Talk:George W. Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warning This article, George W. Bush, has frequently become the subject of controversies and criticisms regarding his presidency. While suggestions to improve the content of this article are welcomed, please refrain from posting your personal opinions on George W. Bush. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Good article George W. Bush has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George W. Bush article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I.
Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified George W. Bush as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Astur-Leonese, Slovak or Swedish language Wikipedias.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
AuburnPilot, JamesMLane, MONGO, Shanes, ElKevbo, Solumeiras
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Victory Margin

Shouldn't the article mention that the election was a fraud, as reported by Greg Palast/BBC? The only place this isn't considered a "fact" is the USA. 76.102.87.224 (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing a few of the passages on his election, I feel that it is worth mentioning that in the 2004 election bush only won by 2.4% against an opponent who was essentially declaring that Bush was an abject failure and his efforts would be to do more or less the exact opposite of Bush. The prior passages made it sound as if Bush won overwhelming victories, and while he won majorities... Kerry got the 2nd most number of votes ever in a presidential election and would have won the 2000 election by around 9 million votes with his tallies. RTRimmel (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to the passage with which you have an issue? In fact, 2.4% seems like a landslide compared to 2000 and compared to expectations, but a note on the closeness of the contest would not be out of line. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Its in the history log. The short of it is that this article has gotten slopping using weasel words that can be interpreted different, mostly, bare majority etc instead of actual hard numbers. Given that the numbers are available and much more direct to interpret I injected them instead of maintaining passages that could be read multiple ways. And declaring 2.4% a landslide is POV, I consider it a squeaker and you don't, so its better to use the actual numbers. Saying Bush won 50% to Kerry's 48 (or whatever) percent of the vote is better overall. RTRimmel (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Weasel words? Most of this article has a slant against the man. You won't be happy until the entire article does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by
I'm sorry that the facts make him look bad? WP:Civil and all. RTRimmel (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

209.191.205.48 (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There was alleged cheating in Ohio during 2004 election, if would be good if someone can mention it. Easymem (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there proof that such cheating occurred? Accusations are made all the time in politics, especially elections. In order for such accusations to have any chance of being in a Wikipedia article, they need to be properly sourced and have corroborating evidence. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the joys of the inability to prove. The ballots in Ohio were electronic and deleted before anything like a meaningful investigation could occur. It is very probably that something screwy happened in Ohio, whether it was for Bush's woe or favor is unknown as are the actual results. This, due to the nature of it, belongs elsewhere in the wiki. 76.181.90.242 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Military Service" Info Misleading

In the "Military Service" part of the infobox, it says "Battles/Wars Vietnam War." Huh? Bush was never in battle in his life. And he was never in Vietnam. Also, I'm unclear: why does this article include a prominent photo of Bush in military uniform, when the main John Kerry article has no photo of this genuine war hero in uniform? Typical right-wing Wikipedia bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 27 May 2008

If you look in the section directly above this one, you'll see this issue is already being discussed. The image of Bush in uniform is in a section which discusses his time in uniform and is perfectly acceptable; it has no bearing on what happens in the Kerry article. Of course, if you'd rather spin conspiracy theories about right wing bias in Wikipedia (which is quite rare in my experience, as most accuse Wikipedia of being exceedingly liberal), we can't help you. - auburnpilot talk 13:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The citation of how many national guard members went to fight in Vietnam gives a highly false impression. Bush was under a zero percent chance of going to fly in Vietnam with an obsolete plane. JohnLease (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "battles" section from the Infobox. That should eliminate any misimpression that the Infobox was suggesting that Bush served in Vietnam. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Correct decision. --BenBurch (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
John, SOME aircraft of that type DID serve in Vietnam. Just none, ever, from his unit. And I recall none of the specific variant of that type assigned to that unit. I believe it was the RC (recon) version which did the duty. I could look that up if you are interested, but you are correct that it is irrelevant to this article. --BenBurch (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scott McClellan's new book

