Flashback: NYT scolded Clinton for almost bowing to royalty
posted at 4:41 pm on April 4, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
So far, the media has remained entirely silent on Barack Obama’s deep-waist bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. They used to defend American protocol a lot more closely, as The Anchoress discovered in doing research on the subject. The New York Times sharply criticized Bill Clinton for a mere inclination of his shoulders towards Japanese Emperor Akihito in 1994:
It wasn’t a bow, exactly. But Mr. Clinton came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan.
Canadians still bow to England’s Queen; so do Australians. Americans shake hands. If not to stand eye-to-eye with royalty, what else were 1776 and all that about? …
Guests invited to a white-tie state dinner at the White House (a Clinton Administration first) were instructed to address the Emperor as “Your Majesty,” not “Your Highness” or, worse, “King.” And in what one Administration aide called “some emperor thing,” an Army general was cautioned that he should not address the Emperor Akihito at all as he escorted him to the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.
But the “thou need not bow” commandment from the State Department’s protocol office maintained a constancy of more than 200 years. Administration officials scurried to insist that the eager-to-please President had not really done the unthinkable.
The media took Clinton to task for even suggesting the unthinkable. Now they remain silent on Obama’s leap to the unthinkable:
When will the New York Times cover this, even to the extent they covered Clinton’s inclined shoulders? Or is the unthinkable in 1994 turned into the unmentionable in 2009, thanks to a national media that has completely sold out to Barack Obama?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »
Obama has no respect for American sovereignty or power…his goal is to completely destroy it, after all.
ZJPolitical on April 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM
There are thirty-nine US presidents who are now crying in heaven because of what this boob has and is doing to this country.
Matt Helm on April 4, 2009 at 4:45 PM
ah, but there’s that picture of Donny Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein!
vinman on April 4, 2009 at 4:46 PM
You expect the NYTimes to be consistent? How touching.
Wethal on April 4, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Propaganda Machine redlining.
marklmail on April 4, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Can the media get any closer to a complete and utter double-standard? It’s a triple-standard at this point: Obama/Clinton/Bush, in that order.
capitalist piglet on April 4, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Submission.
Kid from Brooklyn on April 4, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Diversity.
the_nile on April 4, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Obama can kiss anyone’s ass as far as I am concerned. It’s when we have to bow to him that the second amendment will get the dust blown off it.
pedestrian on April 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM
What an embarrassment. Mr. easier said than done president Obama should have licked the cheese between the kings toes if he is to bow before him like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFyHTU8tg_0
jaboba on April 4, 2009 at 4:51 PM
The New York Times is afraid of criticizing this president because he’s b…
because he’s b…
Uh, let’s go with — because he’s Barack Obama.
jeff_from_mpls on April 4, 2009 at 4:51 PM
This guy (Ogabe) makes Clinton look like Eisenhower. And no, that isn’t hyperbole. I truly believe Clinton actually likes this country–I can’t say the same for Ogabe.
PimFortuynsGhost on April 4, 2009 at 4:52 PM
This was in 1994 B.M. (Before Monica). The only rationale I can think of was the sophisticated East Coast Paper of Liberal Record gently chiding the Arkansas native who was still a little wobbly on the finer points of protocol in the Big City.
I think eight years of BDS and being totally in the tank for Obama makes it impossible for them now to criticize a Dem president. Might also be seen as rascist, somehow, implying a black man doesn’t know how to behave in diplomatic circles.
Wethal on April 4, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Actually, you have to cut the messiah some slack.
I bet the deep bow is precisely how Obama’s staff is required to greet him when they step inside the oval office, and Obama was just doing what seemed logical in the situation, out of habit.
He’s a very logical man, and very smart.
jeff_from_mpls on April 4, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Hmmmm…. very simple..
The President of the US would never bow before a foreign Potentate..
Obama did so…
Ergo, he is not President.
