Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I would like to ask everyone a question. Is it ethical for President Bush to use http://www.whitehouse.gov/ for personal reasons? I was under the impression that gov sites are controlled and used for governmental purposes.

I receive an email from a family member that is Pro Bush that had a statement against Senator Kerry. I don't take things for face value so I went searching for info on the quote. I found the quote on a news release from the Whitehouse at the above site. The 'news' release if from the Whitehouse and is pro Bush / Anti Kerry. It is a report about the remarks Vice President Cheney said after President Reagan's death. Which went from talking about Reagan to bashing Kerry.

I personally feel this is highly inappropriate. It is like using the Whitehouse phones for Fund raising or having us the tax payers pay for mailing a Bush re-election flyer. How does everyone else feel about this? After all we pay for the upkeep of this site as tax payers...

This is the Article is anyone is interested...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040317-3.html

The White House and everything relating to it is a symbol of the current administration.

They can do whatever they wish with that website.
If you dont like the way they operate, vote them out!

Yup, I'll get right on that.

I dont feel that American tax dollars should be spent keeping up propaganda for some ass-hole who wasnt really elected in the first place.

Im sure they have their own campaign web sites set up... If they are going to post articles like that on the internet, they should use those sites. I dont need that garbage on webspace that I paid for.

You also pay the president's salary! tongue10

Dont remind me...

I am trying to get him out. Under two weeks then we can give him the walking papers.

I never really checked out the Whitehouse website before. I wonder if previous presidents used it like this? To stick it to the other candidate? I wonder if they have stored info on that.

Maybe it is considered acceptable to use a Gov website for campaigning. I personally don't feel it is right. Just like that Judge that had to remove the 10 commandment monolith because it was a violation of separation of church and state. There is a line of ethics that some seem to be able to cross but others can't.

I don't think it's ethical in the least, to use a government web-site to bad mouth the other candidates, that website shoud be used to inform the public, not sway their votes

polls were at 47-47 today. I know polls mean jack sh!t, but right now they've told an interesting story.

Bush up big...screws himself on debate #1...and loses his lead.
Bush works his way back up by winnging (argueably) the next two debates...

and here they are tied....as the finish line comes in site.


Oh and I agree with Tex.

What we think doesnt actually matter, come to think of it, no matter what anyone thinks, wether it be polititions or civilians, its George Bush so he'll just do it his way anyway!

Zanthor, how may I ask is that article personal? It's remarks by the VP on a Ronald Reagan museum. What does that have to do with Bush for 1 and why shouldn't it be on the website?

I was hunting for what a supposed email said Kerry said but it turned out to be a quote from a parody website with the parody material taken out so people might think Kerry actually said this.

My comments the Gov website are simple. It is to report Whitehouse information not be a second Bush Campaign website. He pays for the Georgewbush site. I along with other tax payers pay for the Gov site. It is not right for him to use it in this method.

lol, I more find it amusing that people are talking about "ethics" during an election year, on a forum. HA

Senator Kerry has also had a few things to say about support for our troops now on the ground in Iraq. Among other criticisms, he has asserted that those troops are not receiving the materiel support they need. Just this morning, he again gave the example of body armor, which he said our administration failed to supply. May I remind the Senator that last November, at the President's request, Congress passed an $87 billion supplemental appropriation. This legislation was essential to our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan - providing funding for body armor and other vital equipment; hazard pay; health benefits; ammunition; fuel, and spare parts for our military. The legislation passed overwhelmingly, with a vote in the Senate of 87 to 12. Senator Kerry voted no. I note that yesterday, attempting to clarify the matter, Senator Kerry said, quote, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (Laughter.) It's a true fact. (Laughter.)

Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait. (Laughter.)

There are tons of things in that article that are blatant attacks on Kerry... tons. Its inappropriate.

There are tons of reasons why it should not be on a government website.

Ok, this is getting little too much.

Please use this George Bush thread for all discussions about him. Please dont start new threads about this topic, because it clogs the forum.

Thanks.