Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Established users

When can I become an established user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EKN (talk • contribs) 03:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

When you can correctly make a headline. The Republican 01:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bush article should be unlocked

Who cares about neutral point of view? Bush is EVIL, you can't be neutral about that. Even if people put stuff that was completely false about him in order to slander his name, there's nothing wrong with that as long as it makes more people dislike Bush. If the government lies to get people to like him, why can't people lie to get other people to hate him? 199.79.168.160 00:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. You can easily find another outlet for the type of expression you desire. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you wanna trash George Bush, go to Uncyclopedia. The Republican 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Religious beliefs and practices

Under the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Religious_beliefs_and_practices%7CReligious beliefs and practices], it says "His decision to name a religious figure generated some criticism - even among religious conservatives such as Alan Keyes [8] and Bill Kristol". However, Alan Keyes was running against Bush at the time, and the reference was a Crossfire interview. At the time, Keyes's comments on Bush are hardly a neutral prospective. [1] Barneygumble 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement that Keyes' comments be 'from a neutral perspective', just that they inform the article and corroborate any assertions. I simply do not see the problem you suggest with this section. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but anything a politician does or says while running for office will be "generate some criticism" by SOMEONE. The wording creates a POV that saying "Jesus" was huge political blunder, which it wasn't.Barneygumble 21:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words in article

This is the official Wikipedia policy on weasel words:

[i]Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources. Weasel words give a statement the force of authority without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.

For example, "Montreal is the nicest city in the world," is a biased statement. So as to support the biasing while keeping with neutral point of view, one should give arguments and cite sources for the statement. However, application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Montreal is the nicest city in the world."

Although this is an improvement, since it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative. Who says that? You? Me? When did they say it? How many people think that? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias do they have? Why is this of any significance?

Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.[/i]

When you have a section that refuses to give any specific attribution, and refers consistently to everything as "His opponents believe" "His critics say" "His supporters believe", this is hearsay plain and simple!!! BlueGoose 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with what you say. But you used a bad example. Montreal clearly is in FACT the nicest city in the world. ;) Loomis51 01:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on what specifically you think are weasel words. Could you give some examples?--Hbutterfly 01:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

1. "His critics" 2. "Bush supporters" 3. "Bush opponents"

BlueGoose 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There are some uses of these words that do need some references. However, it is my opinion that many of these uses are already properly referenced in the linked articles. The nature of this article discourages including details. Most sections are really just a summary of another article. Is it benificial to "clutter" the main article, when more than enough references are available to support most of these statements only a click away? I guess what I'm saying is: Maybe a Wikipedia link to a properly referenced article is a good enough reference in itself.

An example: "Opponents" and "Critics" under Public Perception. The linked articles to "Public Perception" and "PARTIOT ACT" do a good job detailing who has expressed these opinions - but imagine if they were all included in the Bush article? What BlueGoose is asking for is a single article that would have to be hundreds of pages. But currently, if someone wants more details, they readily available. Not hidden at all. Of course there are some bad apples. "critics" under "First term" is not explained at all by any nearby linked article.

Ehlkej 03:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm, except that if Montreal is in fact the nicest city in the world (or merely the majority view that it is), then there is absolutely nothing weasely about writing that as fact. It may become necessary to include references to support this statement if it is widely disputed, but it is also true that cluttering every other word with a reference does nothing to improve the readability of an article. Sandpiper 12:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Another example of a weasel words in the section "Political ideology": "Some conservatives have questioned Bush's commitment to traditional conservative ideals because of his willingness to incur large budget deficits by permitting substantial spending increases." This sentence should be replaced by an example of a conservative questioning Bush's faithfulness to traditional conservative ideals. MrC 02:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words; Straw Man Argument

"Weasel words," are coining a new term for the logic or philsophical term "straw man" pertaining to an argument. A straw man is any unattributed source of information with no basis in reality, hence a straw man argument (that is in fact the common term for any argument that follows this format), i.e. "We all know Montreal is the nicest city in the world." Who are these "we" referenced? We can see that these people are like straw men, non-existent people used simply for the basis of argument explaining why this term was chosen.

I do not personally see the utility of coining a new term that is in fact biased, weasel words? This implies that the person who is using this type of argument is purposely doing this and while this remains as a valuble counter argument there does remain the possibility it was done in innocence, through lax use of sourcing, or any other valid reason that does not automatically imply a negative connotation. I do not give a source for the commonality of the term "straw man" for the sake of erudite humor.

James Anthony McGuire, March, 2006.

This is not the correct usage of the term "straw man". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man 70.33.100.131 (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"First to appoint an openly gay man"

That's all well and good, and I applaud Bush for that. However, whenever the page becomes unprotected, I feel it will be necessary for purposes of balance to add that Bush is also the first American president to support a constitutional amendment which would legitimize discrimination against homosexuals. We have to be fair and balanced, of course. -Kasreyn 05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, we have to be NPOV. There's a difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there? NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias Roy Harmon 17:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's quite a leap you made going from supporting that constitutional ammendment to declaring that it "legitimizes discrimination against homosexuals." It sounds POV to me. You can alsways say he supported the ammendment. But to draw the conclusion you did is a problem. --Tbeatty 23:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that we're in agreement about adding the information, then, since I will naturally take pains to ensure that it is represented in a NPOV manner, as I always do. Thanks! -Kasreyn 06:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking out of curiosity, which amendment do you speak of? - 65.100.195.54 01:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The proposed "Defense of Marriage Amendment". You hadn't heard of it? -Kasreyn 23:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats concerning state constituional ammendments you're looking for the Federal Marriage Amendment, its a household name. --mitrebox 23:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, my mistake. Well, Federal Marriage Amendment or Defense of Marriage Amendment, the name doesn't stop it from being intended to legitimize discrimination against homosexuals, and his outspoken support for it was one of his campaign pledges to his "base". It definitely deserves mention. -Kasreyn 01:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think to not mention the constitutional amendment would paint a false picture of Bush -- I vote either mention the amendment, or remove the 'first president to have an openly gay man in his cabinet' distinction.--Xiaphias 07:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

See, that would be my position, too. I'm having a hard time finding a source that simply and flatly states something like "President Bush announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment". Most of them are articles about some OTHER politician talking about Bush's support, or Democrats railing against it, etc. etc. The original announcement seems to have been drowned out in the debate. -Kasreyn 09:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage." - George. W. Bush, 2/24/2004[2] Brandon39 12:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

CanI ask you what the difference is between Neutral Point of view NPOV and 'fair and balanced'? Of course I am running out of the topic, but you started it ...

(My IP adress is not a permanent one.) I am required to put four tildes on this page I think. So here it goes, 202.161.131.69 18:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Balanced would be something like giving two bias opinions. Ann Coulter Vs. Al Franken or something like that. NPOV gives you the facts without the bias. This is how I understand it. Davidav87 10:58, 5 March 2006

My understanding of NPOV is that the information provided should be displayed for the purpose of offering a fuller picture of the person in question. Since it seems to me Bush both genuinely supports the US Constitution Federal Marriage Amendment and was the first to appoint an openly gay man, they both warrant inclusion. The way it is displayd, however is where we may get into issues of bias. They both belong to very separate areas, unless we insert a specific Views on Homosexuality section or something (which I believe would actually be helpful for users specifically seeking such information). Binerman 22:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, the more info the better, the "first to appoint etc." stuff is great and all, but just to clarify: I don't think a "neutral point of view" means including all seemingly "opposite" actions. It just means that the information provided is neutral. If you included ONLY the "first to appoint" info, that could be neutral by saying "he was the first to appoint an openly gay man etc.". That is a neutral statemnt, because it's a fact, he WAS the first. No debate there. If you say something about it being good or bad, it's no longer neutral. Same with the Marriage Amendment; once again, it's FACT that he is the first president to support/propose/whatever it, there's no debate there; only saying it's good or bad would contradict neutrality.

My point? I'm no wiki expert, but in general you don't have to include everything to be neutral, and including everything can still lead to bias. What's important is that the information you DO include is neutral. So, I think the real issue ought to be whether or not these two pieces of info are relevant, not neutral, becuse as long as there is no commentary or intentional contextual implications about the wisdom or fairness of his actions, it's fine to include OR not include either/or/both. However, you might want to, just for writing's sake, add a sort of "however" or something, it might make it sound a little better.

Finally, I hope I'm not getting long-winded here, but it's obviously inappropriate to add the discrimination statement. People who support that amendment generally don't consider it discrimination, so saying it is obviously isn't a NPOV. I mean, if he was discriminatory, why would he appoint a gay man in the first place? You might say he or this amendmendment is discriminatory, but it's clearly debatable.

---

"Bush is the first Republican President to appoint an openly gay man to his administration." This needs some clarification of who this openly gay man is, in my opinion. Certainly it needs a source. Opblaaskrokodil 00:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Military Service

A couple of minor but worthwhile points I think should be included:

• the article currently says "trained for two years". This should probably read "served on active duty for nearly two years" as I believe his AD time included time in an operational squadron, and his AD time was about 22 months. (By comparison, the article on Jimmy Carter doesn't distinguish between his time nuke and sub school and his other AD time.)
• given the ongoing AWOL fuss, it probably should be mentioned -- something perhaps like "While the exact details of his time in the TANG because contoversial campaign issues, he was honorably discharged in 1972."
• Actually, while he may of been honorably discharged, it was 18 months earlier than the end of his tour of duty, because he failed his dental exam.

-- Charlie (Colorado) 17:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• That all sounds legitimate, but the point of accuracy and NPOV is to achieve both for EACH article alone, not to make sure Republican presidents don't look better than Democrats or vice-versa. Reasons for editing should, in my opinion, not be based of other articles. Note however, that I'm no expert on wikipedia policies. 70.171.59.231 16:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• making two articles, or section, or sentences, or ideas, equal in some aspect for the sake of equalizing them, is a form of systematic bias, in some cases stemming from what's known as the "grey fallacy". The best way to achieve accuracy and npov is to not put the pieces together and adjust them to fit a pre-concieved notion, but to present each piece as faithfully as possible. This is how the CIA is trained to work with intelligence (notwithstanding the radical enterprise institute, OSP, or heritage institute -which were major factors in the extreme misrepresentation of good intelligence regarding to iraq.), and in my opinion, is a very good model. Kevin Baas^talk 17:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Could we unprotect this article for a fortnight, see if any positive anon and new-user contributions come up?? Not all' anons who edit this article are necessarily vandals. Worth a shot?? --Sunfazer (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, a fortnight may be too long, but perhaps start with one day? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The three-to-six hour unprotections we have had so far have ruffled quite a few feathers. Although I strongly support these unprotections, and have performed most of them, I would find it difficult to support protections for a day or more unless the results of shorter unprotections show improvement.

