Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 41

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.

Contents

German newspapers

Bildzeitung has published an article with a header "The silliest american president" as Bush was chosen. Was not sure if i should add it :) Elmagnon

  • You could add it to one of many articles on liberal media bias, but don't even think of putting it here--205.188.116.138 01:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Categorizing this article as "liberal media bias" would be POV original research. Nonetheless, I favor avoiding inflammatory article titles in links if possible. I'm not familiar with German newspapers; is Bildzeitung a major paper there, or is it considered fringe? If it's mainstream, it might deserve a link, inflammatory title notwithstanding. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Bildzeitung is the top-selling yellow-press paper. Its essentially conservative and pro-US. I hardly believe that there was such a headline.
It might be appropriate on the public perception main article. Kevin baas 01:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"Bush has never yet vetoed a bill"

(From the "Other Issues" section) Is this true? I had heard that he has never vetoed a spending bill, but not that he's never vetoed a bill in general. Can we get a source for this? -- 2nd Piston Honda 23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That is completely false. Bush has vetoed lots of bills, though not so much in his second term due to republican rule. Kevin baas 17:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Name one. He hasn't vetoed any bills yet. Period. Unless one happened in the last couple of days, without anyone knowing about it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Ya, whatever. You're the one making an extraordinary claim, so the burden of research is on you. Kevin baas 18:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rather an uncalled for snark there. I didn't make any extraordinary claim; I just stated a fact on a talk page. Were I putting on the article page, I'd have cited something. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, IIRC, Bush hasn't vetoed any bills. I think that actually is true. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I relucantly did your work for you, you know you could have cited an article or two, wouldn't have hurt too much. I believe now that he hasn't vetoed a bill, I must have been confusing veto threats with actual vetos. When congress knows the veto threat is genuine and that it won't have the power to override the veto, it often drops the legislation - so the veto threat often works like a tacit veto. Kevin baas 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did it too.[1] Bush and 7 others never vetoed a bill. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Calling the Bild Zeitung (as it is spelled correctly) liberal is not quite right. It is considered as conservative.
Speaking as someone who covers this stuff professionally for a living, I can tell you that Bush has, in fact, never vetoed any bill at all, spending or otherwise. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 05:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's that Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. That isn't terribly important, because the Executive branch will generally communicate with Congress and iron out any differences before the bill is sent to the president's desk -- thus, while Bush may have effectively said no to certain provisions, he didn't have to veto them. This is particularly true when the Congress and the President are controlled by the same party. Ken 19:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

won electroal vote in 2000

according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1067820.stm, Bush won due to the supreme court decision, the electoral vote was never confirmed as the counted was stopped before it was finished. Is the BBC news article wrong? If the article is correct, then it would be inaccurate to say Bush "won the electoral vote", wouldn't it? I have removed the "won electoral vote" part until this can be confirmed if true or not. --Rebroad 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep fighting! Never give up the good fight! You see, I'm really the president of the United States! Not just some sad loser who won't admit that I lost the election to a better man!--John F. Kerry 17:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The BBC news article is correct. And you'll see on the 2000 presidential election page that the plurality of legal voters in florida actually voted for Kerry, so if how people voted determines the electoral vote, than Bush actually lost the electoral vote. Another interesting oddity in american history. Kevin baas 17:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The US Constitution allows each state legislature to determine how electors are picked. Many electors have been picked by means other than using the popular vote (mostly in the early years). NoSeptember talk 18:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
From a legal standpoint, there was a legal winner of the electoral vote. Electors were certified pursuant to Florida law, those electors cast their votes, their votes were properly sent to the Congress, where Congress accepted them as legitimate. Despite the controversy over votes, the Secretary of State and Governor of the state had a legal function to perform in certifying electors and their votes, and they performed their function. Technically, all the US supreme court did was prevent the Florida supreme court from further directing state and county officials to do something they had decided not to do (namely to continue a recount of a certain category of votes). The US supreme court did not make any ruling on the election results itself, or interfere with the officials who were empowered to certify the electors. That is not a comment on what the political motives of any of the various people involved were, but on the technical question "Did Bush win the electoral vote?", the answer is yes. NoSeptember talk 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You've got your history wrong, NoSeptember, firstly it remains to be determined whether the ballots were "regularly given" - from a legal standpoint that's something that is determined post facto (because from an investigative standpoint, it can't be determined pre-facto). But that technicality aside, Congress did not accept any electoral votes as legitimate - that is they did not certify the electoral ballots - until after the court decision. And while we're talking about legal process, I'll remind you that the option of a recount is part of the legal process, and the legitimacy of counts travels side-by-side with the legal steps. Now if the Supreme Court, as you suggest prevented state and county officials from doing something they decided not to do, then the Supreme Court was by that act acting outside its authority and neglecting its duty. Its duty is to make rulings based on the law, not what people want or don't want to do. What the supreme court essentially ruled is that expediency is above accuracy, when it comes to elections.
My point, which I believe I stated pretty clearly and concisely - I'll break it down for you:
  • IF Florida's popular vote was determined by how people voted instead of how votes were counted,
  • AND Florida's electoral college voted unanamously for the winner of said popular vote (as is traditionally done),
  • THEN Florida's electoral ballots would be for Kerry,
  • AND THEREFORE they wouldn't be for Bush.
See, I'm bringing the question down to one of jurisprudence; philosophy. Kevin baas 18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh my gosh who cares?!?!?! It happened 6 years ago, nothing is going to change it so why do we keep having to have this discussion. I'll sum it up: Bush supporters are happy he won, Gore supportes don't think he won at all. Nothing is going to change it, so everyone just needs to move on. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you seriously believe that a serious subversion of democratic process and constiutional law by excercise of mental reservation and outright lies is not worthy of debate, might I suggest that you move to a country where you won't be troubled by your democratic duties? By your reasoning, we should remove all pages relating to the crucifixion - after all, it happened 2000 years ago so who cares? A debate on the legitimacy of the Bush presidency aty least should be referenced from this page.

