I guess the "transparency" prez isn't so transparent after all. I saw through this hypocrit from day one (quite clear that 52.7% of you were fooled or didn't give a damn). All this guy ever wanted was the job of POTUS and of course, he was going to say and do (and promise) anything to get this job. By the way, that rotten smell you just noticed eminates from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

It's not the visitors to the White House that really matter anyway...it's all the lobbyists peddling away their bribes to the Congress that we should be concerned with.

The president can lead, and the president can veto, but the real law making power is in Congress.  The danger factor beyond is the Supreme Court allowing laws to exist that conflict with the true intent of the constitution.

The real change we need is term limits in Congress and on the Supreme Court.  

Sounds like someone has something to hide. I find it ironic that this administration had no qualms about releasing information to embarrass past administrations but hiding a public document as this is alright. Hypocrisy!

SRM....we should be concerned about both!

The longer obama is in office, the more people will see how bad of a president he really is. Nobama will not get reelected, heck he will be lucky to make it through his first term without being IMPEACHED! Impeach obama now and elect someone who can be a real leader, not a stuffed suit.

Uh Oh.. I was a guest during the Ford administration. I better let everyone know I went for coffee with the staff. No business was discussed. We did talk about an after hours function. There, it is out in the open.

Of course, the "nay" sayers will take this oportunity to "bash" Obama with lies such as, "he hasn't kept one of his promises, yet", which is, of course, ridiculous. However, we need to know "why" his people want the White House log blocked from public view. I didn't like it when GWB did it, and I don't like it now. What we need to press for here, is an explanation. Maybe there is a good reason, but I'm not comfortable with this.

Hey, if this was a policy under Bush and it was A-Ok for those who approved of it then, then don't turn around and say it's not ok for Obama.

You cannot have it both ways.

I would be concerned releasing these logs, particularly while the President is sitting, could interfere with the normal course of government. The President is in a key position and has many people trying to influence him. I don't think the press or opposition should start second guessing who should be allowed to talk to the President.

The real change we need is term limits in Congress and on the Supreme Court.

SRM: That would mean Constitutional Amendments for both of those proposals. Good luck on those.

BJ How about the change all the clowns voted for.

Don't you want to hold the messiah accountable for anything?

And please not more of well the rep.s did it so can we waaaawwaaaaawaaaaaawaaa

BJ

Who approved of it when Bush did it? Just because you couldn't hear us over your own yelling (or simply ignored it then) doesn't mean we liked it. When they wouldn't release the visitor list of energy ceo's, that's all you heard about for weeks. It wasn't OK when bush did it, but there isn't much anyone can do is there? I don't hear you yelling about it now that your man is doing it. All you partisans on the left and the right are all the same. Bi#ching about something when the 'other side' does it but turn a blind eye when it's your guy. You are the ones who are dividing this country while everyone in the middle is having to clean up your messes. Grow up and take responsibility for your own actions in electing someone who fooled you into thinking the other guy was McSame.

Talk about trying to have it both ways.

okay, for all you naysayers...do you remember how much Bush said he was spending on the Iraq war? How much he was spending on other stuff? you don't remember? wanna know why? Because he never said, he used executive priviledge on that. Now, go look at the budget office website..guess what is there..yep, thats right, our countries budget..EVERY PENNY! Bush didn't even include the war in his budget figures! I"m sick and tired already of the idiot conservatives crying foul..he's gonna raise our taxes, he's put us deep in debt..you people. If this was a conservative president, not one word would you say. First, he has yet to raise taxes on anyone. Next, there is no plan to get your guns..geesh..get your info from some other place other than Rush LieBaugh, and Glenn FAUX Beck! Its incredible to see just how many people are ill-informed, and just how many more that are willing to be violent on something they don't have the full story on. LIke the guy who kills someone because he's pissed his guns (which aren't going anywhere) are taken away..except, they weren't, and weren't going to be. Conservatives, if your gonna cry and whine about this guy, at least get your info right. At least keep an open mind, instead of doing exactly what the republican party is doing..which is saying no, if they didn't come up with the idea. Frankly, I"m sure, that just about all of us, liberals and conservatives alike are sick of this kind of stuff. Now, get educated, hold an educated conversation, and life just might get better for all of us. OH, and grow a pair. tired of everyone freaking out everytime some terrorist says he hates us...they ALL hate us. So What!? Its not like us gun toting citizens can't defend our homes. btw, I'm a card carrying, gun carrying progressive republican. although, I"m quickly getting sick of my party..bunch of idiots in charge at the moment. just causing hate and disfunction..when we need answers, truth, and some smart people. Obama is the president...now do exactly what you asked liberals to do when Bush was president, give him time and some space to try and fix the massive mass our last president left! OY!

AMEN - we've become a country of whiners and whimps of followers instead of leaders

jong go look at any President during wartime, President Obama is the first to include the war in his budget.

Oh and go look at the war funding bill for $106 billion (in addition to his proposed budget) that is being voted on today, guess what that is how wars were allways paid for.

Why don't you go get educated about how congressional funding works.

Hey, BJs65-634377;

Who"s the hypocrite here? You and the libs/Dems raised holy heck about the supposed secrecy and chicanery of the Bush administration, but now that Pelosi and Obama are in charge, it's okay for them to do the things that Bush did, even though their entire campaign was "We're not Bush" and "We'll have the most open and ethical government ever"?

As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a marooon!"

It is the right of all Americans to understand the workings of their Government--a government for and by the people. I can understand concealing information about visitors that would put the country's security at risk, but otherwise the only conclusion we can draw from this choice is that the President has something to hide. I'm deeply disappointed.

That smell coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue ? That would be B.O. .....a smell of a different but very similar nature. Think about it, people....you just elected as President an inexperienced man whose biggest asset is his charm, his eloquence and his ability to sell absolute s— — — in a paper bag. Unfortunately, that's what some are buying !!!

We already have government ownership of banks, GM (Government Motors), and now he wants to push for government-run healthcare. He does not have a clue to the real problem with healthcare ......doctors and hospitals practicing overly-defensive medicine for fear of being sued if anything goes wrong. But B.O. wants to "CHANGE" healthcare !!! Let's see, Social Security and Medicare are headed towards bankruptcy, so B. O. wants to start another government plan !

Is B.O. smoking something other than Marlboros ???

I think anyone who walks into that door at the White House should be loged in and anyone who wants to access it should be allowed. I do have some hesitation about "persona;" visits from family...BUT if you start splitting hairs then anyone coming there would be a "personal" visit...SO...I guess to say anyone and everyone should be able to access it and know who is going and coming.

Proof that the neocons are so full of mule dung. I'm personally sick and tired of their BS. All they're pissed about is being the losers they are. Keep rotting your minds with them ultra-right horse-apples.

He should release the guess list i think he is hiding something he cannot be trusted he is sneakey and he is making us look like whimps to everybody around the world

If I was a Republican spokesperson for a dissenting opinion with the President, and I knew my attempt to visit privately with the President to try to work out a compromise would be picked apart by the press and shown to all my colleagues, I would not go to the White House.

If I was a diplomat from a country with which we were having problems and I wanted to meet with the President to try to work something out which I had not discussed with my country's leaders, I would not go to the White House if I then knew I would be brought up in the daily press briefing.

If I was representing a group I knew was controversial on an issue under discussion in Congress and I wanted to visit the White House to meet with some legislators and the President to discuss this, I would not go.

If I was a security operative who had information I thought the President should know, but I did not want to go through my superiors, I would not visit the White House.

If I was a high ranking member of the previous administration and I wanted to give the President some advice, I would not go to the White House.

If I was a high-ranking member of the present administration with a disagreement with another high-ranking administrator, and we both wanted to meet with the President to discuss this issue, I would not go to the White House.