Having said that, we did net a good edit by an anon in a recent unprotection. There were over a dozen instances of vandalism, all from anon IPs, in the same period. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the point in these unprotections. Don't we already know what would happens next? IMHO the article should be sprotected until 2008 abakharev 01:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So we can each calculate the cost/benefit of having this article unprotected according to our own value systems. As I have said before, the cost of vandalism is not merely the time & effort needed by editors in reverting it - that is a relatively minor cost in my value system. The real cost is that the article is being seen in a vandalized state by many thousands of users (readers, not editors). So, in some arbitrary value units, the benefit of unprotecting the article was +10 for the "good edit", and -1 x 1000 = -1000 for the vandalism (assuming just for the sake of argument that 1000 users saw a vandalized article). Net benefit: Negative (by a lot). That is why I think that the time-scale for "temporary" protections should be proportional to the degree of vandalism. Heavily vandalized articles might be "temporarily" protected for some months or even years. Is there a cost in the loss of editability? Yes, but it is far outweighed by the cost that would be incurred if an article is so frequently vandalized that readers often see it in its damaged state. - Hayne 01:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but what about all the readers coming to the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", except that not anyone can edit? This article is perhaps the most visible article we have. Shouldn't we make it a good example of what Wikipedia is all about? We don't semi-protect articles linked from the main page because we want people to "get" what WP is all about. We want to show people what a wiki is, etc. Well what separates these articles from this article? Not much as I see it. People see WP advertising itself as the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so when we pull the bait and switch, what are people to think? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Most users come to Wiki not to edit but to learn. When they discover that most of the recent edits have been by cranks or vandals they will pretty quick lose confidence. Those who have something to say should register. In my opinion the ability of unregistered people to edit is the single worst aspect of Wiki. 95 out of 100 of these anon edits, in my experience, are trivial or have have damaged the article. Rjensen 02:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good thing that's your opinion. Anon editors are among the best editors we have. Without them, a lot of good edits would have gone undone. Yes, I know, <whine>"But, LV, a lot of vandalism is done by anons too"</whine>. But see #s 1, 2, and 3, here. Like I've said many times before, anons are people too. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anons are people too? who knows. If they really exist they can register. Rjensen 02:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? We don't force people to register, nor should we. See the standard {{anon}} welcome. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki I think is designed as a science model--one that works poorly when it comes to issues like current events. In fact We just discovered the Congressional offices have systematically put spin into their articles. I suspect that happens a lot. People who have an axe to grind FOR their cause have loaded Wiki down. That badly hurts our credibility outside science. Recently there was even a criminal case when one article for months had allegations that an editor was involved in the kennedy assassination. I suspect deliberate negative entries are less common than subtle positive ones. In other words, anonymous Wiki is a playground for PR spin by people PAID to generate that favorable publicity. Openness I think is the only cure. Rjensen 03:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Except requiring people to login actually increases anonymity by hiding their IP address. Not to mention the fact that it would make it much harder to track while doing RC Patrol. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point except there's a software fix for recording IP addresses on a registration page. When it comes to current events Wiki is unreliable right now and will stay that way until it gets reformed. Only in a few high visibility articles (like this one on Bush) is there enough multiple input to generate anything useful. The vast majority of articles have only a handful of people working on them, and are susceptible to being taken over by a group of say 4 people. That did happen to the articles on Congressmen as we learned last week. Rjensen 03:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing about Wikipedia is not that "anyone can edit", but that it is an encyclopedia - for many subjects the best available encyclopedia. And that it is readily and freely available. The wiki nature of Wikipedia is a means-to-an-end, not an end in itself. If magic fairies could go around and gather up the world's knowledge, then there would be no need for the wiki nature. So it comes down to what is the best means of getting the best encyclopedia and keeping it running. In this regard, for this particular article there should be no dispute - vandalism harms the readers' experience much more than it might suffer from the lack of a few "anon" edits. The readers are the most important thing - not the editors. - Hayne 03:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You do realise that there would be no Wikipedia if there were no editors, right? By your logic, why don't we require editors to be PhD's, and restrict their editing to their field of study? That way, we can ensure the editors actually know what they're talking about, and no bad, sneaky edits go through? There are much easier "means to an end", so why don't we do that too? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. Obviously there is a need for editors. But for some articles (not this one at the current time since it concerns ongoing events) there will be less and less need for editors as time goes on after the article has reached a certain maturity. And (this part is relevant to the current article) for some articles, allowing completely uncontrolled editing demonstrably decreases the value of the article to the reader if there is substantial vandalism (see my pseudo-calculations above). I.e. each individual article needs an editorial policy that will maximize the value of that article for the readers. For almost all articles (close to a million of them), the best policy is complete openness. But for those very few articles that attract persistent vandalism, different policies are needed. Again, to emphasize the point, I think we should be optimizing for the readers, not for the editors. If someone is disappointed that they can't edit an article - too bad. But if thousands of people see a vandalized page on a regular basis - unacceptable. - Hayne 04:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. While anonymous edits may be appropriate for most pages, it is quite obvious that it is not appropriate for this page. Thue | talk 20:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm less worried about vandalism than about subversion. That is the deliberate use of Wiki to spread a particular "spin" on a person or event. I have in mind the PR staff rewriting an article on a congressman or a company or -- for that matter-- the tourist agency prettying up the article on a state or city. The Congressional spin was discovered by detective work matching IP to official Congressional computers. That was a asloppy mistake--next time they will do it from home and we can't stop it. The best defense I suggest is not asking for PhDs but just asking for names of the contributors. Rjensen 03:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And how do we stop false names? Ask for their national identification number? Their birth day and mother's maiden name, so we can track who people say they are? Nevermind, I think if we want to continue this discussion, as it has moved far from improving this article, we take it somewhere else. Perhaps WP:WHY? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)}

On an article about a major world leader that attracts a lot of vandalism, I don't think it is too much to ask people to have an account and be here for a few days. Constant vandalism and reversion means that people who are foolish enough to visit Wikipedia looking for unbiased information have a good chance of seeing crap. Not to mention the possibility that one of our many mirrors may pick up a corrupted version and diseeminate it long after it has been corrected here. As to the fact that anyone can register with a false name, such accounts can be blocked, where we often can't block an IP because of its being a dynamic IP for such as AOL. Having to continue to make new accounts just to make some idiotic changes to a Wikipedia article is more trouble than most vandals will go to. -- Cecropia 04:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets stick to the semi-protection policy. Semi-protection should only be used during periods of irregularly frequent vandalism. This article should not be protected from now until 2008. Regular levels of vandalism can be dealth with without sacraficing anonymous contributions and the integrity of the project. It does damage to wikipedia's credibility when people come to this article and find a persisitent semi-protection notice. Perhaps even more damage than the vandals themselves. If you want to lobby for a permanent semi-protection policy, go ahead. Savidan 08:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

GWB hasn't done anything newsworthy recently, that's my argument for unprotection. --Sunfazer (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• You don't think the cheney thing is going to attract vandals?--205.188.116.138 17:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Unprotected or not, we should maintain a "best recent edit" date/time/link on the talk page to redirect new users or visitors in the case of vandalism so that a good copy is still reasonable accessable in the case of a vandalism. For example:

In case of vandalism, here is an accurate and recent version of this article.

-Dave 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I copy/pasted my term paper from this article

and my teacher says I'm a terrible writer and gave me an D+, then called me a pinko... is this a sign that this article is poorly written liberally slanted crap?--205.188.116.138 16:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have cheated should you. That taught you a lesson didn't it.

I guess you get what you pay for. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily; please see "academic dishonesty". Accurizer 16:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, duh, joking--205.188.116.138 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OMFG LOL!!!!11!!!eleventyone! – ClockworkSoul 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I take it as a good sign that this article is a well-written NPOV and factual article. Kevin Baas^talk 21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretzel

The article doesn't include the incident with the pretzel and the page is currently locked so I can't insert it. Can someone else do it please, as I am unable to do so.

So get a user id and do it yourself. The reason the page is locked against anonymous users such as yourself is that it is constantly being vandalized by anonymous users. If you want us to trust you, create an account. -Kasreyn 07:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, but, to be fair, (s)he still wouldn't be able to edit it. it also protects against newly created usernames. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 13:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh? That's weird. What's the criteria then? How "old" does a username need to be to qualify? -Kasreyn 07:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

4 days, according to the policy. -Zero^Talk 13:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Four days! Is that considered an impossible obstacle? Is the anonymous poster likely to forget his or her point in 96 hours? --Cubdriver 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that we don't require anyone to register to be able to edit. (Well, except for this page, seemingly) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Right: it's been often vandalized by anonymous posters. Asking for users to establish an identity seems a small inconvenience in exchange for not having to revert it every couple of hours. --Cubdriver 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer... we don't require anyone to register to be able to edit, nor should we. Logged in users can vandalise too. AND it provides them more anonymity. For proof that they do it too, head over to RC Patrol for awhile. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how allowing vandalism by anonymous posters alleviates the problem of vandalism by registered posters. I like the 96-hour rule. Perhaps it should be more widely applied. At the very least, it provides a Talk page where folks can beat on the vandal. --Cubdriver 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking Iraq war to 9-11

In the begining of the article it implies we went in to Iraq because of 9/11 which is not the case.

I have seen people stating that the link didn't exist on his page being RV'ed for POV - however the fact that there was no link was established by various intelligence reports given to the house/senate - IIRC, someone please produce proper links so this information can be added to his page in a NPOV manner (no usage of the term "lied")

All editors should watch Nightline tonight, Feb. 15

Nightline is going to report on the "Saddam Tapes."

Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has already authenticated the tapes. These are the same tapes mentioned in Duelfer's Report that had not been translated at the time of the report. For some reason, the tapes were released through a very unusual manner - possibly because some in the intelligence community did not want the truth to come out. Read news story here. [3]RonCram 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that a top Iraqi General had stated that the WMD's were relocated to Syria after that country had a natural catastrophe and that Saddam had used airplanes and truck shipments under the guise of humanitarian aid to relocate the majority of his WMD's there...I'll try and find the citations, but in my opinion, Iraqi had at best, only minimal WMD's and a lot of that stuff was given to him by the U.S. along with some technology as well.--MONGO 01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Give it up. The WMD ruse has been exhausted, verified as bogus, and we have all moved on.

Fortunately for everyone, this is an encyclopedia, and those clamoring to ignore or disregard the truth are held in little regard here. Perhaps you might want to peddle your wares elsewhere. -Kasreyn 06:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The tapes were from 1995 and showed clearly Saddam's ties to Islamic terrorists when he claimed he threatened U.S. and British officials with WMD terrorist attacks. This is exactly what caused the U.S. and England to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. Of course, the bigger story here is the bad light all of this puts on the CIA. Lots of similar evidence found in Iraq and turned over to the CIA can no longer be found. These tapes came out through non-official sources. If not for Loftus and Tierney, we would not know about these tapes tonight. This is a big story and more will be coming out in the future and literally hundreds of these tapes and documents still need to be translated. RonCram 06:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Great, so we can now what was going on in Iraq in the aftermath of the Gulf war. Umm.. I think this intelligence, not to say anything about the credibility of the sources, is a little outdated, eh? Kevin Baas^talk 15:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Oh I think Saddam is perfectly credibl when talking about gassing his own people. He's also the most likely choice as Hillary's running mate. ( VPs should always make P look more honest, intelligent, sane )--mitrebox 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Harsh and accusatory

I am concerned that this article is too harsh and accusatory. I will be making some edits to aim at a more genuine NPOV tone where possible. Merecat 08:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• You could start by deleting it. Its about as NPOV as Movement to Push Israel in to the sea (Allah's will be done)--mitrebox 05:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hells yeah! more bizaire conservative sockpuppets to help patroll this article talk page, just what we need--205.188.116.138 05:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, could be way worse. Chyko

Info removed (hopefully temporarily)

I removed the following:

Critics point out that most families do not have significant funds to put aside for additional retirement savings, most individual investors are not skilled at the management of complex financial instruments, and that both the Social Security and health care funding changes simply permit employers to spend less on benefits for employees, whether employees are able to replace the benefits or not. Individual employees are also weakly positioned to negotiate for better, or less expensive care. Perhaps most significantly, individuals who develop chronic illnesses relatively early (before age 55) are unlikely to have set aside sufficient money to even minimally meet the costs of their own care.

Can we please have a source? Which critics? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I just googled a phrase, and it came right back to this page. A source and its all good! User: mrmanhattanproject

• Is google what passes for a scholarly source these days?? If NASA hired idiots like you the commies would probably have landed on the moon by now--IworkforNASA 01:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Inauguration

There is a mistake about his second inauguration. Here is written that his second inauguration was in 2000!!! And it was in 2005!

Thanks for pointing that out. It has now been corrected (by User:Rogerd). I note that this error came in during an edit by User:Jtdirl at 21:20, 11 February 2006. - Hayne 18:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I note that another error relating to the date of Bush's first inauguration was recently fixed by Shaileshnandwana (edit of 00:59, 1 March 2006) - this error was also introduced by the same edit by User:Jtdirl at 21:20, 11 February 2006. These errors show that the fact checking process is much impeded when a large edit (changing many things in many places) is done. I strongly encourage people to do edits in several small pieces rather than one large one - it makes the diffs much easier to read. - Hayne 08:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Try Google Scholar lately? 66.173.177.100 18:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)MichaelK (this statement was not meant as a plug for Google, but to indicate scholarly information is available on Google.

Thanks

Guantanamo Bay

Shouldn't there be some reference to the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and the belief amongst many people including the British Cabinet member Peter Hain and the Archbishop of York that Camp Delta breaks Internation Law??? I feel that this has been overlooked by the people who have previously edited the page, surely this controversial issue and Bush's refusal to close the camp deserves some mention! Also, linked into Guantanamo, shouldn't there also be a mention of Extraordinary Rendition? This is a particularly controversial issue in Europe as we discover more details of the flights landing in European airports. This issue should not be just swept under the carpet which is what is happening at the moment Hypergreg 13:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Silly Englishman, American liberials only care about foreigners "rights" when they don't know about domestic spying programs --mitrebox 05:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Silly??? im sorry if i think that 2 of his most controversial foreign policies deserve to be mentioned but then i wouldnt expect any other response from an insular american. Oddly enough this is an INTERNATIONAL website and therefore needs to talk about George Bush's affect around the world not just in the USA and Guantanamo Bay is fairly important, I dont really care if it is or isnt being reported on in the USA, but it IS being reported on in the EU and therefore deserves mention as after all, the EU is quite a bit bigger than the USA in size and population. Hypergreg 21:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ground Zero

I found a litle mistake in the text below his ground zero image. There is writen "will hear all of us soon." and right version is "will soon hear all of us." I know this for sure.

Actually, no. It is "will hear all of us soon." See [4] and [5]. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles of impeachment from a Rhode Island senate candidate

http://www.carlsheeler.com/articles_impeachment_GA.asp

--James S. 08:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the point of this? android79 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A publicity stunt by a man running for Congress in Rhode Island. Anyone remember the Democrat that was pushing the bill to restart the draft until just after the 2004 election? After he got his political benefit from the bill suddenly he wasn't voting for the bill when it came up in Congress. PPGMD 23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am posting these here so that these can be verified. Please stop deleting them. They are directly pertinent to the article.