But ya know, thats what happens when you “elect” a Dual citizen, “Citizen of the World”, as President…
Romeo13 on April 4, 2009 at 4:54 PM
The DUmmies are insisting a) that Obama is looking at something on the floor, and/or b) that it doesn’t matter anyway. The two or three people who found it disturbing are begging the others to please convince them they didn’t see what they think they saw, and are getting mocked and ridiculed by the rest of the kids on the island.
capitalist piglet on April 4, 2009 at 4:55 PM
With the old gray whore, it they don’t report, it didn’t happen.
GarandFan on April 4, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Googled Obama bowing to Saudi. All I got were conservative blogs and the Israel National News.
So it must not have happened.
Wethal on April 4, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Even if I was willing to accept that Obama was somehow ignorant of the protocol, which I’m not, where the hell are his handlers? Rahm? Axelrod? Some career jacknut from the Dept. of State? Anyone care to fill in the Messiah? Oh, King of Kings, Oh President of Presidents, you bow before no one. Do you know why? Because even if I didn’t vote for you, you dumb #$%^, you represent me and hundreds of millions of free men and women. The next time you bow before the leader of a foreign nation you had better be getting ready to sucker punch him, on behalf of myself and my nation.
trubble on April 4, 2009 at 4:57 PM
You could work for the NYT. You’ve got the logic down pat.
Nice job!
jeff_from_mpls on April 4, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Kneel before Zod, indeed.
On your second point, I was thinking about that last night. Have we ever had a president before who spent his formative years outside the country? I don’t think so. It appears that it has a lot to do with his attitude.
capitalist piglet on April 4, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Anti Christ.
*wink*
Mommypundit on April 4, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Although in fairness to the NYT, back in 1994 it was a thriving, profitable newspaper.
Jim Treacher on April 4, 2009 at 4:59 PM
As far as the slight bow to Queen Elizabeth, I take no issue with. It was very slight, and in my opinion, appropriate. It was a sign of respect that I personally show to a lady who is older than I.
HOWEVER… There is no justification in the world for the President of the United States, or ANY citizen of the United States to bow to anybody in the way that he bowed to King Abdullah! We are Americans, we should bow to NOBODY! (Notable exception- A bow and kiss of the ring to the pope, and I am not even Catholic! Also, I think bowing is in order upon the second coming!)
fumpbump on April 4, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Odd thing is, the bow wasn’t even mentioned on Drudge, as far as I recall.
Alana on April 4, 2009 at 4:59 PM
I agree with you. Was Clinton after power? Yeah, no question. But I don’t think he was out to destroy the country–not like Bambi is. Clinton just wanted to be president and stick his cigar in new and exciting places–that’s all–not tear the country down.
Matt Helm on April 4, 2009 at 5:01 PM
LOL
I’ve got one for you.
Nostradamus predicted three anti-Christ figures – Napoleon, Hitler, and the third one not apparently named, BUT!!! : )
The quattrain describing the outbreak of the war he will preside over describes the death of someone named “Mabus”.
(What I’m telling you is true…the Twilight Zone theme music is optional.)
Now, for the quiz: What’s the name of Obama’s Secretary of the Navy?
capitalist piglet on April 4, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Oh, wait…you probably meant the New York Times is the anti-Christ. : )
capitalist piglet on April 4, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Endorphin releaser
Entelechy on April 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Because they know he’s a mooooozlim.
SouthernGent on April 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Hmmm. 1994: profitable, fairly accurate paper (with liberal slant). 2009: bankrupt left-wing rag that ignores any story that does not fit in a pre-determined world-view.
Sometimes correlation is causation.
Wethal on April 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM
That IS odd.
capitalist piglet on April 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM
A buffoonish gaffe due to ignorance for Bush the Chimp is an
understandable misdemeanor for Clinton the Genius is a
trivial event of no significance for Obama the Lightworker.
Don’t make me explain the media rules to you again.
Tantor on April 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Really, this is not a big deal. I can’t believe how many posts you’re devoting to it. This is all symbolism, except that symbolism only means something if people actually notice and care about it. And so far Obama’s opponents seem to be the only ones caring about it.
I think it was stupid of the NYT to make a big deal out of Clinton’s bow in 94 and correct of them not to make a big deal out of it. Though of course had Bush done it they would have ridiculed him for it. But that just shows you how pointless and petty this kind of attack is.
tneloms on April 4, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Attack. So if we discuss something Obama did, it’s an “attack”. Got it.
