Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 6

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

Constitutional question

The background section states "If a President is found guilty by two thirds of the Senate on any charge, the Constitution states that he must be removed from office and replaced by the Vice President." However, the relevant section of Article 1 of the Constitution is more vague. Article 1, Section 3 says in part "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." I'm not sure this means the President must be removed from office, only that he may be. Huadpe 00:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)



14th Amendment, Section 4

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

In trying to further burden our posterity with debt, and cede control of trillions of dollars to the securities interests of the US, Bush specifically questioned the public debt instruments held by the Social Security trust fund. Not NPoV language -- but comments not whored out to content strippers (in violation of all that GNU represents) -- so OK in the Talk section -- right?? 4.248.44.247 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[1]


I'm hesitant on this one. Pres. Bush is not a creditor to the United States (unless he happens to own some T-Bills) and has not accused the US of defaulting. There is a difference between George Walker Bush and the Office of the President. Bush is free to question the validity of the debt all he likes, as he has freedom of speech. The Office of the President however is governed by this section. You would need to show that the statements were made in the context of executing the Office. For example, campaign speeches would NOT be capable of triggering a violation of this section. Huadpe 00:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." Don't forget to include the entire paragraph, so you don't accidentally take the sentence out of context.208.248.33.30 21:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

City referendums for impeachment =

  • Urbana, IL,
  • Chaimpaign, IL,
  • some place in vermont
  • Berkeley, California
  • Wisconsin Rapids, WI


Anycase, these should be researched and included. Kevin Baastalk 15:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC

Does it really matter that four cities and a vague city in Vermont want Bush removed? The Constitution delegates the right of impeachment to the House of Representatives, not to cities.Dace48 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC))
I've added info on Berkeley and San Francisco's referenda. Inclusion in a Wikipedia article does not turn on the item's feasibility or merits, it turns on the item's notability. I know that the California propositions are fairly notable (as proved by the press coverage and sources I have supplied). I don't know about the other referenda, but the Berkeley and S.F. ones both call upon the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings, so technically, they are feasible. Schi 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question Dace48, no, it doesn't matter a bit. There is no importance whatsoever, particularly when it's voted on by a few members of a city council. The mention is just being included by people who hate Bush in an attempt to create the misconception that there is some swell of public opinion supporting impeachment. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

polls and significance

regarding [2]:

It is not statistically significant that it is not statistically significant. only a tiny fraction of things are statistically significant. So why mention the obvious? I think putting the obvious in violates the rule of balance: the information should be significant and interesting.

Secondly, regarding the second part, "it should be noted...", should it? why or why not? do we have a citation providing evidence that it should be noted? it's opinion. and it is kinda redundant because it's mentioned (if very subtly) in the sentence above. Kevin Baastalk 16:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole mention of Clinton should be dropped. This article is not about him, and mentioning a statistically insignificant fact adds no value to the article.--RWR8189 18:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. Kevin Baastalk 21:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is quite comical that the MSNBC online poll is cited in this article. When this poll first opened, there was an organized effort on conservative websites such as FR and CU to "reverse freep" the poll, ie., vote repeatedly FOR impeachment, to drive the apparent support for impeachment to a rediculously high percentage. I myself voted for impeachment dozens of times, even though I am far from an impeachment supporter. It was very funny at the time, and is even more amusing that people take that obviously manipulated figure at face value. - Crockspot 17:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1835303/posts?q=1&;page=1#1 freepers favoring impeachment]. Terjen 00:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV (1-sided?)

It seems to me that this article is one-sided and presents no one opposing or any viewpoints that oppose impeachment. Is there a way to add in those opposing viewpoints? I am sure that not everyone is for this, least of all George Bush. Fundamentaldan 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if you can find anyone opposing impeachment who is part of the movement to impeach... Kevin Baastalk 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There are substantial, meritorious arguments against using the Impeachment Clause against this presdent--arguments that assume the validity of many, if not most, of the common charges against this administration, from lying about the reasons for the Iraq war, violations of FISA, torture policies, extraordinary rendition, the NSA eavesdropping activities, and so on. Impeachment is one, but only one, of the remedies that Congress and the American people can undertake to address the excesses of a runaway presidency. It may or may not be the best alternative, and there is surely no "command" to Congress to bring impeachment proceedings in any given case. Hence, there is no violation of the Constitution if Congress does not opt for impeachment. The Impeachment Clause was the result of a late-day compromise in Philadelphia and in no sense one of the major features of the new democratic architecture unveiled in 1787. I placed an op-ed in a local paper about a month ago that is (as I understand the ground rules) not appropriate to append here. I would be glad to forward it to anyone requesting it. Email: bdscotch@aol.com. Milfordkid 18:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you can find any specific anti-impeachement commentary, it would be great. At the moment, I have the impression that the people who oppose impeachment generally consider it too unlikely to be worth mentioning. Perhaps someone could find some quotes to that effect?

24.59.105.229 13:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • While I am admittedly pro-impeachment, it certainly would be more neutral if this article covered anti-impeachment reasons/advocates. Even some who dislike Bush don't want him impeached (pursuing impeachment would make the Democrats look bad, he makes a good scapegoat for the Democrats, what if he were removed but Cheney wasn't, etc). Perhaps this article should be titled "Controversy over impeaching Bush" and then it could more easily handle the pro & con material. Except it would get even longer! Maybe a "Controversy" article could be the parent article, then there'd be sub-articles that covered pro vs. con?
Also, why are all the NPOVs sub-ordinate to the "polls" talk topic? Seems wrong.
Jason C.K. 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV (neutrality of reverted FISA text)

I just had some changes reverted for totally invalid reasons. I'm putting this here as a warning and a defense of the changes. Rationale for changes are as follows: (1) Remove weasel words. Everyone knows that Bush violated FISA; he admitted it. His claim was that FISA didn't apply, as noted only two sentences later. (2) Replace extremely biased wording with neutral wording. "As Commander in Chief in the War on Terror" is spectacularly biased, as is "to protect the American people". 24.59.105.229 13:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV (neutrality of article content/structure)

In that Wikipedia endeavors to be an encyclopedia rather than a forum, this topic should be confined only to news of official government actions (municipal, county, state) which might actually lend legal weight or progress toward an impeachment process.

Discussions of the merit or wisdom of such subordinate government actions should not be posted.

It might however be of utility to post a section with links to the most active and authorative web discussions on the topic. Subsections could be "Openly Pro Bias", "Openly Against Bias", "Attempts at Moderated Balance", and "Unmoderated Free For All". Some thought might be given to overall separation of links into "Membership Required" and "Open Forum" as many people find the forum membership screening of some sites offensive/invasive/suspicious.

I suggest all controversial topics not involving discussion of technical tradeoffs be handled this way.

69.23.125.173 03:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC) CJF

  • Wikipedia covers plenty of scandals and controversies. Cold fusion seems to not exist as more than an idea, a lot of wishes, and some unsupported claims, but Wikipedia still has lots of material on it. Shouldn't it? Likewise with the controversy over Bush (see my NPOV 1 comments). It's an important idea in the public consciousness that frequently appears in the news (public figures discuss, polls reported upon, White House statements, actions by state legislatures, rallies, etc).
Jason C.K. 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"news of official government actions" is not a good standard for any article, for it ignores tons of other important and relevent information. Ace Frahm 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ace Frahm and would go further that the original poster of the idea seems to forget that in the USA "official government actions" include actions of political advocacy by the people ... politicians respond to such activities if they become large enough and therefor such activities are of great significance. Mr Lincoln said it best when he declared we are a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". Low Sea 10:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fox opinion poll

Secondly, the 2006 fox opion poll has been reinserted after two removals (by me). Don't they violate "Neutral Point Of View" and "Sources of questionable reliability"? The external link only points to what fox says the results are, not a paper detailing the actual poll questions, or sampling methods. Their strong bias wouldn't be such a big problem here if they weren't also so unreliable at the same time. Ace Frahm 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is in regards to this, moved here from the article:

A May 22, 2006 poll conducted by Fox News asked if it would be right or wrong for Democrats to impeach Bush over the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction. Thirty percent of the respondents saying it would be right and 62% saying it would be wrong to impeach Bush that way. Seven percent were not sure. [1]{{Verify credibility}}{{POV-statement}}

Please address the concerns before re-adding. -- Stbalbach 15:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Article should be featured

I don't know how to get it featured and I'd rather not bother with it all, but I think the people who maintain it should get it featured. If it gets featured soon, maybe the impeachment will happen!! Anomo 08:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The subject matter is too controversial, rapidly changing and people will think its being done for political reasons. It's no different than partisans who repeatedly put this article up for deletion to make a political statement. -- Stbalbach 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't change very rapidly. And it's certainly interesting. Though I generally agree with Stbalbach, if it's really a well-written article and fits the criteria for featured status, when then it should be a featured article. This does not mean that it is featured on the main page. Just that it's tagged and put in a category. Kevin Baastalk 16:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Assuredly, Anomo, advocating that the article be featured in order to assist in getting impeachment started is about the most POV reason I could imagine. I am pretty certain that making it a featured article would have little to no effect on the public (i.e. let's not flatter ourselves about the impact of Wikipedia). I do think the article is fairly well-written, comprehensive and NPOV. --Habap 19:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a section in favor of impeachment

Do we need an opposing view, or is it the very point that this article merely list the reasons to support impeachment. If so, doesn;t this violkate POV, or do we create an article to state reasons why it is silly silly silly to impeach now. Chivista 19:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no "movement to not impeach GWB" since he has not been impeached! So no, it's not a POV split. If there is an official move to impeach GWB, this article will change dramatically, as then both sides will need to be represented, and it will no longer be a movement, by an actual impeachment. At that point there would be, say, 2006 impeachment of GWB as one article, and Criticisms against impeaching GWB as another article (assuming the criticisms section gets long enough to support a separate article, as it would). Until then this article is enough. Otherwise we just enter into an endless debate back and forth which is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, this article just documents the people and actions who want to impeach GWB. -- Stbalbach 21:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is now. My movement. it's called "The Movement to NOT Impeach George Bush". We have 51 million members. Like you, I won't provide any sources, but just hope my right wing buddies back me up. Or can I not do that? Do only the lefty authors get protection?Ymous 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This talk topic seems to be the same issue as this talk topic (NPOV 1). Perhaps one should absorb the other? This one also seems to be mis-titled. Shouldn't it be something like "There is no section in favor of impeachment"?
Jason C.K. 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
There really is no "movement" to impeach Bush. Its more like a wish that some folks talk about. --Blue Tie 19:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
that would depend upon the definition of "movement". Many tens of thousands of petition signatures; a resolution before congress; VT state senate; CA & MA Democratic parties; many town and city resolutions; several books; thousands of letters to editors and to congress. All in favor of impeachment. What would you (objectively) call it? --Nonukes 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
and of course let us not forget the ultimatum from Cindy Sheehan to Nancy Pellosi. Low Sea 10:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No. There is no movement. This article is crap. Timneu22 14:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Because you wish it so does not make it 'not a movement'. Is a popular effort a 'movement' only if (with a crystal ball) we determine it is successful? Of course not. There have been plenty of unsuccessful 'movements'. Is there no anti-abortion movement? Also, keep in mind that there's no time limit for impeaching a president - Bush could be impeached ten years from now. Nonukes 02:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Brush up on what impeachment is. You can't impeach someone if they aren't in office: impeachment is the beginning of the process to remove someone from office, no more and no less. Bush won't be in office ten years from now. - Nunh-huh 02:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

POV post-November

It is interesting now that the Democrats have won both houses and GWB is essentially a lame duck president, the Democrats have every opportunity to pursue impeachment, the President is wide open. But the house majority leader has said impeachment is "off the table", so it is unlikely to happen. Given this dramatic change in perspective, is the article still considered POV by anyone? The article has not changed at all from where it was before - the only thing that has changed is external events. I don't hear anyone complaining about POV now, the article has been very quiet. It makes me think the article never was POV, because if it was, then it would have to be re-written to reflect the November change in power dynamics. But that is not the case. Probably because the article is neutral and works no matter who is in power. -- Stbalbach 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I do find it interesting that there has been the switch in direction (I assume it is being done because they will get more mileage out of a "bad" president in office than out of the risky endeavor of impeachment, which has many possible outcomes) and agree that most of the arguing over whether it is POV was due to the "current events" nature of it. I suspect that there will be some changes to reduce POV, but my reading was that it was a relatively balanced article, considering the controversial nature of the topic. --Habap 17:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sections on grounds for impeachment should explain what the alleged crime is

The Katrina section is confusing to me. It says:

"The alleged responsibility of the George W. Bush administration in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina has been used ... to suggest failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens. And as such they hold that the allegations of incompetence amount to an impeachable offense."

An impeachable offense requires a crime ("high crime or misdemeanor"). I don't understand how incompetence or mishandling would be a crime. Am I missing something here? Crust 19:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Jordan- I think that if you impeach bush, great!!!!!!! but if you do DICK cheney will come into power (don't responed to this.

Let me generalize the above complaint. Unlike for example a vote of non-confidence for a Prime Minister under the Westminster system, to impeach the President in the U.S. it is not sufficient to show that he is incompetent, has made bad decisions, has lied, etc. For impeachment, he must have committed a crime. (Of course there is the caveat as in the article that impeachment is a political process, but I'm putting that aside and saying what the standard is supposed to be.) Some sections do explain what the alleged crime is, but others do not. Of course, Wikipedia is not about original research and it may be that some of the arguments supporting impeachment that people advance do not involve an alleged crime; in such cases, we should find a way to note this problem (ideally by quoting a critic of the argument).Crust 17:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to get to deep into the original research, but couldn't criminal negligence count? The other question, of course, is what counts as a "high crime". The Wikipedia article says that, at least historically, it has meant crimes against the State. Schi 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Schi.
Re criminal negligence: Well, what law is he violating?

1) Perjury. He told Congress Iraq had WMD and based this ona fictitious document. 2) Electoral Fraud. In the 2000 election, ballot boxes came up missing in the very state where his brother so happened to be governor, African-Americans were turned away fromt he polls and told they needn't bother voting. 3) Establishment of a domestic surveilance system which completely ignores the need for a warrant from a federal court to tap phone lines or monitor electronic information. A violation of the illegal search and seizure clause. 4) The mass murder of thousands of American youth in the Iraqi conflict. Why is it that if you kill one man it's murder, but if you kill 3,000 it's just a statistic? 169.226.136.37 02:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Perjury requires testifying under oath and knowingly lying. The president was not under oath at the time, and whether or not he had foreknowledge of any falsifications is not proven.
2) Unproven. Even if it were, it seems that the crime would then have been committed by Jeb Bush.
3) Under the circumstances of national threat and war, not necessarily illegal.
4) Murder of our American youth was committed by members of Saddam Hussein's army and by terrorist factions. That makes them directly responsible. Bush might be held responsible if it is proven that he sent our troops there specifically to die. Otherwise, we'd have to indict every American president and officer that ever sent troops into battle. But I suspect this is too consistent to fit the profile of someone whose motivations are impure and hatred-centered, such as the person who left the above comments.

We'll always have a problem if use hearsay and allegations as our justifications.

  • I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe none. IF you see him as being in dereliction of his duty and in violation of his oath of office, is there any crime there? I don't know. But people more knowledgeable than me seem to think there could be a crime there. I certainly think it ought to be a crime :P "Criminal negligence" is something a person can be found guilty of, depending upon the circumstances and applicable law (if any). As I mention below about Plame, the fact that he may have committed a crime in this regard is yet another reason why it's worth investigating him to see if he did.
Jason C.K. 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
For another example under "Declassifying for political purposes" the article says
"Bush's misrepresentations on this point and his allegedly declassifying of information for a political purpose, is seen by some as impeachable offense."
But misrepresenting (or for that matter outright lying) isn't a crime. Is "declassifying of information for a political purpose" a crime? Not that I know of. If it is a crime, what is the law that makes it illegal and what are the standards that apply?
  • Isn't there still controversy about this (hence the court case) over who said what to whom and when? Do we know Bush was/wasn't involved? Do we know it was properly de-classified before any leak was "authorized"? If it was still classified, there are laws against disseminating classified info. If it was de-classified...hmmm, de-classifying the name of a covert op?!? Is that following "procedure"? Is it legal? There seems to be a lot of smoke here. It may not be worthy of impeaching Bush, but it seems worthy of investigating whether he ought to be impeached, depending upon who did what, what happened, and what, if any, laws were broken. When you start an impeachment investigation, you don't already know the end-result. But you do want to have some reasons for starting one. And it seems we do...many reasons. So the leak issue isn't so much a "reason to impeach" as a "reason for an impeachment investigation".
Jason C.K. 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
"Crime" vs. "high crime" is another question as you say. Crust 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how exactly to phrase it in legal terms, but it seems painfully obvious that GWB is guilty of criminal fraud and negligence that resulted in massive death. It is actually grounds for a strong case of him being a criminal against humanity if you ask me. Luis Dantas 11:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the 1996 War Crimes Act (actually a law), carrying out a "war of aggression" (which the war on Iraq certainly was, 'tho some will of course dispute it) may be punishable by death. Would that constitute a 'high crime'. When Nixon escaped impeachment by resigning, his successor, Gerald Ford said 'a high crime is whatever congress says it is at the time'. In my opinion, this is the heart of the matter: so many in congress are complicit, that they'll just say these many crimes weren't even 'misdemeanors'. --Nonukes 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On the War of Aggression issue: The "First" Iraq war never ended. The Gulf war dates for eligibility to be considered a wartime veteran of the Gulf war is August 2, 1990 - Cessation of hostilities as determined by the U.S. Government. This is true as of Jan 1, 2008. So sending troops into Iraq whom we have been at war with for (at the time) 12 years and 7 months wasn't a war of aggression. If However this was still considered a war of aggression, all parties who didn't stop the war or sent troops into the region would be guilty including Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush. The common misconception is that the Operation (Iraqi Freedom in this case) is just a battle plan during a war, not the war itself. Zakneifien (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Movement Filed

http://gnn.tv/articles/2791/BREAKING_Congresswoman_McKinney_Files_Articles_of_Impeachment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.49.114 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The bill is dead as soon as the 109th Congress adjourns for the last time.--RWR8189 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Musicians

It seems the only musician listed that advocates impeachment with his song is Neil Young. The Pink and Bright Eyes songs are certainly critical of Bush, but neither go so far as to advocate impeachment as stated by the header. I'm going to remove them.--RWR8189 07:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Muddy structure in regard to organizations

This article has a section on "Groups formed to support impeachment", followed by a section about "Organizations" under "Advocates of impeachment". This seems muddy. In which section should an organization be listed? Some are listed in both. It seems you could make a case that all should be listed in both. Ultimately it seems like one of these sections ought to absorb the other, for clarity's sake. I'd suggest that the section "Groups formed to support impeachment" should be absorbed and go away, since there's existing structure that can easily accomodate it, as well as everything else it already accomodates (politicians that advocate impeachment, authors that advocate impeachment, etc). Jason C.K. 22:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Movement to impeach Bill Clinton

Where is the page for the Movement to impeach Bill Clinton?--Dr who1975 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clinton was impeached. There is no need for a movement. auburnpilot talk 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Impeachment of Bill Clinton entry. Terjen 06:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no mention of the Arkansas Project on that page. The impeachment of Bill CLinton was the resultoof an organized movement to impeach him. I think Id like to amke an article for that movement. I can make comparisons between this movement and that one. I could even say something like "the movement to impeahc Bush may very well be retribution for the movement to Impeahc Clinton"... surely many would agree with that statement.--Dr who1975 22:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason Bush is not yet impeached is exactly because Democrats want to avoid that accusation. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, that and the small detail of who would succeed him. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It's mainly because there isn't really enough concrete support to impeach him and remove him from office. There is also this argument that he did all this stuff because "he felt it was best" which many would want to let him off the hook with (so much for bringing integrity and accountability back to the white house). It's unitary executive type thinking... but it is still a reality of how people (in both parties) think about him.--Dr who1975 19:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The public support for impeachment is greater than it was for Clinton. The reason Clinton got impeached over a BJ while Bush gets away with abolishing the Constitution, international law, war crimes, political appointments, etc, is of course adequately explained through politics and the Democrats current fear it will damage 2008. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete category?

