The White House: A cherished American landmark
By: Mo Rocca (CBS News)
If Iran had done this we would have Marines in Tehran now. If Russian had done this then Moscow would be a glowing crater now.
Trump does it and everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, fall to their knees and kiss Trump's ass.
There are more interesting photos in the seed article but it's not worth the trouble to include them. The fire damaged stones from 1814 are interesting.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In its 225-year history, the White House has seen a lot. If these walls could talk, they'd have plenty to say, as an entire arm, the East Wing, has been torn off to make room for President Trump's ballroom.
Satellite images show the White House before (left) and after demolition of the East Wing. Planet Labs PBC/AP
Change has always been a part of the White House's story. First lady Jacqueline Kennedy said as much during her famed televised tour of the mansion in 1962: "The house will always grow, and should," she said.
In 1792, George Washington chose Irish-born James Hoban's simple yet elegant design, in a competition that also included an entry by Thomas Jefferson.
This drawing by architect James Hoban won the competition to design the presidential residence in 1792. AP Photo
Our second president, John Adams, became the first chief executive to live there. In the mantel of the State Dining Room, Adams' words are inscribed: "I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."
But only 14 years later, the British set fire to the White House during the War of 1812.
In 2014, then-curator William Allman showed "Sunday Morning" the remaining burn marks - "scorching that would have happened when flames were drawn out through open windows and doors, and licked up around the tops of the stone," he said.
In 2014 Mo Rocca examined burn marks from the War of 1812 that remain at the White House, with then-curator William Allman. CBS News
It was reconstructed in just three years.
In 1889, first lady Caroline Harrison complained that 'the rats have nearly taken the building." She also proposed a major expansion. But her grandiose vision never got past the drawing board.
East and West Wings were added in 1902. Seven years later, the rotund William Howard Taft added the Oval Office.
By 1948, the White House was in danger of collapsing. It would've been cheaper to level the place and rebuild it. But President Harry Truman decided that preserving the exterior walls was crucial to the country's sense of continuity. Instead, the interior was entirely gutted. Truman also added a balcony, an alteration which provoked an outcry.
In October 2025 the East Wing was demolished, despite President Trump saying construction of his planned ballroom would not interfere with the current building. CBS News
The latest alteration by President Trump is much more significant. The East Wing has been demolished, with critics saying that in doing so Mr. Trump has broken a promise that the new construction would not interfere with the current building, and the planned 90,000-square-foot ballroom is nearly double the size of the main house. The president himself has estimated it will cost $300 million, to be paid for, he says, by private donations.
The White House isn't a private home. Nor is it just some government building. It's the "people's house." No surprise any major change will have people asking a lot of questions.
Locked and loaded. Safety off.
Explain to me why January 6th was worse.
Conservatism is based upon the philosophy of Edmund Burke. A conservative believes in the principles of conservation, stewardship, prudence, and stability. Burkean conservatism values generational sustainability over efficiency and maximizing profits. For Burkean conservatives it's all about the future and not all about the money.
Why even compare the two?
Jan 6th (and all that led up to it) was a sitting PotUS trying to steal a US presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. It was an act of a traitor. An act of a PotUS blatantly violating the CotUS and the rule of law because he could not stand to be a loser.
The destruction of the East Wing was an act by an arrogant prick who believes he has the power of king. A psychopath who thinks he now can do whatever he wishes. It is an act which violates the law and shits on our heritage.
Both are historically outrageous. More to come from this abysmal human being.
The January 6th riot disrupted a symbolic political ritual. The riot could not have changed the outcome of the election in any way, shape, or form. Lying about the inconsequential nature of the symbolic certification of the election doesn't translate into insurrection. The riot didn't cause irreparable damage to the Capitol building or to the functioning of Congress.
Trump apparently announced plans to build a ballroom months prior to destruction of the East Wing. And Trump lied about the extent of the destruction. The destruction of the East Wing is irreparable. The role and function of the First Lady in government has been fundamentally altered. Trump didn't incite anything; Trump directed the attack on institutional traditions and destruction of an important symbol of American history and heritage.
Agreed, Trump's behavior in both instances is historically outrageous. But I'm talking about the response to that outrageous behavior. Why are those who demanded retribution for the first outrageous behavior now on their knees kissing Trump's ass in response to the second outrageous behavior?
So far the only figure I've seen speaking out against Trump's destruction of the East Wing has been Hillary Clinton. And I have doubts about her sincerity.
You seem to think Jan 6th was not a big deal . That is absurd.
Trump should never have been allowed to run again by the Republican Party.
Why? Because I don't agree with Democrats' hair-on-fire portrayal that the Jan. 6th riot was an existential threat to democracy? Democrats' talking points about the Jan. 6th riot are moronic. It was impossible for the riot to change the outcome of the election or overthrow the government to install Trump in a coupe. Trump's involvement in the Jan. 6th riot isn't any more egregious than Al Sharpton's involvement in BLM riots. Both are reprehensible, outrageous abuse of celebrity but neither are existential threats to democracy. The riot did not cause irreparable damage to the Capitol building. The riot did not alter the status and role of Congress in any way.
