Obama matches Bush's golf rounds

[Aunt Sponge]

http://www.ketknbc.com/news/obama-ma...sh-golf-rounds his 24th game as president logged on Sunday. It took Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, nearly three years to log that many golf games. CBS News' Mark Knoller, who keeps a faithful count of presidential travels, delivered a report by Twitter on Sunday, as the president put in a day of golf at Fort Belvoir: "Today - Obama ties Pres. Bush in the number of rounds of golf played in office: 24. Took Bush 2 yrs & 10 months." following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003, Bush gave up golf. ""I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in- chief playing golf,'' he explained. "I feel I owe it to the families to be as, you know, to be in solidarity as best I can with them, and I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal... Obama plays basketball too (see White House photo above), and has turned the tennis court at the White House over to hoops. His wife, Michelle Obama, laments that he usually beats her at tennis.

(These are some exerpts from the article)

I find it ironic and humerous that so many people referred to Bush's 'golfing' as an inherent evil and vile activity to take part in while there was a war and other major issues going on.

And, now, in just 9 months Obama takes the cake, surpases Bush, and has yet to decide how to go about a military-issue that's been ongoing for almost a decade.

Obama and the Obamanites taht held this very issue of recreation against Bush are hypocrites.

[*skittles*]

I think recreation is good for everyone...I think its sad Bush stopped playing, but I understand the meaning behind it.

Being president seems like the worst job in the world

[Aunt Sponge]

I think this just highlights the hypocrisy of a lot of people.

Another good example is the current issue with Afghanistan. . .When Bush didn't progress and seem to be making decisions concerning their action everyone called it a quagmire and spited him for it.

But when Obama does the same thing and dedicates his time to other issues while everyone deployed is waiting for orders everyone is saying he's being carefull and excusing it as an appropriate way to handle it.

[Viva]

I think Bush was criticized for spending 33% of his Presidency on vacation. A record Obama will take forever to match since that amounts to YEARS. Even if Obama went on vacation now and didn't come back until 2011 he still would not have vacationed as much as Bush. LOL.

And as far as Afghanistan, pretty much ditto. Bush had 7 years to decide what to do there and ignored it essentially the entire time. And you are mad because Obama wants a couple weeks to craft a plan? REALLY? I mean I suppose he could just "go from the gut" like Bush did. But that didn't really accomplish much except for getting us into two un-winnable wars. Which, by the way, were messes that Obama inherited from the awesome Bush administration who couldn't get them cleaned up with THEIR approach. So, I'm not a big fan of the "first instinct" approach. I'm more of a fan of the "think about it and get it right the first time" approach. In any case, following the Bush approach obviously won't work since it hasn't in the last 8 years now. Maybe its time to actually try something different?

If you think about it... its pretty amazing that Bush managed to eff up the country so bad when in essence he was only the President for 5.2 years. I guess he hurried stuff so he could squeeze in more vacation time, huh?

[BubMunkeyBles]

Originally Posted by vivalacrap If you think about it... its pretty amazing that Bush managed to eff up the country so bad when in essence he was only the President for 5.2 years. I guess he hurried stuff so he could squeeze in more vacation time, huh?

People will always talk crap about whoever is in office. Doesn't matter who, doesn't matter whether they are doing good or bad.

[Aunt Sponge]

Originally Posted by vivalacrap I think Bush was criticized for spending 33% of his Presidency on vacation. A record Obama will take forever to match since that amounts to YEARS. Even if Obama went on vacation now and didn't come back until 2011 he still would not have vacationed as much as Bush. LOL. And as far as Afghanistan, pretty much ditto. Bush had 7 years to decide what to do there and ignored it essentially the entire time. And you are mad because Obama wants a couple weeks to craft a plan? REALLY? I mean I suppose he could just "go from the gut" like Bush did. But that didn't really accomplish much except for getting us into two un-winnable wars. Which, by the way, were messes that Obama inherited from the awesome Bush administration who couldn't get them cleaned up with THEIR approach. So, I'm not a big fan of the "first instinct" approach. I'm more of a fan of the "think about it and get it right the first time" approach. In any case, following the Bush approach obviously won't work since it hasn't in the last 8 years now. Maybe its time to actually try something different? If you think about it... its pretty amazing that Bush managed to eff up the country so bad when in essence he was only the President for 5.2 years. I guess he hurried stuff so he could squeeze in more vacation time, huh?

Obama supported and wanted to further the ongoing war in Afghanistan - so this is his situation, now, no longer Bushes.
Since this is what he wanted to continue before he even became president then why, at this moment in time, does he have no plan to enact? He pulled us out of Iraq and has even cut off funding to the Democrats, there, in this short amount of time.

He had his offices rewrite the entire healthcare system and work out a newly formed plan because he made it a crucial priority - so the Afghanistan situation should be, at least, that important, seeing as how it involves the lives of our men and women in service.

If Obama had time to become a Senator, campaign twice and win the presidency and rewrite healthcare, attempt to close guantanamo and all these other things then, surely, he's had time to assess and understand this situation that's been going on since 2001. In fact, it's been exactly 8 years to the month.

Sure, I agree the current military-led tactics are not progressing. I support doing something different. . . and Obama's definitely not doing that, obviously.
Obama took it over and made it more complicated and, currently, is doing nothing while he waits for the run-off to come around.

I disapproved of Bush when he sat around and idly did nothing.
And I disapprove of Obama as he sits around and idly does nothing.

