Whitehouse: Obama didn't bow to Saudi King. He's just tall. [Archive] - Debate Policy

red states rule

04-09-2009, 07:01 AM

You can't make this stuff up folks. Only libs who are drunk on the Obama Kool Aid will buy this offical White House explanation

Whitehouse: Obama didn't bow to Saudi King. He's just tall.

The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets.

"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The Washington Times called the alleged bow a "shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate" and said it violated centuries of American tradition of not deferring to royalty. The Weekly Standard, meanwhile, noted that American protocol apparently rules out bowing, or at least it reportedly did on the occasion of a Clinton "near-bow" to the emperor of Japan.

Interestingly, a columnist in the Saudi-backed Arabic paper Asharq Alawsat also took the gesture as a bow and appreciated the move.

"Obama wished to demonstrate his respect and appreciation of the personality of King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, who has made one of the most important calls in the modern era, namely the call for inter-faith and inter-cultural dialogue to defuse the hatred, conflict and wars," wrote the columnist, Muhammah Diyab.

The video shows Obama dipping toward the king as G-20 leaders greet one another at the ExCel Centre in London

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S60U-hl35Gw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S60U-hl35Gw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_No_bow_to_Saudi.html

theHawk

04-09-2009, 07:24 AM

red states rule

04-09-2009, 07:29 AM

What the hell does his height have to do with it? He bowed all the way day, practically kissing the King's hand.

At least we've seen Obama's true colors, he is very willing to bow down to Muslim authority.

Why not make it a more believable lie?

Like:The king got Obama with the old your shoes are untied trick.

Agnapostate

04-09-2009, 07:44 AM

Presidents and shoes don't have a record of mixing well in the Middle East.

red states rule

04-09-2009, 07:48 AM

Presidents and shoes don't have a record of mixing well in the Middle East.

but appeasers like Obama who grovel well have no problem mixing in

Agnapostate

04-09-2009, 07:50 AM

What are you talking about? I'm sure it was just a code signal amongst his fellow Islamic terrorist socialists, amirite? ;)

red states rule

04-09-2009, 08:03 AM

What are you talking about? I'm sure it was just a code signal amongst his fellow Islamic terrorist socialists, amirite? ;)

Obama is an appeaser and refuses to stand up to terrorists. He smears America while on a "I Am Sorrry" world tour

Obama made several gaffes on his "I Am Sorry" tour, and smeared the memory of the US troops who died on D-Day - yet the liberal media and his supporters issued a pass for all of them

Agnapostate

04-09-2009, 08:31 AM

Obama is an appeaser and refuses to stand up to terrorists. He smears America while on a "I Am Sorrry" world tour

Obama made several gaffes on his "I Am Sorry" tour, and smeared the memory of the US troops who died on D-Day - yet the liberal media and his supporters issued a pass for all of them

I'd ascribe greater blame for that to his predecessor, namely through his failure to target the severe nature of the Israeli aggression that provoked the initial Islamic terrorist crisis. For instance, Bush several times demanded that Sharon halt Operation Defensive Shield (the IDF operation involving heavy military incursions into the West Bank), having been acutely aware of the consequences of unchecked Israeli aggression due to the terrorist attacks several months prior, in my opinion. However, pressure from various lobbyists and sources (the Christian Right not the least of them), effectively caused him to yield, thus making him the appeaser.

Obama, frankly, has not offered a greatly checked or limited pattern of appeasement to Israel, instead choosing to stumble down a well-worn path of failure, from what I've seen thus far.

red states rule

04-09-2009, 08:34 AM

I'd ascribe greater blame for that to his predecessor, namely through his failure to target the severe nature of the Israeli aggression that provoked the initial Islamic terrorist crisis. For instance, Bush several times demanded that Sharon halt Operation Defensive Shield (the IDF operation involving heavy military incursions into the West Bank), having been acutely aware of the consequences of unchecked Israeli aggression due to the terrorist attacks several months prior, in my opinion. However, pressure from various lobbyists and sources (the Christian Right not the least of them), effectively caused him to yield, thus making him the appeaser.

Obama, frankly, has not offered a greatly checked or limited pattern of appeasement to Israel, instead choosing to stumble down a well-worn path of failure, from what I've seen thus far.

So it is Israel that is to blame for existing and not the terrorists who want to kill them?

