Obama Disses Another Ally

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
Lost in the shuffle of Obama’s immigration diktat and his sham of a farce of a travesty of a climate agreement with China was his speech about climate change in Canberra, Australia, where Obama went out of his way to insult Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Apparently our embassy personnel in Canberra advised Obama against this course, but naturally Obama knows better.
Australian newspaper columnist Greg Sheridan reports on the matter in an article that is behind the newspaper’s paywall (but easily gotten around through Google if you want to), so here are the important excerpts from it:
BARACK Obama defied the *advice of his embassy in Canberra to deliver a stinging attack on the Abbott government’s climate policies in Brisbane last weekend.
The US embassy, under the leadership of ambassador John Berry, advised the President, through his senior staff, not to couch his climate change comments in a way that would be seen as disobliging to the Abbott government, sources have revealed. . .

It is normal practice when the US President makes an overseas visit that the ambassador in the country he is visiting is consulted about the contents of major speeches. It is unusual, though not unprecedented, for an embassy’s advice to be ignored.

The Obama speech in Brisbane was added to the President’s program at the last minute. During his extensive talks with Tony Abbott in Beijing at APEC, Mr Obama did not make any mention of a desire to make a speech, or of any of the contentious climate change content of the speech.

Only in Naypyidaw, in Myanmar, immediately prior to the leaders travelling to Brisbane for the G20 summit, did the US party demand that the President make a speech and that it be to an audience of young people. At the speech, the President did not *acknowledge the presence of Governor-General Peter Cosgrove.

Despite repeated Australian requests, White House officials refused to provide a text of the speech to their Australian hosts in advance, and did not provide a summary of what would be contained in the speech.

Mr Obama’s repeated references to the climate change debate in Australia, his accusation that Australia was an inefficient user of energy and his repeated references to the Great Barrier Reef, which has figured heavily in the climate change debate, have led observers to conclude that the speech was a deliberate swipe at the Abbott government.

Historians of the US-Australia relationship are unable to nominate a case of a visiting president making such a hostile speech for the host government.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has accused Mr Obama of speaking in ignorance about the joint plans by the federal and Queensland governments to act to preserve the Great Barrier Reef. She sent a briefing on the reef to the White House after Mr Obama’s speech was delivered. . .

Sources in Washington said the Brisbane speech was a sign of deep divisions within the Obama administration over how to deal with Australia, and over Asian policy generally. . .

Since the Abbott government was elected last September, there has been a group within the Obama administration that wants to take a tougher public line against Canberra on differences over climate change, in particular the decision to abolish the carbon tax.

Washington sources say the figure who ultimately adjudicated on this internal debate was Mr Obama, who recognised that Mr Abbott had been elected with a clear mandate to abolish the tax. . .

Mr Obama has previously had a warm personal relationship with Mr Abbott. The President has been a frequent telephone caller to Mr Abbott, almost always with a request for Australian support for a US policy or initiative, from troops for the Middle East, US trade initiatives in Asia, or important regional diplomatic matters, especially those involving security. On every occasion the US President has asked for help, the Australian Prime Minister has provided it.
Doubt that will continue.

Obama Disses Another Ally | Power Line
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Bitches about the carbon tax being abolished.... Does the US have one?

No?

Then STFU Obama.

Says Australia is and inefficient user of energy. I've seen more homes here with solar and wind energy than I did back home and back home used more of the above than the US last I checked. The US where gas guzzling SUV's and Trucks are an American Staple of Identity. The US consumes the most oil than any other nation in the world but leaps and bounds.... And Obama wants to b*tch about Australia?

I suppose Obama will b*tch about how Canada isn't efficient with all its fresh water resources too... And somehow twist things to seek that fresh water to be pipelined into the US so they can guzzle it all away.

Fk'n hypocrisy abound.

But hey, he and China got up and puffed their chests saying they're going to do good for the environment (finally) and before they bother with any real action, will take a swipe at everybody else in order to look better, despite almost every other western nation has had a good head start ahead of the US and China by a few years now.

Though funny enough, I never heard much about Obama's comments about Abbott/Australia, It didn't get much air time in the news here and I have not met one person here who heard or mentioned anything about it.

Just goes to show that nobody here gives a sh*t what he thinks..... Though most in the world don't.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
... where Obama went out of his way to insult Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
BARACK Obama defied the *advice of his embassy in Canberra to deliver a stinging attack on the Abbott government’s climate policies in Brisbane last weekend
apparently... it worked!

in the lead-up to the G20 meetings, the avowed "skeptic" Abbott had repeatedly refused requests from some G-20 leaders to include climate change as a G20 agenda topic... claiming he wanted the meetings to focus on "the global economy". Apparently, in Abbott's world, there is no economic aspect within climate change discussion/policy/action!

eventually, Abbott relented... because he was told climate change would be discussed regardless. More pointedly, a short while later Abbott did a complete about face ... as bold-highlighted in his comments below:
What followed was as frontal a repudiation of the Abbott position as could have been imagined. In diplomatic terms, it was a triple touch-up. First on the eve of the Brisbane summit last Wednesday, Obama joined forces with China's President Xi Jinping to steal the pre-summit oxygen announcing a historic joint commitment to limit carbon dioxide output at lower levels and more quickly than previously committed to in both countries.

