Comments on: WhiteHouse.gov Used to Slam Bush

By: R Downs

R Downs — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:01:35 +0000

I must take this time to commend Mr. Krome’s feedback on my comment. I would like to add that as I sat and pondered his feedback, I was thinking about the accuracy of the percentages he quoted, concerning the 25% that think these are the “truths/facts” as opposed to the 75% of those that do not. As I pondered these percentages, I was reminded of a verse from the Bible, Deuteronomy7:7, that says, “THE LORD DID NOT SET HIS LOVE ON YOU NOR CHOOSE YOU BECAUSE YOU WERE MORE IN NUMBER THAN ANY OF THE PEOPLES, FOR YOU WERE THE FEWEST OF ALL PEOPLES”.
In reference to truth, I am certain o the fact that there is only ONE UNIVERSAL TRUTH, AND ONLY ONE UNIVERSAL TEACHER… and as the Lord said inJohn 16:13, “…WHEN HE, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, COMES, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL THE TRUTH…” This is why the Lord said in John 8:31-32, “…IF YOU CONTINUE IN MY WORD, THEN YOU ARE TRULY DISCIPLES OF MINE; AND YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL AKE YOU FREE.”
So I consider it a great priviledge to bein that lower 25%. Thank you Mr. Krome, and may God richly bless you and yours and use you to educate and witness to the masses who are hopelessly in error.

By: Steve Krome

Steve Krome — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:47:07 +0000

R Downs above explanation of the who? why? when? where? what? of the reasoning behind Bush’s invasion of Iraq is a perfect example… a perfect example of how the seventy-five percenter’s that oppose the war in Iraq see the twenty-five percenter’s that favor it.

Right or wrong less than 25% think these are the ‘truths’ / ‘facts’… And more than 75% don’t.

Maybe with the new, open government policy that President Obama is putting into place we will see what the ‘truth’ and ‘facts’ really are.

By: R Downs

R Downs — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:11:30 +0000

Furthermore I just want to tell you people something further. I have seen reports through underground publications and Christian publications as well that have spoken of certain individuals in our respected government who saw satalite photographs of a convoy of 18 wheelers leaving Iraq crossing over into Syria as the US was making its way into Iraq and across the deserts of Iraq headed for Baghdad… yes, I know, I know… many will laugh and say I am being blindsided and duped by false information… but I tell you guys what, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and can believe what they want to. But I for one do not consider myself to be so naive to think for a minute that Sadam Hussein was a civil man with good intentions. I firmly believe That God used our american President and our american troops to rid the world of a very awful and wicked man who had evil intentions towards America and others in this world as well. People better wake up and take a good hard look at what is going on in the world today. Things are not getting any better… we are being threatened at home and abroad by a very apparent evil force that is only growing stronger and stronger and as a people created by God, we need to get serious about getting closer to our Creator and thinking about where we are going to spend eternity… because that is the only future that is certain. God Bless and may the Lord have mercy on us all for our arrogance and ignorance.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:17:28 +0000

To put a finer point on my previous comment about the alleged "broken promises" part of the Whitehouse.gov excerpt, I'd recommend that everyone look into the management of the "Road Home" program (the conduit through which homeowners access the federal funds for rebuilding or relocation) by reading accounts in the local media. Unfortunately this hasn't gotten ANY national press coverage as far as I'm aware, but it's pretty clear that the citizens affected by this aren't blaming the federal govt for the most part (there are certainly some ongoing battles, one example being HUD's decision to reject funding for certain stormproofing which would lead to residents exceeding the maximum payout.) For an overview, here's a really balanced perspective from ground zero, an editorial in last Sunday's Times Picayune (the primary newspaper in the New Orleans metro area.) On balance there is much praise given to the Bush administration for the way the aftermath was handled. And overall in terms of the money reaching the people who need it for rebuilding, most blame has gone to the incompetent firm that was hired by the Blanco administration, ICF. And curiously, this hasn't been picked up at all by left leaning commentators or bloggers who are frequent critics of 'evil Halliburton', even though the firm proved so incompetent that the LA legislature unanimously passed resolutions to fire them (to no avail) and then Blanco gave them a raise as one of her last acts as governor. Add to that the fact that the ICF execs all took huge bonuses in 2007 (1.5 million for the CEO), and you've got one of the most ignored scandals of the day in my opinion. It's not for nothing that some LA residents say that ICF stands for "Incompetent Colossal Failure" and that a citizen watchdog group called "CHAT" gave the firm failing grades across the board.