After unilaterally changing reference to this article in numerous other articles and renaming this article Dr who1975 (talk · contribs) has decided, again without any discussion, to ask for deletion of the relevant category. Unfortunately he forgot to inform all those involved in this article therefore I make this comment so all editors that want to can leave their opinion on the matter.-- Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking for deleteion of the category IS ASKING FOR DISCUSSION.The apropriate text has been added to the category now. Nomen Nescio, if you are so concerned why didn't you add it? You are simply trying to subvert elements within wikipedia to get your way. Anyone who disagress can comment on this discussion page all they'd like.--Dr who1975 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ITMFA

Some mention should be added to the article of the phenomenon of ITMFA (acronym for the phrase "Impeach The Mother F*er Already") and the fact that buttons and bumper stickers were sold bearing this acronym. I think the ITMFA phenomenon is notable as a sort of popular countermovement, even though it might be considered limited to certain types of people. I'm not sure how to introduce the subject into the article without POV, though, so I'm suggesting it here instead, in the hopes that someone braver than I will add the reference. Here are three references:

—SaxTeacher (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about nothing

And maybe should be deleted. It is comprised of, essentially, non-events -- just political posturing, in some cases by people who have reversed their views or were speaking off the cuff, not to be taken seriously. it also contains the comments and ideas of people who simply do not count in the discussion -- like minor state legislators. I am not saying that some people do not seriously want to see Bush impeached (some want him tried, convicted and burned at the stake!) but that some people want such things is not the same as it being real. There is simply no "movement" to impeach him. It does not exist. This article is in essence an effort to present a catalog of every possible statement on the matter that can be found -- and they are essentially irrelevant to anything. As wikipedia guidelines say: "Wikipedia is not ... Propaganda or advocacy of any kind". Yet this is simply a compendium of advocacy. In that regard it is sort of "a directory of everything that exists or has existed" in respect to a non-event. I don't think that this is what wikipedia is about. It is a compilation of opinions and even if it is not deleted it would be reasonable to rename it as "Opinions supporting the impeachment of George W Bush"--Blue Tie 12:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see that the sources establish that there is a movement to impeach W, as opposed to a series of often unrelated events. The idea that there is an overall movement causing these things to occur strikes me as original research at best, and some kind of wishful conspiracy theory at worst. TheronJ 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is, there don't seem to be enough rational people at Wikipedia to counter the rediculous knee-jerk reactionary behavior exhibited by those who wrote this page. Any effort to do something like this on Wikipedia to anyone's sacred cow (say, a page on Movement to disband the European Union or Movement to stop universal healthcare, or even Movement to calm global warming hysteria) would be vandalized into oblivion if it lasted a day without being deleted. Wikipedia should not be used to display political propaganda against a sitting administration. JCSeer 07:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence of thr article is a WP:OR violation. There is no "the" Movement to impeach George W. Bush. This article should be deleted. I am going to tag it as an WP:NPOV violation 66.28.139.13 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It says "refers to" which means a general phrase or term. It is grammatically redundant to add "the phrase movement.." so it just says "the movement.." - there is absolutely nothing in this article to suggest there is a single movement, in fact it goes out of its way to say otherwise. -- Stbalbach 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There was more of a concerted movement to impeach Bill Clinton, and there's no article for that. -Toptomcat 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No, just an article titled Impeachment of Bill Clinton.--Mbc362 15:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That there is a movement is clear, based simply on current opinion polls (lowest ever) and recent actions, publications and statements made by various people in washington and academia. While this may be a "non-event" as you say, it is not a "non-movement." Veritas fortis 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping: By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval" http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2 Those who think this is 'about nothing', will of course claim that Bush didn't wiretap without a judge's approval, but a judge has found that he did just that. The "movement to impeach" has only grown since mid-January. --Nonukes 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no movement. I define "movement" as an advocacy with the potential power to enact. The article includes a hodgepodge list of various people and their loudly voiced concerns. That musicians and academics need to be listed in favor of impeachment in this article is embarrassing. Not everything that people are upset about and want can be considered a movement. Mostly, it is rabble, regardless of political side or agenda. If my definition of "movement" is acceptable, then one does not exist, as there is not any voiced support of impeachment with sufficient caliber to constitute a real possibility as of yet. If and when that does happen, there may be a need for this article. Until then, I move that it be renamed with "opinions" in the title instead "movement," which would then properly classify this as an article that exists in contravention of Wikipedia's policy to maintain advocacy-free content.--146.145.125.131 15:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Further, even if there were a movement and even if the article is considered legitimate, is it appropriate to list musicians in favor? Musicians are civilians with no special privileges or governmental ability. Whether or not various musicians are in favor of a political movement is irrelevant. It bears no relation to the heart of the matter, which is supposed to be the serious proposal for impeachment of a president.--146.145.125.131 15:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Why did you revert me at Movement to impeach George W. Bush? There are (4) editors who have recently commented about that article having problems and all 4 of them are recent comments on the talk page, with none speaking against that. That's a good enough reason to tag the article. I am reverting you. 66.28.139.13 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah we've had tons of discussions about this already, there is nothing new being said, the article is not beholden to a small but vocal partisan minority, see all the previous talk page archives and AfD's. -- Stbalbach 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things to consider: #1 at this time Stbalbach is in the minority and #2 past consensus is not written in stone forever. It's really not relevant what may have been discussed in the past or what the prior consensus may have been - right now the consensus is that this article is badly written and biased. The NPOV tag is certainly appropriate. And frankly, I feel that Stbalbach has a lot of nerver slinging personal attacks such as "vocal partisan". I am un-reverting. 66.28.139.24 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When a bunch of single-purpose anon accounts show up suddenly, when the article has been quiet for 5 months, it does seem odd. Coincidently, this happened the day after leading Republicans hinted that if Bush did not back down on Iraq there were other "stronger" measures the Congress could consider. I wonder why suddenly there is focus and attention on this article again? It was dead quiet here once the Democrats won the house and assured Impeachment was not in the cards.. no one seemed to care about this article after that.. now that Republicans are hinting that impeachment might be possible[3], suddenly this article under assault again. So many coincidences... -- Stbalbach 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Article title

I propose renaming this article, to either Impeachment of George W. Bush or Potential impeachment of George W. Bush. I don't think Movement to impeach... is POV, but changing it would leave room for opposing arguments and more nuanced discussion. Quadpus 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While I whole heartedly agree that this page needs to be renamed, I believe that Impeachment... would be unsuitable, as it would imply something that is entirely untrue; Bush has not been impeached nor is the House considering it. Potential... is also problematic in my mind, as it makes it appear likely that Bush could be impeached, something I don't think is NPOV.--Mbc362 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Impeachability of...? I don't know, it's an awkward thing. Quadpus 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess the question is "Is this article about the movement or some hypothetical impeachment?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
An article about a hypothetical impeachment would be inappropriate in my opinion. Whether or not the material described in the article truly constitutes a movement is questionable, since there is no current action being taken in the House, no majority support in the general public, and no unified group leading it. The best title I can come up with is Support for Impeachment of George W. Bush, but even that is not a good alternative. To Stbalbach, the sky is not going to fall if there is a minor change to the title.--Mbc362 17:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is reasonable if it describes a movement that actually exists, even if it's a minority one. Much as I loathe Bush, I wouldn't have started this article, frankly. However, I don't see any reason to tweak the title, as it does appear to be about the movement for impeachment. It's true the sky won't fall if it's changed, but the current title does seem to most accurately describe the article.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with renaming. Nothing wrong with current title. There is no consensus that this article should become a idealogical battle-ground of "opposing arguments". There is nothing to oppose, he has not been impeached! This article would quickly deteriorate into a mess of original research rhetoric and POV he-said/she-said. Political punditry is not notable. -- Stbalbach 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
So there really can't be any room for important points such as Hagel's recent statements? Since he isn't part of the "movement to impeach"? Quadpus 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hagel's statements? -- Stbalbach 01:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska... It's all over the news http://news.google.com/news?q=hagel+impeachment Quadpus 01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
He did use the word impeachment, which I guess technically could be included in this article, but it's not very notable IMO since it was a single instance and he hasn't done anything. He's also a presidential contender which further muddles the water. -- Stbalbach 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That's about as much as Nancy Pelosi has done. Quadpus 07:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia Bias At Its Worst

The very fact that this page exists proves that wikipedia is completely controlled by the left.

Ymous 19:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC

You did notice the part where it says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," didn't you? Wikipedia is not "controlled" by anyone; it's more like it's "barely restrained" by a few overworked administrators.
If you find the article objectionable, you should feel free to revise it (in keeping, of course, with Wikipedia's policies) so that it more accurately reflects the current state of affairs.
Alternatively, if you're displeased that there aren't corresponding articles dealing with subjects more to your liking, you should consider creating the appropriate articles. I'm sure Wikipedia would be better if it were more perfectly balanced: why not create articles that will do that instead of deleting ones that you don't like?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," is a big lie, and you know it. It should be called "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as long as it advances the left's adgenda, or as long slams, belittles, insults, anything to do with Conservatives".
The bias on this entire site is overwhelming. Even my posts in discussions of articles have been deleted by these left wing wackos. They apply certain rules to some articles, but not others. They allow no critque of any of the platform articles, but do it allow it on anything that is remotely associated with the right.
It's pathetic. Ymous 19:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You seem very very unhappy. I agree that things can be frustrating. And I have expressed my view on how the organization might have a liberal bias. But you won't get far if you throw rocks at people. I'm no expert at gaining consensus. Good grief, most people do not agree with me. But perhaps you would not mind taking this grief to my talk page or in email and we can find a way for you to be a happier and more productive editor! --Blue Tie 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


You said ""Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," is a big lie, and you know it." Sorry, Ymous, but I don't "know" anything of the sort. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and anyone else can edit those edits; that's the way it works.
At the bottom of every edit page it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Words to live by if you're going to work on Wikipedia.
Can you show where your posts in discussions have been deleted? I don't think that's supposed to happen (except in extreme cases, like abuse or obvious vandalism, of course).
There are remedies available if you think people are breaking the rules. If you go that route, I suggest you stay cool and assume good faith; you'll be much more likely to win people to your side that way and ultimately get things resolved to your satisfaction. Or, of course, there's always the final option that all of us have, and vote with our metaphoric feet...
Here's hoping you find a satisfactory solution to your concerns.
Regards,
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There has already been considerable discussion about this.. actually the discussion has been non-stop for about three years. -- Stbalbach 02:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Often posts on talk pages are deleted if they are not directly discussing the article itself, especially if the posts in question are seen as trolling/possible BLP infringements. Many of Ymous' edits can be perceived as the former by some.
In reply to Ymous, may I ask how ball, Michael Schumacher, or Distant signal (three "random article" presses) serve to "advance the left's agenda", or "slam, belittle, insult anything to do with Conservatives"? --Dreaded Walrus 04:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Without exactly agreeing with Ymous, I would say this article is really awful. It is probably one of the worst on wikipedia. It is biased in its basic nature, it is unencyclopedic, it is mistitled (there is no "movement" to impeach Bush, even if people wish that there were one) and it is essentially a list of people's rants (most who have no say in the matter) -- violating what wikipedia is not. It is a really bad article. --Blue Tie 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
By all means, Blue Tie, if you feel the article is unsalvageable, submit it for deletion. I'm of the feeling that almost no article is beyond salvage, but that's just me. I'm similarly of the feeling that the movement to impeach GWB is scattered and incoherent but not worthy of deletion for that reason. How organized would it have to be for you to feel that it warranted inclusion? Perhaps that should be a separate thread?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Organizationally, I do not think it should be a list of every upset person's comments. All of the comments associated with folks who have no direct control over impeachment should be simply a minor paragraph saying that "there are many other people disatisfied with Bush who would like to see him impeached." and then footnote. Right there, that would trim this article substantially.
But I also think that there is a fundamental problem with this article. It is a sort of POV Fork. For example, if we had an article on "Baby eating" an NPOV perspective might include a statement by a Baby Eater about how good it is or its benefits or something. But what sort of "contra" thing do we go to here? "The Movemenmt to be against the movement to impeach Bush"? Do we quote a Joe Blow who has no influence over the matter saying "I don't think he should be impeached?". In other words, this is a bad fork over a non-existant thing that has one purpose: Blog negative feelings about Bush. So, its not just organization that is a problem. But organization could go a long way. --Blue Tie 13:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I may not have been clear. When I said "how organized would it have to be?", I was referring to the "movement," not the article. That said, I think you have a point, and the article could stand a drastic rework to improve the structure.
My first thought when you mentioned "baby-eating" was this (followed by this, which is really disturbing). Staying on-topic, however, I'd say the Wikipedia Way would be to introduce counter-elements into the article rather than a new article of the opposite POV. So in the baby-eating example, we'd put in some comment from C.Annibal about what a good idea it is, and J.Swift on what a bad idea it is. This article shouldn't be a call for impeachment, but about calls for impeachment. If there are countervailing arguments being presented, then they should probably go in a "Contrary Positions" section or something.
I think there's enough noise being generated among politicians, pundits, and pollsters that the subject does warrant an article.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Before you submit for AfD, please see the many previous AfD's and make sure you have something new to add. Keep in mind that there is nothing in the rules of Wikipedia that stop editors from adding material every time someone says they want to impeach Bush. The choice is, either aggregate here in a "main article", or fight battles in 100 different articles all over Wikipedia. The reality is, people are calling for his impeachment, and that reality is going to be reflected on Wikipedia one way or another. You may think calling for President of the US's impeachment is "trivia", but most people would think it's pretty noteworthy. IMO this article is a simple catalog of those calls, pretty simple and straightforward. -- Stbalbach 15:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is a catalog of those calls. Just that alone is enough for me to consider it worthy of delete. I do not mind if people add these calls into other articles on wikipedia. If they belong there... then they belong there. Its fine. And having this, does not prevent them from appearing all over wikipedia anyway. I am sure that they do. But a non-existant movement, created to list POV statements is not-encyclopedic to me. And I do not need to have anything new to add to suggest it be deleted. But I am waiting a while. I like to take my time to think things over. No need to rush. --Blue Tie 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the counterargument for deleting this article is exactly in what you mentioned: it is a catalog of of the calls made to impeach Bush. From the frequency it's mentioned in the media (not much, admittedly), to the books published on the subject ("academics" and "political scientists" wanting to make money; but then again, that is *every* author's intent), there's obviously an identified movement going on to have President Bush impeached. So, why not keep it? The bias? It's written in a largely NPOV view and language. I mean, you're talking about an entire article about an entire movement to prosecute an American President. No matter how you present it, someone will take offense and blame it on "the liberal media". And I'm sorry, but the article also has obvious inherent applicability in research. If you're looking for a quick and dirty place to find a list of resources to use for research (whatever you need the stuff for), then Wikipedia provides a good concentration of materials. I say keep it. Shadowrun 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Threats of aggressive war against Iran

i added the section "Threats of aggressive war against Iran" - it seems to me rather uncontroversial that Kucinich has made this claim and that this is distinct from all the other rationales (or "reasons", as we would say in plain English). Boud 23:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Kucinich has made no formal or even informal position that he thinks Bush should be impeached. The ABC article just says he put up a trial balloon to see what other people think, and that he would let his position be known in a month or so. I think it's too early to attach Kunich to this article. -- Stbalbach 14:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
i reread the ABC article and in fact you're correct. He's proposing something to his potential supporters and promises to take a decision in a month or so depending on what they think. i couldn't find anything obvious on his website on this subject. There are some copies of speeches he's made in parliament, but none seem to commit Kucinich to impeachment on the grounds of threats of aggressive war already made by Bush. Boud 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Dennis Kucinich spoke in Parliament? I didn't even know he was a MP. Here I thought he was an American politician. hehe... We have neither Crown nor Parliament here, thanks to a pair of wars a few centuries ago. --Habap 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
i guess i was using a French linguistic convention here rather than English. The en.wikipedia articles such as parliament, congress, etc. do seem to make a big fuss about separating what in e.g. French are called the fr:régime présidentiel and fr:régime parlementaire forms of government/legislature, corresponding to congress and parliament respectively according to the en.wikipedia descriptions. According to these descriptions, the French system (Vth Republic) would have probably have to to be a congress - but in France, the word "parlement" is used for the two houses together (except when they're sitting in a joint session at Versailles, which is rarely, when the session is called "congrès"). i guess i should have said that Dennis Kucinich spoke in the "national legislature". As to whether or not you have a "Crown", it seems that the presidential system (congress) is closer to having a Crown than a parliamentary system - here's a quote from presidential system: "A presidential system, also called a congressional system, ...owes its origins to the medieval monarchies of France, England and Scotland in which executive authority was vested in the Crown, not in meetings of the estates of the realm (ie. parliament)...". Boud 23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough... but as this article is in English the English conventions should apply (especially US English, considering the subject.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.123.215 (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal or political

Some editors think that impeachment is a legal process.[4][5] Personally I think since there exists no legal definition it is up to politics to determine "high crimes." I see an edit war looming so maybe we can discuss here what others think is appropriate. Can we say it is a political process because the law is too vague and Congress has the last word on this? Or is it limited to the legal system and therefore not political at all? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a legal process administered in a political forum rather than a legal forum. --Blue Tie 13:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
So, we agree that mentioning its political nature, which is impossible to ignore, is allowed? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
To me, it is. But I do not know what other editors say. --Blue Tie 17:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV revisited

This article breaks WP:POV. I'm adding a tag to it. This article is one side; it is taken from a liberal view, and NPOV prohibits that. I believe this article should be deleted because no real legal actions have taken place to impeach him, but it has been saved three times so it isn't worth it. The article really needs a "criticism" section before the tag is removed. Questions? Direct them to my talk page. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Nobody objects to any criticism. If you can find sourced material feel free to add it. Unfortunately there is limited analysis on why impeachment is not warranted. If such material remains not available the POV tag can be removed. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag justifications need to list actionable items. Just giving a personal opinion that it is "a liberal view" doesn't mean anything concrete in terms of editing the article. What words and sentences are a "liberal view"? If we are going to address the POV tag, we need a list of specific, actionable items. As for a "criticisms" section, since he has not been impeached, there is nothing to criticize and in any case, it just makes the article into an idealogical battle ground of he-said/she-said which we want to avoid -- all this article does is list who is calling for impeachment and why they are doing so -- very simple and straightforward. -- Stbalbach 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

actually no they don't need to list it see - [[6]] The end sentence sums it up. "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed" so a pov tag should be added to the article. Reading the wiki page on it doesn't say you have to say exactly what needs to be addressed. Feel free to quote where if it does. If there is this much dispute on the talk page about the article not being NPOV chances are that its not. Like the quote sentence earlier says. So the article should be tagged. It doesn't take away credibility it doesn't mean for sure it is. But according the talk page here there seems to be a dispute that it is. And "you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." So I am going to add the tag, and when the talk page reaches some kind of concensus on it to remove then remove it. Till then...--Xiahou 23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This is silly. If nobody knows what exactly is considered POV nobody can correct it. And since nobody can correct it the tag will be in place forever. In short, the NPOV tag without explanation is totally pointless. Or, maybe there is one, it seems to be making a point. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There is consensus to remove the POV tag -- it has been achieved in multiple AfDs and discussions on this talk page -- a rationale that there is debate as the rationale for the POV tag is circular logic and is using the Wiki rules to try and get around actually providing debate of substance. There is also this policy: WP:IAR. -- Stbalbach 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Politicization of the United States attorney offices

This section has become a problem. It is too long and only in the last paragraph does it mention anything about impeachment, and only very weakly in the sources. The whole thing should be condensed down into 1 or 2 paragraph, focusing on those sources and people that specifically talk about impeachment, and use the Main article links for more information about the case elsewhere. -- Stbalbach 15:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I was only making a start of this section so feel free to make the summary more succinct. However, I do think it needs to include the following
  1. Retributioon for prosecuting Republicans, and possible obstruction of justice.
  2. Dismissal for not prosecuting crimes that did not take place: voter-fraud.
  3. Possible rigging of elections by means of the previous
  4. Possible connection with other dismissals
Regarding "... and only very weakly in the sources," this is confusing me.
  • "If Rove or President Bush tried to do this, it is they who need firing. A president must uphold the law, not to subvert it for political or partisan ends. As we learned in Watergate, our Constitution and our shared values are more important than any single officeholder."[7]
  • "But the corruption, the lawbreaking, and the cover-up go deeper - all the way up to the Oval Office. Hopefully, Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers will put impeachment back on the table."[8]
  • “Impeach Bush Over Purgegate!”[9] as title for an article.
  • "From Prosecutorgate, every road leads to impeachment."[10]
It is difficult for me to see what part of these quotations you describe. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The above quotes should be the highlite and core content of the section. -- Stbalbach 12:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be saying two things. 1 The sources are indeed valid and not "weak," thereby amending your previous assertion. 2 We should use a bulletlist instead of paragraphs with a summary. Why should we not present a condensed version of the main stories so people at least have some incling as to why impeachment is suggested. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say either one of those things. Basically, this is a highly controversial article - many people complain that it is being misused for partisan purposes. Only one side of the story is being presented, it is unfair and unbalanced. To answer to that legitimate concern, we say this article simply lists those people and organizations who call for the impeachment of Bush and refrain from getting into idealogical debates. Your section is close too or crossing that line - it is a lengthy diatribe about the attorney scandal with only one side being presented - this opens up the entire article to critics who say that article is unbalanced, and it opens the article up to yet another round of AfD. The solution is your section should focus on impeachment only, trim down the lengthy justification part, because there are two sides to every story, and your not presenting both sides. The article is about impeachment, focus on that, report on what other people are saying in relation to impeachment and the attorney issue. -- Stbalbach 13:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should not invite another AfD. Surely you understand everybody is welcome to make the summary more succinct and amend sentences that are to POV. What I find difficult to undrrstand is why mentioning the facts is POV.

  1. Fhey were fired for ever shifting reasons.
  2. The WH and DOJ have made contradictory statements.
  3. The WH has redacted a report on voter-fraud making the publicized version the opposite of what it originally said: there is no widespread voter-fraud.
  4. Some USA were not prosecuting Democrats for the nonexistent fraud and now are fired.
  5. One of those not prosecuting Democrats got listed for removal.
  6. That USA prosecuted a woman for involvement in the corruption of a Democratic Governor yet has been set free after the appeal because the stunned judges could not see any case to prosecute in the first place.
  7. This USA was delisted and not fired.
  8. Another USA was fired and subsequently his investigation into Abramoff was stopped. In light of the cureent investigation people have pointed to a possible link.

Not sure why we could not mention this. And, of course, the logical conclusion, and more perfidious idea, that the USA scandal is not about the dismissals but the possibility they are used to steer elections by specifically targeting Democrats during elections. As to the sources, seeing the quotes above, do you still contend impeachment is discussed " only very weakly in the sources?" Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Tried to clean it up and looking at the NSA paragraph it is certainly shorter. As to POV please amend poorly worded sentences. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Organization

The layout of parts of this article need serious work. This section in particular is headed as "State Legislatures" but not very much of the info under each of the states is actually actions within the respective legislatures. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 00:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking out pertinent information that was absolutely correct

You had edited the Bush Impeachment article because, according to you, I had editorialized when UN Resolution 686, 3(a) specifically stated how the members state demand that Iraq not fire upon aircraft of member states. Violating the terms of a cease fire provides ample justification for the resuming of hostilities. That was a clear violation of the resolution. Even if the resolution itself didnt exist, firing upon the military of another nation constitutes an Act of War. Please stop taking out factual accuracies just because you disagree with what happened. Whether or not it was a good idea is another debate (in my opinion it was a bad idea looking back in hindsight), but the legality is there all day long.Arnabdas 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Unfortumately you added talking points but no sourced material. Therefore it can't be used.
  • 1 It is ridiculous to claim that a statement in 1998 is pertinent to actions taken in 2003 while conspicuously ignoring the fact that in 2003 weapon inspectors for months were unable to find any WMD:
That is completely absurd! The issue is of lying to the nation and the world and fabricating intelligence reports of WMD. The issue isnt about whether or not the war was justified, the purpose of mentioning President Clinton's State of the Union speech is to prove that the US had long suspected Saddam Hussein was pursuing WMD. By saying that the previous administration had been pursuing WMD it proves that Bush did not fabricate intelligence or make up the threat. Your argument is absolutely false and your are purposely keeping the truth out through vandalism of this page. Arnabdas 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK Clinton did not invade Iraq. To claim he had the same info and same interpretation begs the question: why did he not invade? Don't answer I know he is a liberal wimp. Anyhow, to equate his words with Bush is misrepresenting the facts. And still ignores the fact that Bush was told by the intelligence agencies and the UN and IAEA that SH most likely did NOT have WMD. Information Clinton did not have. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


No, clinton (yes, lower case "c") didn't invade Iraq, he just bombed an asprin factory the day the Monica story broke to take America's attention elsewhere.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

So even though most of the left believed the same thing Bush did, Bush is the one that is wrong, and Bush is the one that deserves an "article" (more like left wing propaganda piece) on impeachment. Ymous 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether Clinton invaded Iraq or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not Bush fabricated intelligence. You and I may even both agree (in hindsight for me) that an invasion was a bad idea. My point is however that the invasion was based on reasonable claims at the time and from a former President's own words.Arnabdas 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Eventhough some supporters of the impeachment allege that the Administration falsified the threat that Iraq had WMD, it should be noted that President Bill Clinton also supported the claim that Iraq was developing WMD in his 1998 State of the Union address to Congress where he said

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.[2]

Those whom argue against the impeachment bring up this point to illustrate how American officials have long suspected that Iraq had a viable and active WMD program to challenge the assertion that Bush Administration officials had fabricated intelligence reports.

  • 2 I again took out this because it is unsourced speculation, Please add legal experts to counter the opinion of the legal experts in that paragraph:
What the heck are you talking about?!? I specifically sourced both the 1998 State of the Union. Are you talking about UN Resolution 686? That is specifically sourced too! You are engaging in vandalism here by removing pertinent sourced information!!!
You sourced a resolution. Nowhere have you provided a source for the claim that the resolution makes the war legal. Without WP:RS it is nothing more than your WP:OR. Please provide a source that states the same. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
By sourcing the Resolution, it shows that there was an obvious violation of it. It was a contractual violation. That is indesputable. You may not agree that a contractual violation means legality or not, but that is YOUR opinion. Legal violation is legal violation and violating a contract is basis of legal action.Arnabdas 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The violation of UN law argument has been challenged by some. UN Resolution 686, 3(a) specifically cites how the UN demands that Iraq Cease hostile or provacative actions by its forces against Member States, including missile attacks and flights of combat aircraft;[3]

which was violated by Iraq's military forces "every day" according to military commanders as they fired upon American and British aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zone multiple times. By breaching the contract, legally, this provided argument for Member State military forces to resume hostility against the government of Iraq. Some would also argue that firing upon coalition aircraft also constitutes an act of war and therefore justifies a military response.

