Out of respect for the soldiers (who died) fighting in Iraq. Although I understand Bush’s reasoning (some may feel that playing golf while a war is going on is insensitive), I’ve got to say that I don’t think it should matter whether or not the man plays golf every now and then. However, we’ve all got different ways in which we show respect, this is Bush’s way. Making a big deal out of it, then, is tasteless.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. I love the way the "Comments from Left Field" post states that ‘no one is going to care if he swings the clubs’ but in the original article it says that CBS has kept meticulous records detailing the last date that Bush played golf. No, it’s not like anyone is analyzing his every move in order to jump on opportunity to criticize or anything. And ah, maybe CBS should have been as meticulous in checking the documents about Bush’s military service for authenticity?
The man did a skit making light of the fact that WMDs hadn’t been found in Iraq.
He told the terrorists to "bring it on" when he wasn’t the one in the battlefield.
He wistfully tells reporters he envies the soldiers in Afghanistan and how romantic it must be for them, and how he wished he could be there on the frontline. I guess Vietnam was romantic enough for him?
The man says we’d be surprised at how well he sleeps at night even though he’s sent 4000 soldiers to their death.
Every part of his daily life goes on as normal except for his playing golf.
It’s like something out of the Twilight Zone. Soldiers give up their lives and limbs and Bush gives up golf. How courageous on Bush’s part.
No, what is tasteless is for Bush to presume that the soldiers and their families actually care or find any kind of comfort in his giving up golf as if it were some great sacrifice on his part. I can hear some mother now saying: "My son gave up his life, but President Bush gave up golf out of respect for my son and his fellow soldiers and that makes the loss more bearable."
No reasonable person would expect Bush or any other president who sent soldiers off to war to lead a miserable life for fear that any display of happiness would be disrespectful to our soldiers. Nor can a reasonable person expect Bush or any other president to not live his life normally because he sent soldiers off to war. I certainly don’t expect Bush to anguish every waking minute about the war or to be pessimistic or unhappy as to do so would serve no point.
We could all give up everything in this life that is meaningful to us and it would still fall far short of the sacrifice out soldiers are making on our behalf.
Bush’s giving up golf is not an entirely empty gesture and no doubt he’s sincere about it, but it is nothing compared to giving up one’s life in service of his country. Bush should have kept his personal sacrifice to himself rather than sharing it with reporters as if he should be commended for it. All he did was once again show how arrogant and out of touch with reality he is.
When I heard this story very early this morning, I had two immediate reactions:
1) President Bush would look foolish acting as if giving up golf (for Lent?) was a demonstration of his personal sacrifice and commitment.
2) The BDS brigades would look even more foolish overreacting to it, as if they wouldn’t be even more taken with contrived faux outrage if the President DID play golf (e.g. "how can you play golf while people are dying?!?!?").
Both reactions appear to be completely correct.
Notice that the article carefully omits whether President Bush brought up this topic (which would indeed look foolish as Jason suggests) or whether he answered a direct question on the topic. This is a favorite tactic of reporters everywhere at all levels. They ask a question of a public official, and when he or she answers honestly, the reporter acts as if the official is the one who brought up the issue or decided to make it a headline, when in fact it was the reporter who went LOOKING for that headline.
It was foolish either way. If presented with such a question, the answer should have been a brusque "I don’t see how whether I play golf or not is relevant in any way to the war in Iraq".
And I pegged it, before I even looked at the transcript! From <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10316_Page4.html">page 4 of the transcript</a>:
<blockquote>Q Mr. President, you haven’t been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it really is. I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as — to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.
Q Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life. And I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it’s just not worth it anymore to do. </blockquote>
He didn’t bring it up, didn’t brag about it, didn’t claim it to be any sort of sacrifice. He just answered the question asked by the interviewer honestly and forthrightly. It’s only idiots like <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/05/14/BL2008051401929.html?hpid=opinionsbox1</a>Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post</a> who are using the term "sacrifice" and trying to turn this into some issue. What a moron.
So you’re in favor of politicians not answering reporters’ questions, Jason? If he had dodged the question as you suggest, than the headline would have been: "Bush won’t say if he golfs while the troops are at war," or something equally vapid.
Or the headline: "Bush: it’s irrelevant if I golf while soldiers die!"
Yes, if the questions are stupid, they should be treated as such. And its not like anyone within the administration should be deluded enough to think that such a question was not a blatant setup anyway. Call them out on what they are doing.
And you act as if politicians never duck questions. They do it all the time. I’m simply saying it should have been done now.
The unclear meaning of the hypothetical headlines you mention are less damaging than what actually came out anyway.
And you call non-Obama supporters deluded? Sheesh. Once the word golf was used by the interviewer, this was inevitable fodder for BDS by folks who just hate the man, no matter what.
Sure, politicians duck questions all the time. I’m generally opposed to that. I would prefer a much healthier relationship between the press and the political class than we have today. This "gotcha" mentality of Froomin and his ilk is disgusting and unhealthy.