If I was a friend of the First Lady with children who wanted to visit, and I preferred to maintain some privacy for my children, I would not take them to the White House.

If I was an old school friend of the First Lady and I was now married to one of the President's critics, and just wanted to have coffee with her, I would not go to the White House.

If I was currently working for a Republican member of Congress and I heard there was a staff job opening for someone housed in a White House office, I would not go to apply at the White House.

This list could go on and on. To make this list fodder for the media and everyone in the entire world would only limit the amount of information the President and his staff might otherwise have access to.

The press corps is at the White House everyday, all day. They can see almost everyone who comes and goes. They may not recognize everyone, but too bad. They may not know exactly who that person is going to see, but again, too bad. They may not know exerything that was discussed, but again, too bad.

Next, people will want 24/7 camera coverage of every meeting in the White house on their cable TVs, including recordings of all phone calls.

I would rather have a President of any party and his highest staff with a policy that allowed anyone with information or inquiries that might help solve the problems of this country know that they would be able to see anyone in the White House without then having the media of any political persuasion splashing their name all over, with how long they was there and then bird-dogging tem to try to find out why they was there. And of course, if they gave them no information, they wold simply speculate, which would be even worse.

One's opinion on this issue should be made with an attitude of doing the best thing for this country, not turning the White House into a tabloid.

White House records shouldnt be available. Why? Because they dont matter. Anyone with any influence would probably end up in the Oval Office, which isnt in the White House. Actually they would meet somewhere outside of the WH most likely.

Ive read several comments about lobbyists and whatnot. Lobbyists are not bad. First, all donations are on record and if they are under the table thy are discovered and there's jail time as possible punishment. There are laws.

Second, lobbyists represent the people! AARP is a lobbying group. Based on the above logic, I would assume that little old ladies and little old men are trying to control Congress and are essentially corrupt? Hmm... Lobbyists represent the people in a more streamlined way. And besides all members of lobbying groups are voters, which is what Congress actually cares about.

Take emotions out of it. Everything we have is pretty essential. And if it isnt, good luck getting it removed or erased. Because trying speak out to Congress about lobbying money (the very money the pay their campaigns with) is political suicide.

My thing about publishing the log is that it's pretty easy to review it to get patterns of certain visitors, that can reveal schedules and much more useful information that could be used to cause all kinds of trouble.

I think this ruling by the White House is more a matter of "not now" than "no". The previous administration took the position and this is an effort to continue the status quo on this one until they have time to study it further. With all of the other issues they're juggling right now, I'm OK with taking time to review something that has security implications.

I'm in favor of transparency, and I think this administration has made many great strides in breaking down barriers created by the previous one, but we have to remember there are still bad people out there looking to do harm, and there's due diligence needed in matters like this. Transparency doesn't mean carelessness.

modlibpop, I agree thay the lists do not matter, but I take the opposite view as you. Since they do not matter, they should be released. Its not like there is anyone on the list he needs to hide.

Not all lobbyists get caught. Some get caught after decades of bribes. Heck the oil company lobbyists were throwing crack parties for years before they got caught. Lobbyist represent pocket books more often than they represent the people. They represent whoever pays for them. Since they are being paid, they expect (and get) money and services in return.

How else do you explain all the fraud that goes on in our country? While some lobbying is legit, theres alot rife in corrpution.

Stop your Bush crying!! Let's just sit back and watch what this idiot does as our prez....oh.. I guess I'm a "naysayer" lol ...sorry folks but you can stop with the "trendy" one liners.lol

modlidpop - your choice of AARP as a people's lobby and one to represent your pro-lobby argument is a poor one.

I want to know about AARP's access to the presidency. Why? It is well-funded and represents a large membership - meaning, a large number of votes to be delivered to politicians who pass and sign legislation favorable to its interests, even if that legislation is at the detriment to others and the nation as a whole.

AARP will not support necessary changes to Social Security if it will decrease the size of current payments made to SS recipients, even though they are withdrawing far more than they contributed. Today's younger generations are picking up the difference, but this is not sustainable in the long-term, and as a result they are contributing to a system from which they will receive back $0.

Thus, in my view (age 42), AARP it is every bit as bad as the drug company, banking and health insurance lobbies. AARP may be a people's lobby, but I am one of the people too, and it advocates for governmental actions that will leave future generation out in the cold - figuratively, and sad to say, literally too.

So much for equality under the law that we supposedly all are guaranteed as U.S. citizens. Sound more like a monarchy, where the king (AARP members) legally gets everything and the subjects (future generations) pay for it but themselves have nothing.

So yes, I want as much intelligence as I can get, including the frequency and lengh of access to our nation's decisionmakers.

I love the people that say to those that supported Bush being kept in secret are being hypocritical when they say Obama should open the logs. I would guess that most of them argued that Bush and Obama should have, along with the rest of congress. I have yet to hear a good argument other that National Security as to why we shouldn't know.

Of COURSE we should know.

Even if the WORST should happen - say a Communist that's WANTS a CZAR job or something - it should be OK that we know he wants the job. If he GETS it, we will know anyway. If he DOESN'T, Big O can say he refused a Communist request. Either way - no harm. At least no harm in saying he was THERE.

The ONLY reason I can think of to hide the records would be if one of our CIA spies entered for a meeting and he needed to keep HIS name secret - I can understand that.

And as we already know about so MANY of the Van Jones types that Big O talks to, what could be left that is WORSE???

You KNOW what's on the list. Big business buying FAVORS, politicians wanting to "suck up", Commies wanting handouts for their organizations, Radicals wanting to bend his ear and the like.

SO WHAT if a Supreme Court nominee shows up? WHO CARES? And how can their appearance be used against them? Being chosen by Big O, I would EXPECT them to have a meeting or two with him.

I can appreciate a 60-90 day waiting period for allowing time to let the bribes and such get completed and thoroughly hidden - but we should know afterwards they were there.

Although Big O is doing a bit more for "transparancy" in this matter than Bush, what we will NOT receive is the IMPORTANT names, the ones telling Big O what to do. So, who CARES if we get a list of tourists and school children. THAT provides NOTHING.

The Obama administration has also denied AT&T wiretap victims their rights to privacy: undermining Americans Fifth Amendment protections from self-incrimintion- actively conspiring to dismiss the AT&T wiretap lawsuits, veritably guaranteeing the Bush-administrations claim of a "right" to spy on every US citizen using the Internet.

The president only has authority Abdicated by the people on his behalf, and cannot do to US any more than we ALLOW him-he has no rights except as granted through the authority of "We, the People"..

The President of the United states should be obliged to do unto others as he abdicates the laws pertaining to himself. He expects US to bend over and take it for the team; he should too!

We aren't asking for Nixon-style tape transcripts (yet).

We just want to know how many times (and when) he has been visited by Cheney, Osama Bin Laden, and/or other masterminds of the destruction of America.

LATER we'll ask why.

It would really depend on what you consider transparent and what you want to be transparent. My thoughts on it is that I don't need to know the names of individual citizen that visits the white house. I don't need to know the names of each minor foreign visitor either.. esp when it's personal matter for THEIR country and not ours. The media has such a way of taking things and exposing them- even at the cost of lives and calling it 'exposing the truth'. Sometimes the truth is that it's none of your business. Unfortunately if you classify some names and publicize others.. the media will go after those classified names like wolves to fresh meat... so it's easier to say.. no name will be released.

What I believe should be open to the media and public are the lobbyists, their name, company and who they are visiting.. (esp in the Capitol). How much they paid and to whom/ what and to which official it's connected to. I want to know the laws that are trying to be moved through the Congress and Senate. I want to names of companies that do business with our Government as far a contracts and the bidding. I also want to see where my tax dollars are going and why. .. this is what I call transparency.

