Obama Snubs the Dalai Lama

Ken Bingham, Dalai Lama, Barack Obama, China, human rights, Tibet, free Tibet

In a move that would make Neville Chamberlain proud President Barack Obama has become the first President to snub the Dalai Lama to appease Communist China. The Dalai Lama is visiting Washington and was scheduled to meet with the President but in a stunning move The White House, under pressure from China, abruptly canceled the visit. This from a President who has bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, shook hands with Hugo Chavez, counts among his admirers as Daniel Ortega, Moammar Kadafi, and Fidel Castro.

From the BBC Obama ‘snubs’ Dalai Lama meeting

US President Barack Obama has been accused of bowing to Chinese pressure by delaying a meeting with the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama.

Mr Obama has said he will not meet the Dalai Lama, who is currently in the US, until after visiting China in November.

China is becoming our largest creditor and Obama needs their money to help fund his pet projects, particularly health care. China is buying our treasury notes in the trillions putting the United States in bondage to a country who abhors freedom and human rights. China has become a super-power and the United States is the only thing standing in its way to becoming the dominant super-power. Many in this country dream of the day when the United States loses its super-power status, but do you think the cause of human rights and freedom will be advanced with China being the dominant power? Our growing dependency on China will hasten this disastrous scenario.

The White House says they are only delaying the visit till after Obama meets with the Chinese Government but the fact he postponed the visit at the bidding of the Chinese Government speaks volumes about who is in charge.

Do we dare say the Manchurian President?

, , , , ,

  1. #1 by Frank Staheli on October 6, 2009 - 2:26 pm

    I don’t suspect GW Bush (rest his soul) or John McCain, had he been president, would have done any different. Which makes it look like the US is going to heck in a turbo-powered handbasket no matter how we look at it.

    Which also kind of puts a new face on how silly Keynesian deficit spending is sounding about now.

  2. #2 by David on October 6, 2009 - 2:45 pm

    I can’t imagine a more obvious demonstration of China’s growing influence than this.

  3. #3 by Ken on October 6, 2009 - 3:13 pm

    I am afraid you are right Frank. The United States sold its soul to China long ago and now they have us by the wantons.

    Free Tibet? Heck free the United States.

  4. #4 by Tim Carter on October 6, 2009 - 3:22 pm

    You admit this: “The United States sold its soul to China long ago and now they have us by the wantons.”

    But then post this:?

    “This from a President who has bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, shook hands with Hugo Chavez, counts among his admirers as Daniel Ortega, Moammar Kadafi, and Fidel Castro.”

    Fair and balanced, I guess.

  5. #5 by Richard Warnick on October 6, 2009 - 3:27 pm

    Open question– was there ever a U.S. commitment to liberate Tibet? I don’t recall one.

  6. #6 by Ken on October 6, 2009 - 3:29 pm

    Richard

    Maybe not a formal agreement but we definitely have had a moral solidarity with their struggle.

    Imagine what the jailers in the gulags are telling the political and religious prisoners. “There is no hope. America has abandoned you”.

    Tim

    Yeah other Presidents kowtowed to China but not this blatantly, again obama is telling the world he is week. No President since Carter has appeared this weak on the world stage.

    Obama has a track record of snubbing our allies to appease our enemies. Believe me Iran, the Talaban, and Al queada are taking note.

  7. #7 by Uncle Rico on October 6, 2009 - 3:49 pm

    Ken- you have an interesting definition of “snub.” From the same BBC article you cite:

    And Lodi Gyari, the Dalai Lama’s envoy, said the spiritual leader took “a broader and long-term perspective” that it was better to meet Mr Obama after his talks in China.

    “The Dalai Lama has always been supportive of American engagement with China,” Lodi Gyari said in a statement.

    “Our hope is that the co-operative US-Chinese relationship that President Obama’s administration seeks will create conditions that support the resolution of the legitimate grievances of the Tibetan people.”

  8. #8 by Ken on October 6, 2009 - 3:59 pm

    Uncle Rico

    Of course the Dalai Lama is going to be gracious no matter what. His response speaks of his character just as Obama’s snub speaks of his.

  9. #9 by Uncle Rico on October 6, 2009 - 4:29 pm

    Of course the Dalai Lama is going to be gracious no matter what.

    In other words, the Dalai Lama is a liar.

  10. #10 by worse and worse on October 6, 2009 - 4:50 pm

    Uh, you all might really want to spend some time studying a little Tibetan history, before you get sucked into the artificial theory that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Just because he wears a dress does not make him a nice guy.

    The idea of ever allowing the Dalai Lama and his group of theocratic animals to ever be allowed back into Tibet is just below allowing the Dacoits to be rejuvenated in India.

    I think the Chinese have showed extreme patience with the Dalai Lama. Of course the Dalai Lama’s birth control program for many centuries has consisted of killing the vast majority of female babies.

    Maybe, that is why the right wingers want the president to meet him. So they can tar him with the Dalai Lama’s position on infanticide.

  11. #11 by James Farmer on October 6, 2009 - 5:05 pm

    Ken:

    If Bush were still President today, you would be praising his economic policies and pointing at the stock market performance for the past several months as conclusive evidence of success.

    Instead, you wallow in petty crap re Obama and his decision to postpone the meeting until after meeting with the Chinese – a perfectly logical plan given the complexities and realities involved.