What does this have to do with Obama smearing America, appeasing terrorist groups like Hamas, and coddling terrorists that want as many Americans dead as possible?

Agnapostate

04-09-2009, 08:38 AM

So it is Israel that is to blame for existing and not the terrorists who want to kill them?

Apart from the obvious strategic liability posed by unconditional and unregulated U.S. aid to Israel, I have yet to encounter a sound moral justification for offering such aid.

What does this have to do with Obama smearing America, appeasing terrorist groups like Hamas, and coddling terrorists that want as many Americans dead as possible?

I don't know of any substantive definition of "America" you can even offer. The territory? The citizenry? The government? The latter two are frequently conflated for the purpose of claiming that those who oppose previous government policy oppose "the values of the heartland." Cute little jingoistic soundbyte, but one with little relation to reality.

I mentioned Bush's appeasement to powerful Washington lobbies against his better judgment because you mentioned the nature of Obama's appeasement. I certainly don't claim that Obama hasn't appeased certain lobbies similarly; it's dubious to claim that he's appeased the Arabs, however.

red states rule

04-09-2009, 08:44 AM

Apart from the obvious strategic liability posed by unconditional and unregulated U.S. aid to Israel, I have yet to encounter a sound moral justification for offering such aid.

I don't know of any substantive definition of "America" you can even offer. The territory? The citizenry? The government? The latter two are frequently conflated for the purpose of claiming that those who oppose previous government policy oppose "the values of the heartland." Cute little jingoistic soundbyte, but one with little relation to reality.

I mentioned Bush's appeasement to powerful Washington lobbies against his better judgment because you mentioned the nature of Obama's appeasement. I certainly don't claim that Obama hasn't appeased certain lobbies similarly; it's dubious to claim that he's appeased the Arabs, however.

Did you vote for Obama? You do have the duck and dodge talking points down pat

Agnapostate

04-09-2009, 08:47 AM

Did you vote for Obama? You do have the duck and dodge talking points down pat

Why bother? The Democrats and Republicans are effectively two factions of one party.

red states rule

04-09-2009, 08:51 AM

Why bother? The Democrats and Republicans are effectively two factions of one party.

I take that as a yes

Thank you

Agnapostate

04-09-2009, 08:58 AM

I take that as a yes

Thank you

So saying "Obama, frankly, has not offered a greatly checked or limited pattern of appeasement to Israel, instead choosing to stumble down a well-worn path of failure, from what I've seen thus far," is an indication of enthusiastic support for him, in your opinion? I don't think recycling talking points from the Heritage Foundation can help you here.

red states rule

04-09-2009, 09:02 AM

So saying "Obama, frankly, has not offered a greatly checked or limited pattern of appeasement to Israel, instead choosing to stumble down a well-worn path of failure, from what I've seen thus far," is an indication of enthusiastic support for him, in your opinion? I don't think recycling talking points from the Heritage Foundation can help you here.

Obama was endorsed by Hamas for President, and has since paid them off by giving them US taxpayer money

Obama smeared America during his "I Aa Sorry" world tour, and refused to visit the graves of dead Americans who died on D Day because it might offend the Germans

Obama is showing his spin - if he could only find it we could all see it

Agnapostate

04-09-2009, 09:08 AM

Obama was endorsed by Hamas for President, and has since paid them off by giving them US taxpayer money

Has it occurred to you that a Hamas endorsement could have been a strategic ploy to ensure the victory of his opponent? I suspect that you'd be claiming that had his opponent been endorsed by Hamas. But why is Hamas even relevant? They pose effectively no threat to the U.S. or any critical U.S. interests.

Obama smeared America during his "I Aa Sorry" world tour, and refused to visit the graves of dead Americans who died on D Day because it might offend the Germans

I've asked you to provide a substantive definition of what "America" is; are you unable to do that?

Obama is showing his spin - if he could only find it we could all see it

Obama is inclined to spin, as with any other politician or high-ranking servant of the state. What does amuse me is that you apparently believe that I'm a liberal, a Democrat, or an Obama supporter.