I have to agree with you.  When our government is trying to protect us from terrorists (both from outside and within) the presence of of certain people to the white house without public disclosure is essential.  The terrorists and the extremists are looking and waiting for any bit of info that they can use.  There are public agencies that are in place to insure that this information can be released to those who need it when it is appropriate.  Remember it is our duty as patriots and citizens to put people into office that best meet our interests and beliefs.  Whether or not our choice is elected it is also our responsibility to accept the people that win the election and support them.  I personaly did not vote for President Obama, but it is now my duty to my country to support him any that I can when the opportunity presents.  This is the code that our forefathers set forth when our great nation was born.  When it comes time to put a new person in office then you do what is right in your own personal and moral judgement.  Untill then support your country and it's leaders or leave.  You have a choice! 

I agree. Sometimes the media is so intent on reporting everything they don't stop to think if it's a GOOD IDEA to report certain information. Like the idiots who thought it was our right to know troop movements. That kind of information I don't need to know especially if it puts lives at stake. I don't need to know every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has visited the White House. I do agree that all lobbyist info should be made public however. Lobbyist are the ones who are influencing our Senators and Congressman so we definitely need to know who they are speaking with about what and when.

Everyone from 8 years was broken; President Obama had 6 months; he haven't started a war with a country that is not at war with us yet. He hadn't let his rich friends sell any junk bonds and create any risky derivatives to rob us of our saving and 401 Ks. Despite the deficit lie, economist are finally admitting that nothing he has done so far or will do will has caused the current deficit - you see it is all B u s h e d.

I wouldn't give the news media access to the WH list either.

Roe,

You defeat yourself by pointing out that Obama has only been in office (less than) six months. This is because, as his policies stand now, in less than a year he will spend and/or commit to spending more money and cause the country to be deeper in debt than the last 43 presidents COMBINED. And this does not include the cost of his socialized healthcare. You are correct that he didn't let his rich friends sell junk bonds and risky derivatives. They did not have to because Obama (and Bush and congress) handed them our money to cover their losses. He also allowed his tax evading "friends" to walk away scott free (a tax cheat is in charge of the IRS. Can you deny this?)

Explain to me what Obama is doing differently than what Bush did. Stopped the wars in the M.E.? No, in fact he is escalating the fight in Afghanistan. Bringing government spending under control? No, compared to the money he is spending he makes Bush look like a fiscal conservative. Stopped the warrantless wiretaping of foreign/domestic communications? No, he has expanded it to include ALL communications. Even those that are totally domestic in nature. Have a more transparent government? No, he hides behind "executive privilage" and uses fear to rush bills through before anyone can even read them. What happened to "I will post every bill on my website for five days so the public can review it before I sign or veto it."?

When Bush told an obvious lie the democrats (and myself) screamed bloody murder. But they defend every lie Obama tells no matter how blatant it is. America needs to wake up and realize our problems have been created by both the dems and the reps working together to increase their power and fortunes. They do not care about you, me or anyone else. They try to make it appear that they need our vote (like our vote actually means anything any more) but the reality is the winners of the main positions in government are selected well in advance and the "campaigns" are political theater designed to make their chosen outcome seem plausible.

Do you really care who visits the White House? What would you do with a guest log full of names of people you don't even know?

Folks, the man has been in office for less than six months and as if he doesn't have enough on his plate when he came into office, perpetuated with 24/7 hate and "he's a failure" speech by the Republicans/conservatives every chance they get, and now with Progressives/liberals and some Democrats as well complaining he's not keeping his promises or suggest he should "shove" his policies down the Republicans throat like Bush did, he won't get anything done. Clearly, the Right nor the Left have gotten it. He didn't run for President to segregate nor did he run to continue divisive politics tactics -- us against them. That's not change. The policies he is setting forth are policies that will benefit ALL of us, not just one or two segments of the population. The Obama Administration strikes me as a highly educated, disciplined group and I'm pretty sure they know what to do and are getting the job done. You won't get "transparency" per se. You will get what the White House puts out. So I ask again, why would anybody want to know who visited the White House?

Lisa I agree that neither the right or left have gotten it as far as Obama is concerned. He ran and promised that he would not govern with divisive political tactics. The policies he is setting forth are policies that he says will benefit all of us. Obama and his administration are highly educated and disciplined in the philosophy and mentor-ship of Saul Alinsky. As a Conservative I do get it and so do almost all other Conservatives. The change Obama promised is a change from a Democratic Republic to a Fascist-Socialist State. He is seeking to get this change by tearing down this country in many different fronts at the same time and discouraging American citizens into accepting his change just like Alinsky outlined in his book. He is seeking to consolidate massive power into government and as president having total control of that power. He is using speed to get all of his bills passed before the people wake up and completely rebel against him. We need to stop him now and vote out his Socialist Fascist friends in congress in 2010. Oppose him relentlessly and expose him to our fellow citizens.

Isn't a bit LATE to finally realize this? You ALREADY gave him the power, now you're surprised to see the results?!?! This is not new! He's been trying to cover up and/or gloss over his mentors for years!

and McCain would have been better? grow up!

Annoyed Citizen, exactly right, if only the drones had delved just a wee bit into this guys back ground they would have been made aware of the shady past associations of this far-left guy. Come on people, this guy didn't associate himself with the likes of the very wrong reverend Wright, Ayers, Phleger, Rezko, Alinsky, Frank Marshal Davis, etc., etc., etc. just so they could all sit around the campfire singing old Negro spiritual songs! And now your beginning to question his broken promise about having a "transparency" presidency. You people are going to slowly realize the mess you got this country into (the hard-core loons will never get it). Let's hope it won't be too late.

did you just make reference to "old Negro spiritual songs" in discussing opening the WH visitor's log? wrong forum....do some research about those "old Negro spiritual songs" why they were sung, the brutality they rose from, and why they (yes, the slaves we 'whites' stole from their homelands), so we 'whites' (yes, the mutants without the proper pigment genes) didn't have to "till" the soil that brought the whites their wealth in the first place. Hey, lets go one step further and refer to people by their ethnicity rather than their color...are you a European? What in your background has brought out the raciist? Usually it is environment, meaning you learned your rhetoric from your family, or lack of education...which will you blame?

sour grapes

the Obama administration is following the same anti-transparency policy as the Bush administration when it comes to White House visitor records. Refusing to let the public know who visits the White House is not the action of a pro-transparency, pro-accountability administration.

To all the Obamanocs that thought "Change" meant "Better" hahaha. How much longer are the sheple going to march along singing thier happy song "Aren't we an enlightened group we elected a black man"

So far the only measurable change has been that Obama has brought Chicago Politics to Washington

funneme, So I see my ever so slight comment would be picked up by some loon looking to censor any and all subtle comments made. Thanks for being that little rat pulling on the "racist card" lever. You proved my point you fool. It's funny how you leftist can get so righteous but don't think anything when the far-left make comments 10 times worst (and usually a lot more than that). Case in point, that buffoon David Letterman. This jerk can get a pass for slandering Sarah Palin and her daughter (a rape joke) and we don't hear a peek out of you self-righteous people on the left (because it's soooo funny). Know why, because you hypocrits espouse and live the double-standard. So, take your little pompous self and get out of my sight you hypocrite!

funneme, you are an idiot. I guess you don't remember your history lesson one bit. The whites did not steal the slaves. The majority were given to the slave traders for a few baubles or out of pure spite and jealousy. There were also indentured slaves who sold themselves for a debt to be paid or just passage over to the new world. Go back to history class. Yeah the slave traders were evil by not treating them kindly but do the cowboys of today treat their livestock with kid gloves? That is all the slaves were back then livestock.

Obama should make the visitors list public. What does he have to hide?