Obama followed that up two days later on the Friday with a leaked commitment of $US3 billion to the Green Climate Fund – an international pool being assembled to finance climate change adaptation in poorer countries affected by climate change. Abbott had already dismissed the fund as socialism masquerading as environmentalism.

And finally on the Saturday, the President used a scene-stealing speech at Brisbane's University of Queensland to elevate climate policy even further, formally announcing that $US3 billion pledge and openly calling for countries - Australian specifically as a large per-capita polluter – to do more. He wanted to keep the Great Barrier Reef even if the Abbott government did not.

Within hours, even the conservative fossil-fuel loving Stephen Harper had flagged a contribution to the green climate fund. Abbott was jammed in an international Malachi Crunch.

Under the circumstances he had done well to limit references to climate change to a single paragraph in his G20 communique.

But it was a pyrrhic victory as he was coming to recognise.

After years of brushing the issue aside or handling questions with a palpable reluctance, the penny has dropped.

Emerging with Hollande he declared it was he who raised the subject in their talks. "Yes, we discussed climate change. I raised climate change," he volunteered even before a question was asked.

"It's very important that we get strong and effective outcomes from the conference in Paris next year."

"It is a subject that the world needs to tackle as a whole."

"We all are doing what we can, Australia as well, and we need a strong and effective agreement from Paris next year."

And he went on.

"I think it's very important that we don't have another disaster like Copenhagen and it's vital that the Paris Conference be a success, unlike Copenhagen."

Explaining the G20 communique, Abbott said it was an important subject that was always going to be in there because Australia had circulated the first draft expressly mentioning climate.

Many were left wondering why he hadn't just said that before.

 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,844
93
48
So he wants to talk about fiction...big deal. He still won't reinstitute the carbon tax.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Bitches about the carbon tax being abolished.... Does the US have one?

No?

Then STFU Obama.

the linked OP article says nothing of the kind

Says Australia is and inefficient user of energy. I've seen more homes here with solar and wind energy than I did back home and back home used more of the above than the US last I checked. The US where gas guzzling SUV's and Trucks are an American Staple of Identity. The US consumes the most oil than any other nation in the world but leaps and bounds.... And Obama wants to b*tch about Australia?

with whatever legitimacy the U.S. can call out any nation concerning current/cumulative emissions, today, Australia is numero uno in per-capita CO2 emissions...

 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Suddenly Australia is the biggest offender. When the US didn't go all in with Kyoto... we were... then Canada pissed everyone off and they were in the cross hairs... now Australia is.

You're next New Zealand!
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Per capita is irrelevant. It is per sq.km that counts.

:mrgreen: total and per-capita each have a known and accepted understanding and legitimacy to them. Care to offer "yours" in terms of, as you say, "what counts"... per square kilometer..... and just who/what uses that particular metric you favour?
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
If you have CO2 as a by product of industry, plant a tree, how fuking hard is that to figure out?

Suddenly Australia is the biggest offender. When the US didn't go all in with Kyoto... we were... then Canada pissed everyone off and they were in the cross hairs... now Australia is.

You're next New Zealand!
Perhaps an all out war with these Nations would solve a lot of internal and external issues for the rest of the world.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
:mrgreen: total and per-capita each have a known and accepted understanding and legitimacy to them. Care to offer "yours" in terms of, as you say, "what counts"... per square kilometer..... and just who/what uses that particular metric you favour?

Per capita is skewed in favor of large populations.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
you're avoiding responding to my question asking you to rationalize your favoured "per sq. km"... and who/what uses that metric?

I just made it quite clear. Try reading. The only things that count would be total tons produced or tons per sq.km. Anything else is manipulated by someone to produce desired results.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,617
2,365
113
Toronto, ON
the linked OP article says nothing of the kind



with whatever legitimacy the U.S. can call out any nation concerning current/cumulative emissions, today, Australia is numero uno in per-capita CO2 emissions...


We are so close. We should just idle our cars for 5 minutes more each day, I am sure we Canadians can be #1.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
the linked OP article says nothing of the kind



with whatever legitimacy the U.S. can call out any nation concerning current/cumulative emissions, today, Australia is numero uno in per-capita CO2 emissions...


Saudi Arabia, Australia and Canada.

.....

Saudi Arabia, Australia and Canada.

........


Where have I seen those three before?

Oh right, they were the only nations at the G20 that wouldn't agree to stop subsidizing the oil industry.


It's prolly cuz those oil subsidies don't exist lol