Even if they can be verified, they are not directly pertinent to the article. Try discussiong this at Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush instead. The full text of the "amendment" is not necessary for discussion and is likely a violation of applicable copyright law. android79 19:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay --James S. 21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding [6]: provide some reliable source (i.e., not Sheeler's own website) that 23,000 people have signed this petition, and that it has any sort of momentum outside of his own campaign for Senate. android79 22:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

James appears to be spamming the Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush page with it also. Why did you send him over there? Totally inappropriate use of talk pages. -- Stbalbach 05:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is appropriate. Deleting other people's comments on talk pages goes against archiving. --James S. 05:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WHY IS IT APPROPRIATE, JAMES? -- Stbalbach 05:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The link is still there. Why did you feel it appropriate to post three pages of cited material on a talk page? That's akin to spamming. --Mmx1 05:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Spam needn't be archived. android79 05:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Update the Economy Section

Isn't it about time to update to Economy section of the article? The unemployment rate is at 4.7% which now matches the rate when he took office for the first time, which seems relevant to me, and the employment numbers adjusted to population growth should be looking better to almost even when he took office since the unemployment rate is back to it's initial state. Your figures on that piece are 8 months old! 134.233.132.6 09:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Kswanks

67.169.195.133 04:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)You must have forgotten that unemployed citizens are removed from data after a couple years without work!

The point, Anonymous, isn't to agrue the standard by which unemployment rates are gauged, but to update the data. One could make those points for any president past or present which would make such data obselete to apply to any one president. Think before you post. If no one has any objections I'm going to at least update the latest unemployment rate to 4.8% as of February data that just came out. Kswanks 13:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please

Will you please Let this page be edited?68.96.23.7 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The article can be edited -- I made an addition this very day. However, you must establish a Wiki identity rather than post from an anonymous number. That seems a reasonable enough requirement. --Cubdriver 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Really. Pull yourself togeter and make an account man! The Republican 01:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because there are stub sections and sections which lack sources. Worldtraveller 01:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A good article with section stubs??? This must be kind of a joke. A good article must not have section stubs and lots of sources and references. If this can be cleaned up, it can qualify for a good article again. --Terence Ong 06:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"thrice-decorated hero"

LOL, can we please keep kerry puffery contained to the John Kerry article--64.12.117.13 15:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He has a point, so a changed it a bit to make it more NPOV, changed hero to navel officer. PPGMD 22:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading it over again, I removed the thrice part because it's not needed and not accurate, if they want more details on his medals they can visit his page on Wikipedia, which goes over the 5 medals he recieved in Nam. PPGMD 01:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

oh and look, it's protected again

I guess anyone who tires to remove personal attacks and other cheap shots from the article, is comitting "vandalism" worthy of page protection, LOL, the encylopedia anyone can edit, as long as you're an RL that is--64.12.117.13 15:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Or just a registered user. -- Psy guy ^Talk 18:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

rolls eyes Yeah, that public opinion poll was definitely a personal attack. I'm sure millions of Americans woke up that day thinking, "Gee, today I'd like to tell a pollster I disapprove of the President, just to hurt his feelings." And listing his term to "present" is merely encyclopedic. The only one having paranoid delusions here is you - and your delusion is that "present" means teh paranoid libral fantasies of teh term limit removals!!1!!

Stop mistaking encyclopedic style for POV, quit blanking information you personally dislike, and get over yourself. -Kasreyn 05:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Article protection

This page should NEVER be semi-protected, either it should be allowed to have open editing, or {{vprotected}} Please, admins, this is important! It's a wiki, this will always have vandalism, live with it. Also, yes, he is a high-profile figure, but so are other politicians like John Kerry. --Katrina Whitmare 13:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes. It should always be open to vandalism [sarcasm off]. In all actuality, it should enjoy the same protection that every page on the Wiki should enjoy, no less. --Mhking 14:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

it's a pain for editors to fix all the vandalism and it really hurts Wiki's image when schoolkids click here and get %%$##@.Rjensen 15:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe said school children should stop vandalizing the article by adding %%$##@ in the first place, then they wouldn't have to get %%$##@--152.163.100.74 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Katrina's got a point. --Sunfazer (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Katrina Whitmare" turned out to be a vandal who has now been blocked indefinitely. -- Curps 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And seems to have come back as a new, if not less ironically named sock/vandal/troll--152.163.100.74 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Harper's and Impeachment

Made a few edits, in the interest of NPOV and readability - plus, I threw a few factoids in as well. More than happy to discuss, etc. Please be assured this edit is made in good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we include things that we know are "Bush" lies?

Before we proceed to rip me a new one, please hear me out. There are several things we can justifiably write about that Mr. Bush has said, done or not done that are unavoidably lies. Is it okay if maybe we can make a section somewhere near the bottom about things bush has said, done... that are lies? I am not talking about anything that deals with him draft doging or anything like that, I am more concerned with things like this: Katrina Lie. I am quite sure this is undeniable since he is on tape... I don't care about how people want to spin it, he knew about it and then later says, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." Which is BS. The same with his comment about not really caring about where Osama is, how he doesn't really look for him or what ever. Then a couple of weeks later he says that he said nothing of the sort. So yes, things like this. The reason I think it is important to put this in a wiki article is because (obviously I don't like him, that isn't why though) is because it is an unsavoury quality that I think people should know about, plus some of these things I think will lead to his impeachment, obviously not the one about looking for Osama, but not responding to the Katrina catastrophe is something I think he should be responsible for. I'm sure we have read the michael brown emails, the man was not fit for the job, period and I think that the federal government should have responded since FEMA sat on their hands and shrugged. So yes that is what I think, do me in now... (Sorry if I don't reply promptly, I am usually busy studying.) --DyslexicAnaboko 23:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

With due respect, it sounds like POV pushing to me. Brandon39 05:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, what is POV pushing? If you think I am trying to smear Bush, then that is not what I am trying to do. I am just trying to let people know what he blatantly lied about. I don't think this is too far fetched. If it makes people feel better, do the same thing in the Clinton section. I just want the truth out there really. --DyslexicAnaboko 23:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please limit yourself to lies that the White House has admitted; the others are still POV. Rjensen 23:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

WHOAAA!! Until the white house admits it it's POV?! I didn't know that was one of the powers of the president. Sounds like an appeal to authority regarding the authority itself - an infinitely looped logical fallacy! And very unpatriotic. But in any case, if what yoiu say is true, then we should get the executive branch to come over to wikipedia and approve all it's content, then we would have a garaunteed NPOV encyclopedia! Kevin Baas^talk 16:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and educate me on this piece of logic here, if person a is a liar if and only if he admits it, then when he admits that he's a liar, isn't he lying? and therefore he's not a liar, but why would he say he's a liar then? Wouldn't that be a lie? The logic is so confusing! Kevin Baas^talk 17:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, if I can give you sufficient information, especially audio clips that are dated, then you cannot conclude that it is a point of view (if that is what POV means). Rest assured though, I am not going to change anything unless I have support from other people and no one has any major problems with it. When I say problems, I mean problems concnerning the idea of misinformation. I do not want to misinform anyone, but I do want to call the president what he is, a liar about many things. So call it a POV, but if I can prove what he did, it is not a POV. Another thing to add to this list of lies is: Jack Abromoff says he knows the president, the president denys knowing Abromoff. The only reason the president wants to say he doesn't know Abromoff is because Abromoff is being tried for many many many crimes. Now for me to say that bush was involved in those crimes is definately a POV and I wouldn't try posting that. However, Bush did indeed lie about not knowing Abromoff. My proof is the testimony of Abromoff, invitations Abromoff recieved to the white house, the friendly conversations they would have and other details. So yes, the president is a liar and this is a lie I would like to make known to the public.--DyslexicAnaboko 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"POV pushing" means that it seems to me that you have an opinion on the subject (as opposed to objective fact), and that you appear to be "pushing" your opinion to be presented as if it were fact.

I have no doubt that George Bush has told lies. Everybody lies. I'm sure he has told lies in the course of his public duties. But the examples you give are not as cut-and-dried as you seem to think they are. The alternate interpretations of Bush's remarks that you characterize as "spin" are in fact just ... alternate interpretations. If you want to write a paragraph stating that there is controversy on this issue, I'd be fine with that. But I don't think you've made the case that Bush lied, period, end of story. Brandon39 14:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Brandon. The issue of "did Bush lie" pertaining to the levis requires a nuanced discussion of what is meant by "breech" and what is meant by "topped" etc. Furthermore we don't have access to the intention behind a false statement which is important. Did Bush forget something from the meeting? Did he intentionally mislead? Did he antagonistically mistate something? I don't pretend to know his intents, nor do I think anyone else could. It seems unnecessarily POV to have an entire section devoted to his lies without more hard evidence of intentional false statements. 165.97.45.67 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Those are excuses and ofuscation. By the time you're arguing the nuances of a single pair of words, you're pretty friggin desperate. Did he open the door or did he push it such that it allowed passage? What exactly does the word "fixed" mean in "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy?" The plain fact is, in any interpretation, in means that the policy came first, then the facts and intelligence. YOu can't "fix" something around something, whatever fixed means, if it's not there to fix around. I'm reminded again and again of the book "Animal Farm".

Regarding his intentions - he lied about WMD and saddam-hussien alqaeda to go to war. that's clear. it's documented. Those are big big lies. "everybody lies". sounds like typical republican speak: "It's just politics." I can't remembre the last time I lied, and if I did, I wouldn't expect nor want someone to brush it off. I'd expect to be called upon it, and it would be rightto call me on it, whether I be the president or anyone else for that matter. And that's a big difference, if I were to lie it would be about a blowjob or something - big whoop - when a president lies about things like Bush did, it's about >$300,000,000 (do I have the right number of 0's?), and thousands of lives. That's a little different, eh? do you actually think this way; that those lies are for sake of argument equivocable? If so, then you have some pretty strong inherent biases which tear down any rhetorical strength you might otherwise have. Kevin Baas^talk 17:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's POV to say he "lied" about WMD and Hussein-Al qaeda link. In turn, there was ample evidence that Hussein was making WMD or at least violating the UN resolution. The biggest proof of that is the desire for the arms inspectors to return. If there were no WMD or no evidence of it, the inspectors would have simply declared that Iraq was complying with the mandate. To argue that "Bush Lied" about it, (as opposed to being wrong) requires a very, very large conspiracy that includes the UN, the WMD Arms Inspectors (both sets) and previous administrations. The Administration was certainly wrong about the size and scope of the program, but claiming a "lie" is too strong given the evidence. As per the link of Iraq to Al Qaeda, I believe there is certainly evidence that it exists. The current argument is generally centered around whether there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. There has been many a blog that confuse the two and it is important that an encyclopedia get it right. I don't believe there is evidence to support that claim (Iraq and 9/11), but I don't think the claim was ever made by Bush. The 9/11 commission concluded there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda but not to 9/11. Therefore, I don't think you can claim unequivocally that Bush lied. --Tbeatty 18:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, did the President lie when he said this regarding the military action he took against Iraq?

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world." - President Bill Clinton - 1998

And, did the U.S. Ambassador to the UN lie when he said this regarding the UN authority the Administration claimed it had to use military force against Iraq?

"Coalition forces today began operations against military targets in Iraq. Our ongoing military action is substantial. We are attacking Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and its ability to threaten its neighbors.....the coalition today exercised the authority given by Security Council resolution 678 (1990) for member states to employ all necessary means to secure Iraqi compliance with the Council's resolutions and restore international peace and security in the area." - UN Ambassador Peter Burleigh - 1998

Jeravicious 04:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So then my question is, if Clinton was not lying in 1998...at what point between 1998, when the inspectors left Iraq, and 2002, when they returned, did the Iraq's WMDs vanish? No, the truth is that in 1998, Clinton (as did most of the world) believed in the Iraq WMD evidence and in 2003, Bush (as did most of the world) believed in the Iraq WMD evidence. And fact: Iraq DID have WMDs...that was not in question...the question was what did Iraq do with it's known WMD stockpiles. Jeravicious 04:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is a prime example of why we cannot include bush's lies: because a large number of people still do not know that they are objectively lies, for whatever reason (confusion, not informed, or just plain fog of bias.) It will have to remain an "error and ommission" in the article. Also, people will think it represents "bias" and "POV". The relevant issues are discussed pretty discursively in the linked articles, and a good critical thinking with good reading comprehension can put the facts together. At this point, even though there has already been loads of undisputed research done that can be referenced and cited, including his lies in the article as such should be treated in practice as "original research". Kevin Baas^talk 04:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

But wait a minute - we could present it as an "attribution to a POV" in something like a "criticims" section, thereby sacrificing accuracy for informativeness. For instance, we could say "Many critics believe that Bush has lied repeatedly on a number of issues..." and attribute sources. Kevin Baas^talk 04:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly you could create a section of "criticisms" and cite people who believe Bush lied -- although you have to be careful to avoid POV by proxy, of course. And then those who are unconvinced that Bush lied (as opposed to having made errors, or even -- *gasp* -- having been right about some things that go against conventional wisdom) -- would of course wish to provide citations to relevant sources that present *that* side of the story. Brandon39 05:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be very interested to see that side of the story. Kevin Baas^talk 18:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Known Truths?

