Obama's Bow to Saudis Escalates to Sellout

President Obama bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the G-20 nations summit in April, and then he denied it.

Despite the evidence of a video and still photos of the event confirming the bow, the mainstream media told us: “Are you going to believe Obama or your lying eyes?”

But Obama obviously bowed, with such great reverence that some described it as “Obama bowing to the keeper of his holy places.” And this was weeks before Obama went to the Middle East and reclaimed his Muslim heritage. His speech in Cairo was like a Muslim debutante's coming-out announcement.

He said about himself all the things no one else was allowed to say about him before the election, when some Americans had reservations about a president so steeped in Islamic culture. Some have said that this is Obama relating to the peoples of the world so he can bring them together and declare an end to all wars.

Well, the terrorists who bombed a hotel in Pakistan less than a week following his speech apparently didn’t get Obama’s memo that they are members of a peaceful religion. Perhaps he doesn’t understand that some in his audience believe “world peace” means a global Islamist government subjugating everyone to a caliphate, a bit strange for someone who claims to understand Islam so well not to know that.

This trip to the Middle East had an awkward stop in Saudi Arabia, perhaps so Obama could have the king greet him in broad daylight to show Americans back home that he didn’t bow. And he apparently didn’t this time — or at least not literally. But just days before his trip, he genuflected to the Saudi royals and subordinated American victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as though they were subjects as well.

The Obama Justice Department argued that family members of the victims of the terror attacks should not be allowed to sue the Saudi royal family for helping finance al-Qaida. The lawsuit accuses the Saudi royals of financially backing al-Qaida through direct contributions and so-called charitable organizations set up to sponsor terrorism, according to documents insurance companies filed on behalf of victims and surviving family members of the attacks that killed 3,000 Americans.

The legal brief filed on behalf of Obama’s solicitor general, Elena Kagan, stated that “the Supreme Court had historically looked to the executive branch to take the lead on such international matters because of ‘the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit',” according to the New York Times.

But that is just what a bill President Clinton signed allows victims of terrorism to do. The “Flatow Amendment” to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act was intended to provide relief for the families of terrorism by allowing legal pursuit of state sponsors of terrorism. This is the very definition of what the Saudi’s have done by supporting al-Qaida.

One might think that there must be some reasonable explanation for Obama's taking this action; unfortunately, there is not. It was Obama’s preference for the Saudi princes over their American victims. Kagan’s argument that the State Department handles these matters better is ridiculous, it is a judicial matter not a diplomatic one.

Besides, if Justice had remained silent on the issue, a court, not Obama, would have been the authority to decide whether the Saudis were liable. The Justice Departments argument was that the court should not even hear the evidence.

Democrats have been curiously silent on the issue of Obama’s affection for the Saudis, especially considering the fact that, when Bush was president, his relationship with the Saudis was a constant source of conspiracy mongering among the left.

Sen. John Kerry sought to exploit Bush’s need for Saudi cooperation in the war on terror in the 2004 election. And who could forget the Democrats' favorite film of that year: Michael Moore’s "Fahrenheit 9-11," which masqueraded as evidence of the Bush administration’s complicity with the Saudis in the attacks.

Obama has declared whose side he is on; now the question is whether the Democrats prove to be as duplicitous on this issue as they do on most everything else.

Scott Wheeler is executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC (GOPtrust.com), the nation’s third-largest political action committee.