I don’t think EITHER article is “Fair and Balanced”. Not defending BHO, but I don’t see any outright lies in the Whitehouse version, but I DO see some significant omissions.
Grant was a good military commander, and though some disagree with that, saying that all he did was drive his own troops to slaughter, the consensus of historians is that he was close to an excellent military commander.
The Whitehouse version doesn’t completely deny this, although they don’t emphasize it either.
The Whitehouse version is more focused on his tenure as president, and in that regard he didn’t necessarily perform as he did as a military commander. Grant was never especially good as an administrator (McClellan was the administrator, but he was a poor fighter), even in his military days, but he was good at leading troops and fighting.
Unfortunately, the job of president requires a fair amount of skill as an administrator and also a fair amount of skepticism in appointing Cabinet members (neither skill is held by BHO of course.) Grant didn’t have much skill in either area either (though compared to BHO, he was “brilliant” in those areas.)
Eisenhower is a good example of a military man who WAS an excellent administrator and well suited for the presidency. In fact, his skill as an administrator was one of the reasons he was appointed as Supreme Allied Commander. He used that skill to hold together the shaky and sometimes fractious relationship between the Brit and American military. He also gained experience in administration when he was MacArthur’s XO in the 30’s.
Back to the Whitehouse characterization of Grant’s presidency, which was the major focus of the Whitehouse article, while the Wiki article treated his military career equally with their treatment of his presidency. But then I wouldn’t expect a Whitehouse article on a president to give a president’s military record equal billing.
PLUS, the Wiki article mentioned, several times, the more favorable evaluation of recent historians on Grant’s presidency. The Whitehouse version either leaves this out (in which case it was an omission), didn’t consider it credible because it hasn’t withstood the test of time (in which case they should have at least mentioned it, with a footnote that they didn’t deem it credible), or just flat out didn’t know about it (in which case they SHOULD have.)
The traditional view is that while Grant was a good military commander, he was not a good president, and that’s what the Whitehouse version communicates. Indeed, one does not necessarily guarantee the other . . . Eisenhower being a notable exception.
Grant was not only a poor administrator, he was a little too trusting of his subordinates. That may have come from his relationship with Sherman and Sheridan. When he told those two to do something, they did it almost as though they could read his mind. Consequently, he became accustomed in his military career to giving an order and having it carried out as intended.
Not so with Cabinet officials. Grant was naive in that arena, and thought they were just as honorable as him. That’s why he got caught up in several scandals. It’s revealing that Grant himself was never personally implicated in wrongdoing, but his subordinates WERE. Hence, his administration had a shadow cast over it.
The wiki version emphasizes all the “good” accomplishments of his administration, of which there were many, and treats lightly the “bad” things . . . of course, the Whitehouse version does just the opposite. Which is why I say NEITHER is “Fair and Balanced”.
But, as I said, I didn’t see any outright lies in either one . . . it was just a matter of emphasis, but BOTH showed some bias.