President Obama Seems He Regrets Golfing Immediately After Giving Speech On Beheading Of Journalist

Submitted by Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor


“I should have anticipated the optics.”
–President Barack Obama

President Obama claimed in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press that he regretted playing a round of golf immediately following a press conference in which he spoke of the murder of captured Journalist James Foley by ISIS terrorists. This comes after weeks in some media circles of condemnation for showing lack of sincerity and being aloof to what had taken place.

foley-with-terroristThe president stated that he “had to hold back tears” when speaking to the family of Mr. Foley but added that there was the possibility of a “jarring contrast” between world events and his desire to carve out a semblance of a normal life involving recreation.

The president also admitted that sometimes his own performance in some of the more public rituals of the presidency was lacking.

“Part of this job, is also the theater of it.

“It’s not something that always comes naturally to me. But it matters. And I’m mindful of that,” Obama said.

President Obama’s statements are surely not going to temper anger in the minds of those who were affronted by his remarks. It could be asked if his regret was whether he might have upset the family and those who knew and loved Mr. Foley or if his own image might have been tarnished.

One has to wonder how much else is theater with proffered claims of sincerity.

By Darren Smith


Yahoo News

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

151 thoughts on “President Obama Seems He Regrets Golfing Immediately After Giving Speech On Beheading Of Journalist”

  1. As starters our Presidential Election cycle should be reduced to every 2 years. These jokers get elected by any means possible and then march off and do what ever the hell they want without regards to the voters.

  2. I do not blame Obama if he played golf to blow off stress. I go for a ride, or sit with my horses, listening to their quiet breathing, when I’m stressed, grieving, or working through something. I always go for a solitary ride after funerals, if I can. Go have a good cry in my horse’s mane and pull myself together or breeze the horse on a straightaway. There’s nothing like a thundering gallop to get the mad or the sad out. Unless you have no whoa, and then it can rather increase stress.

    It is a valid complaint if he appeared to be playing, or blowing it off. I certainly hope a President would be mindful of the feelings of a grieving family, and the morale of the troops serving in the desert. It’s like having tact at a funeral.

    Past behavior predicts future behavior. So I expect him to break more records for luxurious vacations, and continue to make social faux pas.

    But his social graces, or lack thereof, are not why I have a problem with him as a president. It’s the financial and medical hardship he created for middle class families with Obamacare. It’s the lying, the lawlessness in various scandals. The way he seems over faced in global politics and military strategy.

  3. Eric,
    I cannot find a definition that is inconsistent with my understanding. If you have a source you can direct me to I will study it. In the meantime, I will suggest your interpretation would be consistent with “Rule by Law” and that allows the Executive a position that places the law subordinate to the lawmaker.

    I’m currently reviewing the following essay:


  4. Eric,
    Enforcement resides in the Executive but always UNDER the rule of law. To equate any person or position with the rule opens Pandora’s Box for abuse. Prerogative is not the key to the Executive Washroom where all security of unalienable rights seems to get flushed down the toilet. All the anecdotes of abusive law enforcement are clear examples of trying to equate the two.

  5. Paul,
    It’s not that they don’t already know that. I read comments like AY just posted and cringe at just how inane their assumptions have become. Because he’s half-black? Come on, really?

  6. Annie,

    I’m not a supporter of Obama… But, I don’t like it when he gets critiqued for playing golf, not sending in support quick enough, the Oval Office gets cleaned…. Yadda Yadda Yadda…..

    He’s not a stupid person…. The stock market is in better shape than it ever was under bush… More folks are employed…. Two things bush tanked and yet he still has his supporters….

    I don’t think people could be so stupid yo hate Obama just because he’s half black…

    1. it is not the playing golf it is how much and when he plays golf that is the problem. And although more people may be employed, more people are under employed and more are completely off the unemployment rolls.

  7. Eric,
    I hope that was tongue in cheek. If you’re equating the “Rule” of law with the Executive branch and more specifically, POTUS then I do not agree. As I understand your intent, then rewriting your statement would expose the problem.

    “The King of England is not just any person. Look at the 1st part of the 2-part construction of “rule of law”. That’s the Monarchy – that’s the King.”

    IMO, the rule of law follows the existence of unalienable rights and is what protects us from that other unchangeable force, Human Nature. It precedes any form of government. Our constitutional republic happens to be the most successful experiment in codifying a form of government for the security of unalienable rights. Tragically, the Progressive Era has ushered in a different belief; that human nature is changeable and the rule of law can be subordinated to especially “enlightened” People.

    The rise of the bureaucratic state, the lawlessness within the administration of government, at all levels, is the result of ignoring the rule of law. This has brought us to JT’s constitutional tipping point and it’s the only reason I came to this blog. He appears to want the same thing I do; honorable government and the security of unalienable rights it was originally intended to provide.

  8. Elaine M,

    Addendum for my comment at September 8, 2014 at 7:21 pm:


    State Department brief – Historic Review of UNMOVIC’s Report on Unresolved Disarmament Issues, 10MAR03:

    Again, the question of Iraq’s WMD was never for the US and UN to answer. The question of Iraq’s WMD was always one of the question that Saddam was required to answer to the mandated standard of the Gulf War ceasefire. Saddam’s final answer to the question in his “final opportunity” (UNSCR 1441) to comply is in the UNMOVIC Cluster Document.

Comments are closed.