Don’t you feel it appropriate to criticize Froomin and others, at least, for conjuring up the word "sacrifice" out of thin air? I don’t see a HINT of suggestion from the President in the transcript that this has been difficult for him, that it’s a "sacrifice" for him, that he seeks sympathy or credit for not golfing. He made a simple statement of fact explaining his motivation.
Ordinarily I’d agree with you Jason, but if it weren’t for the fact that everything Bush says is now parsed in the worst possible light willfully by the press and then picked up by the left wing blogosphere, and what he doesn’t say is also presumed to be a representation of some vile mode of thinking. It truly is a no win situation, so I’d say that giving an honest answer is probably all one can do and then let the chips fall were they may.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
I think I would have agreed about the left-wing outrage a few months ago, but not now.
Really this is a non-story as Bush has become all but irrelevant. 90% of the media coverage is focussed on the upcoming election and not on the present administration. In a few months he’ll have all the time in the world to hit the greens and tee off.
Bush is probably hoping that if he quits showing that he is having a good time playing golf maybe he will avert his probable "War Crimes" trial he will likely face for his outright lies he pushed through the UN so he could keep the oil pipelines open for his buddies such as Dick "Darkside" Cheney.
If Bush really wants to show his respect for the American soldiers who are fighting in Iraq, he could triple or quadruple funding for medical care for the soldiers who make it home with traumatic head injuries and mental health problems. Those are two of the biggest health issues faced by veterans of this war. I’m sure that would be a lot more meaningful to U.S. troops fighting in Iraq than knowing Bush "gave up golf."
Gee, Kathly, last time I checked, it’s Congress that has the power to appropriate funding, not the President. Now remind me which party is in control of Congress?
Where have you been for the past almost eight years, Pat? Pres. Bush has not been at all shy about writing his own appropriations bills, putting it in front of Congress, and insisting that they pass it. When you can show me where Pres. Bush lobbied hard for adequate funding for veterans’ health care needs, twisting arms and accusing Congress of not supporting the troops and endangering our national security because Congress refused to pass such legislation, then come back and we’ll talk.
Kathy, I agree with you about Bush- he should have done more to push for veterans’ needs. But I also agree with what Pat is pointing out- that your outrage shouldn’t just be directed at Bush, since Congress also bears a great deal of responsibility.
To add to that last comment: It’s not an excuse that Congress couldn’t act due to being afraid that GWB would be a big meanie and frame the issue as though they weren’t supporting the troops. They could and should have taken a stand and found ways to handle the political fallout; people are ultimately smart enough to see who is playing political games even though sometimes those tactics work in the short run.
Kathy, I agree with you about Bush- he should have done more to push for veterans’ needs. But I also agree with what Pat is pointing out- that your outrage shouldn’t just be directed at Bush, since Congress also bears a great deal of responsibility.
I take second place to no one in my contempt for congressional spinelessness when it comes to bucking Bush. We were talking about Bush’s decision to stop playing golf out of "respect" for American soldiers fighting in Iraq, however, so I was focusing on that specific point. In other words, my intention was to mention the matter of Bush’s lack of action on behalf of veterans’ health care as it contrasted with his desire to show "respect" — in a way that really cost him nothing.
It’s not an excuse that Congress couldn’t act due to being afraid that GWB would be a big meanie and frame the issue as though they weren’t supporting the troops.
I could not agree more, but this was not my point. My point was that Bush did NOT ask for any increase in funding for veterans’ health care. He did NOT tell Congress he wanted to see legislation that would ensure, through funding and spending priorities, that the thousands of Iraq war veterans with traumatic head injuries and/or suffering from severe and often suicidal depression would get the care they need. So there was nothing for Congress to not want to act on, because Bush did not demand that they act on this matter.
Of course that does not mean Congress should not have taken the initiative to act on its own — which is, as Pat noted, what Congress is supposed to do. If Congress HAD written such legislation, allocating millions of additional dollars specifically to making first-class medical and mental health services available to *every veteran who needed it,* plus outreach services to veterans who might be reluctant to seek care because of the enormous stigma against acknowledging, much less seeking help for, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression and suicidal ideation, would Bush have signed it? My answer is, absolutely not, no way, not a chance in the world. He would have vetoed it.
That’s where congressional spinal fortitude should come in, of course. But it’s also a fact that what Bush wants, Bush — the vast majority of the time throughout these eight years — gets. He bullies, strong-arms, name-calls, patriotism-baits, etc., etc., etc., until Congress caves, which it always always does. So if Bush really wanted to help veterans, or show respect for veterans’ concerns and needs, in a way that could have actually meant something, he would have done so in no uncertain terms.
He did not want to. Instead, he blurted out, like a very small child, that he gave up golf to show the troops he respects them. That is not the behavior of a grown, fully mature adult.
Bush may be very pleased with himself that he gave up golf for the troops, but I can guarantee you that the troops themselves do not give a tinker’s damn about this "sacrifice." It’s laughable. Or it would be if it were not so repulsive.
Well, after agreeing with much of what you wrote, you then went on to this:
Instead, he blurted out, like a very small child, that he gave up golf to show the troops he respects them. That is not the behavior of a grown, fully mature adult.