Well, this looks to possibly be interesting. Let's hold off for a brief moment for the experts to tear into this document before we add anything to the article. The talking points I've heard so far is that the main reason it is interesting was that McClellan was a very loyal bulldog for Bush's policies and having him pull an essential 180 is rather... extreme. Most of the other points have already been covered before at a quick glance but it is highly possible more information will come out. RTRimmel (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We should wait at least a week before adding any description of this book to the Criticism section. By that time, any discussion of this book will likely have died down. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The only part about this is the rather significant number of former white house insiders of Bush that have come out against the administration about misleading the public into war. Powell, McClellan etc. But we'll see if it dies down in a week or not. Thought it might be worthwhile to pop it up on the discussion page prior to any overzelous edits. RTRimmel (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully disagree with both on this one. Well, it's been at least a week, and the book certainly made waves, and ought to be included. This is not your typical Bush critic: he's a former member of the administration. This is notable. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with The Evil Spartan. This is more of a critique of the administration as a whole rather than simply President Bush. And this article is about President Bush, the man; Presidency of George W. Bush deals with in-depth matters on his presidency. As Evil Spartan correctly mentioned, however, the book has been in the media. But other former members of the administration rebutted McClellan's book, saying it was false. So it's one former staffer's words against another's. Happyme22 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Given the fact that multiple editors are discussing it lends credibility to the need to add it to the article. I think that the omission is starting to stink of POV but I'll let it ride for another week. If its still in the news (is he still going before the senate?) its going in. RTRimmel (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bush owns an oil company in the middle east?

I heard today that President Bush owns an oil company in the Middle East and the reason gas prices are so high right now is because he is trying to make as much money as possible before he leaves office...Does anyone know if this is true??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.218.26 (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's possible but we need citations before we can add information such as that to the article. Eatspie (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Where did you hear this claim? Not only must this claim be sourced before it can be added to the article, but that source must be reliable. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Sounds too much like an urban legend, doesn't it? Also, public officials must liquidate their funds into blind trusts as not to cause any conflicts of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.150.78 (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This section is a borderline WP:BLP violation. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Classic case conspiracy theory. Even if it is true, it is not QED that gas prices are going up because GWB wants to make money, and ought not be included in the article under WP:NPOV. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, you guys do realize that if Oil goes up ANYWHERE it goes up EVERYWHERE so him having an oil company in the middle east is patently stupid. It would be in Texas or anywhere in the world and he does have family connections to Oil in Texas and family connections to Oil in Saudia Arabia. One could make the argument that Bush's actions of undermining the dollar by moving the country into a very significant amount of debt to the tune of several trillion dollars coupled would also cause Oil prices to rise because they are sold in US dollars, but that relies on a wholesale economic strategy that would only benefit the ultra rich and unless you can pull out statistics that prove that the top 1% of Americans are increasing in wealth at record pace it is meaningless. His money is in a blind trust and, of course, not invested in the many key industries that have really benefitted from his economic policies but more generally invested with the failing sectors as well because at least a few economists didn't see what was comming and I'm sure he used those and NOT intelligent ones who accuratly predicted what is happening now when he first stated his tax cuts/energy policy. His Vice President, for certain, has sold off any of his assets in Hallaburton so when the government gave them a several billion dollar no bid contract that did not help him out (or any of his friends on the board out) at all. Nope, Bush and Chaney run a completly honest and open ship with no imporpriety whatsoever. Its not like Bush is pardoning criminals directly attached to his administration because he can or anything. Or issuing warentless wiretaps. Or misrepresenting facts to force a declaration of war against a neutral power. Nope, on the up an up. Totally honest and good. Really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.90.242 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Senate Intelligence Comittee says Bush distorted information to go to war. http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=24994710&pg1=1 ~~Brad~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.206.205 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Votes

I shortened the following sentence:

Original:

Bush was re-elected on November 2, 2004 garnering 50.7% of the popular vote and earning more total votes than any other candidate in the history of the United States"[9]

New

Bush was re-elected on November 2, 2004 garnering 50.7% of the popular vote.

While this is a factual statement, it is not notable since the size of the US electorate was also at its highest point. This same statement can be made about nearly every elected president.

Mister Tog (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you sound like you know what you are talking about, which is very good, but you have a citation to back up your claims? Because right now, by removing the fact that Bush won more total votes than other candidate in U.S. history, we are disputing a reliable source: [1]. Happyme22 (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

--

It does not seem very notable to me. Since popular vote has been calculated, more Presidents have gotten "more total votes than any other candidate in the history of the United States" than not. Assuming this is correct [2].

