Talk:Bill Clinton/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Ricky Ray Rector

I was wondering if mentioning Clinton presiding over Ricky Ray Rectors' execution would be signifigant enough/NPOV material. It made a big impact on the 1992 Presidential Election and Clinton personally. Zenosparadox 03:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Impeachment Spin-off article?

I just started to edit the Ken Starr/impeachment section, as it seems to me to lack several important elements. However, I realized that the section could easily become longer than the rest of the article combined. On the other hand, the entire impeachment section is at present shorter than the discussion of typefaces in the Killian memos article. Does anyone object to spinning off a longer subarticle on impeachment, to be linked from the main Clinton article. This would have the advantage of removing some detail from the main page, while more fully exploring the issue elsewhere. Wolfman 22:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Same with the pardons. This level of extreme detail is simply not appropriate for an overall biography of Bill Clinton. The detail is appropriate for an article on the FALN pardons, and in fact more detail would be useful in that case. Wolfman 19:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
pardons done, linked under Pardongate. also, weird UFO thing spunoff (not sure I understand that one). Wolfman 20:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, no one has objected in almost 3 months. So, I'll spin off an impeachment article sometime during the holidays. Wolfman 05:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. moved excess detail on impeachment and other scandals to relevant sub-articles. they will have room to grow there without swamping the main biography article. Wolfman 21:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Clinton's Impeachment (only two Presidents impeached) belongs up front, with ample discussion of republican attacks and democratic defenses to follow below. You can't omit that he was impeached, dingbats!

The Pardons of FALN

Since it keeps being taken down from the Pardon section of this page, I thought I'd throw it up here. Now prove that any of the statements in it are factually incorrect. In August 11, 1999, Clinton pardoned 16 FALN terrorists. FALN had been responsible for 130 bombings in the United States between 1974 and 1983. Although he held meetings with supporters of the prisoners, he refused to see any of the victims or survivors of the terrorist bombings. Because of these actions and the FBI publicly stating that the 16 people were "terrorists", U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter. The Justice Department prevented the FBI from testifying at the hearings. The White House also invoked executive privilege during the hearings.

  • If you had a list of names, and some sort of documentation for this charge, it could be included, but this bald statement with no proof raises suspicions. RickK`

Well, I tried. I expanded the FALN, named names and sourced it. I tried to keep it a short little note, with no opinions (notice that I did not point out that it stategically helped Sen. Clinton when she ran for her office since that is an opinion, not a fact). But apparently, you people are so pro-Clinton that facts that he pardoned 16 terrorists should not be heard by anyone. No I didn't make the story up (in fact, it was big news at the time, if you people ever opened up a newspaper). So here's the full section that I put up this morning and has been removed once again, even though nothing has been disputed as a fact, except that it sounds suspicious (note that at least three of the sources are GOVERNMENT websites): On August 11, 1999, Clinton pardoned 16 FALN members (a terrorist organization responsible for 130 bombings in the United States between 1974 and 1983): Edwin Cortes, Elizam Escobar, Alberto Rodriguez, Alejandrina Torres, Ricardo Jimenez, Carmen Valentin, Carlos Alberto Torres, Juan Segarra Palmer, Antonio Camacho Negron, Luis Rosa, Oscar Lopez Rivera, Dylcia Pagan, Adolfo Matos, Alicia Rodriguez, Ida Luz Rodriguez, Oscar López Rivera and Antonio Camacho Negrón.[1] Of the 16, eleven of them were immediately released from prison, with nine returning to Puerto Rico and two returning to Chicago. Roberto Maldonado-Rivera and Norman Ramírez-Talavera were already free, but had their fines removed. Oscar López Rivera and Antonio Camacho Negrón rejected their commutations, which included a written statement to swear off violence. Although he held meetings with supporters of the prisoners, he refused to see any of the victims or survivors of the terrorist bombings. These victims and survivors felt that this violated the Victim's Rights and Restitution Act of 1990. Because of these actions and the FBI publicly stating that the 16 people were "terrorists", U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter. The Justice Department prevented the FBI from testifying at the hearings.[2] President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group. With a 311 to 41 vote, the House of Representatives voted to condemn Clinton for the clemency of terrorists [3]; with a 95 to 2 vote, the Senate also condemned Clinton for his actions.[4]

What are you talking about? Your material is still in the article. I edited it, but all the important material is still there. Wolfman 18:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See my comment above about spinoffs. Wolfman 19:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chiefs of Staff

As president, Clinton was characterized as being a much more "hands on" president than some of his Republican predecessors. While Bush and Reagan had operated under what some critics dubbed an Imperial Presidency of bureaucratic "courtiers," Clinton had much more fickle relationships with his aides, and did not delegate them significant powers. He went through four White House Chiefs of Staff — a record number of men in a position that had once been the epicenter of the Imperial Presidency.

