen of England
This refers to Obama’s gift of an iPod to the Queen of England, which was a followup to a gift set of DVDs to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It seemed that many Brits were up in arms over that initial DVD gift, especially when it was discovered that the American DVDs wouldn’t work on British DVD players (all DVDs are marked with a region code which make them only compatible with one region). This move was seen as a bit of snub to Brown and the UK, especially considering Obama was presented with a very thoughtful gift of a piece of the HMS Gannet, a warship that has a special tie to the White House: the Oval Office desk is made of the Gannet’s sister ship.
Beyond that criticism of the DVD gift gaffe, there isn’t much reaction to the iPod gift to the Queen. Stories note that the gift also included a well-received rare autographed songbook of legend Richard Rodgers (showtunes being one of the Queen’s favorite genres of music), that the Queen actually already owns an iPod, and that the iPod itself came loaded with videos of the Queen’s many visits to the US.
What this boils down to is that right wingers in America were upset by both of these gifts and attempted to “apologize on behalf” of the US by writing into several leading British papers. Admittedly, British politicos did seem a bit snubbed by the DVD gift, which does seem a bit insensitive when compared to the thoughtful gift we received. However, there is nothing that I could find saying the Queen was in any way offended by her gift, insensitive or not. Right wingers were the ones who were “offended”, not the Queen.
2. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia
Back in April, Obama allegedly bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The White House denied it, but YouTube footage certainly makes it look like a bow. Right wingers were up in arms over this, as a bow apparently represents giving away our power. Left-wingers were happy with this, as a bow seems to indicate mutual respect for Saudi Arabia. But the White House denied that it was a bow, so then what?
I think the issue here is that this deals more with the fear of Islam and the Middle East. It should be noted that Saudi Arabia is our ally. President George W Bush held hands with King Abdullah while walking around his Texas ranch and greeted him with a kiss during every visit. If Bush can kiss and hold hands with the King, I’m pretty sure that right wingers can take a deep breath at this one.
Honestly, the bow itself does seem a bit out of place, if it was indeed a bow, but there is no specific State Department protocol dealing with bowing. I tend to wish that it was a bow in a few ways, but if Obama says it wasn’t, then who is he lying to? Why would he lie? “King Abdullah, I’m going to bow to you now and give you sovereignty over the USA, but I’m going to deny it in the press. Our little secret. Shhhhhh.”
Our relationship with the Muslim world is tenuous, to put it mildly. We are fighting the extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to some Americans, we are simply fighting all Muslims, whether they are willing to confess to that opinion or not. And that is a wrong opinion. When you lump devout, religious Muslims with the fundamentalists and the ones who wish “Death to America”, you only confuse the reason we are fighting the War on Terror to begin with.
3. Praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega
This point isn’t even slightly true. The only news article I could find about this was one from Fox News, and even they don’t support this point. Obama “endured” a 50-minute speech at a conference, jotted down some notes, and when asked what he thought of the speech, coldly said, “It was 50 minutes long. That’s what I thought.” He continued by slightly rebuking Ortega.
Also interesting is that the US is considering cutting aid to Nicaragua, where Ortega serves as President. Important to note: cutting aid. In 2006, under Bush, a $175 million aid package was awarded to Nicaragua. Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are considering cutting $64 million of this aid.
I don’t think this point has anything to do with “facts” or even Ortega himself. I think right wingers want to believe that Obama is a Marxist and nothing will convince them otherwise. I could rename this point “Obama Praises Marxist Abraham Lincoln” and I don’t think they would see the error in that statement. Just because Obama doesn’t wear a cowboy hat and clear brush on his ranch for half of the presidency doesn’t make him a Marxist.
December 13th, 2009 at 8:19 am
So, I cannot believe I read your blog, but alas, here I am reading it.
Since you have time to post this political shit about obama, how about you do a little research for me on the topic of him winning the Nobel Peace Prize?
Seriously, he was honored with the award due to his supposed future plans of peace, which from what I understand weren’t even all of his own ideas, but rather others within his party and mutual respecting friends.
How the fuck can you win an award for an “idea” that hasn’t been accomplished? For fuck’s sake, I could imagine a perfect world and create those perfect plans to get that world but never go through with it. Give me a fucking award.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding this whole issue, but I thought the Nobel Prize was awarded to someone that has actually accomplished something…..like they already did it, so we are going to award them for their finished deed. Sooo, at the end of his term, if his goal isn’t accomplished, do they take his award back?
Please explain, I’d really appreciate a detailed look at this issue, because I have neither the time nor the patience to sort through the media bullshit to get the real truth.
You will be paid for your efforts if you provide me with a good in-depth article about this issue.
thanks in advance chicken fetus eater
December 14th, 2009 at 1:04 am
The Nobel Committee has said that this is more of an award celebrating the fact that Obama was elected to the presidency, in and of itself, at least to some degree. This was an award that was given to Henry Kissinger, so it’s not just given to peace activists.
I think that Obama did a great job during his acceptance speech of explaining the need for war in order to achieve peace. He inherited two wars and realizes that just flat-out pulling out our troops would have dire consequences. It is sort of ironic that he accepted a “peace” award the same week that he announced that he was increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, but again, I think he did a good job of explaining this in his speech.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Yes, I did give up on the rest of this.
I’m what you would call… lazy.