I will not correct your poor spelling sir Knight... and poor ms. palin, she should spend more time teaching/role modeling the values; she now has to defend... sir Knight your comment about "Negro spirituals" was not subtle, it was ignorant. How did you decide I was on the left, sir Knight? Just a tad bit accusatory with your comment; without any real knowledge behind it. Thus leading me to believe in your case that you are suffering from both environmental abuse and lack of education. It would be impossible for me to get out of your sight sir Knight since we are communicating over fiberoptics...don't be confused about the optics part of that word...it has nothing to do with visual sight.

dixie, perhaps you should re-read your history. Maybe you are reading the southern version of how slavery really was. Just do some research on the slave ships themselves; they were quite inhumane. We, the US, were not the only country 'stealing' human beings for our own gain. Man's inhumanity to man has been in the history books since they began. America was built on it...want to discuss the Trail of Tears, want to discuss Irish immigration, we can go on and on, but the bottom line is this... human beings are not property, livestock, or indentured servants, no matter what country you live in. What we did in our past as a country can not be changed... our future in the world can be... let the hate go

Funname, these people will make these comments eluding to someone's ethnic background or race, and when you call them on it, they start whinning about the "race card." Yaawwwn.

It's like some representative from South Carolina. This is a true story. A gorilla escaped from the local zoo. He said not to worry about it because, "It was probably one of Michelle Obama's relatives running around." But, when he was called on that remark by the media, he claimed it was in jest and complained about someone pulling the race card. No one pays attention to these whinners.

Kat - Do you think STUPID only exist in one party affiliation? It's on both sides unfortunately. But if on the other hand you are referring to the Happy Song then I take a little issue. It doesn't have anything to do with Obama being black, it has more to do with the far left by electing him because he is black is the issue. He is perhaps the least qualified person to ascend to the office. A community activist that spent most of his congressional term running for president. Why are people so surprised that he is so out in left field? Plus, he's from Chicago. Shouldn't that say enough

No steve most politicainns are no better,

But you actually blieved OB.

How does that make you feel

You know what, George from TEXAS, this is exactly what I mean... all of YOU PEOPLE accusing other people, of electing Barak because he's black. I, personally, preferred Hillary, but would have voted for a YELLOW DOG, before voting for John McCain. All of the other accusations in your post are unfounded and ridiculous. I voted for Barak, and would do it again. I have not, and don't expect to agree with everything an elected official does, no one should. But, to get back to the issue, someone in his administration, needs to explain why he's following one of GBW's most AWFUL policies of closing out the American public on who visits the White House. I'll hear what his staff has to say about, then I'll decide whether it's a good policy to follow.

your crying over what Obama is doing, even tho its nearly identical to what Bush was doing? I don't get it...whats your point???? You know, if you can't bring something constructive to the conversation, go back and sit down on your commode..cuz evidently your still full of the brown stuff.

Is it really the shadows? Just stand outside the way the news media does and take a picture of everyone that move. Give them nothing President Obama; they let GWB get away with it - stop trying to be perfect for all these ungrateful and imperfect people. Next you have to give them bathroom break and who was present then it will deteriorate to when you and FL have special time together. Please stop media and complainers — give the guy a break!

Roe,

Are you really that in love with Obama (after all love is blind) or are you really stupid enough to think that crying "Bush did it too" is a valid argument to excuse Obama from the same acts? And yes I spent 8 long years blasting Bush and his administration for what they chose to do. Since Obama is continuing to do the same type of things (except on steroids) I will continue to blast him and his administration until they stop. (like that will happen)

The level of hypocrisy reps and dems practice is not to be believed. And it just keeps getting worse. The fact that Obama plans to control everyone's pay and health care, has nationalized the auto industry and the financial sector, has appointed something like 17 czars who are accountable to no one but Obama (the most czars any previous administration had was FOUR! Even the old Soviet Union never had this many czars.) should be enough for people to be out in the streets protesting every day. The level of apathy in this country to all of this is all the evidence anyone needs to see that the free, democratic republic that was America no longer exists. The name of this country should be changed to Europe version 2 because that's what it is becoming.

funneme- GET OVER IT!! That cow has been milked WAYYYYY to long!

Just like other American History.....it's HISTORY!!

And yes.....McCain would have been better!

Steve in TX. Funny how you and other still think that this is about Obama vs. McCain or Dems. vs. Reps. Reading most of these posts, people are angry that no matter who or what side we elect into office no one seems to represent the people or do the peoples work.

Those of us with more than half a brain knew ABSOLUTELY that Obama would "let down" (a polite term) his lefty base. They were/are so clueless about what he and GWB have/have had to deal with as president. Obama is generally too liberal for my tastes, but he is acting fairly responsibly and intelligently as president. I'm glad of that. As to the guest list - who cares - except for those who want to and like to "F" things up, just for fun (or a paycheck).

And McCain/Palin would have been better? Pul-leeze.

If this was a-ok for Bush - then it's a-ok for Obama. You cannot have it both ways.

YES WE CAN!!

Yes we can because the liar Obama promised us it would be different, and nothing has changed, he is one of the Biggest Liars ever.!

I'll correct your statement about half a brain and tell you that, any of us with any intelligence knew he would do the best he could on any promises he made. So far, I am not dissapointed, but I do question this one. And, we are allowed to question what he does without dismissing him as an idiot. I didn't mind, as a matter of fact, was in favor of his not releasing the"torture" photos.

I will wait, no, I should restate that... I will press for an explanation about this decision, and then make an intelligent decision with facts, as to whether I agree or not. BEING the President and campaigning for the presidency are two totally different things.

And, one more thing that we do better tha Republicans. We ADMIT that some of the far-left base of the Democratic party are completely nuts and out of step with reality. I haven't heard that admission from the Republicans, yet... but, I guess we can hope.

"It's okay because Bush did it" is getting to be one of the most pathetic, lame excuses known to humankind. If Bush/Cheney/Clinton/Reagan/Carter/Nixon did it and it was BAD, WRONG, IMMORAL, horrific and generally the cause of all global problems in the world today, then it's WRONG.

Just because Hitler put Jews and various other "undesirables" in concentration camps does NOT make it OKAY for other German leaders to do the same.

Grow up. "He got away with it" is a poor excuse. If "Bush got away with it and it was the cause of all of mankind's problems" was a BAD thing, then it's an EVEN WORSE thing to use it as a rationalization for Obama to do the same thing.

CHANGE?! That's what I find in my sofa cushions. Or the floor of my car. Or the parking lot. Not what I'm finding in the Obama administration. Unfortunately it never amounts to much.

Aurora,

No, you have it backwards. I don't believe anyone is saying that since Bush did it, it's okay for Obama. It is, if it is wrong for Obama to do it, then why weren't these many conservative posters who are slamming him for it lambasting Bush for it then. It's because it is all about party.

I am an Obama supporter and I am extremely pleased with all that he has accomplished in such a very short amount of time. The US is like a loaded Semi trailer truck. When the momentum of that truck is moving in the worng direction, it takes a tremendous amount of energy to turn that puppy around. Obama has done things in his first five months that I didn't even expect at this point.

Having said all of that, because I am a "lefty" I can comfortably criticize my President and disagree with him. I can except criticism of him also without calling people traitors (unless they actually call for the overthrow of our elected government which is the definition of traitorous and I'm not pointing finger right-wing extremeists!). I gave Bush alot of leeway in the early years of his Presidency. I rallied around him like everyone else after 9/11 (by the way, I don't remember anyone criticizing him for acting like a "messiah" and an empty suit when he stupidly landed on the flight deck of a carrier with a Mission Accomplished banner behind him. If Obama pulled something like that, you conservatives would go BALLISTIC!) Anyway, he is wrong and should release these documents. If there are national security interests involved with a visitor, then simply redact that info and explain it. There is a half-way point. We should know who the President is seeing in regards top lobbyists and influence peddlers. Whether it's Bush or Obama or anyone else, the right thing to do is the right thing to do.