I declare "Bull****' to those who disapproved of Bush's avoidance of the situation and, now, approve of Obama's same failure to act and claim that he's just "being careful to do the right thing."

What's more unacceptable - a President that attempts something and stagnates on it or a President who scolds, scorns and disavows that president's actions and even uses it as a campaign vise only to do the same exact thing when he's in that person's seat?

Funny how the excuse of "I believe it's wrong and they started it before I got here" somehow makes it acceptable to continue it when it's in your power to finally end something you feel is so "wrong" when it happened the first time.

If Obamanites truly believe that he is so 'anti-war' then I guess they're disapointed that he's really the one doing 'more of the same.'

[Wicked]

I couldn't care less if someone thinks I am a hypocrite. I never *****ed about Bush playing golf, I *****ed about him spending so much time vacationing away from Washington, in Texas and at Camp David. Either way, I don't think it matters. There will always be someone there to assume things and call me a hypocrite, and assume that I am in line to kiss Obama's ass just because I voted for him.

They can think what they want. I will still throw my support where I want and my criticism where I want.

[Aunt Sponge]

Originally Posted by Wicked I couldn't care less if someone thinks I am a hypocrite. I never *****ed about Bush playing golf, I *****ed about him spending so much time vacationing away from Washington, in Texas and at Camp David. Either way, I don't think it matters. There will always be someone there to assume things and call me a hypocrite, and assume that I am in line to kiss Obama's ass just because I voted for him. They can think what they want. I will still throw my support where I want and my criticism where I want.

Don't take it personally The people who had a serious beef with this particular subject know who they are.

[mpicky]

Originally Posted by Aunt Sponge I think this just highlights the hypocrisy of a lot of people. Another good example is the current issue with Afghanistan. . .When Bush didn't progress and seem to be making decisions concerning their action everyone called it a quagmire and spited him for it. But when Obama does the same thing and dedicates his time to other issues while everyone deployed is waiting for orders everyone is saying he's being carefull and excusing it as an appropriate way to handle it.

I am seeing the opposite of what you are seeing. The troop levels now have doubled since Obama took office. He is getting slammed for not sending troops, when he in fact has. The amount Obama sent was the amount asked for when Bush was in office, he didn't send them. Obama is getting slammed for not sending even more.
No one deployed is waiting for orders, I don't even know where that is coming from. Are you trying to make it seem he is leaving the same people there overly long because he can't make a decision, because that isn't how it works.

[mpicky]

Originally Posted by Aunt Sponge Obama supported and wanted to further the ongoing war in Afghanistan - so this is his situation, now, no longer Bushes. Since this is what he wanted to continue before he even became president then why, at this moment in time, does he have no plan to enact? He pulled us out of Iraq and has even cut off funding to the Democrats, there, in this short amount of time. He had his offices rewrite the entire healthcare system and work out a newly formed plan because he made it a crucial priority - so the Afghanistan situation should be, at least, that important, seeing as how it involves the lives of our men and women in service. If Obama had time to become a Senator, campaign twice and win the presidency and rewrite healthcare, attempt to close guantanamo and all these other things then, surely, he's had time to assess and understand this situation that's been going on since 2001. In fact, it's been exactly 8 years to the month. Sure, I agree the current military-led tactics are not progressing. I support doing something different. . . and Obama's definitely not doing that, obviously. Obama took it over and made it more complicated and, currently, is doing nothing while he waits for the run-off to come around. I disapproved of Bush when he sat around and idly did nothing. And I disapprove of Obama as he sits around and idly does nothing. I declare "Bull****' to those who disapproved of Bush's avoidance of the situation and, now, approve of Obama's same failure to act and claim that he's just "being careful to do the right thing." What's more unacceptable - a President that attempts something and stagnates on it or a President who scolds, scorns and disavows that president's actions and even uses it as a campaign vise only to do the same exact thing when he's in that person's seat? Funny how the excuse of "I believe it's wrong and they started it before I got here" somehow makes it acceptable to continue it when it's in your power to finally end something you feel is so "wrong" when it happened the first time. If Obamanites truly believe that he is so 'anti-war' then I guess they're disapointed that he's really the one doing 'more of the same.'

I don't even know where to start with this.

He didn't pull us out of Iraq, the pact was signed before he took office.

What makes you think that Afghanistan isn't a priority, because he hasn't rushed to a decision. I assert that rushing to decisions is how we got in this mess in the 1st place. Even if he okays a surge (which experts are evenly divided on) it would takes months to implement. Don't you think he takes into consideration how over extended our military is? The situation is complex, it also includes some consideration of Pakistan. I for one and glad he is considering all sides, to make an informed decision. Why do you think the only one is more troops?

How did Obama make it more complicated? Was a cease fire signed that I didn't hear about? If not, then how exactly is he doing nothing? Troops have increased from 31,200 in Jan, to 63,500 now. How is that doing nothing?

He isn't doing the same thing Bush did at all. Do you really think an entirely new strategy can be implemented quickly and effectively? And, new things have been implemented, going into the strongholds and trying to hold them, instead of the failed strategy of clearing them, then moving on. That is new.

Obama didn't run on an anti-war platform, so those that will be disappointed weren't paying attention in the 1st place.

As for Bush playing golf, I criticized Bush when he said he would no longer play golf as a sacrifice to the men and women fighting in the wars, then continued to play golf.