It’s Friday and I am tired, but I will post this nonetheless. The headline reads “Barack Obama rejects Normandy trip to avoid offending Germany” in the London Telegraph newspaper. When I first saw it today (the story came out days ago) I was a little stunned that our Commander-in-Chief rejected the idea of visiting the cemetery of fallen American heroes. Soldiers who helped to save Europe from herself all those years ago. Young (and old) American boys and men who made the ultimate sacrifice are not shown the respect by their President that they deserve. During a week where our President set out to reestablish better diplomatic relationships with Europe and other allies, I paid no attention to the Right Wing attacks on Obama’s so-called “apology tour.” I kind of understood what he was doing. Our past administration was not beloved there, and for our Leader to show some humility was, I think, prudent. I don’t even care if he did or didn’t bow to the Saudi King (though he clearly did and why they can’t just admit it is strange and representative of things). Would an afternoon in Normandy paying respects to our fallen soldiers really been offensive to Germany? To which Germans I have to ask? The Neo-Nazis? Ah, do they have Skin Heads there? Would it have been a big deal time wise or logistically, no and no when you consider where he visited during his trip: Turkey, ect. To visit Normandy would have reminded everyone of our sacrifice, yet this simple gesture proposed by the French was rebuffed by our President. I am perturb by this behavior on the part Obama and his handlers. I don’t buy any of the excuses they have provided.
Now with that said, it was reported that the President MIGHT have agreed to go to France for the 65th anniversary of the June 6th 1944, D-Day landings. However, White House spokesman declined to confirm so at this point there is no such plan. If Obama does indeed visit Normandy in June, I will happily post a rebuttal and sing his praises!
I think our president needs a lesson in history and I agree that there is probably no one in Germany who would have been offended by a visit to Normandy. The only people he has managed to offend are me and an ever-growing number of other Americans.
I heartily agree with your analysis as to the purpose of Obama’s trip to Europe, and enjoy your blog. I believe, among other things, that a book he was reading during the campaign – Post American World by Fareed Zakaria – has had an influence on his thinking.
Any elected official deserves a chance – whether they are oriented left, right, or center. This trip was needed by this Administration.
However, I think it’s a slap to our Armed Forces and the veterans on being so politically correct that you can’t visit a gravesite. I wonder how visiting on the anniversary of DDay will make a real difference – if his purpose recently was to not offend the Germans. Wouldn’t they still be offended then?
What’s next – we apologize because we caused the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th?
I’m disappointed in Obama’s treatment of veterans, not only in this instance, but in proposed legislation that was cancelled concerning hospital care for service-related injuries.
Pam, that is certainly a criticism I have heard and I also know many who are frustrated with some of the things he has done, hasn’t done, said, and not said…
Mike, I think the idea of offending the German’s had to do with Obama visiting privately with the French and not the Germans. But I agree, very weak argument and it makes me scratch my head…
Thanks for posting guys!
C
It’s certainly a major change in attitude from the last adminstration. President Bush honored our fallen soldiers so much he created several thousand new ones to honor.
Matt, witty, pat yourself on the back for that one, well done! Now, what does your comment have to do with this post? Offer something on this topic or please stop.
Chris
It wasn’t that witty. I apologize for the snark.
In my opinion, speaking not of this blog, but generally, the hand wringing and negative interpretation of every action, no matter how minor, by the president, goes beyond politics as usual into the realm of the irrational.
And irrational is not where this nation can afford to go, or stay.
Could someone explain why the argument to decline to visit the gravesites is a weak one? It appears that the visit was planned by the French in order to give Sarkozy more alone time with Obama, as well as provide a public display of mutual French and American interests. The White House declined to visit at the moment because it would signal favoritism to the French. These sorts of appearances often matter in international politics. How is it “a slap at our armed forces” to not visit? Is the President now expected to visit gravesties everywhere he goes?
Matt, please, would you have said this “… the hand wringing and negative interpretation of every action, no matter how minor, by the president, goes beyond politics as usual into the realm of the irrational.” When people like Pelosi and others were calling Bush, oh I forget, the Devil and whatever else? The President is out representing us, not the world. He is not campaigning still, he is the President.
Peter, I won’t speak for Mike. I did not say is was a “slap” to anyone, I stated I was disappointed by this non-move on Obama’s part.
I understand that Sarkozy’s invite could have been a move to get more “alone time” with Obama. I have to ask, so what? I also noted that the offending part had to do with Obama visiting with the French privately and not the Germans.
The President indeed is not obligated to do anything. That’s kind of my point. And no, I am not suggesting he visits gravesites whereever he goes. However, Normandy is not an ordinary graveyard, can we agree on that?
My point is during a trip where our President was clearly in apologetic mode for America (and I’m not going to review everything he apologized for and I noted I agreed with his “humble” approach), it would have been, in my opinion, an appropriate visit to take the time to honor something good we Americas have done for Europeans (and the world).