I am so amazed that those who voted for this man couldn't see through all the smoke and mirrors! This man said what he needed to say and lied to get elected, if you haven't noticed already...he has quite the ego.

Again, he is the most liberal Pres ever and if those of you who voted for him would have really done your homework (looked at his past, his voting record, the people he associated with and the positions he held in congress) we'd have a different Pres now.

And YES, McCain would have been MUCH MUCH MUCH better! At least he had experience and was trustworthy.

The judgment McCain showed in selecting Palin as his running mate was enough to turn me off him for good.

What I find amusing is that people like LAB attack Obama as "the most liberal president ever" when people on the other side are complaining he isn't liberal enough (for example, he has failed to follow through on his promise to overturn "don't ask don't tell'). That tells me he's pretty much in the middle, which is A-ok by me.

As for the visitors log...I really don't know. My gut tells me it should be public, but some people here have made some good points for why it maybe shouldn't be. This is really not that big of a deal to me in the scheme of things in this country (and it wasn't when GWB did it either)

I usually have to repost something I written earlier, but this is to important to not address. Also, transparency has been instituted in all departments other than the White House, which was not the case in any previous presidency. It is also required in the Congressional building. It doesn't apply to the Supreme Court because they do not meet with anyone but their staff outside of the court room. But as to the White House:

If I was a Republican spokesperson for a dissenting opinion with the President, and I knew my attempt to visit privately with the President to try to work out a compromise would be picked apart by the press and shown to all my colleagues, I would not go to the White House.

If I was a diplomat from a country with which we were having problems and I wanted to meet with the President to try to work something out which I had not discussed with my country's leaders, I would not go to the White House if I then knew I would be brought up in the daily press briefing.

If I was representing a group I knew was controversial on an issue under discussion in Congress and I wanted to visit the White House to meet with some legislators and the President to discuss this, I would not go.

If I was a security operative who had information I thought the President should know, but I did not want to go through my superiors, I would not visit the White House.

If I was a high ranking member of the previous administration and I wanted to give the President some advice, I would not go to the White House.

If I was a high-ranking member of the present administration with a disagreement with another high-ranking administrator, and we both wanted to meet with the President to discuss this issue, I would not go to the White House.

If I was a friend of the First Lady with children who wanted to visit, and I preferred to maintain some privacy for my children, I would not take them to the White House.

If I was an old school friend of the First Lady and I was now married to one of the President's critics, and just wanted to have coffee with her, I would not go to the White House.

If I was currently working for a Republican member of Congress and I heard there was a staff job opening for someone housed in a White House office, I would not go to apply at the White House.

This list could go on and on. To make this list fodder for the media and everyone in the entire world would only limit the amount of information the President and his staff might otherwise have access to.

The press corps is at the White House everyday, all day. They can see almost everyone who comes and goes. They may not recognize everyone, but too bad. They may not know exactly who that person is going to see, but again, too bad. They may not know exerything that was discussed, but again, too bad.

Next, people will want 24/7 camera coverage of every meeting in the White house on their cable TVs, including recordings of all phone calls.

I would rather have a President of any party and his highest staff with a policy that allowed anyone with information or inquiries that might help solve the problems of this country know that they would be able to see anyone in the White House without then having the media of any political persuasion splashing their name all over, with how long they was there and then bird-dogging tem to try to find out why they was there. And of course, if they gave them no information, they wold simply speculate, which would be even worse.

One's opinion on this issue should be made with an attitude of doing the best thing for this country, not turning the White House into a tabloid.

Yes, right! Really supported him and disappointed already! Really, really! News media new project-Obama is not keeping his promise and liberals are so disappointed. Really, I'm not disappointed I think he and His administration are doing a great job under hostile situation and environment from within the Party and outside of the Party!

Roe,

You really do live in a fantasy world don't you. Care to point out the "Great" things Obama has done and what those things have done to improve....ANYTHING? So when the editor of Newsweek calls Obama a "god" or Chris Mathews gets "tingles up his leg" just from listening to Obama read off of a tele-prompter and Obamites such as yourself perceive many (imaginary) "Great things" he has done, this shows their disappointment with Obama?

One thing I have learned since Obama came on the scene is that words no longer have any solid definition. No matter what Obama and his supporters say, when challenged, they will claim they did not say it and/or it was taken out of context and/or the people are too stupid to understand what was said.

Blah, blah, blah...starting to sound like a broken record. Do conservatives and Rushbots just troll boards like this and cut and paste this crap in? How much do you get paid per post?

Please provide some FACTS (not random and unverifiable anecdotes about "some guy I know who...") about Canadian Health Care. The facts are that almost ALL Canadians love their health care and if you asked them to compare their health care with the US's they would LAUGH IN YOUR FACE! It is a well-known and humiliating fact that the rest of the world calls our system what it is, an elitist, rationed system of health care whose quality is based on an ability to pay that is not only unfair but inhumane. I find it beyond belief that people so blind to partisian politics that they would actually seriously damage the safety and health of themselves and their family in order to toe the party line concerning the health care debate.

@iowadem - Guess you have never lived near the Canadian border then, huh? If so you would see the massive healthcare industry built in the US to cater to .... wait for it.. Canadians! The hospital bed to patient ratio in border states is significantly higher than those who do not. If you want something a little bit more complicated than a routine exam, there is a waiting list. Those people who don't want to just can't wait head on south, cross the border and pay for treatment here.

Sounds like something is wrong with the Socialist System to me. And I also don't know what Liberabable website you pulled your "ALL Canadians love their health care" quote from, but I am sure you haven't spent much time with them or you would hear a drastically different story.

iowadem - You should check out the report John Stossel did on the Canadian Health Care System for 20/20 a few years ago. The Canadians that say they like their health care system are the ones that have never had to get treatment for a serious illness under it. They like it because they think it's "free" and they don't pay insurance premiums for treatment they don't need. But when you talk to Canadians that have had serious illnesses, you get a completey different story. What you state are the "facts" about the Canadian Health Care System are simply not true. Oh, and if you want to talk about people who are "so blind to partisan politics" you can start by looking in the mirror.

Isnt Canada and GB both ranked higher than than the US in healthcare according to the WHO? I mean they are no France but they are better than 37....My question to all you anti-universial healthcare advocates is what is wrong with adopting a system like France?

Absolutely!

I must agree with Tom, this is The Peoples House, not the Presidents Home, if he wants to establish a secret "sign-in" roster, he can certainly do it at his Chicago home, "Our Home" is a different matter, a sign-in log of course...secret, NEVER!

And for the same reason you can't resist the tabloids, you want every little detail about the White House staff plastered all over the media for the entire world to read. You would willingly limit the amount of information available to these people who have to make monumental decisions, jeopardize our international relations, risk our national security, and possibly prevent delicate negotiations from being completed, all because you have so much extra time in your lives to follow a bunch of other people's who are trying to improve this country.

The press corps from every possible political persuasion is snooping around that place 24/7. They tell you everything but when these people go to the bathroom. The President has instituted transparency for every other department in the government except the national security and law enforcement agencies, and that includes all the members of Congress also. And you are more interested in who signs in to the White House than who is lobbying a Congressperson.

Why don't you just ask for 24/7 cameras in all White House offices and airings of all phone calls, all to be broadcast on cable? Don't forget the bthrooms and bedrooms. I would suggest that you find another reality show to watch.

I never heard any one being concern with who went to the WH before now; asking for a list of all Guest! You re-thug and ultra liberals are strange and oh so predictable!

Don't forget; this is also their home!!!

...and if I visit they should be able to know.

The White House is our house I want to know who comes and who goes and when they do it. If BO wants to move back to his house in Chicago and keep the secret of who comes and who goes then let him. Just remember he won the electorial college but not the popular vote.