The aspect of it I find most interesting is how eagerly he seems to do it – as though it’s natural, something he knew internally, intrinsically, he would do if he encountered this man – not a rehearsed or unnatural act.
Why?
It reveals something about his thinking. I can’t say what, but it’s interesting to consider.
capitalist piglet on April 4, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Clinton got called to the mat for it, because he had blonde hair, and blue eyes.
capejasmine on April 4, 2009 at 5:10 PM
That was my point, yes.
Jim Treacher on April 4, 2009 at 5:11 PM
I think the third one is Terrell Owens.
a capella on April 4, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Could be as simple as, “Okay, this will drive ‘em nuts.”
Jim Treacher on April 4, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Really? I guess I never imagined the anti-Christ crying, but maybe.
capitalist piglet on April 4, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Yeah, it’s only a diplomatic mission. Who cares about how he conducts, y’know, diplomacy?
Jim Treacher on April 4, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Actions speak louder than words.
thomasaur on April 4, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Could be. That would be a sign of maturity, sort of like scratching his face with his middle digit.
capitalist piglet on April 4, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Oh please, Obama could have kneeled down and started suck…
..ck and the NY Times would have turned a blind eye.
CarolynM on April 4, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Perhaps he’s fulfilling the dreams of his father? *GAG*
capejasmine on April 4, 2009 at 5:16 PM
I’m not surprised that the Times is ignoring Obama’s prostration, but I’m flabbergasted that they dared to scold Clinton back in 1994.
Must’ve been the C crew in charge that day.
Kensington on April 4, 2009 at 5:16 PM
It’s likely their reasoning goes something like this:
1. Obama’s Muslim past and ties are unmentionable.
2. Bowing and scraping to the king of the country with the holiest sites in Islam will draw attention to 1.
Therefore, it is unmentionable.
blue13326 on April 4, 2009 at 5:16 PM
You know, I’m not one of those “Obama is a closet muslim” theorists, but I wonder if this bow isn’t rooted in something in his upbringing?
Socratease on April 4, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Or referring to the Governor of Alaska as “the Mayor of Wasilly.” Or brushing the dirt off his shoulders. Or any of the other isolated incidents that in no way make up a trend.
Jim Treacher on April 4, 2009 at 5:17 PM
~ ~ Bill Keller
Talk about a delusional editor in chief of a delusional and loser paper, the NYT.
Entelechy on April 4, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I am begging you. Boycott the MSM and boycott their sponsors, too. Don’t buy their ink, don’t click on their sites, don’t buy their sponsors’ products. They can be and are being marginalized. Its the only way to stop this blatant adoration of a president who bowed down before the King of Saudi Arabia. Deplorable.
doctormom on April 4, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Yanno. If this were the worst thing Obama was doing I could live with it. It seems so minor in scale to his complete surrender to Russia and China and Iran.
BrideOfRove on April 4, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Yes, because his upbringing isn’t rooted in the same place most of ours is!
drunyan8315 on April 4, 2009 at 5:21 PM
tneloms on April 4, 2009 at 5:07 PM
The U.S.A., especially its president, bows to no one. It demonstrates submission. Explaining this to you, however, is futile.
Entelechy on April 4, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Something with how enthusiastic he does it.
the_nile on April 4, 2009 at 5:24 PM
I
Shhh don’t tell Buffalo, we Eagles fans have barely recovered.
msmveritas on April 4, 2009 at 5:24 PM
I guarantee you, important people all over the Middle East noticed, and cared about it very much. Do you seriously believe the President of the most powerful country in the world paying public obeisance to the ruler of the most prominent Islamic country in the world isn’t significant?
And not just to those who are Muslim.
Socratease on April 4, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Damn those Freudian slips.
Entelechy on April 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Certainly not.
capitalist piglet on April 4, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Well, things have changed since 1994. Americans are now expected to bow to our creditors, which is why, the next time I see President Obama, I will expect him to bow to me.
unclesmrgol on April 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM
I’m guessing it was most likely one of two things: Either it was yet another protocol screw-up by the iPod and DVD clowns Obama has determining these things, and these geniuses thought it would be a good politically-correct gesture to improve relations with the Arabs.