And you assertion about Bush supporters and Gore supporters merely underlines your naivety and unsuitability to contribute to a debate such as this. --Dazzla 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to discuss this at the U.S. presidential election, 2000 and related articles. Congress has procedures as to which electoral votes it will accept and how they may be contested (passed in the wake of the 1876 election), so Congress did indeed decide that Florida's electoral votes were legitimate. The state of Florida has laws about the proper certification of electoral votes that were followed. Note these laws do not rely on a definitive analysis of votes cast. State officials (the Gov and Sec of State) are charged by law with making determinations and are not legally obligated to make full investigations of vote results. Your reference "as is traditionally done" has no relevance to the legal situation. Mistakes can happen, including miscounts, but the state and federal laws were followed concerning certification, and the electoral votes are legally valid. People's opinions about who won the votes is a separate issue from whether the certification was legal. NoSeptember talk 18:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misconstrued me there. I agree w/everything you just said, except for a subtle point. When one's talking about jurisprudence one is talking about that whole mix of opinions, views, interpretation, issues, intent, purpose, etc., as it applies to prudent construction and application of law... one is talking about that grey area - one is posing questions at the very basis of law, of meaning of laws, etc. Some such questions are: is the purpose of an election to determine the will of the voters? and therefore are the laws and processes pursuant this end to always be interpreted so as to favor a more accurate determination? There are a lot of grounds for jurisprudential dispute, even if on the surface all the processes were followed. And that's another such question: is the validity of an election result determined by the following of a legal process, or by its coherence to the will of the voters? I hope you can understand from these examples what I mean when I say I am bringing this to a level of jurisprudence, which is properly (by its own definition) at the heart of the issue. Kevin baas 19:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Supreme Court ruled that only doing recounts in certain counties (as the democrats wanted) would be unconstitutional, and that if there was going to be a recount, it had to be the whole state. The effect of this was that there wasn't enough time to do a state recount before the deadline that the Florida Supreme Court had given, so it was game set match for keeping the official results which Catherine Harris had certified. That's the summary of it, folks. It seems that democrats, just like with the Clinton impeachment, never really can understand (or choose to divert from) the real issues at hand. -- 2nd Piston Honda 20:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, I urge all parties to just drop this. Nothing is ever going to change the fact that Bush became President. So quit arguing. At least not here. Please. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I might be kicking a dead horse here, but I fully agree with NoSeptember. The vast majority of legal scholars, etc. agree that Bush won the electoral vote; he's the president. Period. Disputes on the electoral vote count can be mentioned elsewhere. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's removal of Category: Living people

I've removed this category because Bush is a member of Category: Current national leaders, making this redundant because the latter category is a menber of the former. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Expiration of term

In reference to this edit, I would note that this date is now enacted into the US Constitution, so only a constitutional amendment will change it. Unless we are going to change all references to US Senate and House term expirations as well (they could be changed by constitutional amendment too), the "expected to expire" phrase is inconsistent with our political articles and should be reverted, imo. (Note: the term is independent of the person filling the term and continues to expiration even if there is a vacancy filled during the term) NoSeptember talk 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd add, when the law changes, we can change our article. This is a wiki, hooray!!! --LV (Dark Mark) 18:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually we can't becuase the page has been protected again! Almost like the entire unprotection was a farce, and when no one bit, the unprotector came along and vandalized it himself to give him an excuse to re-protect--152.163.100.74 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

... I'm glad someone else noticed this, too. "expected to expire" suggests that the author of that sentence is trying to slip in a political dig by saying that they expect that GWB will somehow try to stay in power longer than constitutionally allowed. Get real, Wiki.