Maybe the question should be can anyone include anything they know are "Bush" truths? Start with those, take the remainder, and add to the lies section.--Ban.WMA 19:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

TOC listing

The current version of this page requires some low resolution readers to scroll before hitting the Table of Contents. Does anyone else think that floating the TOC as seen in this version make for easier reading? xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The floating TOC causes a very narrow column of text in my browser, and that is something to usually avoid. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Duh, the easy way to take care of that is to trim the excessive intro. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

New Approval Rating

Can someone put the new CBS approval rating for this month in the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.6.245.98 (talk • contribs)

Thirty-four percent, his lowest ever. Still slightly ahead of Nixon, though. --James S. 01:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he still hasn't hit Clinton lows either, if I'm reading it correctly. --Tbeatty 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

According to this, Clinton's lowest poll was 36%, two points higher than Bush's 34% low. --Mr. Billion 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a different poll has him at 38%, which I consider to be more accurate, even as a Democrat, but it's still slipping. --A. Watts

Keep in mind the demographics of these polls. According to the best statics from the 2004 election approximtly 37% of the voters were D and 37% were R they rest were either independent, or other party affiliated. When you have a CBS poll which samples like this- 37% Democrats/34% Independents/27% Republicans (the unweighted sample is 40D/34I/26R). So what do you honestly expect when you have both Democrats and Independents outnumbering Republicans in the sample? Of course the numbers are going to look bad. It would be the same thing if the R outnumbered D and the approval numbers were in the 50s or so. It cuts both ways. Especially when the poll was taken over the weekend which always leans more towards Democrats. Look even at the Fox News poll (which is supposed to be an arm of the Republican Party) rating of 39%... Democrats 43%/Republicans 33%/Independents 18%. A 10 point edge for Democrats. When you are going to oversample one group over another the results will be skerewed which ever way.KLRMNKY 06:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

When a President is unpopular, many people in the moderate end of the spectrum who would normally self-identify with the President's party will indeed identify themselves as "Independent." It is not necessarily that they are over-sampling Democrats (it would seem odd that every poll would do so as a coincidence) but rather quite possible that some of the people who previously identified themselves as "Republican" have now decided to identify as "Independents", at least for the poll.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 14:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's crazy talk right there, clearly it's a liberal conspiracy--205.188.116.138 21:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, about the moderate end and stuff, but take a look at the polling information. You can look it up on CNN and I can provide a link if need be. But if you are having in the last election (2004) 37% R and 37% D then you still need to use that info until the next presidential election. If you are calling up people, and that is what poll takers do and they identify themselves as independent, then you don't poll them unless you haven't fulfiled the I percentage. If you can get a poll like that. Rasmussen seems to be the most accurate when it comes to doing this as well as predicting voting outcomes then nobody on either side of the political spectrum will have cause to complain. KLRMNKY 14:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush was told Katrina could breach the levees

At the moment, there are two passing references in the article to the (mis)handling of Katrina:

• Along with the criticism on issues of foreign policy, President Bush has also taken criticism for his domestic policies, such as his administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, which many considered slow...

and

• The federal response to Hurricane Katrina and question of cronyism in August 2005 proved to be difficult for the president.

Leaving aside the question of whether this suggests some duplication in the article, it's not clear where to add a discussion of the following, which I think it should be added.

• "Video showing President George W Bush being warned on the eve of Hurricane Katrina that the storm could breach New Orleans' flood defences has emerged."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4765058.stm, also [7], and a whole heap more.

On the other hand, this is not wikinews, we can wait a few days, even weeks, and see how it plays out. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This may also be of interest, http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/03/02/ap2567320.html and also:

The AP video does not include footage of Chertoff asking Brown whether he needs any other ::help or of Chertoff asking whether Brown wants him to approach the Department of Defense. ::Transcripts show that to both questions, Brown indicated that no additional assistance was ::needed. In the transcript of a briefing the following day, Aug. 29, Brown is quoted as saying  ::that Bush "is very engaged, and he's asking a lot of really good questions I would expect him to ::ask."

That Aug. 29 transcript showed that hours after the hurricane hit, federal and state officials ::remained optimistic about handling the disaster and were unaware that the levees in New Orleans ::were failing.

Arkon 03:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure it is relevant. Everyone was warned that the levees could be breached. The story before the storm hit was how a cat 5 hurricane would breach the levees and flood the bowl. This is what prompted the mandatory evacuation. The story the day after, and in all the major press, was how New Orleans "dodged the bullet" as the eye wall missed the eastern edge of the city. As we know now, that was not the case and the levies failed despite it not being a "worst case scenario." But any video that shows Bush was informed that the levies could fail before it hit would make him as informed as everyone else in the country.

Well that sounds like a good place to start for, you know, the president of the country. Kevin Baas^talk 06:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this IS news to too many Americans - it's news to them that the president knew that the levies could fail, which makes it, sadly, interesting (WP:NPOV - "interesting and important").

And regarding "worse case scenario", they had examined what would happen in the case of a category 3 hurricane, and noted that the levies would probably break and flood. This was their "worst case scenario". Hurricane Katrina, however, was category 4. So much for worst case scenarios... Kevin Baas^talk 06:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice that AP is now correcting its "breach" story. Charlie (Colorado) 04:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the Aug 30 NYT headline: "HURRICANE KATRINA: NEW ORLEANS; Escaping Feared Knockout Punch, Barely, New Orleans Is One Lucky Big Mess" [8]

--Tbeatty 04:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason it's news is because GWB later denied that anyone had anticipated the levees breaching [9]:

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did appreciate a serious storm but these levees got breached and as a result much of New Orleans is flooded and now we're having to deal with it and will," he said.

Nil Einne 19:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be going in circles looking for a way to make political hay. IF a sufficiently powerful hurricane hit the city, the levees were expected to fail. Common sense. Such a hurricane did NOT hit the city. It missed. But the levees still failed... unexpectedly. keith 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Max Mayfield's comment from the video:

I don't think anyone can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not...but it's obviously a very very grave concern.

Jeravicious 21:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hurrican eye wall missing eastern new orleans was a very late development. Everyone knew, including the public, press, local government and the President that the levees could fail and should have prepared for it. While your point that the levees failed perhaps prematurely is relevant for a "New Orleans Levee" page, I don't think it is a point of controververy on the Bush Administration page. Whether this is a scandal or not should not rely on the Hurricane talking a right turn in the last 24 hours. Katrina was big enough and strong enough to breach the levees and everyone knew it. Bush "knowing it" is simply not controversial.--Tbeatty 00:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to Kyoto Protocol portion of Environment and Energy

I would move to add "Recently, some have also disputed Bush's assertion that the Kyoto Protocol would hurt the economy. According to Tom Potter, in a New York Times article, implementing Kyoto standards has actually improved the economy." after the sentence, "In January 2006, six former EPA directors, five of them Republican, warned of the consequence of continued inaction on global warming."

It would then read: "In January 2006, six former EPA directors, five of them Republican, warned of the consequence of continued inaction on global warming. Recently, some have also disputed Bush's assertion that the Kyoto Protocol would hurt the economy. According to Tom Potter, in a New York Times article, implementing Kyoto standards has actually improved the economy."

The reasoning behind this add is that it is a dispute over the economic effects of Kyoto in addition to the environment. --Ecopirate 03:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I'm not contesting the need for some sort of protection beyond tens of tireless vandal-beaters watching the page, but the sprotected notice clearly says that semi-protection is a temporary measure, as does Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Could somebody in the know please clarify how long this article is intended to be semi-protected? BigBlueFish 17:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

See #Unprotection? for a typical response. -Splash^talk 18:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Iran

Hmmm...With the recent events regarding Iran, should a portion be added to the page dealing specifically with this? I'm putting it out there for those of you who do have edit rights. I'm still a bit new. Ecopirate 20:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The page is semiprotected...what edits do you have to add?--MONGO 21:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Homeland Security needs to be added to cabinet posts

It's missing from the page: Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Done, and FYI, 2003 is the correct date as it wasn't until then that DHS formally became a cabinet post. --Easter Monkey 06:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

AIDS funding

IMHO, if it's going to be mentioned on the page that the contributions for AIDS funding is more then everyone else combined, brief mention needs to also be made of the controversy surrounding this funding. I don't know what exactly but perhaps something like: "However there is controversy surrounding the direction and restrictions placed on the funding". Nil Einne 19:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I just added that one quarter of the funding goes to religious groups, but I put it as a matter of fact, not as a controversay as it certainly has been for many people. Does anyone know of a good source that we could draw from to mention it? Binerman 02:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush appointments

Bush has appointed more women and minorities to high-level positions within his administration than any other U.S. President.

I question whether this is important or relevant point. If Bush has appointed twice as many people in total compared to other presidents to high-level positions then we would expect him to appoint more women and minorities then others. I have no idea whether Bush has made more appointments or less appointments or whatever, I'm simply raising the issue that IMHO percentages are more important. At the very least the percentages needed to be included as well.

A seperate issue and more controversial I expect is whether Bush's has really broken new ground. Generally speaking, I would say expect there has been an upward trend of women and minorities in high positions, both as it became more acceptable and as more qualified people (especially with regards to women) became available. I'm sure this is going to get all sorts of criticisms and NPOV claims and such but I feel it would also be relevant to consider whether Bush's increases are really unique or part of the general trend we would expect. I admit, this borders on original research so a cite would probably be needed but IMHO it would make a good addition if someone can find it Nil Einne 20:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your objections, Nil Einne, are specious. Documentation is needed, but it is an important and pertinent fact that Bush appointed more minorites and women than any othe President, regardless of the number of appointees he had. It is a fact; it's meaning is aided by knowing the total number of appointments, but without that number the fact is still there and valuable. Would you write about Abraham Lincold without saying that he did much to free the slaves? No. I'm not saying the GWB is like Lincoln, merely that the fact should be printed. I hope you're not betraying a bias with the above.````

An opinion section of this article.

There are some beliefs/opinions on George W. Bush that should be allowed to be expressed, so I am requesting someone to make an opinion section or allow me to without reverting it as an act of vandalism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dean2008 (talk • contribs) .

If you're looking to insert your own opinions, that's a no-no. Opinions of notable commentators ought to go in the appropriate section. android79 15:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

POV opinions have no place on Wikipedia. There are plenty of places on the web for you to express your opinion on. --Mhking 15:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, why wouldn't they? Don't take me for a real poster here, I'm just trying ton understand why we couldn't. I'm a newbie, so forgive me for asking why we couldn't have a POV SECTION on this article. --t.z0n3 11:05, 7 March, 2006 (CTL)

Well, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a message board. Encyclopedias don't have "pov sections". I am puzzled why anyone would want this; the rest of the Internet is basically one great big "pov section" already. There are fifty kajillion places to vent and give your opinion. --Ashenai 17:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a means to find pertinant information. It is a NPOV fact that many people have a strong POV about Bush. To that end, I see no reason why there could not be a section devoted to opinions. Agreed that it should focus on notable people or groups of people as opposed to any random person wanting to express/vent their personal opinion. But there should be a place for it. Binerman 02:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Then if you are going to have "opinion" section then you will have to have that exact same thing for every other page on Wikipedia. Why should only notable people or things have it? Then you turn Wikipedia into one giant board for everyone to vent about whatever they want. How are you going to regulate these opinions without regulating free speech? Just put in all negative? all positive? three of each? ETC. People come to Wikipedia to get facts for book reports and class studies, not opinions or POV. Go check out your local encyclopedias and see how much opinion and POV they put into it. KLRMNKY 11:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

F102 in Vietnam

This article says "... he was among the last to learn to fly the F-102, a plane not used in Vietnam and due to be retired." The F-102 article states otherwise, with quite a few facts regarding its roll in that conflict. Ottergoose 22:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, that is blatent POV, I suggest you add to the section, so that it might describe george bush's long and illustrious military career--152.163.100.74 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, we musn't forget to mention his defence of our homeland bars and night clubs while a member of the National Guard. He is obviously a Hero! --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe he volunteered (twice) to transfer to a combat fighter wing in Vietnam but was turned down due to lack of flight hours. --Tbeatty 01:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • What you people fail to realise is that Bush was committed to bravely defending Texas from the invading swarms of Viet Cong terrorists whose charge over the Mexican border could always have been just around the corner. 195.93.21.137 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This statement is false "the F-102, a plane not used in Vietnam" my citation is from Air War – Vietnam edited by Col. Dewey Waddell and Major Norm Wood Arno Press copyright 1978 F-102 role in South Vietnam described pages 215-216. Also page 218 showing photo of F-102 based in Thailand, photo date Sept. 20, 1968. That statement is also contradicted by Wilipedia's own history of the F-102 aircraft.

• I think it's well known the plane was used in Vietnam, I think the issue is that the plane was supposedly being phased out of use and the fact that Bush was assigned to this aircraft is regarded as odd considering it would very shortly be obsolete. 195.93.21.137 (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The snarky comments are unwarranted. In any case, the F-102 was indeed used in combat missions in Vietnam (quite a number were lost), and were still doing so when Bush signed up for the Air National Guard. Later, Bush inquired about joining the combat detachment in Vietnam, and was told only then that he had too few flying hours and that the F-102 was being withdrawn from combat anyway. So to claim (as some here are evidently intending) that he joined a unit that would never see combat, or that he actively shirked combat while in the unit, is false. — Impi 11:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Has Bush quit drinking alcohol?