Or else it’s something Obama did on his own, maybe even something he did on an impulse at the last moment, something that just “felt right” due to his upbringing.
I really hope it was the former, because if it’s the latter it really shows how some of his inner-most thinking operates.
Socratease on April 4, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Boy, that thing…he said that as easily and as naturally as he bowed. I know what I am, and I would never make a slip like that – but then, people aren’t talking about me being a Muslim. It may mean absolutely nothing, but he really makes it difficult not to speculate.
I’m sorry. I don’t want to be labeled a kook, but I’d be lying if I denied what I see.
capitalist piglet on April 4, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Theres an interesting article out there on the web… not gonna look for it right now… but..
Basicly the King of Saudi stopped both Kissing his Ring, and Bowing, in his own court…
Because a Man should only Bow to God (his words)….
No wonder he was smiling when Barry performed that act of submission to him…. eyes downcast and all…
Romeo13 on April 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM
I remember that video of Bush choosing the wrong door being shown a number of times. That was funny. This bowing isn’t funny at all.
SouthernGent on April 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Obama is a fool who has no understanding of, or appreciation for, the greatness of the United States. His servile bowing and scraping like a serf before the vile Saudi king is just more proof of this sad fact.
And yes, isn’t it interesting how all the major media outlets have studiously ignored Obama’s disgusting behavior in prostrating himself before the Arab despot.
AZCoyote on April 4, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Don’t worry… there are a lot of “Kooks” out here who have just been noticing these kind of things for awhile…
Don’t even try to fight the label… anyone who is against Barry is a Kook… so… embrace you Kook status, its liberating.
Romeo13 on April 4, 2009 at 5:43 PM
OT but funny Obama was wowed by meeting J K Rowling. From the comments on the article, I thought this was hilarious:
msmveritas on April 4, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Tell us about it-I had a rather bizarre e-mail exchange with Mr. Keller about 8 or 9 years ago. I was surprised that he took the time to reply to me, and also surprised that he graciously answered the questions I posed to him. I told him that I had been a daily reader of the NYT since the mid 1960s, and most of my questions were non-political.
However, I did ask him one question that sent him running.
It was relatively simple-I noted that for decades that the NYT had routinely referred to the bad guys as “terrorists”, especially on Page 1 stories about Islamic terror attacks.
But then, about the time Billy Bob Clinton brightened our days in the early 1990s, the “T” word suddenly disappered from the Times’ lexicon.
I asked Bill why the paper had stopped using the “T” word. And he refused to answer my question. I e-mailed him back and thanked him for his responses, and asked again why the Times stopped using the “T” word.
He hid under his desk.
Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Perhaps Obama only worships himself.
Loxodonta on April 4, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Thanks for the laugh, kid.
Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Please. You mean nothing to him. President Obama said the US had “failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world”. … Addressing a crowd of some 2,000 mainly students from France and Germany, Mr Obama said: “In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”
Not past tense — Obama thinks his American subjects still fail to fully appreciate his European ones. But don’t worry. Even Sarkozy sees that the new White House occupant is “not concerned only with narrow American self interest.”
I’m dismissive and derisive alright. Just not with regard to Europeans.
eucher on April 4, 2009 at 5:47 PM
There’s another story within a story.
econavenger on April 4, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Well, the talk on the left blogs are discussing this bombshell:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/transcript1.html
getalife on April 4, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Ed, my man… You’re on fire again. Doing the job the MSM refuses to do!!!
Good on you…
Keemo on April 4, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Not really. From what I know of it the amount you bow indicates your status compared to the other guy. If you bow slightly it means you are on his level, if you bend in half then the other guy is just way way way above him. What Barry demonstrated is that King Abdullah is the far more important, and ranks far higher than Barry. To be blunt I think Barry thinks he’s better than just about anybody but here he basically said I’m little more than a low ranking servant compared to this King.
Dave_d on April 4, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Thanks for finally admitting you voted for Jean-CLaude Kerri in 2004. Don’t you feel better now?