I'm afraid not. I'm a socialist, specifically an anarcho-communist, as my avatar should indicate. As a socialist, Obama is a greater foe of mine than George Bush was. Liberal democratic ideology is a greater threat than rightist laissez-faire ideology and the related form of Anglo-Saxon capitalism because liberal democratic ideology is able to better sustain capitalism and appease the working class. Worker militancy would threaten capitalism and the state otherwise.

red states rule

04-09-2009, 09:10 AM

Has it occurred to you that a Hamas endorsement could have been a strategic ploy to ensure the victory of his opponent? I suspect that you'd be claiming that had his opponent been endorsed by Hamas. But why is Hamas even relevant? They pose effectively no threat to the U.S. or any critical U.S. interests.

I've asked you to provide a substantive definition of what "America" is; are you unable to do that?

Obama is inclined to spin, as with any other politician or high-ranking servant of the state. What does amuse me is that you apparently believe that I'm a liberal, a Democrat, or an Obama supporter.

I'm afraid not. I'm a socialist, specifically an anarcho-communist, as my avatar should indicate. As a socialist, Obama is a greater foe of mine than George Bush was. Liberal democratic ideology is a greater threat than rightist laissez-faire ideology and the related form of Anglo-Saxon capitalism because liberal democratic ideology is able to better sustain capitalism and appease the working class. Worker militancy would threaten capitalism and the state otherwise.

OMG...the King isn't THAT short and Queen Elizabeth is even shorter. He certainly didn't have to lean down to shake her hand. The Kenyan started bowing before their hands touched. That was a bow and now the Chosen One needs to go on television and explain himself. Why is an American President bowing to a King?

What Obama did should NEVER BE DONE BY A US PRESIDENT. HE SHOULD BOW FOR NO ONE EXCEPT GOD!

How can you be so blinded by the hype to deny that a US President bowing is any where near on the same league as what Bush did?

Every founding father just looked down upon us and realized that their dream lasted until 2009. They would have slain themselves before bowing to ANY ROYALTY.

Agnapostate

04-09-2009, 09:11 AM

How can you be so blinded by the hype to deny that a US President bowing is any where near on the same league as what Bush did?

Because Bush's appeasement actually resulted in a substantive consequence, and served to facilitate recruitment into Islamic terrorist and jihadist organizations, and is therefore of significantly greater relevance.

red states rule

04-09-2009, 09:13 AM

Because Bush's appeasement actually resulted in a substantive consequence, and served to facilitate recruitment into Islamic terrorist and jihadist organizations, and is therefore of significantly greater relevance.

Oh, Obama bows and it is Bush's fault? Well, that has been the lefts excudse for everything for 9 years so why not keep using it?

Endearment/Affection or whatever tou claim Bush was doing are not the same as submissiveness/subservience.

Agnapostate

04-09-2009, 09:25 AM

Oh, Obama bows and it is Bush's fault? Well, that has been the lefts excudse for everything for 9 years so why not keep using it?

I don't even see that there's any substantive relation between the two. In case I haven't managed to impress this upon you, I am not a "liberal." I am not a Democrat. I am an anarchist, and unlike Obama, I am a legitimate socialist.

Endearment/Affection or whatever tou claim Bush was doing are not the same as submissiveness/subservience.

But Bush's actions were subservience, and were born out of a certain degree of cowardice on his part. It's certainly not that he was ignorant of the correct action to take; he neglected to do so against his better nature because of political pressure. So it was effectively a cowardly act of appeasement. As was noted by El Pais shortly thereafter, "If a country's weight is measured by its degree of influence on events, the superpower is not the USA but Israel."

red states rule

04-09-2009, 09:27 AM

I don't even see that there's any substantive relation between the two. In case I haven't managed to impress this upon you, I am not a "liberal." I am not a Democrat. I am an anarchist, and unlike Obama, I am a legitimate socialist.

But Bush's actions were subservience, and were born out of a certain degree of cowardice on his part. It's certainly not that he was ignorant of the correct action to take; he neglected to do so against his better nature because of political pressure. So it was effectively a cowardly act of appeasement. As was noted by El Pais shortly thereafter, "If a country's weight is measured by its degree of influence on events, the superpower is not the USA but Israel."

Of course you would not see it. Like most libs you see everything from the viewpoint of political gain, race, and gender

How much does Obama pay you to defend him on here? You "people" demanded an explanation from Bush for everything he did.

Obama is President now, and as Americans, it's our duty to question our President, and demand answers from him.