The official version claims that he did so in the mid 1980s. This video strongly suggests that is a lie. [10] Please explain, if you care to do so, why this article should not be changed to say something like:

"Bush has admitted to abusing alcohol, and even though he claims to have quit drinking altogether in the mid-1980s, he seems to have relapsed at least one time since then. In Lubbock, Tex. in 1992, he attended the wedding reception of his friend Jamie Weiss. During this event he was filmed apparently consuming alcohol while already in a state strongly suggestive of inebriation. Moreover, the video shows that Bush repeatedly mocked Weiss and other individuals for not drinking alcohol, which would be strange behavior for the teetotaler he was supposed to be at the time."

Remember, history is not tantamount to a criminal trial. I certainly should not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bush drank alcohol at that party. A preponderance of evidence is more than enough to warrant mention, and any reasonable person would agree that the video provides that.

Wfgiuliano 02:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, I went and viewed the video, despite my slow, dial-up connection. I don't see that it proves much of anything. Bush's "interview" seemed obviously scripted. His speech did not appear to be slurred -- if anything, he was speaking more clearly than he sometimes does in off-the-cuff remarks made in public today. As to what's in the glass -- who knows? Ginger ale? Club soda? Bacardi 151? There is absolutely no excyclopedic value in a staged, 60 second video. Brandon39 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone living and working in downtown washington dc over the past five years knows that GW still drinks, but so what? That's his own business and not significant. There have been innumerable parties/office functions in dc during which he's been spotted with a beer. I don't think he'd ever get drunk, though. You can't be a Republican without drinking in this town.

66% of American adults drink alcohol...what's your point again??? Jeravicious 17:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

66% of all Americans aren't the head of the federal government.. what's your point? sockpuppet--152.163.100.74 01:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I echo your point. If we're looking to provide the truth here, I believe we should include this. Of course, this may mean poking around every person who claims they are sober--be it athletes, celebrities, anyone who warrants an entry on Wikipedia--but if they say it, I believe it should be examined. Politics is based on appearances, but if you're caught in a lie you are caught in a lie. And while I know it was said in jest, living in a political city and all its social implications doesn't force you to drink; addiction forces you to drink. I think this is notable and am glad it got brought up, but this in no way proves with irrefutable facts that he continues to drink. Hell, it could have been a tragice relapse from which he avowed to pursue his recovery further. But it's something good to keep in mind. Thanks for letting me put in my two cents.66.108.114.0 07:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Oceanboy

Um, this is what you call "original research." You see a picture of Bush with a glass in his hand, and begin speculations on whether the glass contains alcohol. Even the Democrats don't bother to sniff his glass. And you want to put it into an encyclopedia? -- Cecropia 07:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, but I find it interesting especially in the light of the fact that he has been so adament about giving up alcohol. Perhaps a bracketed clause ie. [A video circulated on the Internet of Bush at a 1992 Lubbock, Texas wedding in which he is rumored to have been drinking.] or something along those lines. And while yes, we didn't sniff his drink, people don't gulp the last drops of water or Sprite like Bush did in that clip. This is not being political, this is remembering events that transpired. Oceanboy66.108.114.0 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's OR, and not verifiable. We don't list every rumour about a person. That's not what encyclopedias do. You may want to try a blog of some sort. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it would be better gossip if we found out that Bush grabbed Teddy Kennedy's drink off-camera and finished it off on camera. LOL!! But I still wouldn't put either point in an encyclopedia. -- Cecropia 17:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy drinks? Is this thread closed yet? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this encyclopedia stinks of partisan chicanery just as much as DU and FreeRepublic. Take care. Oceanboy69.86.38.77 16:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

It's been more than ten days since the last test unprotect. The edit patterns of this article have been radically changed over the two months or so of semiprotection. Edit rates have plummeted, particularly in the past couple of weeks, while even with semiprotection vandalism rates have risen high again. [11] Remember that the 24% vandalism revert rate in the last column equates to approximately half of all edits being vandalism-related. That is quite close to our highest ever rates of vandalism prior to semiprotection, while at that time the incidence of editing was about ten or twenty times what it is now. So what is semiprotection doing for our article? Well it's certainly driving away all kinds of editors.

I've instituted my regular unprotect and I (or someone else) should restore semiprotection, subject to vandalism, in a few hours. It is essential that we capture this data. --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever can be said for your other points, I don't see how semiprotection drives away "all kinds of editors." -- Cecropia 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nor do I. But this seems to have happened, and the abrupt change came when semiprotection was introduced.[12] I hope that the recent extreme dip is due to some kind of seasonal factor, but it's still worrying. --Tony Sidaway 05:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to show that the vandalism didn't occur because you keep lifting the semi-protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the semiprotection is only lifted extremely sporadically, this would be very easy to show. --Tony Sidaway 08:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This was one of the reasons I opposed (and still oppose) constant semiprotection; I don't doubt that it reduces vandalism, but it also appears to lower the number of "good" edits and hinder progress on the article. Tony, I haven't spent a lot of time looking at your data, but in your opinion, from your several "tests", what is your opinion on the effect of semiprotection, judging from the data? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remove the semi-protection, which has been enabled for a week. Superm401 - Talk 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge plans

I'm planning on merging in some of the more obscure issues listed here. --James S. 05:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Obscure is right..obviously that data would be better linked from a Department of Labor info page than some private website.--MONGO 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that that's your own personal website, I'd say no. android79 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Should this be included?

miami herald BBC news reports of bush trying cricket with Inzamam-ul-Haq and Salman Butt. Quite funny too. --Hamedog^Talk|@ 11:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this [13] President is first search result under the word "failure" for Google :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It was included, and then it was removed because it someone's opinion, as well as a "Google bombing".http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/google.asp Squiggyfm 01:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment

This section is non-neutral and should be removed! There is no call for the impeachment of Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.254.254 (talk • contribs)

I don't have the time to look for it because I am just browsing right now, but you are wrong. Listen to the radio and if you do already, then I am not sure what you are listening to. I am sure several senators have called for it. If I have time I will look for info on it for you. --DyslexicAnaboko 20:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Also, that section doesn't seem to endorse it, just record it as what is happening. Just using a blog search tool that graphs the amount of discussion about it (both Technorati and BlogPulse have historical graphs) shows there is, at the least, a sharply rising interest in impeachment. --Halliburton Shill 04:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to adjust the following so that it is more a historical record than a POV attempt to discourage impeachment. From:

• However, since 1797, the House of Representatives has only impeached 16 Federal officials. Of those 16, only seven were convicted by the Senate.

To:

• Since 1797, the House of Representatives has only impeached 16 Federal officials. Of those 16, seven were also convicted by the Senate.--Halliburton Shill 04:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Great! The word "however" is POV. Kevin Baas^talk 16:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no Senator has moved to begin an impeachment process. "Calling" for impeachment can be done by anyone, Senator or otherwise, and someone has called for the impeachment of every President. Unless there is actual effort to make this happen, and not just a politician or talking head making noise on a TV show, I don't see why this is encyclopedic information.

'Tis a good point. Until you have a real political effort to move for the impeachment of Bush, it should not be included. Including it right now only adds a stink on the article about the President to his detrament, and this is an encyclopedia, not propoganda. Thge grandstanding of a few senators does not rise to the level of knowledge that should be included in an historical article at this point. Demaratus83 00:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely agree, though there are many who would disagree here, as well as at the companion articles that have been spawned from here. I've been through several conversations regarding POV on those articles, and have all but acquiesed. Mhking 01:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree.

The criteria that you set up is the beginning of the Impeachment process itself, not a movement to impeach - a movement to impeach is people and organizations trying to get the ball rolling, such that that ball ends up in the beginning of the process of impeachment. The impeachment process is not the "beginning" of a movement to impeach the president, it is the end. And therefore if one really follows your criteria then it becomes logically impossible for there to be a "movement to impeach" under any conditions, because it is over before it begins, literally.

When senators resolve to inquire then you have a resolution of inquiry.- the legal precursor to impeachment. When senators stand up and vote on whether to impeach, you have an impeachment trial. (And if a senator stands up in the middle of congressional session full of presidential sycophants and shouts "Impeach the president!", what you have is a fool.)

When half of france is revolting in the streets for want of bread, is it not yet a "movement to [remove from office the political leader]", because a member of the legislature has not stood up? Should we change the name of the article "French revolution" to something else? or is it altogether insignificant taht people were rioting in the streets? is it insignificant that according to recent polls the plurality of americans favor impeachment? does that happen every day this time of year? has it ever happened before (that is, when the president at the time was not being impeached)? Is it not interesting and important? Because that's wikipedia policy for inclusion/exclusion criteria, and it makes a whole lot of sense

Maybe we just shouldn't include it because congresss is controlled by the party of the sitting president and no democratic congressmen is stupid enough to start the process on those odds - scratch that, there have been resolutions of inquires introduced in the congress (there were some wikinews articles about it), but they got voted down by the repub majority. Is that relevant to whether or not there's a movement to impeach? No, except insofar as even your impossible criteria has been met. (unsigned)

--

My comments..While it's true that articles of impeachment have not been written yet, there is a political movement for impeachment even within Congress in its most form as an "Impeachment Inquiry." See exerpts below from [14]:

Members of US Congress demand Impeachment Inquiry

March 11, 2006 Atlanta Progressive News

30 US Reps for Bush Impeachment Inquiry

1. APN Interviews Conyers, Swanson, and Goodman By Matthew Cardinale, Editor, Atlanta Progressive News (March 10, 2006)

(APN) ATLANTA – 30 US House Representatives have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

“There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power,” US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement...

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) also released a book, Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush. The Center is extremely influential in high-profile court fights over issues such as wiretapping, the treatment of detainees by the US, and felon voting rights.

“We have the book, we are calling for the impeachment of the President, and we’re supporting Conyers’s resolution,” Bill Goodman, CCR Legal Director, told Atlanta Progressive News.

“The fraudulent basis on which the President got us into the war in Iraq; the obvious criminality of the warrantless wiretapping; indefinite detention in violation of the Constitution; torture as a part of indefinite detention and other ways; special rendition and torture, which is the outsourcing of torture... All of these violate various laws of the US, and they also violate his oath office which he swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and he’s doing just the opposite, he’s undermining the Constitution and attempting to destroy certain parts of it,” Goodman said.

Meanwhile, at least eight (8) US cities, including Arcata, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco, each in California; and Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro, Newfane, and Putney, each in Vermont, have passed resolutions calling for Bush’s impeachment.

The recent city resolutions in Vermont have directly led to US Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) having signed H. Res 635 on March 09, 2006, David Swanson, 36, Washington DC Director of ImpeachPAC, asserted in an interview with Atlanta Progressive News.

“One of the big stories here is the town resolutions helped someone sign on the resolution that could move us in the direction of impeachment. Even though getting your city or town to pass a resolution doesn’t legally force the house to impeach, it can compel your congress member to get on board,” Swanson said. Giovanni33 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see it already has it own article. Then this should only be mentioned very breifly here, if at all, and the link to the main article given. Giovanni33 06:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Measure to censure

I created the original "Measure to censure" section on March 12 2006 with the terminology used by the mainstream media networks in reporting the facts surrounding the issue. Russell Feingold introduced the censure measure in response to Bush's domestic spying program. The ambiguity in calling it the NSA warrantless surveillance in this context does not reflect the point central to Feingold's alligation, which is what he perceives to be illegal activity. The NSA warrantless surveillance article itself named properly, but all wiki links to it need not be ambiguious without regard to context. Sysrpl 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Details of Frist's claims that the censure measure is aiding the enemy, and WaPo's characterization of Feingold, both seem highly aimed at POV-presentation instead of being informative. A brief, complete discussion seems, in fact, more informative than the twin tangents prior to my edit. Thoughts? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've streamlined the WaPo commentary, but allegations by a major liberal columnist about Feingold's motives seems to me to be relevant. Brandon39 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. I believe that Milbank's allegations about Feingold's supposed motives behind his measure to censure Bush for breaking the wiretap law aren't directly relevant, as this is George W. Bush's bio article, not the 'Feingold Censure' article.