Just remember he won the electorial college but not the popular vote.

Until the Constitution is changed it is the Electorial College that counts, not the popular vote.

Must protest your comment. If it wasn't for the electorial college the election would be won or lost with a few states and their ideologies. NY, CA, FL, ILL, OH and PA could run this country into the ground. Be thankful that the founding fathers figured this out.

We are a Republic that champions states rights. Read the 10th ammendment.

Obama won the popular vote by nearly 10 million votes, I am not sure where you are getting your info.

WHY - and what are you going to do with the info - then also please check the congressman and see who they are having lunch/dinner with because without them on board Obama can't do it by himself.

Obama DID when the popular vote, Henry. You are thinking of Bush (2000), perhaps???

I ask him for it when you give me 8 years of the Bush WH List. You can post it for all of us here. Give these upstanding and concern citizens nothing President Obama.

I think we need to worry about the crap that the government ( White House ) is doing to us. If you don't think that we are all going to pay big time for what is happening bbecause you don't care and want to leave them alone. Every one has to realize what they are doing to us right now. You hear President Obama say why we got into this mess is bbecause we (you and I) spent money we did not have and were to far in the hole. Well what do you think the President is doing to us. THE SAME THING spending money we don't have.

wayne:
THE SAME THING spending money we don't have
You're way off topic here!!

Did the press ask the previous administrations to open their guest books? If not, why not? It has gotten so ridiculous, the rhetoric and questioning of this President, just so the press can stir up all kinds of crap to keep some kind of drama going at all times. It would be nice to have some honest reporting.

And it would be nice if some of you racist bigots didn't try to explain away slavery like it's a joke. What jerks you can sometimes be. Aren't you so damn lucky to be born with white skin, in this country where your nastiness is tolerated, all just by luck. It would be nice sometime to look around and think that could have been me, all that suffering, and all that hatred directed at me, the lynchings, being brought here kicking and screaming, with no language, feet cut off, no one to turn to. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes for a change, Jerk - Knight who says nee. And I bet you're one of those lovely Christian values spouters, too. Jerk.

There are more slaves in the world now than ever. Where is your compassion for them? We can't change the past but we can change the present and future.

Actually yes, W was asked to open the guest books. When he refused the democrats and their media mouthpieces ripped into him for keeping secrets.

CATHY M.-647265
Did the press ask the previous administrations to open their guest books?
ugh YES. Did you read the article?

And I bet you're one of those lovely Christian values spouters, too. Jerk.
You sound just like what you profess to hate.

so much for change.

Because FS; that is exactly the point, OBAMA PROMISED TRANSPARENCY (AND INTEGRITY) IN GOVERNMENT.

The result now that OBAMA is in office is that we get NO TRANSPARENCY AND NO INTEGRITY!!

Because Obama made a solemn promise to have transparency, thats why. Obama is the great liar.

Remember, most politicians are LAWYERS. Can't trust any of them!

RSD,

I was not an Obama supporter, but I certainly see two sides to this. Yes, the Pres. needs to conduct some business with privacy (heads of state...). But, what if a political hack or lobbiest visits? I want to fall on the side of transparency. And the court system fell that way too. I wonder why the courts have not pressed the issue? Technically, he is in contempt of court for refusing a court finding. I understand the seperation of branches of government, but there are cross enforcement mechanisms. Bush was wrong for refusing, so is Obama. And it is a little worse for Obama, he campiagned (promised?) that he wouldn't do this.

This is the second time the President has refused to release information like this. Remember the flight logs, specifically the people aboard the New York flyby was not released either.

makes you wonder why, since they claim no one was on the jet other than the flight crew.

demitrix,

I am not usually a conspiracy nutcase, but in this case I am.

The flight, you refer to, was listed as a training and marketing photo op, over New York City. If it was just a training flight, everyone would have just complained and gone away (dump act of a few) and lastly wouldn't have needed to be close to NYC. However, the flight was going very low over NYC, so the photo op was included as cover. Yet, when the photos were demanded, none were produced, citing national security of publicity photos no less. Later one photo was produced. A cheap all-in-one snap-shot, from a F16 pilot, through his canopy, blotted out by the canopy rail, too far away, horrible angle of camera and subject. This was the plan for the photo op? Hmmmmmmmmm. And there was no other photo plane in the sky. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm(2).

What makes more sense is a courtesy ride for some Presidential backers, fundraisors, bigwigs as a thank you for their work. A joy ride over New York City. I think the "over the city" part is ultimately not as important as the real reason for the flight. When the public pressed for an answer, this one F16 home photo was released as one of the marketing photos.

I still want to see the flight manifest. And this relates to this thread (just in case your still awake and with me!). Where would a flight like this like start from? You wouldn't allow allot of people to drive to the presidential flight operations (security, on-lookers..). You would assemble at the White House, board a secret service limousine service and motorcade to the airport. In that case, the White House entry log might show the joyrider manifest!! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm(3)

BTW: I think we really did land on the moon.

Don't worry he'll do his usual 180 degree about face as soon as he discovers the flap this is causing. Obama's change only refers to his constant change of mind.

wayne, how can anyone repair the disaster of the last eight years; that was done by an under-educated leader, yes, I mean Bush Jr. in such a short period of time. Obama is a man, a well-educated man, but he is not a miracle worker. All of the screwing that went on between Jan. 2001 and Jan. 2009, that Ken Starr was not investigating.... will have to slowly and carefully be unscrewed...that takes time and patience. In otherwords I'd rather be patient with an A+ student that is making monumental decisions for 'us', about 'us'; than exist through anymore of what the C- student did, putting 'us' in this unbelievable mess our country is in, without any regard or concern for 'us'.

Funneme - I just love the revisionist skills of the Obamanocs. Where do I start?

OK number one. How can you compare a governor from a very successful state to a Community Activist? You probably thought Sara Palin was underqualified as well.

OK number two. The only thing getting unscrewed under Obama is 1. the Constitution 2. Rule of Law 3. the Bill of Rights.

OK number three. Have you been keeping track of Obama's Promises Made and Promises Kept List? Check it out

OK number four. Exactly what has Obama done differently from President Bush aside from the "World Apology Tour"? Transparency? Hardly! Integrity? No chance! Honesty? When!

So, continue down the slippery slope and don't complain when you realize the bottom of this hill is a very bad place to be. I wish I could be a democrat but having to work as a non union employee I just can't afford the luxury. I have a hard enough taking care of me and my family to be able to carry the rest of the democratic, public trough feeding, masses.

funneme,

The disaster (i assume you mean the economy and the war in Iraq), was precipitated by a President and Congress. You might remember that congress has the "Power of the Purse" and that only congress can issue declarations of war. Both of which were done, by a largely Democrat congress. I'm not saying that Democrats are to blame, more that politicians are to blame (at least for a alot of this).

Your assumption of the evilness of George Bush is rather humorous. I think he did more good than you know, much of the time he did not try to promote himself at all therefore his image is more negative than what was earned by actions. On the other hand, Pres. Obama is a huge promoter of himself. He constantly shows the personal side of himself, trying to sell his likeability to the public. I am not concerned with Pres. Obama's intelligence. I am very concerned with his honesty and actions. He is affable and charming to the public, yet the actions he enforces are ruthless. His is very much a product of a tough Chicago politics.