For the record, Ronald Reagan also had four chiefs of staff. This strikes me as a weak support - although I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the characterization. Mackensen 18:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Fickle" doesn't sound NPOV to me. RickK 19:17, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

nanotechnology

a third of the clinton's legacy section is about nanotechnology. what? is that a widely held view? Wolfman 06:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

When I first checked this site out, Bill Clinton had an extensive foreign policy section. I come back some time later for some research, and it's all gone. So from memory, I tried to piece together what I knew of his foreign policy, and now it's gone too. Partisan politics? Einlanzer

I have no idea. What exactly got removed that you are concerned about, and when? I recently removed an incorrect assertion about Clinton sending troops to Somalia (Bush I sent them) and an undocumented claim that Clinton had no interest in capturing Bin Ladin. Is that what you're on about? Wolfman 00:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I checked the edit history back to 2001 and didn't notice a Foreign Policy section. About when did you see one? Wolfman 00:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2001? I could have sworn there was one. I remember reading (and this how I was able to piece together what I put) stuff about it. Anyways, be nice if people could add more to the section. I need lots of info for a paper.
Well, I may have missed it. I just glanced through the edit summaries, and didn't notice it. That's why I was wondering about when you recall seeing it. You might find this google search helpful in you paper research. Wolfman 04:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There's five (short) paragraphs in the article--I started copyediting them a couple nights ago, but only got through the first two. Could do with some fattening up, since that's a lot of info to cover in eight years (or maybe a separate article is in order?) Antandrus 04:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

His name

On page 4 and line 5 of first chapter in My Life,the book by Bill Clinton we can see: My mother named me William Jefferson Blythe III after my father, William Jefferson Blythe Jr. and etc. in the article was Blythe IV and I fixed it.--Sina 09:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That conflicts with the biography on the official White House site. I always thought he was IV. Who's right? Mackensen (talk) 03:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Encarta says he's the IV: [5] Mackensen (talk) 04:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But He know his own name better than Encarta!!His autobiography is better refrence than Encarta.What he say about himself is important!--Sina 10:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oddly enough he appears to be the 3rd in recent generations with that name, but his father went by III, and his grandfather by II. His great-grandfather was named Henry. I'm guessing that there's another William Jefferson on up the line somewhere, accounting for the grandfather's 'II' rather than 'Jr.' [6] There appears to be lots of evidence on Google that he was born a IV, and his father was a III. It's not necessarily the case that he even knows the book says III. Lot's of it is probably ghost-written, and then editors and factchecker and typesetters have a go at it. Wolfman 00:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On a side note about the authority of autobiographies, there was a similar dispute over Nancy Reagan, as she was known to lie about her age publicly, and even in one of her autobiographies. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:35, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
The third paragraph on the biography page at www.whitehouse.gov says he's William Blythe IV. Whitehouse.gov is about as authoritative as you're going to get on this sort of thing.
Please do not change his birth name without any discussion in Talk Page. We have agreed that his autobiography My Life is more acceptable refrence than any other.--Sina 20:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sina, I don't know what version of My Life you have, but in MY version, he says he was born William Jefferson Blythe IV, after his father, William Jefferson Blythe III. Please let his true name of the FOURTH stand. May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Misremembered the discussion. Definitely should have checked!! Schissel : bowl listen 17:21, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
If you check His presidential library [7] you will ensure that he born as William Jefferson Blyth III. End of Discusiion!--Sina 20:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

undocumented claim that acts of war against Iraq were to enforce UN sanctions

I was surprised at how short and undocumented the Iraq relations part of the article is. Were there any specific resolutions authorizing the acts of war against Iraq, or did he just act arguing from standing resolutions?--Silverback 15:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"It's the economy, stupid."

Was clinton ever quoted as actually saying this precise phrase? If not, it shouldn't appear under the "famous quotes" section. I notice that it's not in Wikiquote. PenguiN42 19:42, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

says here he said it Wolfman 00:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clinton never really said the quote. It first appeared in the news in a CBS report from Aug. 2 1992 reporting on a sign at Clintons headquarter.

Nightkey

Famous Quotes

Do we really need this section? We HAVE a Wikiquote site and we can seperate those into famous and random on that page.