As for drunken driver Bill Moyers? Bwahahahaha.
Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 6:00 PM
I’ve seen various bits of footage, just a sample. I surely could have missed it, but did President Obama bow to any of the other World Powers present at G20?
If not, why bow to the potentate of a country whose primary export he constantly derides and whose civil rights record is one of the poorest of the assembled?
Yes indeed, inquiring minds want to know.
Peri Winkle on April 4, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Uh-huh.
Can’t miss.
;)
mankai on April 4, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Hey, don’t get down on Moyers… After all, he did lead the inquisition on Teh Gays…
Upstater85 on April 4, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Pinch feels the pinch.
Capitalism smiles.
Entelechy on April 4, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Bill Moyers? The LBJ hack one who had the FBI check into whether officials were gay or not? Wonder why Moyers and LBJ wanted that info.
Now back to our previous thread.
Wethal on April 4, 2009 at 6:04 PM
All the news fit to print… on fish wrap.
If our government gives the NYT even one dime of ‘bailout’ money, or whatever term they choose to use, then we’ll know beyond a shadow of doubt that the NYT and our government are thick as thieves.
At this point, I’ll just continue believing that the NYT is simply still just a deeply partisan rag. And I’ll continue to never even pick one up much less read it and I’ll continue to disregard them as the fish wrap waste of space that they are.
SilverStar830 on April 4, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Nope, only one he bowed to was the Saudi…
and he was the ONLY one who bowed to the Saudi…
Romeo13 on April 4, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Yeah, but that was before getaclue’s parents were born, so he doesn’t know about that shameful chapter in US history.
Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Yes, and Booosh was in bed with Big Oil…
Further, to think that Clinton got slack for almost-sorta bowing to the leader of a country where bowing is a common action when meeting (not to say that Clinton should have – given that they were equals)… But Obama felt the need to, well fill in the blank ____________, the leader of SA is just amazing. I really think he might want to go on a pilgrimage (and never come back!!!)
Upstater85 on April 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM
I know.
It’ a becker conpiracy theory of the banks working with government to cover up the economic meltdown.
Thought you beckers would enjoy it.
getalife on April 4, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Wait, are you talking about the NYT or the Obamas? Or are they one in the same?
Upstater85 on April 4, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Here’s a long clip, showing the G-20 heads of state assembling for the group photo.
It clearly shows that no head of state bowed deeply to any other head of state, except for President Obama bowing down on bended knee to Saudi Arabian King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.”
Loxodonta on April 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM
And what does that prove, in your mind?
capitalist piglet on April 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Do you know that threadjacking is a bannable offence at HA?
Entelechy on April 4, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Yeah, you could almost call it Tenetistic, right, Oh shining star of wisdom?
BTW for anyone that missed getalife’s amazing contribution to a previous thread, the other day getalife argued that Bush had embraced the Fascist tenet of George Tenet… Bush was a Tenetist (fascist) because the Daily Kos said so… all of that knowledge coming from one that doesn’t let the talking heads form her opinion. Wow. I feel like our public schools are doing AMAZING things…
Upstater85 on April 4, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Found this.
Key bit, “No Head of State (royal, or non-royal) will ever bow to another or consent to walk behind, as that would constitute an insult to that person’s nation.”
Anecdotal open site, but fun point nonetheless.
mankai on April 4, 2009 at 6:13 PM
No, please don’t ban her. She’s my amusement for the day. She proves my point with every single post she makes…
Upstater85 on April 4, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Oh, I also forgot to include that Abdullah has been in Parade Magazine’s top ten dictator list for some time. He’s #5 on the hit parade this year.
Maybe it was a dictator-dictator thing?
Peri Winkle on April 4, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Upstater85 on April 4, 2009 at 6:13 PM
It was a joke silly.
getalife on April 4, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Just a tool bein’ a tool.
Socmodfiscon on April 4, 2009 at 6:15 PM
tneloms and getalife, this is just for you. Get a clue.
Entelechy on April 4, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Moyers is indeed a joke. On that we can agree.
Now back to our previously scheduled program.
Wethal on April 4, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »