Barack Obama's churlishness is unforgivable

There are several reports in the media this morning, outlining the perceived snub of the British PM Gordon Brown by our dear president. But I found this writer in the Daily Telegraph's version of summation to be personally the most interesting.

David Hughes is billed as the Daily Telegraph's "chief leader writer." And he is credited as having covered British politics for 30 years. Therefore, I can only assume that this dear fellow knows and recognizes churlishness when he sees it. Although I must admit that my less than vast command of the king's English sent me looking for Mr. Webster's tutelage on Mr. Hughes choice of word in describing Barack Obama.

It seems? That "churlish" has two primary definitions. The first: 'of, resembling, or characteristic of a churl : vulgar' The second and more appropriate in its intent as used by Mr. Hughes: 'marked by a lack of civility or graciousness : surly.'

So there you have it. On at least one level, there are those in the UK that saw president Obama's intentional snub of Gordon Brown as churlishness. And somehow? I tend to believe there are probably more than a few in the UK who see it precisely the same way as Mr. Huges.

The surly arrogance of this president has been visited now on several of America's European allies. Lest we forget how President Sarkozy was treated by the insolent rebuff of president Obama during the D Day invasion anniversary ceremonies at Normandy and hosted by the French back in June.

Or what of his snubbing of Angela Merkel the PM of Germany? On the very same trip to Europe as the one where he snubbed Sarkozy. Merkel was given the Obama presidential cold shoulder when he intentionally bypassed Berlin and a meeting with Angela Merkel and opted rather to visit Dresden. Of course PM Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, never even rated a visit from the messianic one on that trip to Europe and the middle east.

Or what of last week when Obama snubbed the leaders of both the Czech Republic and Poland by withdrawing the promised missile defense shield? And he did it on the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland seventy years ago.

So the question almost begs the asking.....Does Gordon Brown feel that he is special? Should the British people feel that they are privileged and should be allowed a special confidence and position influence with this American administration?  Apparently not. Particularly if you make the determination of that qualification based upon the actions of this president toward the British to date.

As an observer of very little consequence, I find it almost amusing to see Europe writhing in mass at the insolence of the socialist interloper now occupying the Oval Office and standing this week before the UN and directing to the world what he thinks their level of participation in the grand scheme of his plans ought to be.

I remember now too many years past, when the previous president was perceived as surly for having the audacity to call out the axis of evil (Iran and N Korea). He then told our friends and allies in Europe and the UK that they had better get on board with helping to defend both their own security and our security. Yet the suave socialist controlling most of Europe wanted none of that. They smirked and snided and sniped at George Bush for eight years while demonstrating their own finer skills and talents of churlishness to the American people.

The UK under Tony Blair may have committed British troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and the British people may have been our most supportive Allie in these wars against terrorism, but they have also been on the forefront of criticism against America for having the audacity to defend itself against Islamic created terrorism in the first place.

As an American, I would have thought that after their own attacks of 7/7? That the British (of all people) would have closed ranks and become closer allies with America. But that has not been the case in my observation.

There are many in the UK who have fumed over the UK's involvement in support of the war on terror and they continue to fume and spew their outright hate and disagreement against America at every turn over our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan. So now? Americans are supposed to give a twit that the British PM has been snubbed by the messianic one upon arriving at the G20?? I hardly think so.

Gordon Brown's political life light is waning. The man has never struck me as being of more consequence than a lesser player in the now all but dead Labour party in the UK. His party is dying by the day and so is his own political future. Gordon Brown made his overtures to Obama when he visited Washington right after this president was sworn in. And what did that get him? Oh yes....now I remember. A dysfunctional set of DVD's and a drubbing by the media on both sides of the Atlantic for not being more of a man and standing up to Obama.

I am sorry, but I have no pity for Gordon Brown. The churlish snub of Gordon Brown is of no greater or lesser consequence of relevance than that of the others who have suffered the same fate at the hands of this sophomore of change since he became president.

IMO? If these European leaders want to get into the swing of things and get themselves invited to the A list of conversations with this president? Then they should pick of the phone and call Hugo Chavez or the deposed dictator of Honduras. Perhaps a call to Fidel Castro or Kim Jon, or Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad. President Obama has already spoken with most of them since taking office and he has expressed a willing interest in doing so with all of them, since before he was elected.

Perhaps Gordon Brown can barter and invite from one of the more notable players in Obama's universe of world leaders that he is interested in speaking to.  Of course, there is the possibility that if Gordon Brown were to bow and kiss the hand at his next encounter with Obama before leaving the G20 summit this week? Then maybe, just maybe the messiah could find a few minutes and squeeze him in before Brown leaves for his return to the UK.