It's the Economy Stupid belongs to the ragin; cajun James Carville. In "Had Enough" Carville claims the press added stupid

Tax Increases

It might make sense to mention the tax increases under the "Legislation" section. Does anyone know the names of the acts? - Jan 29, 2005 unsigned comment from 69.19.2.225

Proposed article split

This article at 47KB is overweight and needs to be split in 2. Please put your proposals for how to do so here. Hopefully there will be a consensus by Sunday, so that I can then split the article. I am putting a note to this affect at the top of the articcle so readers can participate in the debate. Squiquifox 21:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The most logical solution would be to create a The Bill Clinton Presidency (or some similar name) article, that constituting about half of the current article. I think this would actually work quite well for most recent presidents, in fact, since they tend to have both non-presidential and in-term covered extensively. Kaz 17:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have brought the issue of whether articles should be split/slimmed or not to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).Squiquifox 02:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

re-write

And they say '1984'isn't here yet. What a laugh! We can edit and rewrite history, remove information, or desensitize it to our liking. What an interesting concept! a babyboomer

Is your theory that we're re-writing history to make it better for Clinton, or worse? Kaz 21:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clinton v Jeffers

I'm not really sure what the point of including the link to the Supreme Court decision is, without discussing Clinton's involvement (or lack thereof) in the case. The case stems from a 1981 reapportionment in Arkansas - a reapportionment which took place when Clinton was not Governor of Arkansas. His name is on the case because it was filed after he was elected Governor the second time, as far as I can tell. I know that the Freepers tried to make a fuss about it, but I don't see any evidence that Clinton was involved in any way other than formally; it might be helpful if User:Nobs could explain a bit more why this link's being included. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • actually you will note the Supreme Court ruling was an action filed by Governor Clinton; the Courts rulings regarding the Appellants speak for themselves.
    • Do they? Then please explain for those of us not completely knowledgeable about Clinton's involvement in this case. The Court ruling is silent on this matter. In Arkansas, the Governor does the redistricting; hence, the actual offense was by Governor Frank D. White in 1981. Did Governor Clinton have the choice to not appeal the Arkansas Supreme Court decision? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • From the text:

the three-judge district court held in December 1989 that appellants {Bill Clinton, et al} ' state-wide legislative reapportionment plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973.

appellants {Bill Clinton, et al} do not dispute here -- that "violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred (in Arkansas)." 42 U.S.C. 1973a(c); see J.S. App. A23-A24. /11/

. In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." Ibid.

(d)evotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities -- the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.

J.S. App. A23-A24. /6/ The court therefore concluded that

(t)his series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. The inference of racial motivation is inescapable.'[8]

    • The language seems pretty plain to me. nobs
      • I'm sure it does. Could you please explain what Clinton's actual involvement in this was? He was not in office when the redistricting occurred. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Governor Clinton was the Appellant in Jeffers vs Clinton, as the document states in the very first line at the top :


  BILL CLINTON, GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS, ET AL., APPELLANTS V. M.C. JEFFERS, ET AL.

  No. 90-394

  In The Supreme Court Of The United States

  October Term, 1990

  On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Arkansas

nobs

  • Yes, we can all read. Now, can you please explain what his actual involvement in the case was, other than being the sitting Governor when the original lawsuit was filed (as opposed to when the offense the lawsuit was about was committed)? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The document speaks for itself. Perhaps the Supreme Court and Eastern District of Arkansas pages needs to be edited if they are hearing cases involving disinterested persons and finding them in violation of Federal Statutes. nobs
  • If it spoke for itself, I wouldn't be asking these questions. Please tell us what Clinton's involvement in this case was, other than being Governor (and thus defendant in the original case, and apellant in the appeal). Or do you simply not know? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • My knowledge is limited to the facts of the case. Both courts, in both court findings established the facts;

for example:

Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.

legislation other than reaportionament, i.e. a system to do away with plurality wins

(t)his series of laws

likewise does not refer to reaportionment. nobs

  • Then what does it refer to? What exactly did Clinton do? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • {Bill Clinton, et al} do not dispute here -- that "violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred (in Arkansas)." nobs
  • What exactly did Bill Clinton do? Which violations of those amendments did Bill Clinton commit, and in what way did he commit them? (Strictly speaking, stating that Clinton et al do not dispute that violations have occurred does not imply that Clinton committed the violations.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is common practice that when a government official is displaced in the course of a lawsuit, the new official will take his or her place in the style (name) of the case. The subsequent opinion will often (but not always, it usually depends on the writing style of the opinion's author) refer to the current parties, regardless of whether they were they were the parties at the suit's inception. Thus, the quotations from the language of the opinion do not mean that Clinton, personally, had anything to do with the case, but only that he is (was) the current appellant, in his official capacity as governor.

Roger Clinton

Odd vandalism but I agree the original was accurate. I'm not sure where that anonymous poster got 1973 from (it's the date Bill Clinton graduated from law school, apparently?, but 1956 is Roger Clinton Jr's birthdate according at least to [9].) Schissel : bowl listen 19:32, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)