of Obama's upcoming boon doggle to India.
40 aircraft including both Presidential 747's (which always go in pairs anywhere).
Booked the entire Taj Mahal hotel...570 rooms.
Taking 4 MArine One type helicopters that have to be dis assembled and transported by air then re-assembled in India.

And while the above seems a bit over whelming, just know it is the tip of the cost ice berg.

And the objective is? (another first family vacation on the tax payer before he loses his job).

Why has no other US President seen fit to go to India?

Don't forget to pull in your belt during these tough times....he sets the example....of what not to do...throwing once again in the faces of we the people...do as I say not as I do.....

Totally and completely inexcusable!!

btk

No, there couldn't POSSIBLY be any reason to go to a nuclear-armed country that has fought border wars with it's neighbor who is supposed to be our 'ally' in the War Against Terror but has it's Security Services financing the Taliban.

No, no reason at all for a state visit to the country that bills itself as the World's Largest Democracy. No reason to go to the country that, with China, is going to DWARF our pollution emissions.

No, no reason at all.

No reason to try and apply some pressure to get India to loosen up it's Byzantine import restrictions. Nothing to see there.

But if *Bush* had gone, you'd be all for it.

I'm not saying this trip will produce these results - Nixon didn't exactly open up China with his first visit - but there are plenty of reasons to go.

Oh - and by the way - Bush *did* go there in early 2006. Do your homework before you make such a blanket statement. Eisenhower went in 1959, Nixon was there briefly in 1969, Clinton in 2000. That's what I got from a few seconds with Google and is most likely NOT a complete list.

Heck, there's another reason as well - it's only polite. The Indian Prime Minister visited the White House early in Obama's term.

"But if *Bush* had gone, you'd be all for it." is typical partisan knee jerk commentary.

The issue of my post is the cost and excess associated with the visit. And contrary to that which makes you and other Bush wackers feel good/better, it has nothing to do with party affiliation....a very difficult concept for some folks!

He can easily accomplish what ever his objectives are without the excess. In my humble opinion it reflects on his lack of perception or caring how his actions appear to we the people. Nor does he take into account the magnitude of disruption such a huge presence is creating on the every day lives of the citizens of India.

Any of us can rattle off a list of rationale for the trip and you did so quite eloquently. What would be nice, however is to know what Obama's objective is VS an observed rationale list?

I usually "do my homework" however once in a while us mortals do blow one from time to time. I could use some WH staffer to comment on what I meant to say (just kidding).

btk

Originally Posted by djplong

No, there couldn't POSSIBLY be any reason to go to a nuclear-armed country that has fought border wars with it's neighbor who is supposed to be our 'ally' in the War Against Terror but has it's Security Services financing the Taliban.

No, no reason at all for a state visit to the country that bills itself as the World's Largest Democracy. No reason to go to the country that, with China, is going to DWARF our pollution emissions.

No, no reason at all.

No reason to try and apply some pressure to get India to loosen up it's Byzantine import restrictions. Nothing to see there.

But if *Bush* had gone, you'd be all for it.

I'm not saying this trip will produce these results - Nixon didn't exactly open up China with his first visit - but there are plenty of reasons to go.

Oh - and by the way - Bush *did* go there in early 2006. Do your homework before you make such a blanket statement. Eisenhower went in 1959, Nixon was there briefly in 1969, Clinton in 2000. That's what I got from a few seconds with Google and is most likely NOT a complete list.

Heck, there's another reason as well - it's only polite. The Indian Prime Minister visited the White House early in Obama's term.

Is there anything you don't like about the First Teleprompter?

Oh there's plenty I don't like about Obama. My point was that the OP said no President had ever been to India which was false.

He questioned the objective, which has been talked about in plenty of articles all over the world - though I grant you the *domestic* news agencies don't normally like to get into silly little things like actual *news*.

He questioned the cost - and I didn't go anywhere with that because I wasn't about to go trying to find out how big the entourages were for the previous trips. Quite frankly it *always* seems to get bigger with each successive President.

The difference between myself and some posters here is that I have a deep respect for the office of the President. I defended Bush from comments like "trained monkey" when he was in office (pointing out that trained monkeys can't fly military jets). I didn't like Clinton and became disenchanted with Bush but I never resorted to name-calling. Anytime I got a burr in my butt about something the President would do, I wanted to see if it was out of the ordinary - in other words, was I applying a double-standard.

Remember, Bush Sr. was *excoriated* for his speedboat vacations while we were in a recession, just as Obama get pilloried for HIS vacations even though most people know the President never really gets what you and I would call "a vacation". Bush Jr. got it for the number of "days off" he took. Reagan got grilled for napping in cabinet meetings - and we only find out after the fact that it never happened.

But here's some interesting information form 10 years ago when the "Presidential Fleet" was detailed about a trip to Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Oman, and Switzerland:

The article also identifies the numbers and types of aircraft dedicated to the trip: 14 C-17 Globemaster IIIs; 12 C-5 Galaxys, 3 C-141 Starlifters; and 2 C-130 Hercules. In addition, 7 KC-10 Extenders and 39 KC-135 Stratotankers were to deploy. The return mission was to require the same types and numbers of assets with some exceptions, but to include an additional 10 Galaxys and 3 more Stratotankers.

That's 48 aircraft with 46 more being deployed to other areas for support. I don't care WHAT your political affiliation is, those are mind-boggling numbers.

...and George Washington rode home in a horse and carriage.

"I don't care WHAT your political affiliation is, those are mind-boggling numbers."

btk

And now it turns out that the story about all the extravagance about Obama's trip was a single Indian news source, never backed up by anything or anyone claiming they go ttheir numbers from 'an anonymous source' which was later debunked.

In other words, the news source was following in the time-honored American tradition of "Making Stuff Up"

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/india.asp

There were some differences in variations of the story. Some versions claimed the trip would cost $200M/day, as an example.