By: Orson Buggeigh

Orson Buggeigh — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:21:02 +0000

Wilkey, you are right on the money. Jason, I think the problem is the statement really is better viewed as a political campaign statement than the statement of someone trying to effectively govern. Bush appointed a guy who didn’t really have an emergency services background. To his credit, FEMA did acceptably in several emergencies, but failed miserably with Katrina. But Obama’s White House statement ignores the critical role played by Blanco and Nagin in the fiasco that was New Orleans in Katrina, implying that he wouldn’t appoint inexperienced people to vital positions. The same President who has appointed a director of Central Intelligence with no intelligence background. Additionally, this fumble was unnecessary – he could have had an accurate statement saying the Obama administration would work to insure that all levels of government performed effectively in coordination to prevent problems like New Orleans experienced with Katrina. Honest, and not inflammatory. Too bad the Kos Kiddies are working in the White House.

By: wilky

wilky — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:51:20 +0000

“To those that think it is Bush-bashing, I would point out that President Bush appointed a man with qualifications as head of a horse-breeding club to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I mean, COME ON…)”

Ya’ll act like the only hurricane to hit the states during Bushs time was the one that hit NO. All those other storms, when Brownie was in charge, was done well enough, at least for government work. I do know this, when my town is hit by storms, tornadoes is natures choice for us, its not the feds we look to to help out, its our local and state government. I know from experience that our mayor well get the town mobilized, with emphasis on those that are unable or unwilling, yea we got these kind of people to, to do whats necessary to survive the storm. By the time the Feds get here we are already in cleanup mode. You are vilifying the wrong person.

I never understood this Katrina and the “Bush hates black people” thing”. But then again, bashing Bush was the cool thing to do. If you consider being a mindless follower, cool. Then I guess it was.

By: Michael Merritt

Michael Merritt — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:28:47 +0000

Two things:

The White House site is never completely neutral. In many ways it is used to promote the agenda of the administration in power. I can’t give all the ways Bush used it off the top of my head, but he quite extensively outlined his foreign policy there. Foreign policy isn’t neutral, it’s based on whoever is in power. So the website is never neutral, at least content wise.

No, this case isn’t one of being neutral in content, it’s one of tone (which is what you might have meant by ‘neutral’). While I agree with you Jason that criticism of past policies is appropriate, the tone used was way over the top. It’s almost as though they were converting old campaign material for inclusion on the White House site and missed something.

The problem is that other words in that paragraph are changed, reflecting the new position of Obama. And it remains there over a day later.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:32:30 +0000

I think they certainly could have chosen less inflammatory language to describe the ‘ineptitude’, and the part about broken promises isn’t accurate (there is tons of federal money in the pike but it’s been held up by disagreements among the community leaders arguing over what gets rebuilt and in what manner.)

By: velda

velda — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:16:57 +0000

I would agree that not every disagreement should be construed as a personal attack. But not every personal attack can be excused as a simple disagreement either. So where would you draw the line?

By: Jason, Managing Editor

Jason, Managing Editor — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:34:20 +0000

Only facts are true or false. Criticism is opinion, which is “truth” only to those personally arrogant enough confuse their own opinions with objective reality. I agree with the opinion that the federal (and state and local) response to Katrina was inept enough to be called “unconscionable”, but I wouldn’t presume to equate my opinion with objective fact that could be called “true”. (To those that think it is Bush-bashing, I would point out that President Bush appointed a man with qualifications as head of a horse-breeding club to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I mean, COME ON…)

That said, I have no problem with a White House web site that includes an implicit criticism of the predecessor’s policies, provided that it is not done in the hyperventilating demonizing style typical of those with various derangement syndromes. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. Its not like they burned Bush in effigy, threw shoes at a Bush doll, or flipped off Marine One. (I can’t imagine where I would get such ideas of real out-of-proportion no-class idiocy, can any of you???)

Perhaps someday we will attain a level of advancement in political culture sufficient that not every disagreement is assumed to be a personal attack. In the blogosphere in particular, some people need to grow up enough to recognize that not every criticism of their opinion is a crime against humanity. I suspect most of them already realize this, but they feign outrage because doing so is politically expedient insofar as it forces the other side on to the defensive. Unfortunately, it does so at the cost of completely losing sight of the actual issue. It is, therefore, a tactic of the intellectually lazy.