  • 3 Also, I corrected the misinformation that there was a link with AQ. I inserted another rebuttal with the latest report proving there was no active and working relationship. To claim otherwise, like Cheney[11][12], to me seems desperate and at this point delusional.
  • Since this is a controversial topic I think you should add only relevant, factual and sourced material. Inserting incorrect talking points is not what WP:NPOV is about. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
EVERYTHING I wrote had been backed up by who and when and where each of the transcripts were signed. Both the 1998 State of the Union was documented with its transcript from the Federal News Service via The Wasghington Post. Furthermore, a link to UN Resolution 686 was specifically linked. You are purposely engaging in misinformation!Arnabdas 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand. The SOTU is sourced but irrelevant. The resolution exists but you have to provide a source that says therefore the war was legitimate and legal. The AQ link has been refuted time and time again, even recently in a report with still wet ink. All you have to do is provide sources for your conclusions and then it can be used. Without that you are only adding speculation and OR on your part. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
WHAT are you talking about? The allegations were of FABRICATION of a WMD threat. Clinton mentioned the threat. Therefore there was no fabrication of it on Bush's part. I am not addressing any issue of cherry picking intelligence or an opinion of ignoring certain claims that there was no threat. I am talking about specifically that there was a threat mentioned by Clinton. Bush chose to listen to the intel mentioned by Clinton and that was corroborated by several other governments. The AQ link has been refuted by SOME people and I doubt there is anyone who says both AQ and Saddam Hussein engaged in joint operations, but you still have not refuted the 9-11 Commission Report itself. I don't see a problem of putting both the 9-11 Commission Report finding along with any refutal. My point was to show that there was evidence that supported both points of view. You write the article strictly from a POV of trying to already hold Bush guilty. That is not NPOV and is purposely and deceitfully witholding crucial evidence from the article. A similar situation would be to say "Bob killed Joe" but conveniently leave out that "Joe was about to kill Bob and then Bob, in self defense, killed Joe." Please be thorough. Arnabdas 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello all,

Recently, the Mediation Cabal recieved a request for mediation on this article, due to the ongoing dispute. If people want to do this, I'll be helping you try to reach an agreement on what should be in this article and what should not.

Please note that the goal of mediation is for the involved parties to make a compromise or come to an agreement on an issue. It is not the same thing as arbitration and we will not ban users, protect pages, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nathanww (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

May I infer from the lack of response by Arnabdas he agrees with my explanation in the previous paragraph and sees no further need to continue mediation? That is:

  1. Bill Clinton is irrelevant since he did not have the same information as Bush had.
  2. Including any resoltion prior to 2003, or attacks on US planes, to counter allegations of Iraq being a war crime needs WP:RS otherwise it constitutes WP:OR. To be sure: not a source substantiating the resolution or attack, but a source saying because of that Iraq is not a war crime!
  3. No WMD or active links to AQ existed, contrary to what was said.

Respectfully Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of response =! agreement.

I will contact him to see what he says.Nathanww 22:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. The SOTU is DEFINITELY relevent because it proves that there were suspicions well before Bush was in office and therefore Bush could not have possibly fabricated the threat. The issue is not about whether or not an invasion was the appropriate response, the issue is the accuasation the President Bush fabricated the WMD threat which has been proven untrue...yet you keep taking it out.
  2. Any violation of any contract by one party warrants that the other party or parties are not obligated to adhere by that contract as well. The Resolution was passed to cease hostilities against Iraq. Iraq violated the contract. Hostilities resumed. Legality is there all day long.
  3. I have specifically sourced the 9-11 Commission Report. You are free to discredit the report all you want, but that is a bi-partisan resport that said there were links between the two entities. You saying there wasn't doesn't disprove the 9-11 Commission's findings. Arnabdas 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Clearly we are going in circles so I will try something else:
ad 1 Did Clinton know that UN weaponinspectors were unable to find any weapons for months? Did Clinton know his intelligence agencies said that there was scant, if any, evidence corroborating the allegation? Specifically did he have a Presidential Daily Brief dated September 21, 2001, saying there was no evidence of a link between SH and AQ? Did Clinton know about the yellowcake forgery?
ad 2 I agree with your opinion regardiung a contract. Unfortunately editors are not allowed to have opinions. Could you therefore include some outside source making the statement that violating the resolutions validates the Iraq war, eventhough the UN has already said no single member (i.e. the US) can speak for the entire body?
ad 3 Does the 9-11 Commission's findings include the suggestion SH was behind 9-11? If not, would you agree that some sporadic contact does not equal the suggestion by the Bush administration that SH himself was flying the airplanes (hyperbole to stress what they were insinuating from day 1)? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so as I see it this discussion is getting quite into the territory of WP:SOAP.

Nescio, Arnabdas, am I correct in stating that the views you are presenting are those accepted by a significantnumber of people? If so, a WP:NPOV "controversy" section could be made to present the different rationales. Nathanww 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem adding sourced, factual and neutral (all editors are required to adhere to WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:RS) counterarguments in the same paragraph, i.e. the rationales section which we are discussing here, but a new "criticism"-paragraph is unnecessary. This means that:
ad 1 adding Clinton is a logical fallacy by ignoring the multitude of information Bush had which Clinton did not have. Better yet, let's mention Cheney and his visit to SH, proving Cheney lied when he said SH was such a threat.(sorry, sarcasm, couldn't help myself)
Again ignoring the fact that your accusation tone of Bush was that he fabricated a threat. The point was that a threat was not fabricated by Bush.Arnabdas 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, the allegation is that Bush fabricated the WMD threat. You allege that Clinton also thought there was a threat and your proof is his SOTU. All I want to know is did Clinton base his assessment on the same evidence as Bush did? Again, did Clinton know weapon inspectors were unable to find WMD for months, did Clinton know that the uranium deal was forged and was Clinton aware that IAEA, CIA, NSA all stated the WMD were not likely to be present? Clearly all you have to do is answer this. However, should you chose to answer Clinton did not know these things, which is of course is true, then you have to explain how his words are comparable to the famous 16 words by Bush. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again IGNORING the fact that your crusade to impeach Bush and provide a one-sided POV without giving background information. The accusations are that Bush made up the whole threat. The threat was there, as utterred by Clinton himself and also proven by Saddam Hussein's own use of those weapons against his own populace. This is no way advocating that what the Bush Administration did was an appropriate response, but it is obvious enough to see that there was an OBVIOUS perceived threat of WMD history with Iraq going back to the Reagan Administration. The threat was there and you wishing it wasn't because of some vendetta you have makes things sound ridiculous on your part. The most hillarious thing is if you actually were smart enough, you would just accept that Bush didn't fabricate anything but instead go after him for his actual mistakes, such as rushing to war or mismanagement of it. There wouldn't even be a cause for impeachment because if tactics like what you're doing here wasnt done by mainstream Democrats, Kerry would be President right now. You are your own worst enemy. That aside, if Bush makes horribly wrong decisions, they are not impeachable offenses. His Administration wanted to find facts to justify an invasion and were not objective in looking at facts that gave doubt. You, just like they, are looking only for facts to justify your point of view while trying to omit facts that would totally derail the case for impeachment. Not allowing pertinent facts that directly proves Bush didn't fabricate the threat is misleading propaganda. Wikipedia is not a propaganda outfit for fanatic points of view that aim to suppress dissenting evidence.Arnabdas 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Since you refuse to explain why you ignore the fact that Bush had tons of additional intel and other information it is evident you either are unable or unwilling to accept that Bush made his statement while he should be aware of the miles and miles of reports explicitely doubting his claims that Clinton did not have. As long as you keep ignoring my questions on this it is useless to continue debating. Cheers. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
ad 2 all I ask is a WP:RS claiming the war is legal because of previous resolutions. Otherwise we can just as well include Ignaz Semmelweis's work to prove the war is legal.
As opposed to your "sources" of people giving their OPINION. Any question of legality is based upon opinion. Good and responsible opinion is based on fact. The fact is that there was a Resolution violation there.Arnabdas 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, provide a source. Not your opinion, but a source as defined by WP:RS. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
We should take out your "sources" since they are opinions themselves then shouldn't we?Arnabdas 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS to discover they are valid under wikipedia policy whereas the opinion of editors is not allowed. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
ad 3 Clearly, nobody today believes there SH was plotting with AQ to attack the US, (except Arnabdas that is) therefore we cannot include these right-wing talking points. Even the Bush administration said so! Come on. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, you are obviously a pathological liar purposely leaving out what I wrote or simply illiterate. I just sourced a BIPARTISAN 9-11 Commission Report which you conveniently left out. Convenient how your fanatic anti-Bush fervor is out to withold important information about this topic that directly contradicts your delusions that the 9-11 Commission Report said that the two entities met. Never did I claim that they actually operated in any coordinated attack upon the United States or its allies. I just quoted the 9-11 Commission Report. That doesn't make me "right wing." Of course, it is obvious that anyone to the right of Joseph Stalin obviously is "right-wing" to you.Arnabdas 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
How am I lying when I say that the report never said SH and OBL were working together? And if they were not working together does that not mean the claims by the Bush administration they indeed plotted against the US were incorrect? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember any claims that they were "working together" but I do remember Cheney once saying that they may be linked. That was actually proven true, there was a link. It wasn't an operative link, but the 9-11 Commission Report specifically stated there was a link. Furthermore, I don't know where Bush himself ever said they were working together (he might have, just havent seen it) but "working together" doesn't mean necessarily that there is some imminent danger. It is political spin, which is not an impeachable offense, and therefore should be taken out. If it was Cheney who said it, or some other official aside from Bush, then it is irrelevent to be posted here because this is for an impeachment of Bush, not of Cheney or any other official.Arnabdas 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Remember the "mushroom clouds" and "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here?" Clearly the Bush administration repeatedly said, implied, alluded, suggested that the perpetrators of 9-11 were in Iraq. This is what report after report disproved. Second, if we were to include every country that had contacts with OBL, however remorely, we should include the USA since they financed, trained and supplied him while committing terrorist acts in Afghanistan. And let's not forget who paid the IRA for years. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think this is getting anywhere! Nathanww is correct, this article and mediation discussion have really turned into a soapbox, and it seems that this is not going to be solved by a simple mediation. I put in a request for comment, let's see if we can get another idea of what should be done with the article. -Laurenwhisper 22:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It may be premature. All somebody has to do is ask my fellow editor to respond to my questions. As long as he refuses to even answer them, which is not the same as agree with me, I see no reason to even continue debating. Thanks for trying to mediate.
Just to be sure maybe someone might help Arnabdas (talk · contribs) in finding the time to at least answer the following:
  1. Did the 9-11 Commission Report conclude SH was involved with AQ? If not, why do we need to mention the nonexistent working relationship?
They DID mention they were "involved" with AQ (pp66-67). There was no operational link, but a meeting to discuss a possible relationship constitutes "involvement" in your own words. The meeting is very relevent because it was a bi-partisan example that directly refutes that there were no ties between the two entities. It again doesnt advocate any response nor any type of concrete working relationship, but the fact that there was a meeting showed that there were ties between the two entities and the two entities did discuss operations on how to attack US interests. Ultimately, as the report goes on to say, Bin Laden decided against the relationship and decided to remain with the Taliban, despite the tensions that were growing between AQ and the Taliban, instead of taking haven in Iraq. Arnabdas 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No operational link means that the Bush administration incorrectly stated the people behind 9-11 were in Iraq! Undoubtedly we can find the same type of remote, possible, non-workingrelation-type of contact between any terrorist organisation and the US, France, Russia, et cetera. The point of the debate is Bush claimed an active relationship in which SH was part of the 9-11 attacks! Clearly that is a now totally refuted allegation which was already evident before the invasion of Iraq. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Did Clinton possess the same information regarding Iraq as Bush? If not, why do we need to mention his SOTU?
Because once again you try to claim Bush fabricated the threat. Change your wording. If you want to include that Bush had more information saying that there was no threat, that is absolutely legitimate. However, you saying that Bush just pulled it out of his you know what is misleading and an outright lie.Arnabdas 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if Bush used the same information Clinton had he concommittantly ignored a myriad of reports disproving the alleged WMD-threat. Even if there was a "smoking gun" in Clinton's intel it is hard to believe that -1 after months of not finding WMD's by weapon inspectors going through Iraq, 2 and the CIA, NSA, IAEA, concluding the available evidence did not support the WMD-claims, 3 and of course the infamous yellowcake forgery also discoverd before the invasion- Bush was not inclined to re-evaluate his insistent assertions. Any other person would at least think, "hmm, there is so much evidence disproving my view maybe I am wrong." Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Regarding the resolutions making the Iraq war legal, please provide WP:RS. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, Arnabdas why do you contribute to this discussion on a weekly basis but edit nowhere else? Is there any compelling reason not to contribute on any other article? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a life outside wiki and that is why I don't post often here. I can't stand dishonesty. Let people know the entire truth and let people make up their minds for themselves. Witholding information from people is dishonest and plain fascist. Personally, I could care less whether you want Bush impeached or not. Put up the article, but don't engage in ridiculous propaganda that totally omits the entire story of it all. This isn't about legality/impeachment. It is about a policy mistake. Impeachment shouldn't be used as a political tool. That is what you are trying to do here. Impeachment should only be used if a President breaks the law. If the House alleges that he does, the Senate then decides whether or not it warrants his removal. You are not writing the article from an objective point of view. You are purposely trying to withold information from readers so they see YOUR point of view. That is dishonesty, goes against wiki procedures and is frankly also un-American and dangerous in what is supposed to be a democratic proccess.Arnabdas 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Including the "whole story" is not haphazzardly including every comment you can think of regarding AQ and WMD's. At least make sure the information is relevant to this article and try and avoid logical fallacies while you argue the inclusion of information. Since you keep evading the questions I repeatedly asked you I see no reason to prolonge this non-debate. Respectfully Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that while the discussions meander a bit, and the topic could be controversial, a fundamental issue is that the article, in its basic existence, is probably pov (an article about a subject that does not exist but is wished for is pov). I think that this is problem that is leading to the heat of the discussion. --Blue Tie 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Added discussion from my talk page below. Please continue discussion there. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Current event tag

Hey there, yesterday I added a {{currentevent}} tag to the article Movement to impeach George W. Bush, as it certainly represents an ongoing series of events (at the very least in Vermont). User:Stbalbach removed the tag without an explanation in the edit summary, and I cannot think of a valid reason for its removal. I am going to reapply the tag: I hope that if you decided to re-remove it you will provide an explanation. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 16:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there are certain articles on Wikipedia that are always current events. For example, George W. Bush, and this article. The purpose of the CE tag is notify editors and readers that an article is undergoing rapid changes. It is not meant to stay in place for very long, and certainly not forever, which would need to be the case for this article (at least, until Fall 2008). This article has new ongoing current events all the time, but they are not of the nature that requires a permanent CE tag, there are just not that many changes being made that a warning is required. -- Stbalbach 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Please provide actionable, detailed rationales for the POV tag. The complaints about this article being POV have been so general and so often knocked down as irrational and unsupportable that putting up a POV tag just because certain parties complain about it without actually providing a solution to the problem it is just a way to complain about this articles mere existence, which is not what POV tags are for. -- Stbalbach 18:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