Destruction of the East Wing of the White House isn't an existential threat to democracy, either. But the East Wing was actually destroyed while the Capitol building was not irreparably damaged. Destruction of the East Wing does fundamentally change the traditional status and role of the First Lady while the Jan. 6th riot didn't change the status and role of Congress in any way.
That's why I personally view destruction of the East Wing as more serious than the Jan. 6th riot. Those who disagree with that view seem to be trying to advocate for Democrats returning to political power. The same Democrats who have shut down the government for the sole purpose of convincing the public they have a spine. Democrats are refusing to compromise because they think that's strength and power. It's Democrats' way or the highway. That means Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jefferies are actually no different than Trump. There are three New York elitists fighting over who can harm the United States the most and expecting to be rewarded for the damage they're causing.
These comments are ridiculous. Trump tried to overthrow the US government and was later rewarded by becoming president again. When Trump was allowed to stay in politics after he tried to steal a presidential election is a clear signal that we have half a nation that is fucked up in the mind politically.
No, Donald Trump did not try to overthrow the government. That's a damned hair-on-fire lie intended to make Democrats look like more than they are. Democrats are not defenders of anything except the Democratic Party.
Trump tried to stir up controversy and divide the country so that American would fight American. Democrats took the bait and did the dirty work for Trump. Joe Biden didn't make any effort to unite the country. Biden and Democrats did exactly what Trump wanted to divide the country. And boy did it work. Democrats got on their knees and kissed Trump's ass by keeping Trump's brand alive, fresh, and in the news for four years. Trump wasn't a forgotten politician when the 2024 election rolled around.
Donald Trump APPROVED of a plan where he would be DECLARED to have won the election by disqualifying the electoral votes of all the swing states (he lost them all).
That is trying to rig the election every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
This is delusional. Trump was kept alive by lily livered Republican leaders and his cult following.
It was an insurrection. Trump violated his oath of office and incited his people who then broke and entered the Capitol to disrupt the certification of the election (Congress in session). Trump, meanwhile, sat in the White House and did not lift a finger for hours as the violence ensued.
Hello?
This part is correct.
Good.
I have no idea where you get the idea that the Ds and the outcast Rs are on their knees kissing Trump's ass. That role is fulfilled by Trump supporters. Not by those who oppose Trump.
What a bizarre comment you made.
partisan opinion not a fact.
more partisan opinion.
Of course, yet again, your 'argument' is nothing more than the cliche platitude: '~~just your opinion~~'.
Nowhere do you make an argument showing I am wrong. Just a nuh-uh with an off-the-shelf tired platitude.
You can’t prove an opinion wrong, you would have to provide a fact to be disputed, your opinions are nothing more than that, obviously no fact will change a partisan opinion.
How funny. You do not know how to prove an opinion wrong?
Here, George, this is an example of how this can be accomplished for opinions that make factual claims:
Trump opines that the 2020 election was stolen by the Ds rigging voting machines and miscounting votes.
How is this proven wrong?
By auditing the voting machines for anomalies or tampering. By recounting votes.
In fact, that is what took place (among other measures).
Turns out, Trump's opinion was dead wrong.
Amazing that you claim that it is not possible to make an argument that proves (i.e. shows that it is not supported by evidence or contradicted by evidence) an opinion is wrong. Imagine what the attorneys of the world would say to such an absurd posit.
The stated factual claims were:
This is falsifiable. Obviously.
Sigh….a provable statement of fact, is different than an opinion.
You have blatant partisan opinions without fact. That is what I have been saying all along, you seem to believe your opinions are facts. Pathetic
You do not recognize that:
are falsifiable claims?
Again, the attorneys of the world would be laughing at your posit.
Apparently, you also have a bizarre meaning for the phrase 'partisan opinion'. Looks like any criticism of Trump is, to you, partisan. Well, George, that is not what partisan means.
Just more partisan opinions, and the only thing here that the attorneys of the world would be laughing hysterically at is someone who uses AI to write opinions.
Grand total of insurrection indictments……..0
So again opinions aren’t facts no matter how many times they are repeated.
Who said they were? Lies, bullshit, and strawman arguments.
Is that your big argument? Jan 6 th was not an insurrection merely because the DoJ chose not to indict on those grounds, but rather on less complex grounds?? Now that is some lazy-assed legal ' analysis '.
An attorney would be aware that this was already adjudicated by the Colorado Supreme Court (and lower) and they found that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection.
And when presented to the SCotUS, that body chose to NOT rule on whether Trump engaged in insurrection and instead ruled that a state does not have the authority to deny a presidential candidate.
Here () is an in-depth legal analysis, but I will save you (et. al.) some time and provide you with a key section:
That is a lot of partisan opinions trying to pretend they are facts, Murder is the unlawful killing of a person, that doesn’t mean there was murder because people died on Jan 6, it’s a partisan opinion that an insurrection happened.
Typical pitiful game. When a rebuttal cannot be found, just throw out emotive cliches as part of a witless 'nuh-uh'.
A legal ruling by a district court, upheld by the Colorado supreme court, and NOT rejected by the SCotUS is mere opinion to you? Detailed legal analysis considering the CotUS, legal precedent, etc. is, in your mind, mere opinion?
Just deny and ignore everything that contradicts your position. Cast all evidence as mere opinion. A feeble tactic when you cannot formulate a rebuttal.
As before, pathetic.