But, Feingold's own words, which Milbanks reports on the article and which you excerpted, are at least tangentially relevant for readers here. So I'm ok with leaving that section you pared down in here for now, anyway. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that in reporting moves to impeach or censure a president (any president) it is relevant to examine whether this represents a groundswell of bipartisan public opinion that could drive the president from office, a la Nixon, mere grandstanding by his political opponents, or something in between. But for the moment, we seem to have reached a truce on the issue. Brandon39 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reporting that 'presidential ambitions' perspective as one that's 'generally held' is pretty unsubstantiated. For example, another writer, in the same source (WaPo), describes Republicans (Frist, in particular) as the originators and repeaters of the 'political' motive talking point:

"Republicans seized on Feingold's presidential ambitions as the motivation behind his bid. Feingold "should be ashamed of this political ploy," said Frist, who also has presidential ambitions" [15]

Feingold's motives for introducing a resolution to censure (which, as a matter of Congressional process, is no longer 'about' his motive) are not nearly as important, for example, as the actual text of the censure. So I'd find your inclusion of this motive (and only this motive) to itself be unnecessary POV. However, as I already said, Feingold's words themselves are relevant enough for me not to decide to revert that edit. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally seconded. Partisian opponents' straw men are neither interesting nor important. Kevin Baas^talk 16:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Domestic Spying Program is loaded POV talking points. A neutral POV term, a la, NSA Surveillance Program or something similiar is needed. I added language that describes what happened (i.e. surveilling Foreign Terrorists contacting persons inside the U.S. outside the jusrisdicition of the FISA court.) --Tbeatty 06:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Surveilling Foreign Terrorists is repacking a term in an inheritantly POV way. It attempts to automatically imply that all surveillance is associated with people known to be terrorists, when the fact is that no one can be sure who is being spied upon because the root of controversy is the removal of oversight. Additionally, attempting to paint allegations as benign with the purpose of skewing any possible negative associations is POV. Further, most every major media reporting of the measure to censure by Feingold uses the term spying over surveillance by a ratio of 20:1. [16] [17] Sysrpl 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Wiki supposed to be just a wee bit more judicious (not to say accurate) than the Associated Press? --Cubdriver 09:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What am I missing here? A link to this column, with proper attribution to Dana Milbank, was removed as "POV", twice: [18], [19]. android79 20:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Third person speculations of ulterior motives are inherent POV. Sysrpl 04:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not if they're properly attributed. However, I see that this was sorted out above; I agree with its removal. android79 04:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

When the reference is attributed to a newpaper editorial (i.e. an article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers) then it's a point of view by proxy. Sysrpl 04:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, WTF? [20] [21] android79 04:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Worst Actor Razzie

I am not sure that this is note worthy, seems a bit POV as well. Thoughts? --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've been maintaining the Razzie categories for some time now (the same issue also exists with Condoleezza Rice) He did win this award, and the Razzie category is totally verifiable. I should also mention that I'm not trying to make any political statement with this category, if I person was nominated/won I include them in their category regardless of occupation. As for the issue NPOV/POV, if he won an Oscar I bet people wouldn't be editing it out...--Fallout boy 03:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think it's POV; it probably says more about the people who give out the "awards" than it does about Bush. It is a little silly and out of place, but the category would be incomplete without Bush's inclusion. android79 04:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• That's fair enough, though my first impression on seeing the category listed was that it was specifically POV. Mhking 13:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This razzie award is a joke pretty much anyway. It's not like Bush went and did a screen test and read some lines and auditioned for the part. I think inclusion of this is in poor taste for an encyclopedia article.--MONGO 14:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but to remove it breaks the purpose of categorization. Keep it. --Golbez 15:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Why catergorize him for a part he didn't deliberately take a part in? IMHO this seems completely unencyclopedic. Looks like Hall Monitor can feel safe about the 100 bucks posted to get this mess of an article to FA status...it's hopeless.--MONGO 12:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether the Razzies are a joke award or valid film criticism is subjective. Some of their politician nominations/wins were probably meant and jokes, and IMHO weren't entirely appropriate since the Razzies are supposed to dishonor acting. Then again, removing it because we disagree with them would be POV on our part.--Fallout boy 20:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you ask me, politics these days is at least 50% acting. Why else do you think Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwartzenegger got elected? If FDR ran for president today, the sad truth is he wouldn't have a prayer. It's largely about who looks better on television. So since being a politician is so dependant on image, I think a Razzie for a bad "performance" has a certain sardonic justice. -Kasreyn 10:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

And that' why it's POV. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 17:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The Academy has a lot of critical clout and has been known to make political statements before in their choices before. While the Razzies are indeed intended as a joke, it's a political jab that makes people sit up and notice. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 07:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There's an easy answer to this...just stick the reference to the award in a controversy section "President Bush has been widely criticized by...blah blah blah...including winning a Razzie award for worst actor..." Something like that. Then you get that information in there (because I do think that it makes interesting trivia) but also convey that his nomination represented expression of an opinion and a biased criticism of the president.130.71.96.23 23:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I've removed a paragraph just added by Dahveed323 as being extremely biased and not fitting with WP:NPOV. Here's the paragraph:

==Vetos== President Bush may become only the second U.S. President to forego the use of the veto throughout two terms in office. To the surprise of many, however, President Bush has threatened to use his veto power for such incredible purposes as scuttling a defense appropriation bill during wartime in order to keep out language prohibiting torture and to protect the right of a foreign government-owned company to have operational control over several major ports within the United States during a period in which port security is both grossly lacking and subject to political backlash! More suprisingly, the government in question, Dubai, was one of only three to recognize the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan and from which two of the September 11th hijackers haled.

I just wanted to bring this here for discussion. In addition to being biased, the paragraph doesn't cite any sources at all. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's worded very POV, but it has good info in it, which to my memory is accurate, esp. the piece about his veto threats. although he hasn't used the veto, he's often weilded the veto threat, and the example cited is accurate. Kevin Baas^talk 16:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the lack of sources and loaded language are more of a problem than the bias, although I grant there is anti-Bush bias there. Bush (AFAIK) did threaten to use his veto in the defense bill to prevent the inclusion of legislation prohibiting torture, but he never used it. His justification for the move was that he believed that such legislation would be used against American servicemen by anyone claiming to be tortured when they weren't. I don't believe a word he says, but that's pretty much what was reported. I'm not so sure about the factual accuracy about the Dubai issue - it sounds more like original research or even a conspiracy theory to me, but I could be wrong. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 16:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the information there may be true; I've certainly read about some of them. However, given the extreme POV wording of the paragraph along with the lack of any sources, I decided to remove it and bring it up here for discussion. Remember, this article should be as neutral as possible and as verifiable as possible, too. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the info is almost all true (UAE as 1 of 3 to recognise Taliban, origin of 2 hijackers; Bush never used veto, but threatened use) but it reeks of POV and anti-Bush bias. I thought the part about never using the veto was already included, but I'll have to check on that. It's been awhile since I've actually read this whole article. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Yep, its in the other issues section. No need for this paragraph. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow no seperate Controversy?

With the country devided then it ever was before...With a 2 trillion dollar debt...Lowest aproval rating in history, (26%)...WEll yeah..you get the idea..you would think that the would have a seperate article about Controversy..Why not?

We have dozens. Browse the category!!!!!!!!!!!1111 --Golbez 20:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Um...perhaps your comments are in jest, but if not, I'll enlighten you. The country is more divided than it ever was?? Do you know ANYTHING about the U.S. Civil War??? 2 trillion dollar debt? Where do you get your facts? The National Debt is approaching 8.5 trillion and has been rising for decades...through both Republican AND Democratic Administrations. Approval rating at 26%?? Where was that poll taken? Iran?? Please post a link... Jeravicious 17:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, national debt's been going up for years, you know, except under clinton when we had a surplus *waits for new sockpuppet to turn into a pagemove vandal like they always do*--152.163.100.74 01:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My point was that the National Debt has rising through both Republican and Democratic Administrations. 2000 and 2001 were mere blips on the National Debt radar. btw, you do realize that the National Debt and the Budget Deficit are 2 different things?? And, if you want to be specific, for 2001, during Bush's first year in office, he TOO ran a surplus. Many people don't realize or want to forget this fact. Jeravicious 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he ran an ever decreasing surplus, for a handful of months, and shortly after crossing into the red -boom- no make criticism of president during time of war for spending--205.188.116.138 05:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps you lost me...Being that we didn't go to War with Iraq until 2003, are you suggesting that the war in Afghanistan in late 2001 into 2002 was the cause of something "bad" and that if only the U.S. had not used military action there...that the debt would be in a better state. Perhaps...that's an interesting way of looking at it. Maybe if we just disban the military altogether...YES!! I follow your logic now!! Jeravicious 01:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the anon. He was referring to a study measuring the approval rating of statistics. Only 26% of people approved of statistics. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 02:26

Categories

1) The Razzie category should stay, categories are for categorization, not POV fights.

2) I moved them all to the George W. Bush category - if it exists, then why not declutter the article? --Golbez 20:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. Mirror Vax 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Views on Homosexuality and Defense of Sodomy Laws while Governor of Texas

I think Bush's views on sodomy laws deserves a mention in this article. He seems to indicate homosexuality is a sin, and he opposed attempts to repeal Texas's sodomy laws, calling them "symbolic of traditional values"

Vandalism

Well, I can't really say I'm pleased, but for once I want people to vandalize this page. No offense, Bush! Freddie 04:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The Nation's 100 Facts

I've been looking through 100 Facts and 1 Opinion from late 2004, and I noticed that several of the facts are out of date. Which need to be updated the most before being merged in? --James S. 05:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That article has more slanted POVs than an episode of The Daily Show...

The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.

"ignored"?? Purely POV. If I listen to you thoughts on a matter and then decide not to follow your advice, I didn't ignore you, I merely listened and then decided against following your advice.

Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

we were greeted as liberators...in some areas of Iraq. You and others just choose to ignore this fact. Again...POV. Jeravicious 00:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than "ignored", how about "disregarded"? It's the same point. One makes a good decision by gathering information, bot from going with some random idea based on no evidence or calculations. One has advisors to advise. One assesses and calculates in order to make plans. If you listen to my knowledge on a matter and thend decide not to take into account in your assessments. I don't care what you decide, whether you turn out to be right or wrong is all a matter of chance, which is a stupid way to make a decision. Decisions should be based on assessments and caluclations. Wisdom isn't dice.

Regarding greeted as liberators, sure some people liked us there, but the statement implied that the vast majority will like us there, where the plain fact is, every poll, every thorough measurement, shows that the vast majority want us out of their business. That's as factual as can for the information that can be gathered on such a situation. And it's certainly factual that that's what cheney said. Is it point of view that he said that? No, it's fact. It reminded you of something that you know that you don't like. But it didn't say that. You put that knowledge in there as if the writter wrote it, and then attacked the writer, when really it's you who knows it, not the writer who said it. Kevin Baas^talk 00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Kevin...Kevin...Kevin....Let me ask you this: How many people make up the Iraqi Insurgency? 25,000 by most estimates...But let's go with the "inflated" figure of 200,000 and let's also assume that all the Insurgents are Iraqi and there are no foreign fighters (which we also know is NOT true). There are 25 million Iraqis...and assuming that 200,000 are part of the Insurgency...why that means 0.8% of the Iraq people are part of the Insurgency...yes, you heard it...less than 1%... BTW, I ask anyone here: Did you support Clinton's military action against Iraq in 1998? Jeravicious 14:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't your sockpuppets ever stay banned?--152.163.100.74 01:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we end this thread? The source is POV, and the responses tend towards trolling... let's put this baby to rest. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to review the poll questions. The last one I read didn;t give a timeline. I think every Iraqi wants a soveriegn state without U.S. intervention. But if the questions is should the U.S. leave now the answer is no. Everyone, including the Bush Administration wants an Iraq that supports it's own democracy and doesn't require a permanent occupation force. No one wants anarchy or dictatorship or Saddamists running the country. Every poll in every country would most likely show that they a) want autonomy and b) want peace. I'm glad the polls show Iraq wants their own democracy but they need to be put in perspective when it relates to the occupation. --Tbeatty 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Useless?

Hello. Please excuse me if I formatted this addition incorrectly. I've never written on a Wikipedia talk page, and was confused. I think your even trying to mainatin a wiki page on President Bush was hopeless from the beginning. As a current president, how can anyone see Mr. Bush and anything he's done in office with the measure of objectivity provided by historical distance? The vandalism and the depth of the sniping--i.e., it's even on the talk page itself--should have been expected. Vandals vandalize the page, and anti-vandals vandalize the vandals. Round and round it goes. You writers are wasting your time here. If I had been in charge of Wikipedia, I wouldn't have bothered with this topic. 68.99.211.67 03:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Joshua Knape

Well, as an encyclopaedia it's our responsibility to try, even if failure seems certain. Ingoolemo ^talk 03:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, no one is in charge of Wikipedia (although some people's opinions get more respect than they should). Second of all, this is critical information. Wikipedia is an information source, and as such should provide people with things they need to know about anything significant. Will this article change in the future as we gain historical perspective? Of course. But that's no reason to ignore the topic altogether until then, especially with a topic that so many people want and need to know about. --Kahlfin 21:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please add: link to Occitan wiki

Please add the link to the Occitan article [[oc:George Walker Bush]]. Thank you Joao Xavier 01:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The link has already been added in. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

I noticed most of the people who opposed this article to become a featured article opposed because it has been vandalized so much so it would attract more vandalism. We are giving up to the vandals by doing that. We might as well give up and leave this encyclopedia if its vandals can control an article becoming a featured article. We are giving them too much power. I think we should nominate it again to be a featured article to stop vandals from having a choice. Tim Q. Wells 23:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Not now. There were several objections about the prose of the article, which still needs fixing. The vandalism magnet isn't an actionable objection, in my opinion, but the rest should be fixed before trying. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding interwiki link

Since the page is blocked, could someone please add LB to the interwiki list ? '''[[lb:George W. Bush]]

Thanks

Briséis

Done. --W.marsh 00:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush, gotta love him

Oil profit for wealthy oil companies from Iraqi oil: 15.4 Billion (+)

U.S. soldiers dead: 2,300 (+)

U.S. taxes: more and more being allocated to Iraq

Iraqi dead: tens of thousands (+)

WMD: 0

Years: 3 (+)

Bush's 'expected' troop removal date: 2009 (+)

Money spent to fight Osama (a KNOWN terrorist): Pennies relative to the Billions upon BILLIONS upon hundreds of BILLIONS of the AMERICAN wealth spent on fighting Iraq, not connected to terrorism.

