Bush gave up golf after America's invasion of Iraq.
"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," he told Americans.
"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."
In true form, Bush was caught lying when Keith Olberman found footage of the President playing golf two months after he had supposedly given it up.
Last week, as war broke out in Gaza, President-elect Obama was seen playing golf with friends near his multi-million dollar rented holiday home.
So much for change you can believe in.
Al Jazeera, the Arabic language news channel reaching millions of Arab homes, broadcast Barack's day on the course directly opposite footage of Palestinian children killed by Israel's attacks, encouraging the perception that Obama, like Bush, will be apathetic to Arab concerns and steadfast in his support for Israel.
The footage contrasts their English-language sister station's story that ran this March chronicling the effort made by Ibrahim, a young Palestinian in a tiny Internet cafe in Gaza city, to bring his friends together to rally support for Obama's campaign online. I wonder how Ibrahim feels today.
For a president-to-be whose path to 1600 Pennsylvania was paved by his seemingly sincere criticisms of President Bush's delayed pursuit of a more peaceful Middle East and endless arguments that "we cannot afford four more years" of failed Bush policies, it is discouraging to see his politically expedient reaction to this devastating, direful war.
Since being elected President Obama has spoken at length about the economy and the terror attacks in Mumbai last month, but has insisted on refraining from interfering with President Bush's handling of the current crisis. Amid a series of stutters, Obama defended his position when pressed by Chuck Todd at a press conference, clarifying the importance of maintaining one foreign policy at a time.
Obama told another group of reporters that he was deeply concerned about the conflict taking place, the loss of civilian life in Gaza and Israel, and that he was monitoring the situation on a day to day basis.
Perhaps his willingness to monitor the situation may come in handy as Israel refuses to allow international monitors and investigators into Gaza despite demands by a UN spokesman for Israel to be held accountable for strikes today that killed almost 43 Palestinians inside a UN school in northern Gaza.
The attacks on the school, preceded by Israeli planes dropping leaflets urging Palestinians in the area to leave their homes, was justified by claims that Hamas militants were shooting at Israeli tanks from nearby the school. But even so, Israel's attempt to portray Hamas as directly responsible for these sort of attacks and deny any accountability on their part is absurd.
For arguments-sake, Hamas may carry some indirect responsibility, but that cannot mean Israel is unaccountable for those deaths as they have been suggesting repeatedly to the media.
Unlike in 1948 and 1967, during the two largest waves of Palestinians fleeing their homes, in this war, Palestinians have nowhere to flee to, forced to face their fate in damaged homes or UN facilities, both vulnerable to attack. They are imprisoned in a small strip of land, without any electricity, hardly any food, and nowhere safe to turn.
Israel's defense is consistent with what they used when they bombed a UN compound in Qana killing 28 civilians (about half being children) during the 2006 summer war in Lebanon against Hezbollah.
Ban Ki Moon called the attacks "unacceptable" and yet they are being accepted, tolerated and unchallenged by both America's outgoing and incoming administrations. If Israel is able to avoid complying with UN resolutions there is little reason to believe that they will comply with UN demands for an investigation into the attacks.
As Israel continues to bombard Gaza, frightening ramifications are unraveling as American allies and enemies are responding to the crisis in terms that are only damaging America's ruined reputation in the region, escalating hatred towards America among Muslims and Arabs, and emboldening extremists with plans to fight America till the death.
According to Reuters, Venezuela has expelled Israel's ambassador in protest of the War on Gaza. While many countries have formally protested Israel's offensive, Venezuela is the first to expel the Israeli ambassador in a move that highlights the mounting opposition America is facing as its enemies across the world appear to be strengthening their relationships and solidarity against the US.
"How far will this barbarism go?" Chavez asked on Venezuelan television. "The president of Israel should be taken before an international court together with the president of the United States, if the world had any conscience."
President Chavez's bold suggestion comes as he has been pursuing closer ties with Iran and Syria (seen as two of America and Israel's biggest enemies), as evident by recent reports that Iran is using Venezuelan airplanes to fly computers and engine components to Syria for use in missiles development.
Even Denmark, an American ally, has responded to the violence forcefully. Denmark's foreign ministry has summoned the Israeli ambassador to explain the bombing of three mobile clinics that were treating people unable to receive help in local hospitals overwhelmed by the number of victims. The organization's secretary general went so far as to call Israel's attacks a "breach of the Geneva Convention."
In an online message, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda's deputy leader, expectantly declared Israel's war on Gaza "part of a western crusade against Islam," a declaration that is sure to invigorate anti-American sentiment in the region.
But British Prime Minister Gordon Brown encapsulated this ominous ordeal most coherently, speaking after Israel's attacks on the UN schools. "This is a humanitarian crisis. This is the darkest moment yet for the Middle East and it affects the whole of the world." he said.
This war is without doubt a nightmare for Obama. Like many of us, I'm sure he wishes he could go to sleep, wake up and have it all be over. But he will inevitably have to work to clean up the latest mess in the Middle East. For that reason, he should use his platform and composed nature to calm the tensions by indicating some shift in his approach. Because the Bush administration has continued to grant Israel time and freedom from consequence as it enters deeper into Gaza, it is imperative that Obama take a different approach, for symbolic and strategic reasons.
Millions of us have waited for a long time, nibbling at our nails, polishing our campaign buttons, and searching YouTube for that latest celebratory Obama music video. But President Obama's ability to rebrand, remold, and reposition America's misguided path has just been delayed indefinitely.
Advertising his presidency like it were a summer blockbuster, Obama told the American public that he would "have plenty to say about the issue" after his highly anticipated and historic inauguration.
