Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 46

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

Out of date?

In the section "Political ideology", it mentions in an image caption "...and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon...". If i remember correctly, didn't he step down for health reasons? If somebody can confirm this then please change it to "former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon" MichaelBillington 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think he did not step down OFFICIALLY yet. If I am not wrong, he is still the PM. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
His governmental powers were ceded to acting prime minister, Ehud Olmert. He is no longer the PM. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it happened over Passover after he had been unable to function in office for 100 days. Bjackrian 19:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Trolling Remarks

ANY Accurate Bio Should include the following information :

George W. Bush -- By his own admission ( thus not disputable ) was a D student and a poor academic. His Father bought his way into Yale, Where he was known for his fanatically Pro - Vietnam War political stance while on student deferment. Anyone who questioned him on this contradiction was subject to the whispering campaigns by which he would get back at his enemies ... ie any who would chalenge him. His inability to endure any criticism and engage in reasoned debate or discussion was clearly noted by his teachers and classmates.

Given a coveted position for Fighter training for which he was not suited, in the National Guard , again only through political influence of his family, since normaly only the best candidates, in academic ability and charachter are allowed to train for fighters -- one of the most highly skilled and competitive areas of military training -- widely known to anyone who folows military aviation and training.

It is also widely known that ever since the faliures of early vietnam in producing pilots of high caliber -- later on changes in training and selection were vastly improved. It was an essential charachter trait for "fighter jock" that they had aggressive and sure confidence ( justified or not) that they are better than most - a kind of attitude which made them eager to test their skills and increased as well the odds that they WOULD be one of those whowere not as likely to waste multi million dollar craft, or far worse -- the incredible expense of fighter military training -- in the hundreds of millions s --- by getting themselves killed and not justify the huge expewnse of their sp-ecialized training.

It is worth noting that although the fighter war inb Vietnam was ongoing at the time of George Bush's Time with the Gaurd -- He made no effort or attempt to join the rest of those of his avowed occupation - either joining the acction, or trying by any means available to put their skills to the test in real combat, not always available to these highly trained, skilled and motivated aviators -- at least those whose positions were attained through merit and ability.

- Unknown who posted above (I was too lazy to look through all the history)

- Moved out of introduction by me, --Perlman10s 10:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

- The item above citing "George W. Bush, by his own admission, was a D student and a poor academic" is relevant, verifiable and needs to be added back. I won't comment on the other items above, but relevant, verifiable facts should be included, especially if the subject himself has admitted as much. --Digiterata 13:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As much as I hate to be wrong, I just noticed that a [Citation needed] tag was added. Being a good Wikipedian, and since I made the comment above and added it back originally, I thought I'd go find a reference. Well I couldn't find any. I saw only one reference indicating he received one 'D' at Yale, the rest were mostly 'C's. By that definition he wasn't really a 'D' student. Can anyone point to a citation re: his high-school grades that would support the comment? Otherwise, it might make sense to remove it entirely. --Digiterata 00:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm removing the reference to 'D' student, unless someone can come up with an appropriate citation. Will replace it with, "By his own admission, Bush was not much of an academic..." Otherwise it's unreferenced trolling (apologies) --Digiterata 12:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that if he was a mostly C student with a few Ds thrown in here and there, his cumulative gpa could easily be a lot lower depending on how the classes were weighted, not to mention a lot of universities don't include failed courses on their transcripts, but do factor them into the cumulative average.. assuming he was a mostly C student (~2.0), with a few 0.0s averaged in, could easily come out to a final gpa of around 1.0--64.12.117.13 15:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Censure Resolution

Should the censure resolution include a quote from Senator Feingold, or at least an extra line about the purpose? More text is devoted to the problems with the resolution than is devoted to explaining what the censure is - a poor explanationg at best. --Ryan 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this has a definite bias against Feingold. - Gavin

George W Bush, there is much pro and con for him, with sides ready to storm the white house and overthrough him, and some ready to make him a god, just like the issuie of abortion, it is on a VERY thin line.

Rhobite's removal of prisoners' rights and wiretap content from the intro

Respectfully Rhobite (and others), can you provide more justification for this edit, the removal of the wiretap and "prisoners' rights/torture/rendition" content from the lead, the summary for which reads:

rm wiretaps/habeas corpus from lead section. inappropriately negative, and not major enough for the lead. [1]

The lead contains a number of seemingly mundane topics - for example, a mention of Bush's having signed a medicare law - but the wiretap scandal (which has thus far brought a motion of censure to the Senate) and the 'torture/rendition/rights of detainees/abu gitmo' issues, while certainly negative to Bush are a direct result of actions he personally asserts to be within his rights, as a 'unitary executive'. - it's true they're unflattering... but they are more than major, they're positively notorious. Can you elaborate on your rationale? The edit doesn't sit well with me, but I'm not going to revert it outright, I'd like to understand Rhobite's and folks' view/rationale of this edit better before I decide. That having been said, the text of the content in question is pretty poor and could itself do with a fair amount of editing, in my humble opinion. Anyway, thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The other mundane information should go as well. In my opinion a good lead section should be a "dictionary definition" of the subject, containing stuff that high-schoolers who know nothing about politics would understand. Bush is the 43rd and current president. He is a republican and was elected twice to the presidency after twice being elected to gov of texas. His presidency created the bush doctrine, the war on terror, and the iraq and afghanistan wars. That is all it needs. Details of the war on terror or the election or whatever that people love or hate are subtopics of those topics and people can find the information in the appropriate places. The current lead section needs to be divided into subsections. 67.124.201.166 12:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. There is no need to delve into individual details or minutae. It should be broad and informative. There is a section on the war on terror and this is where wiretap stuff should go. It needs to be a lot more general. For a guide, go to the Clinton bio. In the intro, there is no Monica Lewinksy. No motion of censure since it wasn't voted on (yes, it was presented), etc, etc. There are places for the details. --Tbeatty 18:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

However, I wasn't saying the censure motion should be in the intro, but the raging wiretap and habeas corpus controversies themselves. The wiretap and habeas issues are not merely an aspect of the 'war on terror' (or whatever else the brand name for American pre-emptive war policies) - they are fundamental constitutional issues that are defining this presidency and changing America itself. The censure motion is a mere blip. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Every president has "fundamental consitutional issues." From claims of executive privilege to the expanse of federal power. This is merely a news item that has it's place but not in the intro. It is a small part in the overall "War on Terror". I think WOT is fundamental, but the minutae of praise and crticism of individual aspects of it belong in different sections. Patriot Act, Homeland Securty, TSA, Rendering, Enemy Combatants, Wiretaps, Faith-Based Intitiatives, Abortion restriction, etc, are all constitutional issues. And there are even other issues such as Plame Affair that are not Constitutional but are still major events. --Tbeatty 00:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What's Abu Gitmo? Do you mean Abu Gahrab(?) and Gitmo Prison?

Yes. And the violation of FISA and human rights of prisoners is not a mere 'news item'. So far, it appears to be the most far-reaching Constitutional 're-interpretation' by any modern president - and potentially the most illegal act to which a President himself has admitted. Wiretapping Americans in direct violation of FISA is not a 'small part in the war on terror'... it's a violation of our basic Constitutional laws, and since President Bush has admitted making the decision himself to circumvent FISA despite warnings from WH counsel, it may even be an impeachable offense - it's not just part of some PR effort to justify invasion. since the information about who was wiretapped, what was recorded and what actions may have been taken is 'classified', and outside the jurisdiction of FISA, there is no proof that this 'unitary executive' privilege that the President has asserted has only been used against suspected terrorists. Quite the opposite in fact - we've begun to see reports of FBI surveillance and search of domestic peace rallies, political events, private meetings and even private homes and residences within the U.S. Where is the proof that only suspected terrorists, and not political enemies, may have been wiretapped? The claim it's just part of the 'war on terror' is a claim, not a fact that is verifiable. Compartmentalization of issues in the interests of damage control is for politicians, not for an encyclopedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a bunch of spin doctoring to me. I especially like the demands for proof that a crime has not been committed. But it clearly falls under the category of war on terror in many verifiable ways. For example the justification given, and the source of funding. You have already conceded as much. keith 14:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We simply disagree. And of course, you mischaracterized my position. I am not asking for negative proof. I am saying that actions without any public oversight, which can not be verified, can not be verified to be within, or beyond, the war on terror. All we have to go on are conflicting statements from Bush and other involved parties. Therefore, it's not 'clearly under' any category - it stands alone as a crisis. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

When it becomes and impeachable offense or it becomes a crime, we can add it to the intro. But until then, it's just par for the course of a President. You outlined your beliefs, but that's exactly what they are. They are not fact. I, personally, disagree with almost every one of your assertions. I don't think the wiretaps violated the law. I don't think 'unitary executive' is a new concept or a wrong interpretation. I don't think gitmo or 'enemy combatants' is unconstitutional. I do believe that wiretap information that the NSA has can be used in a court of law. The fact that this is unsettled means that it doesn't belong in the intro, it belongs in the body where all points of view can be fully developed. --Tbeatty 17:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that we (as in a sense, representative Americans) disagree so strongly about the issue (which, again, is the President's intentional bypassing of FISA) speaks to it's notoreity. It certainly doesn't support 'folding' it conceptually into the topic of the 'war on terror' meme. In my opinion the fact that it is as notorious as it is, generating massive public outcry and at this point a censure motion, speaks to the value of addressing it at the outset of the article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing contemporary with contentious. Last year it was social security. Before that, Afghan war, before that tax cuts. It's as contentious as 'Hillary Care' or travelgate was in the clinton adminstration. All of those items are just as contentious. But they have their place. Ken Starr wasn't even mentioned. His impeachment received one sentence. If we choose the Clinton wording it would be something lie "Bush's priorities were to fight the Global War on Terrorism, reduce the tax burden and grow the economy, reform social security, etc, etc. --Tbeatty 19:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, the Bush Administration intro is twice as long as the Clinton info in about half the time. Has the Bush administration really accomplished twice as much as the Clinton Administration in half the time?--Tbeatty 19:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confusing the two. The wiretap scandal is a fundamentally different 'beast' than the failed attempts to privatize social security, or the Afghan war. Your view that this is somehow of the 'same stripe' as the other issues you mention is just that - a POV - it's not fact. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 19:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Your view that they are of a different stripe is just that - a POV - not fact. Why does POV belong in the intro instead of a controversy section or a policy section where competing views can be explored? I don't believe these issues will define his presidency any more than Elian Gonzalez defined Clinton's presidency or Terri Schiavo defines Bush's. It looks bad when it happens but in the long run it's just a blip. This is the same with the wiretaps. There is lots of press and "controversy" today but it is a temporal issue. --Tbeatty 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you are misrepresenting my argument. I'm not asserting POV belongs in the intro. I'm asserting that the wiretap and human rights abuses of prisoners 'issues' are profound and fundamental - FAR more so that Terri Schiavo or Elian. The willing disregard of FISA in order to circumvent the Constitution and perform unauthorized search is entirely different than the other issues you mention from a Constitutional perspective. And the President's primary role is not to 'protect the infirm' or 'rescue Cuban kids' - it's to 'protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. You've also parroted my words back to me (blip) twice now, a sign the discussion may be becoming unproductive. If so, I'm willing to agree to disagree and leave it at that :) . -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Reread what you jsut said: "profound and fundamental" = POV - "willing disregard of FISA in order to circumvent the Constitution" = POV - "human rights abuses" = POV. I disagree with you htat you can properly include these as introductory items. You state as fact issues that are very much disputed. I don't think the NSA wiretaps have anything to do with FISA and are covered by a completely different law. I am willing to ascertain that others will disagree with me and therefore this should go in the controversy section. The 'War on Terror' is general enough to put in the intro. Wiretaps and human rights abuses are POV that belong in the controversy section. --Tbeatty 18:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In my assessment those phrases are not POV. 'human rights abuses' is objective at this point. The argument isn't being made that the behavior going on (torture, murder, rendition, starvation) isn't abusive - the argument is that those people do not possess protection against such behavior. I've explained this elsewhere, but the wiretap scandal involves a President who himself commanded a violation of FISA. Section 1809 of FISA clearly states that:

"[a] person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally - (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute. . . .'

And Section 2511(2)(f) provides that FISA:

"shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance {...} may be conducted.'

Thus, a person has broken the law if -- as the President admits he did -- he orders eavesdropping on Americans without complying with the warrant requirements of the statute. That's not POV. The POV is that bypassing was not illegal, not that it occurred. The example you mentioned (assault weapon ban) is about interpreting the extent of a Constitutional provision. This is about a direct, admitted violation of FISA and the Constitution. The POV is whether or not one believes the claim that the President has inherent authority to violate the FISA law. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And Alberto Gonzales admitted this. He stated that the wiretapping NSA engaged in requires judicial approval under FISA on December 15, 2005:

"Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires." [2]

There's POV, and there's fact. The precise nature of this Constitutional crisis is factual - and the attempts to avoid accountability under the auspices of unitary privilege are POV. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read this part "except as authorized by statute"? The Bush Administration claims the statute that authorizes them to hunt down and kill the 9/11 terrorist also gives them the authority to listen to their phone calls.--Tbeatty 05:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your hostility is unproductive. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to which statute that was, exactly, that authorized wiretaps? In the words of Senator Patrick Leahy, "Now that the illegal spying of Americans has become public and the President has acknowledged the four-year-old program, the Bush Administration?s lawyers are contending that Congress authorized it. The September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force did no such thing" [3] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You misinterpret my statement. It wasn't hostile, it was to enlighten. Leahy's submittal on the "Sense of the Senate" is not law. Nor is it an lawful interpretation or have any legal standing. I don't even think it was passed. The wording is currently "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." To me, and the Administration, "all" includes monitoring phone calls of those persons, nations, and organizations regardless of whether those calls are placed to the U.S. It is lunacy to think that the call from Osama bin Laden to Mohammad Atta would not be able to be listened to and that the specific statute that addresses force against these terrorists didn't authorize it. --Tbeatty 06:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Leahy, like many of the Senators participating, voted on the statute itself, and asserts it did not in any way authorize wiretapping. It is not his statement that I am alleging to be law, it is his view of the legislation he himself voted on that is relevant - just as wiretap is relevant to Bush because he himself admitted authorizing it in defiance of FISA. Your claim that 'use all appropriate force' automatically includes 'wiretap Americans in the U.S. in direct violation of FISA' is one of the Bush administration's POV talking points, but it is not shared by many of the Senators in the censure hearings, Leahy among them - and is, on it's face, legally indefensible. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no other definition of 'All'. These are foreign phone calls that may originate or terminate at 9/11 terrorist locations. I still can't see how you think that the Act didn't authorize the NSA to listen in on a OBL to "Terrorist In the US Phone Call." That makes no sense. It's great political posturing for Dems, but doesn't pass scrutiny. Let's put it this way: God forbid that another terrorist strike happens, but if it was because we couldn;t listen to OBL giving instructions to terrorists in the U.S., I'd bet dollars to donuts that Leahy's "Interpretation" would be completely different. --Tbeatty 06:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

'All appropriate force' did not and does not include wiretapping Americans when FISA already provided the President that capability. However, inconvenient for the 'new era', observing FISA requires the administration to offer an explanation for why the wiretapping should be conducted. The Bush administration did not want to have to justify it's wiretapping, so it circumvented FISA. If you can't understand how I hold the opinion I do, consider that a Senator, who deliberated and voted, holds the same opinion. It's not political posturing, it's protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States. We are not a country of men, or of parties. We are a country of laws. By removing judicial oversight, you are trusting a man over the law. That's not my America.

Nor is it Senator Robert Byrd's (D-WV):

"Now comes the stomach-churning revelation through an executive order, that President Bush has circumvented both the Congress and the courts. He has usurped the Third Branch of government the branch charged with protecting the civil liberties of our people by directing the National Security Agency to intercept and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant, which is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. He has stiff-armed the People's Branch of government. He has rationalized the use of domestic, civilian surveillance with a flimsy claim that he has such authority because we are at war. The executive order, which has been acknowledged by the President, is an end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it unlawful for any official to monitor the communications of an individual on American soil without the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." [4] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I perfectly understand how you hold your opinion. But I and others disagree with it. FISA says it only applies when it isn't superceded by another law. Intercepting communications of the enemy, whether the enemy is "foreign or domestic," is a fundamental part of warfare. I hope you can also see why others disagree with you. This whole discussion belong in the controversies section, not in the intro. --Tbeatty 16:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

FISA states it 'shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance {...} may be conducted.' The exception for wiretapping 'authorized by statute' does not legally mean 'any possible interpretation of any statute'. It means specific authorization by statute, which the September 2001 act did not provide, as numerous signatories of the act have stated.