At least that is what the left said for the 8 years of Pres Bush.

Agnapostate

04-09-2009, 09:33 AM

Of course you would not see it. Like most libs you see everything from the viewpoint of political gain, race, and gender

Do you simply not get it? I'm not a "lib." I'm an anarchist. You're not a WorldNutDaily spambot, are you?

How much does Obama pay you to defend him on here? You "people" demanded an explanation from Bush for everything he did.

Obama is President now, and as Americans, it's our duty to question our President, and demand answers from him.

At least that is what the left said for the 8 years of Pres Bush.

Thus far, I've seen little effective distinction between the governance of Bush and Obama. Any criticism that could have applied to Bush could quite easily apply to Obama. This is simply due to the absurdly limited range of acceptable political policy in this country. In a more politically diverse nation, the two parties could "legitimately" function as two factions of one party, and effectively function in such a manner right now.

red states rule

04-09-2009, 09:36 AM

Do you simply not get it? I'm not a "lib." I'm an anarchist. You're not a WorldNutDaily spambot, are you?

Thus far, I've seen little effective distinction between the governance of Bush and Obama. Any criticism that could have applied to Bush could quite easily apply to Obama. This is simply due to the absurdly limited range of acceptable political policy in this country. In a more politically diverse nation, the two parties could "legitimately" function as two factions of one party, and effectively function in such a manner right now.

The forgot the #1 rule around here, logic and Obamabots are like oil and water

Bush whack it however you wish if it makes you feel better. You people make the Clintons look like quaint amateurs when it comes to lies and spin

Agnapostate

04-09-2009, 09:38 AM

The forgot the #1 rule around here, logic and Obamabots are like oil and water

I am not an "Obamabot." I am an anarchist. I oppose state governance. As has been repeatedly mentioned, Obama and his ideology are effectively greater foes of me and my socialist beliefs than Bush ever could be.

Bush whack it however you wish if it makes you feel better. You people make the Clintons look like quaint amateurs when it comes to lies and spin

It's only natural that the Clintons are proficient liars, which is necessarily related to their status as high-profile politicians.

red states rule

04-09-2009, 09:41 AM

I am not an "Obamabot." I am an anarchist. I oppose state governance. As has been repeatedly mentioned, Obama and his ideology are effectively greater foes of me and my socialist beliefs than Bush ever could be.

It's only natural that the Clintons are proficient liars, which is necessarily related to their status as high-profile politicians.

Why do the libs always try to deflect criticism against their messiah by bringing up Bush?

Didn't they vote for Obama because McCain would be just like Bush? If they didn't want a 3rd Bush term it is kinda of hard to use the "Bush did it, too" argument to justify everything Obama does. Seriously, if this is the only way they can defend Obama's actions they aren't going to retain power for very long.

BTW my party, is Aerica. I am a Reagan conservative Just because I call you out for your lame partisan posts does not mean I am a Republican. I am not. My party leaders walked away from the core principals of Reagan conservatism

there's a big difference in following our leaders, and being blind LEMMINGS like you people are.

glockmail

04-09-2009, 09:44 AM

What the hell does his height have to do with it? He bowed all the way day, practically kissing the King's hand..
Holy shit! It look like a frigging genuflect!

red states rule

04-09-2009, 09:46 AM

Holy shit! It look like a frigging genuflect!

Obama was bending over to check out his reflection in his highly polished shoes

He can't get enough of himself.

Agnapostate

04-09-2009, 09:53 AM

Why do the libs always try to deflect criticism against their messiah by bringing up Bush?

Didn't they vote for Obama because McCain would be just like Bush? If they didn't want a 3rd Bush term it is kinda of hard to use the "Bush did it, too" argument to justify everything Obama does. Seriously, if this is the only way they can defend Obama's actions they aren't going to retain power for very long.

For whatever reason this isn't becoming apparent to you, I did not vote for Obama. I do not support Obama. I do not support the Democrats. I am not a "liberal." I am a leftist, albeit one of a particularly extreme stripe. I am an anarcho-communist. Hence, I do not support conventional political parties.

BTW my party, is Aerica. I am a Reagan conservative Just because I call you out for your lame partisan posts does not mean I am a Republican. I am not. My party leaders walked away from the core principals of Reagan conservatism

there's a big difference in following our leaders, and being blind LEMMINGS like you people are.