Done. When something changes, we can change too. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

are these rape charges real?

http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/index.php?q=node/2607 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.41.44 (talk • contribs) .

that link at the end says the woman was killed / x /ed out

yes, but she was fairly obviously deranged. see Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents Derex 22:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Public perception and assessments

This section hardly mentions praises and then elaborates on criticisms. More needs to be said about why Bush was reelected and why people continue to support him. -- 2nd Piston Honda 23:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the world's great mysteries... perhaps so little is said about it because so little is known. Kevin baas 18:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I knew i was setting myself up, but didn't think anyone was feeble-minded enough to bite. I could easily explain why Bush was re-elected and why so many people support him, and so could you, kevin bia..i mean baas. But honesty has never been a liberal's strong suit, has it. Anyway, i see the article isn't locked anymore, so i'll edit it if no one else will. -- 2nd Piston Honda 23:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Please try and avoid personal remarks and remain civil. Thanks --LV (Dark Mark) 23:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2nd Piston, I can call you names too. It doesn't take any special talent. And I really can't come up with any legitimate reason why people continue to support him. I can come up with some opinions that people have given me in support of him, that I don't respect for multiple reasons (such as irrelevancy). I can say they support him because they believe, dubiously, that osama bin laden is from iraq, that al qaeda and saddam hussien were cooperating, that iraq had wmd's, etc. But in every reason I have heard that people support him, I can find no basis in reality. I do not mean to make a personal attack by saying this, I am just telling you my honest experience. Where you judge my earlier comment as being disingenuous, though it was somewhat of a joke, I was not being disingenuous. Though I know reasons that people cite, I don't know of any that are relevant, thoughtful, and based on truth rather than propaganda. Please don't take this personally. You can go ahead and add in gay marriage stuff and karl rove's demographic analysises, it's certainly interesting and important. Kevin baas 18:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Yeah we know, anyone who disagrees with your reasoning is a supporter of "irrelevant propaganda". Maybe you should get some friends who are less dumb. You seem to be surrounded by idiots. People like that Bush is aggressive vs terrorism, that certainly isn't propaganda (although you might argue that in your liberal stance). People like Bush because he is a man of faith and not afraid to admit it.

I know plenty of idiots who dislike Bush because he "looks dumb" and because he "wants to bring back slavery".

Please remain civil and cease the personal attacks on Kevin's friends. Thank you. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

All I wanna do...

I'm a stickler for grammar and neatness in writing. All I want to do with this page is clean up some small but messy grammar and formatting mistakes. This sentence:

"in a particularly close and controversial general election." - although it doesn't show here, has an extra space between "controversial" and "general" due to an overextended hyperlink (I think - because when you put the cursor in between the space it highlights the link). But, I don't even know how to do that, so I'll leave that up to someone with more technical know-how.
This list should be separated by semicolons...
Bush is a member of a prominent political family: his father, George H. W. Bush, served as U.S. President for four years and as Vice President for eight(,) his brother Jeb Bush is the current Governor of Florida(,) and his grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a Republican United States Senator from Connecticut.

The commas in parentheses should be semicolons...I don't feel like explaining why! (it has to do with the type of list the punctuation is separating) paragon 02:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

cheerleader

I think Bush was a cheerleader. [2] But if he's not famous for being a cheerleader, maybe the category doesn't belong. --Allen 04:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to list him in that category, he's not notable for being a cheerleader, but he is notable among cheerleaders. Similarly, we put people in from state X categories when they're from a state even if they're not notable for being from that state first gov. of state x etc.--Samuel J. Howard 07:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I hadn't thought of it that way, and it makes a lot of sense. --Allen 07:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Allen, you were originally right. If we're going to follow Samuel's line of reasoning, then we'd have to put Bush in every category for every activity he's ever done (baseball player, fisherman, checkers player, chef) and the same for every other president, celebrity, or head of state. Instead we should just put people in categories that they're famous for, as you said. -- 2nd Piston Honda 23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Bush participated in cheerleading at Yale [3], he belongs in this category. This extracurricular activity at a prestigious institution is a well-known part of his past. Gilliamjf 00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
So are we prepared to go through every celebrity and government official's extracurricular activies at their colleges and put them in those groups? -- 2nd Piston Honda 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I offer a distinction between those professions and avocations (baseball player, chef, chess player) for which there are some number of people who are indisputably famous primarily for engaging in them, while there are others (checker player, cheerleader, poker playing -- the current Texas Holdem rage notwithstanding) for which there are none. Some US presidents (Truman, Harding, I believe) were well-known for their poker games in the White House. It would be reasonable to mention them in the article on poker. Listeners to radio talk show host Don Imus know that he plays chess, but to mention that fact in an arcticle along with Bobby Fischer and Deep Blue would be inappropriate. Therefore, by this criterion I suggest that George W. Bush belongs in the article about cheerleading, but not in the one about baseball. Samiam1955 22:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bush owned a major league baseball club, which makes him eligible, later events notwithstanding. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add SourceWatch link

Admins: Please add a reference to this MediaWiki-based page on Pres. Bush. Slightly different emphasis, but pretty good: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Walker_Bush

3rd term

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH: - According to this, there is some serious consideration to removing the limit 2 terms that a US president can serve, so it's probably accurate to say "this" term will expire, but not necessarily "his" term will expire, since George Bush may have the option and go on to win a 3rd term. --Rebroad 13:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

May God forbid. Note that when 2-term limit was imposed, it did NOT apply to current officeholder, Truman, who could have run for re-election in 1952 and chose not to. Precedent would thus suggest that any revision to the Constitution's procedure here would NOT apply to the current officeholder, Bush. Unless of course we argue that the first term didn't count because he wasn't actually elected to it, a rhetorical device I wouldn't put past Karl Rove. BYT 14:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
While I personally feel the 22nd Amendment is probably a bad addition to the Constitution (why shouldn't the people be able to elect who they want?), even if it were to be repealed, Bush, at this point an almost sure loser, would be challenged for the Republican nomination. And since even Republicans are starting to turn on him, he would be likely to lose. And that's beside the point because the 22nd will not be repealed. Okay, I'll stop now. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no serious consideration being given to repealing the two-term limit. Thomas.loc.gov clearly shows the bill was introduced and then tossed to a subcommittee to die (which is standard Congressional procedure). Bush is not going to given the option of running for a third term, period. --Aaron 16:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There IS a deadly serious attempt to constantly float the idea of W Bush surrogate to be the next president , his wife Laura Bush - her running floated over and over to gain what momentum it can. Or other stooge, Dr

Condi Rice, trotting the globe over in hip high leather boots with mini skirt and no drawers, campaigning v. global pollution while fuming about.

Actually, no, they have all said no, "never", to her running for any political office. There was a story just recently about her not running for office. Sorry. Now, Hillary on the other hand... ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Damn. Clinton could have come back to defeat Bush Jr. Just like he did to his daddy.

Only if there's a li'l Ross Perot to split the right again. Ruby 23:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Unique sprotection boiler

Why does this page not use the standard sprotection boiler. It has been edited to be smaller and look less dominating, so I don't see the need. -- Ec5618 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 As a result of recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is temporarily disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection.
  • Be bold and change it if you wish. Harro5 05:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd warn against that, it seems to me a consensus for the small template has been affirmed at Talk:#The_sprotected_tag. -Greg Asche (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that TfD has deleted {{sprotected-small}}, so 'consensus' isn't very clear. -Splashtalk 05:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
We should use the normal template, instead of a "special" template. Is there any difference with the templates, since the words are exactly the same? --Terence Ong 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with Terence. I've added the normal tag, and would want solid reasoning (not just visual appearance stuff) before anyone changes this back. If you don't like the template, go edit it directly. Harro5 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
And I completely disagree. The information in that (still) dominating box is completely irrelevant to the subject people come here to read about. Why must we force our readers to start off learning something they don't care about? I'd like that note about who can and can't edit the article and why that is so to be as small as possible. Shanes 08:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Why not take up the discussion at the template's talk page? We can't push views on the template by boycotting it quietly and indirectly. Harro5 08:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I have taken it up there. But the box has a good purpose in that it screams "remove me" and so helps keeping us honest and strive for as little sprotection in wikipedia as possible. But in this article (and probably Adolf Hitler) screaming "remove me" is of no use since sprotection here has come to stay (except small almost futile attempts to test unprotection now and then). Actually, in this article the sprotection template text is a lie. It sais: "As a result of recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is temporarily disabled." That's not true. The vandalism here isn't recent, it's constant. And it's not temporarily disabled, it's disabled 99% of the time. Shanes 09:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we should stop fooling ourselves about the nature of the protection - the protection needed for this page (and a few others) is until-further-notice and thus we should be using a different (currently non-existent) mechanism. I propose that there should be a way to protect a page in such a way that no indication of the protected status appears on the page itself - or at least the indication should be much, much less prominent (e.g. only appearing in the left margin area). When a reader clicks on the edit button, that is the time to announce the protected status. The current mechanism and its visual manifestation derives from the idea that the most important thing about a page is that it can be edited. But for most readers, that is not the most important thing about a page - the most important thing about a page (or indeed about Wikipedia as a whole) is the information it contains. Details about protection status should be invisible for most readers as it is not relevant to them. In other words, Wikipedia pages ought to be designed with the readers' (as opposed to editors') needs in mind. Optimize for the 99.9% usage, not for the 0.1% - Hayne 10:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


It was deleted without consensus, and the only reason I, for one, voted for delete is because it is a single-use template. Please refer to the earlier discussion on the topic. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 08:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, there seem to be two basic points here. One, the template is here to stay, the page will forever be a subject of vandalism, and thus, should use a different template. Two, the standard template is too big. The latter is irrelevant of course, and no editor should vote to keep the template as it currently stands, simply because the current template is not to their liking. The first is more relevant, but I still say the standard template should be put back, though it could be modified to reflect the specific nature of the semi-protection of this page. But as it currently stands, the warning looks like a disambiguation warning, and is not obviously visible. Only when people try to edit the page wil they become aware of the problem, and very few editors to be would bother to turn to the Talk page to discuss their spelling check.
The standard template was designed for a reason. Yes, it could have been nothing but a subtle lock icon in the top right hand corne, but it isn't. Take it up with the template: -- Ec5618 10:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 As a result of persistent vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page.


Maybe it's a firefox quirk, but the template makes the font on the rest of the page all weird. -- Pakaran 08:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have that problem, and I'm not quite qure what you mean. -- Ec5618 10:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Works for me Ashibaka tock 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Since there seem to be no objections, I'm going to implement my edited boiler, for the reasons noted above. -- Ec5618 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there have been plenty of objections, noted elsewhere on this talk page, against the idea of using a large and obtrusive warning. Semi-protection is of no interest to most of our readers. That, combined with the *fact* that this page will be semi-protected for most of the next three years, provides plenty of justification for using a less intrusive notice. The reason we have large "protected" and "semi-protected" templates is to discourage us from applying protection and semi-protection in the long term. That justification does not apply here. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reinserted the standard template. That is the one that is used on semi-protected pages. The other one is barely readable on firefox. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but many of the objections noted are in effect irrelevant. The template may be obtrusive, but it is the standard template. A less obtrusive template should be mediated through the Template talk page. The only true objection to the standard template was that the standard template refers to temporary protection, which apparently doesn't apply here. By adding a modified version of the template, that objection is no longer an issue either.
It would of course be silly to have each article contain a unique version of a template, and it would completely defeat the purpose of templates. -- Ec5618 00:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a unique situation—using a template at all would be useless because such a template would be a single-use template. I suggest Jtdirl get his eyes checked, as it looks fine in Safari and Firefox for me. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it wouldn't be useless; the mirrors would remove the template and everything would look lovely. Ashibaka tock 06:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If we have to have a template, I prefer the standard template. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I agree with Lord Voldemort, standard templates are much better. --Terence Ong 11:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Only administrators message

When editing this page the following message is currently displayed:

WARNING: This page has been locked so that only administrators can edit it. Be sure you are following the protected page guidelines.

However I can (as a non administrator) edit the page. the page is semi-protected, not fully protected. Thanks/wangi 12:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the devs appear to have changed something without telling anyone, or updating the protection notice, or providing an alternative protection notice. I'm positive they're aware of it, and I've mentioned it at WP:VPT, where the devs have soundly ignored the feature. I think the solution may be to reword (and format) the relevant Mediawiki: page so that it has some more generic message. After all, any admin worth half their salt should know better than to edit a protected page except in line with WP:PPol, which is all the red warning reminds them of. -Splashtalk 12:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You can see some discussion of the "Protected message" here (near bottom) or here. Hope this helps. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. wangi 15:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Domestic Spying

This article seems to be missing anything on the subject of Domestic Spying, even though it includes such information as his stance on affirmative action. I think this subject diserves its own article with a paragraph and main-article link from the GW page. Thoughts? Ken 19:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's already in the "Public perception" section. ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 19:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The title "Domestic Spying" is misleading and POV. More approriate nomenclature would be "Terrorist Survailance". The government is not "spying" on your calls to Aunt Mabel. They are listening to calls that are made to/from known Al-Qaeda opperatives where at least one end originates overseas. Other Presidents have done this, Congress has known about it and is regularly briefed. It is in no way "Domestic Spying".