Today, Obama reassured us that he is not backing away from promises made during the campaign, saying, "Starting at the beginning of our administration we are going to engage effectively and consistently in trying to resolve the conflicts that exist in the Middle East."
But Obama's tepid response and unfortunate choice of syntax portrays him to be the starry-eyed novice many of his critics (Hillary Clinton once his staunchest) accused him of being during the primaries.
To "engage effectively" in trying to resolve the "conflicts" that exist in the Middle East he may want to start by addressing "specifically" the "one conflict" thats tremors are shaking up the Middle East.
I understand the game he is playing and the difficulty added by the timing of this war, but disagree with the implication that it is acceptable for him to take the easy way out. By playing the political game to avoid angering Arabs abroad and appeasing domestic pro-Israeli support, he is only continuing his use of ambiguous statements to keep one foot on both sides of the conflict in hopes of avoiding a political fallout.
But the election is over, and although he is not yet technically President, in the minds and hearts of millions of Americans he is.
As Obama said in his first speech after since winning the election, "Some of the choices we make will be difficult." speaking about bringing America out of its battered international reputation and economy.
"But America is a strong and resilient country and I know we will succeed if we put aside partisanship and politics and work together as one nation. That's what I intend to do."
Today, Americans may be concerned with the economy and other seemingly more pressing crises, but the growing divide between the Arab street and their leaders will make today's problems larger tomorrow.
The lack of leadership in the Arab world and its inability to stop Israel's bombardment on Gaza have made it easier for Obama to pursue a passive and convenient political approach to the issue -- but he will regret it.
Since 9/11 the Bush Administration has focused only on maintaining ties and support among Arab leaders like Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah II, largely ignoring the Arab populations in these countries and strengthening Islamists in the process.
Indignation is running rampant on the Arab street. Even those who believe Hamas prompted Israel's invasion, are flabbergasted by Arab leaders' silence. Egypt's President made the mistake of blaming Hamas for ending the cease-fire just one day after being photographed smiling and shaking hands with Israel's foreign minister on her visit to Egypt.
Egypt, which has twice pioneered large efforts to reclaim Israel for the Palestinians, has let down millions of Arabs who always looked to it to lead the fight against Israel. As anger and resentment builds in the streets and in Arab parliaments, opposition groups, such as Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, which held the country's largest demonstrations this week since the 2004 anniversary of America's invasion of Iraq, are positioned to gain power.
Despite arresting 50 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which ran independent candidates and won a fifth of the seats in Egypt's parliamentary elections in 2005, support has grown for the Brotherhood and their cause.
In Jordan, tens of thousands have marched in the streets and some members of parliament burned the Israeli flag in the parliament itself, calling for the Israeli ambassador to be expelled.
Following America's fraudulently justified invasion of Iraq and use of torture, as well as their other failed policies in the Middle East, Arabs across the region have come to distrust America and their own leaders. Instead of capitalizing on the opportunity for change (as his campaign so vehemently professed it would do), Obama has reinforced their sentiments and is likely losing the enthusiasm many in the Middle East (and in America for that matter) might have once held for his prospective presidency.
It is time for a change in the narrow approach among American leadership in dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the only Muslim elected to the US congress bravely told Al Jazeera yesterday why this war demands a shift in American policy and an effort among U.S. politicians to better understand the Middle East in order to pursue strategic interests that will benefit America in the long run instead of continuing longheld positions that only threaten regional and American security. Let us hope that Obama pursues Ellison's thoughtful, insightful approach and not Dubya's. WATCH: Keith Ellison on AJE
If this man deserves to be elected as President he deserves a fighting chance to make good on his obligations for accepting the post. Give him that chance. There are four years left to bash his actions; what's the hurry?
I think when Obama spoke about change, he meant a change in mindset. One where you actually trust the judgement of your leader. So lets stop assuming he's going to change the world overnight, cuz god knows that would only create more problems. Lets trust he knows what he's doing by being so brief in this horrible situation.
I agree, we should give him a chance.
I wasn't suggesting that he criticize Israel, but perhaps he should have given the war on Gaza the same importane he gave to the Mumbai terror attacks...and that he is giving to the economic crisis since this kind of instability in the Middle East has already shown that it will have serious, divisive and lasting consequences. To differentiate between domestic and foreign policy and suggest that he should not comment on the latter is unproductive since we live in a globalized world where events that happen abroad or at home effect us all.
Had he for example recognized the humanitarian crisis (which is not directly criticizing Israel) I would have felt more reassured. Thanks for your comment!
if i had a best friend who allowed me to ruin my reputation, jeapordize a real chance at peace, and facilitate my making the same mistake over and over again, i wonder how long we would be friends?
It is appearing more and more calculated & manipulative to stage this 'war' during an essential vacuum of power in the US. i wonder who exactly was in on it?
There are plenty of things Israel could and should have done to quash Hamas' idiotic rockets- but playing to Hamas' game of war amongst civilians makes it no better than the 'enemy' it claims responsible for this humanitarian crisis.
...Africa is poor (so not sellable as "news coverage" to gather popular support) and of limited strategic value to the U.S.
The U.S. has a national security interest in a stable middle east (especially with a nuclear Israel & Pakistan) The difficulty is the historical entrenched U.S. and Israeli industrial interests. The U.S becomes reactionary because of this inertia and large military. Until the U.S. political system is structured to be more representative of popular opinion, pleas to justice or the economic well being of the majority will get lip service. I hope Obama will prove me wrong.
Change we can believa beliive beelleve.. oh forget it.
2. GWB didn't really stop playing golf and this would be a false equivalence if you're comparing claiming to give up golf (and not giving up golf) to deferring to a sitting President during the transition.