You again claim a negative where none exists. Wiretapping, which you state is a fundamental part of warfare, was not prohibited by FISA, which permitted it under certain specific judicial oversight. It is judicial oversight that theexectuive seeks to avoid in violating FISA, to allow them to tap massively and indiscriminately:

The NSA program came to light in December, when the New York Times reported that the President had authorized the agency to intercept telephone and Internet communications inside the United States without the authorization of any court. Over the ensuing weeks, it became clear that the NSA program has been intercepting and analyzing millions of Americans' communications, with the help of the country's largest phone and Internet companies, including AT&T. This surveillance is ongoing, and today's injunction motion seeks to stop the spying while the case is pending. [5]

The scope and impact of this scandal is unprecedented, and it's not just 'part of the war on terror'. It deserves specific treatment, representing the Congressional and Constitutional crisis Bush's actions have generated - not to be folded into that PR topic.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is election year jockeying, not a scandal. It is ludicrous to say that the authorization for war (which the resolution was) doesn't include listening in on the enemies private phone calls. The Commander in Chief in a time of war does not need permission of the court to conduct wartime operations. It's silly on it's face. Statutes also prohibit the use of the military as law enforcement: Does that mean that if a hijacker took control of an aircraft, the military couldn't shoot it down without a court order or due process? Please. The September 11th act authorized all of these measures and more. This is NOT law enforcement, it is war. The enemy is contacting people in the U.S. whether they are citizens or not, and monitoring those conversations are a part of this war. In fact, using the FISA courts to conduct war would set a dangerous precedent for future Presidents and violate the separation of powers doctrine. Every member of congress that is privy to these wiretaps say it is an important program and has saved lives. In the end, after the election, the program will be ratified by Congress. The NY Times did a grave disservice to the nation by publishing it's details. --Tbeatty 17:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, we are a nation of laws, not of men. If you can illustrate how the AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) authorized this behavior, you will have done the President a great service in avoiding accountability. A leaked Justice Department memo that appears to confirm the President's right to conduct warrantless domestic wiretapping, provided that the wiretapping was of individuals meeting the AUMF's requirement, reads:

"The Supreme Court?s interpretation of the AUMF in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), confirms that Congress in the AUMF gave its express approval to the military conflict against al Qaeda and its allies and thereby to the President?s use of all traditional and accepted incidents of force in this current military conflict?including warrantless electronic surveillance to intercept enemy communications both at home and abroad. [6]

The AUMF reads:

"the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." (FindLaw)

However, The AUMF does not authorize the kind of massive wiretapping, interception and data-mining of millions of Americans' communications, as we've learned is occuring:

While refusing to discuss how the highly classified program works, Chertoff made it pretty clear that it involves "data-mining" -- collecting vast amounts of international communications data, running it through computers to spot key words and honing in on potential terrorists. "It's hard to talk about classified stuff," {DHS Secretary Chertoff} said, "but suffice it to say that if you have a large volume of data, a large number of (phone) numbers you're intercepting, the typical model for any kind of warrant requires you to establish probable cause (that one party is a foreign agent) on an individual number." [7], also see [8],[9].

Since the President has authorized the wiretapping of millions of Americans' phone and email conversations, and has not authorized domestic wiretapping only of individuals meeting the AUMF's requirement, he has clearly exceeded the AUMF. Next, your characterization that "Every member of congress that is privy to these wiretaps say it is an important program and has saved lives" is plainly unproven. Rockefeller, for example, expressed great concern:

Rockefeller stated that the briefing he received on the program left him "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse" the wiretapping program, and that "[w]ithout more information and the ability to draw on independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received" [10]

Besides - discussing the program with a few Congressmen does not satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. FISA, however, explicitly addresses warrantless wiretapping during wartime, in Section 1811:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress. (FindLaw)

Knowing this was the law, Bush didn't ask for more time, or more authority. He simply dismissed FISA and personally authorized the NSA to wiretap without regard for the law, based on his own view of the powers of the executive.

"{Bush} argued that he did not need {a change in the law}, that it might not have been approved and would in any case, in the words of his assistant attorney general in a letter to Congress, "have tipped off our enemies concerning our intelligence limitations and capabilities". [11]

The resulting outrage that the leak of the NSA wiretapping activity has generated is similarly American, not merely Democratic. This is not election year posturing... that's the most recent GOP talking point, as evidenced in their attack ad on Feingold, claiming:

{Sen. Russell Feingold (D-CA)} is the "leader" of a group of Democrats "working against" the president's efforts to "secure our country" by monitoring terrorist communications and disrupting terrorist plots, and the claim that "{he is} more interested in censuring the president than protecting our freedom" [12]

Our argument has now run the gamut of the administration's current defenses, from 'unitary privilege' to 'it was authorized by the 11th Act' to 'all we're doing is wiretapping terrorists' to 'Congress was briefed' to 'Why do you hate America?'... but I see very little critical analysis from Bush's supporters - as if they simply trust he'll make the right decision about who, when and what to wiretap. That's un-American. I think it's quite clear where the politicization is occuring - and where the accountability is lacking. In any case, at this point, with millions of phone and email conversations between innocent Americans being tapped, it's quite clear the scope of the crisis is well beyond being an 'aspect of the war on terror'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And once again I have to point out that that is your POV. You are entitled to it. But it is not fact and is disputed and doesn't belong in the intro where side will be able to explore it fully. As for your "millions", you need to add this to the page on the NSA Surveillance article becuase it is lacking. The article mentions "thousands". And as far as I can tell, it was only phone calls that originated and terminated with those persons the president had determined were responsible for 9/11. You keep quoting only Democrats in an election year. This should tell you this is a POV determination. The Attorney General and the President has determined this is legal. The courts have not issued a stay (so either the "millions" don't have standing or they are legitmate) and the Congress has not revised or passed any resolution saying they disagree with the interpretation. What we have is Democratic senators grandstanding in order to get face time on TV and whip up the base in a lather. But there is little more to it. And I've given you the critical analysis for the justification. We are monitoring the communications of those nations, persons and organizations that were responsible for 9/11. One of those communications methods is "telephone." I'm sure there are more. We are also attacking them in all sorts of ways, including direct military action, covert military action, disinformation, financial disruption, psychological warfare and others. And speaking of critical analysis: Does the 9/11 military authorization supercede Posse Comitatus? Does the President have the authority to shoot down an airliner over the U.S. (on routes that started and ended in a U.S. City, just like 9/11) even if the Hijacker is an American Citizen? And if hte President does have this authority how did he achieve it? There is no explicit repeal in the Authorization. And when you make it this far, please tell me how you think that thought process that superceded Posse Comitatus doesn't supercede FISA (or rather supplement it)? Doesn't it seem odd that the president is authorized to attack and kill al Qaeda all over the world (including the U.S.) but we can't listen to their phone calls? --Tbeatty 02:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

While the exact number of innocent Americans affected isn't clear, as Attorney General Gonzales refused to answer that question, saying "that information remains classified", what has leaked is that there are at least tens if not hundreds of thousands of American conversations/emails/individuals possibly affected. 'Millions' is indicated by numerous sources that I provided inline, including Chertoff's comments, which also serve as an example that I've not quoted only Democrats. A primary indication of the scope of this classified program is this article, which states:

In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month. [13]

In another strong indication, Russ Tice, the whistleblower, has indicated the possible scope of affected Americans:

President Bush has admitted that he gave orders that allowed the NSA to eavesdrop on a small number of Americans without the usual requisite warrants. But Tice disagrees. He says the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions if the full range of secret NSA programs is used. "That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum," Tice said.[14]

In addition, the 'EFF' case that describes the NSA program as one that 'intercepts and analyzes the communications of millions of ordinary Americans' was already mentioned on the NSA article (I added Tice's comments there). I have demonstrated facts to substantiate every point I raised above, what exactly are you claiming is POV? The President violated FISA. The sources made it quite clear, and factual - we are monitoring, intercepting and analyzing a vast store of communications, not just those of known terrorists, and scanning them for 'keywords' or other indications of possible terrorism... and then retroactively investigating the participants. That's the opposite of the law. If the individuals are suspected of terrorism and it's an emergency, FISA allows for 72-hour retroactive warrants, and the FISC has approved all but five of the 19,000 requests it received. However, the NSA is now intercepting American conversations which have nothing to do with terrorism, in hopes of netting a terrorist. That's an entirely different, and illegal, proposition. And I'm not sure what your example of posse comitatus has to do with wiretapping, when they are addressed quite separately in our laws. A state of war does not mean that domestic laws are superceded without Congressional approval. The NSA wiretapping is, in essence, attacking the entire public in hopes of hitting a few terrorists. It's more akin to shooting down every airplane in hopes of downing one suspicious one. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's so clear cut and factual, why did every senator, save 3, back away from censure (let alone impeachment or criminal charges)? Why hasn't the court stopped it? The reality is that laws are superceded all the time with new laws. Ttat's why we make new laws. We made a new one shortly after 9/11 and that was giving the president hte authority to use all available means to prevent future attacks. It didn't say with a court order. So far the only official legal viewpoint came from the Attorney General in favor of the program. In fact, the majority view of conresspeople who have commented one it is that it is a good program and should be continued but with more oversight. They simply say change the paperwork but nothing about any existing wiretaps that should not have been granted or outright stopped. It is simply disputable that what has transpired is against the law or unconstitutional. --Tbeatty 04:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a logical fallacy. The censure motion by Senator Feingold is not the entirety of the controversy, and one's support for censure is not equivalent to one's view that the programs are illegal. The 9/11 AUMF didn't include wiretapping of innocent Americans. The program is classified, and therefore a court cannot simply 'step in'. In order for the Judicial branch to play its part, the information needs to be uncovered despite the government's efforts to hide it. And so, despite relentless attacks by the administration on the patriotism and motives of those seeking to uncover this information the wheels are definitely turning, Congress is involved, whistleblowers are speaking out, and hearings are being held. It's a whole lot bigger than the 'war on terror'. And the stated view of Gonzales, appointed by the very same individual who authorized the program, does not qualify as an objective legal view - especially since he was intentionally "confining {his} remarks to the Terrorist Surveillance Program as described by the President, the legality of which was the subject" of the Feb. 6 Senate hearing. [15]

Laws are indeed changed, all the time. In this case, however, the behavior took place in violation of existing law... making it illegal. Bush could have sought to change the law, but thought it unnecessary. [16] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The wiretapping authorization was for Al Qaeda and those responsible for 9/11. Those are the poeple being wiretapped. If the listener at the other end happens to be an American Citizen, that is too bad. It's not illegal. The government is not 'hiding' it, it's secret and Congress is briefed and has been for the life of the program. Are you really telling me that after 9/11 and the Authorization to Use Force, the government would need a search warrant to listen to bin Laden give orders to Mohammad Atta because Atta was in the U.S.? Give me a break. The whole reason for the authorization and the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland security and the North American Military command was so that this could not happen again. It's silly to think that 'all' did not mean 'all'. That somehow we could kill domestic terrorists but not listen to their calls. --Tbeatty 06:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was authorized for al Qaeda and those responsible. And instead, millions of Americans' conversations have been tapped with no relation to al Qaeda. Congress was not 'briefed'. What information some Senators did receive, they are not permitted to share or act upon. Your example about Bin Laden and Atta is hyperbole, as I've repeatedly said that according to DoJ and the Congress in that instance, the AUMF would certainly apply. I have not contested that here, so the repeated argument you make, and it's Clintonian parsing of 'all' is likewise hyperbole. I should hope you don't misstate my argument simply to avoid any hint of acquiescence. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

While a wikipedia talk page is not the place to squabble over petty political disagreements, I can hardly see anyone stopping you two from going at each other. So do everyone using this talk page one favor, at least... Keep the ridiculous overuse of indentations to a minimum so the page isn't hundreds of times longer than it should be in comparison to most talk pages, thank you! I had a hard time reading the majority of your discussion as it got so bad that one word would be on every line to the right side of the page! Dudewheresmypizz4 12:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The wiretapping authorization was for Al Qaeda and those responsible for 9/11. Those are the poeple being wiretapped.

The problem is, we have only Bush and Gonzalez's word on that, and they are hardly objective sources. That's the whole reason that judicial oversight exists: so that someone other than the person wanting to do the wiretap can determine whether it's justified. You might believe that Bush can be trusted with such unrestricted power, that he would never abuse it by having the NSA listen in on conversations having nothing to do with terrorism. But Bush is not a dictator, he's just the president. His power has limits. In addition, even if the authorization to use force somehow also authorized no-warrant wiretapping of American citizens, the Fourth Amendment still expressly warrantless searches. The courts have been very clear and very consistent, for as long as wiretaps have existed, that they are searches. Thus, there is no act of Congress that can give Bush the authority he claims to have, as no law can override the Constitution. 71.236.33.191 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


There is a secret judicial department within the white house designed specifically for spying during war time. They had given Bush permission to use their top secret judical service. Instead, Bush bypassed this system and created his own means to spy for for whatever reasons and for whatever end result... Yet he still prevents proper research from being done on WHO and WHAT they were spying on, claiming to spy only on internation relivant terrorists - are they telling you the truth? well, just ask yourself how many 'truths' have you known Bush to use.

One person involved with Homeland Security has recently been arrested for seducing a child online and sending harmful material to this child.

ok... I do not care if the person is internation or not, this type of spying could still violate people 'internationally' - what is to prevent them without the proper checks and balances?


Sorry, but you be the judge... Should our government have the ability to spy for security purposes for anything they deem worthy? Umm... who is doing the watching and who is watching those watching? What sort of governmental control do you want, and what makes you think that the government would act proper given their history?

You decide. What do you honestly think?

Think before you feel like you ought to agree with everything Bush does. 149.169.45.2 18:26, 5 April 2006

Also, even if Bush is being perfectly honest about only using this program to spy on terrorists now, that doesn't mean he can be trusted with the power. As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Neither Bush nor anyone can be trusted with the power he's claiming, the power to tap phones solely on his own say-so, without being required to provide evidence to anyone that the action is legally justified. 71.236.33.191 01:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You guys are hilarious. Especially "so far, it appears to be the most far-reaching Constitutional 're-interpretation' by any modern president - and potentially the most illegal act to which a President himself has admitted"

Please, dude. I dont think you've actually studied American History. For one, the Constitution has been massively reinterpretated all over this century, most notably by FDR, the scale of whose contributions to the modern presidency dwarf anybody elses 100-fold. As for "most illegal", Nixon's actions trump anything this completely manufactured "scandal" with the wiretaps is. The funny thing is that RyanFreisling doesn't appear to know that the Bush govt did not create the practice of monitoring domestic transmissions, the NSA has been doing it for literally years and years, including under Clinton. And the most hilarious thing is the NY Times kept the story under wraps and then did a puff piece on it: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27network.html

No headlines, nothing. The NY Times, being the unashamedly liberal rag it is, has merely made it seem like Bush is doing something new and strange in an election year.

Outside views

I agree with the above posters, the Intro shouldn't have issues like the Wire Tap scandal and such. The intro should just give a quick summary of his presidency, for Example FDR would contain the Great Depression, WWII, and other similar unique and crucial information of his presidency. Now if they start a successful motion to impeach based on it, then it may have a place, but once again broad, and leave the controversy to the section that goes in detail about it. PPGMD 18:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree...I always hear all these complaints in the media (and from the left) about how the Patriot Act and this wiretapping has greatly impacted everyone's civil liberties and I have yet to meet a single person that can tell me how they have actually been inconvienenced or felt "spied upon". The only changes I can see that have affected me are having to take my shoes off before I board a plane. I'm also still waiting for the press or the left to demostrate who has been adversely impacted due to all this wiretapping that is going on...the best way to aviod wiretapping is to not associate yourself with a known terrorist organization...that should be easy enough...(sorry Ryan, don't hit me! I don't think it is noteworthy for inclusion in the intro either...but certainly deserves elaboration elsewhere.)--MONGO 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Needless to say, MONGO - I respect your views. However - there are numerous documented instances of individuals and groups whose civil liberties have been impacted (just as an example, the Quakers). As the quote that has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin says, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". As far as its' inclusion in the intro, I'm still interested to hear others' opinions... :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
RE:Ben Franklin quote- what he actually said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Draw your own conclusions as to why certain words were left out or replaced... and poor Ben Franklin's honor hijacked --FairNBalanced 09:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
There are thousands of people who are affected by Bush policy. SOme negative, some positive. Just like every President. Clinton banned assault rifles. I could use the same quote from Franklin and the same arguments about civil liberties. But it was just a blip. --Tbeatty 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously equating the assault weapon ban with unauthorized search as equivalent constitutional crises? And are you seriously equating the public outcry and impact of the former with the latter? In my opinion, that's outright conflation. The assault weapon ban is related to the interpretation of the extent of a Constitutional provision, and was signed into law. The current President's actions involve directly violating the Constitution despite the existence of legislation (FISA) providing proper judicial oversight. Moreover, he publicly admitting having decided to authorize the executive branch to do so entirely of his own volition. It's unprecedented. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who believes in that Franklin quote should be an ardent opponent of gun control. keith 13:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to read through this more thoroughly, but right now I'm agreeing with RyanFresling. First off, the term at the beginning of this section "inappropriately negative" is completely misguided. Something being negative or positive has absolutlely no affect on its appropriateness for an encyclopedia. "Inappropriately inaccurate", "Inappropriately uninteresting", or "Inapporopriately unimportant" would be well guided, but not "negative" or "positive". Using those terms in that way is asserting a priori the distribution of positive and negative in an article, which is, by definition, bias. And bias conflicts with the NPOV policy.
Regarding
"not major enough for the lead", I think Ryan has established that it is more major than other things which (are in the lead already?) one would consider for the lead. Kevin Baastalk 17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

]::::::On further reading and consideration, I think that a more appropriate model for comparision would be Richard Nixon. I say this without knowing the content of its intro. Kevin Baastalk 03:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstadning the completely unfair comparison, the Nixon intro is relatively benign compared to the current intro for GWB. I hope that gives some people pause to think about the current intro. --Tbeatty 06:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
We are all thinking and discussing (I hope, sometimes people discuss without thinking, and that's not very productive.) As for it being a completely unfair comparision, how so? Their popularity is comparable (with the exception that Nixon was being impeached when he had such low ratings), They're both republicans, both hawkish, they're both known for breaking laws regarding surveillence and it's a big issue for both of them. In all intellectual honestly, piece for piece I can't think of a more similiar president.
Regarding the intro being relatively benign, there are simply more issues surrounding Bush than there are Nixon. For example, if Nixon's elections were as controversial as Bush's, I'm sure that would be in the Nixon intro as well. Kevin Baastalk 18:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
On further reading, their policies differ significantly. Nixon was more of an environmentalist, he implemented the first significant affirmative action program, he was much more about diplomacy, and much more about non-proliferation. In sum, where policies are concerned, there are very stark contrasts between the two. However, I mantain that he is (perhaps) the only example for how to present an issue of illegal wiretapping by (or authorized by) a president. Kevin Baastalk 20:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It's simply not illegal. No court has come to that conclusion. congress hasn't come to that conclusion. I doubt they will. The only person with official power to prosecute, the Attorney General, has said it isn't illegal. --Tbeatty 06:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty, have you read this:NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#Legality_of_warrantless_surveillance? I find this legal analysis especially cogent. You have the issue wrong, Tbeatty, the issue is not whether or not it's illegal, it's whether the president has the authority to break a law passed by congress. Kevin Baastalk 19:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The recently added paragraph into the intro just makes it bigger, which is the last thing this article needs, and is highly slanted. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 06:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


I haven't read this huge rambling discussion, but I should probably respond here. I removed this text because it doesn't fit in the intro. The lead section of an article is intentionally general. It should be a short mini-biography of Bush, not a laundry list of actions which he's been criticized for. The NSA wiretap controversy was a moderately large story, but it doesn't rise to the level of the lead section. And mentioning it before mentioning the entire Iraq war is just nuts. The suspension of habeas corpus is many orders of magnitude away from a lead-worthy topic.

It's not helpful to debate the importance of these stories here. We should rely on media coverage as a guideline for what gets included in the lead section. Rhobite 06:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a simulacrum. Kevin Baastalk 19:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your post, but if you want to understand the issue best, you might want to take the time and read the discussion above, prompted by your edit. The media coverage on the controversy has been pretty extensive indeed, and although I started the discussion on the fence vis-a-vis it's inclusion in the intro, I do believe the facts discussed elevates the topic to one relevant to the intro, given the scope of the controversy, constitutional issues involved, deep divisions among the public, and the utter lack of precedent for the way in which the program has come to light. In any case, I moved it below the Iraq War section, but you reverted that too. As far as 'habeas corpus', it's an important issue, but I could see arguments that it does not rise to the prominence of the NSA wiretap scandal. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Some of the reasons for inclusion of this in the intro seems a bit OR and out of focus. The exact ramifications of FISA, privacy precedent, and reasonable use of war-time authority, and domestic spying still seem to be debated. I would say that it is clear that GWB has pushed this at least somewhat farther than previous presidents, though that alone does not warrant inclusion in the intro. The intro is already bloated enough as is. Only clear, non-disputed, major (very major only), items should go in there, otherwise the intro drift into the article. Until there is a sited or common knowledge academic consensus over the spying issue, then it deserves no more than a section in the article (but not the intro).Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 08:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to your point about consensus. It's not consensus between those who find themselves on opposite sides of the political aisle, but here's a note about the American consensus around wiretap legality from Senator Schumer in December 2005 when the program broke:
"beyond discussion, that if you're going to wiretap an American citizen you need a court's permission. In emergencies, of course, it's allowed 72 hours after it is done. That that was more or less the consensus in this country, it has been for 30 years, and it was a consensus the president was part of, at least as of a year and a half ago. [17] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 08:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm bringing the disputed section here for the benefit discussion:

He has interpreted the resolution that authorizes force against the 9/11 terrorists to mean that the executive branch can suspend habeas corpus rights of U.S. citizens captured overseas who are "illegal enemy combatants." His interpretation allows him to conduct wiretaps of international calls that may involve U.S. citizens and other people located in the United States.

I think that it can be shorter and focus on the more fundamental issue: the president's constitutional interpretation of presidential power. I think that's intro-worthy, seeing as though it sets the entire scope and agenda of the presidency. Kevin Baastalk 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one or two short sentences with a link to Unitary_executive_theory? Kevin Baastalk 22:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me give this a few tries:

Bush's presidency has been marked by controversy surrounding his interpretaion of the Constitution and the powers of the president. Namely, his assertion and practice of Unitary executive theory has resulted in accusations that he is exceeding his authority and being destructive of the system of checks and balances built into the Constitution.

Kevin Baastalk 01:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Domestic spying is NOT new. Its not even remotely new. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/24/60minutes/main164651.shtml "As an example of those innocent people, Frost cites a woman whose name and telephone number went into the Echelon database as a possible terrorist because she told a friend on the phone that her son had "bombed" in a school play. "The computer spit that conversation out. The analystwas not too sure what the conversation was referring to, so, erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady," Frost recalls. "

Thats under Clinton. Nothing about this is particularly unprecedented, huge, or constitutionally novel. Just because the Democrats go wide-eyed and "Oh my God! Wiretapping! Totally new and unprecedented and illegal!" doesn't mean the government has been doing it for years.


Power abuse is clearly seen all around. What has this guy done right? What has this administration done right? it is a big mess, in my opinion.

"original estimates" of how long troops would stay.

Actually, if we want to be accurate for the sake of NPOV here, the original estimates were that the troops would pretty much stay indefinitely, that the most likely outcome would be civil war, that the war would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, etc. The original estimates were dead-on accurate. Those estimators were promptly sacked, and new estimators were found that said what bush wanted to hear. It's disingenous to call what bush wanted to hear "estimates", and it's disingenuous to call them "original". Kevin Baastalk 19:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but a couple of weeks ago, the media was ranting about impending civil war in Iraq, and I haven't heard this for about a week now. I get the impression the media would like to see civil war erupt in Iraq just so they can have support for their predisposed bias that the war was inherently the wrong thing to do. After the owner of CNN Ted Turner essentially lambasted Bush recently, I have trouble believing that anything that CNN has to say on any matter regarding the war in Iraq to the Bush administration wouldn't be tainted with POV. Hence, this is one reasons a very NPOV organization...Gallup has parted with CNN. We never hear about electrical outage problems or medical supply difficulties or schools being inoperative anymore...because these issues no longer exist in any major form...the media doesn't want to tell us anything about the good that has occurred, just the bad. The fact is we can expect the U.S. military to retain at least the equal to 3 to 5 divisions in Iraq for at least another 10 years and that was something I feared about this invasion. The cost for the entire operation will be in the many hundreds of billions of dollars, consuming 10-15 percent of the U.S. GDP per year at a maximum.--MONGO 19:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
here's one reason why you don't hear about all the good things we're building (the logan video), and here's another. Derex 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's not get into a discussion about various strenghts and weaknesses of different media outlets, but let me just say that regarding the Iraq War, so far everything has gone as I initially predicted, much to my surprise. And that's the other thing about "estimates". Who's estimates? the public's? certainly not mine. The governments? certainly not the estimates of the people whose job it is to estimate. they were ignored, sometimes punished. who's estimates (if they can technically be called that)? Kevin Baastalk 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall a lot of predictions referring to Vietnam which, if you've forgotten, was over 50,000 US dead and hundreds dying daily often times. Not to mention over a million dead Vietnamese. Is that the current situation as you see it? Sounds to me like it wasn't as good as the best-case scenario but was better than the worst-case. Both predictions were apparently naive.

I think the original estimate was for 10,000 dead on the initial invasion. I believe this came from the number of body bags ordered by the Defense Department. Estimates for staying in Iraq were indefinite as there has never been a "timetable." --Tbeatty 03:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


And of course Bush now expects us to be there until much later then 2009 - saying they will be there when he leaves office. With the situation as it is, it is more likely then not then MORE soldiers will be going rather then any getting sent home. The whole time, of course, KBR continues to profit and Cheney's stock looks better and better, as well as the pocket-book of many wealthy elite..... circumstancial? I will let you be the judge of that, and let you decide who would foster civil war (logically, the person at the most advantage of there being a civil war would seem to have the greatest motives to encourage one... thus, U.S. wealthy elite profit a lot or terrorists meeting their radical idealism... both choices seem plausable, thus worthy of research and debate with no decisive conclusion until evident)

Bush's Cocaine Use Allegations

I notice that while the Clinton Wiki article delves into every single allegation that the right-wing talk radio ever dreamed up against Clinton, the Bush article has been heavily sanitized and doesn't even mention a number of serious allegations against Bush (even if only to dispute them). I have no opinion on whether or not Bush ever used cocaine, but I do believe that this allegation ought to at least be mentioned in the article. If Bush himself had ever denied using cocaine, I would agree that it was a non-issue. However, Bush has been asked a number of times about past cocaine use and has always avoided answering the question and has only offered up glib comments like "When I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish." If Bush himself has not denied cocaine use (a felony, by the way), then surely this ought to at least get a mention in this article, if Wiki is going to claim even a tiny shred of credibility as a reference source.

See WP:Point. The solution here is not to make the Bush article more slanderous, but to go clean up the Clinton article. Don't bring this one down to its level; bring it up to this one's level. Make sure to request cites and give people time to add them, rather than just blanking. -Kasreyn 10:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Good point...good point...there's also an allegation that Bush is really a shape-shifting lizard and part of a New World Order conspiracy trying to take over the world. Perhaps we can post your links along side those?? Jeravicious 18:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that one of the major issues with many of these aliegations is that they are not verifiable which is a must if they are to be included in the article. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
True, although I do like the comment from the anonymous poster above, "If Bush himself has not denied cocaine use (a felony, by the way), then surely this ought to at least get a mention in this article"...which is equivalent to saying, "If Bush himself has not denied something...ANYTHING, then surely this ought to at least get a mention in this article"...BRILLIANT!! Jeravicious 00:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
In the interest of a more productive discussion, I'd like to point involved parties to the Wikipedia Civility Guidelines, as you appear to be out of line with your personal attacks, Jeravicious. Kuzaar 18:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Bush has been publicly accused on several occassions of using cocaine, and in response he's issued Clintonian not-quite-denials instead of saying outright that he hasn't used illegal drugs. If a major public figure is accused of committing a felony and doesn't directly deny it, that's certainly notable. 71.236.33.191 12:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So we'll be adding Category:Suspected heralds of Galactus to this article? - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 00:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it could have been said better this way: "If Bush himself has denied cocaine use (a felony, by the way), then surely this ought to at least get a mention in this article.", only because we've already done an excellent job of doing exactly that. Kevin Baastalk 01:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, drug use is not against the law, it's possession, sale, etc. that are against the law.;

The reason why Clinton's alleged drug use is mentioned is because it is TRUE!!!! ~Lilfreakydude

umm, so is bush's use of that same drug. Derex 02:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush is a very honest liar, with lies ranging from the war in Iraq to lies such as Social Security issues. And before you jump to calling me a terrorist, which I am defintiely not, because I too hate terrorists. But don't we live in a free country? Don't we have the right to free speech? What if I personally don't agree with Bush?

Then you are a wise man, my friend. Well, sorta wise. The lies and deceptions of Bush are easy to detect. Only an ignorant person would not recognize them. I mean, how illogical is it to say that terrorists are fighting against freedom? They die for their cause! They are not concerned with getting some sort of temporal personal advantages out of it. Let us be honest, they are fighting against the imperalism of America, which they feel is violating their system of ethics and morals (economic control and dominance over other states is classified as imperalism, thus America would qualify - and especially now, since by definition imperalism is the control of another state; Iraq is currently under the control of America. Thus, by the definition of imperalism America is an imperial power. They fight the American empire, in other words)

Going back to the central topic of debate, i believe that mentioning the allegations of Bush's cocaine use does belong in this article. I'm not quite sure, because i don't live in the states, but i think i remember someone close to the bush family stating this in a book of some sort before the elections, and also seeing it in several other articles. It is a widely known fact that people have accused him of this. The fact that he has been accused of this is not irrelevant, is encyclopedic and therefore is better in the article, rather than ommited, IMO. Gerardo199 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush Family - Swedish American

According to this article from Svenska Dagbladet [18], the Bush family is related to Måns Andersson, a Swedish immigrant who came to American in the 1600s. Bronks april 3, 2006.

Yes, Måns Andersson is #1316 in George Bush's Ahnentafel.
1316       Måns Andersson
 658 & 659 Chrisopher Mounce & Martha
 328 & 329 Robert Mercer & Ann Mounce
 164 & 165 Robert Mercer & (possibly) Sarah Beeston
  82 &  83 John Mercer & Rebecca Davis
  40 &  41 George E. Walker & Harriet Mercer
  20 &  21 David Davis Walker & Martha Adela Beaky
  10 &  11 George Herbert Walker & Lucretia Wear
   4 &   5 Prescott Sheldon Bush & Dorothy Walker
   2 &   3 George Herbert Walker Bush & Barbara Pierce
         1 George Walker Bush
You can see the descent traced here - Nunh-huh 14:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

From unsigned editor: ---SECTION ON 9/11 IN ORIGINAL PAGE---

PLEASE STOP PROPAGATING OFFICIAL VERSION OF EVENTS AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE. THERE IS TOO MUCH INFORMATION BY NOW TO IGNORE AT LEAST THE QUESTIONABILITY OF THE OFFICIAL VERSION, AND THERE IS ABUNDANT COMPELLING EVIDENCE TO POINT THE FINGER THE OTHER WAY. FOR THE SAKE OF OBJECTIVITY AND TRUTH, PLEASE INCLUDE CONSIDERATIONS OF DOUBTS ABOUT THE OFFICIAL STORY AND LINKS TO SITES FEATURING THE AMAZING AMOUNT OF INFORMATION COUNTERING IT. WE CANNOT KEEP PROPAGATING THE SAME FALSE INFORMATION, IF WE WANT TO BE HONEST WITH OURSELVES AND THE WORLD.

THANK YOU.

I completely agree, wikipedia users should be objective-- point out all sides of the argument, all criticisms! Otherwise, we are merely recreating whatever we have heard; which very well could be propaganda! Questioning and reasoning is at the heart of wikipedia, and at the throat of truth! Thanks

--end of unsigned comment. --Tbeatty 17:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • so, you took a random bit of vandalism to the article and reposted it here because.....? you're trolling?--64.12.117.13 21:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree 110%


fyi, Bush was talking about fighting for freedom, Iraq, and terrorism in many speeches before 9/11. In fact, he talked about all three right next too each other in two speeches during his first two months in office, Jan & Feb. This was not a war conducted because of 9/11 alone and it was pre-developed, as any analyse would conclude. 9/11 did help foster resentment towards Iraq in the way Bush inaccurately phrased his speeches

FYI, Bush ran on a platform of reducing involvement in foregin nations and ending the notion of nation building that the Clinton administration had used in the Balkans, after September 11th that rhetoric took a 360 degree reversal.Jeff CU 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Being "at the throat of truth" -- I'm not sure I like the sound of that! --Cubdriver 21:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

References not referenced

Can anyone shed some light on why the sources listed in the "References" section don't appear to actually be referenced in the article? To me, the "Notes" section and some of the items under the "Links" section appear to be the actual references. Am I mistaken in this perception? I'd like to:

  1. Rename the "Links" section to "References"
  2. Merge some of the sources in "Links" into the new "References" section
  3. Change some of the inline links to ref tags
  4. Do something with the current "References" section (perhaps relabel to "Further Reading" or something similar if they're not actual references for this article or delete it altogether).

