Obama’s Gaffes

are his own. It’s hilarious that the Telegraph thinks that this kind of error is “uncharacteristic.” They must have missed “liberating Auschwitz” and “all 57 states,” and the notion that “Texas has been a pretty Republican state for historic reasons.”

As a commenter notes, the leftist media will never let go of the fantasy that George W. Bush was an intellectual pygmy and that Obama is brilliant.

[Update a couple minutes later]

More smart diplomacy: Obama’s gaffe could start a war. You’d like to ask “what was he thinking?” but I think the answer is the usual — he wasn’t.

16 thoughts on “Obama’s Gaffes”

  1. Yep, one of those “if Bush had said it, it would have become a Letterman Top Ten List” moments. Obama is reckless with his words because he hasn’t ever had to pay for saying something stupid. That also explains his general inability to actually learn from his mistakes. Since no one (least of all him) will hold him accountable for screwing up, he’s under the impression he has never screwed up. That makes for a very steep learning curve.

    1. Chris,
      That is a fantastic point. The fact that Obama can say pretty much whatever he wants with little to no accountability shows when he just butchers history. If he were called on it a little more often (say, even ONCE), maybe he’d be more careful.

  2. I don’t think the Malvinas/Maldives name mixup is significant, but I do think it is significant and disturbing that Obama intended to say “Malvinas”. I don’t think a new Falklands war is the least bit in the cards, but I’ve never thought that the USA should have been neutral on this issue. I think the USA should stand with the UK on this issue as a matter of principle.

    I’d like to see what Obama actually said, in context. I can’t find a transcript of the speech. If anyone can find it and provide a link, I’d appreciate it.

    1. I remember the Falklands War pretty clearly, and no one called the Falklands the Malvinas who wasn’t supporting Argentina for God knows what reason. I think the UK is on very solid ground in this “dispute.” What’s it been, 180 years now? The citizens there want to be under British rule by a large majority, and the UK’s involvement predates the Argentine constitution (almost goes back to when Argentina was a colony).

      I find it troubling that Obama would want to refer to those islands by that name.

    2. You don’t think the POTUS (a graduate of Harvard no less) should know the difference between a chain of atolls in the Indian Ocean and some islands in the South Atlantic? You honestly think there is nothing wrong with demonstrating that ignorance in front of the leaders of other nations who probably do know the difference? Yes, I’m sure if Romney made the same mistake in a speech to some rotary club, you and the MSM would be just as forgiving.

      1. I think everyone capable of knowing the difference should know the difference – (geography is valuable knowledge), I think they should learn it long before they go (or don’t go) to college, and I think Obama knows the difference, as does Romney. I certainly would be as forgiving to Romney, I’m quite sure Obama knows the difference, and I think anyone could have been thinking “Malvinas” but say “Maldives”. My wife (who I am also forgiving with) does this sort of thing all the time – she’s apt to say “Iowa” when she means “Idaho” without even noticiing, and if she goes on to talk about a particular street in Boise, it is pretty clear that she really was thinking of Idaho.

        I just don’t think the United States should be a neutral party, since Argentina was clearly in the wrong.

        Here’s the context, by the way:

    3. Feeling kinda chilly in hell, I agree with Bob about the US stance on the Falklands. I disagree that Argentina hasn’t recently been wanting to scratch that itch again. Certainly a reason for the US to not even mention it at all.

  3. Given his statism, his chin-tilting, and his general blockheadedness, I don’t call Obama “Il Dufe” for nothing.

      1. Sooner or later he will be out of office and we will be reminded how dumb he really is on a daily basis because we all know that Obama has no intention of leaving the public eye. He will be like Carter in that respect too.

        1. I think he’s proven that he’ll exceed Carter in ever aspect, especially the negative ones. He already sucks as a president even more than Carter did. I have no doubt he’ll suck even worse than Carter as an ex-president, too.

  4. Yep, here we see how Obama has absorbed his fathers hate for the British. And why really by extension he has a inner loathing of “imperialistic” U.S. He’s only supported action through war as a means to a ends to getting himself reelected. But he turns down every oppurtunity to keep an adequate force operating in Iraq and calls that a success. And appears to have no interest whatsoever in bolstering a successful campaign in Afghanistan. That is unless it provides him with a photo op.

Comments are closed.