Why does Obama keep snubbing the British?

Wahington Examiner ^ | 9/27/09 | Byron York

[Nachum]

At the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, and at the UN Security Council meeting before that, Barack Obama continued his administration's new policy toward Great Britain: declare that the "special relationship" between the U.S. and the U.K. is as strong as ever, and then act as if there is no such relationship at all.

The British papers were filled with the news that the president would not grant Prime Minister Gordon Brown a one-on-one meeting. "Mr. Obama had refused five separate requests from the prime minister for a private meeting during his U.S. trip for the UN summit in New York," reported the Daily Mail.

[jazminerose]

Yup.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11504

[Overtaxed Patriot]

Obama is snubbing the British press because they are exposing him. Our state run media won’t touch it.

[Spok]

“Why does Obama keep snubbing the British?”

Because they’re pro-American; the same reason he despises Isralis, Poles, Czechs...

[Semper Mark]

Do they (the Brits) know the answers to 0bama's secrets?

[RegulatorCountry]

Because he was born a British subject and he’s still a British subject under the law, improbably and unconstitutionally acting as President of the United States of America.

Appearances of allegiance would be problematic, so he’s at pains to distance himself, in as highly public a manner as possible.

And then, there’s that whole, familial Mau Mau kerfluffle to consider, too.

[cricket]

They colonized Africa - and brought western civilization to the continent as well., Some things you cannot forgive or forget.

[bannie]

Why?
He’s a bigot.

[Snurple]

Probably something Ayres made up when he wrote the book.

[Peter Libra]

I have had a most pleasant afternoon with spouse in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. I should leave well alone, but perhaps there is an explanation. If my reasoning is accurate then the President should realize that Britain is different than it was 55 years ago. He should take into consideration that what was done in Kenya was done by a different generation.

I was working in England and heard of the terrible massacres by the Mau Mau. These were the insurgents who wanted a free country from British colonial rule. A family was cut to pieces and we were told of the bloody clothes with the brand "St Michaels" laying around.

True but..... If the figures are correct, 32 white civilians were slaughtered. The losses of the tribesmen and Mau Mau were 10,500. The British white troops lost 63 men. Their African military allies lost about 800 men.

Though my own countrymen, I, having only just got the figures from Wikipedia, know it was very one sided. It is claimed Kenyan civilians numbered 20,000 dead through misadventure.

If this is what irks the President, he should be man enough to deal with an entirely different generation. He could turn his angst to the modern day atrocities of the now "free" Africans.