Anyone really think for a second that the Paper of Record Official Liberal Newsletter will blast Barack Obama for his full, blatant bow to Emperor Akihito? Considering the paper (to the best of my knowledge and search skills) said nothing about his similar bow to Saudi King Abdullah, smart money is on “no”.

And yet that’s exactly what it did to President Bill Clinton for his almost bow — yes, almost bow — to the same emperor back in 1994. Here’s what Douglas Jehr wrote for the Times back in the day:

It wasn’t a bow, exactly. But Mr. Clinton came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan.

Canadians still bow to England’s Queen; so do Australians. Americans shake hands. If not to stand eye-to-eye with royalty, what else were 1776 and all that about?…

Guests invited to a white-tie state dinner at the White House (a Clinton Administration first) were instructed to address the Emperor as “Your Majesty,” not “Your Highness” or, worse, “King.” And in what one Administration aide called “some emperor thing,” an Army general was cautioned that he should not address the Emperor Akihito at all as he escorted him to the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.

But the “thou need not bow” commandment from the State Department’s protocol office maintained a constancy of more than 200 years. Administration officials scurried to insist that the eager-to-please President had not really done the unthinkable.

You see, there’s this thing about American history. We used to have a king, but then there was this scuffle we call the “American Revolution” and we haven’t considered ourselves subordinate to royalty ever since.

But then along came Barack Obama, more interested in making the world like us than have it respect us or uphold American tradition and values. As we’ve witnessed through his foreign and national security policy, he’s willing to subordinate American interests and beliefs in order to make sure Geneva or Tokyo approves of our policies.

His bow to two royal figureheads (thus far) is just a great metaphor for what his foreign and national security policies really entail.

And yet the New York Times is notably absent on his violations of hundreds of years of American tradition — that despite blasting President Clinton for almost doing what Obama’s now done twice.

We should be bothered by two aspects. The first is, of course, the sheer hypocrisy of the Times on this matter. But the second and more troublesome aspect is Mr. Obama’s apparent belief that it’s proper for American presidents to show signs of subordinations to royal figureheads from distant countries.