British Paper: Obama 'Maldives' Gaffe 'Uncharacteristic;' More Akin to Bush; Where Have They Been?!

The Telegraph (UK) notes that President Obama made an "uncharacteristic" gaffe the other day by calling the Falklands Islands -- known as the Malvinas in Argentina -- the "Maldives." And it did so by pointing out ... that George W. Bush was more prone to such blunders, "Barack Obama made an uncharacteristic error, more akin to those of his predecessor George W. Bush, by referring to the Falkland Islands as the Maldives."

While President George W. Bush certainly made his fair share of gaffes, one can certainly wonder if the former chief exec was indeed more apt to make such errors, or whether it was the media -- in this case the foreign press -- that highlighted them more often than it does those of our current president.

For example, take Oliver Burkeman's "homage" to Mr. Bush in the [UK] Guardian just prior to the former president's departure from the White House in 2009: "The gaffes, the gibberish, the gurning. Admit it: there's a part of him you're going to miss" he writes. He then includes the memorable moment of Mr. Bush walking into a locked door while in China, followed by just about every memorable verbal/grammar gaffe of his presidency.

The [Australian] Telegraph had fun with Bush's "phonetic teleprompter," and the Guardian offered up "George Bush's finest gaffes." The BBC pointed out his mistakes in a terrorism speech.

The [UK] Daily Mail giggled at the former president mixing up Austria with Australia, while the aforementioned BBC certainly had fun with the former president's blunders with British royalty. Ironically, our current  president thought that Austrian was an actual language, and he's had his own share of gaffes with regards to the British and their royalty.

So, are such blunders, verbal and otherwise, "uncharacteristic" of President Obama? Let's take a look at some classics:

Newsbusters forum member Blonde has a handy-dandy reference guide for many other such goofs by our current chief exec. (My apologies for not giving the appropriate credit earlier!)

The question to the UK Telegraph is: Was your sub-headline an actual fact -- or a blatant editorial opinion?