Thoughts? Comments? I'll leave this out there for a few days before making any changes as this is obviously a high-traffic, controversial article. I'm bold but not stupid. :) --ElKevbo 22:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't receive any comments (or objections) so I've performed the proposed work. Specifically, I:
  • Changed the inline links to ref tags
  • Changed the old "References" section to "Further information"
  • Changed the old "Notes" section to "References"
  • Moved the content of the "Links" subsection of "Further information" to the "External links" section
There is still some minor work to be done:
  1. The citation formats are inconsistent.
  2. The inline citations are also inconsistent in that some are placed at the end of the sentence (correctly) and many are placed after the end of the sentence (i.e. after the ending punctuation mark, typically a period).
--ElKevbo 22:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you point to where it says that refs should be before the period? Earlier this year we had a discussion about this at a featured article candidate, and none of us could find a proper policy page regarding this. By the way, you realize that refnames aren't required and that <ref>s will suffice? The only reason a refname would be used is if the ref were used several times. Good work, though. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I've never found a reference in Wikipedia about exactly where the inline reference should fall. I know in many other styleguides the end- or footnote must be placed in the sentence before the final punctuation mark. Quite frankly, I don't care too much and in the absence of guiding authority just want them to be consistent within an article (similar to how we handle British vs. American spelling and grammar). And I know about the refname thing - that's my (tiny, barely worth-mentioning) programming experience coming out. It's easy to make such changes en mass and may prove useful later on. What I didn't know about and learned as I went through was the "template" for citing news sources. I like Wikipedia but it is very frustrating trying to find information *about* Wikipedia and how to efficiently edit it. So I guess I'm learning through experience! --ElKevbo 22:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! Most of the refs should have the reference after the period, because when I first added all the cite.php tags, I added all to the end of the sentence, after the punctuation mark. Given, they may have been changed since then and new refs and external links added, but most of them should still be like that. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I'll go ahead and standardize them all like that (after the full stop), if no one objects. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected semiprotection. I will monitor and will reprotect after six hours or if vandalism gets out of control.--MONGO 05:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the page history since unprotection, I am inclined to believe that every single edit has been vandalism or the reversion of vandalism. --tomf688{talk} 19:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored semiprotection. As noted by the semiprotection policy, it isn't supposed to be a permanent feature, but with over 50 vandalisms in about 14 hours, and almost nothing constructive done to the article otherwise, we expend more energy fighting the vandals than we do making the article better. I'm inclined to keep semiprotection in place for the forseeable future, but we should occasonally remove the semiprotection every now and then to be complient with the policy.--MONGO 19:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for messing up. I just wanted to see if protection worked. By the time I reverted myself, I was already reverted. AshishGtalk 00:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


edits

I made some edits tonight. Please comment here if you take exception to them. Merecat 05:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the adding of "fact" all over the place. The rest seems fine. I would prefer discussion of these points here rather than a fact tag scattered about.--MONGO 08:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. As you know, "fact" tags add a "citation needed" link when placed into an article. Suffice it to say, there is nothing wrong with fact tags and frankly, if you don't like them, perhaps you could help dig up some citations for the tagged assertions. I've tagged only those points that appear to warrant it. Merecat 19:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer you find the facts instead of adding fact tags all over the place. Normally, we discuss the issues here and then add a citation. You stated that we are to comment if we take exception to them and so I commented.--MONGO 06:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan

If you look at the Afghanistan section you'll note that the nation was entered with "some" international support. I looked it up but could not find any specifics. Does anyone have any specifics (number of nations, the UN's position, and/or NATO's position) on this support so we can be more specific than just "some." Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.200.77 (talk • contribs)

United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand..and I think there were others. Please sign your posts.--MONGO 08:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The other big one was France, with ~4000 troops. see U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan for a full list. Derex 06:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I forgot about that...they had a large representation there. Interestingly, New Zealand, Germany and France all stayed out of the Iraq situation...as most of the citizens of those countries overwhelmingly opposed that action.--MONGO 06:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush authorized Cheney to release NIE information

This is two days old and I haven't seen it mentioned in the article. Bush has no denied it. It should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.210.83.146 (talk • contribs)


I object to the above unsigned comment. All the news reports have been consistant: 1) There is no mention in any court document of any Bush or Cheney directive to release Plame's indentity and 2) what was released was part of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). This document was released only in part and pertained only to the specifics of the Wilson OpEd piece. Also, because this was an authorized release and because it's fully legal for the president to de-clasify information, this is not a "leak". And it's certainly not a "leak" of classified information. The information which was released, was authorized for release and was declassified by VP directive, per the ok of Bush. The power used to do this stems from a Presidential Executive Order from 1995 by Clinton, and updated more recently by Bush. Calling this authorized release a "leak" is POV and false. Merecat 02:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The testimony, cited in a court filing by the government late Wednesday, provides the first indication that Mr. Bush, who has long assailed leaks of classified information as a national security threat, played a direct role in the disclosure of the intelligence report on Iraq at a moment that the White House was trying to defend itself against charges that it had inflated the case against Saddam Hussein," says the New York Times . "If Mr. Libby's account is accurate, it also involves Mr. Bush directly in the swirl of events surrounding the disclosure of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer."
Los Angeles Times : "Experts in national security law say a decision by President Bush to authorize the leak of classified information to a reporter probably would not be illegal. "But if Bush did so -- as a former top White House aide has testified he did -- there could be significant damage to the credibility of a president who has repeatedly and publicly expressed his abhorrence of leaks. . . . "But the experts also said that if the testimony of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was true, Bush's actions violated a traditional unwritten understanding that any declassification decision would be made in close consultation with intelligence officials."
Boston Globe : "The possibility that Bush authorized a selective leak to a single correspondent suggests a desire to shape the news to the administration's ends -- a possible misuse of the president's national security powers. . . . "Such tactics are hardly unusual in politics, but would seem to damage the credibility of a president who has built a reputation for forthrightness, and who has gone further than previous presidents both in keeping information secret and in launching Justice Department investigations of alleged leakers."
Chicago Tribune : "It was Bush himself, answering a reporter's question in Chicago after speaking with business leaders at the University of Chicago, on Sept. 30, 2003, who said: 'Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing. 'Leaks of classified information are a bad thing,' Bush said then. 'And we've had them -- there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.' [19]
POV? Perhaps. But it's definitely the prevailing POV. Even the administration itself now no longer denies the leak - and it's in Libby's testimony - but as of yet, there hasn't been any corroborating proof, other than a lack of denials from the White House and claims that such a disclosure is within Presidential authority. It appears most likely that the question isn't 'did Bush authorize the leak' (he clearly did) - the salient question is, 'why?' It is widely suspected the leak of Plame's identity to the press by Libby was for political reasons, intending to undermine Joseph Wilson for his op-ed criticizing the Niger claims. And if so, that's not a valid reason for declassification of material - to say nothing of lying to the American people about having no idea who the leakers were and falsely promising to 'take care of' whomever was responsible:
There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration . . . I've made it clear that there's been nothing, absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office as well. When I'm talking about the White House, I'm talking about the Vice President's office as well. -- Scott McClellan, September 29, 2003 [20]
A treatment of this topic should, and ultimately will, be added to this bio in an informative and balanced way. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be a first for this page. I anxiously await it.--Tbeatty 03:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I imagine that some of the good faith editors on this article of all political stripes would see that as an insult. Not being among this article's most active editors, I'll just consider it hyperbole. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually I don't think any of the good faith editors would take it as in insult at all. It certainly wasn't meant to insult any of the good faith editors.--Tbeatty 04:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
'first for this page' - meaning this page has had no good faith editors, then? You may just want to stop lobbing meaningless insults. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it detracts from the need for it to be in the article. The usual tug and war on how to spin it will no doubt lead to temporary extremes, such as calling Bush's tax bills "large tax cuts" without any qualification, as if it came straight from a Karl Rove approved press release accompanied by Fox News pom poms.--Pro-Lick 05:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh please. I think it's obvious from the revert history and edits that topics have notorious history of not being introduced in an informative and balanced way. That says nothing about the editors. Relax.--Tbeatty 05:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, if you want to increase the cooperation on the page and not perpetuate the 'notorious history' you seem to describe despairingly, you may want to try to be civil and avoid insulting your fellow editors. I said what I said because I also want fairness and a focus on fact, rather than attack or defense politics. If you do indeed await a better culture on this page, rigorously assuming good faith of your fellow editors and rigorously being worthy of it is the way to stop the cycle. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not considered good faith to alter your words on the talk page in a way that changes the meaning of what was said. If you want to clarify it after edits, add another line. --Tbeatty 15:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
That is the meaning I intended, and it isn't changed by my clarification. If your comments are now inappropriate, it is because you sought to insult or attack me personally - which is the worst of bad faith. Would you like to return to the topics involved in the article, and not on personal attacks? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No, my comments are still appropriate. There was no personal attack. It is extrememly bad form, for whatever reason, to change previous comments. Regardless of your intentions. --Tbeatty 15:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
In this instance, having adding one word to clarify my comments (especially in this case, where adding the word 'ultimately' reduces the likelihood of a misperception of antagonism by making clear that I am not 'threatening' to add the content) is hardly 'extremely bad form'. To quote you from a previous post, 'Relax'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It is extrememly bad form, for whatever reason, to change previous comments. Regardless of your intentions.--Tbeatty 16:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the admonition. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Have good faith that the faith based in other edtors is good.--Pro-Lick 06:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
By all means attack the guy a few dozen more times in your righteously indignant defense of good faith. But I think we've all seen enough of your pov-pushing to not need to make any more assumptions regarding faith either way. I don't even have to read your latest essay to know it consists of the application of polemic and criticism of your latest republican target in a polemic and critical manner. You think calling someone a lying son of a bitch using polite words is "neutral". 69.105.139.103 07:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
(good or bad) form: [21]: Manners or conduct as governed by etiquette, decorum, or custom. [22]: The phrases are further used colloquially in description of conduct or manners in society; as, it is not good form to smoke in the presence of a lady.
Ryan's manners and conduct have been governed by etiquette, decorum, and custom. It is good form to be as clear as possible, to assume good faith, to be civil, and to work to diminsh potentential antagonism. (regardless of one's relative success) Kevin Baastalk 16:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
...but not balance nor neutrality. Are you completely missing the point or just reflecting on how nice civil pov-pushing can be? One does not need to assume good faith ad infintum when presented with a mountain of evidence to the contrary. 69.105.138.104 20:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Please help me understand the difference between 'presenting evidence to back up the known facts' and 'pov-pushing'. I would suggest the difference is whether or not one is rigid about the accuracy of one's information. In my case, I've provided evidence for whatever edits I've sought to make, respected consensus, and have done so in good faith. If you've got a problem with my conduct on a specific topic, I suggest you seek mediation or if you have more general concern, perhaps an RfC is in order. I would welcome any constructive input towards making me a better editor here on Wikipedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
(resolving edit conflict) One certainly doesn't "need" to assume good faith when presented with a mountain of evidence to the contrary, anymore than one "needs" to do anything. However, there are those of us who have been known to do just that, and I would like myself to be considered to be such a person. You bring up the question of "evidence" in relation to faith (good or bad). This is exactly why one assumes good faith even when it goes against one's emotions. It is neccessary to candidly weigh the evidence. If one consistently has "bad faith" whereas certain sides of an issue and/or people are involved, and "good" or "blind" faith on the other side, that is a form of systematic bias, in which one cannot accurately assess the preponderance of evidence. Therefore, one does at least "need" to assume good faith in order to approach balance and neutrality. That is, balance and neutrality presumes an assumption of good faith. Assuming good faith is prior to balance and neutrality, which can only be achieved by way of such mechanisms. Kevin Baastalk 20:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Title updated as per [23]. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please try reading your own links "Fitzgerald did not say in the filing that Cheney authorized Libby to leak Plame's identity, and Bush is not accused of doing anything illegal." and "Because Bush declassified the intelligence document, the White House does not view Libby's conversations about it as a leak." Next time, read your own citations, ok? Merecat 04:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It's incomplete for you not to finish that quote - so I'll finish it for you... "But that determination is difficult to make without knowing precisely when Bush decided to declassify the information." I did read the article - it accurately describes why the White House has said they believe Bush's authorization wasn't a leak. However, most media outlets and most Americans aren't buying it. In any case, your cite doesn't disprove my edit. In addition, next time I suggest you look closely at the timeline to determine whether the White House's claim has any merit before believing it wholesale. As the article states, It is not known when the conversation between Bush and Cheney took place. The White House has declined to provide the date when the president used his authority to declassify the portions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. In addition, the statute involved clearly states that declassification to avoid political embarrassment is not a valid rationale for declassification. Questioning our leadership is the American way. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but POV edits are not the Wiki way. The known court documents so far do not accuse Bush of authorizing the release of Plame's name. In light of that, it's POV for us to side with those who do accuse Bush of that. Remember, our citations must be to reliable sources WP:CITE. Partisan opinion and media speculation are not as reliable as actual court documents. "Fitzgerald did not say in the filing that Cheney authorized Libby to leak Plame's identity, and Bush is not accused of doing anything illegal." Merecat 05:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to argue against what I'm not arguing, but you won't get the satisfaction of my rebuttal. Except to say that your attribution of POV is incorrect because no one is 'siding' with anyone. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Without the word "allegedly" in the section title, the section title presumes that the accusation is accurate. This presumption sides with those who accuse Bush of this. Your edit deleted "allegedly", therefore your edit sided with those who accuse Bush. Whether you side with them or not, your edit did. Merecat 05:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite factual that Plame's identity was part of the information that was disclosed by Libby to Miller and Cooper. Do you have proof it was not? Fitzgerald's latest brief reads: "the presentation and analysis of facts relating to the leak of Ms. Wilson’s name and employment are closely intertwined. "
Also this section, which reads:
'Defendant understood that the Vice President specifically selected him to talk to the press about the NIE and Mr. Wilson on July 12, 2003 {...} During his conversations with the press that day, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time).'
It would seem Fitzgerald disagrees with you, and believes Ms. Wilson's name was among the information leaked by Libby.
While it's clear that the President and Vice President authorized the leak of the NIE information and information about Joe Wilson, the question of whether leaking Plame's name and identity was also specifically authorized by the President and Vice President remains open. For example, another AP article reads:
Q. What did the president and vice president direct Libby to leak?
A. A portion of a classified prewar document in which U.S. intelligence agencies declared Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium. Libby's leaks were the beginning of an emerging White House strategy: Blame the CIA for providing the White House with a faulty premise for going to war.
Q. If Libby was directed by Bush and Cheney to leak information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate, why did he allegedly leak information about Plame's CIA identity as well? Did he do so with or without direction from his superiors?
A. No one in a position to know has offered answers. [24]
Not picking sides, just finding facts. As far as a possible motive for Libby to leak Plame's identity and authorization, we need look no further than Fitzgerald himself:
At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, defendant’s immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson’s trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife.
Disclosing the belief that Mr. Wilson’s wife sent him on the Niger trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion that the Vice President had done so, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson’s credibility if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism. (the April 5 filing)Á -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Libby disclosed Plame's name, is irrelevant to the above discussion about section title. That discusion focuses on whether or not Bush authorized that particular aspect of Libby's (alleged) disclosure. Libby was authorized to reveal parts of an NIE, but even Fitzgerald has not said that Bush authorized the release of the NIE portion which contained Plame's name. Please read the Yahoo link again. [25] Merecat 06:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read it and many others and my comments and edits stand. Please read the (talk page section) title again. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post Sunday, April 9, 2006; Page B06 , my assertions as per above, are correct. Merecat 04:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that's an editorial, not a news piece, correct? In the same issue, on Page 1, is an actual news piece (not just an editorial by Mr. Hiatt) called A Concerted Effort to Discredit Bush Critic (see excerpt in the thread below) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, I'm getting great enjoyment from reading your postings. Tell me though, regarding this one, why did you manually edit the time stamp? Also, you may be willing to suggest that a "news" article from WAPO should be presumed to have more veracity that the WAPO editorial I linked to, but I am not going to join you in your presumption. There is nothing to suggest that WAPO's editors, in their fully informed knowledge of all the news they are currently publishing, wrote anything other than the truth - so far as asserted facts go, in that editorial. Of course, any conclusions they come to, are opinion, but that's also true about any conclusions that a reporter comes to. Suffice it to say, there are facts, presentation of facts and conclusions in both pieces. And frankly, there is more more equivocation ("discredit, punish or seek revenge against") in the "news" story you point to. Please stop this one-ups-manship, it's beneath you and it's tiring. The WAPO editorial I pointed to lays out specific facts which no one rebuts. You are free to disregard the conclusions of that piece as opinion, but if you disregard the stated facts in it, you are basically calling the WAPO editors page liars. In which case, that calls into question the WAPO editors' oversight of the newsroom and the veracity of everything it releases. Is that what you are telling me, that we should think of a MSM entity as a bunch of liars? Merecat 04:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the timestamp because I copy and pasted the excerpt from another talk page. I hope it didn't disturb you. And no, I don't believe the MSM are liars - but I certainly ascribe a different level of motive to an editorial than a news piece. I'm hardly alone in that respect. If you read both pieces and contrast the veracity of each piece, the editorial clearly comes up as light on proof and heavy on polemic (as editorials do).
I am glad you enjoy my postings. I'm not attempting 'one-upsmanship', I'm trying to ensure that the discussion is centered on the facts, not accepting various assertions and half-truths as fact. I do hope that in addition to enjoying my posts, you absorb the facts they contain and try to reconcile them with your own view of the truth. Cheers! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

I noticed this article while browsing Category:Petroleum; it seems out of place there. On the other hand, this article has lots of categories. Too many, if you ask me.

  • Proposal: certain categories should be moved to the appropriate subarticles.

Here's a sample distribution:

Thoughts? Melchoir 07:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? Melchoir 00:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here we go! Melchoir 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Operative / Agent / Employee

After 'agent' was changed to 'employee', I changed it to 'operative'. That is the actual word used by Novak in the actual public piece that started the leak scandal:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me. [26] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro is too long

I have added a tag to address this point. Merecat 02:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

hey look, after 2 archives of the talk page, the {{OMGtehLiberalBIAS}} tag grew back, and look, now it goes away again, if you want to edit the article, then just edit the article, don't just slap it with as many tags as humany possible then trol- walk away--205.188.116.138. 14:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

We could remove the redundant parts that are already highlighted in the template under his phot-op pick to be the new cover boy of Mad Magazine.--Pro-Lick 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Newb observations: "6 weeks/6 months" screams for a reference. How do you burn a 'graph on the war on terror and not mention Afghanistan?