as stated above [[13]] those putting the tags don't have to have a solution first. If every tag placer on wiki had the solution there wouldn't be ANY tags. The solution would be implemented. Also as stated above in the tag discussion the person placing the tag doesn't have to have specific reasons if a debate on the neutrality exists, then the tag should be placed. I am not taking sides on the issue myself but to read through it makes its point. Quite nicely. Problem is there is no critic section, no counter point. On a hot button issue how could there not be? By me saying this That merrits a tag. I don't have to have the solution, I don't have to have the links or cites, You own words the complaints are 'general' thats just it. The whole feel of the article is 'generally' pov. It doesn't mean the article isn't true, lacking credibility it means parts, sections or the entire thing people have opposing views of that are not shown. Your ignore rule link? You complained about the circular reasoning in an above discussion. One can use the exactly logic when you show the IAR link. The tag should be placed due to IAR. It would improve the article by showing editors it needs more content showing the opposing side. By doing this you improve the article. By saying the tag shouldn't be there, some editors would not be inclined as much to put in opposing material. Hense you are not helping the quality of the aricle. (what IAR is about). Putting the tag improves it. By saying "hey, we need to show both sides to make a complete article, for now its not" You keep the politics and feelings out of it and treat it like any other article its not as big a deal as its being made into. Also you say above - "There is consensus to remove the POV tag -- it has been achieved in multiple AfDs and discussions on this talk page " where is this talk page concensus? --Xiahou 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"those putting the tags don't have to have a solution first." Nobody is saying that. Only tagging an article without any explanation makes it impossible to address the issues at hand (what issue?). Now you mention the lack of criticism. Of course that is something editors can look at and if need be amend. But I still think a tag without explanation can be removed: does it refer to WP:RS, or weasel words, or biased sentences, or the headers, article title, et cetera? See, by telling us about the criticism which is lacking I now know I don't have to look for semantical problems. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody is saying that"? "just because certain parties complain about it without actually providing a solution to the problem " as seen in first paragraph of this section. He specifically asked for a solution before tag placement. Which is why the whole section is there saying how that isn't how it logically works. If you have a solution you impletment it, there isn't a issue.
I don't get your sentence " Now you mention the lack of criticism. Of course that is something editors can look at and if need be amend. But I still think a tag without explanation can be removed" there you go. The tag is up there needing a section on criticism. The tag directs to the talk page discussions people see this saying "lack of criticism" is why the tag. There. Ok so we are agreed it lacking an obvious political criticism section thats what the tag is for. So I am putting the tag up till there is a critical section something from the other side to balance the article. I can quote all the wiki acronymns, but it breaks down to this. The article which has its own merrits like any good article needs balance. As of now it has none. Its not up to the tag placer to fix this (as editor Stbalback seems to think) the issue is it needs some sort of critical section to be NPOV since its lacking I am replacing the tag. Once some more sections opposing/criticism is added. I just get this feeling around here about this article its some sort of sacred cow like I cannont talk bad about. As I mentioned before I am not looking at it from my political feelings I am looking at it as a wiki editor and in all the political articles I've looked at the some Ive edited Ive never seen one with 0, none, not a single section in opposition to the said article. This one needs it. By lacking anything opposing it lacks balance, its pov. Doesn't matter if I am a walking protestor for it or totally against. Its the article, it needs a criticism section. There black and white text for all to see. The tag has reasons. The tag goes up. The reasons taken care of balance added tag comes down. --Xiahou 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, you have started explaining why the tag is needed therefore you agree with me that tagging without telling why is pointless. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Problem is there is no critic section, no counter point. - This article is not a debate panel. That would indeed be a hopelessly POV article, with ideologues from both sides trying to make their position, point after counterpoint etc... This article is, as the lead paragraph says, a place to mention those people who want to impeach Bush, that's it. This article exists for a very good reason. Without this article this material would be spread across dozens of articles and would become a real problem -- aggregating all of this into a central place makes sense for a lot of reasons. Trying to turn it into a debate forum where we do "he said she said" between political pundents would not solve POV problems, it would in fact create them. Bush has not been impeached. Until that happens, there is nothing to counter. -- Stbalbach 19:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How to reply to this. "Bush has not been impeached. Until that happens, there is nothing to counter" this is an encyclopia article not your personal soapbox. I am looking at it like an article not a personal political agenda here. "Without this article this material would be spread across dozens of articles and would become a real problem -- aggregating all of this into a central place makes sense for a lot of reasons" all the more reason to have parts of criticism otherwise you would have to have a seperate article. Its not a debate look at ANY other political page that doesn't have pov problems it shows both sides of the issue of the article. So both sides of this article would be those for the movement and critics of. If you take personal political feelings out and look at it like the encyclopdia article that it is, you can see its lacking balance. I am here trying to improve the article not deleting it, not to discredit it, but to show it needs balance to improve it. Saying its just "a place to mention those people who want to impeach Bush, that's it" Is selling the article short. Its hardly just that. Its not just a list of names its an issue, its an encyclopedia article. As mentioned before it would go agaisnt what you said having multiple pages for same thing having another aritcle of a group of names against the movement. The tag should stay until its balanced out more. simple as that regardless of the issue. --Xiahou 21:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Did some more looking and noticed [[14]] Content forking. So the information on those against the movement and are critical of it should be added to this article. A seperate article for this wouldn't be appropriate. So to acheive npov and not to content fork we need a criticism section or something of that nature. --Xiahou 21:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag b/c this seems to have been hashed out. Please just move forward and add your rebuttals, or "controversy/criticism" section, or whatever. Hopefully then the article will be "fair and balanced" enough. Fox can go ahead and sue me now. --Jackbirdsong 02:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was hashed out. Until a enough is added to add some sort of sembelence of balance some sort of criticism the tag should stay. Showing that its needed once they see why by reading this and other sections. Once the info is added and the article is balanced on bias Then the tag is removed and the article is all the better due to more info showing what the issue is about (which is done well) and those who are critical of it and why (which isn't done at all). --Xiahou 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What kind of "balance" are you looking for? Are you looking for some sort of criticism of the "Movement to Impeach George W Bush?" This article isn't about the merits of impeachment, it's about the movement to impeach. It's not as though the article is fawning over those who want to impeach Bush, either. It doesn't describe them as "heroic freedom fighters" or somesuch, it just discusses those who are calling for impeachment and why they are doing so.
If you think the article is unbalanced, feel free to balance it out. You might want to discuss any such balancing before you post it, in order to avoid edit wars and bad feelings, but that's up to you.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"What kind of "balance" are you looking for" see the entire above comments.
"It doesn't describe them as "heroic freedom fighters" or somesuch, it just discusses those who are calling for impeachment and why they are doing so.
" No one but you till now said it did??
"If you think the article is unbalanced, feel free to balance it out" I don't need to I tagged it for other editors to. If I had the info I agree no tag I would have added it. I don't have the info off hand, someone does or knows where and when they do they can add it and tag out the tag. Its how articles work. A person can see whats missing but not know specifically what to put in. If I by happen-stance to find the info in other browsings of the internet or reading I will till then the tag is there to alert other editors what it needs, the talk sections says what and possibly they can help. --Xiahou 23:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
When an above editor says, quite rationally, "If you think the article is unbalanced, feel free to balance it out", your response is "I don't need to I tagged it for other editors to."? This to me is the antithesis of what wikipedia is about - individuals adding pertinent info to a database under their own volition, not being persuaded to add info from a certain POV by tags or other editors. If you think an article needs more info, then add it! Be bold! The tag makes the whole article appear unbalanced, and I think the general concensus on this page is that a lot of effort has been made to lay out the article in an objective and fair way. Not every political article requires a criticism page, but if you think one is needed here then add it. I'm removing the tag again, as it seems unfair and silly for you to tag an article but refuse to remedy the problem that your tag pertains to.--Jackbirdsong 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I replied quite rationally as well. Just because an editor doesn't have the info to add doesn't mean the tag is no less valid. Using that logic the pov tag would not exist anywhere on wiki. Because saying that means those that add the tag should fix it then and there.
"Not every political article requires a criticism page, but if you think one is needed here then add it. I'm removing the tag again, as it seems unfair and silly for you to tag an article but refuse to remedy the problem that your tag pertains to." So if one is acceptable here to add. Then the article would benifit from it. Then if its lacking it then its deserved of a pov tag. Its far from silly. In fact one could say I wonder why you try to hide the fact by removing it? The editors who remove the tag continue to say go ahead and add the info. I don't have it. But till i or someone else does it shows the article is lacking in its point of view. So why do you and the other editor continue to delete a tag stating the article needs something you agree can be put in? I am trying to improve the article. So how is my adding a tag to alert other editors to look at the talk page and to see what needs to be improved that merrited the tag (that editors who keep removing it and calling putting it in silly) in the first place. How do you justify tag usage in direct relation to your personal feelings about wiki? a person who wants to tag has to have the solution handy? I am being bold I am adding a tag. I find it 'silly' it keeps getting removed by editors who agree the section could be added. Now apparently I have to wait a while so know one waves the 3rr card at me. Still going to put it up in a day. The article needs some sort of criticism section. Both editors against the tag this have not dismissed this. So again I ask how is alerting other editors with the tag (the purpose of it) that something is needed while I find the info or someone beats me to it. It just boggles me that the logic for removing the tag is "I" should provide the info. Have you ever placed a cleanup tag, pov, any tag and not fixed whatever the issue is right away then removed the tag? I could play the check your contributions and see. I am not. That would be 'silly' I hope you see what I mean. Straight from the NPOV page "the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner"--Xiahou 00:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have missed my point. If the article is about the movement to impeach, rather than the merits of the movement, then I don't see what kind of "balance" you're looking for. Saying "see the above entire comments" isn't really helpful, as I've read your comments through and am still not clear on what you're looking for.
I wasn't ordering you to "fix" the article, I was suggesting that if you see it as biased you might want to do something about it beyond simply flagging it. If you choose not to, that's your decision, of course.
As for the "freedom fighters" remark, I was using that as an example of what would make the article biased and POV. However, as I pointed out and you did not really address, if the article simply reports on the movement, then I don't see where there can be bias. Should there be a section entitled "Opposition to Movement to Impeach George W Bush"?
Your quote from the NPOV page seems out of place to me. There are competing approaches to the topic mentioned, because different people are advancing different rationales for impeachment. Are you looking for a discussion of people advancing rationales against impeachment? That might be a valid section; perhaps you could find some references and write it?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to draw your attention to a few things - [[15]] WP:NPOVD - Key parts "That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is.
Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral — or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias. The salient point is that one side — who cares enough to be making the point — thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with." - Other editors including myself have claimed its pov/bias. Editors who remove the tag admit the section could be added alievating that.
"It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."
I think our discussion here has shown it hasn't.
Under the "How can one disagree about NPOV?" heading the last one is very key - "Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms." the alternate view point is not even addressed. Which the the key to the tag being up and trying to add something to flesh the article out to true npov quality status. It shows its side very well no one at least that Ive seen is disputing that, its a current hotbutton issue. There are two sides to this movement those for and part of it. Those against and working against. They are not represented not even a criticism section.--Xiahou 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Either change the article, or leave off the POV tag. No one is stopping you from editing the article. No one can say what you personally desire to remove the POV tag. Your holding the article hostage with revert warring. Want a criticism section? Fine, I'll add one. Anything you else you want? How about actually contributing instead of playing games with rules and nag tags. -- Stbalbach 01:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you guys arguing? He see the article needs change by adding some sort of criticism section. So he tags it mentions what is needed. And you are coming unglued at him saying he's playing games with rules? All I see is someone asking to make the article NPOV? You say he's playing games, but then you just add a criticism header and no content. Sounds like you are playing games. I've been watching this develop. You mention no one can say what you personally desire to remove the tag - That seems rather obvious some sort of critical balance to the article. Which would make it NPOV then the tag should go. A portion of it showing that the movement does have it detractors or those who don't see it as a movement etc etc. Seems obvious. He only said it a half dozen times. Tagging an article for improvement is not holding it hostage? I think the article is very well written I agree with much of it. I also know that it comes across 100% one sided. So I agree with Xiahou that we should tag the article for others to come here and see that something else is needed and that something else is another pov to make it NPOV.--74.38.143.245 06:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
My point is, I don't think it can be done. A "critical balance" would either be hopelessly original research, or contain sources that are non-notable. I've been watching this article for over 2 years and I have yet to see anyone provide decent sources or NPOV material that is "critical" - it's all been political pundentry by non-notable people or original research. This "critical balance" stuff is nothing but a strawman to discredit the article with a pov-tag. BTW if your going to participate in this article, which is highly controversial, please login with a user ID - people are hitting 3RR maximums now and I don't want to start doing IP check's for IP sock puppets. -- Stbalbach 11:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok I have some suggestions so please be patient with me as I am new here. First off, there are dead links that need replacement, I noted this a few days ago but do to the tensions here I did not doing anything with them in hopes someone who has been working this article would update them. Second, POV is an issue, even with me which is another reason I am being very careful here. How about adding into the context the notable republicans that are standing by Bush, McCain comes to immediate mind but I know there are others, which is probably why no impeachment has even taken place. You can also think of adding in the huge sums of money being spent to non-bid contractors, which is another area of dispute and call for impeachments of many in office right now. This is just a few ideas off the top of my head, it's early. :) Also, with the disputes that have been on going in the past, I noticed the articles has been voted to keep three times, how would I best catch up to understand what has been talked about and done? I don't want to have to spend days of reading arguments so any suggestion about what parts of the archives would catch me up so that maybe I can help with another view to help the article would be appreciated. Lastly, the tag up or down really doesn't matter to me, I caught interest in the article without the tag and felt even then that the article needs balance which should be easy to do. There are plenty of people that are notable that have spoken out on the news, in congress and so forth to give primary and secondary sources. Maybe if some focus is applied in this direction for awhile, boy I hope that all I have said hasn't already been said before, it will take the article to a balance satisfactory to at least most who are interested. I obviously need to go back and see what has been discussed in the past so I am not talking in the blind. If the time comes and I want to change anything, I always take it to the talk pages first. I only do spelling and other checks like that to the article without discussion first. I hope I am welcomed to join in. --Crohnie 12:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How would doing the opposite of the article be hopeless original research? 2 years you don't own the article. I have been reading Wikipedia.com for quite few months and just started editing but I know no one owns the articles. Just because someone has not provided NPOV based information to better make the article NPOV doesn't make the current article anyless POV than it is. Strawman arguments to discredit the article? Are you not reading what others wrote. You currently have 3 editors right now and claming others in the past saying its a POV article. Myself and Crohnie have said nothing about disagreeing with the content of the article. Heck I agree with it, it's the fact its hopelessly biased. So your defense is we are trying to discredit it? Are you kidding me? I want it to be credible by showing others are against it, but the movement is there. Not some one sided article that has an editor who disallows any form of disagreement to protect it from possible challenge when all I want to do along with others is show both sides. As far as 3RR maximums I just read about them I don't know what you are getting at with this but this is only my second talk and going to be in a minute my 2nd article entry so I don't know what you are referring to. Sockpuppet? I just started editing. I may get an account since I apparently like to edit. Hard for me to sockpuppet when I just started Ive only edited here and on Thunderstorms --74.38.143.245 12:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I set up an account User:Fujita (after my favortie tornado researcher) so now you will at least listen to my points rather than worry about User name status. Formally - 74.38.143.245 --Fujita 13:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
For someone who "just started editing here" you sure seem to be pretty sophisticated in your knowledge of how wikipedia operates. There are a couple vocal minority partisans who keep hacking away at this article under different and various names and IPs and never achieve anything or add anything constructive or help in any way. There is nothing wrong with this article, currently the POV tag is being abused for partisan reasons. This article has become a giant target for a couple Republican and Bush supporters, yet they don't realize this article is doing them a great favor, by keeping this material out of dozens of other articles across Wikipedia. When important and powerful politicians call for the Impeachment of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES it is more than notable enough for Wikipedia, no matter who the President is. -- Stbalbach 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
(WP:AGF). I think an NPOV tag is appropriate. However, I also think a discussion of what the problem is needs to accompany it on the talk page. I do not think a solution HAS to be proposed, nor do I think that the person putting the tag on must correct the article. But he or she must describe the problem in sufficient detail so that the article can be fixed.
And therein lies the problem. This article details something that does not exist. There is no movement to impeach President Bush. Hence there cannot be any real organized counterpoint. (For example, if I created a page that described how various random kooks accused the Clintons of murder, would the fact that there are such people that the Clinton's ignored, mean that it was an NPOV article when nothing substantive and attributable was presented in the article in a countering viewpoint?) Just by itself, that alone is the reason why this article is POV and why it should not exist. It is simply a bad article, an example of a bad article, and probably cannot be fixed. --Blue Tie 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems there is no concensus. You have more than a few editors now. So far no one has disagreed outwardly untill Blue Tie and he brings up good points as well. How can you say trying to make the article NPOV is some kind of political game- I thought this was a goal of all ariticles on Wikipedia?. Bringing partisan politics into a debate on if an article needs some sort of section that makes it NPOV is very partisan itself. Sure I've used wiki to edit for a short time. I am an amaetur meterologist I just started editing after seeing citation needed tags in articles and felt it should be helped. So I did. I stumbled on this article and agreed with it. I also realized We were only seeing one side of it. I had never seen a political article without something from the other side mentioned. I read the talk pages and saw what was going on. I don't agree at all that its partisan politics its not asking to take away from what is already said it should be tagged so we can get something said from the other side to have a truly complete and NPOV article. Why are you arguing about the issue of impeachment itself? I don't understand. It hasn't been about this?--Fujita 15:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the article boarders on WP:NOT#SOAP, and so justifies a POV tag until the problems can be addressed. There is a great deal of discussion about impeaching Bush, even organized campaigns. However, this article is more a dumping ground of anything about impeaching Bush. The only way that I can see to make this article encyclopedic is to rely almost entirely on reliable, nonpartisan, secondary sources, especially to determine proper WP:WEIGHT of the various topics, issues, individuals, campaigns, etc. --Ronz 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please list, specifically, which sentence, words and sources in the article are "SOAP". Just saying its SOAP without actionable items makes it impossible to address, and thus in effect a permanent POV tag, which is an abuse of the purpose of the tag. -- Stbalbach 19:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no. I'm here to help, and I'll help as I see fit and have time.
How about we all start listing, specifically, which sections actually meet WP:NPOV by being properly sourced with reliable, nonpartisan, secondary sources such that those sections are fairly balanced and not giving undue weight to any topic? --Ronz 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach - "I don't want to start doing IP check's for IP sock puppets" this is Xiahou not logged in. Please don't play games stick to the issue. More editors are coming on board saying the article is pov big time. I was nice but to accuse a new guy of being a sock. That's low. Now I am going to log in do some other stuff. Then I will reply back on here to catch up on current debate. --63.163.213.245 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Xiahou logged in now. I'll get back to this later just trying to show Mr. IP check that its quite possible and happening that others don't feel the same way he does without being sockpuppets. --Xiahou 20:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am just going to quote Ronz he nails it good - I don't have to solve the problem, only give convincing justification for the existance of it. I've also suggested how to address the problem. Sorry you're unhappy with my responses. Basically, all I'm doing is trying to apply WP:NPOV to the article. I'm not asking you to prove or disprove anything, so your arguments about fallacies are irrelevant. I think the second sentence makes a good example of what's wrong with the article: "...that include both Democrats and Republicans which indicate a degree of public support for the impeachment of President Bush." This appears to violate WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV as written. --Ronz 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

---That says it pretty good --Xiahou 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

An IP Check has been done, and Xiahou and Fujita are the same person - sock puppets. This of course means more of the anon IPs that have been editing here recently are probably also sock puppets. See User_talk:Jpgordon#User_talk:Xiahou.23break for verification. Xiahou says he's on an "extended break" but just as likely using another account and still active. -- Stbalbach 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Say what you want the IP check there didn't pan out. Two different users, discussed with an admin through emails by other party and its a done deal not the same never was never will be just wanted to clear the air on this. On a break due to busy season at work. (which is ending soon) Have a few hours to kill for once tonight and cleaning up some old business. Ironically Stbalbach is gone. And the ridiculous debate about the tag is done and gone as well. --Xiahou 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To read this link

This link, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20050617%2FMEMO17%2FTPInternational%2FAmericas&ord=2006382&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=trueBy PAUL KORING, Globeandmail.com, June 17, 2005, requires purchase to read it which makes it useless. It should be removed and another referrence should be made available. What do others think? --Crohnie 12:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This one is useless too, [16]. When was the last time anyone checked the sources for this article? It's a blog with old information and mostly talks about Clinton. The article is about Bush, it makes no sense. --Crohnie 12:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This referrence is no longer available, [17]. This too is no longer available [18]. I haven't gone through all of them but I think this article is lopsided and a lot of information is now outdated. There is even a link to buy a book which is spam I thought. --Crohnie 13:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried #7 [[19]] its nothing to. Do we need a citations_broken tag till someone goes through and verifies each one? buying a book, paying to read, Outdated info, blank pages are not citations. --Xiahou 02:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The last revert about Bush's veto

Please reread what you wrote. It is not encyclopedic and it is very much opinionated. Putting the veto in is a good idea, with sources and without your comments about how he doesn't care what the people think. Thanks, --Crohnie 13:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a valid inference from his statement yesterday that he esteems "military commanders" higher than an elected branch of government. Perhaps we could even extrapolate that in effect there are now only two branches of government setting policy: the White House, and the military. Nigel Barristoat 13:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Nigel, I think you're right about Bush's opinions of "we the people poops," but it's not encyclopedic and it is soapboxing or, at the very least, original research.
If you want to reinsert the material regarding the actual event, without drawing conclusions within the article, I think a case could be made. However, I'm not sure it fits within the topic of this article, which is specifically about the movement to impeach Bush. If a pundit or politician has said this is a reason to impeach, then it would be much harder to argue that this event did not belong in the article.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 13:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Let's see how they react, then. Nigel Barristoat 13:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all the comments above. Let's see what the fall out is, and you know there is going to be a lot said from both sides of the aisle on this one. Thanks, --Crohnie 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate to add info re: Cheney impeachment efforts?

I wanted to get some opinion here before proceeding. Since many people think that a successful impeachment of President Bush would first require removing VP Cheney from office, would it be appropriate to post info about a movement to impeach Cheney built around HR 333? Specifically, see links http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/transparency.cgi?paper=1&qnum=pet45 and http://www.usalone.com/cheney_impeachment.php --OtisTDog 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Unrelated. There is no constitutional requirement one way or the other. A Cheney impeachment effort would be a separate topic, although I suppose it would show a political will for impeachment of an executive. bd2412 T 00:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

While the potential impeachment of Vice-President Cheney is technically a seperate topic, it is entirely appropriate to mention it in this article given that the move to impeach Cheney is intimately related to the move against Bush and is part of the overall strategy to impeach Bush.

I've added "HR 333 to Impeach Richard Cheney" under 'See Also' --Nonukes 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are increased congressional support for impeaching Cheney. [20] Terjen 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall Assessment of Movement

I would love to see a section that opines on the status of the inititives to impeach. Without such an overview, the article becomes a long list. I come here looking for what is making the most headway against this administration, and it is hard to find in the article as it is.--Raymm 03:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD for House Resolution 333

Editors, Your attention is requested in the matter of an AfD nomination for House Resolution 333. I invite your participation on the associated debate page. I realize that this is not the page for "Movement to impeach Cheney", but I also realize that many people consider impeaching Cheney to be a required pre-cursor to impeaching Bush. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.--OtisTDog 03:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In another year or two this article can be deleted

Soon there will be another election, Bush will be out of office, Democrats will be in office and it will become clear that there was never any "movement" to impeach Bush and it will no longer an exciting article to keep up for propaganda purposes. Then the article can be deleted. Right now it probably survives because people imagine that there might be such a movement, if not exactly in full force, maybe soon. Barring unforseen problems, there is exactly zero chance of an impeachment because there is no movement. A few random, powerless individuals making political points by posturing is not a movement. A movement must involve sufficient members of the Congress that it is a possibility and really, it ought to be growing.

This article describes something that does not exist and it ought to be deleted. It ought to be deleted now. It is an example of the awful, crufty, non-substantial trash that can infest wikipedia by editors with a pov to push. --Blue Tie 13:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry everyone but I agree with Blue Tie. --Crohnie 13:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who you do or do not agree with. Polls show that he is factually incorrect. -- Jibal 09:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It is you who is factually incorrect. For example, it does matter who people agree with. That is the way it works on wikipedia, which is run by consensus. Furthermore, polls do not define "facts", they define opinions. How then, can a poll show that I am factually incorrect? When has a poll been taken on the viability of this article? Your statement makes no sense. And, you are responding to a post that is 3 months old. --Blue Tie 01:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You folks don't get it. This material is notable, when someone important calls for the impeach of the president of the united states, you bet its notable. It will be on Wikipedia someplace, somehow. The alternative -- deleting this article--will result spreading this material out across dozens of articles, including a lengthy section in GWB's article. This has nothing to do with politics, but is a practical solution to containing and monitoring this controversial material in a single location. -- Stbalbach 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I would think it would be notable if he got impeached which it doesn't look like is going to happen. But I have no problem keeping it, I just think it needs balance. There are also a lot of politician and people who are against impeachment that needs to be added in. Just my thougts,--Crohnie 14:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not notable, it does not really exist. It should be deleted. That is not to say that it will be deleted. Stbalbach's arguments are at most, a reason to wait until Bush is no longer in office. After that this will be utterly non-notable cruft -- an example of what wikipedia is not. Meanwhile every possible person (and if animals could speak they would be here too) who utters the word "impeachment" gets listed here because despite the wikipedia rules on such things... this article is a list of just everything that has ever been said on the matter. It is a whole article that could be handled in two sentences on the George Bush page:
As with many modern Presidents, there have been calls to impeach Bush from a variety sources. The US Congress, which is the only entity charged with the powers of impeachment, have so far refused to consider any motions or recommendations for impeachment and, despite his historically low approval ratings, there is no organized movement to impeach George Bush. --Blue Tie 14:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The article does not say there is an organized movement to impeach the president, article titles are just symbolic place holders, not statements of fact, the lead paragraph explains the scope. There are notable individuals calling for and taking action towards impeachment. Your right, every President has calls for impeachment, and whoever is president next, even if a Democratic, will have an article like this one. The history of calls for impeachment is not "non notable cruft" people study this stuff and use it in writing history. If you honestly think this article violates WP:NOT and it non-notable cruft, then take it to AfD instead of abusing the POV tag - you want the POV tag to be permanent (you said the article is "unfixable"), which is not an acceptable solution, POV tags are not meant to be permanent. Either find a way to fix the problem or get consensus to delete the article. -- Stbalbach 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
POV issues are solved by the careful balancing of the article. As I mentioned above, the article boarders on WP:NOT#SOAP, and so justifies a POV tag. I recommend rewriting the article to rely almost entirely upon reliable, nonpartisan, secondary sources. Special attention must be taken to give proper WP:WEIGHT to the content here. If there's no reliable, nonpartisan, secondary source available that analyzes a topic, the topic should probably be not be mentioned at all. --Ronz 19:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with your opinion that the article is POV or that it "boarders on WP:NOT#SOAP". I asked for specific examples and your response (above) was 1) "I'll help as I see fit and have time." and 2) show me what isn't SOAP. In the first case, well your not helping in fact being a hindrance with an unjustified POV tag and in the second case its a logic fallacy, the responsibility is yours to prove what your saying, not for me to disprove it. -- Stbalbach 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to solve the problem, only give convincing justification for the existance of it. I've also suggested how to address the problem. Sorry you're unhappy with my responses. Basically, all I'm doing is trying to apply WP:NPOV to the article. I'm not asking you to prove or disprove anything, so your arguments about fallacies are irrelevant.
I think the second sentence makes a good example of what's wrong with the article: "...that include both Democrats and Republicans which indicate a degree of public support for the impeachment of President Bush." This appears to violate WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV as written. --Ronz 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Many of the comments here, especially from Blue Tie are not only absurd, they are bizzare. Regardless of how youfeel about impeaching Bush, how do you NOT see a movement to impeach him? We have never in the history of the United States had the type of support for impeaching a president that we have for impeaching Bush, not with Nixon, not with Clinton. Read the source material at the end of the article, look up the numbers of organizations devoted to impeachment, note the cold hard fact that several members of Congress are receiving bazillions of letters in support of impeachment evey day and are saying that impeachment is all the colleagues seem to talk about, consider the fact that 51% of the American people supported impeachment in the October 06 Newsweek poll, consider the States and local communities that are considering or pusing for impeachment, consider the now almost weekly demosntrations across the nation, consider the impeachbush website which has over 800,000 signatures supporting impeachment, consider the fact that several members of Congress (now including Republicans) are demonstrably supporting impeachment (and are having to fight Nancy Pelosi to get there), consider all of this and then come back and say there is "no movement for impeachment". if Bush is not impeached (which is possible) it will NOT be because there is "no support" (just typing that phrase makes me howl), but rather due to political meandering on the part of Nancy Pelois not to mention the fact that much of te media is owned by conservatives (i.e., Rupert Murdoch). If you oppose impeachment, fine, but be responsible in your statements. You will want to be taken seriously.

Barnstormer1000 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Stingray

Reading the "references" is like reading a Who's Who of Left-wing Kool-Aid drinkers. This is definitely a violation of SOAP. Then again, most of the people who believe Bush should be impeached have neglected that for a long time.--Bedford 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What wingnuts think reading the references is like isn't relevant to anything. -- Jibal 09:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
For StBalbach, if you want to nominate for deletion, that is up to you and I will be willing to second the nomination. I prefer not to nominate on my own right now because I do not have confidence that the relatively young population of editors on wikipedia have the depth of experience to recognize ephemeral issues when they are so immediately upon us and I have doubts that they would support a delete even with perfect logic and evidence (though I am not claiming perfection in either). As I have said, if the article is here after Bush is no longer an issue, I will nominate it then, because at that future point, its crufty, unencyclopedic and temporary nature will be more evident -- like a lime green leisure suit from the 70's. As for now, I am just smart enough to see that it is pov, but not quite smart enough to figure out how to fix it. Hence, I consider it unfixable. But I could be wrong. Others may be more clever than I am... and they might be able to fix it. A pov tag along with the discussion points may guide them in their goal. In fact, you might be able to fix the problems I have described, and I sincerely encourage you to do so, but I am not able. To me, the article is irreparable because it is dealing with allegations and innuendo that are so partisan and such obvious gimmicks that they have not been deemed worthy of any significant response that could be quoted. It is as if a gang of small children declared themselves to be nuclear scientists. It might make its way into a newspaper, particularly if a photographer or an editor were somehow related or sympathetic to the children, but no seriously reputable agency -- no degree granting instution, no national lab, no government agency would hold press conferences or publish papers to refute such nonsense. It would be ignored -- because it would be essentially irrelevant. Certainly, it would not deserve an article in wikipedia. My example may be a wee bit extreme, but in essence, that is pretty close to how I view this article. And if no one is clever enough to figure out how to fix that sort of problem, it will simply remain pov. So, I think the POV tag is appropriate even if it is permanent. But, I am not bound to it being permanent. As I said, recognizing my limitations, I conceed that someone else might be more clever and could fix it. But I have to wonder... why would a clever person waste time fixing an article, that even in pov perfection would still be irrelevant and unencyclopedic?
Now, I realize that as the protector of the article, with most of the edits (and perhaps you created it, I do not recall) my words will seem almost like an attack on a cherished friend. That is not my intent. I mean you no personal affront. I consider you, like me, to be a good person and one who is muddling through life and wikipedia doing their best. We just happen to disagree on what is or is not a worthwhile article. I do not think that this is any reflection on either you or me in terms of the quality of our other contributions or in terms of our natures and basic qualities as people. In fact, I accept that you have done your best to make the article NPOV. It is just Mission Impossible. So, if you have felt offended at my words, edits or actions, I hope you will at least take some time to ponder and remember that across from a screen and keyboard sits a real and sincere person who means no disrespect to you and would be pleased to buy you dinner if we should meet. But perhaps your feelings are so offended that you would not accept the invitation. If so, I sincerely apologize. --Blue Tie 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
To Barnstormer or Stingray or whoever it was... I see no Movement to Impeach because there is no Movement to Impeach. Your comments are unpersuasive because a movement to impeach would need to either be a groundswell -- which it isn't (and 800,000 internet signatures is hardly relevant. How many are Islamic Fundamentalists on the Internet? How many are Americans? Its trash) or it would have to be something that has some measurable possibility in Congress, which it doesn't. (No one is fighting Pelosi over this -- what a funny idea!) There simply is no movement in any coherent direction. It does not exist. --Blue Tie 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Some observations"

  1. To me it is impossible to understand the logic that says, "the article is beyond repair but I am not listing it for deletion." Either the article should not exist, or problems should be addressed. The positon just outlined is a contradictio in terminis. So, be a man (err, or woman?) and list it for deletion, or remove the tag. To tag while thinking that is pointless to me seems disengenious and a waste of time.
  2. Whether there exists a movement is an interesting topic. However, would yoo consider global terrorism in the same manner? Meaning, looking at the cold hard facts there is no single global organisation with a unified goal to overthrow western democracies. We do have alot of seperate and local groups with their local agendas. Nevertheless we accept that Wikipedia has articles on this subject that although it does not exist. Please, why would we have articles on a non-existent global netwerk of terrorists (I stress, fighting for a unified goal and with ONE leader is not equal to haphazzardly listing all known terrorist organisation in the world and saying they are ONE organisation) while we are not allowed to write about something that has large support and which is substantiated by numerous legal experts. If you really believe what you are saying you should be consistent and argue the same on those pages.
  3. If there is a need to incorporate the view of those opposing impeachment then do. If we were to tag every article that needs works we essentially are tagging all Wikipedia articles. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought I expressed my logic clearly. Let me try again but this time in very short, to the point sentences.
  1. I (and others) believe the whole article is pov. It may be a pov fork based upon what StBalbach says.
  2. I am not clever enough to fix it. I simply am not. But my lack of cleverness does not make the article NPOV. POV remains a problem even though I do not know how to fix it.
  3. Someone else might be clever enough to fix it. They should try.
  4. The POV Tag will help notify readers of the need to fix it. Someone cleverer than I may be able to do it.
  5. Deletion is not exactly connected to NPOV or POV. The article may be NPOV and still be deleted as irrelevant or POV and still remain on wikipedia. It is two separate issues.
Is the logic still unclear? I would not mind explaining further any unclear points to the best of my ability.--Blue Tie 06:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you said:

  1. The article is POV,
  2. The POV cannot be fixed

My understanding of policy is that any article that is inherently POV, or has POV issues that cannot be fixed must be deleted. At least that is what a multitude of editors have advocated in numerous unrelated AfD's. Since you argue exactly that you should file an AfD. The fact you fail to do so contradicts your own assessment that the POV is beyond repair. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of that policy. If you think it should be nominated for deletion, go right ahead. I also promise I will nominate it for deletion when I feel it is best to do so. I do not feel it is best to do so right now. If this is not satisfactory to you, I do not know what can be done about that. While it is an active article but with pov problems it should wear the tag. --Blue Tie 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing that is true: if Congress, the one body that can bring about impeachment, is not bringing about impeachment, then there is no movement to impeach. When Clinton was impeached, we could see the movement long before the impeachment. I don't think a bunch of civilian blogging counts as a "movement to impeach." This article is not worthy of an encyclopaedic listing. And I can see the movement to delete it.--Magi Media 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is absurd; a movement to do something would be unnecessary if the thing had already been done. That Congress hasn't acted on immigration doesn't mean that there isn't a movement to bring about such action. With nearly half of Americans indicating in polls that they favor the impeachment of Bush (and more than half favoring the impeachment of Cheney), the claim that there isn't such a movement is an obvious falsehood. -- Jibal 09:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Local Governments outside Vermont

I checked this out of curiousity, and found no mention. Somehow, I think that Vermont got publicity largely because of Doonesbury. As anybody who lives here can tell you, Vermont extends down intso Franklin County, which may be why we're doing it also. John Olver is too pragmatic to vote for impeachment unless there were a chance of passing it of course.

Incidentally, the Vermont house rejected the impeachment resolution. This is strictly a small government, let's do it for the heck of it sort of thing. Logic tells us that it's fun to tell Congress what to do at town meeting (why I considered a resolution modeled on the Vermont ones at my own town's meeting), but utterly pointless, aside from as a story in the paper.

Any rate, three towns in my area of western Massachusetts passed resoluttions similar to those in Vermont at town meetings, and Greenfield's town Council is also considering one. Mind, two of these are towns that voted to condemn the USA PATRIOT Act. Condemning the actions of the Feds is something that we do here in Greater Vermont.

Still, it'd be interesting if somebody knows all the states which have towns which voted to urge their Congressfolk to impeach Bush. And yes, I know that these resolutions will accomplish absolutely nothing aside from serving as a source of amusement, but they are pretty funny. I considered introducing one in Deerfield's meeting last Monday (since I was expecting Leverett to do it eventually and thought it would be amusing if Deerfield, wdhich doesn't usually bother with frivolous resolutions like that, beat them to the punch) but I really wanted to get home and go to bed.

Any rate, the sources for my claims, from most recent to least. I'm sure there's some database which will let you access the Gazette, but at least on of these stories has been syndicated in the Greenfield Recorder, which can be accessed through the Greenfield Public Library.

Dunn, Bob. "Shutesbury votes to impeach Bush and Cheney." Daily Hampshire Gazette. 7 May 2007.
Dunn, Bob. "Leverett residents call for impeachment of Bush." Daily Hampshire Gazette. 30 April 2007.
Carl, Chris. "Whately backs call for impeachment." Daily Hampshire Gazette. 26 April 2007.
Fritz, Anita. "A petition signed by 130 voters asking Congress to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will go before Town Council without a recommendation from one of its subcommittees." Greenfield Recorder. 18 April 2007.

Shelburne voted on such a resolution too, it wasn't in the papers so I assume it didn't pass.

Any rate, if anybody else knows of other local resolutions add them. I'm rather curious. If towns outside of Greater Vermont are doing it, it should get a mention.

If it's just Franklin Mass, as I said, we're part of Vermont in all but name, so we don't really count. (Nor does the People's Republic of Amherst, which I think passed such a resolution a long time ago. Amherst is a place utterly removed from any semblence of reality.)


Massachusetts

Whately
Leverett
Shutesbury

Vermont ?

Luke --71.192.116.13 01:52, 8 May 2007 (EST)

Oh, and for the record. I think there are at least legal grounds for impeaching most presidents.
Though I think the case for Bush is better than for any since LBJ, I also know it's quite impossible.
I consider the whole thing rather pathetically funny. I think if it came to a vote even the impeachment of Nixon would have failed. There's simply no point, but it's still a fair sight more amusing than most media circuses. Luke --71.192.116.13 02:00, 8 May 2007 (EST)

Mediation continued

moved here from my page. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC) I'm still trying to understand how the discussion is relevant to the article, but is it even necessary to continue the specific line of discussion you two have been going back and forth on? It seems like it's strayed far off the topic of the article. Is there a start or summary of the discussion that you could point me to? --Ronz 16:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The situation is fairly simple and somewhat relevant to the article. There is a section discussing the advocated reasons to impeach. Among them:

  1. the allegation the Bush administration manipulated intelligence regarding the WMD's.
  2. the suggestion the Bush administration invented active links between SH and OBL/AQ.
  3. the analysis the war in Iraq is a war of aggression and as such a war crime.

Editor Arnabdas (talk · contribs) thinks that is not entirely correct and amends these statements by:

ad 1 adding the SOTU by Clinton proving Bush was not the first to assert SH was working on WMD's.[21]
ad 2 removing according to all official reports. from the possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be false, according to all official reports.[22]
ad 3 claiming that because SH violated previous resolutions the war is legal.[23]

My problem with those edits is

  1. Since the intelligence community probably had additional information in 2003, as compared to 1998, I do not see how the two speeches are comparable. Most notably since Clinton did not know that weaponinspectors could not find any WMD's for months, and was not told by IAEA, the NIE, NSA, CIA, et cetera, that those WMD's probaly did not exist, had not been told the uranium thingy was a hoax, it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion as to what Clinton said in 1998. Just as Cheney's visit to SH is irrelevant.
  2. Since every report has concluded SH and AQ did not have an active working relationship it is difficult to understand why we cannot mention that. Especially in light of the most recent report which effectively nullifies any previous investagation.[24]
  3. if SH violated previous resolutions and that is sufficent to warrant an invasion we can surely provide a source saying that. Absent such a source this is merely speculation on the part of an editor.

Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is the issue of the article being pov-rotten to the core. ALL of the allegations mentioned are actually and truly mentioned by the people who seek Bush's dismissal, impeachment, death, etc. So they really are "valid" in that context. However, as allegations they are disingenuous and there are many counter arguments to them. HUGE counter arguments including Clinton, and Intelligence collecting methods and so on. It is a bit as though someone decided to accuse a random person on the street of baby eating and take them to court for it. In the US Court systems, you can sue ANYONE for ANYTHING. Of course it may not stick. But meanwhile a huge effort has to go forth to demonstrate that the charges are false and a waste of time. This article STARTS with the premise that such charges are notable and worthy of discussion. Then it is up to others to produce the various bits of evidence refuting them per WP:NPOV. In essence, this turns the article into a judgment chamber. It is a really really bad article. Having said that, one of the points being made is that "Bush Lied". This is repeated throughout the article. On that note, sometimes people bring up the "fact" that there "was no connection between AQ and SH" or "there were no WMD". On a matter of whether Bush lied, the actual facts are almost irrelevant. The only relevance is whether he KNEW that there was no connection or whether he KNEW that there were no WMD. The issue is "Did he have cause to believe these things were true?". Because the charge is that "He Lied", not that "He was Wrong" or "He made a mistake". So the facts behind these issues do not seem relevant because they were "hindsight" and were not a priori involved in his decisions.. But the intelligence issues that would have informed his opinion are relevant and should be mentioned. Because in an issue of lying, the basic state of the universe is not at issue -- but the perception of that state in the mind of the accused is at issue. Since 1) this is an article about an imagined movement to impeach and 2) since impeachment requires crimes to have been committed and since 3) ignorance or idiocy is not a crime, ignorance or idiocy about the state of nature is not relevant. The only relevant items would be related to crimes -- such as lying to create a war. And lying requires a belief that what one said was false. We cannot really know what Bush thought. But we can know what information he had. Per NPOV a description of that information should be sufficient and the reader can decide on their own if Bush Lied. But the fact that LATER we found out that there were no WMD,or later we found out something else, is not relevant. --Blue Tie 14:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
With a controversial article like this I feel it is important we do not forget the facts
  • The Bush administration repeatedly and emphatically stated as fact - not as suspicion, not as opinion, not as possibility but as fact - that SH was involved with AQ and he had WMD's. Case in point: Cheney told the world he not only had proof but also knew exactly where SH was hiding those WMD's.
  • Every subsequent investigation has shown that the then available evidence, which is not hindsight!, was at best dubious regarding the AQ links and WMD.
  • Confronted with anyone teling me he knows, he has evidence, there is no doubt, et cetera, while in fact he only has a ton of conjecture I have no reason not to describe his comments as lies. In which lying stands for intentionally making any statement that is at odds with the available facts/evidence.
The enormous gap between the official statements made by the Bush administration and the intelligence available to them at that time is so wide -i.e. the change from we have great doubts(what was said by the intelligence agencies) into we absolutely know for sure and have the evidence to prove it(what Bush c.s. publicly stated)- it cannot sufficiently be explained with bad luck, a mistake, or simply stupidity.. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
To the extent that you focus on the available evidence at the time -- AND HIS KNOWLEDGE OF IT, that is appropriate. If it was available but he did not know it, or, if he had conflicting evidence, or if it was not available at the time, all of that would make the charges of lying, wrong. So, the inclusion of these things should be specifically required to show that the evidence was available to him at that time, that he was made aware of it (not that it existed but that he was briefed on it) and that it was not part of a larger package of information that provided conflicting intelligence. Otherwise, it is not relevant to the notion of lying, which is the key element behind the issue of impeachment. And that we are now 4 degrees away from real impeachment on very speculative matters is an indication of the problems with this article. It is really awful. --Blue Tie 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Aside from a Presidential Daily Brief stating there are no links between SH and OBL you are right it is possible, although highly improbable, the President was not informed. Please consider the following. A major company, i.e. Shel, Enron, Unilever, the Carlyle Group, et cetera, makes crucial decisions which turn out to be flawed. The person in charge then says "I did not know," (BTW sounds alot like "ich habe es nicht gewust" the infamous response by the German population confronted with the Holocaust after WW II), would you accept that? We then are informed that his research departement concluded the decision was ill-advised, his friends said it was ill-advised. But for some stramge reason his board of directors was oblivious to all that information, available but nevertheless they are unaware. This sounds either utterly improbable to the point of lying or it's evidence of sheer incompetence. I guarantee you should this happen in such a company said director is fired before you can say "what do you mean you don't know?" Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Or, let me make myself an example. I am a physician, suppose you come to me and I start therapy for your hypothetical disease. Then it turns out my diagnosis was wrong. Of course you go to court and of course I defend myself. Turns out that the X-rays, lab results, CT, all show a different diagnosis than the one I made. Nevertheless I explain that I was not aware of that and nobody told me this. Clearly you will not accept such a defense since it is my job to be aware of all those details before making a diagnosis and chosing a form of therapy. Without a doubt you will win the malpractise suit. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
As a physician, you may be professionally liable for the misdiagnosis. However, that does not mean that you lied. You may not be fit to be a Doctor and perhaps your license should be suspended, but that does not mean you lied. You may only have been stupid. I have never given Bush much credit for being sophisticated. And maybe the same is true for you if the above happened. I am pretty sure that Bush was not told that there was no connection between SH and AQ. I am pretty sure he was told that there WAS such a connection. Why am I sure of this? Because the people who told him this have said that they told him this. Maybe you think that they are lying too. But why would they lie to make themselves look bad? How could they possibly be protecting themselves by saying that they told the President this, when they really did not? And wouldn't it be likely that some would break ranks and tell the "truth" that Bush heard for sure that there was no connection? There is no evidence Bush lied. If you want to declare that there is evidence he was stupid, that may be so. But stupid is not an impeachable offense.--Blue Tie 00:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said: he either is utterly incompetent (he did not ensure he was aware of all information available before making such a monumentous decision) or he lied (he was aware of the info). In either case impeachment is warranted. Further, I suspect you have not heard of the idea that people fall on their sword to protect their superior. It is a concept widely used, i.e. business, politics, media, et cetera. To suggest it is impossible that people are willing (loyalty, monetary, or other advantage?) or even forced ("if you want to stay in this line of work") to state Bush is totally unaware of any wrongdoings sounds rather naive to me. Certainly we know previous Presidents were protected by this behaviour, i.e. Iran-Contra. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
All of these allegations you made are your opinion and not of fact. Incompetence does not warrant Impeachment by the House of Representatives. It is only if a President knowingly and willingly commits a crime of "bribery, treason or any other high crime or misdemeanor", something that you cannot prove no matter how much you want to. You also have no proof of a "fall guy" as you say it. Conspiracy theories are not credible discussions and must be shown for the farces they are. Circumstantial evidence does not prove anything. This is just a nutty movement by a lunatic fringe in this country. Maybe we should start charging the Truman Administration for coverups at Roswell if we follow the logic laid out here.Arnabdas 19:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to be sure. You are saying it is my opinion that 1 the intelligence agencies saud there was at best dubious evidence for the claim about WMD and AQ, 2 the Bush administration stated as fact Iraq had WMD and was part of 9-11, 3 there is a discrepancy between the official position and the available evidence? If you are seriously saying this I advise you to read other newspapers and watch other newsreports. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. --Ronz 15:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am here in response to the RfC. The topic of the article seems unencyclopedic to me. People don't consult an encyclopedia as a reference for topics of this sort-- it's more a USENET sort of topic. A summary of the article should be merged into George W. Bush. Incidentally, my POV in the matter is strongly pro-impeachment. If an impeachment takes place, it should have its own article. --Marvin Diode 21:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Interestingly enough, even though I am not pro-impeachment (I do not see the cause and I consider it a disruption to government), my views seem to be EXACTLY, word for word identical to yours. It is more like a USENET topic. I agree it should be summarized in George W. Bush. And if an impeachment takes place -- or even if the House votes DOWN the impeachment, that would be sufficient for its own article. I think it is interesting how two different pov perspectives, can, under the guidelines of wikipedia come to agreement. I like it when that happens. So, though I do not usually give my pov, because I try to stay neutral, I gave it out this time because it seemed like it was a right response to you. --Blue Tie 22:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


This article is garbage, a joke, and the left wing Editors know it. Everyone in Washington believed Saddam had WMDs, and yet that fact is mysteriously absent:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

But I guess this much proof is not enough for the extremists that run this site. Ymous 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This clearly falls under the heading misunderstanding. After the Bush administration told the world how dangerous SH was indeed most might have thought that. However, we are not interested in what the general public was thinking but what the US intelligence agencies said. Without exception they all concluded there was insufficient evidence for that claim. If we were told that, instead of what we were told, I can assure you most people would not have believed in the fantasies people nowadays amazingly still keep telling. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no misunderstanding. They all knew, and then changed thier opinions when it was time for re-election. All of congress voted for the war, funded the war, and gave their support to Bush. The going got tough, the left flip-flopped as it always does, and not Bush is the only one left that should be Impeached? What a joke. There was no outcry when Clinton bombed that asprin factory in 1996. This article is pure rubbish, garbage, biased to the extreme. Ymous 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You fail to acknowledge that nobody, and I stress nobody, outside the Bush administration had seen the evidence. So to claim "They all knew" sounds like historical revisionism. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Before the vote on the Resolution to invade Iraq, former weapons inspector Scott Ritter told everybody he could in the House and Senate what he knew about the lack of WMD in Iraq. Dianne Feinstein knew.[25] Hillary Clinton knew.[26]. Yet both voted to authorize the invasion. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul[27] also knew, but in contrast they voted and spoke against the Iraq war resolution.
However, let's keep our eyes on the ball. The article should not be about whether we think Bush should be impeached or not, or whether we think others deserves to be impeached. Hence it is off-topic for this discussion page, as explicitely stated on the top. We may however discuss whether to cover calls for booting others based on related reasons as those in favor of impeaching Bush, including Democrats. There have also been calls for impeaching members of the Bush administration beyond obviously Dick Cheney. If there are substantial sources to back it up, I am open for a section towards the end of the article that documents this.
-- Terjen 23:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, who of these was privy to the intelligence reports? Oddly enough all these reports contradicted what the administration said but even today we need to ignore this. Why? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Those was privy to the classified intelligence reports include Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, although neither read it before voting to authorize force in Iraq.[28]. Terjen 04:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section

According to Wikipedia's lead section guideline, the first paragraph of the article "needs to establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it", and the first sentence "should be a concise definition of the topic". The perfect article guideline recommends that a lead "begins with a clear description of the subject at hand."

Our opening paragraph may benefit from being improved with these concerns in mind. The current first sentence is a mushy "The phrase movement to impeach George W. Bush for the purpose of this article refers to actions and commentary within the public and private spheres tending towards support for the impeachment of United States President George W. Bush." Let's turn it into a concise definition of the topic instead. This will not only be an improvement for the readers, but also help editors by clarifying the scope of the article.

Furthermore, the lead section guideline on providing an accessible overivew states that the lead section should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question)." I suggest we clean up the subsequent paragraphs of the lead accordingly. -- Terjen 23:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed "for the purpose of this article" from the opening sentence as it is gibberish, despite another editor arguing that "it is necessary because otherwise the fundamental basis of this article starts to go away" where "this underscores the problem with the pov of the article". I don't see a reason to maintain an introduction that underscores a POV. If the fundamental basis of the article is POV, as some seem to argue, then it may not be such a bad thing that the fundamental basis for the article starts to go away... Terjen 00:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you remove "for the purposes of this article" then you must find a Verifiable, Reliable Source that describes or defines "The movement to impeach George W. Bush. Otherwise, what you have is original research. If the basis of the article is original research the whole article is trash. (Which it is, but assume otherwise for the moment).--Blue Tie 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Stating "for the purposes of this article" is essentially the same as admitting the article subject is original research, so I can't see a reason to include it unless that's one's POV. It would be better to use the first paragraph to concisely define the topic. I presume the concern is whether or not there really is a social movement to impeach Bush. I can certainly understand both sides of that issue. Although there appears to be quite a bit of activities and people working towards an impeachment of Bush, it is open for discussion whether or not these in total is a "social movement" of people "with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals" or alternatively is just a number of individuals doing their own thing. A Google search for "movement to impeach" indicates that many see a movement, and a google search for "movement to impeach" in recent news" provides a few examples such as [29][30][31][32]. Terjen 07:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Do any define what the term means? --Blue Tie 10:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The quote above is from the Wordnet dictionary defintion of the term movement.Terjen 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I am looking for a definition or description of the phrase that is now the title of an article. --Blue Tie 18:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Me too. I also agree with your comment that there could be several different things that could apply to "movement". What different meanings do you find in the various uses of the term movement to impeach, particularly as applied to Bush? Terjen 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Here is a sample:

[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] Terjen 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Here are a few more from a search for the related phrase impeachment movement: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] Terjen 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Here is a sample of news mentioning "Impeachment Movement": [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] ----Terjen 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As applied to Bush, and based upon your cites, I would say that a "Movement to Impeach Bush" is like movements to impeach other presidents in its general character and in its specific character it is a grassroots effort, chiefly in Vermont that is rejected by National Leaders of both Republican and Democratic parties, decision makers responsible for any fulfillment of the issue. There may be other meanings but that is what I see from the cites you gave, particularly after applying WP:RS and WP:NOTE. It is possible that the movement is actually some sort of organization spearheaded by an individual. --Blue Tie 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you accept that there is a "grassroots movement?" If so, does that constitute a "movement" as you interpret the word in this article? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would accept that an organization in Vermont has developed a process that is called a "Grass Roots" effort in that state. It may not be only in Vermont and it does not appear to be national. It is also irrelevant to any actual effort to impeach Bush. --Blue Tie 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If you accept a local movement as movement. And, being aware that impeachment may also be started by states, not only Congress, it is entirely possible that if a local movement can sway a staee that might result in impeachment proceedings. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 06:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You gave two conditions upon which it is "entirely possible". One of those two conditions does not exist. The states cannot initiate impeachment proceedings. Much less local communities. Consequently, I do not accept it as "entirely possible". Indeed, it is impossible because the people who control this are not considering at all, for good as well as political reasons. --Blue Tie 12:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Blue Tie. What difference does it make who does or doesn't support it, in terms of leaders? If it does have genuine popular support, that makes it a genuine "movement", regardless of what various officials may say. --Sm8900 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think its pretty important that it cannot happen. If there was a "movement to repeal the law of gravity", it would be similar. How can you have a movement to do the impossible? --Blue Tie 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You are talking about improbable. Unless you suggest that if tommorrow all members of Congress would start impeachment it still will not happen it is not impossible but at this time not likely. If you do mean impossible the Constitution needs to be rewritten because it mentions it while clearly it can mever be implemented. Removing that redundant clause would be the next step. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 06:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I am talking about impossible. But this will not be established until after Bush is no longer President. Then it will be clear, by the fact that it never happened and never even came close, that it was never possible. I have said before that this article should be deleted but it is too exciting to biased editors right now. Why is it impossible? Because no one who matters wants it to happen. They specifically do NOT want it to happen and will studiously ignore any such desires. And with that in place, there is simply not enough time for it to happen. It is impossible. It is just as impossible as the US landing another person on the moon by 2010. Not that it is a theoretical impossibility but that it is impossible because there is no movement to make it happen. It is impossible not simply improbable. It cannot happen. --Blue Tie 12:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that all of you who want this article removed are gripping at straws; Especially you blue. I agree with barnstormer that the arguments being used are quite bizarre. If we can agree that the article itself is of a factual nature, then it's evidence enough that a movement exists. If anything within the article is false, then it should be promptly removed; If the entire article is false, the entire article should be removed. But once we agree that the facts are in line; that is, that the events in the article did in fact take place, we establish that "a movement" or "movements" exist. We can attack the definition of the word "Movement," nitpick about whether or not it should have its own article, etc., but the article is informative and obviously people are interested in it. It seems as though certain members are not part of the movement, or do not approve of the movement, therefore are attempting to suppress the very fact that a movement, or movements, exist.