Continued support for Reagan's policies of military Keynesianism is certainly the domain of lemmings, inasmuch as they conflicted so strongly with his alleged laissez-faire philosophy.

glockmail

04-09-2009, 09:59 AM

Obama was bending over to check out his reflection in his highly polished shoes

He can't get enough of himself. To bad that other guy got in the way. I couldn't tell if it was a genuflect or he went to kiss his ring. Note to Obama: you only do that to your wife (off screen) and the Pope (upon first meeting).

red states rule

04-10-2009, 07:31 AM

To bad that other guy got in the way. I couldn't tell if it was a genuflect or he went to kiss his ring. Note to Obama: you only do that to your wife (off screen) and the Pope (upon first meeting).

Isn't it AMAZING, the lengths that Obamabots go to,to defend him?

and they called Bushbots the "mindless lemming drones" :laugh2:

glockmail

04-10-2009, 07:38 AM

Isn't it AMAZING, the lengths that Obamabots go to,to defend him?

and they called Bushbots the "mindless lemming drones" :laugh2: I'm constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of Democrats.

Wasn't it Bullypulpit who always called Bush "Chimpy". If a Republican did that to Obama he's be called a racist.

red states rule

04-10-2009, 07:40 AM

I'm constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of Democrats.

Wasn't it Bullypulpit who always called Bush "Chimpy". If a Republican did that to Obama he's be called a racist.

BP, VMD, PB and others fit right in with the current administration.

Deny, deflect, and accept no responsibility. They will defend Obama as he continues grabbing more and more power, and they begin to lose their liberties.

Bill Clinton is the only other President I can think of that ever bent that far over to talk into someone's chest.

glockmail

04-10-2009, 07:44 AM

Come on you liberals- why not just admit that Obama screwed up? Why do you tolerate lies from your side about this? :poke:

red states rule

04-10-2009, 07:46 AM

Come on you liberals- why not just admit that Obama screwed up? Why do you tolerate lies from your side about this? :poke:

The funny thing is, is that the same thing they bashed Pres Bush for doing, yet they defend Obama for doing the same thing.

Agnapostate

04-10-2009, 07:53 AM

red states rule

04-10-2009, 07:54 AM

Agnapostate

04-10-2009, 07:56 AM

Does anyone remember back during the campaign at the photo op for the WTC memorial? McCain respectfully bowed and placed a flower on the memorial. Obama stood erect and tossed his.

Obama won't bow for U.S. heros, but he will for a Muslim king.

I can understand the emotional appeal of such rhetoric, but I don't comprehend precisely how being in a building when it collapses makes anyone a "hero."

glockmail

04-10-2009, 07:56 AM

I can understand the emotional appeal of such rhetoric, but I don't comprehend precisely how being in a building when it collapses makes anyone a "hero." Are you referring to the first responders who willingly went into the buildings to rescue people?

red states rule

04-10-2009, 07:59 AM

I can understand the emotional appeal of such rhetoric, but I don't comprehend precisely how being in a building when it collapses makes anyone a "hero."

The hypocrisy of the Bandwagon shines once again.

Alot of idiots on the left said the US deserved 9-11, and people like Bill Maher said the terrorists had more courage then memebrs of the US military

glockmail

04-10-2009, 08:04 AM

The height thing is an absurd explanation, in my opinion. He's clearly bowing.

http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2009/04/03/448403/obamas420-420x0-420x0.jpg

Now compare the queen, who is also significantly shorter than Obama. When he shook her hand, he did no such thing. Man look at the shit-eating grins of those terrorist enablers. That angle makes it look like Obama's not simply kissing his ring, but giving him a blow job.

Agnapostate

04-10-2009, 08:09 AM

Are you referring to the first responders who willingly went into the buildings to rescue people?

I'm referring to the people simply sitting in the buildings when they were struck. There's clearly a distinction to be made there.

The hypocrisy of the Bandwagon shines once again.

Alot of idiots on the left said the US deserved 9-11, and people like Bill Maher said the terrorists had more courage then memebrs of the US military

I don't recall saying that. Such a claim seems particularly absurd considering the fact that governmental forces were primarily responsible for the grievances that the jihadists had.

Man look at the shit-eating grins of those terrorist enablers. That angle makes it look like Obama's not simply kissing his ring, but giving him a blow job.