The 2 Washington Post pieces of April 9, 2006

The Washington Post had an interesting editorial[27] today that argued that President Bush "was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons." The editorial also argued that Joseph Wilson had twisted the truth and in his Ny Times op-ed piece and that the Bush White House was right to set the record straight. It is nice to see that the liberals at the Washington Post are capable of grasping these issues.RonCram 04:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, now some people might suggest that the notion of a liberal media is a paranoid conspiracy theory, but clearly, the fact that time and again the liberal media supports bush 100%, clear proof that the media is liberal, but george bush is such a wonderful president, even the liberal media can't help but ooze 5 years of blind loyalty to him, heck, by the same token, clinton and kerry, and heck, jimmy carter were such evil bastards, even the liberally biased media couldn't help but bash them every ten seconds, at last proof!--64.12.117.13 14:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
In the very same article there is a contrasting piece, that is an actual news item (rather than an editorial) that states:
Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq. Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign. {...} Fitzgerald fingered Cheney as the first to voice a line of attack that at least three White House officials would soon deploy against former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. {...} One striking feature of that decision -- unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it -- is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Ryan, are you stalking me? Boy, you sure made it over here quickly! RonCram 04:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not stalking you. I'm just the quickest browser in the West :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Facts asserted by the editorial:

  1. "Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material"
  2. "The full public disclosure followed 10 days later. There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about that"
  3. "Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger"
  4. "The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth."
  5. "In fact, [Wilson's] report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium"
  6. "Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge."
  7. "In last week's court filings, [Fitzgerald] stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity"
  8. "Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney"
  9. "In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife [Plame]."
  10. "Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters."
  11. "Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing."

Ryan, don't you get it yet? These items listed above, are facts, not opinion. Wilson has lied at least three times about critical parts of this dispute. And if Libby actually did leak Plame's name, why is he not charged with that? The simple truth is that this entire controversy was ginned up by anti-Bush partisans, with Wilson as their front man. Wilson lied, three times (at least). Libby is not charged with leaking Plame's name, because he did not leak it. Merecat 04:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't attack me. I am perfectly capable of disagreeing with you and not being daft. If you'd like me to point out and respond to/correct whatever untruths may be in this editorial I will. To say this controversy was ginned up by anti-Bush partisans is to deflect from the facts - we now know the leak Fitzgerald is investigating originated in the Oval Office. The rest is deflection. Nothing new, but patently obvious. I'll go gather my responses to each of those points, if you'll be civil. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

??? No one has accused you of ginning anything up. Do you work in the media? You do understand that I am talking about Wilson's deliberate prevarications, yes? Unless you are telling me that you were personally involved with Wilson and the Dems in their activities with this, then I can't see how you take that comment personally. Merecat 04:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The incivility/mini-attack I refer to was when you said 'Ryan, don't you get it yet?'. And by 'we' I meant 'the public', not 'us in the media'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Don't you get it yet?" is a rhetorical device, imploring the reader to pay careful attention. If it offended you, I apologize. No offense was intended. As for the 11 point list, they are indeed facts. Do you agree, yes or no? Also, please do not interpolate your reply into the body of my 11 point list. Please answer with your own 11 point list below. Thanks. Merecat 05:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It did, as I considered it uncivil - but I do appreciate your apology. I beg your indulgence for some time to write it up - it's bedtime and I don't have the time for a big project tonight - so please don't interpret a delayed response as avoidance or disrespect. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Arggggh, damn IE! I just edit conflicted with Ryan's analysis, and can't retrieve the post from my browser history (as Firefox allows). At any rate, Merecat, I take issue with every single one of those "facts" as either flat false, unsubstantiated, presented to counter straw men, or "technical truths" but actual lies (in the spirit of our last president). I'll leave aside the specifics I had written, as I'm sure Ryan has once again done an unimpeachably thorough job of it. Derex 18:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

WaPo editorial errors

Here's my response to the 11 assertions Merecat extracted from the WaPo editorial. As you can see, I believe a significant number of them to be grossly incorrect, or at least misleadingly incomplete. It's a big swath of text, so my apologies if anything is unclear, poorly edited or otherwise difficult to follow. All questions welcome. Last - if this belongs elsewhere, I'm glad to move it. Meanwhile, I've gotta get back to work! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. "Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material"
    • Uncontested in principle, but inaccurately applied in this instance. Declassification requires procedures to be taken that were not taken in this instance (see below).
  2. "The full public disclosure followed 10 days later. There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about that"
    • False. Inaccurate. The process of declassification was indeed quite unusual, appears in violation of statute (see below), and remains incomplete. In addition, large portions of the NIE briefing remain classified.
      A former top U.S. intelligence official said it's unusual for National Intelligence Estimates to be declassified by the president or vice president without consulting the CIA director. The former official adds that some key judgments of that intelligence report were declassified on July 18, 2003 -- 10 days after Libby's meeting with Miller. [28]
    • The President is not above the law. He can declassify materia, but not simply by 'declaring it unclassified'. Executive Order 12356 established guidelines for the declassification of information, such as a "mandatory review for declassification." According to the executive order:
    (a) Except as provided in Section 3.4(b), all information classified under this Order or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification by the originating agency, if:
    (1) the request is made by a United States citizen or permanent resident alien, a federal agency, or a State or local government; and
    (2) the request describes the document or material containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort.
    • According to Section 3.4(b)'s exception for the mandatory review: "Information originated by a President, the White House Staff, by committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the President, or others specifically providing advice and counsel to a President or acting on behalf of a President is exempted from the provisions of Section 3.4(a)." These guidelines remain unchanged and were incorporated into Executive Order 12958 on "Classified National Security Information," issued on April 17, 1995; and into Executive Order 13292, issued on March 25, 2003, which amended the 1995 order. Therefore according to these executive orders, classified information is exempt from review only if it originated within the White House or the Cabinet. The NIE, however, was a product of the CIA, suggesting that it would have been subject to a mandatory review by the CIA prior to declassification. In fact, the majority of the NIE briefing itself remains classified. [29]
    • In addition, from Fitzgerald's April 6 filing:
      As part of his effort to justify in essence "open file" discovery concerning the NIE, defendant [Libby] notes that "Mr. Hadley was active in discussions about the need to declassify and disseminate the NIE . . . ." Defendant fails to mention, however, that he consciously decided not to make Mr. Hadley aware of the fact that defendant himself had already been disseminating the NIE by leaking it to reporters while Mr. Hadley sought to get it formally declassified.
    • It is important to note that only portions of the NIE briefing were formally declassified - those sections that when selectively cherry-picked, would appear to substantiate a claim. The fact that only selected parts of the briefing that appeared to support the claim were declassified makes any representations that the leak was 'in the public' interest highly suspect.
      Iraq's alleged uranium shopping had been strongly disputed in the intelligence community from the start. In a closed Senate hearing in late September 2002, shortly before the October NIE was completed, then-director of central intelligence George J. Tenet and his top weapons analyst, Robert Walpole, expressed strong doubts about the uranium story, which had recently been unveiled publicly by the British government. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, likewise, called the claim "highly dubious." For those reasons, the uranium story was relegated to a brief inside passage in the October estimate. [30]
      Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) raised this issue in an April 6 letter to Bush, noting that "on July 18, 2003, some time after Mr. Libby leaked this classified information to reporters, your Administration formally declassified portions of the NIE for public release, suggesting that the information had not been declassified until that time."
    • And Libby hiimself remarked about how unusual the 'declassification' of the material was:
      Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be declassified.”
    • McClellan's own words of July 18, 2003 undermine the argument that the material had been appropriately declassified on the timeline alleged:
      McCLELLAN: "And this information was just, as of today, officially declassified, and it was an opportunity to share with them some information that showed the clear and compelling case that we had for confronting the threat that Saddam Hussein posed.
      REPORTER: "Does the White House think that this should end the case, the discussion? Are we done with this after --
      REPORTER: When was it actually declassified?
      McCLELLAN: It was officially declassified today.
    • There's clear evidence that the information was leaked well prior to July 8, 2003. Libby's indictment clearly states that on June 23, 2003, Libby met with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and -- as part of an effort to discredit Wilson -- passed along to her what prosecutors have said was classified information that Wilson's wife, Plame, worked for the CIA.
      On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA. [Libby Indictment, October 28, 2005, page 6, 13]
  3. "Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger"
    • Correct.
  4. "The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth."
    • False. Inaccurate. See below.
  5. "In fact, [Wilson's] report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium"
    • False. Inaccurate.
      The record is quite clear. There were more than one claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. Wilson's visit disproved the 'recent' claim, as per the President's SOTU claim that Iraq had 'recently sought uranium'. Iraq had indeed sought uranium in the mid-nineties - but that wasn't the claim Wilson went to investigate.
      CIA analysts wrote then-CIA Director George Tenet in a highly classified memo on June 17, 2003, "We no longer believe there is sufficient" credible information to "conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." The memo was titled: "In Response to Your Questions for Our Current Assessment and Additional Details on Iraq's Alleged Pursuits of Uranium From Abroad." [31]
      Two-year old assertions by former ambassador Joseph Wilson regarding Iraq and uranium, which lie at the heart of the controversy over who at the White House identified a covert U.S. operative, have held up in the face of attacks by supporters of presidential adviser Karl Rove…[T]he Senate panel conclusions didn’t discredit Wilson. The committee concluded that the Niger intelligence information wasn’t solid enough to be included in the State of the Union speech. It added that Wilson’s report didn’t change the minds of analysts on either side of the issue… Bloomberg, 7/14/05
      This did not stop the administration from leaking the information to Miller and other journalists, nor did it stop the inclusion of this information in the SOTU. The administration continued to 'fix the intelligence around the policy'.
  6. "Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge."
    • Utterly False. Inaccurate.
      Fitzgerald has presented a significant amount of evidence (considering the investigation remains ongoing). This latest filing contains quite a few specific examples of proof that directly link the administration to this leak, and directly support the attribution of 'revenge/undermining credibility' of Wilson as a motive.
      Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July 14, 2003 discussed Wilson’s wife’s employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 – which evidence has been shared with defendant – it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to “punish” Wilson. [Fitzgerald filing, pg. 29-30]
      Cheney, in a conversation with Libby in early July 2003, was said to describe Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger the previous year -- in which the envoy found no support for charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium there -- as "a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," CIA case officer Valerie Plame. [32]
  7. "Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney"
    • Correct, incomplete.
      Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president’s office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney’s questions. Bloomberg, 7/14/05
      Fitzgerald's brief actually described their motives as such:
      "Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.
  8. "In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife [Plame]."
    • Correct, incomplete.
      Plame recommended Wilson, but not before he was named, suggested and recommended by other officials. As Fitzgerald stated, the attempt to discredit Wilson by implying that he was assigned to the trip out of nepotism was one of the motives for the leak.
      ENSOR: Secondly, the suggestion that's been out there quite a bit -- and there's even some discussion of it in the Senate Intelligence Committee report -- that Valerie Plame suggested her husband be sent to Niger. I have talked to very high intelligence officials who say that just isn't true. That it was senior officers above her who had the idea of sending Ambassador Wilson, knowing that he'd been in Niger before and was an experienced hand in Africa, a former ambassador on that continent. And they thought he'd be good. They then went to her and said, "Well, what do you think?" She responded with an email that said, "Yes, he'd be good for the following reasons." That was in response to higher-ups at the CIA who suggested that Joe Wilson be sent. CNN
      "He said in the filing that leaks regarding Plame were meant to embarrass Wilson by suggesting his wife had organized a CIA-sponsored trip by Wilson to probe Iraq's alleged purchase of nuclear material -- in short, to suggest his trip resulted from nepotism. [33]
  9. "Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters."
    • Correct, incomplete. Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for denying under oath that he disclosed Plame's CIA employment to journalists. [34]
  10. "Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing."
    • Correct.
  11. "In last week's court filings, [Fitzgerald] stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity"
    • False, incomplete.
      Fitzgerald stated that the President is not accused of leaking Plame's identity. Also, Libby did not testify to that effect. However, Fitzgerald did not say Bush did not authorize the leak of Plame's identity.
Ryan, thanks for your speedy answer. Suffice it to say, by and large, I disagree with your analysis. That said, where are we? Where we are at is, as you now see, WAPO has printed material which contradicts what you are saying and which you are trying to rebut. And as you see, your attmepted rebuttal requires very detailed examinations and assertions. What does that mean to us? What it means is that the depth of this dispute shows how fraught with editorial peril writing articles such as this can be. You say this is a "fact", I says that is a "fact". Let's not forget what we are supposed to write, we are supposed write, not the "truth" per se (as in what we each argue and advocate is the truth), but we are supposed to write what people (other than ourselves) "believe" in that we are supposed to refer to notable, reliable sources and state what they say. Bearing this in mind, so far as claims of any law-breaking goes (broken law being the predicate requirement for any sane impeachment proceedings), we cannot simply assert "leak" (ie; crime of leaking), we have to say "alleged leak". So what if Fitzgerald says this or that? What he writes are accusations. Accusations are not fact, they are assertions. In a contested legal proceeding, assertions do not become accepted as true facts until a fact finder says they are true facts. As in: Joe is charged with possession of pot. Until he's convicted of that charge, he's accused, it's alleged. This is what I am getting at there. It doesn't matter to me what is being alleged against Bush; Necrophilia, Cannibalism, Treason, etc. So long as a) it's attributed to a reliable, notable source, b) the language we write in is NPOV and c) all non-adjudicated allegations of criminal or other wrong-doing are referred to as what they are: "alleged" - then I'm ok with that. If NBC reports "Bush is accused of murdering endangered snail-darters", they that's what we write. And we do not have a section title which says "Destruction of the environment". Rather, it should say "Alleged destruction of the environment". Same thing here. Allegations against Bush et al, unless proven in an official fact-finding venue (court or congressional impeachment proceedings), must be referred to as allegations. Merecat 19:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Therefore, your claim that the 11 points you listed above are 'facts' is equally erroneous. In my case, I've provided facts to back up my assertions, and have included allegations based on facts - and I've provided the relative facts. I'm glad to hear you respect my views as I do yours and most of all, I am saddened that our President and his administration have brought us to this point. I hope that there can be more respect for the rule of law, and less hero worship, in the ongoing and heated defense of the President. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No, both your facts and my facts are "facts" However, we cannot insist that either set is true and the other false. However, there are some facts which are true and which we can agree upon. So far as Fitzgerald goes, to date, Bush and Cheney have not been charged with any crime, yes? Would you agree that is a true fact? Also, regarding this "our President and his administration have brought us to this point", I disagree. I do not think Bush, et al have done this. Rather, I think that Joe Wilson had a mission as a commited Democrat activist, to attempt sabotage against Bush. I am convinced that the Wilson plan was hatched at the highest level of the Democratic party, probably with help from anti-Bush staffers at CIA - and aided by hysterical, innaccurate reporting by the MSM (main stream media). So as you can see, you and I look at the predicate source of this SNAFU differently.Merecat 01:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge, it is a fact that neither Bush nor Cheney has been charged. Bush has, however, admitted 'declassifying' the classified information in the NIE. We'll see if that disclosure was as illegal as it appears when the law, rather than an expanded sense of unitary privilege, is considered. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

But regarding the distinct datum of: "To date, Bush and Cheney have not been charged with any crime.", that itself is a true fact, right? Merecat 01:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how your question differs when asked the second time. More important than repeating the question are the equally dangerous political and legal implications of the fact that until yesterday, the White House denied all involvement.
"The President has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration . . . I've made it clear that there's been nothing, absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office as well. When I'm talking about the White House, I'm talking about the Vice President's office as well." Scott McClellan, White House Press Briefing, Sept 29, 2003
As with Nixon and Clinton, the lie may be perceived as worse than the offense. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets' review the uncontested facts:

A) Libby has not been charged with leaking classified information.
B) The allegations McClellan was addressing were allegations of leaking classified information.
C) No member of the Bush team, regarding Plame affair, has been charged with leaking classified information.

So Ryan, what are you saying? Are you no saying we should interpret McClellan's specific denial - more broadly than it was spoken, so we can play "gotcha!"? Merecat 01:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A) No, he has been charged with obstruction of justice and perjury, in lying to investigators by denying he disclosed Plame's CIA employment to Miller. Those are crimes one commits to stymie an investigation. As Fitzgerald said, Libby effectively kicked sand in the referee's face, preventing him from bringing charges to this point. As a prosecutor in an ongoing investigation, he does not have to charge Libby with a crime to have evidence and proof that the crime has taken place.
B) Bush has admitted to selectively authorizing the release of portions of the NIE's information, through what has been called a unique and unusual procedure that does not reflect the law, in order to defend himself from criticism. That's a leak. Moreover, it's cowardice. He has admitted to the very act that McClellan denied... leaking classified information. Of course, he claims the privilege of being able to declassify simply by declaring something declassified - and bypassing the law - apparently at his unilateral whim.
C) Are you saying that because no charges have been brought, that is proof ipso facto no crime has been committed? That's a massive logical fallacy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I cannot help but ask what are you saying, exactly? That a lack of charges somehow invalidates the known facts of the case? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, we are going in circles. Please answer this question, yes or no. Has Libby been charged with leaking classified information, yes or no? Merecat 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior is becoming uncivil. I have answered that question. I had hoped you would remain civil. Libby has not been charged with leaking classified information. He has been charged with falsely denying leaking classified information. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Merecat, the indictments are listed in the respective article. They do not include "leaking classified information", or any derivation thereof. Kevin Baastalk 02:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Merecat, any sort of questioning or commentary whatsoever is inappropriate in the context of this continuing legal investigation. It also sends the wrong message in a time of war. Please desist. User:Scott McClellan 03:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
/lamer joke Derex 03:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Uncivil? Since when do we say that yes or no questions are uncivil? I think they are not. If you think they are, we disgree. Personally, I feel that compound answers to single fact questions is a boorish method. However, I would not go so far as to call you boorish and I ask that you refrain from calling me uncivil, as in "Your behavior is becoming uncivil". So then, since you refused to answer my yes/no question, I will distill your answer for you. "Libby has not been charged with leaking classified information" = no. That said, since Fitzgerald has also not said that Bush authorized the release of Plame's name, here's what we have so far:

  • Libby has not been charged with leaking Plame
  • Fitzgerald has not said that Bush authorized the release of Plame
  • Plame's name did get out there at some point.
  • All three of the conditions could be met by attributing the original leak of Plame's name to any one or more of these:
a) Joe Wilson's blabbermouth some time earlier - this would mesh nicely with the contention that Plame's name was already known to the Beltway press corps
b) Richard Armitage who many conservatives think was involved in anti-Bush activities here
c) DEMs leaked Plame's name so as to blame Bush.