Incidentally I am pro-impeachment, and although it does seem unlikely, I am far from alone in that opinion... From available evidence, I think it's far more probable then undoing the laws of gravity. Brotherchristian 22:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. But there is no movement to impeach Bush. There are pretenders. But nothing real. This is like the movement to reseat royalty on thrones in Europe. Sure there are some people who want that. But its bogus.. never gonna happen. And, when Bush is out of office for a year or so, the irrelevance of this article will be evident. --Blue Tie 00:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
So the improbability of success is evidence that no movement exists? Brotherchristian 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I am formally starting, right here, right now, the Movement to Impeach All Liberals. We've got slogans, signs, bumper stickers and press releases. Our mission to impeach and prosecute for treason, all democrats, liberals and socialists for giving aid and comfort to the enemy: both in the invaders from the south, and the terrorists in the middle east. Where's my page? Ymous 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Two words, Ymous: Be Bold.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, so create a page then if it'll make you feel better. Brotherchristian 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no such movement even if Ymous declares it. Impeachment is only conducted by Congress. --Blue Tie 01:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I DEEPLY AGREE

I 100% AGREE WITH THIS PAGE BEING BIAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Politics rule 00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Beyond writing something with all caps and lots of exclamation marks, could you elaborate? Your emotion is felt by all, but nobody knows what you're referring to. scotteaux 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you see bias in this article, or in the movement for impeachment? Your user page (not to get to personal) clearly touts your support of this president and his party, so I can understand your disagreement with the subject of the article. But the article itself is merely relaying this information - not creating it. So my question would be: what, exactly, is this bias and/or POV everybody is so heated about? This is a legitimate and broad political movement, and it deserves documentation. The opposing view that would be represented in a criticism/controversy section would merely be the POV of die-hard Bushites. Unless there is a major cohesive movement rallying to prevent any potential impeachment of this president, the article is, IMHO, not in violation of any wiki policy, nor is it in any way biased.--Jackbirdsong 04:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem? This is a very scientifically accurate and fair article. It's an uneasy topic, but it's fair none the less. Turn your caps lock off, you know that button to the left of "A"? Chenzo23 01:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What is fair about this article? There's nothing at all fair about this article. A survey, by a polling organization no one has ever heard of before now, has been mentioned in the lead of the article as if it had credibility. If one knew nothing at all about American politics and read this article, one would get the impression that NO ONE opposes impeachment. Only those who support impeachment are mentioned. One would also get the impression that the impeachment movement has never been criticized by anyone. Conservative writers have frequently heaped well-deserved ridicule (as well as thoughtful, well-researched examinations of the profound flaws in the impeachment argument) on those who suggest impeachment, but it is nowhere to be found in this article.

The deleted May 2007 survey showing 39% of Americans favoring impeachment of Bush was listed by Angus Reid Strategies and commented on by former Republican Congressman Bob Barr in the cited article from conservative Human Events. In its place is now a cherry-picked stat from a Washington Times article saying that less than 1% per January 2007 thought impeachment should be a "top priority" for Congress.[80] This is not an improvement but a step backwards. -- Terjen 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is some information about the pollster for the May 2007 survey showing 39% support for impeachment: "Mr. Towery served as the chairman of former Speaker Newt Gingrich's political organization from 1992 until Gingrich left Congress. He is a former Georgia state representative, the author of several books and currently heads the polling and political information firm InsiderAdvantage."[[81] -- Terjen 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

About References to Polls

I would like to see a better reference for the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll conducted in January 2007, which purportedly showed less than 1 percent thought a Bush impeachment should be a "top priority" for Congress. The reference cited is hearsay from a source, The Washington Times, whose neutrality is doubtful. In any case, such prominent mention of a poll that is radically out of line with most other polls, including many more recent, seems inappropriate. See for example the results of a Google search on "impeachment poll 2007".

Rather than cite individual polls in the article introduction, it might be better simply to note any significant trends and refer the reader to further details about polls in a later section. A summary table of poll results would certainly be helpful to the discovery of any patterns or trends. Also there should be external links to notable sites where there are ongoing impeachment petitions, so people can cast their vote one way or the other. For example, both MoveOn and Democrats.com have active petitions, and these should be listed conspicuously. JCLately 03:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's an ongoing poll on MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/), of nearly a half million votes 88% approve impeachment. Is this worth mentioning? Brotherchristian 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No that poll isn't worth mentioning. It's not scientific and has been advertised by liberal websites to beef up its numbers (which is why the 88% number is there but nowhere else). Knightw 03:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Barnstormer contributions

Terjen, I get the impresion that Barnstormer is trying to own this article. The account has made a total of ten edits since joining Wikipedia: eight to this article, and two to this discussion page. I'm trying to improve the article and make it more balanced; Barnstormer is trying to own it.

It seemed at first like Barnstormer was trying to make a point - I took the extensively verbose edit as commentary that the paragraph in the intro about who supports impeachment is a little too detailed (which I think it was before you added to it, so it isn't meant personally). But now it looks more like Barnstormere is a freshly minted editor, possibly in need of some guidance. -- Terjen 06:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked by AuburnPilot for 3RR, vandalism and refusal to discuss his proposed edits. I think you and I will be able to work out our differences. FreedomAintFree 06:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the Introduction

Let's discuss the changes you want to make to this article on the Talk page. After we reach consensus, we'll make the changes. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? For example, for about a month there was a poll conducted by Matt Towery on this subject that you found appropriate to include in the article lead. But Mr. Towery's commentary that accompanied those poll results has been deleted ... not just moved to a different part of the article, but deleted. Why? Is it because that commentary is the only criticism of the movement to impeach (which I will abbreviate as "MTI") that has ever appeared in this article? I'm assuming good faith and just asking a question.

I'd appreciate an answer. Before I made my most recent edit (restoring last night's version), it was a hagiography of MTI. And before I started working on this article in the first place, it was a hagiography of MTI. The purpose of Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken, is not to publish hagiographies for anti-Bush movements, politicians and organizations. It is to publish balanced and neutral articles about all subjects. Looking forward to working constructively with you all on this article and many more. FreedomAintFree 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the introduction back to the reasonably stable June 2 version as a starting point. Please argue the case for your proposed changes to the introduction.
Regarding the Matt Towery poll[82] and commentary[83], note that I was the editor that added the commentary and poll to the article in the first place. In addition, the commentary is still cited and quoted in the Public Opinion : Polling results : 2007 subsection. Hence your suggestive question that I removed the commentary because it criticizes the movement to impeach is unreasonable.
Besides, you were the editor to repeatedly delete the poll cited in the intro by this apparently conservative pollster: "Mr. Towery served as the chairman of former Speaker Newt Gingrich's political organization from 1992 until Gingrich left Congress. He is a former Georgia state representative, the author of several books and currently heads the polling and political information firm InsiderAdvantage."[84]

-- Terjen 01:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You said, "In addition, the commentary is still cited and quoted in the Public Opinion : Polling results : 2007 subsection." That's Bob Barr's commentary. I'm talking about Matt Towery's commentary. Towery is the "apparently conservative pollster" himself, isn't he? He said that the rationale for impeachment was "specious," that the politicians pushing for impeachment were "on the fringe of political thought," and engaging in "silly political grandstanding." Why are Towery's poll results worth including, but Towery's commentary must be deleted? Bob Barr's commentary doesn't criticize MTI and you put it in. Towery's commentary does criticize MTI and you deleted it. I hope you understand, as a result of those events and the hagiographic result, why I'm asking these questions. They're not unreasonable under these circumstances. It's a hagiography of MTI, not a balanced encyclopedic article.

I would like to invite you to write a "Criticism and controversy" section for this article that's similar to the sections by the same name I've seen on so many other Wikipedia articles. FreedomAintFree 02:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We seem to use different terminology. I use the term commentary in reference to the cited article, not in reference to comments like the quote by Bob Barr. I don't think neither the Barr nor Towery comments belong in the introduction but is better kept elsewhere in the entry. Barr's comment is relevant for the poll results reported in the section, while Towery's comment is not. I am not against having a "Criticism and controversy" section, which would be a proper location for his comments. Perhaps you should give it a shot? Terjen 02:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Forget Wikipedia!

This BS is just entertainment, like watching a futile excersize in info control inside a bubble...

You want real, accurate, complete and up to date info on where resolutions were introduced (State and local), go here:

http://impeachpac.org/resolutions-list

Hint: On May 29, 2007, Maine becme the ELEVENTH State to introduce a Bill in its legislature

Wonder why you won't read that here!

Perhaps because you haven't added it yet? Terjen 02:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Impeachment beyond the left

There are two distinct, largely unrelated, bodies of opinion in America favoring impeachment. The larger of the two is represented here by contributors favoring the offences defined by Democrats, and others on the left. There is, however, a vocal grassroots movement on the right, a large part of his base, who likewise, favor impeachment of the President. The Republican issues relate to his failing to enforce existing immigration laws, and possible illegal acts related to his "Immigration Amnesty" policy, and the creation of a "de facto" North American Union with Mexico and Canada, without review or consent of Congress. Both groups can potentially bring pressure to bear against Bush in a collective impeachment effort.(Wikipedia is drawing serious criticism for not allowing the Republican pro-impeachment faction to mention their additional issues in this lengthy article.)

It is reported in the national press that the RNC donations, from individuals is down 40%, from last election. More than half of the 2008 Republican candidates repudiate the substance of the Senate Immigration Bill, as offered.

The opinion above was posted by Nativeborncal in the article and moved here by me. I think the editor calls attention to important issues, even if they were posted in the wrong place. Terjen 15:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is far too long

When I called this article a hagiography, I wasn't being accurate. It's a hagiographic novella. This article is 138 kilobytes in length and it contains not even one word of criticism against MTI. Compare it to articles about other subjects that are much more notable:

  • George W. Bush: 91 kilobytes. Contains abundant criticism.
  • Tony Blair: 63 kilobytes. Also contains plenty of criticism.
  • Osama bin Laden: 62 kilobytes. Since it inventories his crimes, there's plenty of criticism.
  • Bill Clinton: 86 kilobytes. Has a significant section called "Controversies."
  • Iraq War: 117 kilobytes. Loads and loads of criticism.

I've asked you to draft a "criticism and controversy" section and you've declined, asking me to do it instead. Fair enough. While I'm researching and drafting it, why don't you cut this bloated whale down to about 50 kilobytes? After that, when I add the criticism section, it won't be any longer than the article about Tony Blair, who is more notable. FreedomAintFree 04:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I waited two days with no response. I'll go ahead and edit for length. I'll be careful about preserving all the links and references. If readers want more information they can click on the links. Let's be agreeable about any disagreements that arise and work it out constructively and amicably. Looking forward to working with you. -- FreedomAintFree, 16:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is too big. There is no movement to impeach him. And in a few years this article will look like a leisure suit from the 70's -- silly. --Blue Tie 14:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Blue tie, you live in bubble with the other Bushies if you really believe there is no movement. Again, is the factual content in this article not evidence of a movement? 68.81.144.106 22:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If someone presents factual evidence that schizophrenics sometimes go hungry and homeless, and if someone else presents evidence that water is powerful wet stuff, its truthfulness and factuality will not mean that the Moon is made of Green Cheese. The "evidence" here is evidence of nothing. Inconsequential whiners and crybabies make noise but its not encyclopedic. --Blue Tie 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there is no movement, but this article seems to be incredibly long and therefore indigestible when Nancy Pelosi, arguably the most powerful Democrat on Capitol Hill, says that Bush will not be impeached, is it really necessary to document a wave of thought that is at the very least totally futile? I think not. Zookman12 02:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been lurking

I just want to say that the 'redo' that 'freedomaintfree is doing has been excellent. I don't add to this article because of my feeling again our president. Keep up the good work. ----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Crohnie. I appreciate it. I'm just trying to make it a better article. There are two sides to every story and one side was completely MIA. Also it was much too long. If the authors want to write a book they can call Random House. I'm being extremely careful to preserve all the original meaning and save all the links. There was a lot of duplication and one really ginormous fact error. -- FreedomAintFree, 00:00 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the real reason for deleting the Towery criticism?

Terjen, you've said it "belongs elsewhere." But even though you've found a substantial amount of time to invest in editing this article tonight, you just deleted it rather than investing a few minutes in creating the "elsewhere." This isn't the first time you've deleted it.

I've put a lot of effort into making this a better article. If you really don't believe it belongs in the article at all -- and your actions, which speak louder than your words, indicate that this is the case -- then say so, and give me a good reason grounded in policy. Otherwise, construct the "elsewhere." -- FreedomAintFree, 05:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A few sections back in this talk page, in Changes to the Introduction, I argued that the Towery comments doesn't belong in the 2007 Polls section as they aren't relevant for the reported poll results. Despite this, you added the quotes without further discussion. As I said, I am not against having a "Criticism and controversy" section, which, as I said, would be a proper location for the Towery comments. I don't have any particular interest in creating such a section though. You have previously offered to research and draft it, and I wish you all the best. Terjen 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

References

In what was apparently an attempt to "save all the links", the reference section has been completely screwed over. Unless a link is specifically provided to support a specific statement, there is no need to preserve the links in their current location. My suggestion would be to removed them from the article, and place them within a section on this page for future use. - auburnpilot talk 05:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

They've been put into "Archive 5." FreedomAintFree 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

BryanFromPalatine, AKA FreedomAintFree, we're on to you. 64.145.158.163 21:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FreedomAintFree has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I haven't examined this user's edits to the article, but they should all be scrutinized; WP:AGF no longer applies. JamesMLane t c 09:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Everything negative that I've ever read about Wikipedia has been confirmed. The left-wing partisans are in control. All they have to do is point a finger and say, "Sockpuppet." Xboxwarrior 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not paraphrase "off the table"

(In response to Terjen's undoing my edit): I'm referring to the last sentence of the introductory section, which reads: "The Democratic Party leadership has indicated that they have no intention of impeaching Bush." This is a weasel-worded reference, I presume, to Nancy Pelosi's statements, which are more clearly set forth in the subsequent section on Political views and actions, Democrats in Congress. To take something "off the table" means it has been removed, for the time being, as a subject of open discussion. The phrase "Democratic party leadership" renders the attribution of this statement needlessly fuzzy. If the statement is to be made, it should be made properly, as done under the section about Nancy Pelosi, but there's no point in repeating it in the introduction, so the place where it logically belongs is not the intro. I regard the insertion of this weasely paraphrase as a blemish on the introduction, the rest of which is factual and notable.

Let us not forget that this is about politics: shades of meaning are important, and considering that Nancy Pelosi is next in line after Bush and Cheney, it is to be expected that she chose her words very carefully, with political considerations in mind. Since the door has not been closed to a revision of her stance based on further developments and public opinion, the statement in question simply is not especially noteworthy. More to the point, and more indisputably factual, is the preceding sentence, "The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has not considered the impeachment of President Bush and the House of Representatives has taken no action to do so." I think that is a better way to end the introduction. I leave it to someone else to remove the offending sentence, if you agree, as I have no intention of starting an edit war. JCLately 05:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Article protection

Can we get semi protection for this article? There appears to be alot of IP vandalism on the article Momusufan 18:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already requested here: WP:RFP. Hopefully, protection will come soon. Gdo01 18:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

FreedomAintFree has been blocked as a sock-puppet. But he did a massive rewrite of the article around 2 June. Did he damage the article or improve it? Ace Frahm 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Today's recent kafluffle over the words 'previously used'...

Hello, I've checked what all of the edit warring was about today that caused both the article and the talk page to be semi-protected, and it all seems to come down to just these two words: 'previously used' appearing or not appearing within the following sentence:

"Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq — the continued possession and development of [previously used] weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be false, according to all official reports."

I must say I do not understand how this could be so much of a fuss, but surely it is not a case of actual vandalism...? Surely it would be reasonable to discuss the relative merits, or lack of same, of this particular locution, right here on the discussion page...? I mean we always tell people to use the discussion page to discuss such changes and wording differences, right? Isn't the "block-and-blank" approach a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, in this case? So what are the arguments for or against stating that the weapons of mass destruction were previously used by Saddam (which everyone knows they were anyway, even as recently as March 1991)? Does anyone know exactly when, or indeed if he abandoned the program? And if they were indeed "previously used", why would it be irrelevant, or worse, vanadlism, to state this? This deserves to be honestly discussed, not blanked, IMO. Regards, Blake3522 00:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you to a certain extent. I think page protection was necessary considering the way that the anonymous editor was behaving. However, I regret using the word "vandalism" in the edit summary when I protected the article. Clearly, there is a content dispute (which likely has plenty of history that I'm not aware of). But I suggest that the anonymous editor and others here discuss things rationally rather than resorting to the constant reverting. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue is more one of form than of content, and it might have been better to characterize the offense as stubborn refusal to observe the rules of orderly discourse rather than vandalism, but I do agree, in light of the history of this article, that it would be best to retain some measure of page protection to prevent an unreasonable degree of further disruption. Multiple editors (including myself) voiced their disapproval of the insertion of the words "previously used" in the manner that was done, and the comments accompanying those reversions seemed sufficient to make this clear. OK, if that wasn't clear enough, let me elaborate: weapons of mass destruction were not found, previously used or not, so the addition of those words in the context of this sentence is entirely superfluous. Furthermore, it alters the meaning of the sentence, adding the incorrect implication that what was sought was previously used WMDs. No, what was sought was any WMDs. Nor is it true that the fact that Saddam had previously used WMDs in and of itself justified the invasion, absent any evidence that he continued to possess and/or develop WMDs. It would appear that the author of the "previously used" amendment was crudely attempting to inject a separate statement into the original sentence in such a way as to diminish its impact, without regard for the obvious awkwardness of wording and distortion of meaning caused by such a revision. A more appropriate way to make the point that appears to have been intended would be to construct a separate sentence, something like "It had been noted that Saddam had previously used WMDs, and concerns were expressed that he would do this again.", with appropriate cites. I would not object to some such statement, if it hasn't already been made somewhere in the article. My objection was to the persistent, stubborn manner in which this clumsy effort was made, despite repeated objections. Having seen the underhanded tactics employed by people who seem bent on subverting this article, I sympathize with those who have lost patience with such behavior. Some degree of protection from such disruption seems warranted, as I doubt that this subject will become any less controversial. - JCLately 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
As has been noted under the laws of war the use of anything years ago is not a casus belli. As such inserting this statement is an attempt to muddy the waters. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you just making stuff up as you go along, for the purposes of constructing a lame argument that isn't really fooling anyone? Wherever did you find such a "law of war", and how is it relevant? If Saddam Hussein had used WMD in the past, it is entirely logical to suspect that he was continuing to stockpile and/or develop such weapons. Just ask Bill Clinton.

If the weapons WERE previously used by Saddam Hussein againt KURDS, why is it so against your agenda to admit this FACT, and why is it so much in your personal political interest that we DISGUISE this FACT???

LET THE TRUTH SPEAK, THE DEAD WILL NOT BE SILENT - NOT NOW, NOT EVER!!!! YOU CAN ERASE AND PROTECT THIS TALK PAGE OVER AND OVER AGAIN, BUT THE KURDS WHO WERE BRUTALLY MURDERED BY SADDAMS AND YOUR CHEMICALS WIL NEVER BE SILENT, WE WILL JUST WAIT FOR YOU TO UNPROTECT THIS HEAVILY CENSORSHIP DISCUSSION AGAIN, A THOUSAND YEARS WE WILL WAIT IF NECESSARY, THEN WE WILL BE BACK HERE AGAIN TO TELL PEOIPLE THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR HERO SADDAM BECAUSE THE TRUTH WILL DEFEAT THE LIES AND "PIG-HEADED" NAME-CALLINGS OF THE EVIL FORCES HERE EVERY SINGLE TIME!!!!!! 70.105.50.115 11:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. BLATANT LIE: YOU ARGUED THAT PREVIOUS USAGE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WAS "ANCIENT HISTORY" BECAUSE IT TOOK PLACE IN WORLD WAR ONE, TWO, AND VIETNAM.
  1. RESPONSE: THAT IS A BLATANT DISTORTION OF THE ARGUMENT. TO DATE, YOU HAVE NOT COME UP WITH ANYTHING COHENRENT IN WAY OF AN ARGUMENT, BECAUSE YOU YOURSELF KNOW PERFECTLY WELL THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT WORLD WAR ONE, TWO OR VIETNAM. STOP KIDDING YOURSELF. THIS IS ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN, HIS WMD PROGRAM, AND THE SUSPICIONS OF PRESIDENTS CLINTON AND BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS THAT IT WAS CONTINUING. DON'T TELL HALF A TRUTH AND EXPECT IT NOT TO BE GLARINGLY OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING, TELLING ONLY A HALF TRUTH AND IGNORING THE OTHER HALF THAT DOIES NOT SUIT YOU!!! Til Eulenspiegel 12:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
When were these WMD's used? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
And which type of WMDs were used, i.e., nucular? — goethean ॐ 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The previously used WMD's were chemicals against the Kurd's. But that being said, previously used does not belong in this sentence. If wanted it should be put in another section about the chemicals which was just one of the causes for the first invasion by the first Bush to go in. The anononymous editor has made about 6 reverts about this just today. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
To noise-maker: I'm deeply offended by your characterization of me as "evil" and "liar", unquestionably a hypocritical personal attack. If you have something to contribute, why don't you try to figure out a way of expressing yourself more thoughtfully than by persistently banging your head on a wall. - JCLately 16:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
When the level of opposition to mentioning the plain facts extends to reverting me, blocking me, protecting the page, erasing everything I ever wrote on the talk page, AND protecting the talk page, just to muzzle a voice speaking the truth, you bet I'm going to make as much noise as possible, as often as possible, and continue to do so. These tactics only reveal what I am truly up against. If you guys were not afraid of telling the whole truth, you would quote the public statements showing the Clinton administration, in between the two Bushes, never once stopped suspecting Saddam of developing and storing every kind of weapon, especially as he had previously used them many times. Calling all this 'World War One' or 'Ancient History' is crediting your reader with having the same "selective amnesia" that you do, and avoiding discussing the issue head on. 70.105.50.115 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
When the level of your argument reduces to mindless repetition, and you express your intention to continue this tactic, what do you expect? Talk about "selective amnesia", you seem to have forgotten to respond to my specific objections, despite having read them. I didn't make the argument that Saddam's previous use of WMDs was ancient history. My objection was a more basic one as to the specific form your edit, which doesn't even rise to the level of being meaningful. You are attempting to argue by insinuation, without clearly expressing the point you apparently wish to make. Even if you were to express this point clearly, such an argument would meet with considerable resistance, but not because people contest the truth of Saddam's prior use of WMDs or any effort to suppress the truth. Consider an argument of the form "If A and B, then C", where A = "Saddam previously used WMDs", B = "Saddam continues to possess and/or develop WMDs", and C = "we should invade Iraq and take out Saddam". That was the justification Bush presented. The problem is that B was false, hence A is irrelevant. I agree that Saddam was a bad guy, and I sympathize with the plight of the Kurds, but that is not the central point here. As I said before, I don't object to a separate statement mentioning point A, but such a statement needs to be made properly, not misrepresented as relevant to the conclusion that the entire justification is bogus. If you want to take a stab at making your point properly, be my guest, but if you disregard everything I've said and pull the same stunt again, you will have proven yourself beyond any reasonable doubt to be a troll whose disruptions should no longer be tolerated. - JCLately 16:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have protected this article for two days. Please discuss the issue here during these two days and try to come to a consensus about inclusion of the words. If there is no consensus after two days, we will go from there.--Chaser - T 23:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious sourcing

I am seeing quite a few improper sources in this article, like DailyKos, and other bloggish websites. These sources are not allowed per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. This article needs some cleaning up. - Crockspot 19:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is not a biography. — goethean ॐ 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right. What it is is a POV fork that's intended to avoid WP:BLP. But the main subject is a living person, so it must abide by WP:BLP. Pretend the title was Movement to impeach Bill Clinton, and you'll see what I mean. Crockspot 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC) further - I opened a section on WP:BLPN. - Crockspot 12:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This article does fall under BLP though, it isn't "just" for biographies. Any potentially libelous material can and should be policed with BLP in mind when it deals with living persons. Kyaa the Catlord 05:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, per the above, blogs are not reliable sources per WP:SPS. Videmus Omnia 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Some of the sources appear to be viable, since they are sources for a claim made by a blog owner or contributor, which should be permissible. See the second point of WP:SPS: most of the blogs are written by the subject for which they are used as a citation, and so permissible under official WP policy. The dailykos citation is one among several supporting references for a particular statement, and the article would suffer minimally from removing it. So, rather than saying that the sources in general are improper, could you be a little more specific? Which sources do you find improper? Here is one that I find a little dubious: [85] since it is the only citation supporting one of the facts listed. Any others? Silly rabbit 14:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
When examining WP:SPS, don't ignore the section that follows it, WP:SELFPUB. Blogs are only usable to source information about the blogger, and normally only in their own article. These blog sources violate several criteria of WP:SELFPUB. - Crockspot 17:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Blogs are seriously discouraged. Any blog source needs to be examined very closely and if it does not pass the highest degree of inspection, it should be removed. There is a reason for this rule. It is so that articles do not rely upon blogs to present self published opinions.--Blue Tie 14:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Clinton figures

Since the page is protected, I can't correct the poll numbers for Americans favoring the impeachment of Bill Clinton. According to this CNN/Gallup poll, the number is 34% favoring impeachment (even higher 41% for likely voters). I know that there are various poll numbers available, but the one referenced is from a dubious blog, and it seems to emphasize a cherry-picked low percentage. I would be in favor of eliminating the numerical comparison with Clinton altogether. Silly rabbit 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheney

I read a commentary somewhere that impeaching Bush will only result in a worse situation if Bush is removed from office. Guess who is gonna replace him? 24.113.177.5 01:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That Dick Cheney will take over the presidency if Bush is impeached is one reason some have argued for impeaching Cheney first, an argument making Cheney more relevant for our entry.Terjen

Groundswell = Movement

According to the Merriam-Webster's OnLine Dictionary the word "groundswell" is defined [86] as:

Function: noun
1 usually ground swell : a broad deep undulation of the ocean caused by an often distant gale or seismic disturbance
2 : a rapid spontaneous growth (as of political opinion) <a groundswell of support>

Both of these definitions certainly describe (at least in linguistics and physics terminology) a "movement". The root word "swell" essentially means grow or growth, also a type of "movement".

Considering that there seems (I do not have citations for this yet) to be an increasing number of people speaking in favor of some kind of impeachment (or at the very least investigative) activity against Mr Bush I would say the 2nd definition of the term "groundswell" is very appropriate to this issue and therefor there is, in fact, a political movement towards impeachment. Low Sea 11:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a few things wrong with your analysis. One problem is the potential logical error of amphibole. "Movement" is a vague term and semantics are not like mathematics; one word does not equal another most of the time. To take the definition of one word, apply it to another and say that because it may SOMETIMES apply it MUST THEREFORE APPLY THIS TIME, is not necessarily good logic. Second, this interest in impeachment is not broad and deep enough to actually be a Groundswell. People who vocally advocate impeachment as a solution to their political problems have been around since Nixon. Their existence and their vocalization do not constitute a "Movement" but rather a "Condition". Moreover, impeachment is a very specific action that is not conditioned upon "groundswell" any more than a trial for murder is subject to a "groundswell". That sort of thing does not apply to the notion of impeachment of the President. It is a legal matter that is entirely in the control of the House. We might as well discuss a "movement" for "World Peace" because polls say that most people want it. But there is no movement toward World Peace. And there is no movement to impeach Bush. It does not exist. Look at this article. 98% of this article consists of the frustrations and expressions of people who have absolutely no say in the matter. --Blue Tie 13:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Blue, what do you want the article to be called? If you want the article gone, where do you want the information posted? This is a current event, indeed one that continues to pickup steam. When it's all over, it will be part of American history, forever, for-eva-ever. I'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to accomplish with this ongoing tirade about how "There is no movement to impeach Bush." Please, help us out and explain exactly what you want to happen. Brotherchristian 22:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thought so. Brotherchristian 19:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The article should be deleted. Here are other things thar are part of American history: grains of sand blew to the east yesterday in several cities. Also, leaves fell from trees. Several people were murdered last week. Some people died in auto accidents. These are all part of American history. Irrelevant. Just like all this stuff in this article. It is trivia. I do not, for example, see an article on "The Movement to Charge John F. Kennedy with Treason". Yet there was such a "movement" and it is "American History". I would not think such an article should be here, just as I do not think this one should be here. because there is no movement. Also...Your "thought so" insult is inappropriate. --Blue Tie 00:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps. But "inappropriate" is a relative term, isn't it? When someone belittles another person's point of view, I find that innappropriate. When someone claims a movement doesn't exist over and over in a forum full of people passionate about that movement, I find that innappropriate. When someone states that the members of that movement "Don't matter," that's innappropriate. Earlier you replied to me with "Thank you for your thoughts," followed by immediately setting aside my thoughts and re-itterating your own, I found that sarcastic and very condescending, therefore innappropriate. Do you find any of these things "innappropriate?" Or does that only arise when someone dissagrees with your pov? For god's sake, you just insulted me and called me insulting in the same post! In fact if you check all your posts here, and keep the receiving party's perspective in line, I think you'll find nearly all of them are at least a little bit condescending.
Look I'm not looking to involve myself in a pissing contest here, I'm new to Wiki and not 100% in tune with the rules (I've never even edited the actual page as of yet). If you can admit you have been a bit grandiose in your posts (albeit not as blunt as the "Thought so" remark), then I apologize for my statement. If not, then I feel I have nothing to apologize for.
We all know you think the article is silly and stupid, insignificant and the "movement doesn't exist." That being said, what is the harm in keeping it? People, including myself, check out this article periodically to see if there's anything new, withholding that glimmer of hope that this crime family may eventually be dethroned. If nothing else dramatic happens and no catalyzing event (say someone in the administration growing a concience and rolling on dubya) takes place, then I concede that the impeachment will almost certainly not take place. But that DOES NOT mean a movement doesn't exist. Personally, since the article is not about one concerted movement, I'd like to see it renamed "MovementS to impeach..." with the "S". Since a movement within the scope of this article does not require it to be made by congress and does not require the movement's members to be people who "matter," you should have no problem with it then. Would that be good enough? Would anything short of complete suppression of the article be sufficient?
As far as the Kennedy thing, well, I'm a Kennedy fan but I wasn't around during his administration. If there was a movement to charge him with treason, I would be curious to read about it, the people's rationales etc. I'm sure it was silly and ultimately irrelevant, and if it was, I'd probably roll my eyes and move on. I would not launch a campaign to suppress the movement's existence. Brotherchristian 15:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As you say, you are new to wikipedia. You do not know what is appropriate or what is not appropriate. I accept that and you offer additional evidence. I am not going to negotiate away a position of integrity in return for a grudging apology for rudeness. That would be silly. There's more I could add but in essence it would amount to this: My interest is in wikipedia quality. Your interest is admittedly in your pov. So, if a page has cruft, tripe and baloney, but it fits your pov, its fine. With me... it is not. Therein lies our gap. I'm not interested in discussing further. --Blue Tie 05:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You are not any better than anyone else here. You are not any smarter than anyone else here, and your opinion is not more valid than anybody elses. That is where our gap in opinion lies. You think the article is baloney, the majority of us don't.
I won't address you directly in the future. Brotherchristian 15:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Factually, you are wrong. I am better than some people here. I am smarter than some people here. And my opinion is more valid than some. I could not identify these people, but it is a fact of population dynamics and the standard distributions of large populations.
But it is not a matter of "fact" that drives you. It is your pov -- which is also driving you to say rude things and make the argument "personal". Despite your objections, the gap remains commitment to pov vs commitment to wikipedia quality. I recognize that you do not see that distinction... perhaps it is because your biases are of the highest quality and there is no difference. --Blue Tie 22:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey whatever helps you sleep at night pal. What you're doing now is wordsmithing. The fact of the matter is that it's you who is driving to enforce your POV. You stated earlier that I admitted that I'm arguing because of my POV - This is not true. I simply stated my POV, and that I feel the information should be available to anyone who wants it. I have the same sentiment for the impeachment of Bill Clinton - Which in my opinion was highly partisan and just outright silly - But, it happened, therefore the information and facts surrounding it should be available to anyone who wants them.
You on the other hand, want this article deleted. Why? You think the movement is silly and pointless, but to have your own opinion is not enough, you want the information removed so that others can't get it. Make no doubt about it, it is YOU whose interests lie in your POV. Surely you realize that. Wiki has hundreds of articles about insignificant things, even characters on TV shows have their own articles (not the actors, but the actual fictional characters). Would you agree that an article about JD from Scrubs is less significant than than the movement to impeach Bush? Of course you would, but it has no gravity regarding your political beliefs, so you won't spend time on it.
Before you ask "Well why do you have such an interest in this article?", insinuating that it must be my POV as well-- Not exactly true. My interest in the matter led me to the article, but it's my interest in freedom of information that leads me to object to its removal. Now can you "see that distinction?" Brotherchristian 04:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wordsmithing huh? Are you sure? The impeachment of Clinton DID happen. That makes it infinitely more valid. But this article is detrius. It is a pov fork and reduces wikipedia quality. That is why I want it deleted. It is a trash article. It is not that I think the "movement" is pointless and silly. It is that there is no movement to impeach Bush. It does not exist. As for the article about JD from Scrubs, I would not necessarily agree that it is less important than this one. I am not a fan of pop culture articles, but I can see where they have some value for a few folks. I also cannot think of any reason to delete them. When I can, I seek for their deletion... fast. As for my political beliefs.. you are presumptuous. I have no love for Bush. If he were gone yesterday that would be fine with me. And if he were impeached, I would not care too much except for any precidents it sets. But the article is still trash. Because there is no movement to impeach Bush. Its just a bunch of whining. Again you presume to much about me. I'm fine with your "interest" in the article Nothings suspicious there. Your desire to see this article survive is obnoxious to me. You want to reduce the quality of wikipedia. But..In the name of "freedom of information" you degrade wikipedia by having an article that is tripe. In fact, an article about tripe would have more validity. There is no Movement to Impeach Bush. At best.. there is a movement to seek impeachment. But not to actually impeach him. It does not exist. That is why this is such a bad article. It is, in essence, a lie. --Blue Tie 07:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Must give credit where credit is due. That response was almost completely un-insulting. Take away "You want to reduce the quality of Wikipedia" and "Nothings suspicious there" and it would resemble a coherent, non-condescending, adult conversation. As such, I will reciprocate.
I agree that the Clinton impeachment is more significant (for now) because it did really happen, and I agree that I am presumptuous about your POV. I presume based on the fact that your agruments for deletion are so wide-ranging. You regularly challenge the use of the word "movement" but offer no alternative. You say the article is POV but offer no solution. You say "there is no movement...", twice in fact in your last post alone, but something is happening here. If it ain't a movement, then what is it?
In short, I don't believe that your motives are as pure as you claim because the only solution you offer is complete suppression. If I was in the minority here, I would feel the need to object regardless. Since I am in the majority, I should be able to ignore you altogether, but it's your demeanor that makes that difficult for me. You belittle and "talk down" to myself and anyone else who disagrees with you, sometimes ever-so-delicately and sometimes quite intentionally.
If you wish, we can now agree to disagree, and I'll bid you good luck. Brotherchristian 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Case Status

Good morning everyone;

Is there still hope for Mediation or should I close and refer to Medcom? Dagomar 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GATXER

Please stop edit warring as you already had one page protected by your style of contributing. Exzplain here what your objections are in light of the sources that substantiate the use of Saturday Night Massacre. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Can somebody inform GATXER that his persistent editing against consensus and refusing to discuss is not a constructive way of contributing? Is it time for AN/I? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


I wish some Admin would inform editor N that someone who calls Bush the Fuhr...should not be editting any pages about Bush....It not hard to understand but he just doesnt get it. GATXER 20:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Politicized

Per this wikipedia article US Attorneys are typically fired and hired for political reasons. Hence this is not an instance of new politicization. It is just a different application of politicization. --Blue Tie 11:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Hiring/firing based on the willingness to target Democrats and protect Republicans is certainly not common practice. This is entirely different from what you are proposing. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we should go back to the original heading, "Politicization of the United States attorney offices", or maybe "Improper politicization of the United States attorney offices". If you've got a problem with inclusion of Saturday Night Massacre among the "Main articles" list, perhaps it would be better to separate that reference out from the others as an "Also see" ref for this section. It's relevant to this section, but since it's not as directly related to Bush as other refs, I can understand why one might wish to make that distinction clearer. However, I don't buy the narrower section heading of "Dismissal of the United States attorneys" or even the newer variation proposed by User:Nescio, "Dismissal of the United States attorneys for political reasons", because this doesn't cover such abuses as hiring based on purely political criteria or exerting undue pressure on U.S. attorneys for political purposes. - JCLately 17:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment of JCLately.Giovanni33 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, Blue Tie, that is not typical at all. Have you actually studied this issue? Do you care to supply the results of your study that led you to that odd conclusion? Let me present to you the words of Joseph Rich, as an expert testimony on this point. He is former head of the civil rights division of the Justice Department. He worked at the Justice Department from 1968 to 200. JOSEPH RICH: "Well, I was at the Department of Justice in the Civil Rights Division right out of law school in ’68 and worked twenty-four of the thirty-six years I was there under Republican administrations, starting with Ramsey Clark, John Mitchell, through Ed Meese, Janet Reno and finally this administration with Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft. This administration is the first administration that I felt had politicized the department to the extent that it has. And I had been the head of the Voting Section for the last six years that I was there, from 1999 to 2005, and I think the Voting Section has always been a section that is of political interest, but never had been politicized to the extent that it was in this administration."[87]Giovanni33 18:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You can read the whole intereview for yourself, but he continues to get into specific details and examples to support this view. I quote further, "Secondly, this administration had a disdain and attacked career people that they felt was disloyal, more than any other administration that I had to deal with over my long career. And this led to the removal of section chiefs. It led to a real breakdown in any good relationship between political and career people that is necessary for a Department of Justice agency to have. Without that give and take, you're not going to get good decision making. It led to a real loss of the career-based, real guts of the Civil Rights Division. After I left the Voting Section, 55% to 60% of the attorneys have either left or transferred out of the Voting Section. That, coupled with a very politicized new hiring policy that was implemented in 2002, has changed the nature of the personnel in the division from one that was a longtime committed group of attorneys to civil rights enforcement to one that has very little experience in civil rights and does not have that commitment, and indeed is -- a good deal of the hiring is done on very politicized bases, as particularly a story in the Boston Globe last summer revealed, just the loss of people who had civil rights experience and the increase in people that were ideologically aligned with the Republican Party."Giovanni33 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Your argument is that it has been done DIFFERENTLY than prior administrations. That I agree with. Some people are of the opinion that it is WORSE than prior administrations. Thats an opinion -- some agree, some do not. When I apply my professional expertise to the issue, I do not happen to think it is worse. In fact, I think its not as bad. But that too is an opinion. But the bottom line is, this has always been politicized. It is called the "Spoils System". It is an old issue in American politics. So, the title cannot be simply "Politicization" because that is not unique to this issue. The title might be "alleged impropriety". That seems to be where people are trying to find real traction. (I am not so sure that very many people care if lawyers get fired so I think the traction is more imaginary). Of course so much of this is just Washington games. I have been a lobbyist in Congress during Clinton years, so I know how they play these games... it is very deliberate and unreal and if American knew the half of it, they would either laugh or cry. For example, I used to construct the words that Executive Branch representatives, Congressmen or Senators would say ... when they were firing for effect. Little nuances mean things. Its weird... and its only inside the beltway that this drama really matters. Meanwhile Rome Burns. --Blue Tie 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is not my personal arguments, but the argument of credible sources. You think its no worse. If so, then you can cite sources that state such view, into the body of the section. However, your claim is that it IS politized, and that is always has been that way. Well then, there is no reason to change the section title, since that is the subject of debate, and of criticism. Namely that there is a qualitative difference in the degree and depths of the politicization. But regardless of claim, or the view that is has always been that bad, its still about the same issue: politicization. Saying, "alleged impropriety" is too vaugue, as that could apply to anything.Giovanni33 01:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not claim it was your personal argument.
I am not interested in adding a view that says its no worse. I think I can find one, but I do not care enough to search it out.
However, it should not say "politicized" as though that were unique because it isn't. Its always political. Something like "improper" or just "dismissal" or something like that. Yes there is reason, because the politicization is not a unique issue for Bush. It applies to all Presidents. Don't you think this article should mention special reasons that people imagine are appropriate for impeachment? Like... say... "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"? Just using the perks of office is hardly an impeachable offense so it should be something special. --Blue Tie 01:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree and fail to follow your logic. You state that politicization has always been the case. And you agree that the claim regards the qualitative difference of the degree to which this is the case with this adminstration. Its the claim in question here, the charge against Bush. So agree with all that. Yet you disagree that the subject title should specifically mention Politicization, and instead it should be under a much broader, and much more vauge, and fuzzy concept of general improprieties, such as "improper" or just "dismissal." This is less precise, less direct, and I see no valid reason to remove the real issue at hand: a question of inappropriate polititicization of the justice department with regard to firing long term career officers for political reason in a manner that exceeded all other adminstrations (as it claimed). Thus, the hedaind should remain about this very issue, not more gerneral vauge issues. You yourself agree this is the issue, so what is the problem?Giovanni33 20:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I accept that you disagree and fail to follow my logic. Perhaps it is foreign to you. Let's break it down.
1. We both agree that I have said politicization has always pertained.
2. We (possibly) both agree that the Bush administration has done it differently.
3. We both agree that I do not think the title of the section should include "politicization"
4. We both agree that I have suggested more vague titles
Somehow to you, this is all illogical. But you never quite get to WHY it is illogical. You just jump to your opinion that it is.
On the other hand, I have explained that it is not relevant that "politicization" be considered appropriate or inappropriate. It is a non-issue. There is no such thing as "appropriate" politicization to the side it goes against. There is no such thing as "inappropriate" politicization to the side it favors. So... what is the issue? The issue is THE LAW. QUERY: Is politicization standard practice? ANSWER: Yes. QUERY: With every administration? ANSWER: Yes. QUERY: Has this previously been investigated as to its legality? ANSWER: Yes. QUERY: By Whom? ANSWER: US Congress and US Supreme Court. QUERY: What were their findings? ANSWER: Congress determined that such things do not amount to guilt and the Supreme Court found that trying to limit the President's perogative in this matter is Unconstitutional.
With all of that, the issue as pertaining to IMPEACHMENT cannot be "politicization". IT CANT BE!. IT MUST BE SOMETHING ELSE. Now the truth is, that to the people who propose it, THAT is the only issue: What they call "improper politicization". However, THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN REMOVED FROM THE LIST OF THINGS THAT A PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR. By both Congress and the US Supreme Court. HENCE THE LOGIC IS THIS: If the problem is not (because it cannot be) politicization, then IT MUST BE SOMETHING ELSE. Of course, this is extremely vague now, because there is no other real reason. A movement to impeach must at least appeal to valid legal issues -- or its just lunatic mobocracy.
At the heart of it, this is another instance of how this article is just full of crap. There is no "Movement" on this score. There are skilled political manipulators who use these things for advantage -- not for impeachment, but for other sorts of "currency" in political circles -- and there are crybabies and whiners who buy into the manipulation never realizing they are tools being manipulated. But there is no movement -- or if there is any, its the pawns who are being moved about unwittingly. But politicization in the firings of the lawyers is about as impeachable as being served bread without butter. It annoys some folk but its no crime. Maybe though, there is some OTHER crime involved. So, let the title reflect at least that much possibility that this issue has some traction for impeachment. Otherwise it has none. --Blue Tie 23:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


I think hiring/firing with thye intention of reshaping the political landscape into a one-party system, by prosecuting Democrats and shielding Republicans, is not only a travesty of justice but arguably rises to "high crimes and ...." Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly the sort of fuzzy thinking that makes this article remain on wikipedia even though there is no movement to impeach Bush. It makes thinking liberals and concerned people wince. Crimes are defined by laws. Misdemeanors are defined by laws. We are a nation of laws and random wishes for political revenge are not laws. The President may fire attorneys at will -- for any reason he wants. It could even be because he wants to change the outcome of a trial or because the President is drunk and in a snit. It does not matter. It is not against the law. They serve entirely at his pleasure. If you think it should be against the law, that is a different matter. But it is not against the law. It is no cause for impeachment. This is simply a matter of pure fact. This article is slack and a waste of electrons. And if you think those are the words of a Republican, consider this: I was a lobbyist on the side of the Clinton Administration, working most closely with a key and highly regarded Democratic Senator and my enemies were chiefly Republicans, particularly one for whom I still feel personal animosity. But I have the sense to recognize silliness -- like this article. Just like the firing of prosecutors is not newly political and it is not a cause ... there is no movement to impeach. There are only a bunch of powerless, insignificant crybabies trying to get attention. --Blue Tie 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like we misunderstand each other. Technically everything is an impeachable offense. Since no definition exusts it is up to Congress to determine what constitutes "high Crimes and misdemeanors." If they wanted to eating a banana is an impeachable offense. Therefore the current list presented is entirely possible. To claim they do not constitute such an offense is a misrepresentation of the law. Further, the presented arguments are sufficiently grave that it is difficult to understand why proposing accountability in these cases is political. To be sure, at this point anybody requesting accountability of this administration is rebutted with claiming that asking for accountability ipso facto is a political gesture. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent). We do not misunderstand each other. You misunderstand the law. High Crimes and Misdemeanors are infractions of LAW. What Congress is charged with doing is 1). determining if there are sufficient grounds for holding a trial based upon violation of law and, then 2). determining if the President is guilty of those violations. Congress may also decide what constitutes a crime but not ex post facto. We are a government of laws. How is this hard to grasp?