Insurgents who are rebels who would never have even thought about terrorists like attack had we not invaded their country: Thousands (+)

Number of global protesters: More then history has ever known

Illegal spying

Torture

Propaganda and PR games

Cultural ignorants towards Islam and other cultures fostered.

Forced Americanization

Forced westernization

Massive world CONTROL deemed as the method to end terrorism.

Nations being fought rather then attempting to fight terorist organizations directly.

No justified reason to attack Iraq.

A president and an administration who HAPPEN to be connected directly and 'indirectly' to the oil company which is making all the wealth on Iraqi oil.

A president and an administration who happened to get filthy rich through Bush's tax cuts early on.

etc. etc. etc.

Do the math, what do you get?

This has nothing to do with the article. --Golbez 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OOOHHHHH I know - let me guess! An editor bent on introducing POV in an article???!??!? Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 20:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Re-elected? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh. -- Cecropia 20:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

yeah not so funny if you live in the US. --kizzle 03:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked over this article well yet, but I hope that some of the above relevant facts are mentioned in this article. Giovanni33 03:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Doing the math, I get 42... does anyone get anything different? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Bush is 43... Clinton was actually 42. :-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thes entinal's edits

Reverted edits as follows:

1. the comments on Bush's national guard service are duplicative of the main article on that subject, which is linked to;
2. the additions on AIDS, etc., are a POV evaluation of policy. -- Cecropia 20:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I heartily disagree. First, the national gurard service section ended with his discharge, seemingly a summary or conclusion of the matter. No other details were given. The summary given is just that, a summary, of what the subheading is about. It was two sentences, hardly a duplicate of the full article.

The AIDS changes were factual. Congress did not approve 15 billion, it was never asked to. Bush promise 15 billion, 3 per year for 5 years, but requested less. I could go on. The edits were fair and factual, I encourage you to look them up. They do not deviate from standard Wikipedia protocol. ---thes_entinel 142.157.145.5 (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Richard Nixon

Shouldn't the article make some mention of the fact that Bush has done more that any other Republican to rehabilitate the image of Richard Nixon, namely by making him look like a master statesman and a man of integrity, and making everyone nolstagic for his period in office? 195.93.21.137 (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No Brandon39 04:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, my history textbooks have always called nixon a master statesman and a man of integrity, much in the same way that they call reagan an all american hero who single handedly defeated the evil empire by sheer force of will, I blame the liberal media for revising history in a way that makes it *look* like the two of them were crooks, much like it has done to george bush, hopefully some day a history text will be written that can see through the pack of lies put out by the liberal media, and can show his true roll as savior of the human race--205.188.116.138 05:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I still reckon Bush is helping Nixon look like a pretty good President even in the eyes of the liberals. That's no mean feat. What Bush needs is for Santorum to become President in 2008, and they'll all be begging the Shrubster to return. 195.93.21.137 (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush's Wealth

I noticed this article completely ignores the issue of Bush's wealth, a major flaw in that: (1) Bush is one of our wealthiest presidents and (2) many writers have raised serious and troubling questions as to how he came by this wealth (outside of being born into a rich and powerful family). Amazingly, this article doesn't even mention the fact that much of Bush's wealth was essentially handed to him in the highly controversial Ballpark in Arlington deal. Despite the fact that Bush had no business track record (and indeed had seen all the companies he was in charge of go bankrupt), Bush was selected by his father's friend, billionaire Richard Rainwater, to get a large chunk of The Ballpark deal, a sweetheart deal that brought Bush $15 million (which was entirely paid for by the taxpayers of Arlington, Texas).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.103.223 (talk • contribs)

Bush is not a crook. He's earned everything he's got. Seriously though, if you find sources for all that stuff then it sounds worth including. 195.93.21.137 (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I did once try to include a reference to prescott bush's finances, and much of bush's inherited wealth, apparently since the seizure of presoctt's fincances by the US gov is a liberal plot/conspiracy, my edits were reverted, and the war seizures controversies section was promptly deleted, from prescott bush never to return again, so long story short, stop hating america you unamerican! lol, funnier if i didn't live here--172.160.151.140 17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh would you look at that, Prescott_Bush#War_seizures_controversy grew back after all these months, guess it wasn't a wacky liberal conspiracy after all--172.160.151.140 17:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"many writers have raised serious and troubling questions as to how he came by this wealth" ROFLMAO. "troubling questrions" in politikspeak means "Yay! I think I've found some great dirt!" And a little grotesque, considering the person who ran against Bush in 2004 would have been the wealthiest President of the U.S. ever, and he got a lot of his money "the old fashioned way": he married into it. Twice. -- Cecropia 17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the question was being asked by a strawman/troll, what do you expect? I think all that matters here is that John Kerry was grotesquely horrific president, who kills kittens with his bare hands, then eats them--64.12.117.13 17:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I think John Kerry is the worst president in the history of america--64.12.117.13 17:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

erase trolling You may have noticed, but this page comes up whenever you google "George W. Bush", it's always attracted the attention of random trolls, always has, always will, I just want to fit in--64.12.117.13 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the kittens, maybe if they were served with brie and a nice reduction of veal stock. But we do know that he shot geese in order to look like a rough tough real man in the last campaign, but when the camera rolls, someone else is carrying the geese so we don't have a picture of him carrying dead geese. Very politically incorrect. -- Cecropia 18:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Cecropia seems to have problems with Kerry's wealth, but, like most fanatical, rabid Bush supporters, he has no problem with Bush's wealth. I will admit: both men are wealthy. I have no problem with rich people in general. However, I do have a problem with a rich person like Bush, whose wealth came from taxpayers. I think this sweetheart deal (in which millions were essentially stolen from the taxpayers and given to Bush and his rich friends) really ought to be mentioned in this article. This article is so sanitized and pro-Bush that it reads like a press release faxed over by Karl Rove---in fact, I'd bet money that it was.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.103.223 (talk • contribs)

Cecropia, I think you are being unfair to Teresa-Heinz Kerry. I remember when some details of her taxes came out in the fall of 2004, we learned that she and John Kerry filed separate tax returns. He didn't marry her money. She remains in control of it. IIRC her net wealth was 17 times his. A lot, but a lot less than one would have imagined from the accounts of their wealth discrepancy. Yours is an unfair description. As for who was the wealthiest President ever, wouldn't that have been George Washington, who was, arguably, the wealthiest man in America? Highly recommended reading, George Washington's Expense Account, and The Making of the President, 1789, by Marvin Kitman. -- Geo Swan 21:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, but you're a strawman so we ignore you, FYI I don't think Cecropia is a bush supporter at all, unless I'm reading this wrong, also, sign --~~~~ your posts--64.12.117.13 18:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And yes of course it's sanatized, it's and encylopedia, not a blog, not to mention political articles are usually staked out by at least one or two interns for xyz political campaign anyway, so it's not worth the fight/editwarring, you should see the bit about having to block the US congress from editing. they literally had to block the entire congressional ip block, LOL--64.12.117.13 18:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't trolling, I know I called him a failed businessman but that's hardly controversial, he wasn't a successful businessman by any stretch of the imagination. I was just pointing out that if these allegations have some substance, they should be included. I know there are questions over his wealth but I had never heard about allegations about public money. If these things can be sourced and are credible and Bush really was paid a substantial amount of taxpayer's money then it is significant and I think it should be included, it's information that people might want to know about. If it's dubious and unsubstantiated then it shouldn't. The whole thing about Kerry is irrelevant - we all know he married into money but that has nothing to do with Bush and marrying into money is hardly the same as getting a large slice of taxpayers money. Surely the whole point of a NPOV is that while there should be no bias against the subject, you don't just leave stuff out that puts the subject in a negative light either if it's accurate and relevant. If it's nonsense, then forget it. --195.93.21.137 00:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush & science

I have update the article to include a condensed version of the following paragraph from the primary article Domestic policy of George W. Bush as showh below:

On February 18, 2004, the scientific watchdog group the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report entitled Scientific Integrity in Policymaking. [31][32] Included was a statement "opposing the Bush administration's use of scientific advice." The report alleged that "the Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important for our collective welfare" and "has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy" to an extent that is "unprecedented." The report has been signed by over 7,000 scientists, including 49 Nobel laureates, 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, 154 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

Given that this is a report signed by quite a large number of scientists I think it needs to be mentioned in the this article. If you feel by condensation misses something, go ahead and approve it but please don't remove it without explaining why first... Nil Einne 17:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• from now on, why don't you keep your 'improvments' to yourself, and we'll stick to verifiable facts here thank you very much--Capitalister 19:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Union of Concerned Scientists strikes me as a notable group on first impression, so I do not think that its removal from the article is justified. Andries 20:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And I don't think adding them was justified at all, even if they share your POV, 7000 people, vs the millions of taxpayers who obviously don't share that opinion, gee, what do you think we should do?--Capitalister 20:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true that in Wikipedia majority views have majority space, but a majority here is not formed by the number of votes or adherents, but by informed opinion. Andries 20:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And what makes you feel that your opinion is the 'informed' one?--Capitalister 20:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am quite uninformed about Bush, but I think that the scientists have an informed opinion. I understand that you are quite new to Wikipedia and I suggest you start editing less controversial and less well developed articles and after that come back editing this article. Andries 20:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The report shows up as a verifiable fact, the article addition fairly notes the concerns expressed, and is appropriate as illustrating opposition to Bush's policies. I find your stridency disturbing. Shenme 20:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point Capitalister. I really don't see how letting the quote stand, in its entirety, fully elaborating on what he said, is mocking [22]. It reinforces that he was not just expressing some blah opinion, but, in the context, a definite advocacy.

Also, I would think the word 'controversial' is not 'wrong', as a high-ranking government official expressing religion-based advocacy _is_ controversial. These are my reasons for reverting two (of the four) parts of your last edit. Shenme 21:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Union of Concerned Scientists are a bunch of liberal kooks, doubtless a front for the international communist conspiracy. How dare these so-called scientists presume to know more about science than all those millions of Republican voters! 195.93.21.137 (Talk) 2006-03-25 16:23:15

I reverted the statement 'leftist' Union of Concerned Scientists. Other than disagreeing with Bush's environmental policy, I don't see support for this term. I don't think that the fact that the UCS and people with liberal political beliefs have environmental protection as an issue of major interest means that the UCS has a political leaning. Antonrojo 04:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is fine to list the UCS. But it needs to be clear that they are a political advocacy group that leans left in what they advocate. Not only is it Kyoto and Global Warming but they are ideologically opposed to tax credits more than they are for Hybrid Automobiles. They received a "radical left" rating from the Capital Research Center [23]. I will simply include this link with the label. --Tbeatty 05:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not a reputable source. Kevin Baas^talk 05:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin Bass that the characterization "radical left" does not belong in this article. I think that what Kevin meant by "not reputable" is that Capital Research Center itself has a strong POV. Thus including any characterization from Capital Research in this article would be a violation of NPOV. - Hayne 05:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

UCS has a strong POV. I would argue that if Capital Research can't be listed in the article becuase of NPOV issues, than neither can UCS. But the policy is that Wikipedia is NPOV, not the sources. It is okay to present the opinion of UCS (and Capital Research) but it is important to recognize and cite their particular POV when they are referenced. This is a political page. George W. Bush has a POV. UCS has a POV. Capital Research has a POV. To be balanced, they need to be documented and other POV need to listed. UCS cannot simply be listed a neutral, unbiased, group expounding scientific fact. They are no such thing. --Tbeatty 06:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't a reputable source? Why is it less reputable than UCS? IS there a list of these sources? --Tbeatty 05:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To add to what Antonrojo said, scientists around the world are in strong consensus that climate change is a pressing issue. It's a plain fact of the scientific data that has been gathered. The union of concerned scientist doesn't represent any real deviation from scientists in general. So they report their scientific findings. Does that make them liberal? if so then all scientists, then science in general, is liberal - which is odd because the scientific method has nothing to do with politics. except insofar as philosophers such as john dewey would argue that it's a sound basis for political decisions. - the only thing notable about the union of concerned scientist in their deviation from nonmember scientists, is that they agree w/dewey on this. Now re-read the website with that as a frame of context. Kevin Baas^talk 05:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Climate change is a pressing issue. This was a statement about the Bush Adminstrations use of Science. If it was jsut Climate change, it should be moved to the section on Climate change. Science isn't biased. But advocacy groups are. UCS is a political group. The give political contributions overwhelmingly to the left. I give the example of tax credits for Hybrid Car development. The UCS opposed it. How is that possible that they would oppose a purely political decision, especially one that helps advance one of their core beliefs? Answer: Because they are ideologically opposed to tax cuts. Even tax cuts that help what they claim is their number one priority. It isn't bad that they are left, but it is a disservice to ignore their ideologogy when we cite them as a NPOV source. THey are not NPOV and that needs to made clear or their reference removed. --Tbeatty 05:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

When one cites sources that are POV, it is policy that the source is clearly qualified in the article (such as "the right-wing group y calls x group "radical left"). But in this case, even this is bad form because it is clear that the site you sourced has a rhetorical agenda to classify things this way for political propaganda purposes, and "the right-wing group" doesn't clearly inform the reader of this.

