“[T]he objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.”

Surely he knows that two terms is eight years or is he hoping for a repeal of the Twenty-second Amendment. I wouldn’t put it pass him. Talk about great expectations. And I was under the impression that the objective of this trip, other than the glorification of the He who we have been waiting for, was a fact-finding mission. You’re not President, you’re a half-term very junior Senator from Illinois. You’re not even the nominee yet, only a presumptive (he doth presume much methinks) one.

And I must ask who is going to pick up the tab for this event. It had better the Obama campaign that pays for the police, the security, the conveniences and the clean-up.

Why are Earth should the city of Berlin be saddled with the cost of an Obama campaign event? This is the theatre of the absurd with Obama as the master of deception but Europeans will see what they want to see and hear the glowing eloquence of a meaningless banter. There is no there there in Obama.

Here is ABC Jack Tapper on Obama’s latest gaffe in article entitled The Butterfly Effect:

Today on CBS’s Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that “the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.

“And it’s important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are.”

The notion that Obama will be dealing with world leaders for eight-to-ten years, possibly up through July 2018, suggests that either (a) he believes that not only will he be elected and re-elected, but the 22nd amendment will be repealed and he will be elected for a third term, OR (b) he was speaking casually and just meant two terms.

(I’m guessing b.)

There is a term in chaos theory describing the how infinitesmal variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system.

Most of us are more familiar with the more common name for it: the butterfly effect.

The butterfly effect was introduced in Ray Bradbury’s 1952 short story “A Sound of Thunder,” when time travelers change the world beyond measure by accidentally killing a butterfly in prehistoric times.

Similarly, international diplomacy can be impacted by careless or glibly-chosen words. (Cue President Bush’s “crusade” remarks.)

Some Democratic allies of Obama’s are — off the record — concerned that the senator too often doesn’t consider the potential butterfly effect of his diction.

Take his support for an “undivided Jerusalem,” or his remarks about women seeking abortions when they’re “feeling blue,” which upset feminist leaders.

Or the media kerfuffle after his “refine my policies” presser.

On his press plane on July 5, after that incident, Obama said, “I’m surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured.”

A reporter noted that that is precisely what happens with the president, he can change world affairs with one word, finely calibrating your words is what happens.

“Well, of course, no, I understand,” Obama said. “But for me to say that I’m going to refine my policies, you know, I don’t think in anyway is inconsistent with prior statements and doesn’t change my strategic view that this war has to end and that I am going to end it as president.”

This week Obama will have his words picked apart like never before, and it will be an international audience of not just opponents but actual enemies.

They will be watching and waiting to see if he kills any butterflies.

Had your fill yet?

From my blog, By The Fault.

Well, Mr. Obama has been pushed down the road by German leadership to the Siegessäule monument, which Der Spiegel notes may be “contaminated by its Nazi past.”

In his Washington Post column, “The Audacity of Vanity,” Charles Krauthammer made the essential point about the “audacity” of Obama presuming he could speak at the Brandenburg Gate:

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Ronald Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final “tear down this wall” liquidation. When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder — who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap — called “a Europe whole and free”?

Here’s more on what Der Spiegel is reporting about the new site:

Der Spiegel wonders: “Is Obama Speech Site Contaminated by Nazi Past?”

The German magazine writes:

The column originally stood in front of the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament building, but was moved by Adolf Hitler to its current location in 1939 to make way for his planned transformation of Berlin into the Nazi capital “Germania.”

“The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France,” the deputy leader of the Free Democrats, Rainer Brüderle, told Bild am Sonntag. He raised the question as to “whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world.”

Andreas Schockenhoff of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats said, “the Siegessäule in Berlin is dedicated to a victory over neighbors who are today our European friends and allies. It is a problematic symbol.”

Mr. Obama is all too familiar with “problematic symbols”:

That grandiose symbol was “here today, gone tomorrow” after it became the subject of jokes throughout the media and on the Internet. So too is the Brandenburg Gate.

But now Mr. Obama has a new symbol to worry about: The Siegessäule column was seen by Adolph Hitler as a symbol of German superiority, and the move to its current location was part of Hitler’s scheme for the “transformation of Berlin into the Nazi capital ‘Germania’.”

Once again, the mantra — Location, location, location! — proves true.

UPDATE: Perhaps this new image will take Obama’s followers off the inconvenient truth:

Via Ben Smith’s Politico blog.

Obama’s globe-prancing, as if he is already the elected President of the United States, has instigated a dispute within a foreign country.

The distinction between elected state leaders and a partisan candidate (one who has yet to be formally nominated!) has not escaped German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was upset by the request by Barack Obama to give a speech at the Brandenburg Gate, calling such a rally “inappropriate.” She does not believe that Germany should give any impression that it is involved in American political races.

The Obama team is apparently surprised at the controversy, which in itself reveals a lack of understanding of the world community and international protocol. One cannot bluster into a sovereign foreign country without regard for its tradition and political situation.

To Germans, the site holds significant meaning. The Brandenburg Gate, built in the 18th century, became the symbol of peace and unification after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Speaking before this hallowed place is considered a honor that is reserved for already elected officials. Previous speakers include Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and John F. Kennedy. (Actually, Kennedy’s famous ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’ speech was delivered at a town hall in the city, but he did visit the gate.)

According to Chancellor Merkel’s spokesman Thomas Steg. “It is unusual to hold election rallies abroad. No German candidate for high office would even think of using the National Mall (in Washington) or Red Square in Moscow for a rally because it would not be seen as appropriate.”

However, Merkel (of the more conservative Christian Democrats) does not have the last word in the matter, and the rival left-leaning government of the city-state has granted permission for Obama’s speech at the site. (UK Telegraph) One likely motivation would be to upset the Chancellor.

No matter how this matter ultimately resolves itself, Obama and his campaign started a squabble within the factions of a foreign ally. As Bill Galston, a one-time presidential adviser, told British newspaper The Telegraph, “It [the Obama campaign] shows a certain inexperience about complex foreign issues, which is, of course, the opposite of the impression they are trying to create,” he said, reports the UPI.

OK, this incident may not do signfificant or long-lasting damage between our two nations. But avoiding the matter in the first place seems like a no-brainer to anyone who knows just a little about Germany and the history and signficance of the Berlin Wall and the Brandenburg Gate. What could happen when the stakes are much higher?

Read Charles Lemos on No Quarter for more about the wall and the controversy here and here.