Obama Snubs Dalai Lama to Appease China

First, Obama didn't sell Poland, those missles were already set to be moved out of there and we all knew that it wasn't a good idea to being with. Anyway, Obama wouldn't do this to Taiwan, he has a lot on his plate and while a meeting with the Dalai Lama is good, I wouldn't put it as a top priority with things like Iraq going on. As long as we support the rebels in Tibet, i'm pretty sure China won't expect much appeasement from us.

Mostly because that would destroy everything we worked for when it comes to foregin relations with Russia and they are actually warming up to us. Nobody in the Obama adminsistration wants US-Russia relations to sink even lower and the Iran excuse was weak and every poltician knew that it was just buying time. Well, time ran out

he has a lot on his plate and while a meeting with the Dalai Lama is good, I wouldn't put it as a top priority with things like Iraq going on

But he has time to participate in state government and visit Denmark to sell the Olympics?

IMO, the priorities are misplaced.

Great seed, Lisa!

Was the Dalai Lama bringing jobs? I missed that part of the agenda.

Obama takes a day off and goes to Copenhagen to try to bring us the Olympics (which would provide jobs) - and he's crucified by the right for neglecting 'jobs'. Now - he's at home, working on 'jobs' and he's crucified by the right for not taking time off to talk to the Dalai Lama. Is there no pleasing you folks?

Nevermind that he'll talk to the Dalai Lama next month. Is there something that the Dalai Lama has to say that is extremely urgent? Do you think that the Dalai Lama didn't find out that the President wouldn't see him before he scheduled his trip. Does he just swing through D.C. and knock on the President's door on the off-chance that the President will be home to see him?

orange,

Since when do we have to trust Russia?

Seems that you forgot about the invasion in 2008 to Georgia.

rls8r

(which would provide jobs)..

Oh, that explains it. The Copenhagen trip wasn't about the Olympics but about jobs. When and where is the next overseas job trip going to be?

Who knows? Who cares? Are you saying that bringing the Olympics to the U.S. wouldn't provide jobs, or that you just realized that it would? Can't the Copenhagen trip be 'about the Olympics' and be 'about jobs'? Is everything in your life that you do one-dimensional?

rls8r

To even entertain the notion that Obama's trip to Copenhagen was two fold is delusional.

Wise Up! It was strictly about the city of Chicago gaining the prestige of hosting the 2016 Olympics and not about jobs. Period. End of story.

And I think to entertain the notion that it did not have multiple objectives is delusional. I also think those that think they have the ability to read Obama's mind are delusional. Yep, there's plenty of delusions to go 'round.

weaknerss to teh cause of freedom.. lol chinas been the most favored trading partner for decades.
Bush didnt say crap when the egyption elections were pretty much bogus.
Didnt do @!$%# in teh sudan, or zimbaqwai as mugambe tied towels of gas arround his oppositions heads and set them on fire.
LOL and obama looks weak.

The loud sucking noise you hear? That's President Barack Obama kissing up to the Chinese.

Obama better kiss really really really good since he is printing so much money gold is over $1000, the dollar and Treasuries are declining. Takes lots and lots of effort to make the Chinese forget that even with Obama's famed oratory skills.

Lisa,

Agreed, but Obama's belief and leanings matter also. Look at his friends and who he appeases:

• Sudan's genocidal leader, Omar Hassan al-Bashir
• Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad
• Venezuela dictator Hugo Chávez
• Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega
• Bolivia's Evo Morales
• Cuba's Raul Castro
• Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin
• Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva
• Honduras' ousted dictator wannabe Manuel Zelaya

Obama said "know me by the company I keep."

What do these characters and Obama have in common?

No Lama for Obama.....

Haha.

Don't forget ACORN, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright.

Oh... and 9/11.

Oh washington times, what will you spin up next?