    I think you are succumbing to Obama Derangement Syndrome faster than you think. You might want to consider getting help.

  12. #12 by Ken on October 7, 2009 - 2:11 am

    James

    So how is that help coming along for your Bush Derangement Syndrome?

  13. #13 by Richard Warnick on October 7, 2009 - 6:17 am

    I never get tired of pointing out how the right’s favorite tactic is to project their own failings on others. There was no BDS, it was just the reality-based community pointing out reality that Bush supporters refused to accept.

  14. #14 by Tim Carter on October 7, 2009 - 8:55 am

    “No President since Carter has appeared this weak on the world stage.”

    According to who?

    “Believe me Iran, the Talaban, and Al queada are taking note.”

    Taking note of what? As you wrote “China is becoming our largest creditor” and “The United States sold its soul to China long ago and now they have us by the wantons.” I don’t get where you are going with this. You write that “it” has been happening over a period of time.

  15. #15 by James Farmer on October 7, 2009 - 8:56 pm

    Ken:

    My point remains. You are wallowing in minutia Obama bashing because you have nothing else to criticize him for. I remember quite well your support of Bush; back then, of course, we did not have to wallow in minutia as 1,000 were being killed regularly because of his outrageously arrogant and short-sighted policies.

    And you accuse me of BDS? Ha! Try an extra dose at Sacrament this week; the one with vodka in it.

  16. #16 by Frank Lynch on October 8, 2009 - 2:44 am

    Obama appeasing China is something that does not goes down well. And moreover China funding US is another thing which i find hilarious, US is the most richest country and moreover if it requires the fund also why will it borrow from some Asian developing nation? Not meeting Dalai Lama and shaking hands with China, is I think totally different thing, Mr. Obama can shake hands with China even after meeting Mr. Lama.

  17. #17 by Richard Warnick on October 8, 2009 - 8:16 am

    Appeasement is “the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous.”

    I submit that appeasement is the best thing for U.S. foreign policy, and for the people of Tibet. Or do you want to go to war with China?

  18. #18 by Uncle Rico on October 8, 2009 - 9:56 am

    Ken- you didn’t answer in the other thread the more pressing question posed by Richard: do you want to go to war with China over Tibet? Are the principles involved with the Tibet issue worth a military confrontation with China and all that it entails, and potentially entails? Secondarily, and using your definition of “appeasement,” what exactly is being sacrificed in terms of “justice or other principles” in this instance, particularly if what we’re really talking about is timing.

  19. #19 by Ken Bingham on October 8, 2009 - 11:36 am

    Richard.

    Oh if wikipedia defines it that way then it must be true. Last time I used Wikipedia as a source in a college class I was told to find a credible source.

    Here is how dictionary.com defines appeasement in a political context.

    ” to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.”

    Uncle Rico

    I didn’t say we should go to war over Tibet but we shouldn’t be appeasing China and enabling their human rights abuses either. China has become a super-power because we have built them up without expecting much in return except for cheap goods.

    That is how we have sacrificed our principles to make China happy.

  20. #20 by Tim Carter on October 8, 2009 - 11:58 am

    “That is how we have sacrificed our principles to make China happy.”

    And you are dumping this in Obamas’ lap? You yourself wrote this:

    “The United States sold its soul to China long ago and now they have us by the wantons.”

    You “appease” China through your consumer spending habits.

  21. #21 by James farmer on October 8, 2009 - 1:56 pm

    Ken:

    Maybe you can enlighten us by pointing ot the differences between the two definitions of appeasement. They appear mighty similar to me.

    BTW, I find it fascinating how the wingnut crowd finds fault with Wikipedia. That, to me, is proof in the pudding that wingnuts (e.g., the greater percentage of the GOP) really is less educated than their liberal counterparts and quite unable (or unwilling) to engage in rational, studied thought and discourse.

  22. #22 by Uncle Rico on October 8, 2009 - 3:05 pm

    I didn’t say we should go to war over Tibet but we shouldn’t be appeasing China and enabling their human rights abuses either.

    I agree, we shouldn’t be enabling human rights abuses (although I suspect its not too difficult to find instances of us doing just that). I just don’t see the connection you are straining to make between delaying a meeting with the Dalai Lama and enabling China to engage in human rights abuses. Similarly, I don’t believe that by meeting with the Dalai Lama prior to meeting with the Chinese, Obama will prevent human rights abuses by China. You would have to believe that for your “appeasement” criticism to have any validity it seems to me.

  23. #23 by A N O'Ther on October 8, 2009 - 7:59 pm

    Ken Bingham :
    Richard.
    Oh if wikipedia defines it that way then it must be true. Last time I used Wikipedia as a source in a college class I was told to find a credible source.
    Here is how dictionary.com defines appeasement in a political context.
    ” to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.”
    Uncle Rico
    I didn’t say we should go to war over Tibet but we shouldn’t be appeasing China and enabling their human rights abuses either. China has become a super-power because we have built them up without expecting much in return except for cheap goods.
    That is how we have sacrificed our principles to make China happy.

    That’s priceless – you reject Wikipedia as a credible source by citing dictionary.com. Are you really that stupid or just pretending?

  24. #24 by Ken on October 9, 2009 - 4:53 am

    A N O’ther

    Howabout the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    appease

    pacify, conciliate; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

  25. #25 by Uncle Rico on October 9, 2009 - 5:40 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: