Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 17.2

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.

See:

George W. Bush

Talk:George W. Bush

Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 17.1

Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 17.3

Contents

Minor factual corrections

I made some (imho very) minor changes to reflect the actual status of 2004 Election and reported Irregularities. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is revert war over?

I don't see much actual debate on this talk page by either side. In my opinion there really is no reason to list election controversy info on Bush's bio article, it serves no purpose. A bio page is not a place for indirectly applicable current events or information that changes rapidly in my opinion. In fact, for the election fraud to be exposed it may take a few honest republicans. Zen Master 20:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree about "indirectly applicable current events", but there's nothing indirect about including the 2000 and 2004 elections here. Those events were central to Bush's bio. It's clear that election controversies should be mentioned in this article, with appropriate wikilinks for more detail. The close question is what should be said about the elections in the lead section as opposed to the body of the article. JamesMLane 23:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, a simple sentence with a wikilink to the election controversy article for more info should be sufficient. Zen Master 00:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, a simple sentence, that there have been concerns in some quarters as to the fairness of the elections, prompted in part by their closeness, the degree of controversy and polarisation of issues, however it is important to note that 1) there have been such issues in many elections, 2) nobody has pointed a finger at GWB as being involved in these, and 3) at this point the Democratic Party have accepted the results. Whats the issue? FT2 17:17, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
I vote for the 09:37, 3 Dec 2004 one--The_stuart 19:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Your point 2 is false, plenty of people allege (without much evidence) that GWB was involved in the 2000 irregularities. As to the dispute, why not finesse it? There's no need in the second sentence to say either that the election was decided by SCOTUS or that GWB "was elected by defeating Gore". Why should the election or the opponent be mentioned at all in the 1st paragraph? If Gore must be mentioned, simply state that his opponent was Vice-President Gore. That leaves the lead-in neutral on the controversy by avoiding it entirely. Wolfman 16:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the elections don't even need to be mentioned, the focus on those small issues is ridiculous for a president that has fought two wars and staved off an economic depression after an attack at the economic and financial heart of the U.S. The elections may ultimately become significant if they lead to reforms such as internet voting or proportional representation, but short of that they are merely a mindless obsession for some.--Silverback 01:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This argument is pretty blatant POV. If you approve of what Bush has done, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's no basis for withholding facts about the elections. If Bush is a shining hero and the facts about this aspect of his noble career take a bit of the luster off, well, that's the way the ball bounces. JamesMLane 02:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He is hero is some areas, mass-murderer in others, lets stick to the facts and keep them in perspective. The election stuff should be mentioned here, especially since it meant he had to overcome a hostile and divisive environment, but it doesn't need to be mentioned in the first paragraphs, if people are opposing its mention elsewhere in the article, I'll support its mention there. it doesn't match the encyclopedic POV of other presidential bio's to include it in the overall summary. --Silverback 02:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
James, I certainly think the election controversies should be fully referenced in the article itself. Anything else would be white-washing. I'm just not sure it needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. Perhaps adding a simple descriptor such as 'controversial election' or 'hotly contested election' would be a reasonable compromise for the lead-in paragraph. Wolfman 02:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the close question is how much to put in the lead section. My view is still that some people, especially non-Americans, will come to this article having heard vaguely about election controversies, and not even being clear on the distinction between 2000 and 2004. For their benefit, while the 2004 election is "fresh", I'd include brief references in the lead. The lead will have to be rewritten anyway after January 20, and at that time the references to controversies and delayed outcomes could be removed unless there had been major developments. JamesMLane 05:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That seems a reasonable approach to me. Wolfman 05:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I can sign on to a compromise which accepts the election references until Jan 20, and then reduces this early summary paragraph emphasis then, if others agree that they will support the election demphasis in the first paragraphs then. We don't need unanimity, but a workable number from both sides agree to accept and defend the compromise, both before and after.--Silverback 05:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cabinet table alignment

Why is the table listing the Cabinet members appearing on the right side of the page, leaving large ugly whitespace on its left? The markup appears to have "align='left'" on it, and it's not a problem with my browser because I checked in multiple browsers. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:09, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think there's a mistake in the table formatting. It says 'style="...;" align...'. Changing it to 'style="..." align...' makes the alignment (and border) work for me.
The white space is caused by the <br clear="all"> after the table, which prevents the next section from moving up alongside of the table. Probably the table should be moved to the top of its section.
—wwoods 17:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wrapped in a float:right div, and it looks better now. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Formatting question

In the Transcripts section of external links, the {{wikiquote}} tag displays badly. I tried to fix a couple ways, but to no avail. It appears correctly on a section preview, but not when saved. Any help? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Same here, tried 4 or 5 variations. Previews correctly, renders wrong. I'm using Netscape. Wolfman 20:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bush administration disinformation about Iraq

Silverback's edit summary asks me "What lies?" His version is not NPOV because it asserts, as if it were an undisputed fact, that after 9/11 "there was a new sense of urgency" about the WMD issue and the possible aid to terrorists. I deny that there was such a renewed sense of urgency. My POV is that Bush knew, because all his intelligence experts were telling him, that Saddam did not have WMDs, was not close to getting nuclear capability, and had had nothing to do with 9/11. It is further my POV that Bush, knowing these facts, cynically and immorally seized on 9/11 as a convenient pretext for doing what he'd been planning to do since before the 2000 election, namely depose Saddam. Now, I don't expect the Wikipedia article to reflect my personal opinions of Our Glorious Leader. We should indeed report the line that the Bush administration was publicly spouting. Nevertheless, we don't assert it as fact. We attribute it. The version I've reverted to says "the Bush administration argued that", which is the properly NPOV way to present Bush's statements. We could, of course, get into more detail about what documentary evidence was available about Iraqi weapons programs, but if we're going to assert that Iraq made claims that weren't documented, then we should also link to Yellowcake Forgery to point out that Bush made claims based on forged documents. JamesMLane 02:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Completely agree with your point. Wolfman 02:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with keeping it NPOV, the yellowcake forgery was not done by Bush, although since it had been called into question, it should not have been used. Nevertheless, the concern it raised, that Saddam wanted nukes was valid, and it is clear from interviews with Iraqi scientists since the war, that Saddam had every intention of restarting his WMD programs, and he had the resources to do it. My own POV is that the war was not justified, but that, even so, it was probably the most just war the US has ever been involved in and fought because we only intended to transfer the power and resources to a democratic government by the most just means because we didn't use conscription, and used some of the most accurrate munitions in history, to carefully preserve civilian life and infrastructure. Yes, we have avoided conscription in other recent wars, but in Serbia and the first Gulf war, we purposely targeted civilian infrastructure and in the bunkers in Kuwait murdered over 100,000 innocent Iraqi conscripts.--Silverback 02:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Well, if he wanted WMD, if he had the resources to do it, if the sanctions were not interfering, then why didn't he have any WMD? It's not at all clear that any of the premises above are true. Stating any of them as fact is POV; stating that the situation was urgent is POV. Stating what Bush said and attributing it to Bush is NPOV. Wolfman 03:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Saddam did want the sanctions to end, yet obsfuscated against the inspections because he wanted his neighbors to believe he still had WMD. Of course, it made the rest of the world believe he still had WMD as well. Why he wanted his neighbors to believe he still had WMD is unclear. was it as a deterrent to Iran? or for prestige in the region? to intimidate the shiites and kurds? Frankly, Saddam bears far more responsibility for the war than Bush, he had one of the greatest opportunities in history to open his country, get his borders guaranteed without any need for further military expenditures on Iraq's part, even disolving his military, and to thumb his nose at the west by legalizing drugs and calling his nation the freeist on earth. I would have done it!--Silverback 03:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The french, germans and russians probably also bear more responsibility for the war than Bush, because they gave Saddam hope he could wait out the sanctions and get them removed without the full cooperation that would have given Iraq's claims of having destroyed the unaccounted for material credibility.--Silverback 03:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would say that the person who started the war is responsible for starting the war, but that's just me. Kevin Baas | talk 05:49, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
I say the moral bright line is between sanctions and non-coercive means, not between sanctions and war. Sanctions are acts of war, a gun to the head, so to speak. Sanctions commit one to backing them up occasionally. Of course, one can also take the "start" back to the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, there has only been a truce since then. Rest assured that another nation imposing a no-fly zone on the US (as the UN did on Iraq) would find it considered an act of war.--Silverback 05:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Admittedly, I am not fully aware of the details surrounding Desert Storm. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing who went to war. The controversial term "preemptive strike" comes to mind. I guess you could argue that it was self defence, but that would be a failing strategy in any court, national or international. In any case, the War, the actual physical battle, was started by the Bush administration (and prepared for long before). I.e. it was a premeditated act commited by the Bush Administration, and insofar as one is responsible for one's actions, the Bush administration is responsible for acting as it did, and all of the consequences resultant therefrom. Kevin Baas | talk 07:12, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
The sanctions were in place after Desert Storm which was only "ended" with a truce (not a peace treaty) and that truce had been violated many times. However, I don't see the "preemptive" element as introducing any moral issues. Saddam lost any right have his rights respected, when he initiated violating the rights of others, the rape room, or the torturing of the soccer players is all the excuse needed. The key moral issue is that taking out Saddam in order to prevent further violations of rights involves the certainty of collateral damage, including the taking of innocent life. But governments do that all the time, even in peace, they use net-lives-saved justifications to delay access to life saving medications. In the United States delays in the approval of clot busting drugs (TPA and streptokinase) and beta blockers (propranol HCL, atenolol, etc) are estimated to have cost over a million lives (they didn't quite achieve a net plus on this one). If net-lives-saved are enough to justify taking innocent life in peace, there is no reason for the standard to be higher war, and given the nature of Saddam's regime and his diversion of humanitarian aid to the military and to the corruption of european and international leaders, the Iraq war may already have met the net lives saved standard. Madeline Albright estimated that over 500,000 infants had died in Iraq, before the oil for food program was initiated.--Silverback 08:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Silverback, you're kinda jumping around here. Egregious human rights records do not necessarily justify us to invade a country's soverign rule, otherwise we would be at war with many many countries, with at least a few we have far more of a reason to invade than Iraq. Iran is a much better target, why didn't we hit them? Regardless, the point is that we started the war, we are responsible for the war. The argument that we were provoked into doing so, like KB says, is flimsy at best. Any justification you can use for Iraq can be applied to many other countries... if we must accept this justification by provocation, we are morally inclined to invade these other countries as well and the fact that we haven't done so yet should incite moral outrage. --kizzle 07:55, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

As much as I agree with some of the posters here. It's all off topic. Does anyone have any concrete proof that Bush lied to the American public. Are there any documents that said before the war that Iraq neither had a single drop of WMD (remember that a single drop can kill hundreds), nor wanted to make them? The CIA may have had wrong information, like it's had hundreds of times before, or they could have been moved out of the country, but unless someone has concrete proof that Saddam didn't have WMD, and that Bush knew about it and intentionally lied about it, it shouldn't be in a factual article. PPGMD

Conversly, if and only if the CIA had "concrete evidence that Saddam Hussien possesses WMD." at the time that Bush made that statement, Bush was telling the truth to the public (i.e. x is a true statement). If he was not telling the truth to the public, then he was lying to the public (i.e. x is a false statement). To the best of any informed person's knowledge, the CIA did not only not have any "concrete evidence" of this, but had no credible evidence whatsoever. Therefore, Bush knowingly lied to the public. Simple logic. Sound and valid.
Why knowingly? Because this is the kind of statement a president makes to the public if and only if they know. If he did not know, then he is not only a liar (however unknowingly), but an abhorently irresponsible and incompetent one. That is, I am actually being nice to him by giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying that he knowingly lied. Kevin Baas | talk 20:45, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
No credible evidence whatsoever eh? I am sure the President knows what's going on in the bowels of the CIA HQ. Most intelligence agencies at the time that he made the run up to the war said that Saddam had WMD. There was very little evidence to the to rebut it, the report that they delivered to the UN didn't help anything either, since it didn't account for all the weapons. There was credible, evidence, at least as credible as one can get without any intelligence operatives on the ground.
Once again, show me documents from credible that prove that President Bush lied? This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of conspiracy theories, without concrete proof it shouldn't be in this entry. If I want junk like that I will goto coasttocoastam.com PPGMD
The onus is on the president to demonstrate that there was hard evidence of WMD. As the saying goes, "innocent until proven guilty." Until it is proven that iraq has WMD, i.e. is guilty of a violation. The proof is the lack of evidecne to the contrary. there can be no other proof. how can you prove that something does not exist other than pointing out that there is no evidence of it's existence? This is the logical problem mistake that make people believe in God. By the same so-called "logic" people use to justify their belief in god you are justifying your belief that saddam had wmd. You cannot disprove their existence because there is no possible way for there to be evidence of their "nonexistence"; one cannot be shown their "non-being".
The onus is on the president. Saddam probably didn't think he would go to war. Who can blame him? How could anyone expect a national leader to be so belligerent as to go around invading other countries on the basis of completely unsubstantiated allegations? The whole world, in fact, was rather shocked.
He said there is hard evidence. He does not know the bowels of the CIA! The CIA doesn't even know their own bowels. Where are you getting this from? Your blind faith is scarry. He said there is concrete evidence. There is not concrete evidence. He lied. I understand that this may be difficult to accept. But that's proof. That's as much proof as could possibly exist. Yes, the president of the United States blatently lied to his country. I know that's the last thing you want to hear. It sounds very ugly, it's horrendous. Maybe that's why you're having so much trouble believing it. You're not alone: nobody wants to believe it. But it's the sad truth. He lied and repeated his lies and when he could repeat them no longer because there was too much evidence to the contrary, he shifted them so as to make it look like that's what he was saying all along, and repeated those new lies over and over again. When there was too much evidence to the contrary, he shifted them again. Ofcourse it worked, ofcourse people think that he didn't do this; that he's told the truth the whole time. Have you done your homework? How do you learn something? Repetition, repetition, repetition. Teachers know this. It is the most powerful tool. Repetition. What is repeated is taken to be true, regardless of any connection with the empirical world. It's basic psychology. There was no evidence. There still is no evidence. The CIA knew this (with 2 maverik exceptions), every other country in the world knew this (except isreal. Britian's population knew this overwhelming, and Tony Blair possibly knew it as well.) He lied. People lie, you know. They do sometimes, really. No, really, everyone doesn't always tell the truth. Sometimes people actually do lie. No, really. Really. Kevin Baas | talk 23:52, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
Read The Price of Loyalty by Paul O'Neill, or Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke. We were planning on going to Iraq before we even considered weapons of mass destruction. In addition, the weapons of mass destruction claim came after our plans to invade. While it cannot be technically proven that he did not know, its like he claimed Saddam was planning to invade the U.S., a hypothesis with little to none substantial evidence. You make a statement like posession of WMD after you have the evidence, not before. --kizzle 23:34, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
This discussion didn't arise because someone wanted the article to say that Bush was lying. It arose because someone wanted the article to parrot Bush's lies uncritically. The demand by PPGMD for "concrete proof" should apply both ways. The article shouldn't state something as a fact if the only basis is that Bush asserted it. I have no problem with our reporting his notable statements in a form like "The Bush administration argued that...." It was the omission of that kind of attribution that caused the disagreement. JamesMLane 01:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
True. Plus the Bush administration did state numerous times that we had incontrovertible evidence that Saddam had WMD. Obviously we did not have undeniable evidence, since no WMD were found. Therefore, the administration did plainly lie about the strength of the evidence. Now whether that's the CIA or the Whitehouse is perhaps debatable. But last I checked, Bush is the leader of the executive branch, and that's where the buck stops so the issue is relevant to this article. Wolfman 04:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It isn't a lie unless the "liar" knows it is untrue. It is a copout to state that "the administration" lied. Who lied? Perhaps someone jumped to a conclusion or assumed the worst. Frankly, it appears the U.S. had inside intelligence high within the Saddam administration or military and believed what they believed. Iraqi unit commanders knew they did not have chemical weapons, but they thought other units did. It also appeared that Saddam himself may have been lied to, and the U.S. believed those lies also. In any case, it all turned out for the best, how lucky can the U.S. get?--Silverback 06:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Silverback is really George W. Bush, that's not a lie by his criteria. Yes, how lucky we are to have invaded Iraq, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, taken 10000 wounded in action and 1200 dead. Wolfman 06:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Touche! There must be some further qualification or criteria for lying that I have forgotten from my ethics class. I would characterize your statement (that I am W) as speculation, with extremely little evidence, but you are right, I wouldn't call you a liar by my criteria, even though I know through personal knowledge the truth or falsity of your statement. It is a very few hundreds of billions, but the casualties are low by historical standards, if only someone could liberate us the from yoke of the US government so cheaply. 8-) --Silverback 07:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I second JML (once again), its just fun to talk about this sometime, but we cannot officially endorse Bush's viewpoint, we must quote and attribute, quote and attribute. Back to debating, whether or not he lied is a question which will never be proved either way, however we do know that Bush wanted a war with Iraq before WMD's, before 9/11, so it just seems a bit convenient at best.--kizzle 09:52, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
You overstate it. There is a difference between wanting Saddam removed and wanting a war. He would have been more patient with other approaches, if not for the unaccounted for WMD, which gave it a sense of urgency. I doubt he would have waited very long however, if the other approaches were not showing promise. All the conservatives were impatient with the resource drain of the no-fly zone and competely lack of credibility of U.N. sanctions.--Silverback 10:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Resource drain, as compared to how much we're spending on the war now? To see the invasion of Iraq as merely a response to a threat of WMD misses the point. I don't think that's what Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were thinking at the time at the very least. --kizzle 11:14, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Obviously the army is tied down. But the airpower is significantly freed up. Read the PNAC document for an idea of the strain the no fly zone put on the U.S. Kuwait was not a good base for dealing with Iran, Iraq puts us in a better position, and makes sure the oil revenues are spent in Iraq for the benefit of her people, rather than spilling over into Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. You may think suicide bombers are cheap and in unlimited supply, certainly ones that can penetrate a western country are, but even there, I think there is a big drain on this irredeemable element being thrown against hard targets (U.S. military) and unfortunately innocent Iraqi's. They obviously view democracy as a threat, which proves they agree with the possible consequences of this risky and idealistic U.S. strategy, although of course, they oppose it. This war against a corrupt, depraved dictatorship may look like a bargain a few years out. Frankly, I think a civil war would not be that bad, especially if it resulted in the Kurds and Shiites getting nations, and the discredited bathists getting a middle country but permanently defanged, because they have no oil.--Silverback 12:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For those who missed it, Silverback just said "Frankly, I think a civil war would not be that bad". This needs no futher comment. Wolfman 14:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Three Comments

1. The box with the Cabinet appointments is wrong. Although some Cabinet members have submitted their resignations, these do not take effect until their successor is sworn in. So, for example, Colin Powell is the Secretary of State until Condoleeza Rice is sworn in. Same goes for Ashcroft, Evans and the others.

2. Concerning the above talkpage discussion. It is amazing to me how people cannot stop their political viewpoint from obstructing their view of facts. At this point it makes no sense to put Bush's administration in a historical context. Many of the controversial acts Bush has done may be great for America in the future, OR it could be a disaster but only time will tell. For example, TR's action in seizing the Panama Canal were controversial and maybe illegal but in the long run it is recognized as one of his Presidencies greatest achievements, likewise President Buchanan's reluctance to engage the Confederacy is now looked on as a major failure but at the time were seen as necessary to avoid war. So with that in mind, I think the current Bush article is better because it seems to be simply reciting the events of Bush's first term without arguing whether these acts were right or wrong.

3. I noticed in the articles, that there are separate links between Bush's first term and his second (which will happen, regardless of what one of the contributors above thinks). This is unnecessary. It was not done for other two term Presidents, so I don't understand why we need to do it here. Just have it all on the same page.

Thanks Ramsquire 23:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page again because of the spurts of vandalism it has been receiving. Will unprotect as soon as is possible. Any changes, feel free to submit and discuss here. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 02:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary. This is an actively worked on page, so the vandalism gets corrected almost instantaneously and gets lost in the noise. It is the vandalism on less active pages you need to worry about.--Silverback 06:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For once I agree with Silverback. Unprotect. Dealing with the vandals is a hassle but a minor one. Besides, how can anyone "unprotect as soon as is possible"? We won't know how much vandalism will occur until it's unprotected. JamesMLane 00:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Failure to Meet with NAACP

Under "Domestic Policy" the following line appears:

Although President Bush did meet with the National Urban League, he is the first sitting President not to meet with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover.

This is poorly written. A better edit would be:

President Bush has met with the National Urban League as President, but has not yet met with the NAACP as President, though he did address the NAACP at their 2000 convention in Baltimore as a presidential candidate. Should President Bush not meet with the NAACP before he leaves office, he will become the first sitting President to have not met with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover.

This is a significant improvement for several reasons. First, while Bush hasn't met with the NAACP as president, it's unfair to fail to mention that he has met with them in the past. Secondly, Bush isn't "the first sitting President not to meet..." anymore than Bill Clinton was the first sitting President not to meet with the NAACP up until the time that he actually did. The sentence won't be true until Bush has left office still not having met with the NAACP.

I agree. Your statement should be added to the piece.Ramsquire 22:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I too agree sounds more NPOV.--198 04:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
yes, making the edit now. Wolfman 05:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
oh, well then, i see it's protected. at any rate it's a clear improvement. and the page should be unprotected, as it just encourages vandals by making them feel powerful. block them, not us. 05:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First and Second term pages

I don't know why, but some one removed the links to George W. Bush's first term as president of the United States and George W. Bush's second term as president of the United States I added them back to the see also section.--The_stuart 19:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once again, some one has removed the links to these pages. I thought that discussion was supposed to come before removing something from this page. I don't see any reason why links to these pages shouldn't be incluided some where on this page. Until there is discussion as to why they shouldn't be on this page I'm going to keep putting them back. I'm not try start any kind of conflict, only discussion.--The_stuart 18:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the link to Bush's first term and second term because I find it strange to point to other articles that are basically discussing the same things as this article. Also, I explained my edit above in the section entitled "Three Comments". I am just confused as to why we would need separate links since the topic of this article concerns the life and presidency of Bush. Ramsquire 21:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Because, after only one term, the page is already 57k. Spinning off sections to separate pages (and replacing them with summaries!) is standard practice as articles grow.
—wwoods 21:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But wouldn't it make more sense to just prune out the unnecessary stuff. It is weird that Bush's one term page would be larger than Clinton's two terms page. Maybe we should try to format the page so that all pages on world leaders follow a very similiar format, but if there are other things the person is noted for, e.g Nixon and Watergate, have that under a separate title. The reason I proposed the edit is that Bush's page is very unlike all the other US president pages, containing sections on world and domestic views on the Presidency, which maybe can be streamlined into the body of the rest of the article. Just an idea.Ramsquire 20:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd prefer to use the existing split by subject matter -- to prune the sections on foreign and domestic policy, moving a lot of the detail to those respective daughter articles. A particular reader is more likely to want to know something like what Bush did on economic matters, regardless of which term it was in, than to want to know what happened specifically before January 20, 2005. JamesMLane 03:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As for the Clinton comparison, recent subjects tend to attract more attention than older ones. The article on Bill Clinton is much longer than the article on Thomas Jefferson. JamesMLane 10:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Bush just happend to be president now, so more things are going to be written about him. Later presidents will also probably get exstensive articles as well. Its just a matter of the timing that his presidency will be so well documented.--The_stuart 16:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that since Bush is in office now, it seems like everything he does will have historical significance and should be included in this article. Things like the SEC investigation will have no historical significance in four years, but yet paragraphs are dedicated to it in this articel. I think we have to fight the urge to include every possible angle and keep the article simple. I know it would be too difficult now, but perhaps we should have a specific format for world leaders that we have to stick to, instead of the add everything we can think of going on now. It is ridiculous that a one term president already has all this information in his article. I do like the idea of using the foreign and domestic policy split over first term/second term split though.Ramsquire 18:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Resignations

I just compared the current version of the page to the version by VerilyVerily at 05:27, 12 Dec 2004 diff. One major omission is the following paragraph. Since I'm aware that this page is being attacked by vandals, I'm copying it here in case it is vandalism that has been missed (it probably isn't, but I'm being extra cautious).

"Within a few weeks after the 2004 election, several Cabinet members announced their resignations: Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, Secretary of Education Rod Paige, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, and Secretary of Health of Human Services Tommy Thompson. Bush has announced his nominations of Condoleezza Rice to replace Powell, Alberto R. Gonzales to replace Ashcroft, Margaret Spellings to replace Paige, Carlos Gutierrez to replace Evans, Mike Johanns to replace Veneman, and Bernard Kerik to replace Ridge, although Kerik has declined the position." --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, I replaced that paragraph with the table of "Proposed second term cabinet" to make it all more readable. I may be a vandal, though, as I've been accused in the past.  :) Jewbacca 04:17, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I suspected that this might have been the intention, but I thought it was worth querying just the same. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There were some changes during the first term, and some continuity between the first and second terms. I don't think breaking it out this way is best for the long run. When the dust settles after most of the confirmation hearings, we should go back to a single unified table (with dates), and a paragraph noting the spate of changes at the end of 2004. For now, though, a separate table is reasonable, to accommodate all these unconfirmed nominees or intended nominees, who can't yet be listed as Cabinet members. JamesMLane 05:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My thoughts precisely. We finally agree on something :) But yes, we should merge it to look like the table at Bill Clinton after confirmations. Jewbacca 06:04, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Most vandalized page on Wikipedia?

It sure seems like it. Every time I visit this page, typically half of the current History actions on the screen are vandalism reverts. --I run like a Welshman 22:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if these things are tracked, in a meaningful way, but the impact here is probably less than on other pages because the page is actively worked, by experienced wikipedian's, reverting the vandalism is a minor nusance. You will also usually many substantive changes to the page on any given day. Really, once you gain some experience, it is hardly a bother at all.--Silverback 15:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's probably to do with the amount of traffic this article recieves, Bush being about the most visible figure worldwide. Michael Moore and Adolf Hitler are two articles I've looked at that also recieve a lot of vandalism. At least there doesn't seem to be a revert war going on, like there was with the John McCain page a few weeks ago. Diceman 15:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have not/did not

I changed As in the 2000 election, there were charges raised about inaccurate counting of votes and other irregularities, especially in Ohio, although in 2004 they *did* not lead to recounts that could affect the result. to As in the 2000 election, there were charges raised about inaccurate counting of votes and other irregularities, especially in Ohio, although in 2004 they *have* not lead to recounts that could affect the result.

I'm not making some conspiracy case that the election can be overturned, but in point of fact, it's Jan 6. when 'did not' becomes accurate. Thoughts? -- RyanFreisling @ 20:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I changed "could" to "is expected to". It is technically more correct. There are enough uncounted provisional ballots and spoiled ballots to overturn the result, besides the fact that it's physically possible for there to have been fraud. Kevin Baas | talk 20:10, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Ohio the focal point of 2004 election "shadiness"

I added mention of Ohio being the focal point for suspicion over voter representation in 2004. I was oh-so-tempted to mention how the CEO of Diebold said they were committed to delivering Ohio's electoral vote to Bush in 2004..but that would've clearly been biased and I didn't want to polarize this entry. MDesigner 21:19, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

The recount showed a change of only 300 votes -- Get over it and let's move on First Lensman 15:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The illegitimate Ohio recount never had nor was expected to have the capacity to uncover the more serious problems in the election process in Ohio. We will never get over the abrogation of the primary right by which all other rights are protected. On the contrary, we will fix these problems, and will not be detered by opposition. Kevin Baastalk 20:10, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
Wait a minute, when is over 300 votes "only", in a partial (not legal statewide) recount, or even (hypothetically) a legitimate statewide recount? That's uncommon. Usually it's off by less than 100. Kevin Baastalk 19:44, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