Further, I contend that Fitzy has not charged Libby with release of classified info because:

  • Libby did no such thing. Everything he released was declassified.

Also, I contend that Libby was not charged with violating rules regarding CIA operative identities, because:

  • The enforceable statutes on that topic have precise definitions that Plame's work history did not meet.

And lastly, even if her background did qualify her to protection under the "indentities" laws:

  • Libbby was not the 1st government official to release Plame's name. It was either Richard Armitage or someone else - perhaps simple osmosis. Plame's CIA status was well known by many beltway newspersons, prior to anything Libby did.

Stop being so quick to conclude that only the DEM speculations are accurate. Even our wiki states that Richard Armitage leaked. Why he is not being charged, I have no idea. Hmmmm, perhaps because he cut a deal for immunity and he was an anti-Bush mole a foggy bottom? Merecat 03:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I perceived your bullying or demanding repeated 'yes or no' answers to questions you've already asked as intentionally escalating the aggression of the discussion - and imho, it is indeed a bad move if you intend to keep a civil discourse. Your arguments above are all old or supposition without any verifiability, and would be riddled with {fact} tags if insinuated into an article. You're more than welcome to add the Armitage information - especially if you've got any proof that's arisen from the investigation. Since the heat is decidedly on the Bush administration as a result of Fitzgerald's recent filing, I'm not surprised that the frenzied and illogical defense of the president is undergoing visible spasms. His recent admission makes the theory that this is a Democratic conspiracy one of the looniest of conspiracy theories. On the face of the available evidence, the simplest and most likely scenario is that the Bush administration released this information to undermine Wilson. Interestingly enough, that's the Prosecutor's view as well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "undermine Wilson" was the goal - more specifically, undermining Wilson's spurious and false "yellowcake" op-ed piece (hmmm opinion piece, now who was it that said opinion pieces have less veracity?...). However, because Wilson and his Dem cronies knew that Bush would be forced to defend on the yellowcake and because Wilson wrote that hit piece to provoke that response, it's very logical to see how this started: Wilson attacked the President with lies about Niger so as to hurt Bush in 2004 election. I note that you do not contend that Bush was trying to harm Plame in revenge against Wilson - even though this was Wilson's central thesis. And to date, that has not been borne out by the facts. Nor has Fitzgerald contended that either. And please, stop quoting the media on this point and start looking at verbatim quotes from Fitzy. Fitzy has not alleged that Bush et al, released Plame so as to personally punish Wilson. That contention was ginned up by the Looney Left (you used "looney" 1st, so I get to use it here). Merecat 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I please have some of that righteous stuff you're smoking :) Derex 03:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's not nice. I'm not being any more obtuse than Ryan. Merecat 03:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, here comes the personalization of the argument when the argument and insults fail. I'd hoped you were above that sort of behavior, Merecat. I'd hardly consider my post above 'obtuse', especially when contrasted with your citeless and self-contradictory posts. If you feel I'm being obtuse, my apologies. Please point out any specific instances you think I'm providing less than complete information to validate my assertions. I'll be glad to point out specific instances when you provide complete information to validate yours, when that happens. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What? I said obtuse in reference to the format of our lengthy comments. There is no insult in that. You however, said this about me "frenzied and illogical defense". At least that's how I read it. Merecat 03:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If you give me an 11-point list to respond to, you have no right to complain about a lengthy response. Especially when the questions are framed so as to be incomplete or misleading. I think it's clear who did their homework today. Good night. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are being unfair. I did not complain to you. That other editor suggested I was smoking something and I tried to defend my edits in brief to him/her. You do see that, yes? Merecat 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You call me 'obtuse' and then call me 'unfair'. Can you actually avoid calling me names? Good night for the third time, and enjoy the last word 'cause I've got to be up early. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, since you say I've done this and that to you, but you do not address the points I raise where I directly quote harsh comments from you that were directed at me (see above), I have lost interest in talking with you for now. Some time later, if you say you are sorry, I might talk with you more. But for now, you have hurt my feelings. Good night. Merecat 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You reference the 1982 EO 12356, however this was changed by Bill Clinton's 1995 EO 12958 [35] and then subsequently amended by George Bush's 2003 EO 13292 [36]
  1. Sec. 3.5. Mandatory Declassification Review. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all information classified under this order or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification by the originating agency if:
    (1) the request for a review describes the document or material containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort;
    (2) the information is not exempted from search and review under sections 105C, 105D, or 701 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-5c, 403-5e, and 431); and
    (3) the information has not been reviewed for declassification within the past 2 years. If the agency has reviewed the information within the past 2 years, or the information is the subject of pending litigation, the agency shall inform the requester of this fact and of the requesters appeal rights.
    (b) Information originated by:
    (1) the incumbent President or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice President;
    (2) the incumbent Presidents White House Staff or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice Presidents Staff;
    (3) committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or
    (4) other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. Jeravicious 01:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I already stated this above, under #2. -- 05:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, but your reading of that EO is wrong. Using your interpretation, the President could not declassify the NIE without first consulting/getting approval from the CIA director...his subordinate. And the CIA director (his subordinate) could what?? Override the President's decision? So then...the President could just fire the CIA director (his subordinate) and hire a new person who would grant approval for declassification? See how wrong this sounds? No...the President does NOT need CIA director (his subordinate) approval in order to declassify the Executive Branch NIE. He can declassify it with his own order. And you are quite wrong in calling it a "leak"...The President granted approval, it is NOT a "leak". A "leak" would be anything not authorized to be disclosed. Using your interpretation, when Fitzgerald gave his press conferance months ago and disclosed certain information regarding his investigation but refused to disclose or talk about other matters, he was "leaking"....wrong.Jeravicious 09:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wilson / Yellowcake

To those who read the above and think that Wilson told the truth about "yellowcake", please read "Wowie Zahawie - Sorry everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger" - Christopher Hitchens, Slate.com Monday, April 10, 2006 Merecat 13:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Iraq had 500 tons of the stuff under UN supervision. This is not contested. You are conflating the 80's and the '91 overture with the claims that Iraq had 'recently sought uranium in Africa' from 2003. Pretty weak. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The dispute is about which country they sought Uranium from. Congo is also a supplier. IF the emphasis is on the country, then Wilson is probably correct. IF the emphasis is on Yellowcake, he is being misleading. I believe Iraq sought Yellowcake from Africa as late as 1998. --Tbeatty 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The above slate.com article which I linked to [37] has this in it: "In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore." Merecat 06:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

amount of trolling lately.. 2 archives full

Ok, so who thinks we've been freeped....again?--205.188.116.138 20:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Led the world community

In late 2005 and 2006, Bush led the world community in opposition to Iran's announced intention to develop nuclear technology.

I was going to tag this with {{fact}}, but the thought occured: Can leadership of the world community on this issue be cited or fact-checked? There will always be someone to dispute it, and the fact pattern can as easily be used to support a POV statement the complete opposite of this one. I was thinking:

In late 2005 and 2006, Bush publically declared American opposition to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announced intention to develop nuclear technology.

Let the merciless editing begin... Ssbohio 21:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous UN resolutions. Who introduced them? Who supported them. I don't know if it was the U.S. or not but that would be a good start. It's certainly true that the U.S. is pushing for sanctions and diplomatic pressure as opposed to Russia and China which do not favor those actions. --Tbeatty 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Who gives US terror?

Terrorist \Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.]

  1. One who governs by terrorism or intimidation ... --Burke.
     [1913 Webster]

A number of people fly planes into buildings: this is murder. To encourage the repeated broadcast of these searing images across a world and the promotion of fears of national security to exploit this terrible act to allow actions and policy change previously desired, is terrorism.

At best, Bush's administration has seen the distraction of the American people from the issues that effect them most and the redirection of national assets toward the interests of Bush friendly business. If America could be seen as a powerful vehicle, Bush and his buddies have taken it for a spin, far away from where it needs to go. I am an Australian who loves America and I hope he doesn't get America bogged and wrecked.

Is Bush a war criminal? Is the Republican Party a terrorist organisation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danieljames626 (talk • contribs) .

I believe it is proper to distinguish between "terrorism" and "fear". Bush uses fear to create support for policy, not terrorism. (though perhaps "terror"). I'm not sure terrorist would be the right word here. Kevin Baastalk 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It is also questionable to use a 1913 dictionary definition to describe a political/military tactic that has changed enomormously in a century. -- Cecropia 19:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
A number of people fly planes into buildings: this is murder. To encourage the repeated broadcast of these searing images across the world'...' I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the U.S. the worst images have not been shown by the mainstream media: no falling bodies, no bodies in flames; no bodies splatted on the sidewalk, no gruesome pictures of mangled remains. Almost five years after the fact, they are trying to avoid broadcasting the voices of the terrified people in the towers as being "too upsetting." If these were used in even a mild echo of what even a relatively mainstream Arab network like al-Jazeera broadcasts, it would be powerful propoganda. People who saw a fraction of these images and these calls at Moussaui's trial gasped, since they had never seen them on TV. -- Cecropia 19:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush Crimes Commission

The article Bush Crimes Commission is up on AFD. Unfortunately, there is concern over Wikipedia:Vote Stacking because of a large and possibly selective notification spamming. Undoubtedly, the individual votes are good faith, but the apparent selectivity of notification raises questions about the validity of the process. In an effort to salvage that discussion, I am posting this notification here. My intent is to bring the discussion to the attention of those with prior expressed interested in Bush, without pre-selecting for either likely supporters or opponents. Brillig20 16:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • If you're advertising here than you're obviously fishing for freeprs--152.163.100.74 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • nevermind, most of this page's usual freeprs appear to have already voted there--152.163.100.74 17:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

This section is factually incorrect. It reports the promise as if it was all delivered on: it hasn't been. It then explicitly states that Congress has allocated the full amount: it absolutely did not. These are untrue statements in wikipedia, they should be corrected with the correct amount of dolars actually asked for by Bush in the budget and the actual amount disbursed by Congress (the two are different). It contains nothing of the considerable controversy over abstinence funding, the effectivness of ABC prevention programs, the allocation of PEPFAR money to explicitly religious groups, the possible conflict of interest of Randall Tobias as a former chief executive of a pharmaceutical company now in charge of purchasing billions in AIDS drugs, the duplication created by using PEPFAR instead of the Global Fund, the refusal to by less expensive generic drugs that are combinable, etc. All of these are very relevant and debates over them rage in the HIV policy world. I made these edits and someone called them POV. They are not. I encourage someone to do an NPOV edit of this section, I'll recuse myself for the time being. I don't have a problem with Bush, but the article as it stands does not reflect the truth of US AIDS policy, for better or worse. Thes entinel 19:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Medical Research? But we're at war man! where are your priorities!!!?!?! do you want the terrorists to win!>?! you do, don't you!152.163.100.74 20:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, totally he probaly wants the terroriists to win. Wouldnt rthat be kind of cool maybe not totally but just thinking, you though they were gonna lose but then they won = psych! Probably this is what hes trying to do.

"But we're at war man! where are your priorities!!!?!?!" -This could actually be why America went to war, couldn't it? As an excuse to do fuck-all about anything else. "Medical Research?" "But we're at war!" "Climate change?" "But we're at war!" "The terrifying spectre of AIDS, stalking the world and killing more people than a hundred Saddams?" "By golly, we're at war!!" 81.157.73.179 10:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for that wonderful debate, guys, but the section remains woefully underdeveloped and factually inorrect (the $15 billion has not been funded by Congress, for one). This sections reflects a weakness of a few of the sections here: they are merely regurgitation of White House press releases. They could go a long way to give context and some critical assessment (eg, has the government done what it says it does?) Thes entinel 05:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian troops in Iraq

The main article's third paragraph (in the intro) incorrectly (both factually and grammatically) states that, in relation to Iraq, "The commitment of United States, Europe, and Canada troops has been controversial both domestically and internationally." The fact is that Canada has never sent troops to Iraq since Gulf Storm in 1991.

Jtlaw 03:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • There were 31 Canadians deployed to Iraq with a unit they were on a military exchange with [38]. Also the Canadian navy has a sizeable presence in the Persian Gulf[39]. -Objectivist-C 05:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Canadian troops are also involved in training Iraqis, though this is taking place outside Iraq (in Jordan, I think). Thes entinel 16:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bush War Criminal...

Michael Isikoff wrote in Newsweek:

"May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.

The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes—and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves— is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."

One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protections is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote.

"It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441 [the War Crimes Act]," Gonzales wrote.

The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White House lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his decision—then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State Powell— to exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from Geneva convention provisions.

"Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that (the War Crimes Act) does not apply which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution," Gonzales wrote.

The memo—and strong dissents by Secretary of State Colin Powell and his chief legal advisor, William Howard Taft IV—are among hundreds of pages of internal administration documents on the Geneva Convention and related issues that have been obtained by NEWSWEEK and are reported for the first time in this week's magazine. Newsweek made some of them available online today."

This from the following URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/site/newsweek/#storyContinued

Additonally, there are texts of Gonzales's memo and Powell's response at the URL above. They are in .PDF format, and are of the original documents, so cannot cut and paste here (putting four whole pages of .PDF would eat up bandwidth).

I just looked this up today, and was lucky to find it in and amongst the lunatic ravings of the left wing fringe (which, btw, are equally as bad as the lunatic ravings of the right wing fringe). Be careful of all the stupidity you see, which just might be disinformation posted by the very people it purports to castigate.

As a final note, Bush's tactic of excluding people from the Geneva Conventions is nothing new. Ike did it after WWII by reclassifying German POW's as DEF's, or Disarmed Enemy Forces, meaning that they were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. (this is also verifiable and not "original research" - now, I'm not talking about the lunacy that claims Ike murdered 1.7 million German POW's (which is untrue), merely the fact that Ike purposely ordered the reclassification of POW's as DEF's)


TheKurgan 04:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


You've missed the point. Bush cannot be a war criminal by definition because it is he who makes the law. Anyone who disagrees has an agenda(anti-Americanism) or is perhaps an outright traitor. Bush gets to decide who qualifies as the world's war criminals and what does or does not constitute a war crime. One world leader who runs a police state and massacres a bunch of his own citizens might be a freedom-hating tyrant whose people we need to liberate by force, another who does exactly the same might be protecting 'freedom' from Islamists/communists/socialists/subversives/space aliens or whoever. Some of them have even held either status at different times, such as Saddam himself. So if you want to treat detainees in a manner that would constitute a war crime under the Geneva conventions, simply don't call them Prisoners of War, call them something else. If you want to torture, do it abroad and if anyone finds out, call it something else. He says he won't sign up to the International Criminal Court because they might pull in our soldiers, generals or diplomats for trial. Well yeah, but presumably only if they commit war crimes under international law. Kind of says a lot. Bush must be reckoning on maybe doing certain things that might be regarded by the authorities as war crimes. Shame the court won't let Bush have a veto on what is or isn't a war crime and under what circumstances and then he could happily sign up.


btw fuck that twat

Thanks a lot for that constructive contribution.


The Bushes, Civilian Casualties and God

We know that Bush Senior was wary of getting involved in a war with Saddam back in 1990 because of the potential for large numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties and how this would square with his deity. So Bush called in Billy Graham and asked him what God would think about it. Billy Graham assured Bush that God wouldn't mind too much as it was a just war and so Bush proceeded. Now Dubya of course dosen't need to consult Billy Graham before attacking Iraq because Dubya already knows the Supreme Being's views on these matters because he talks with him all the time. Two questions arise I think: (1) Why did Bush Senior bother to ask Billy Graham over to the White House to give him advice when his own son already had a direct hotline to the Almighty, (2) Shouldn't the article on here make some mention of these things, since it might give readers some indication of what a truly amazing world we live in when even in the late 20th and 21st centuries, people as spectacularly wacky as this can actually be allowed to preside over the world's only superpower and, what's more, hardly anyone seems to think it's unusual or kind of disturbing?

I recommend you sign your comments or they may be deleted as trolling. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I would also point out that your comments seem to primarily concern George H.W. Bush, the Persian Gulf War, and the Justification for the War in Iraq. I believe these each have their own articles. Not my leg 21:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

An interesting omission from the English version of this article

Here is a translation of part of German Wikipedia's article on Bush:

First, the German itself...

Da die Nationalgarde vorwiegend im Inland eingesetzt wird, sah sich Bush später mit dem Vorwurf konfrontiert, einer Einberufung in die Army zuvorgekommen zu sein und sich damit einem Einsatz im Vietnam entzogen zu haben - er wurde draft dodger (als ein sich der Einberufung Entziehender; vergleiche die deutschen Begriffe: Kriegsdienstverweigerer, Wehrdienstverweigerer) gescholten, bei patriotischen US-Amerikanern alles andere als ein Ehrentitel.

The translation:

Since the National Guard operated mostly within the US (literal translation is within the homeland), Bush was later confronted with the accusation of having avoided service in the regular army (here, the literal translation is "scoop himself out of the draft, which is stilted English, at best) which would have resulted in service in Vietnam - he was scolded as a draft dodger (compared with the German concepts of Conscientious Objector (the term Kriegsdienstverweigerer) or "draft dodger" (the more colloquial term Wehrdienstverweigerer)...the two have different connotations in German -- Krieg is War, so the term including "Kriegsdienst" means "war service" (Dienst means service). Wehr, on the other hand, is merely a term for the Army (along with Armee or Heer), so Wehrdienst means "army service" (a distinct difference). Verweigen is the verb "to deny."), a term which is anything but honorable among patriotic Americans.

It would be interesting to see if I were to be labeled a troll for posting something like this on the English language site...oh, wait, I can't because the page itself is locked from editing. I am therefore asking that since this paragraph is included on German Wikipedia that it also be included on the English site.

TheKurgan 04:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that you're registered, you'll be able to edit this article in a few days, fear not! However, the English Wikipedia has more information than meets the eye; material on the National Guard as a safe haven from Vietnam tours belongs at George W. Bush military service controversy. In fact, I think you'll find that that subarticle already has much more information than the entire German coverage of Bush. In particular, see the section on "Acceptance into the National Guard". Melchoir 05:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Senate Hearings on Bush, Now"

Carl Bernstein's new Vanity Fair article. Wow. --71.141.126.76 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Science section is pretty poor

Here's one of the sentences in the science section: "On 2002-12-19, Bush signed into law H. R. 4664, far-reaching legislation to put the National Science Foundation on a track to double its budget over five years and to create new mathematics and science education initiatives at both the pre-college and undergraduate level." That's ignoring the much larger issues of all of the science budgets that Bush has cut, including NIH, stem cell research, global warming research, etc. And the section doesn't even mention stem cell research/global warming. At least it mentions science education. Anyone know where I could find charts/tables outlying the overall state of science funding these past six years? NSF's budget is peanuts compared to the overall science budget. --Cyde Weys 18:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "On February 18, 2004, the radical left[71] liberal activist group, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS),..." is a blatant attempt to slander legitimate critics of the President's policies. The UCS is NOT a collection of radical left liberals, it is an organization of concerned scientists. Let's remove this deliberate insult. -- Gerald Lovel 23:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the terms as insults. Wrong, maybe, but not insulting. --ElKevbo 05:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm seconding Mr. Lovel's remarks. The "Radical Left" designation of the UCS was given by the Captial Research Center (CRC), a group which is led by two long-time members of the conservative Heritage Foundation [40] and is extensively funded by the right-leaning Scaife foundation [41]. Moreover, the CRC has a history of slapping "leftist" labels on other organizations, over less-than-ideologically-motivated actions. [42] IMO, the comments about UCS violate the NPOV policy and should be retracted. ))ECB(( 03:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of "activist," I don't think any of the adjectives applied to the UCS are innacurate or negative. UCS is, IMHO, definitely "left" and "liberal." "Radical" is probably debatable but that's so subjective that it would be a futile and silly debate. I wouldn't particularly care for the UCS to be presented solely as a scientific organization when they clearly (and rightfully) have a strong political agenda. --ElKevbo 04:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the CRC falls within the "fringe" distinction, relevant to determine if it's a POV to be presented, per WP:NPOV policy. I would think that anything coming from the radical left or radical right would by that fact alone be "fringe". Kevin Baastalk 17:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not necessarily for leaving the activist cash reference in, but it serves as a necessary and equal balance to the inclusion of the UCS petition. Wikiusers have repeatedly removed the UCS-opposing-viewpoint giving rationale that would EQUALLY apply to the deletion of the entire UCS section of the article. I've stated before, I'm not an exclusionist, but this organization hasn't even proved itself relevant in any way. In fact, the insistent inclusion of this radical group's petition seems suspiciously more like an attempt to gain publicity. Does anyone remember a recent news story involving rock star BONO and attempts to influence politics by editing Wikipedia? --FairNBalanced 18:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Kevbo, I think you didn't read my comment here before you made your last edit. There seems to be a lot of hypocrisy dealing with this section. The reason "62 prominent scientists" was removed because it was complete filler and redundant. The name of the organization is "Union of Concerned Scientists", so we know they are scientists. This GWB article is already 89kb long, if a person really wants to know more about the petiton, there are links they can follow as the edit currently stands. I'm not doing this because I'm "PRO-BUSH" . as a matter of fact, the president has been fairly disappointing as of late. The problem is that the UCS is such a radical and IRRELEVANT organization, their inclusion in this article doesn't really make sense other than a couple sentences at the most. Can any of you present a good argument on why the petition SHOULD be included here?--FairNBalanced 18:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
(I like "Kevbo" - that's cute.) I think the length of the article is fine, given the topic. Are you saying that you actually believe the cruft coming from the CRC? Kevin Baastalk 18:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Worst / Best President In History?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history?rnd=1145545012078&has-player=unknown

This guy may have defended Clinton to the end, but he's also a highly respected historian. All points in this article should be analyzied and made note of in the main article.

That's definitely a POV piece if there was one. --Mhking 16:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
How is Rolling Stone, a music magazine, a reliable source for historical and political topics? Gentgeen 16:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
So what if it was published in Rolling Stone? If the author is respected and the piece was not forged then why does it matter where it was published? (Note that I'm not arguing for or against inclusion of this source in this article - just the reasoning that a Rolling Stone article could not be considered reputable and valid) --ElKevbo 16:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Rolling Stone has been a staple of the journalistic Left since the 60's. Within that context, imho it's a valid source for admittedly less-than-mainstream (if popular) political viewpoints. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The man is a noted for his leftist POV and pushing that POV, so him saying that Bush is the worst is not notable. PPGMD 19:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You're just saying that because he didn't think Clinton should be impeached for a blowjob. Anyway, doesn't by definition any article arguing that something is the worst whatever have to be POV? Or are there widely accepted objective quantitative presidential performance metrics? Gzuckier 19:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I can provide lots of cites to James Taranto on OpinionJournal, demonstrating that Geo W is one of the near-great presidents of the past hundred years. Certainly as valid a viewpoint as one in Rolling Stone. --Cubdriver 19:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OpinionJournal and Rolling Stone are clearly not equivalent in notability. You certainly can't be referring to his record 'all-time low' of 33% presidential job approval rating. In comparison, Nixon's was 24% in August 1974, but other than Nixon, Bush is experiencing the lowest poll ratings ever. And that's 33% is from a FOX poll, by the way. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Given that OpinionJournal is from the opinion page of The Wall Street Journal, yes, I would grant them notable placement with or above that of Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone has stated as a matter of editorial policy (specifically a column by Jann Wenner during the 2004 campaign) that it would not support President Bush, and their editorial and publishing history -- at least in terms of political articles -- certainly supports that point. I'll concede the point that RS be considered a valid source. What makes an opinion-driven piece there any more valid than one tied to the opinion page of WSJ? --Mhking 22:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
My argument was not comparing WSJ and the Rolling Stone - it was comparing 'opinion journal' with the Rolling Stone, in response to the original point - "the reasoning that a Rolling Stone article could not be considered reputable and valid". In any case, Rolling Stone is certainly notable. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Notable is the wrong term. I am quesitoning RS's reliability as a source. RS is about as reliable as People Magazine. Merecat 22:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, surely you are not suggesting that Rolling Stone is a better source than something published by Dow Jones & Co, are you? You do know that Dow Jones owns WSJ and Opinion Journal, yes? Merecat 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am definitely saying that Rolling Stone, an actual magazine with ~40 years of history, is far more notable in the public sphere, especially around Presidential exposes and political commentary, than 'opinionjournal'. I make no claims about Dow Jones.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then, on that point we can disagree. Dow Jones does not produce dreck. However, in my view, the air-brushed 'bulging crotch' [43] cover photos of Dem candidates produced by Rolling Stone, tells me that Rolling Stone does. Merecat 20:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the actual point of your argument seems to be less important than name calling and obfuscation. Dow Jones? Dreck? The issue was the notability of Rolling Stone magazine. Yes, it's notable. The rest (name calling and bulging crotches) is not of as much interest to me as it might be to you, Merecat. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, I have no idea what you just said. Merecat 21:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry it was unclear to you, but I have little in the way of advice. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice? What are you talking about? No advice from you was solicited. Merecat 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've reached my troll-response limit for the day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, I'm sorry you lack the wherewithal to continue our dialog today. I hope you are feeling better soon. I enjoyed our chat. Have a nice day. Merecat 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The question should not be whether Rolling Stone is POV, in my judgment. The question should be whether Rolling Stone's opinion, or the opinion of this author is notable. There are ways to get around the POV issue if this author is notable, but in the grand scheme of Bush's presidency, I do not believe he is. BlueGoose 00:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Rolling Stone vs. the Wall Street Journal

This post is addressed to Merecat. I find it interesting that a notable periodical with left leaning tendencies is "dreck," while a notable periodical with right leaning tendencies is "more reliable." By that reasoning, Playboy is to be completely discarded even though Playboy is the only magazine to land an interview with Fidel Castro (the veracity of what Castro says is for a different forum). By the same reasoning, you must also discard all of the following as "reliable sources:"

The Nation New Republic Rolling Stone Macleans (Canadian) Der Spiegel

while venerating the following as ultra reliable:

Time US News and World Report Wall Street Journal Detroit News Anything owned by Rupert Murdoch

This is fallacious on its face. Editorial bent is inherent in every periodical, and has been ever since Ben Franklin first published Poor Richard's Almanac (or Thomas Paine penned "Common Sense"). To condemn a publication as unreliable because of said editorial bent is hypocritical since you espouse the same bent with the periodicals you venerate.

It is possible to present evidence objectively and also show your own opinion, as well. Problems arise when opinion is not seperated from evidence (which can be caused by many things, chief among them extreme editorial bias (insert Fox News and Mother Jones as the two extremes of this)). Shameless trolling condeming the other point of view without solid evidence is the worst kind of yellow journalism. For example, when Bush choked and passed out a few years ago, imagine the furor that would have been created with the following headline:

Former drunken driver collapses at White House

This carries the implication that Bush was wasted at the time of his fall. The headline encompasses two facts:

1) Bush is a former drunk driver 2) Bush collapsed at the White House

By juxtaposing the two in an underhanded manner, the editor conveys a double meaning (the root of yellow journalism).

By the same token, a right wing editor could put a differnt spin on the following two facts:

1) Vince Foster committed suicide 2) Bill Clinton was being investigated at the time (for different things)

Vince Foster found dead - Bill Clinton investigated

Two things that are undeniably true; however, Clinton was never seriously investigated nor even considered a suspect in Foster's death (ruled a suicide).

These two preceding examples show how extreme editorial bias can demean a periodical's reliability. I am sure that publications as reliable as Rolling Stone and the Wall Street Journal would never resort to such yellow journalism.

This brings me to my next point. Concepts such as "worst president," "best president," "best football team ever," "worst natural disaster ever," and others are inherently OPINION pieces. One cannot show these to be facts. One must gather facts and other respected opinions to bolster his or her case in presenting an hypothesis.

For example, in order to make a case for the Black Death being the worst natural disaster ever (an easy case, BTW), I would present the following facts:

1) It was a disease that ran rampant throughout Europe for four years (1347 - 1351) 2) It could not be stopped by conventional means at the time 3) It killed 1/3 of the population of Europe (roughly 75,000,000 people)

All of these make a compelling case that it was the worst natural disaster in history, but it is still an opinion. Someone else could argue that the 1918 Flu pandemic was worse because it was a more modern era and we should have known better. Someone else could argue that the single earthquake that killed 830,000 people in one day is the worst since not even the Black Death killed that many in one day.

And on and on. In making the case for Bush as worst president, I'm sure that there are several facts that could be presented to bolster this case (such as basing the public reason for going to war in Iraq on Weapons of Mass Destruction which have yet to be found, unbelievable grammatical and speaking lapses, supporting the Patriot Act). As damning as those are, they still do not prove Bush is the worst president. It is still only my opinion. I'm sure that citizens who espouse a right wing ideology could present other evidence that Bush is the best president in history. They cannot prove that, however.

Now, if we're going to present Wikipedia as an objective resource, we must avoid the trap of presenting only one side of the equation. Believe me, I'd love to post what I really think of Bush as "fact" (that he's a smug, arrogant, Fascist sonofabitch who wants to institute a Christian theocracy in the US and subvert five Amendments of the Bill of Rights at once with the Patriot Act (1,4,5,6 and 8)); however, in good conscience I would not post that as fact. In Bush's article, however, I think we should present both sides of the argument about his accomplishments/deficiencies. The article, as it stands, is right leaning in its bias (not the ultra right wing that Murdoch would print about Bush's crap not stinking, but still right leaning). We must counter that right wing bias by including discussion of Bush's shortcomings, as well (see the German translation above about Bush avoiding service in Vietnam).

In summation, I believe that dismissing Rolling Stone as a source is a mistake. Merecat, would you discount it if it were as right leaning as the Wall Street Journal? To quote the urban legend "I think not."

TheKurgan 00:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy comment. I'm not sure what to make of it, but thanks. Merecat 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What my comment meant

OK, mea culpa. Allow me to rephrase.

Merecat, what you can make of my post is a recommendation not to discount certain publications simply because of a left leaning editorial bias. Those of us on the left cannot discount publications with a right leaning bias. As I stated above, we can discount sources that are extremely biased (as I also already stated, the two extremes being Mother Jones and Fox News).

Would you agree with an article in the Wall Street Journal or the Detroit News that examined the possibility of Bush being the worst president? If not, then the bias of the editorial staff in question is not the issue. If so, then blindly following a publication because of its editorial tendencies is folly.

I hope this condensation is clearer.

TheKurgan 23:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to TheKurgan's points

1. I do agree in principle with your assertion that the Rolling Stone is equivalent to the Wall Street Journal, Time and similar publications.

2. However, I do not believe that every article or opinion piece of a well-known publication is in itself notable to put into an encyclopaedia article, especially on the topic of a President. Maybe this means that we need more sub-articles of George W. Bush, but in general, I believe a 6 to 10 page summary of a President or a similarly important historical figue cannot practically include all information from every article written about or in reference to him or her. BlueGoose 10:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Blue Goose, you are correct. Not every article is worthy. Articles must be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Heck, even Fox News gets stuff right sometimes! If we deem the Rolling Stone article to be unworthy on its face, then we should not include it. But to discount the publication out of hand is a major mistake.


TheKurgan 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (Edited typo)

Historical perspective...without the benefit of history?

The story in Rolling Stone is quite interesting...some Historians offering up their insightful opinions of the George W. Bush presidency while STILL in the middle of his presidency.

I recall a similar article written by the great-great-great grandfather of the author of this current piece:

September 18, 1862 - And here we are...now in the midst of a great Civil War. A War brought about because of the incompetence of President Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln has allowed our country to splinter and has divided us like never before. States have declared their right to secede from our Union...a Union now in shambles. In the town of Antietam yesterday, the bloodiest of battles took the lives of more than 23,000 Americans. And now there is talk of the President suspending Habeas Corpus. I fear our country will never be united nor the same again. There is little doubt in my mind nor in the minds of my fellow historians that President Lincoln will go down in history as the worst President to ever preside over our Union and I would not be surprised if Americans took action to put a deliberate end to his Presidency. (This is not a real quote...)

My, my, my...how foolish it sounds for a Historian to comment without the real benefit of history. I would guess that should the Middle East become a place for the growth of freedom and Democracy in 20-50 years from now...with it's roots traced back to the liberation of Iraq...these "Historians" will not even be a footnote in the book of history. We will see. Jeravicious 11:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So, "The end excuses any evil" -- Sophocles, Electra 409 B.C. ? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
What was the evil in 1862? The Civil War and it's cost in hundreds of thousands of American lives? The suspension of Habeus Corpus by Lincoln? With the benefit of 100+ years of history...isn't it interesting how those 1862 "evils" now look quite different. And, should Democracy and Freedom thrive in the Middle East even if it takes 20-50 years...the "evils" (as some characterize them) of the 2003 Iraq War will look quite different as well. The hatred of Lincoln, his policies and his actions in 1862 were much greater than the current climate here in America regarding the Bush Administration. And now...Lincoln is regarded as one of the greatest if not THE greatest U.S. President. Jeravicious 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


The evil in 1862 was and is the same evil that still exists in 2006, people being so highly principled that they can't see past the ends of their own noses, and that's on both sides. But since you bring up 1862—that's something I know a little bit about.
Both Lincoln and Davis were "great" men. Context matters, both were flawed, but IMO both meet a reasonable definition of "great". It was agreed at the time that Davis had been the best Secretary of War that the U.S. had seen up to that point, and Lincoln, well everybody in the U.S. knows something about Lincoln. They were both surrounded by great men, (Grant after a fashion, Lee, etc.) but there were also not so great men, as were there "great" men who were extremely unlucky and/or at the wrong place at the wrong time. But was the outcome of the war certain, as of September, 1862? Of course not—Lincoln was having a heck of a time and Davis too. The point is that it is too soon to look back at the early 21st century with any kind of historical perspective, because history is still being written.
Examples in history abound—victory in WWII for the people that were fighting it was far from a certainty. We can look back now and see that the Allies had the advantage, but in 1942? Neh. Back to the U.S. civil war: Did you know that in the Spring of 1862, McCellan had a huge advantage in numbers of troops and supply, but through "faulty intelligence" had overestimated the strength of the Confederates by more than double? He had approx. 130,000 soldiers and was a bit more than eight miles from downtown Richmond—at night he could even hear the clocks chime in the city. But he did nothing, he stayed encamped, straddling the Chickahominy. Johnston, and later Lee, had only about 70,000 in front of him (can't remember exact figures), but McCellan's intel put the Confederate strength at as much as 200,000! Can you imagine? And that's from just a mile away he couldn't tell what the other side had. Sound familiar? And this wasn't the last time in that war either that Lincoln's pick to command the Union Army failed him. Witness Burnside at Fredericksburg, Hooker at Chancellorsville, the failure of Meade to pursue Lee after Gettysburg. The vitriol with which the press and populace spoke of the failures of the Union Army was intense, but can you imagine if Lincoln had been impeached because his commanders made battle recommendations due to faulty intelligence? Yes, the circumstances are very different, going to war with bad intel vice conducting the war with bad intel, but my point is that it's easy to judge from the comfort of time and/or space. It occurs to me that people on both sides leap to judgment when they don't have all the facts and as such really have no idea what they are talking about. Will history judge that the presidential administration of George W. Bush brought peace to the Middle East? I don't know, and neither do you. --Easter Monkey 02:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
"Will history judge that the presidential administration of George W. Bush brought peace to the Middle East? I don't know, and neither do you." Actually I know, and I think it's pretty iressponsible that you don't know. The answer is no. There is not peace in Iraq, there is civil war, one that is claiming dozens of lives a day with no signs of abating and every sign of increasing exponientially. Bush caused this civil war by failing to secure the peace. Now maybe i'm just a POV bastard, but I think most people would agree that civil war in Iraq is about as far from peace in the Middle East as one can get. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.158.189.4 (talk • contribs) .
Really?? How very insightful of you. I would not be so bold as to predict the final outcome of the situation in Iraq right now only a few years after the removal of it's dictator...but you on the other hand must have an incredible intellect to make such an assessment. I wonder what your assessment of the U.S. Civil War would have been had you been living in 1862... btw, Do you even realize that the majority of the people in Iraq (80% Shia and Kurds) were oppressed under Saddam's regime and are now establishing a new government and that the Insurgency consists of less than 1% of the total Iraqi population or that more Americans are killed (murdered) in one year here in America by Americans (16,000+) than have been killed in 3 years in Iraq (2,300+)?? Have some perspective.Jeravicious 20:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Democracy and peace probably will thrive in the Middle East in 50 years times. But it will be inspite of Bush and the US, not thanks to them. The US has never wanted democracy in the Middle East because democracy means the US frequently won't get what they want. Note that the US continually interfers in the running of a slightly democractic Iraq to ensure they get what they want. Iran is more democractic now then it was under the US's Shah. But the US would be all to happy if Iran was still in the Shah days but is not happy with present day Iran. Many countries in South America have had their democractic processes interefered with by the US and indeed the US supports coups and other non-democractic means of controlling countries such as Venezuela from democractically elected leaders who they don't like. Don't get me wrong, I'm under no illusion that the US is particularly unique in these practices. They're not. They're simply much more successful and also much more in denial about it. Of course, if you believe in Bush's apparent belief that democracy means doing what we want you to do, then I guess maybe you'll have a different view. But for most of us, this isn't what democracy means. Anyway this is too OT and I'll stop and leave it at that Nil Einne 11:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Democracy means the U.S. won't get what it wants in the Middle East?? Really?? We import more oil from Canada and Mexico than we do from the Middle East...try again. Sorry...but the connection is unavoidable. If Democracy, even a Middle Eastern style democracy, and freedom flourishes and spreads in the Middle East, it WILL be traced back to the 2003 liberation of Iraq. And then the REAL history of the Bush Presidency and impact will be written. You can either bet AGAINST Democracy and Freedom or you can bet FOR it. I'll bet for it. Jeravicious 11:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Knock it off guys. Kevin Baastalk 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Some JavaScript stats for George Bush edits

the most recent 250

  • Page stats (from the 250 edits shown on this page):
  • 20.8% quick reverts (any) (52 edit(s))
  • 11.2% probable reverts of vandalism (28 edit(s))
  • 0% IP/anon edits (0 edit(s))
  • 21.6% likely new user edits (54 edit(s))
  • 100% registered user edits (250 edit(s))
  • 78.4% likely older user edits (196 edit(s))

the most recent 500

  • Page stats (from the 500 edits shown on this page):
  • 25.6% quick reverts (any) (128 edit(s))
  • 16% probable reverts of vandalism (80 edit(s))
  • 11% IP/anon edits (55 edit(s))
  • 16.2% likely new user edits (81 edit(s))
  • 89% registered user edits (445 edit(s))
  • 72.8% likely older user edits (364 edit(s))

From august 5 to 12 of 2005

  • Page stats (from the 500 edits shown on this page):
  • 43.6% quick reverts (any) (218 edit(s))
  • 27.4% probable reverts of vandalism (137 edit(s))
  • 40.2% IP/anon edits (201 edit(s))
  • 2.4% likely new user edits (12 edit(s))
  • 59.8% registered user edits (299 edit(s))
  • 57.4% likely older user edits (287 edit(s))

the last 5000 Page stats (from the 5000 edits shown on this page):

  • 33.84% quick reverts (any) (1692 edit(s))
  • 25.72% probable reverts of vandalism (1286 edit(s))
  • 23.64% IP/anon edits (1182 edit(s))
  • 8.18% likely new user edits (409 edit(s))
  • 76.36% registered user edits (3818 edit(s))
  • 68.18% likely older user edits (3409 edit(s))

Don't know what to make of these, but look at that 100%....yikes. The 8.18% goes up to 21.6% likely due to sleeper accounts. I bet its necessary though.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

2000 campaigns

Imho there is a serious misstatement in this part. Pls look at this sentence: "However, most of the methods that would have given victory to Gore relied on counting overvotes -- which is against election law, as it takes a ballot with two votes on it and assigns it arbitrarily to one candidate. 212223" OK, Firstly, link 21 has to be paid for, I can't afford to buy it and I don't think it's proper to use paid content here. However, links 22 and 23 don't support the statement in the article. 22 says: "In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name." No reference to election laws here. Instead, this shows that the recount teams determined the voter intent (you remember this phrase from the news, right?) and counted a valid vote when both the chad was gone and the same candidate's name was written on the ballot. This isn't the same as two votes, this isn't arbitrary, and it's very questionable if this is against the law - 22 says nothing about that. Now, link 23 isn't about law either, its topic is possible voter confusion. So, imho the whole sentence at the start is unsurported opinion and I think it would be the best solution to simply delete it. Gray62 22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Illinois Resolution for Impeachment

I'd really like if someone were to review my additions to the article concerning the Illinois resolution to impeach Bush at the bottom of the Impeachment section. Polish it up, and add some more clarifying content, or improvement would be nice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterfa (talk • contribs) 06:48, April 28, 2006

As a former Rockford, IL and Chicago resident, I would like to state that Illinois is not a democratic state. The population of Chicago, which as a big city, tends to skew opinions to the left, dominates the political landscape of the state. I don't have any facts to cite, but based upon personal experience, I would suggest that Illinois is overall a conservative state, but the population of Chicago tips the scale, come election time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.233.172 (talk • contribs) 16:51, April 29, 2006

  • So... what's your point? Last time I checked, people in cities count towards the overall political landscape. Michael Lipik 04:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So, in other words, Illinois isn't a Democratic state; it's just that the majority of its population are Democrats, and vote that way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So Illinois is really a republican state but just happens to be blue for the presidential vote? Are people who live outside of Chicago but inside of Illinois suppose to have their votes counted more than once or something?

  • I think it's related to the certainty that Mr Bush has that he has a mandate, which seems to be based on the fact that his supporters are spread out over a wider physical area than his opponents (or, at least, they were in the last couple of elections; right now, I think he'd win Utah and Nebraska). It's also probably related to an ingrained bias against urban voters by the GOP core. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

dirt don't vote. -- me

Lumber Dispute under Trade Section has been "resolved"

Please update. Washington Post Article on Lumber

Additions to Science section and Katrina effect

1-The alleged manipulation of NASA information seems to warrant inclusion in the Science section. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/31/nasa.media.policy.reut/index.html

2-Saudi Flights is problematic, because Michael Moore's scurrilous politicking as resource must defer to the 9/11 commission report, which addressed these allegations and unambiguously dismissed them. I don't believe this section belongs under GWB.

3-Why is Katrina all but completely omitted from this bio? The Public Perception section indicates that the administration was faulted for a "slow" response; this is a very generous euphemism, and does not impartially reflect the truth of the matter--allegations of negligence, the perceived betrayal of promises regarding Homeland Security, and the impression that the administration was more preoccupied with political fallout than disaster management. It would seem that this defining moment of his second term, his response to the most visible natural disaster in the nation's history, would warrant a section of its own.DBaba 02:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Dbaba, I deleted #2 "Saudi Flights" from this page. Quite frankly, Unger's House of Bush House of Saud is about as reliable a source as.... "The Weekly World News".

Richard Clarke, a WELL KNOWN BUSH CRITIC had already admitted to letting the Bin Ladens leave the country. This was AFTER the flight ban had been lifted, not before.....[44] --71.198.141.63 17:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

New Page Idea

Wouldn't it make sense to start a Wikipedia page on the "George Bush Controversy"? It would include things in the news that have caused commotion based on events, appointees and laws that Bush has made. It would also include the thoughts of pundits on both sides of the arguments. As well as excerpts from this talk page. In a way, it would be kind of like the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page in that both sides would get their opinnions stated. Discuss: User:Secret

I dont think so because there really isnt a "George Bush Contorversy", there are controversies regarding his administrations policies, most of which already have pages. Any specifically "Bush Controversey", is mostly far left POV, Mac Domhnaill 22:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

edits

I made a few edits here tonight. If you disagree, please do not blanket revert. Please dialog here. Merecat 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Reinserted Saudi Flights section

I've reinserted this section because I felt it was removed for insufficient cause. Yes, it's true that Moore's insinuation - that the Saudis were flown out during the no-fly period - was false. However, his chief point - that these Saudis, some of them members of the Bin Laden family, were not detained and questioned regarding the crimes of their infamous relative - is definitely important enough to be notable. While I agree that it's likely that Moore's omission was deliberate (and therefore kind of slimy), it's not sufficient grounds for removing the section. Wikipedia isn't the right place to judge what Moore knew or didn't know. Kasreyn 20:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

MMoore is a biased bloviator. Posting information from him is like asking "have you stopped beating your wife?". There is no way to balance or rebut Moore's insane allegations. Merecat 20:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It's a malicious way to write history: quote a false accusation at length and then refute it in a brief statement. If Wiki can't assess and reject a piece of propaganda, what the heck good is it? Putting it in is the value judgment (aka POV)! --Cubdriver 20:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
As long as Moore's bias is noted, I see no problem with noting the allegations he has made. You're jumping to the conclusion that I'm wanting to push a POV here, which I'm not. I'm looking at this from the angle of noteworthiness. Whether you like it or not, Moore is a famous (or infamous) commentator / pundit / propagandist / whatever you want to call him. When he raises a point, especially a striking point such as the lapse in investigative procedures immediately after 9/11, to my mind it satisfies the requirements for noteworthiness in Wikipedia. Kasreyn 21:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree, Merecat. Moore's credibility is indeed sometimes tarnished by his methods, but many of the points he raises are noteworthy. I believe it is possible, if one is careful, to strip away the spin and refer to the substantive allegation without allowing Moore's accompanying bias into the article. If you feel it would improve things, a note on Moore's bias could be added, such as "liberal commentator" or "liberal pundit" or whatever. I would have it say "some have speculated" about the Saudis not being detained and questioned as they should have been - but I can't, since that would be original research; I don't offhand know of anyone except Moore who has publically questioned that lapse.
It bothers me a bit that my history of NPOV edits to Wikipedia doesn't speak for me here, but I suppose it should come as no surprise that I'm not particularly noticeable. So allow me to reassure you: I have no intention of attempting to bias this article. I merely feel that Moore's allegation is noteworthy, and that it is possible to report on it without indulging its bias. So, do you disagree with me on whether that can be done, or on how I have tried to do it? Respectfully, Kasreyn 21:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The only possible reason for inserting this meretricious gossip is to have people walk away saying, "Hm, might be something in it!" There's nothing in it. Bloviate is indeed a fair verb to describe what Mr. Moore does in his doccos. If you want to discuss the allegation, then do it on a Michael Moore article, not on an article about one of his victims. Or create a new article called "The Saudi flights fantasy." I have an external link for it already! --Cubdriver 22:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fantasy? Let me get this straight: you're saying that the Bin Laden family was not flown out of the country immediately after 9/11 without being questioned? Or that they were, in fact, questioned? You're saying specifically that it's not a matter of spin, but that Moore outright lied, and the Bin Ladens have been relaxing here in America ever since, cooperating with the FBI? Please, give me some token that that's true. It would do a lot to restore my faith in my country, and I'd deeply appreciate it.
If, on the other hand, you admit that it is factually accurate that the Bin Laden family left the country without being questioned, I hardly think that makes Moore's pointing it out "gossip". A fact is a fact. Just because one person (Moore) presents it with accompanying bias, doesn't mean another person or group of persons (Wikipedia) can't present the same fact, free of bias. Kasreyn 22:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
All due respect to your unquestioned integrity, Kas, you are not fully informed of the issue. A VERY close look at the text of Moore's 9/11 will clearly indicate that Michael Moore was aware of the Bin Laden family members being interrogated prior to departing the USA--as asserted in 9/11 commission report.
This is precisely why Moore either needs to be completely omitted, or enclosed entirely within a section on his film and its effects on GW's image--because even so esteemed a Wikipedian as yourself can fall prey to Moore's machinations. We are fortunate to have some excellent scholarship from factcheck.org: [45]
The Bin Laden family was questioned by the FBI before leaving. They were flown out under the authority of Clarke, not Bush. The retired FBI agent in Fahrenheit 911 is completely mistaken. And the Bin Laden flight took place one week after commercial air space was re-opened to the public, on September 20th.DBaba 02:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Thank you for the link. I concede that including Moore's allegation regarding the Saudi flight no longer seems to be a wise idea. However, I certainly don't think the situation was handled appropriately. I have a hard time believing that low-level terrorist operatives, who very likely know exactly nothing, are held for years at Gitmo or other locations, while actual family members of Bin Laden were questioned for a mere week or so? (max 9 days from 11th to 20th) According to factcheck.org, "many" of the Bin Ladens were asked detailed questions - which of course means that some Bin Ladens were asked no detailed questions, which probably means nothing but name, age, nation of origin, and did you pack those bags yourself, sir?
Absolutely pathetic! If they were worried about reprisals, they could have requested state protection, which I'm sure would have gladly been offered. Or they could have used a tiny fraction of their great wealth to hire professional bodyguards. I hardly see there having been such a pressing threat to the Bin Laden family as would have provided our government with sufficient reason to fail to properly question them.
So, we won't take it from Moore's mouth, but I still feel our government completely failed in its duty to protect us and catch those responsible for 9/11. I'll do some looking, and see if I can't find some credible sources to help improve the article. Thanks again. Kasreyn 00:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn, Michael Moore has the credibility of... a flea. In fact, I wasn't going to vote for George W Bush until after Moore's movie came out. His assertions were based on a lot of distortions and flat out lies that when investigated made Bush look GOOD. In fact, Moore's movie probably did more to help Bush get elected. There isn't anything from Fahrenheit 911 that hasn't been properly debunked. Nothing from Moore belongs on this page unless you want to add a section "350 pound Bloviator helps get Bush elected with deceptive / fraudulent movie". --FairNBalanced 08:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn is correct here. The Saudi flight is no fantasy, and its source need not be Mr. Moore. The Saudi flight was written about in a Tampa newspaper shortly after 911 and confirmed after the movie mentioned it. There was at least one flight on 9/13 and more on 9/14. I believe this is already covered elsewhere in wikipedia. Richard Clarke did take responsibility for approving the flight after the 911 Commission report was published, but when he was asked about it during the hearings, he said that the flights were likely approved either by the white house or the state department.--csloat 08:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Csloat, I have already furnished you with a link to factcheck.org's highlighting of the pertinent excerpts from the 911 Commission Report.
9/11 Commission (page 329): We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. . . . Clarke told us, "I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me." Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."
Go to this link [46] DBaba 09:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If you look up his testimony, which was broadcast on television, you will see that he told the Commission that the flight was likely approved either by the State Dept or the White House. I am well aware of what the report says, thanks.--csloat 09:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Here ya go. The relevant section:
ROEMER: We don't know how many people were on a plane that flew out of this country. Who gave the final approval, then, to say yes, you're clear to go, it's all right with the United States government to go to Saudi Arabia?
CLARKE: I believe, after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all of these decisions we were making in those hours, which was the Interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference.
I was making or coordinating a lot of decisions on 9/11 and the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. Since you pressed me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State, or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know.

If Clarke himself says (at best) "I don't know" and the 9/11 Commission (page 329) says: "We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals", then this information does not belong on Bush's article, but in does belong in Clarke's article. After all, Clarke did authorize the flight, but does not know (and therefore cannot say) if White House told him to. There has been a finding of "no evidence" against Bush/WH on this and Clarke does not offer any ("I don't know"). To put this in Bush's article is sheer conjecture. Merecat 13:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)