71.162.121.102 (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bluntly, given that he won by less than 3%% I think that entire sentence needs rewritten as it sounds like he won by a landslide but really won with the lowest margin of any wartime president in the history of the US. That and yes, nearly every president wins by the largest number of votes in history, Bush Sr did, Regan did, Clinton did on his first election so that's as noteworthy as Bush throwing out the first pitch of the baseball season, IE Trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, but citations still have not been provided. Happyme22 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
So to prove its trivia you want us to list more trivia? We could stick is, "As an interesting bit of presidential trivia, George W Bush won the election 2004 with the single largest number of votes in the history of the United States since the 2000 presidential election" and the remove it when Obama or McCain wins as either of them is going to have even more votes in 6 months if you want. Or we could just leave in the percentages, they are numbers and are not subject to debate. How about, "Bush won with 50.7% of the vote, versus his opponents 48.X% of the vote, in the highest voter turn out for a US Presidential Election since the 2000 election." Which is factually accurate and only contains a moderate amount of trivia. Better would be what we have, but if you really want to add that in I suggest this until the next election cycle and we can remove it as trivia... again. Ultimately it is just meaningless trivia and not really all that encyclopedic because at most it stands for 4-8 years and is more an influence of the increase in US population than any particular noteworthiness of the candidate. RTRimmel (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, the cited source doesn't say anything about Bush receiving the most votes, just how many votes he received, so you'll need to cite something that actually says that to even bother to include such trivia. RTRimmel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The line currently reads "Bush won a majority of the popular vote, the first president to do so since his father in 1988 with 50.7% of the vote to his opponents 48.3%." I removed the portion "the first president to do so since his father in 1988," because I don't believe it is noteworthy, and it may be misleading. The implication is that it is an unusual accomplishment to receive the majority of the popular vote, but the only presidential election between 1988 and 2004 when only two candidates received a significant number of votes was the 2000 election, so the only person Bush bested by receiving the majority of the popular vote was himself. Most of the rest of the presidents also received the majority of the popular vote (not just a plurality), so I don't believe it is noteworthy to mention that Bush was the first to do it since his father. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. If it is historically common for the president to win a majority of the popular vote (and I don't know if it is), then isn't it noteworthy that there were three consecutive elections in which the president did not receive a majority? And doesn't it follow that it is noteworthy that Bush broke that string of three elections? I think so. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The main reason that Bush Sr. lost and Clinton couldn't not possibly win with more than 50% had far more to do with Ross Perot than any perceived popularity. In a race where there are actually 3 valid candidates getting more than 50% of the vote is difficult. So that makes 92 kind of worthless to mine for that angle. After that in 1996 and 2000 I guess you could make the argument that it is significant, but again unless the elected leader can successfully claim a mandate from that victory (and while Bush claimed a mandate he achieved nothing with it and it was arguable if he even had it...) If you really want to see a president who was able to successfully use his political capitol you need to go back to Regan and he did win by huge margins and was very successful in his first term and, while less so, still arguably effective in his 2nd term. Using that as a comparison, Bush looks pretty anemic. The main reason that Bush was able to claim a majority is that the presence of 3rd party candidates was significantly reduced during the 2004 election cycle was significantly reduced. In the 2000 election 3rd parties claimed 20% of the vote. In the 1996 election 3rd parties claimed about 10% of the votes. In 2000 it was around 5%. In 2004 it was nearly 0%. In order to put his more than 50% win in context we would have to explain away the fact that 3rd party votes were reduced to nearly 0 in the 2004 election, probably sticking the "Anyone But Bush" mentality in, even though it failed. I ultimately think that adding that in is just a can of worms so I'd be inclined to forget it and just leave up the straight percentages without any addition comments and let the numbers speak for themselves. RTRimmel (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, there was only one election in the intervening time when only two candidates received significant votes. Clinton's margin of victory in 1996 was much bigger than Bush's in 2004 despite only winning a plurality of the vote. There is nothing noteworthy about winning with a majority in a two candidate election. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Information-poor sentence

Bush's view within the international community is mixed, with countries such as Israel[209] and Albania[210] supporting him, and Venezuela and Iran largely opposed to him.

Israel and Albania can be expected to support any U.S. President these days, and Venezuela and Iran will oppose any of them. This sentence is not very enlightening. We would do well to explain how Bush has been different from other presidents, e.g., relations with Europe and the Far East. Shii (tock) 21:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism requiring cleanup

It seems that some comic genius has added a section about his 'assassination.' I can't remove this myself for some reason, so I bring it to the attention of somebody with editing permission of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.96.251 (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)