Actually I did, lisa. Thank you for posting it. That article was much more even handed than the one you seeded here. It provided a rational explanation for the administrations actions, and presented a variety of viewpoints on those actions. It was interesting to hear the Dalai Lama supporters perspective, though that was slightly expected. As far as the China supposedly dictating our actions, that is a stretch to say the least. We have come full circle and those who are looking to score political points are out for blood screaming, "appeaser". It was worn out during the campaign by McCain. Nobody bought it then and they certainly won't buy it now. There will come a point when this defeatist attitude will bite the naysayers very hard. Election time.

Considering the amount of power that those specific "bad boys" have (a gajillion dollars of US debt for starters), don't you think we should show a little humility? If you honestly believe that Obama is an empty suit who holds nothing more than a personality, then i can see why you would believe this. That kind of thinking is infectious and causes people to put party over country as the heat gets turned up.

The only place I'm hearing "America sucks schtick" is from the negative-nancys whose only goal is to undermine our president. There's nothing wrong with expressing regret for something that we did in the past which causes problems, unless you fear empathy and honesty. People who are afraid to "look weak" are too insecure, and guess what, insecurity is a WEAKNESS.

If you have a child who decides to punch a classmate in the groin, what are you going to advocate to your child?

1.)Stand strong, you did the right thing. You can't look weak.
2.) Apologize. Take responsibility for his actions and express regret for the outcome of those actions.

Seriously, people are trying way too hard to nit pick our potus. It's old.

going wobbly on the popular uprising against tyrrany in Iran

If Obama and the US had supported it the regime in Iran would've just chalked it up to "Western Influence". They did anyway, but nothing good would have come from the US involving themselves in a decidely Iranian effort.

going wobbly on Honduras

Honestly don't know enough about it to debate. I'm going to have to readup on it. I know the big points, but the devil is in the details.

going wobbly on Afghanistan

I don't know if it's wobbly if he hasn't come to a decision on something yet.

going wobbly on missile defense

They're replacing that missle defense system with another one. Foreign Policy had this to say about it.

The Obama administration's decision announced today to cancel the deeply flawed antimissile systems in Eastern Europe is sound policy based on the best intelligence and technical assessments. U.S. President Barack Obama replaces a system that did not work against a threat that did not exist with weapons that can defend against the real Iranian missile capability. Better still, he NATO-izes the system to strengthen the alliance, not divide it.

This is not Munich; it is Prague. It is not appeasement; it is the new defense realism, the triumph of pragmatism over ideology.

And to be honest, I don't mind nit-picking, but a whole hell of a lot of it on the Vine simply isn't constructive. As it stands for me, other news articles say that he has simply postponed it, that doesn't sound like a snub to me.

In this article, a spokeswoman that works for the Dalai Lama actually agreed with the decision.

"The administration, I think, is aware it is breaking a precedent ... but clearly they have their reasons for that and he (the Dalai Lama) agreed with the decision that was made," said Kate Saunders, a spokeswoman for the Tibetan Buddhist leader.

Saunders said the Dalai Lama actually agreed with the Obama administration's decision and believed it was important the United States and China develop a good relationship.

The Dalai Lama believes "it is important for it to be strong, it's important for it to be cooperative," she said.

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "We have made clear that the president absolutely intends to meet the Dalai Lama."

"President Obama has long been a strong and consistent supporter of greater cultural, linguistic and religious rights and autonomy for the Tibetan people," the official added.

"The administration is actively working to encourage a resumption of dialogue between the Chinese government and Dalai Lama's representatives in the hopes of making substantive and enduring progress," he said.

After that, it definitely doesn't seem like a snub to me.

I'm not out to defend every little thing Obama does. I know there are people who enjoy every shred of failure he can experience, but I have better things to do with my time. Obama isn't perfect, but if you can't keep things in perspective, you're going to drown in a sea of deconstructive behavior, which is wholly childish and painfully obvious.