George,

Well said. As to your last paragragh, I saw a bumper sticker that said it pretty well: "Socialism is wonderful -- until you run out of other people's money to spend"

dear worm... if you were in congress when the presentation of what Saddam was doing with his multitude of WMDs; presented with as much fear as it had been presented with, regardless of your political affiliation, what would you have done? Now, new scenario... you were told the complete truth about Iraq having No WMDs, though a corrupt, ruthless, very lacking in human-rights regime was in power, but posing no real threat to the US, but at the same time taking focus away from OBL in Afghanistan, the man we were actually trying to find at the time...what would you have done then; still voted to go to war? That "Lie War" cost the US a great many things, young lives, vast amounts of tax-payers dollars, and our reputation as a country of strong values. I in no way referred to Bush Jr. as "evilness", that was your word. He is not an evil man, he was an under-educated world leader...

an under-educated leader, yes, I mean Bush Jr.

First of all, he's not a Jr. Secondly, he graduated from Yale and has and MBA from Harvard.

Obama is a man, a well-educated man, but he is not a miracle worker.

He may have graduated from Harvard, but the last time I checked they don't give degrees in common sense there. And we don't know what his grades were because he won't agree to release them.

Obama ran claiming that he has better judgement than just about anyone else. Throughout his time in the spotlight all he has proven is how utterly devoid of proper judgement he really is.

He has regularly had to apologize for his seedy personal associations, his unethical real eatate dealings, his incompetant cabinet appointments and so on.

As for his not being a miracle worker, don't tell that to his blind followers.

I'd rather be patient with an A+ student that is making monumental decisions for 'us', about 'us'; than exist through anymore of what the C- student did, putting 'us' in this unbelievable mess our country is in, without any regard or concern for 'us'.

Again, we don't know what his grades were because he won't agree to release them.

What we do know is that GWB had better grades at Yale than Thurston Howell III (John Kerry) and better SAT scores than Algore.

Until he was elected President, Obama accomplished virtually nothing of any great significance in his life, and yet he still managed to publish two autobiographies. Truly a legend in his own mind.

Tex, I appreciate your tenacity.

#1 I can easily compare a senator to a governor. But, if you would like me to compare a "community organizer" to an "oil industry man" I can do that too. Obama was a great community organizer. Bush sucked as an oil man. (Palin got the job for her looks, not her brains...read whatever newspapers/magazines she reads and you'll realize that.)

#2 I am grateful that the 'Constitution', 'Bill of Rights' and the 'Rule of Law' are being "unscrewed" by Obama, and by your words it appears you are too, great! We are on the same page.

#3 Keeping lists of what is expected and unexpected from a president based on our own personal agendas is futile. Please post the list you kept for Bush Jr. so we can compare....

#4 To gain lost respect back; a nation needs to take accountability for its actions, at least any nation that touts itself as having "great moral fiber" and stands as a world power, bound to the Rules of Law (one being that of the Geneva Conventions). Being apologetic and taking accountability; are two totally different things. I will give Obama the same amount of time to prove his integrity, honesty, and governmental transparency as I gave Bush Jr.

I am glad you have the fortitude and the means to care for yourself and your family.

though a corrupt, ruthless, very lacking in human-rights regime was in power, but posing no real threat to the US, but at the same time taking focus away from OBL in Afghanistan, the man we were actually trying to find at the time...what would you have done then; still voted to go to war?

Suppose you were in Congress in 1941. Sure, Nazi Germany was a ruthless, very lacking in human-rights regime but posing no real threat to the US, but at the same time taking our focus away from Japan, the Empire that actually attacked us at Pearl Harbor...what would you have done then; left Europe to fend for Herself?

George,

Well said. As to your last paragragh, I saw a bumper sticker that said it pretty well: "Socialism is wonderful -- until you run out of other people's money to spend"

That would be a quote of one of the many wonderful pearls of wisdom spoken by Maggie Thatcher. Another favorite that maybe BO should read over:

Pennies do not come from heaven. They have to be earned here on earth.

Funneme,

I did assume the "evil" moniker, my bad. I put together "created disaster, under educated, screwing us, no concern for us" and came up with evil. I am changing your characterization summary to "bad". :-)

If you assume all the things that make GWB bad, then you will logically conclude from analyzing those things that he is bad. I am trying to take a even handed view of a person based upon their actions. I believe that he (and Congress and other World leaders), honestly thought that there were WMDs. He had used them in the past, and other world leader came to their own conclusion. I don't think that Congress just took GWBs word of WMD, at least the National Security subgroup (I forget the name of their group right now) saw that same evidence. I don't think that evidence was faked. Lastly, there were WMDs found and destroy in Iraq (over 500 chemical weapons), though it was poorly covered in the media. There were others reasons for the invasion: Saddam paying families of matryrs for killing Americans, continuing refusal of inspections... Please check this web site:

""

I don't know the site's pedigree, but at least they state their sources.

I truly believe that GWB was doing what he thought was best. And with the reasons long behind us, it isn't fair to say the reasons never existed. Was GWB oaffish in speeches, yes. Was he stubborn, yes. Did he tax and spend like a liberal, YES. Was he bad, no. Time will tell whether Pres. Obama is "bad". He philosophy of politics bothers me and I'm am worried about the outcome. But that is concern and conjecture, not anything provable.

OK, that web site keeps getting deleted:

it is "dubdubdub.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info" (change dubdubdub to www). Sorry but I had to find some way around the URL filter.

My husband and I agree with you 100%. We are going down a slippery slope without any brakes. American, wake up!!

SURPRISE!!! A President (or any politican for that matter) who says one thing and does quite the opposite!! I think it is hilarious that people actually thought this was going to change! Call me unpatriotic but our whole government needs to file for "bankruptcy" and restructure just as they are forcing big industry to do. The government needs is just as bad as they do!! WAY TOO MANY COOKS IN THE KITCHEN!!

jodi

If you would go back and actually examine what he actually defined as the transparency he promised, you would find he has done almost all of that and several things he hadn't promised - all agencies and offices, except law enforcement, national security and the White House are completely accessible, as are all members of Congress, even though he never included office-type transparencies in his campaign promises.

If you personally believe that the media should provide you with 24/7 access to what goes on in the White House, why don't you just advocate for cameras in all the rooms which could broadcast on cable all the time? Don't forget the bedrooms and the bathrooms. And oh, don't forget to have all telephone conversations broadcast in real time too. I know that all of this going all over the world will definitely be of great benefit to our country, especially to our national security.

Pinch you crack me up lol........."examine what he actually defined as the transparency he promised, you would find he has done almost all of that and several things he hadn't promised"...then you attempt to prove your claim by stating "all agencies and offices, except law enforcement, national security and the White House are completely accessible, as are all members of Congress". I have news for you...all of this was in place long before the Great and Mighty O got to Washington.

There appears to be so much more access and transparency because technology has vastly improved over the last 20 years (especially the last 5). Clinton began upgrading government's IT systems and GW Bush expanded and sped up the process after 9/11/01 (as any IT person knows you never actually finish upgrading a system. It becomes a continual process.)

I have contacted both of my senators and my congressman (and many of yours also) and many government departments over the last 10 years (by phone, email and snail mail) and other than the phone lines being overloaded on occasion, I never had a problem with access. However, other than the defeat of the last amnesty for illegal immigrants bill, I rarely got a satisfactory result.

The White House is a different story. Not once was any contact I made (or attempted to make) acknowledged. That is not a complaint, it is an observation. FULL DISCLOSURE: I have not communicated with or attempted to contact the current administration. Their response could be different. I simply do not know.

"...the media should provide you with 24/7 access to what goes on in the White House, why don't you just advocate for cameras in all the rooms which could broadcast on cable all the time?"

Don't give the self proclaimed "Healer of the World" and the author of two best selling books on his favorite subject, HIMSELF, any ideas. It is bad enough as it is. What with Obamas non-stop campaigning and speach making. I think he has read more speeches off of his teleprompter during prime time than some network news anchors. OK maybe not. But it does seem that way. Even when I am on a republican or conservative (those two things are NOT the same) website Obama's picture is on almost every page. If I didn't know better (and maybe I don't) I would swear there is some kind of mass hypnosis/mental manipulation going on. I know that's nuts. But it sure would explain a lot of things. Ok, I am putting my tin foil hat away now....sorry.