Just so we're clear what is being discussed here, we are talking about covert surveillance by the U.S. government of telephone calls placed by U.S. citizens while in the U.S. This would seem to be both a domestic matter and spying, so what part am I missing? Furthermore, the surveillance in question is not just of confirmed or even suspected terrorists, as this sets a legal precedent to allow the government to spy on your calls to Aunt Mabel. If you feel that "domestic spying" is not NPOV, then you certainly can't justify calling Aunt Mabel a terrorist just because someone in the current administration said so, or maybe you supported the Red Scare and McCarthyism. Please pay attention to the law and not the current rhetoric. I'm sure you are familiar with the quote from the man on the $100 bill, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 03:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that "Domestic Spying" would include innocent civilians, while "Terrorist Survailance" is a more accurate term for what's going on. The govt says they're only targeting those connected with terrorism, so unless you have proof to the contrary we should take them at their word. Innocent until proven guilty, my friend. - 2nd Piston Honda 04:58, 27

January 2006 (UTC)

Guilty. Wisco 05:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Ummm... is that link even about wiretapping? It looks like it's just about taking pictures of war protests. Did I miss something? --LV (Dark Mark) 15:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Domestic spying means spying on anyone living in the U.S., terrorist or not, citizen or not. "Domestic". It's illegal to do it without a warrant, and George W. Bush has admitted to doing it. I don't see what's so foggy or confusing about this issue. It's about as straightforward as you can get. Kevin Baastalk 18:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Except for the fact that the U.S. Congress gave the President broad executive powers to defend the U.S. Plus, members of Congress also knew, so should they all be taken down too? The whole thing about the name is ridiculous anyways. Why do people always fight over language? Everyone knows what is being done. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I frankly think that any use of the words terror or terrorism are POV, and by using the words wikipedia would implicitly be buying into the explanation of the administration. Also, not every president has conducted domestic spying in the way this has -- so that's why it's a controversy. If it were simply legal spying on of terror suspects, there would be no controversy and it wouldn't justify inclusion. Domestic is not POV, because it is spying on Americans, which for years has had an important legal distinction. It's purposed to be used only for national security, but that's what Nixon claimed too, and Nixon's use of domestic spying turned out to be almost completely political. It would be POV to aggressively speculate that the spying is being used for political means, but it's also POV to assume that is is used exclusively for national security.
Something on the order of, (1) The administration admits to initiating extra-judicial spying on Americans following 9/11. (2) Some groups have asserted that the program began earlier. (3) The administration claims the spying was used for national security, not for political means. Because there is no third party audit of it, this claim cannot be validated or invalidated. (4) Many legal scholars consider the spying to be against both statutory law, and the constitution. Leave the rest to the main article. Those are the undisputed facts - Wikipedia shouldn't take sides, but it should document the events without buying into (or rejecting) the party line.Ken 22:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Ummm... except those are not "undisputed facts". Many legal scholars consider it to be well within the presidential powers granted to him by Congress, and the way you frame your statements is not NPOV. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think the argument over the legality of the domestic spying is purely political -- inside of legal circles, there's no question over its illegality. But there is a political debate with considerable numbers of opinions on both sides, so the political debate over its legality is very real. I think it's fair to document that there is a debate instead of having wikipedia declare the program's illegality, but claiming that much of any plurality of experts is on the side of the administration is unverfiable, because it isn't true.
In fact, 14 of the country's top constitutional scholars will tell you as much.[4] -- Ken 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
More approriate nomenclature would be "Terrorist Survailance". The government is not "spying" on your calls to Aunt Mabel. They are listening to calls that are made to/from known Al-Qaeda opperatives where at least one end originates overseas.
Or so we've all been told. The point of requiring a warrant is that without such legal means, there is NO WAY to protect our civil liberties from encroachment. In every instance when a government is given power, it misuses it to some extent - or so 'small-government' Republicans used to believe. Minimizing the impact of this violation of the Constitution is incredibly un-American and non-factual. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I still think use of any words involving the root word terror is inherently POV. It should be survailance, because that's more precise than the word spying. I think domestic survailance is the most exact term and its status as either isn't really in question.-- Ken 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
'Surveillance' can be conducted legally, 'spying' has an illegal connotation, in my experience - making 'domestic spying' the perfect term in my opinion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

real footage of him drunk?

http://www.digyourowngrave.com/george-bush-drunk-speech/

Without looking I would still bet that is the clip from the Late Late show. Arkon 06:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
you're good. 132.241.245.49 06:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, on the topic, there is legitimate footage of him a little 'tipsy' giving a mini-speech (toast?) at a friend's wedding, though it's certainly outdated footage, from long before he was President. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


September '01 Caption Incorrect

While reading this article, I came upon a mis-labeled caption stating that the pic of Bush with a bullhorn at the WTC site was taken on September 14th, 2001. According to all the major sources I have read (ABC News, NBC, the Associated Press) this pic was actually taken on September 13th, the day before. Could some one further verify this for me? This would be greatly appreaciated since I have no Wikipedia account.