I won't defend his decision on Honduras. I don't think the president of Honduras, nor the military handled the situation well, which is why we have such a broohaha right now, but I certainly agree that Obama needed to approach the situation differently. Surprise, he's human.

Wobbly on Iran? No. But judging from your perspective on the current topic, it would be inconsistent of you to expect a thoughtful, long-term approach from our president. I can't argue with you there. He had to find a balance between respecting the electoral processes of a sovereign nation, and still find a way to advocate a responsible way forward. We tried your way with Iran for the last 8 years. Time for a change. Lets reserve judgement until something substantial actually happens, like direct talks. :)

Wobbly on Afghanistan? No. The man campaigned on a position of adding troops. He's done nothing but advocate adding troops. As I'm sure you were aware, he was advised that we need about 40,000 troops. I'm sure you also know how thin we're stretched currently. I'm sure you would be able to find a way to expidite training for 20,000 new troops, deploy another 5,000, reassign 10,000 from other parts of the world which are not currently in combat, and clone another 5,000 so we can meet that requirement. Unfortunately Obama isn't as skilled as you, so I'm attributing this failure to you for not running for POTUS so you could call the shots. ;-P

He's now figuring out how many troops we can appropriately add. There's nothing wobbly about taking time to make a good decision. Or does that only apply to our ideal approach on bailouts, fisa legislation, and patriot acts?

Wobbly on misile defense? No. That decision single handedly improved our relationship with the Russians in ways that no other act could. Again, if you can't seem to wrap your head around his Dalai lama decision, I can't expect you to understand that either. Do read Justin's article though.

Your definition of Weak is synonymous with my definitions of hard-headed, arrogant, thoughtless, short-sighted, overly-reactive, and stubborn. Kind of funny how different people see the same thing.

I do appreciate that you ignored most of my previous comment so you could reply to my last sentence. It shows how much you attempt to understand other perspectives.

Please do take note of the sentences that end with this symbol: ?

It's very helpful when engaging in a this kind of dialog.

Obama's entire strategy depends on bad boy actors on the world stage falling for his "hey I'm Mr. nice guy world negotiator-America sucks" schtick......and we'll see how all those bad boys comply......because it is up to them right on whether the softer beta approach works?

The hardline approach doesn't work. It only emboldens those "bad boys" to work harder against us, and it gives them readily available propaganda tools that they can sell to their general population, which moves their public opinion in the wrong direction.

That is a fitting preface to the single issue you addressed from my last comment.

how do you know that? What real evidence is there of that?

Let's look at where we were previously. We had a saber rattling, hard line approach, which was perceived as a potential threat to the Russians. Please forgive me in advance for telling you anything you already know, and do feel free to correct me or fill any blanks in.

President Bush decided that the best way to counter an Iranian missile threat was to deploy a defense shield in Poland, and radar in the Czech republic. The first thing that happened following this announcement was, of course, Russia freaking out. The perceived the Czech radar as a threat to their own defenses, as it could be used to spy on Russia just as well. Our response? More hard line tough talk, calling Medvedev's opposition to the plan, "bellicose rhetoric... designed to make europeans nervous". Lot's of posturing, but little progress. This heightened tensions considerably and caused Russia to respond with plans of its own to counter that threat. Bad outcome, unless you enjoyed the cold war.

Obama had a review done which started when he got into office. One of the many conclusions was that Iran was not as focused on long range missiles as we had previously thought. So what does Obama do? Does he run with his tail between his legs and scrap the whole program? No. He responded to a changing threat. He found a way to rework it. We are still implementing parts of the plan, but we addressed the main concerns that Russia had, which will go a long way to achieving our goals without making a mess of our relationship. Coincidentally we kind of need that relationship to be a warm one if we want to put any meaningful pressure on Iran. Not to mention, Obamas plan will put the defense system in place 7 years ahead of the date that the Bush administration projected their plan would come into effect. We also are still drawing up plans to address the possibility that Iran will in fact put more energy into its long range missile capability. So really what we've done has minimal negative impact on us, and we've managed to find common ground on our Russian relationship. We're still addressing the Iranian threat in an appropriate fashion, and we aren't pissing everyone off with tough talk and an arms race.