I need to learn to spell "speech".

dmac

My reference to transparency relative to other governmental offices and agencies referred to access to written records, logs, minutes, agendae, etc. which previously had to be obtained after a major hassle through the FOIA.

Telephone contact, and now all the various electronic communications which have replaced the old snail mail route have always been at the discretion of the person in the office being contacted, and Congressional people have more than adequate staff for those things (average citizens do not talk to their Congress people - they talk to staffers designated to speak on their behalfs and even sign as though they were the Congressperson - actually the same is true for written correspondence with an occasional exception made for the signature). Even Facebook and twitter are staff-maintained for the most part.

Again, the other transparencies I was referring to were the half-a-dozen specifically referred to in the campaign platform, which had to do mostly with the budgeting and legislative processes and which had not previously been available.

By the way, thank you for pointing out that Republican and conservative are not the same thing, as liberal and Democrat are not. It drives me crazy how the vast majority of posters use these terms interchangeably and when I have asked people for a definition of any of them, I have yet to receive a reply. And it isn't even that difficult a question.

Two things I would like to add, though. I have not experienced the difficulties you have contacting the White House or people working there under this administration nor under a few a couple of administrations ago.

But observing how the media of all political persuasions work, always looking for the sensational story, even if they have to embellish it, jumping to conclusions with few or no facts to substantiate them, always assuming a conspiracy, untruthfulness or hidden agenda when sometimes something actually is exactly as it seems - unexciting, I see no reason to expose the people who need or want to visit the White House to that kind of media scrutiny or harassment. As I pointed out in another post, large numbers of people who might have serious but sensitive reasons for visiting the White House will simply not go, for the same reasons they don't want their names in tabloids.

But for the same reason people can't resist the tabloids and the sensationalistic media, they want every little detail about the White House staff and visitors plastered all over the media for the entire world to read. They would willingly limit the amount of information available to these people who have to make monumental decisions, jeopardize our international relations, risk our national security, and possibly prevent delicate negotiations from being completed, all because they have so much extra time in their lives to follow the lives of a bunch of other people who are trying to improve this country.

The press corps from every possible political persuasion is snooping around that place and covering every entranceway 24/7. The only information they are missing is the names of people they do not recognize and the "purpose of the visit". Other than those, they can tell you everything but when these people go to the bathroom, but they are now more interested in who signs in to the White House than who is lobbying a Congressperson.

I am currently completely perplexed by the court's decisions relative to the White House logs, and am examining the court transcripts and decisions to try to find the rationale behind what I see as a pandering to sheer nosiness in search of a "scandal" at the risk of much more important things.

The second point I would like to make is concerning everyone's obsession with the use of teleprompters. Everyone in the public eye who has access to one has been using them since they became available. Before that we had to watch the bobbing head with the one finger always on the large print page to mark the place and a much slower delivery style. If people prefer that, they can watch the Congressional debates.

Words are the most powerful weapon we can all use. The wrong choice of even a single word in a tenuous situation can change circumstances for very long periods of time, and can impact many people. If someone has already agonized over the many choices of words available to address an event, past, present, or future, and has chosen the one he/she believes is the absolute best choice for the occasion, a scripted speech is the only way to best insure that in the pressure of the moment, the speech will be delivered exactly as intended. And continuous eye contact is a definite plus to a good speech and can make an even less-than-good one better.

Personally, I want people to say exactly what they mean. I don't want the gaffes, back-ups, restatements, fumbling clarifications, "uhs", etc. that often go with the off-the-cuff stuff when something really important is a stake. Slow, careful, usually thoughtful deliveries are fine for debates, press conferences, interviews, town hall meetings, and other such things, but for the major league stuff with lasting implications, especially on a national or international level, I don't want any slip-ups. I want to see every possible ounce of preparation actually reflected in a carefully crafted delivery.

I wish people would pay more attention to the content than to the mode of delivery.

Yup those names ring bells and are right up there with Rezko.

Brian,

I think the reasons for the openness go beyond just some of the visitors. It seems that politics are rife with criminal activity (on all sides). I read a rundown on the criminal activity of congress - it was quite suprising.

I think that Pres. Obama would release the list if there wasn't something worth hiding. Same was true of Pres. Bush. Is Obama more like Bush than some like to admit (actually I don't think Bush was bad)?

I agree with Lonnie; news reporters have less common sense than a brick and don't know when to keep their mouths shut. This is my way of looking at it: whatever we know, bin laden and the rest of the bad guys know. We're not talking about Barry the community organizer, this is the president of the United States. Transparency doesn't mean we should know everything as soon as it happens, the government in any country has to keep secrets.

Now that our illustrious leader has faced the reality of the office he holds it's kind of entertaining watching him make the same policies he critisized previous administrations for. He can squirm around and try to explain these decisions with every word in his vast vocabulary, but you'll never hear him say that the previous presidents had it right. That just wouldn't be change, and O is all about change, right?

I'm going to have to disagree with you all on this one. Now the Gitmo pictures should not be released and noone should even be pushing that subject. I cannot believe that was ever requested to begin with, but knowing who has visited the White House is not something that should be treated as classified information. I mean I don't really care who has been there but still. Actually I don't really understand why this is being pushed either. WTF is wrong with the media? Of course I don't really know what's wrong with half the people that make dumb comments on posts like this. Obama has to have some more time to show he is making a positive change but besides that, Lieberman should have been the nominee in 08' anyway. Now that dude really would make a great President.

Your Messiah, Obama gets no better treatment then The POTUS's before him, he made promises about Transparency and BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH and it's turning into the same old, same old! I just Love how all of those Liberal Dim-Wits come to the Defense of Obama, the Crack-Smoker, when it comes to the Visitor Logs, but the same Liberal Slugs were all over GWBush, over the very same issue, the Visitor Logs! As far as Obama only having 8 months in office to do his job, well, if he's not up to the challenge of being The POTUS, then he shouldn't have run for the office, and he can always Resign! I'll take Joe Biden over Obama any day, or better yet, Hillary Clinton, even though I know that she's way down the list of Presidential successors! By every right, Hillary Clinton should be the Vice-President, but Obama was more obsessed with Belittling and Humiliating Hillary Clinton after the Democratic Primaries in 2008, then in making her a partner in his Administration! You Liberal Sleaze-Balls will be saying the same old @!$%# when Obama's been POTUS for 3 and a half years! Here's what you'll be saying, "He's only had 3 and a half years as President, what do you expect"! In my lifetime, I have never seen someone like Obama, that the Liberals expect so little from yet, are Loath to complain about anything that he does, but God forbid that the POTUS is a Republican or a Conservative or God help us, BOTH, the Liberals are up their Asses with a microscope, scrutinizing everything that they do! Just like in College and in his Private Career, Obama is coasting right on through, with no one to tell him that what he’s doing might be wrong, and that makes Obama, The First Affirmative Action POTUS! I wonder if this is going to be the new way to Elect our Political Leaders in the future, I hope not, because I expect more from the POTUS, and our Political Leaders then an Affirmative Action-Based solution which most of us know, is no solution at all! Affirmative Action= Mediocrity and, Mediocrity from our Political Leaders is Unacceptable and Dangerous to our very Existence as Major Power in the World, not to mention a Vacuum of Political Leadership, which can and will lead to the eventual Collapse of The Federal Government here at home! The nonsense of the Bail-Out of those who consider some Companies too big to Fail is just that, nonsense, so keep that in mind when you think about the health of our present Federal Government, history is littered with the bones of Failed Governments, I hope ours isn’t one of them, but with a National Debt fast approaching 12 Trillion Dollars, and various other problems, the future is looking pretty grim!