According to the White House web site, Bush's visit to the WTC site was on September 14. This also matches my recollection. [5]Brandon39 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Link incorrectly labeled or missleading

"Audio archive of the Bush's weekly radio addresses" [6]in the External Links section is currently linked to "The Offical Official Parody of President Bush's Weekly Radio Address". This site has really amusing content but others may not share my sense of humor, the site is rather missleading, with the exact same look and feel as the White House site with the exception of the title bar. Could someone who has a wikipedia account please point the link to the offical site "White House Radio" [7] and/or rename the link so that it is clearly labeled as a parody site. -- Flyscan 143.238.68.131 12:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Good catch...I hadn't noticed that and I'll be glad to fix it.--MONGO 13:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan Keyes' criticism of George Bush for naming Jesus as his favorite philosopher

The best comment by Keyes can be found during an interview with Crossfire at the Alan Keyes archive:

Press: Well, the other night at the debate he showed some conviction when the question was asked about the political philosopher that's influenced you the most. You said the founding fathers. I thought it was a pretty good answer. George W. Bush said Jesus Christ. Do you think he was showing conviction there or was it pure political pragmatism?
Keyes: No, sad to say, I was -- I think he was showing an entire misunderstanding of the question. I found it kind of shocking and I think a lot of people did. Not, by the way, because of all the separation of church and state nonsense, no, but because G.W. Bush thinks that Jesus Christ was a philosopher, and this is not possible. Philosophers are people who seek the truth. Jesus Christ is the truth. And there is a vast difference between the one category and the other individual. If he puts Christ in that kind of a category, then he has secularized him to a degree that reduces, in fact, what he really is. I don't admire Christ, and he doesn't influence my life. I worship him. He is the living son of the living God, and he doesn't influence my mind, he shapes, guides and commands that mind, because he is the sovereign of my will. Now, if -- that's not a philosopher's role, and I just found it strange that asked that question, you would respond with Christ. The most influential figure, certainly, but thinker, political philosopher, Jesus Christ was not a thinker, quote/unquote. He was the word itself. And so I just found it to be kind of -- what can I say? I thought it was a little bit of a misunderstanding of the question. And I also thought that it reflected a misunderstanding of who Christ really is.
I have restored MONGO's deletion of this line, on the basis of this citation. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

C'mon, guys! This looks like the White House's official bio. -- NGerda 05:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the opposite is true. It's doubtful the White official bio would discuss in any detail the unfactual based accord of his "substance abuse" issues, or his "military controversy" or contradict the issues regarding the the War on Terror, or elaborate on international opinion polls.--MONGO 15:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If both sides are unhappy, it sounds like the ideal compromise. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep...mutually assured destruction!--MONGO 16:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
MONGO and I now both have a great deal of mutual regard, and I consider him a great friend, but we first met when we clashed as foes on this article. Anyone who fancies a giggle should dig into the history of this talk page for our names, oh around February to June of last year I suppose. MONGO was new and I was still a bit wet behind the ears. I'm happy with the result and I think it's part of Wikipedia that makes me most proud. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Ditto for my experience. MONGO's a good guy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Made me blush...gee thanks!--MONGO 20:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Phony and Malicious "Controversy" over President Bush's National Guard Service

This article fails to make clear that this phony "controversy" is nothing but a malicious and baseless attack on President Bush from the Left. The unsubstantiated allegations about Bush skipping service, etc. are made to sound legitimate, which they are not.

This article must mention the disgraced leftist journalists Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' failed attempt to smear Bush's reputation in September 2004 (less than 2 months before the election) using proven forgeries purporting to be official National Guard records. CBS News has officially and unambiguously disavowed all claims to those documents' authenticity. Bush-hating leftist contributors might wish they were real, but this does not make it so.

I note that Wikipedia has locked the public out from fixing this ridiculous article. Why? To perpetuate your anti-Bush propaganda without further complication?

Unless this article is changed by its owners to make clear that this wrongly labeled "controversy" has never been proven to be anything other than a false and baseless attack against the president, then Wikipedia is engaging in leftist propaganda of its own and has damaged its credibility.

-ATS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.1.133 (talk • contribs) 23:45, January 14, 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia have plenty of right wing editors who have edited this article. If you would like to edit this article, which was protected due to anonomyous vandalism, sometimes at the rate of 3 vandals per minute, make an account and make a few edits to other articles first. Then you will automatically be granted access to protected articles. To be clear: this article was protected so that those who hate Bush - the LEFT wing - could not defame him here. Anyhoo, if you can factually prove your claims about Bush not showing up for duty as propaganda, do so on this talk page. Please support your case using reputable sources (i.e. not The Weekly Standard or The National Review). CastAStone|(talk) 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (a) Shouting removed. (b) See WP:NPOV. "False and baseless attack" is as POV as anything you're complaining about. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is to whomever is defending the claim.

The burden is on the accuser to produce evidence that Bush didn't show up for duty, and that his honorable discharge was therefore undeserved. Other than the proven forgeries you're evidently relying upon -- revealing you to be a leftie who will circulate any lie about Bush so long as it portrays him negatively -- what is your basis for leaving in this claim, without providing references, citations, proof or evidence of any kind? What are you using to "factually prove" your unsupported claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.26.82 (talk • contribs) 03:04, January 15, 2006 (UTC)

  • Please, no personal attacks. And sign your posts with ~~~~. Now, which claim are we leaving in? The article says "Critics say XXX; Bush supporters say YYY". Is there a particular sentence or paragraph you object to? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You know full well what you're doing. Critics of Bush also say he lied about WMDs, that he withheld evidence from Congress, etc., etc. Just because people who hate him say idiotic things which have NEVER been substantiated in any way -- such as the claim that he missed Guard duty solely on the basis of forged documents and that he therefore received an undeserved honorable discharge -- you are not justified in including these and other baseless assertions in an article pretending to be unbiased and encyclopedic in nature. Placing this unsupported claim in quotes, i.e., using the typical propagandist's phony and anonymous shield of "Critics say..." -- without providing any specific names, references or citations to support it -- betrays whoever posted it, and whoever refuses to change it, for precisely what they are.

Challenging you to defend your beliefs does not constitue a "personal attack", however it's not surprising that a person of the Left would respond that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:58, January 15, 2006 (UTC)

  • ...revealing you to be a leftie who will circulate any lie about Bush... is both a personal attack and a violation of WP:AGF. And if you're talking about me, it's also inaccurate. At any rate, this conversation appears done; the issue was a significant one during the 2004 election (whether or not it had any basis in truth), and will be reported on in this article (as it is now) without giving any particular credence to either side. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A call for calm (on both sides)

To the unregistered people who have concerns about the controversies about George W. Bush, your concerns are important to the registered members editing this article. However, bear in mind these controversies were moved to the elections section from the Bush prior to 2000 section to make the context of said controversies more fair and balanced. (If you see earlier I had tagged these articles for this exact controversy and nobody objected to my moving of these sections and adding a stub tag to the Bush prior to 2000 section).

In my humble opinion, the fact that these controversies are in the elections section now put the controversies in context by implying they were allegations leveled by the oppostion to Bush (it is an election after all).

BlueGoose 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me just make something clear hear: burden of proof always lies on the person making the extraordinary claim. In this case, that would be George W. Bush. Specifically, George W. Bush has claimed that he served honorably in the U.S. military. That's an exraordinary claim. Kevin Baastalk 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hehe... --LV (Dark Mark) 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan Keyes

"Alan Keyes did smile during the debates when Bush made the comment about Jesus Christ." (source:MSNBC debate video)

I need some input regarding this sentence. I had put it in and it was taken out because it was factual yet not relevant/unimportant. And I'm torn as to whether that argument is correct or whether this sentence or something analogous to it provides context to the motives of Keyes' criticism. BlueGoose 08:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Fact

To prove no one will ever be happy on how this entry is handled. This page is the most revised page in all of Wikipedia with 27809 revisions. More than 2 1/2 times the number 2 "wikipedia" with 11275. Here's the rest of the top 10

3.  Jesus (10045 revisions)
4.  Adolf Hitler (9627 revisions)
5.  Hurricane Katrina (9200 revisions)
6.  United States (8365 revisions)
7.  2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (7231 revisions)
8.  September 2005 (7113 revisions)
9.  John Kerry (7049 revisions)

10. Michael Jackson (7029 revisions)

So, going by this, people are about 3 times likely to get upset about how Bush is portrayed than Jesus and Hitler. Squiggyfm 23:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

lol Well done, Squiggy. That last comment had me roaring with laughter. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Who thje hell cares about September 2005? BlueGoose 01:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I do damnit! I do!--152.163.100.74 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Connections to the bin Laden family

I see no mention of connections between the bin Laden family and the Bush family/George W. Bush here or at Bush family. Shouldn't something this important be on this page? It's on the bin Laden family page.[8] Cparker 00:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)