Other info

The page is about George W. Bush. I am looking, and thinking, things like his beliefes, financial backers, agenda and the like have a place in it. They are legitimate in an article about him, and can and should be shown, albeit neutrally. Its not just about "his acts and history as president". FT2 09:58, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

agreed--The_stuart 00:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to agree if we were doing a biography on the subjects in this page. The problem is that many of these things turn out to be apocryphal and therefore don't belong in an encyclopedia. In a biography it is more acceptable to use poetic license and rumors, than it would be in an encyclopedia article. Here we should stick to facts that can be verified (so that we don't have to keep constantly editing and adding things to the articles). For example this article says that there have been rumors that Bush has used cocaine. If it were to come out tomorrow that the cocaine use has unquestionably been verified, either way, then we'd have to change the article. If it wasn't in there, we'd wouldn't have to add it unless it affected policy or his health, or had some current importance. However, I understand I am in the minority here, most people do want everything ever written about a figure in the wiki articles. Ramsquire 22:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An explanation

this page was moved - and there were problems with the move back (someone edited before the page was replaced). Because actions weren't going through - it ended up with a move and a delete happening at the same time - and so the real page was deleted (by me!). The restore function also wasn't working - possibly because of the size of the history. Now it seems that the history is duplicated - but at least the page is back and koo got it in the right state! -- sannse (talk) 01:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History is quadruplicated. :-) Evercat 01:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep - not sure what can be done about that... hopefully a dev will be able to fix it. what a mess! -- sannse (talk)

Thanks to User:Tim Starling, the problem is fixed, so long as nobody tries to undelete the page again. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 15:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

robert jordan redirect

Someone filled out the entry for Robert Jordan as the author for Wheel of Time, so when someone clicks on the entry mentioned in Bush's business career it goes to that. How can that get fixed as a redirect or something? --kizzle 22:37, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've dabbed it into Robert Jordan (lawyer) and will now do a stub. JamesMLane 18:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bush was a cheerleader.

Bush was a cheerleading captain, at Andover, I believe, if memory serves. Somebody look it up. One of the notes to the edits to this page mentions it and assumes it's vandalism. But, no. Wrongo. He was a cheerleader.

Is it important?Ramsquire 18:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
David Letterman frequently uses an old photo of Bush as cheerleader and says, "That's exactly what our country needs, a cheerleader."--Pharos 17:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is the fact that he played baseball and rugby any more important? Should that be removed as well?

If I had my way the rugby, baseball, drunk driving, his religious conversion, rumored cocaine use, the details surrounding the Harken incident, the anecdote about his jury service as Texas Governor, the entire public perceptions and assessments section and the trivia section would be removed, but I am in the minority here when it comes to how this article is presented. I believe that these articles should reach for brevity, as do most other encyclopedias. It is sort of ridiculous that a one term President has an article that is almost three times the size of two-term President and major historical figure Thomas Jefferson.Ramsquire 21:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Now a TWO (2) term President (Thank God) First Lensman 15:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's be adult about this. The issue isn't whether Bush was a cheerleader or not; it's the context in which it's presented and NPOV. This could be viewed as a "color" item—an interesting fact about someone, at least as significant as that John Kerry named his boat "Scaramouche." But simply saying "cheerleader" without context implies a short skirt and pompoms, an attempt at ridicule (POV) and an undercurrent of homophobia (worse).
IOW, I don't know the circumstances of Bush's cheerleaderness, but if its mentioned as a "color fact," we should know what "cheerleader" meant. Was he one of a bunch of guys who performed dance moves? Was he a token male in a groups of girls? Did he hold a megaphone and call out cheers while others danced? Was there anything special in his decision to enter this activity? Do it right or don't do it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I for one never thought it was important at all, just passing along information. If anyone wants to know, in the Letterman picture, he's just yelling out of a megaphone and looking cheery.--Pharos 19:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the length of the article, Ramsquire. Bush is a present day figure. We know a lot more about him than we do about Thomas Jefferson. Every bit of information that is preserved about him on here is, IMHO, good. Displaying everything can help prevent bias (for or against) and will help ensure that that information will be there for future generations. Imagine if the people of ancient times had had a Wikipedia in which to inscribe everything they knew about their culture and political leaders. -- J. Jensen 16:36, 14 Jan 2005 (CST)

Cocaine

The now-blocked 216 has a point, does he not? Should we really carry accusations without giving any real evidence at all? Evercat 19:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see we've not reverted his removal of same. Fine. Evercat 19:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The cocaine "allegations" are just endearing and humanizing personal anecdotes. Supporters probably think they add color to his testimony, and opponents can hope that someday he'll remember that prison would have denied the country a great leader in its time of need, and end the hypocritical drug war.--Silverback 19:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We give the evidence for what we state, namely that Bush has been accused of having used cocaine. It's NPOV to report that accusation, which has enough currency in the political world to be notable whether or not it's true. We don't assert it is true. JamesMLane 21:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The cocaine allegations have no place in this encyclopedia. The source of the allegations came from a single book from a discredited man. Just because something is alleged in a book (particularly one from a no-name author instead of say, Bob Woodward) does not mean it needs to be given space in an encyclopedia. I saw a book that claimed Bill Clinton was part of a murder conspiracy that resulted in the death of Vince Foster and others. The book is at your book store right now. Does that mean the murder "allegations" should be included in Clinton's entry? Of course not. And in the very least, if we must include "allegations" from a discredited author and a discredited book, we must at least say that the allegations were never proven and are not widely considered credible.