Which as Pat has already pointed out, is untrue: Bush didn’t ‘blurt it out’, he answered a question that a reporter asked him. There’s absolutely no evidence that he’s ‘pleased with himself’, or that he feels it is a ’sacrifice’.
It appears that the story he told Allen may not even be true. Dan Froomkin of "The Washington Post.com" reports:
"Not only is it a hollow, trivial sacrifice at best, Bush’s story doesn’t hold water. While he dates his decision to abjure golf to Aug. 19, 2003 — the day a truck bomb in Baghdad killed U.N. special representative Sergio Vieira de Mello and more than a dozen others — the Associated Press reported on Oct. 13, 2003, that he’d spent a "cool, breezy Columbus Day" playing "a round of golf with three long-time buddies."Bush played at Andrews Air Force Base with Clay Johnson, Office of Management and Budget deputy director, Richard Hauser, Department of Housing and Urban Development general counsel and another friend, Mike Wood."On that outing, he was typically full of what passes for good humor at the White House. The AP reported: "’Fine looking crew you got there. Fine looking crew,’ Bush joked to reporters. ‘That’s what we’d hope for presidential coverage. Only the best.’"He hit a couple of practice balls before flaring his tee-off shot."
Bush didn’t ‘blurt it out’, he answered a question that a reporter asked him. There’s absolutely no evidence that he’s ‘pleased with himself’, or that he feels it is a ’sacrifice’.
Okay, he didn’t "blurt it out."
You don’t think it’s implicit in his statement that he thinks it’s a sacrifice? You don’t think that he thinks he’s giving up something he enjoys when he says he’s decided not to play golf out of respect to the troops? If he didn’t enjoy golf, what was the point in giving it up? If he didn’t enjoy golf, why did he play it in the first place?
Kathy- to me, ‘out of respect’ simply means that he considered how he’d feel if he were the parent or loved on of a troop who was endangered, injured or killed, and he turned on the TV to see footage of the president golfing. Out of respect just means you are considering the feelings of others in choosing your actions- not that you expect them to see your action as one of sacrifice or that you should get some kind of brownie points for it. When I attend a funeral I wear clothing to show respect-and if someone asked me if my attire was because of the funeral I’d say "yes" but that doesn’t mean that I’d be saying that I REALLY wanted to wear that cute pink outfit I’d just bought but aren’t I a grand person for having put on a frumpy dark grey skirt and blouse?
Out of respect just means you are considering the feelings of others in choosing your actions- not that you expect them to see your action as one of sacrifice or that you should get some kind of brownie points for it.
If you wear bright red to a funeral, I think it would be reasonable to say you would be ignoring, or not considering, the feelings of others.
If Bush truly believes that by giving up golf he is considering the feelings of American families whose loved ones are gone, never to return, or the feelings of Iraq war veterans, who have lost arms or legs, or have traumatic head injuries, or who struggle every day depression and anger and suicidal feelings, then anyone would have to agree that he is an idiot. There is no connection between a decision to play golf and respect for the unimaginable sacrifice, loss, and anguish experienced by military families, active duty soldiers, and returning veterans. None whatsoever.
Kathy, you’re the one who is trying to draw some sort of equivalency. Why is it that this:
If you wear bright red to a funeral, I think it would be reasonable to say you would be ignoring, or not considering, the feelings of others.
makes sense to you, even though obviously our clothing choices have absolutely no effect in bringing back someone’s loved one or ameliorating the pain of their loss? Yet you don’t see the similar point in Bush’s choice to not play golf because of how it might affect grieving family members?
Anyway- this is way too silly of a discussion and I’m not even comfortable to have spent as much time on it as I already have so I’ll leave it at that.
Christine,
Because wearing a red dress to a funeral draws attention to the person wearing it, when the attention should be on the mourners.
That said, my analogy is imperfect, because it did not really make the point I was trying to make. Pres. Bush’s reckless and criminal decisions and actions in starting an unprovoked and completely unnecessary and unjustified war are what led to over 4,000 American dead and tens of thousands wounded, some grievously, in body and mind. That being the case, telling a reporter that he’s given up golf to show his respect for the American troops who have fought in Iraq is not merely insufficient; it is positively insulting.
In other words, Kathy, you despise President Bush, think he’s an evil criminal, and have long since decided to hate anything he says or does. Thanks for finally making that completely clear.
I do despise Pres. Bush. Whether he himself is evil, he has done many evil things, and backed policies that have led to unimaginable suffering. And yes, he is responsible for war crimes and numerous violations of human rights norms and international protocols, so that does make him a criminal. Of course, he’s not alone in that, but that does not make him less responsible.
However, when you say that I have "decided to hate anything he says or does," you imply that my contempt for Bush is irrational, and that is not the case. I despise Bush because of what HE has done, because of the profound damage to American democracy and to our national security and to our status in the world for which HE is responsible. I don’t hate "anything he says or does"; I hate what he HAS said and done, and continues to say and do.