As usual, when a sensational tabloid opinion piece is set loose on an unsuspecting public via email, they tend to eat it up and believe every word as gospel truth. Unfortunately, there are some serious problems regarding accuracy with this article. So before everyone gets all pissy over this, read up.
The author, like anyone else, is certainly entitled to his opinion. I'm simply going to go over the FACTS ONLY. Nothing more. I'm going to ignore his opinions, and leave them out.
One of Barack Hussein Obama's first acts as president was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office since 9/11.
At first glance, this sounds bad, but there's several very important pieces of the puzzle missing here. First, the bust of Winston Churchill was on LOAN to George W. Bush. It was never given to him, the White House, or anyone else. In fact, the British Embassy confirmed that the loan of the bust expired with the end of Bush's presidency.
Second, the bust was removed prior to Obama's inauguration. White House staff removed it as part of the usual redecoration of the Oval Office when a new president is to be sworn in. So really, this was not even a "presidential act" by Obama.
The entire firestorm was ignited due to London tabloid reports, the same reports that ignored the British Embassy's statements that the bust was on loan, and was properly returned.
He followed this up by denying Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on his first state visit, the usual joint press conference with flags.
The president was "too tired" to grant the leader of America 's closest ally a proper welcome, his aides told British journalists.
Unfortunately, this was spawned because of a media outcry, not a snub by Obama to Brown. The British press blasted Obama and Brown for limiting their access with their first joint press conference. So they "claimed" that Brown was snubbed by Obama because Obama was "too tired". Only problem, it was the press that was snubbed, not Brown.
Brown himself issued a statement that he was not offended nor that Obama appeared "tired", and that he and Obama enjoyed a long private discussion away from the press.
Mr. Obama followed this up with cheesy gifts for Mr. Brown and the Queen. Columnist Ian Martin described his behavior as "rudeness personified. "
The gift exchange is a matter of opinion. Just remember that one of the gifts Obama received from the Queen was a framed and autographed picture of herself.
In addition, many diplomatic gifts of this nature are often planned out in advance by both parties and their protocol teams. The story is more of a media frenzy of what opinion columnists think about the gifts, rather than those who actually received the gifts themselves.
There was more rudeness in store for Mr. Brown at the opening session of the United Nations in September. "The prime minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure five minutes of face time with President Obama after five requests for a sit down meeting were rejected by the White House," said London Telegraph columnist David Hughes. Mr. Obama's "churlishness is unforgivable," Mr. Hughes said.
Again, Brown was not snubbed:
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Brown denies President Obama snub
The administration went beyond snubs and slights last week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the demand of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a Hugo Chavez ally, for mediation of Argentina 's specious claim to the Falkland Islands , a British dependency since 1833. The people who live in the Falklands, who speak English, want nothing to do with Argentina . When, in 1982, an earlier Argentine dictatorship tried to seize the Falklands by force, the British -- with strong support from President Ronald Reagan -- expelled them.
Yet again, there's very important information missing here.
The talks that were endorsed by Clinton was not about turning over the Falklands to Argentina. The ACTUAL issue was a British oil rig that began drilling in the North Falkland Basin, and the rig was located 60 miles north of the island. Argentina disputed the drilling.
The rest of the article is simply opinion, conjecture, and here-say... so I'm not commenting on those parts. Simply pointing out the misinformation, removal of key facts, lies, and blatant bias in the article.