Now of course you have to look at the Russian perspective of our change in plans. I do believe you are taking that into account since you don't want us to look weak in their eyes. The Russians are calling it a military victory. That's nice, but what does it mean? Does that change anything on the ground? Hardly. Will that make the Russians more likely to push our buttons during an Obama presidency? It could, but that's why we took other measures to both address the threat of Iranian missiles, AND find common ground with Russia with that program. We also took a further step by working with and providing further incentives to back harsher sanctions on Iran if they don't play ball. These are all issues that are being dealt with simultaneously, which is why its disingenuous to simply frame the issue as Obama cutting and running, and looking weak in the eyes of Russia. Instead we look like we can be strong on our national interests, and bring others in to cooperate in achieving both theirs and ours.

That's a huge step.

Personally, I think the missile defense plan was resoundingly unnecessary, and just another way to exert our power in a part of the world that is already sick of our constant meddling (that's not to say we shouldn't have a presence, but we need to start taking a more responsible approach, which I think we are doing now).

The whole idea is that, like it or not, these countries that you resoundingly call "bad boys" are in fact a lot more of a mixed bag. They certainly do act as adversaries on many levels, but we also have to rely on them as they are a powerful entity on the world stage. Regardless of how we feel about them, we need to learn how to play nice and find compromises that will level the playing field, but still be as closely aligned with our national interests. These aren't cut and dry issues. No black and white. We have to do a cost benefit analysis with our policies, and we've seen the cost of our hard line approach. Alienation, and reluctance from many of our own allies, who see right through what we're doing, to work with us. The missile defense shield also reignited the cold war mentality on both sides. In your opinion, what benefits have we assured for our nation by that approach? What do you expect Russia to do in that situation? In a world where everyone's afraid to show weakness, all you have is escalation. Again it comes back to the schoolyard mentality. When people who have very different personal interests, and have conflicts, the solution isn't to exert dominance and instill fear in the heart of the enemy. The goal is to bring people together and find common ground. There is no weakness in that.

But I guess it is ok to be at the beck and call for murderers from China.

A politically savvy politician likes to try the "line" to have a proof of how much another politician could respond in case of a crisis.

Turning the lights in red and yellow in the Empire State Building wasn't enough "honoring" celebrating the 60 anniversary of the Mao's revolution?

Typical GOP slant, every thing not done the GOP way is weak.

You comment is pathetically bias and indicates an extreme lack of sophistication with your inability to rationalize an opposing viewpoint. Obviously there is no use in discussing anything intelligently with someone whose mind is completely closed and still soar over a complete rejection of GOP politics by such an overwhelming majority of the country.

Good point Texas.

LeftinTexas, I think you meant to say, "Your comment is pathetically bias and indicates an extreme lack of sofistication because you don't agree with me" What could you possible ever hope to gain in conversations when you call someone retarded for not having the same views as you already hold. It would cause you less angst if you just talked to yourself instead.

cough....

one of those that cannot find any good in anything President Obama has done.

Boy this cough is rough.

Thanks common-sense for the link... good article.

@ Lisa - I can name a few different countries... there's East Timor, Mauritania, or what about Djibouti... just by naming them doesn't mean I know anything about them. But for argument sake, I will assume you know what you are talking about when you mention Tibet, Burma and Russia... so that puts you in the latter category on my original post... according to you, President Obama can do no good.

Nobody snubbed anyone. He had a prior engagement and said they would get together next month. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. I am sure the Lama will forgive him, so lighten up.

Oh yeah, just like he didn't snub The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball - the first President to ever skip the event in 56 years/14 inaugurations???

He could find the time to fly to Europe and try to win Chicago the 2016 Olympics, but can't rearrange his schedule to meet the Dalai Lama?? He's going to be here for A WEEK - and Obama can't find the time to meet him??? BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama can't even recall his own criticisms of the Chinese back in April 2008, when he and other leaders (Republican and Democrat, including Hillary Clinton!) tried to get President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. He IS a disgrace.

And let's not forget that Obama is supporting a man (Zelaya) who violated his own nation's (Honduras) Constitution and was LEGALLY removed from office and deported due to his illegal actions! What part of our Constitution is he going to ignore when he wants to???

Renegade13,

Of course Barack Horatio Maobama will not regard his own butting in to Honduras as arrogant or unilateral will he? It's important to go back and find Obama's interviews (audio) on Utube with WBEZ Chicago Public Radio when he speaks about what he considers "restraints" that were put into the U.S. Consitution that prohibit his ideological peers from utilizing the legislative and judicial branch to implement what he called economic reparations and redistribution of wealth (Marxist concepts). He never postulates on whether this is right, wrong or Constitutional, just how to accomplish it by circumventing the Rule of Law.

...un-like you Americans who are really going to cry no matter what Pres Obama does.

By your wording and context it sounds like you are not an American citizen or taxpayer. If that's the case, this indicates two things: 1. you're not qualified to make the statements above. 2. Barack Obama is campaigning for President of the World (Lord help us) instead of representing the electorate in his own country...he's not doing his job and should be fired.

Hill of beans.

Make some chili, there Bogie.

Okay tom... let's try again, you skipped out on a serious answer last time. Buck up dude.

Give us an answer:

I say the Republicans currently have NO ONE, NOT A SINGLE ELECTABLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE and there are none in sight.

By electable, I mean someone that is centrist enough that a large enough number of Democrats will cross the line and vote for him or her - realistically you can't do it without that. That effectively rules out all the far right fundamentalists because, believe me, no democrat will bend over for that kind of action.

Republicans have NO viable, electable replacement for Obama. Dream on all you want, he's here for the duration, then it probably will be Hillary...because, you still won't have anything as long as you're trapped out there in wacky far right christian hell...

Here's your chance to educate us, Tom Sevgny. Who is your electable Republican alternative to Obama? Tom?

Rick-

2012 is a long, long way off. If we were at this point in the election cycle from 2008, everybody was SURE it would be Hillary vs. Giuliani, a lot can change, just give it some time, some GOP'er will rise to the top, hopefully it's a true conservative and with more than good looks (Palin)

Rick from Vermont has been operating under the assumption that I am a Republican. For the sake of some amusing repartee and subsequent jocularity, I've let him continue. I am a conservative linertarian who is in favor of a third party provided it doesn't pull votes from a truly fiscally conservative, prudent candidate.

Q. Rick, do you know why Barack Obama campaigned as a Democrat?

A. Because the Communist party does not have enough votes.

As mike says, 2012 "is a long way off". If a primadonna like Barack Obama can crouch in the bushes, voting "present" as a frosh Senator over 100 times and then springing on the national scene without vetting, how much better would an experienced, capable Reaganesque Conservative candidate fare after this guy was degraded our national security and bankrupted our nation?

Here's your chance to educate us, Tom Sevigny.

With all due respect, we do not need to be educated, Rick. You may, however over there in your liberal bubble. A word of advice; never join a gunfight armed with nothing but a butterknife.

lisaed,

-and if that happens that would indeed be a CRIME.

Than the GOP needs to pull their collective heads out of their arses and begin listening to conservatives. What is a crime is what is happening in my own state with people like Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. I'm sure it is not necessary to elaborate on the reason for my concern. I think you understand me.

Why do you think we use the term "represent" for ever political voted-in position in this Republic? If a GOP candidate has to move to the far left or compromise conservative principles. what is the difference. I'm not at all for stealth politics.A couple of months ago we saw how that worked with Arlen Specter. There is enough dishonesty in politics. I've witnessed the stupidity of GW Bush and what I'm witnessing now is a President who is discarding the baby with the bathwater.

If the Jersey electorate is predominantly liberal, let them live and die by that sword. We'll observe the results of liberalism soon enough.

Tom Sevigny... first off, just because I may live in VT now, do not ever presume that I am in any way related or in any part in line with any stereotypical "Vermonter" you have floating around in your head.

Second, as a Libertarian, and I salute you for your taking a stance within a party that will in 3 years still have absolutely zero chance of actually fielding a viable candidate (although we do need an alternative to what we have, that group has severe "branding" issues.

Third, you scold me for assuming your a Republican, yet you "assume" I am a Democrat. Hmmm... how oddly against your own standards of discourse.

LOL, good debate, like to have a beer with you... prey on.

why should we reveal to anyone NOW who that person is....we have plenty of solid LEADERS in our party and one will emerge

is there like a super secret incubator, like Iran has for uranium processing - that suddenly from the far right of left OR near left of the far right will hatch someone that is so dazzling, that enough Democrats will say "YES" I vote for XXX, even though every kid will now study the bible 5 hours a week - just to get rid of Obama?

I'm very skeptical here...besides, 9 months isn't much to judge one on except that he's kept us safer than Bush did in his first nine...just sayin'

That's a deal, I'll mark my date book.

For the record though, Obama is already ahead of Bush in national safety for the same first 10 months of presidency.

mm,

You are absolutely correct about the Dalai Lama and his response.

It is likely that the negative response to this is out of a societal embarrassment to our representatives action or lack thereof, the president, and his choice.

Actually I to feel this negative response as well and wish our representative had chosen otherwise.

respectfully, neither side of the aisle, I prefer to stand

So the Dalai Lama will be reincarbonated as Ronald Reagan in the next life? He must have some really positive Karma going for him.

Lisa. Conservatives throughout this nation are mourning the same type of feeling of American pride and stature that we experienced during the second half of the Carter administration. More people are cringing from the foolhardy manner in which the Obama's campaigned for the Chicago venue.

I would think that now that that chapter relating to the Olympics is behind us as Americans we need to focus on making known our vote of no-confidence in this U.S. President's degradation of our stature, pride and concentrate and build upon on the positive dynamics of our great and exceptional Republic.

Has anyone else watched the GW Bush -as seen on U-Tube video - saying in a ceremony "Chicago winning the Olympic hosting would be a great thing for this great city AND for the entire country"

Are Republicans eating their own heroes now too?

Free Tibet! Right on!

Actually I think China understands the message of the Dalai Lama all to well and understands the power of one man. They had Mao. I think in reality they are terrified of him.

Is Richard Gere even still alive?

This is the first time since 1991 that the Dalai Lama will visit our nation's capital and not meet with the sitting president. The White House reportedly claims it means no disrespect to the Tibetan leader but is wary of creating controversy ahead of Mr. Obama's summit with Chinese President Hu Jintao next month.  ( taken from the article in the Washington times )

Notice in the above paragraph that the sentence in bold says it all ! The President doesn't want to " create any controversy " when Obama goes to China and kisses the backside of the Chinese President Hu Jintao in November ! That's how Obama's foreign policies work, meet with a leader of a country, bend down and kiss that ass ! When it should be the other way around ! But our "fearless" leader of the greatest country in the world has put the USA on a foreign policy of " Kiss ass " diplomacy ! Pucker up Mr. President ... the citizens of this country don't want you to " miss a cheek " when you go to China next month !

The real answer is "I dunno". But then, maybe I dunno's on third. Sorry, lisaed, I just couldn't resist the temptation to do that. Abbot and Costello would never forgive me if I blew the opportunity.

Don't forget 'I don't give a darn'...the shortstop...or is that Biden?