Tuesday, January 20, 2009

New White House Website

Dan Rhehl was browsing the new White House dot gov site today and found some typical things. I decided to check it out and get the update on our Iraq policy and was left with the impression that the Change.gov transition site was simply morphed into Whitehouse.gov with only minor consultation between policy and IT folks. Here's a screen cap from around 6 PM central time Tuesday regards the Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq:


Wasn't the Status of Forces Agreement hammered out, signed and ratified by the dysfunctional Iraqi government back in November? If so, our policy looks a bit out of place proclaiming:
Obama and Biden believe it is vital that a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) be reached so our troops have the legal protections and immunities they need. Any SOFA should be subject to Congressional review to ensure it has bipartisan support here at home.
Are they suggesting they'll reverse the agreement or let Congress step in and re-decide a treaty, or is it something else? Here's a possible answer--a cached version of Change dot gov/iraq:


It's the same.

Nit-picky? Yeah, but the problem is Whitehouse dot gov is the official website of the executive branch of the US Government, not some transition or campaign site. They had plenty of time to tweak the Change dot gov site before the real one came online so it appears they might want this content--which reads like petty campaign sloganeering--on the site.

And some might call this pre-partisan:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war.
I can't help but wonder if this could put the USG in jeopardy of being sued, or perhaps former employees thereof. It also appears to be demeaning the new Vice President and Secretary of State nominee, both of whom voted for the use of force in Iraq. Obama maintained the blip about him being one of the few in 2002 to oppose the war, which even if true is not good management practice (boss tooting own horn never goes over well with staff).

But that's not the only admission of implied negligence. Politico points to another one. Surely this will be cleaned up soon.

MORE BROWSING 1/21/09

From the site:
Faith

In June of 2006, then-Senator Obama delivered what was called the most important speech on religion and politics in 40 years. Speaking before an evangelical audience, then-Senator Obama candidly discussed his own religious conversion and doubts, and the need for a deeper, more substantive discussion about the role of faith in American life.

Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate. In December 2006, President Obama discussed the importance of faith in the global battle against AIDS.
Well there you go, Christians, the master has spaketh. Go forth and heed, now.

How about the Global War on Terra (which ranked about 2 percent in importance this past election):
Win the Battle of Ideas: Defeat al Qaeda in the battle of ideas by returning to an American foreign policy consistent with America's traditional values, and work with moderates within the Islamic world to counter al Qaeda propaganda. Establish a $2 billion Global Education Fund to work to eliminate the global education deficit and offer an alternative to extremist schools.
Apparently Obama sees room for improvement in Bush's horrible record of no attacks since 9/11 and AQ's defeat in Iraq--through education grants, as if nothing of this nature has ever been done before, even by the previous first black president. Remarkable hubris. Speaking of returning to past values, we're about to unleash a Secretary of State on the world whose husband was in charge when bin Laden first declared war on America.

And hey, where is the space program stuff?

2 comments:

LASunsett said...

Re: The Politico story.

Someone needs to tell the staff that the campaign is over.

Presidents and their staff usually do not blame the previous admin. unless they are under some heat, for something.

A.C. McCloud said...

It's ludicrous in my book, LA, and a stain on the office- ALREADY. Those talking points were campaign bullets for scoring political points, and he's already scored. This needs a major clean-up.