Let's not discuss the vetted fact concerning ALL the drugs John F. Kennedy was hopped up on While He WAS President. Noooooo! But, Let's just state every innuendo, every speculation, every lie, fostered on the public by rabid Liberals bent on the character assassination of George W. Bush, and present it as fact in this encyclopedia. Just because a Liberal spouts something doesn't make it true. These items need to be vetted. Place them in the discussion area before posting to the article. FirstLensman 16:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


=Hayes

although in 2004 they have not lead to recounts that would affect the result. George W. Bush is the only President to win re-election after losing the popular vote in his first election. The other three, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison, were each defeated in their bid for a second term.


I don't believe has ran for a second term in 1880 or at least he was not the GOP candidate Garfield was.

Cut down the article

The foreign and domestic policy sections have already been placed into other articles but are still too large in this article - it's 56k last I checked. I think it'd be best to further summarise those sections where possible. I would do it but have no particular interest or knowledge about this topic. violet/riga (t) 23:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oil companies

What the article stated about Bush's career in the oil business was that he founded Arbusto; Arbusto changed its name to Bush Exploration, and under that name was sold to Spectrum 7; Spectrum 7 had Bush as its CEO and went bankrupt; Spectrum 7 was saved by Harken Energy; Bush became a director of Harken Energy, which encountered some financial difficulties, from which it extricated itself through an arrangement with Harvard.

It appears to me, however, that Spectrum 7 did not go bankrupt. It lost money and might well have gone bankrupt except that it was saved by the Harken deal. There's a detailed account of Bush's career in the awl bidness in this cached Village Voice article by the reputable James Ridgeway (I hope this link works): [1] To my mind, "bankrupt" implies a formal filing, by the company or by one or more creditors, in a Bankruptcy Court. Even if it turns out that Spectrum 7 actually did go bankrupt, I find no support for the statement that was added to the lead section of this article that Bush managed "several oil companies which went bankrupt". Accordingly, I've reworded that passage in the lead section and the more detailed discussion of these companies later on. JamesMLane 04:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that what seems to me to be the undeniable and somewhat germane fact that, prior to getting elected partially on the promise of 'running the country like a business' his experience with running a business seemed to consist mainly of overseeing their accumulation of massive deficits, is being NPOVed over. Perhaps the use of the words 'unsuccessful businessman' to refer to someone who presided over the serial running of several oil companies into the groud is too NPOV; but at least the observation that the companies over which he presided have not, on the whole, exactly been models of competitive economic success should be able to be presented in some sort of objective wording. Gzuckier 17:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For the lead section, I think what we have now is appropriate. I agree that his poor track record in the private sector is germane, but it should be presented in the section about his business career. There, I think the objective wording is simply to describe the history of his companies, as we do. JamesMLane 08:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I think we should take out the part that says his term is scheduled to end on jan 20 , 2009. It sounds like the writer is anxious to have him out of there. In other words, not a NPOV. --Dmm246 06:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You could read this passage in the article as being POV in either direction -- reassuring Bush admirers that he's in for four more years, even if he can't hold the support of members of his own party, or consoling Bush detractors that the nightmare will end in 2009. The reason to leave it in has nothing to do with POV, but because it's useful information. Many readers will be more familiar with a parliamentary system (like the UK's) in which a leader doesn't serve for a set term. JamesMLane 08:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I really doubt that most americans don't know that the president serves a four year term. Regarding you comment "it's useful information" I am sure there is a lot of useful information that negative POV users would like to put in which didn't make it but I think this is one of them. You don't have to put a positive spin on saying he got for more years and fill it with praise but I think we should just leave it out. I am more just voicing an opinion than saying we must change it. If more people think we should change it then thats fine.--Dmm246 17:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that most Americans would know. That's not the criterion, though:
Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. The people who read it have different backgrounds, education and worldview from you. Try to make your article accessible to as many of them as possible. The reader is probably reading the article to learn. It's quite possible the reader knows nothing at all about the subject: the article needs to explain it to them.
(from Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Think of the reader) That's why I mentioned above that many readers would be more familiar with the systems used in other countries, in which the leader doesn't serve a fixed term. JamesMLane 20:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This seems to me like an fairly innocent, utterly harmless idea. It's a fact. I think having it in there is educational and appropriate. -- J. Jensen 16:44 14 Jan 2005 (CST)