But like I said, if he goes back for the 65th anniversary, I will be happy to post a rebuttal. You might not care if he does, that’s fine. You have that right.
If this line of thought does not help, than we have to agree to disagree.
C
I will say, he visited our Troops so…. Maybe that is more important than visiting Normandy.
C
Chris,
You bring up a good point about Bush. I thought Bush was a terrible president and never voted for him. However the criticism of Bush often was nutty on the extreme left. However, the hysteria about Obama is already over the top at 10 weeks in. It’s so crazy now, with the secret Muslim, antiChrist, Marxist stuff, I don’t know where can go from here.
Bush drove people nuts with the things he did. Obama just seems to drive people nuts because why? Its not based on anything he’s actually doing.
This is aside from legitimate criticism of the bailout plan, the changes in foreign policy and the changes in military procurement. Any leader who does something is going to be criticized for it, and sometimes that criticism has merit. But the weird tone coming out of outlets like Fox News is just disconnected with reality.
You are a right wing idiot who doesn’t even understand the nature of diplomacy and because Obama didn’t go in with the attitude of “We American’s are the Shit” means to you that he is an apologetic and weak president. I’m sick of you guys!!! You lost the election, handedly, stop crying! Obama is saving this country, we can’t do it alone we can’t be the Cowboys. I will refrain from what I think is your real agenda, to tear down this man who is saving this country. Your agenda will not succeed! Right Wing racists!
Bob, I’m speechless… I’m not sure why I don’t delete your post. I guess I find it amusing.
I find it interesting how often individuals can degenerate into name-calling and swearing at the drop of a hat – or an email, as the case may be.
My viewpoint from my earlier post came from the experience of being one of those veterans. I’m not WW II, nor even Korea – though I know a number of these men and women. I’m more of a late-Vietnam era vet.
I am conservative, but I believe in giving every politician a fair chance to establish themselves in what they do as it pertains to my particular viewpoint – just as I am sure the rest of the world does.
No politician can meet everyone’s expectations. That is a given. No man/woman living can do that. However, I also reserve the right to express my opinion in a civilized, more-or-less rational manner.
People complain about the military – and often with justification. However, to follow orders and to risk life and limb to storm the beaches, whether it is Normandy, Guadalcanal, Anzio, Iwo Jima – or the bridgeheads in Iraq or Afghanistan, if that is where a soldier is ordered to go – is absolutely heroic.
To have a President deny visiting a region as significant in the history of this nation’s efforts to win the war in Europe in order not to offend someone is – to me – wrong. It not only denies the memory of what what done there, but those living veterans (I happen to know a couple) who were there.
On top of that, to propose to cut federal health benefits for war related injuries – as was proposed by the current Administration – to me (one lone voice in the world) a trend that concerns me.
As far as I’m concerned, the jury is still rightfully out on Obama. He’s simply not had the time in office to clearly indicate the path he is going to take. He’s done some things I like, and some I don’t. So did Bush, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, and Eisenhower (the one’s I lived through with a memory of their administrations).
Because I don’t like some of things done was not intended to provide a flash point for off-topic discussion, name calling, and swearing. If I offended you, I’m sorry.
But I still don’t intend to change my opinion.
Chris,
It is a shame so much name calling got involved in all of this.
The article, as it stands, indicates that the invitation to visit Normandy came as a diplomatic ploy on the part of the French. The US administration did not discuss suggest it, and avoided it because they saw perceived that Germany might perceive it as a slight. I think it is important to bear in mind that it appears that Sarkozy wanted Obama to visit Normandy not so much to honor American war dead, but as a kind of diplomatic protocl one-upmanship. Note that this appears as a typical political trap – present Obama with a choice that either gives the French prestige (visit Normandy) or hurts him domestically (arguments that he disdains the sacrifices of American soldiers during World War II). Perhaps it is germane to note here that I have not noted anyone calling for Obama to visit service gravesites in the United Kingdom. And Chris, your line of thought makes everything clear: “it would have been, in my opinion, an appropriate visit to take the time to honor something good we Americas have done for Europeans.” For you, as with the French, none of this has anything to do with the honoring the war dead, but scoring political points. All of this is fine, but please don’t reduce our war dead to pawns in whatever disagreements you might have with the course Obama has chosen.
Peter you said, “All of this is fine, but please don’t reduce our war dead to pawns in whatever disagreements you might have with the course Obama has chosen.”
If I want to point out something I did not agree with, I will, if you want to accuse me of something, that is fine.
Also, if I wanted to challenge Obama politically I would have done so in far more colorful ways as the Democrats did with Bush. This post was not politically motivated.
But alas, it is only “political” to you as you MIGHT be in political agreement with Obama and any criticism is seen as such. I am not. I looked at this from a different perspective.
C
Pingback: Blog 4 History: American & Civil War History » Blog Archive » Obama marks D-Day’s solemn 65th anniversary