And regarding your opinion about the UCS (if that honestly is your opinion), lacking any kind of significant evidence of popular (even if minority) support for the idea, it is original research, or, at best, fringe. Kevin Baas^talk 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please. There is plenty of sources including neutral media sources that refer to UCS as "liberal" or "left-wing". IT is simply a POV source. That doesn't mean it can't be used, they are titled to their opinion, too but they need to be identified so as not to confuse them with scientific fact. They are an advocacy group and that means, by definition, they have a POV. I don't even think UCS would argue their liberal POV. This shouldn't be that hard to understand or that controversial.--Tbeatty 17:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That does not neccessarily follow. It is a logical fallacy that is really clouding your judgement on this issue. There are many non-partisan advocacy groups. Advocacy groups, in general, advocate an idea or a philosophy, such as government policy based on science, they do not advocate a party, and any correlation of their advocay with a party's voting pattern is coincidental. correllation does not imply causation. that's another logical fallacy. Kevin Baas^talk 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say 'partisan', I said POV. Advocacy by definition is POV. I don't think UCS is partisan in the sense of being 'Democrat'. They have a liberal or leftis POV on the issues they advocate. From the environment to nuclear energy to anti-biotics in livestock. They take overwhelmingly leftist policy positions. --Tbeatty 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have two versions. One that characterizes UCS as simply "radical left" with a reference to who claims that they are. The other is a sentence that more clearly states who thinks UCS is "radical left". Personally I think that the sentence is more balanced. UCS should not be presented as a NPOV of source. They are not AP. They need a tag to let the reader know that this is political opinion and not scientific fact.--Tbeatty 06:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the language the press used. "the Union of Concerned Scientists, a liberal advocacy group" [24] --Tbeatty 06:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

UCS is NPOV with regard to the very topic at issue: science. It is not political opinion that the administration has distorted and suppressed scientific fact, it is common knowledge (to most people) backed up by documentary evidence. I imagine there are multiple examples in the domestic policy subarticle, and if you do a little research you might learn more about it. It is a fact as plain as day. And although you might have different opinions regarding the value of scientific research for policy decisions, and/or the value of the government presenting it accurately and uninhibited (which scientists themselves, ofcourse, would be the best judge of), well you're entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. The UCS does not have a political bias. Logical conjecture based on empirical measurements (i.e. science) tend to strongly support certain certain ideological positions considered liberal. That is no fault of the scientists, or the UCS in particular, and it does not make them liberal. If anyone or thing is to called "innately liberal" in this whole process, it's the empirical world; the earth itself, and it's pretty absurd to think that the earth has an ideological stance. It doesn't have that freedom. Kevin Baas^talk 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The topic at hand is did Bush manipulate science for political gain. That is inherently a POV premise. IT is certainly NOT common factual knowledge but rather a matter of opinion. It's like the argument of whether he increased arsenic in drinking water. The short answer is no. Drinking water has the same levels and rules regarding arsenic as when he took office (maybe even less). But the political answer depends on where you stand. He did not implement the plan that Clinton had started which called for reductions over a number of years. Is that an increase? I guess it depends on your POV. To claim that political policy is "scientific fact" stands science on it's head. I'll give you an example of a complaint in the report: the EPA was looking at lead reductions. It looks like the panel was going to recommend reductions. The HHS director replaced two scientists with two other scientists and the panel decided not to ask for reductions. There is no question about the credentials of any of the scientists. So how is it not a political opinion when two scientists differ from two other scientists about science? This is all POV and is what politics is all about. This has nothing to do with absolute facts but rather a dispute over how to solve specific problems in the political arena. UCS advocates liberal solutions. There are other scientists who advocate conservative ones or who simply disagree with the liberal ones. You may have a particular opinion about scientific solutions to social problems that you believe is absolutely correct and undeniable fact. But that is your POV and opinion. It shouldn't make it into the encyclopedia when just as valid opinions disagree from yours. If UCS agrees with you, that's great. But it doesn't change the fact that it's POV. --Tbeatty 07:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And btw, have you even read the report? Kevin Baas^talk 06:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Parts of it. Enough to know that it is a political document and not a scientific one. Compaining about which scientist are on panels is inherently POV and poltiical. When it gets published in "Nature", I'll take more notice of it's scientific value.--Tbeatty 07:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another example. From the UCS sign-on statement:

In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

But here's the report from the CIA that was provided Congress:

All intelligence experts agreed that Iraq remained intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and that these tubes, if modified, could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assessed this to be the intended use, but some believed that these tubes were probably intended for use as casings for tactical rockets.[25]

So what exactly did the Bush Administration ignore? It certainly wasn't the dual-use. The CIA clearly showed two opinions regarding aluminum tubes. The didn't disregard anything as can clearly be seen. The experts disagreed. Disagreement is routine in science. --Tbeatty 18:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that in this case (read the details in the UCS report: [26]) it seems that there was a large body of evidence for hypothesis A and very little or none for hypothesis B. The UCS report was complaining about the dismissal of hypothesis A in Powell's speech as something put forward by "other experts and the Iraqis" without any mention of the preponderance of evidence. This is similar to what has happened with environmental questions. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that man-made contributions to global-warming are a large part of the observed and predicted climate change. But a few others support "hypothesis B" which is more in tune with what the administration would find politically desirable. So they say that it needs more study, experts disagree, etc. It's called cherry picking. - Hayne 19:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no "preponderance of the evidence" nor is there any proof of how many believe what or if this is really relevant at all. The point is that a number of experts looked at it and some disagreed. The adminstration did not "disregard the contrary assessment." In fact they noted it. The CIA weighed it and decided that Aluminum tubes were for enrichment but they also couched it with their internal disagreement. Both opinions were presented and policy was decided. But UCS also shows their agenda by not fully representing what the adminsitration said. They are an advocacy organization with a political viewpoint.--Tbeatty 20:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then science as a whole is doomed! Not fully representing what the administration said? Is it their job to represent what the administration said? No. It is the admininistration's job to fully (and accurately) represent what scientists say. And the UCS is simply stated the administration is not doing their job, which it clearly isn't. The CIA noted it as a "Contrary opinion", when, in fact, it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of evidence. They should have based their conclusion on the preponderance of the evidence, which in this case came from Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories. The CIA should have been a footnote. And furthermore, Bush presented the case as if there was no internal disagreement - bush did not present the scientific reality of the situation, rather he has consistently cherry-picked, which is the extreme opposite of science, and makes a mockery of it when done in its name, and any self-respecting scientist would have a serious problem with that. That's what the UCS is here: self-respecting scientists who don't like being pissed on. Kevin Baas^talk 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Baas^talk 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. UCS has never represented that ALL Los Alamos, Livermore, and Oak Ridge scientists were all in agreement. Neither did the CIA. The administration clearly said that some experts believed the aluminum tubes were not for enrichment. Other scientists DID believe that they were for enrichment. Those scientists may have also come from the national labs. They certainly came from the CIA. In the CIA, a majority of experts believed they were enrichment. It is disingenuous for UCS to represent that scientists views were disregarded. Scientists came to different, opposing conclusions and the Administration listed those opposing views and chose one to form policy around. Contrary to UCS which only listed their one sided view. UCS is liberal advocacy organization and it is not sruprising that they do this. --Tbeatty 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument. Kevin Baas^talk 22:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be "making things up out of whole cloth" in order to support your (pre-)conclusions about the UCS and what they said about the aluminum tubes issue. Maybe you haven't read the Wikipedia article about the aluminum tubes (Aluminum tubes) where the excerpt from the DOE report makes it clear that there was not disagreement among the DOE scientists. And see weapons expert David Albright's "Institute for Science and International Security" report: [27] where he notes that "the DOE has virtually the only expertise on gas centrifuges and nuclear weapons programs in the United States government". The relevant experts agreed. It is the DOE experts who were understandably perturbed when their report was not considered more relevant than the speculations of CIA agents. - Hayne 22:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does imply there was disagreement within DOE. In fact the view was the the aluminum tubes were very suitable for enrichment. The question was whether their primary purpose was for nuclear weapons. SOme believed it was, other believed it wasn't. All believed they COULD be used and they were a violation of the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology (you can guess why high strength aluminum tubes are a restricted item around the world). Some at the DOE (and CIA) didn't believe they were primarily for centrifuges because they didn't fit the known centrifuges that Iraq had. The disagreement is exclusively about what their primary purpose was. I hardly see how that even fits a scientific analysis. It is opinion about intended use. The Scientific Opinion is that these tubes could be used for enrichment. That is not disputed. --Tbeatty 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents

The Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents have been making the news recently. The documents were seized in Iraq and Afghanistan and show a confirmed operational link between Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorists, including al-Qaeda. The documents also discussed Saddam's ongoing effort to seek nuclear weapons and a plan by Abu Zubaydah, a top-ranking al-Qaeda operative, to deliver a nuclear weapon inside the United States. These documents strongly support President Bush's reason for invading Iraq and a discussion of the documents belongs in the Introduction of the article.RonCram 15:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No they don't. This isn't the 'Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda' article. This is President Bush's bio. And the documents simply do not 'show a confirmed operational link' as you claim. The documents, many almost a decade old, are now being pushed to right-wing blogs solely by GOP talking point distributors such as Stephen Hadley and Michael Barone - without regard for the fact that they simply don't contain any of the proof being claimed. For example:

"Negroponte's office, under pressure from conservatives including Republican lawmakers, decided in recent days to set up a process for the material's release, which is expected to take months.

"Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania and Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Republicans who lobbied for the data's release, said it was important that the information be made available quickly to the public, including political "blogs."

""We're hoping to unleash the power of the Internet, unleash the power of the blogosphere, to get through these documents and give us a better understanding of what was going on in Iraq before the war," said Hoekstra, chairman of the House of Representatives' Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. [28]

As John Avarosis put it:

"The new documents, released today by the Bush administration, are maybe, but maybe not, real Iraqi government documents that we found in Iraq. The Bush administration can't vouch for the documents' authenticity or the accuracy of the translations from Arabic, but they're releasing them anyway in the hopes that - get this - right-wing blogs can help them prove their case that Saddam had WMD and ties to Al Qaeda. "Yes, it's come to that. Bush is now relying on Michelle Malkin's keen intelligence skills to prove the case for war in Iraq." [29]

And in that Yahoo article, which reads in part:

"One synopsis described a series of Iraqi documents as "Iraqi intelligence correspondence concerning the presence of al Qaeda members in Iraq," adding there were exchanges between intelligence service members about a suspicion that was later confirmed of the presence of an al Qaeda group in the country. [30]

So for example, this excerpt shows that Saddam's intelligence service was suspicious Al Qaeda could have been in Iraq - it doesn't show a link, or collusion at all!

Let's try and keep the propaganda off Wikipedia, and concentrate on what's been proven - ok Ron? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, you really need to stay up to date on the release of documents before you post. If you had bothered to read the link, you would know that one of the documents discusses the claim Abu Zubaydah made to Iraqi officials that he would be able to sneak a nuclear weapon inside the borders of the U.S. Abu Zubaydah was a high ranking al-Qaeda official. The goal of a nuclear attack on the U.S. was shared by both Iraq and al-Qaeda. Many more documents are coming out. Your effort to just delete any entry that mentions the documents is nothing more than vandalism. Wikipedia editors who wish to censor this topic will not be successful. Do you really want to be on that side? RonCram 20:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"'Cry Censorship' and let slip the hyenas of psyops." Please substantiate your claims with fact. You've not provided any FACT, just links to decades-old documents newly released to the right-wing blogosphere, that simply do not substantiate the claims accompanying them. There is no substantiation to the documents, no substantiation to the claims within, and no proof whatsoever that these translations or reports are accurate. Wikipedia is not a right-wing propaganda vehicle. Bring proof, and that's one thing - you've brought no proof. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the new facts are that the operational link between Al Qaeda and Iraq went all the way up to Sadaam Hussein. The 9/11 commission had already linked Al Qaeda and Iraq (but not to 9/11 or Hussein). Their inclusion is certainly warranted. The account is factual and as long as the sources are provided it seems they should be included. --Tbeatty 20:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's simply incorrect. There have been NO citations providing proof that the documents demonstrate such a link. Provide it - I've got no objection - but right now, there have been only links to lists of documents, blogs or other reports that have no substantiation. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Ron, on two things: (1) This is the Bush bio page. The claims about the OIF documents are totally irrelevant here. (2) There is no evidence whatsoever that the Abu Zubaydah statement has anything to do with Iraq. The Iraqis were keeping tabs on terrorist groups, we know that, and even infiltrating them sometimes; it is not unusual that they would have copies of statements from terrorist leaders. Zubaydah was arrested in Pakistan, and he had ATM cards (which we never bothered to trace in time, by the way) from banks in Dubai and Riyadh. So there are at least three countries that he is directly tied to a lot closer than Iraq. Why don't you put that claim on the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia pages? Like I said elsewhere, let us know when you translate the document. As for Tbeatty's claim above, it is totally unsubstantiated (and it certainly doesn't belong on the Bush page even if it were).--csloat 20:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)