Yeah. Maybe if he downed four consecutive bottles of Viagra.

theHawk

04-10-2009, 08:09 AM

I am an anarcho-communist. Hence, I do not support conventional political parties.

Continued support for Reagan's policies of military Keynesianism is certainly the domain of lemmings, inasmuch as they conflicted so strongly with his alleged laissez-faire philosophy.

Now thats comical, a communist calling someone else a lemming. :laugh2:

Agnapostate

04-10-2009, 08:13 AM

Now thats comical, a communist calling someone else a lemming. :laugh2:

What can we expect next? Tired references to state capitalism? :smoke:

red states rule

04-10-2009, 08:13 AM

I'm referring to the people simply sitting in the buildings when they were struck. There's clearly a distinction to be made there.

I don't recall saying that. Such a claim seems particularly absurd considering the fact that governmental forces were primarily responsible for the grievances that the jihadists had.

Yeah. Maybe if he downed four consecutive bottles of Viagra.

That little gesture of Obama simply tossing the flowers was more telling than we know. At the time, I realized that this arrogant, spoiled, immature man-child was skating thru his campaign playing to his base of immature, entitlement-grabbing liberals.

In the future, this country should demand that our president-to-be have respect for this country first and foremost. Only then, can he/she be allowed to represent us abroad. That little show of disdain in NYC should have removed him from the running, but, sadly, it probably only delighted his base, including his mentor, Ayers.

I understand why Obama is apologizing and prefers to show weakness as opposed to strength. In his profession of community organizer, people throw money at you when you do so. However, he's in a different playing field, now. The position of president is well above his pay grade and it shows.

Agnapostate

04-10-2009, 08:16 AM

You're just rambling at this point.

red states rule

04-10-2009, 08:19 AM

You're just rambling at this point.

I understand you would not understand logic of facts. It is way above your abilities

Agnapostate

04-10-2009, 08:21 AM

I understand you would not understand logic of facts. It is way above your abilities

An amusing jest, but you've not even attempted to rebut any of my comments. You've simply droned on about "Obamabots" despite my explanation that I am an anarchist, not a Democrat.

theHawk

04-10-2009, 08:21 AM

BTW, the proper term for what Obama did is call salaam.

sa⋅laam /səˈlɑm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [suh-lahm] Show IPA
–noun 1. a salutation meaning “peace,” used esp. in Islamic countries.
2. a very low bow or obeisance, esp. with the palm of the right hand placed on the forehead.

–verb (used without object), verb (used with object) 3. to salute with a salaam.

Origin:
1605–15; < Ar salām peace

sa·laam (sə-läm') Pronunciation Key
n.
A ceremonious act of deference or obeisance, especially a low bow performed while placing the right palm on the forehead.
A respectful ceremonial greeting performed especially in Islamic countries.
tr. & intr.v. sa·laamed, sa·laam·ing, sa·laams
To greet with or perform a salaam.

[Arabic salām, peace, salaam, from salima, to be safe; see šlm in Semitic roots.]

Obama was bending over to check out his reflection in his highly polished shoes

He can't get enough of himself.

Next thing you know, Obama is going to give an interview and say, "I did not have salaamic relations with that King!"

red states rule

04-10-2009, 08:25 AM

BTW, the proper term for what Obama did is call salaam.

sa⋅laam /səˈlɑm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [suh-lahm] Show IPA
–noun 1. a salutation meaning “peace,” used esp. in Islamic countries.
2. a very low bow or obeisance, esp. with the palm of the right hand placed on the forehead.

–verb (used without object), verb (used with object) 3. to salute with a salaam.

Origin:
1605–15; < Ar salām peace

sa·laam (sə-läm') Pronunciation Key
n.
A ceremonious act of deference or obeisance, especially a low bow performed while placing the right palm on the forehead.
A respectful ceremonial greeting performed especially in Islamic countries.
tr. & intr.v. sa·laamed, sa·laam·ing, sa·laams
To greet with or perform a salaam.

[Arabic salām, peace, salaam, from salima, to be safe; see šlm in Semitic roots.]

Next thing you know, Obama is going to give an interview and say, "I did not have salaamic relations with that King!"

Maybe Obama can be flown to the deck of the Maersk ship, and he can bow to the Muslims and appease them to death.