Medical diagnoses by political partisans

Those who feel that the "dry drunk" and "cocaine" allegations are appropriate and NPOV say that the allegations have been made, and we are just reporting them, without stating they are true. Taking it in good faith that these statements are sincere, we need to give the reader context. The "dry drunk" allegations do not come from medical journals but from political partisans, with one article illustrated with Bush as a wino. As for Cocaine, those charges have been made against other politicians (including Clinton). The only significant source for this allegation is Hatfield's book. We could also note the man was an ex-felon (convicted of trying to have a former boss murdered) who sets up the perfect unprovable journistic setup: "Bush was arrested but his father had the record expunged." Most of the people who have taken Hatfield's book seriously are the ones who want to believe it's true and the man himself committed suicide as he was being pursued for credit card fraud. Ah, the reliable sources that Wikipedia depends on to inform the people. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your edit gives the false impression that the cited article was written by Cockburn, when in fact it was written by a professor who'd previously authored a book on addiction. I'm deleting the language about Cockburn. If you want to convey the point accurately, it would have to be something like: "(This article, written by a professor of social work who had co-authored a book on addiction treatment, was published in Counterpunch, a magazine edited by Bush detractor Alexander Cockburn, who also writes for the leftist magazine The Nation.)" One could give a similar treatment to the Bisbort article. I think all this is more detail than the point warrants -- readers can figure out for themselves that statements strongly supportive or condemnatory of any controversial person might be influenced by the writer's bias -- but I could live with including it if people feel it necessary to get in a dig at Counterpunch. JamesMLane 09:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK. I will accept your wording if noone works to dilute it further. Please remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If we read something like this in the Encyclopaedia Brittannica, I doubt we would say, "well the editors expect us to assume that they've included this highly prejudicial material with the expectation it was written by fire-breathing partisans." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You placed my suggested wording after all the links, giving the impression that it applied to all of them. I moved it so that it followed only the reference to the Wormer article. (Note that I said, "One could give a similar treatment to the Bisbort article." If you want to undertake the effort of drafting yet another gratuitous slam at a Bush critic, go ahead, but I think the paragraph already looks pretty silly.) JamesMLane 10:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the paragraph looks pretty silly as it is, since the subtext is innuendo that Bush's policy are a result of his being a "dry drunk." I know Jimbo Wales' opinion doesn't necessarily carry any extra weight in Wikipedia, but I agree with his statement that the choice of what to include and exclude is in itself POV, even if the material is described accurately.
But before leaving this subject, I want to make one point: I was a lifelong (and proud) liberal from 1953 (McCarthy) to c.1996 when liberals I knew suddenly decided they weren't anti-war anymore, and a sometime socialist. I never voted for a Republican for president until 2004 (I voted for Nader in 2000). I voted for Dukakis, for chrissakes—I voted for a man who looked like Rocky Raccoon in a tank because I was worried about the rightward drift of the Supreme Court! Arrrrgggh! So there is a point I wish liberals would take to heart: it has long been a habit to portray those who don't vote for the people liberals want (or the politicians liberals don't like) as stupid, or ignorant, or wicked, or deceived, or "troglodites" (popular in the 1970s) or now, as non-drinking drunks. As long as this attitude, which runs from condescension to operate hostilty persists, liberalism will not come back. Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's well-known in liberal circles that all conservatives are lowbrow idiots. It's equally well-known among conservatives that liberals are latte-sipping elitist wimps. Oh, and we all hate America. So the only lesson here is that people with strong political opinions are happy to believe and repeat unflattering stereotypes about their adversaries. Anyway, while I appreciate your advice about how we can "come back", I must note that the Democratic candidate has gotten the most votes in three of the last four Presidential elections. Now, obviously, we're going to get slaughtered in 2008, when voters look at all the thriving democracies in the Middle East, and the robust economy and federal budget surplus produced by the tax cuts for the rich... well, sarcasm mode OFF, back to editing. JamesMLane 04:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, you see, sarcasm or no, therein is the problem. This isn't a duel of which side has the juiciest epithets against the other; it's that Democrats have been sinking, and the explanation is to blame it on the Republicans, or on the voters. Isn't possible that the fault, dear JML, lies not in their enemies, but in themselves, that the Democrats are now underlings?
But to one subtantive matter, yes, the Democratic candidate got the most popular votes in three of the last four presidential elections, but lets look at that. Clinton (who I voted for twice) pointed the way to Democrats getting the white house. Play to the middle, reform some of those Democratic icons (like welfare) that need reform, leave the economy alone, look to the middle class. But right now Clinton's DLC is dirt in the mouths of many, if not most, Democrats. And Al Gore? Yes, he got 500,000+/- more popular votes than Bush, but he should have been a slam dunk. A good debater over an uneasy one. Mr. Technology. Intellectual. And the Vice President under a Democratic President with high popularity ratings, a booming (until the last year) economy, and apparent peacetime. And all he could do was barely more than tie dumb little George W. Bush. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You touch on an important subject. Quite a few Democrats agree that a better campaign would have produced a cheatproof victory in each of the last two elections. The trouble is that half of them think "a better campaign" means a move to the center, and the other half think "a better campaign" means a more vigorously left-wing program. Resolving that dilemma is somewhat beyond the scope of this talk page, however. JamesMLane 06:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Of course, the diagnosis was reached without a direct physical examination or medical history which might have revealed or been able to rule out other possible causes of the symptoms inferred from the public record and the diagnosis is not an officially recognized medical condition. Note, that co-authoring a book may get you on the talk show circuit, but is not a peer reviewed publication. That said, I think wikipedia should reflect its manner of creation and not merely attempt to duplicate the dryness of brittanica. Not including obviously controversial material might induce users to over trust it. --Silverback 10:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I will also note that Katherine van Wormer, the author, is not a Doctor of Social Work (I checked) and certainly not a medical doctor and therefore no more entitled to make a diagnosis than I am, even if she had examined Bush. I'm quite familiar with this. My younger daughter is autistic, and couldn't be educationally placed as such until she had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist (not a psychologist), who is an MD -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s disease

Boy, this will be controversial as hell, but what the heck. It looks like the bulge observed during debate is actually a medical instrument instead of a radio receiver. Below are the two articles related to Bush's bulge. [2] and [3]

"It looks like the bulge [...] is actually a medical instrument [...]? Oh, please, you need more than a speculative piece in a European leftist web site. If CNN or some other outlet with a press reputation says so, it might mean something. The belle ciao article is really a stretch. SO Bush is on powerful statin drugs. Oooooooooo, so is a huge hunk of the otherwise healthy US population. I've been on statins for several years and I'm Bush's age and have no cardiovascular disease. Simple high cholesterol--it's supposed to help me in the future. We'll see. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bush Picture

We need to change the picture of Bush because in this picture his eyebrows are bushy and it makes him look like an ape

We usually use the official picture. You can confirm that this picture is Bush's official picture if you Google the phrase "miserable failure", which will take you to his bio on the White House website. JamesMLane 19:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey, do not insult apes now! -- Nils 12:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bush Picutre

We really should change that bush picture it makes me wanna puke!