Now, I do not want you to imagine that I am saying Bush is not impeachable on technical grounds. The term "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is sufficiently broad that it could possibly cover actions by just about any sitting president of the last 200 years. Lincoln and Roosevelt are two that come to mind as egregious examples. So Bush could be included as much as some (but probably less than some as well). However, partisan and political decisions regarding government employees who serve at your pleasure is not a crime. (This was already tested in impeachment trial and Congressional efforts to control it has already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court). Incompetence such as Katrina is also not a crime, but it may lead to other determinations of guilt or inability to hold office. Proceeding to conduct wartime operations under authority of Congress cannot be described as a crime even if Congress later disapproves -- ex post facto applies. This article is full of the dreams of people who are clueless on the matter. --Blue Tie 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Unless you can identify which law or where in the Constitution there is a list detailing impeachable offences nobody knows what they are. Admittedly eating a banana is not likely to be one of them. However, to suggest that incompetence (Katrina), lying about war (Iraq), declaring war in violation of the Constitution (Iraq), violating FISA (this is a crime under US law!), rearranging the DoJ to ensure one political party can take over the country (potentially a one-party rule), are not sufficiently serious and claiming impeachment is absolutely not applicable is either a gross misunderstanding of the allegations presented or a willful disregard for the rule of law (Constitution) and the principles of democracy. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much, your argument and list are nonsensical. I'll agree to this exception: Technically, actual impeachment is a political issue rather than a legal one. It is simply laying out a charge by vote. So, I suppose from that perspective, while there is presently NO movement to impeach this President (absolutely none), there is almost always a "movement" to "seek the impeachment" of every President... by laying out charges against them and accusing them of all sorts of things. If this article were called "Movement to seek the impeachment of G. W. Bush" it would be more accurate because there is certainly a movement to seek it. But there is no movement to impeach him.
Still, actual impeachment does not require any guilt or even sensibility, and a President could theoretically be impeached for wearing the wrong suit or cutting himself while shaving -- or eating a banana. The charge does not have to be reasonable, logical, legal, or even have substance.
That's all technical. But there is a practical aspect that overrules. Congress is not so irresponsible (or self abusing) as to impeach on a laundry list of half-baked, legally vacant issues. So, if this article is to be encyclopedic, and present a valid, real movement to impeach it should not be the dreams of random minor people who disagree with Bush. Instead it should be looking at the serious matter of removal from office, which is what is generally THOUGHT OF when impeachment is discussed. And as far as THAT goes this this article, and your list above, are bereft of legal or substantive valdity. --Blue Tie 00:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging that the presented arguments fall within the scope of "impeachable offences." Second, could you elaborate on "bereft of legal or substantive valdity" in light of the numerous legal experts, stating the opposite, used as sources? As for "Congress is not so irresponsible (or self abusing) as to impeach on a laundry list of half-baked, legally vacant issues." how exactly is impeachment over an extra-marrital affair not "irresponsible?" Lying about it you say? Hmm, how about lying to start a war, or lying to politicize the DoJ? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome although you do not seem to be paying attention. ANYTHING, even the act of breathing or drinking water is potentially or theoretically an impeachable offense. Of course, that is ridiculous from a practical point of view. And also, practically speaking, nothing on the list you gave is actually impeachable, because though Congress is highly political, it does not want to impeach if there isn't SOME sort of substantial and provable legal crime. (Note that in the only two successful impeachments, the allegations were validated in law and legal opinion, not in politics). I could, as you request, "elaborate on legal or substantive validity", and originally I did present a long argument on each of the points raised, but in the end, I decided to remove it because it would not matter anyway. The friends and lovers of this article do not care if there is no substance to the issues. Look at yourself: You do not care that there is no movement to Impeach the President; you like the article anyway. So why bother going to the trouble of explaining in detail how there is no crime here? In most cases, the criminal issues have even, already been explored and rejected in court or by Congress. Has that mattered to anyone about this article? No. Because it does not matter that there is no substance. It does not matter that there is no movement. All that matters is that this is a cool place to laundry list some crybaby allegations. Totally unencyclopedic.
As for your concern about the Clinton impeachment, perhaps you are not aware, but he was not impeached for an extramarital affair. In fact, there was no charge of adultery or affairs or what have you in the impeachment proceedings. He was impeached for two regular ol' every-day violations of law - felonies actually. Though the Senate did not vote to hold him accountable for that (which in my view was an "OK" decision), he was later cited (found guilty) for contempt of court over that same charge. The Arkansas Supreme Court, ordered to review the issue said he was guilty of "serious misconduct" .."involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud and misrepresentation." In the resulting plea agreements that he entered into, he was substantially fined, suspended from the Arkansas bar and suspended from practicing before the Supreme Court on those same grounds.
So, interestingly, though he was impeached, and legally guilty, the Senate voted not to remove him from office. So far, no President has been removed from office and it would be impossible to remove Bush from office. --Blue Tie 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

<Outdent> Let's start again. Are you suggesting that the sourced opinion of numerous legal experts is to be ignored in favour of your opinion? On what grounds is starting a war of aggression not impeachable? And how is violating FISA, a crime under US law, not impeachable? Or, obstruction of justice? I think you misunderstand WP. It is not about what you think, or what I think. If we can find outside sources saying it there is no valid reason to exclude the notion these are impeachable offences. You have yet to explain why we should ignore the sources, or even on what legal premisse your opinion is based. As for Clinton, my question was, how is lying about an extra-marrital affair impeachable yet lying about the reasons for going to war not? Lying is lying in my part of the world. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In order: 1). I have never suggested that. 2) Breathing is technically impeachable. But assuming that you are in agreement that impeachable offenses should be crimes then a) Any war is an act of aggression, so starting a "War of Aggression" is no more criminal than any other war; b) the nature of the illegality of the war is governed by several different laws but chiefly, Public Law 93-148 "War Powers Resolution". The President has authority on his own to commence military action for up to 92 days, at which point he must have explicit approval (a vote -- either a declaration of war OR authorization of the use of forces) from Congress. In addition, though he may commence these actions on his own authority he must consult with congress before and after the commencement of those actions. At the point that he has the resolution of congress, he is no longer acting upon his own authority but at the behest of the whole government. If he does not get the resolution, he must withdraw forces. THAT IS THE LAW. It has been validated many times in court even if a lunatic fringe wants to opine that it is not the law. It is. This is just like people who say that we do not have to pay taxes because it is not in the Constitution. Sure we do. 3). With regard to your FISA question, you should understand that a violation of FISA may not be impeachable or criminal if it falls outside of FISA but under Article II of the Constitution. The Constitutional Law prevails over FISA. Various court cases have determined that there is no need for warrants when intercepting foreign communications: (See In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 20(2); United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972) and Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347,363-64 -especially White's concurring opinion). The Supreme Court has essentially stated "The President is presumed to have this power". Finally, the Authorization to Use Military Force after 9/11, specifically charges the President to: "use all necessary and appropriate force ... to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States" and uses the term "both at home and abroad" -- because the 9/11 terrorists had lived in the US for an extended time. Note that Congress, after review of the specifics, has not taken any steps against it. 4). There is no obstruction of justice. 5). I think you underestimate me. I completely understand wikipedia. It is not a system of "truth" or "right". It is not even actually a system of valid sourcing - though it claims to be. Instead it is a system of anarchy/mobocracy under an aegis of rules that are unevenly accepted or enforced. 6). About Clinton. (Again.... duh.. can you not get this out of your head? It has nothing to do with Bush.) The issue is one of a common crime... a premeditated felony as determined by competent and Authorized official investigators with legal requirement to pass a judgment, not merely crybabies nagging people about it. No such thing has happened with regard to Bush. In the case of Bush, investigations reviewing the evidence have not even begun to hint at a lie (much less perjury). There is simply no evidence of lying. Hence there is no cause for action there. In the case of Clinton, multiple competent legal investigations led directly to the conclusion of a perjury. If you do not recognize the difference between the volunteered opinions of political enemies with an axe to grind, people who have no legal standing nor special knowledge of the facts vs the considered and studied decisions, after a review of all the evidence, by authorized investigators and judges known for objectivity -- then I am not sufficiently bright enough to explain it to you in more detail than this: There is no objectively credible evidence Bush lied and there is objective credible determination that Clinton committed a premeditated felony perjury. But Clinton has nothing to do with this (except that he did some of the things you think Bush should be impeached for) and I wish you would get off it -- its a Red Herring. --Blue Tie 22:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Now we have established that sourced material is allowed, and we have sources making the claims you feel are incorrect there is no argument to exclude them from the article. This settles the matter, even though I respect your opinion they are wrong. There is no furhter need to object to the material. As for your comments, they are easily rebutted but since this is about the article and not a debating club I will leave it at that. If you are interested to hear why your comments are incorrect let me know. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • First, you have now changed the argument. Your original proposed question on "sourcing" was whether I considered MY opinion to be superior to the sourced opinions you want to cite. I answered that I have never argued that my opinion was superior. But somehow you have taken that response as an endorsement of your sources. You switched the discussion. This is a textbook example of the dishonest practice of "Red Herring". And, ignoring that dissimulation, I consider your summary statement "sourced material is allowed" to be wrong in its implication that if material is sourced, it is thus allowed. That is not true. To be clear: It should be from a reliable source (for example, blogs do not count), it should not be abusive. For example, quoting an editorial or opinion as a fact when it actually contradicts established fact is abusive. And finally, it should really be in support of an encyclopedic topic -- something that actually exists.
    • Second, your response in no way addresses the points I brought up. Even though your questions were not really focussed on the issue: "There is no movement to impeach", I was being considerate to answer your questions. But, now, you are are conflating issues, not responding appropriately, using strawman and then without due consideration, you declare some sort of victory ("this settles the matter"). This is called "failure to deliberate" and is separately an indicator of the logical fallacy of "strawman". Perhaps you do not want to respond in detail.. that's fine. But at least be honest and say "I do not agree but I do not feel like discussing it". But do not be self-deluding: You have not answered the questions and things are NOT settled.--Blue Tie 17:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

AEB 1

Apparently I move too fast. Again let me try and understand your position. Are you advocating that the sources are not allowed? Most notable Elizabeth Holtzman, Marjhorie Cohn, FindLaw, et cetera? If not I again state the matter is settled. We have sources stating such and such are impeachable offences. We have you agreeing that such sources can be used. Ergo: matter settled. If however you object to the sources I am curious as to why. A former prosecuter part of the Watergate investigation seems more than acceptable under WP policy.
Regarding your opinion, that is not the topic of this page that is why I feel reluctant to discuss it here. But let me answer the lie part.
  1. We have Bush insisting SH was involved in 9-11. There was no evidence supporting that claim.
  2. We have Bush insisting SH had WMD and wanted to sell them to terrorists in order to attack the US. Again, no evidence exist supporting that claim.
  3. We have Bush saying the invasion of Iraq was because SH did not allow the inspectors in. Oddly enough the entire world witnessed how these non-existent inspectors were forced out of Iraq because Bush had ordered the invasion.
  4. We have Bush saying that anyone involved in Plamegate would be fired. As of today both Cheney and Rove are still working for the WH.
  5. We have Bush saying the Libby sentence was excessive. Nevertheless, it was clearly within official guidelines, as evidenced by another conviction only two weeks prior to this statement.
These are just a few examples. True, another explanation for these statements being incompatable with the known facts is he was unaware and inadequately informed. A President not aware of pressing matters of national security is evidently incompetent. So, either he lied or he is incompetent. There are no other logical explanations for the evidently false statements he made.
If you have sourced material detailing your opinion you are more than welcome to include it. Respectfully. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


In reply, I am not sure what sources you are asking about. Blogs, Self-referencing, etc are not reliable sources. But sourcing is allowed. In the expression of opinion, the opinion must not only be from a credible source but also must be expressed as an opinion in and ascribed to that person, not to wikipedia. Otherwise...Not sure what you are asking or why you think I am objecting to something.
You claim that you have firm statements that some things are impeachable. What you actually have is OPINIONS that such and such are impeachable offenses. There are, of course, court rulings to the contrary and these naturally take precidence over the opinions of private citizens whining in the editorial pages. Secondary to court rulings, you also have white papers and decisions by authorized administrative legal authorities. In absence of finaly court determination, these also take precidence over the whinings of private parties in editorial comments.
We have policies by wikipedia regarding NPOV and Reliable Sources, including prioritization of those sources, Ergo Matter Settled. However, you seem to want to assert that private opinions are more valid than Supreme Court rulings and statements. But Supreme Court rulings are usually more than sufficient in declaring what the Law is and relying upon those statements generally grants a shield against prosecution or liability.
Although the lie part is not integral to this issue, you insist on bringing it up and with bad information. Lets go through it.
  1. You claim Bush insisted SH was involved in 9-11. Bush never insisted that. Bush never said that.
  2. You claim that "Bush insisting SH had WMD and wanted to sell them to terrorists in order to attack the US". Not exactly right, but close enough not to argue. However, you go on to say: "no evidence exist supporting that claim", which is false. There was plenty of evidence to support that claim.
  3. You claim "We have Bush saying the invasion of Iraq was because SH did not allow the inspectors in.". That is false. Bush did not say that.
  4. You claim that "We have Bush saying that anyone involved in Plamegate would be fired. As of today both Cheney and Rove are still working for the WH." Again, you have your facts mixed up. Bush said that anyone who leaked the name would be fired. That was before he was made aware that Richard Armitage was the leaker. Armitage was at first unaware that he had leaked, but when he did become aware, he came completely clean. Armitage was a very honest moderate and Bush changed his mind upon knowing that it was Armitage. Nevertheless, Armitage resigned and has not worked in the Administration since 2004. That Cheney and Rove are still employed is irrelevant since they did not fall under the issue of having leaked the name (though that is a common misperception).
  5. Now you say "We have Bush saying the Libby sentence was excessive...etc... etc.". Wasn't this supposed to be about how he lied? Bush can do whatever he wants with his pardon power. Its not an impeachable offense nor is it a lie.
Your black and white thinking about there being only one of two ways it could be... either he knew and lied or he is incompetent is more of a reflection on your abilities to consider the issues in a wide variety of possibilities than it is a reflection of the facts. But so you know, of those two , I think Bush is somewhat incompetent. However, I am open to many other possibilities as well. --Blue Tie 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. May I invite you to first read the sources in the rationale section before continuing to claim they are mere "blogs" or "private opinions." Again please note the fact that FindLaw is used, Elizabeth Holtzman who was a prosecutor in Watergate, et cetera. Surely there is no possible reason to argue these are not allowed. Unless you detail which person and for what reason you feel violates WP:RS I consider the matter closed.
  2. We have a section adequately detailing that so and so, thinks such and such is an impeachable offence. On what grounds is that not allowed?
  3. Are you claiming there are "Supreme Court rulings and statements" detailing these are not impeachable offences? If so could you provide a link?
  4. The fact you are rewriting history is unfortunate. Either you are insufficiently informed or you are willfully ignoring the numerous newspaper reports detailing the facts I mentioned. No, the available evidence was highly dubious if not contradictng the claims of WMD and AQ links. In any case on the whole no prosecutor would go to court based on the evidence Bush had. Flimsy at best every judge would throw out the case on account of lack of evidence. Please see the most recent report on this which concluded that the available evidence did not support the claims made. It is in the Rationale section under invading Iraq.
  5. Further, to suggest Rove and Cheney had nothing to do with the leak is a stunning example of contradicting court papers (Fitzgerald) tantamount to a state of denial.
  6. Are you asking me to provide links so you can see that what I say is based in fact and Bush did make the statements I say he did?

Respectfully Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I missed this a long time ago. I will reply now.
  1. First, I know that there are some good sources to some things in the article. However, you were being and are being vague. I said "I am not sure what sources you are asking about. Blogs, Self-referencing, etc are not reliable sources. " That statement has not been answered.
  2. I have not said that opinions are not allowed. Where did you get that idea? But when these opinions are from relatively insignificant or minor people they probably should not be expressed here particularly in the face of more weighty opinions.
  3. Yes, there such rulings and I might be able to find a link or two.
  4. I am not re-writing history. It is rather crass for you to claim that without any justification.
  5. Rove and Cheney had nothing to do with the leak of Plame's name. They were too late and from what I recall they did not do it. No investigator has ever said they did it. Indeed, the investigator said there was no evidence that they did that. I am sorry that this bugs you but it is the way it is.
  6. I have not asked you to provide any links. In the cases where I have disagreed with you, you cannot provide such links. What you can provide however, is links to things that seem similar and that you have conflated. For example, Bush stating SH was involved in 9-11. You can't find it. But you can find statements where Bush expressed his concern about Sadaam having potential terrorist connections or interests. You may conflate that to say terrorism from the mideast = 911 bomber. --Blue Tie 20:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Senator Feingold's censure resolution

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070723/cm_thenation/1216694 Will someone please review this and add it? I'm not 100% comfortable editing pages yet but I suppose I'll take a stab at it in a few days if nobody else does.Brotherchristian 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No response, no objections. I'm adding it. Brotherchristian 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just added it, then moved it from "5.2 Politicians and Gov't officials" to "2.1 Democrats in Congress." Any objections to putting 2.1 in chronological order and making it a bullet list? Brotherchristian 20:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Documentable proof that there is a Movement to Impeach Bush.

In the above section ("59 Senator Feingold's censure resolution") the website referenced includes a significant sub-item that will finally lay to rest the argument "There is no movement to impeach Bush." Note the following excerpt (emphasis added):

Censure is not the cure. Impeachment is. But censuring Bush and Cheney ought not be seen as a compromise, or an insufficient response to the crisis. It is a senatorial compliment to the burgeoning movement for impeachment -- a movement that today delivered petitions with more than 1,000,000 signatures to Congressman John Conyers appealing to him to begin impeachment proceedings.

Here it is worth noting the WP page on [Political movement] which states "'...a political movement aims to convince citizens and/or government officers to take action on the issues and concerns which are the focus of the movement." When one million citizens take the time to sign a petition advocating a specific activity that is unmistakeably an active political movement by any definition. Low Sea 11:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh.. you did not pay attention to your own reference. This is not a movement to impeach Bush. This is a movement to SEEK impeachment. There is no movement to impeach Bush. --Blue Tie 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hold on! It doesn't matter whether we believe a movement to impeach exists or not. There are plenty of reliable sources that express that there is a movement to impeach, see the extensive list of references that I put forward when we discussed it earlier. That should have settled the matter, but now we are back to it again. This is becoming unproductive.Terjen 01:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it was not settled then. You are not recalling the discussion correctly. What is unproductive is this page. There is no movement to impeach Bush.--Blue Tie 01:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of sources refer to a movement to impeach, or a similar phrase, as shown in the earlier discussion and elsewhere. Whether you (or I) think it isn't a movement is irrelevant. Hence, claims on this discussion page that there is no movement to impeach Bush can safely be ignored. Terjen 05:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Opinions by inconsequential people who want to DECLARE that they are a movement are not good sources. Blogs in particular are not good sources. That you can cite 40 blogs does not mean that these are reliable sources. --Blue Tie 20:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
However, I didn't "cite 40 blogs" refering to a movement to impeach or a similar phrase. A few of the references might be categorized as Blogs, specifically Raw Story and The Huffington Post, several were published op-eds (not letters to the editor), and some were articles, newsstories and editorials from mainstream media. These were all from a quick sample based on a Google News search back in May, and included Reuters[88], Washington Post[89], CNN[90], The Seattle Times, The Nation, Salon, The Baltimore Chronicle, Barre Montpelier Times Argus, as well as local TV News and smaller local papers. Other perhaps less prominent yet hardly "inconsequential" sources included FAIR, CounterPunch, Democracy Now, John Nichols, Norman Solomon, Howard Zinn, John W. Dean, Ramsey Clark, Paul Craig Roberts, David Swanson, and Dave Lindorff. Apparently quite a few think there is a movement to impeach, and we can cover that, whether or not we individually would label it a movement. Terjen 23:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
More recently, Bill Moyers of PBS wrote that "There’s a movement for impeachment"[91]. Others that recently has mentioned the movement includes Walter Brasch - "the movement for impeachment has gained credibility and strength"[92]; John Nichols - "burgeoning movement for impeachment"[93]; Boston Herald - "faces a nascent censure and impeachment movement" [94]; Amy Goodman - "a grassroots movement for impeachment has been rapidly building"[95]; Terjen 00:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have not looked at all of your sources.. I did a sample. Here is what I found: Blogs, opinions, editorials or the error of amphibole. I have not found a source that clearly and unambiguously discusses in sufficient detail to be conclusive and with all elements considered, the question "Does a Movement to Impeach" exist. You can produce hundreds of blogs, opinions, editorials, self declarations or amphibole, but that does not prove the point. Do you not understand what I am saying? There really is no movement to impeach. There is at best, a movement to encourage or seek impeachment. Or as someone else pointed out.. there are efforts to encourage impeachment. THAT I would entirely agree with, though there could be other problems with the page.--Blue Tie 17:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not you or I think there really is a "movement to impeach" is irrelevant. As was my intention of compiling the list, there are plenty of reliable sources that label what you call "efforts to encourage impeachment" using terms like "movement to impeach" or "impeachment movement", and that's sufficient.Terjen 20:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, blogs, editorials, self reference and poor construction do not adequately support the contention. Its not reliable sourcing.--Blue Tie 02:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Terjen, honestly at this point I think he just realizes how annoying it is that he keeps saying "There is no movement to impeach Bush." He's said it verbatim at least once on at least his last 6 posts. He's trying to "get your goat" for lack of a better term. 68.45.171.156 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Or alternatively, I believe what I am saying and I maintain my position. --Blue Tie 20:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You can still be a productive editor on this page even if you don't think there is a "movement to impeach". Just like Creationists can be productive editors on the entry on Evolution, at least as long as they avoid repeated rants on its talk page that there are no evolution and that the entry thus should be deleted. Terjen 23:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the responsibilities of good editing is to reject bad articles. --Blue Tie 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, it is great and fine that you believe what you are saying. Nobody doubts your genuinity. And that you maintain your position is duly noted. However, the fact that you maintain your position does not add anything to the discussion, so it does not need to be repeated. I think that was anon's point. Also, that repeating it doesn't make it more or less right anymore than it adds any new information to the discussion.
Now that Terjen was able to cite and quote 40 blogs all saying pretty much the same thing is pretty impressive. And you must admit, does prove beyond a doubt one rather significant thing: that there are at least 40 blogs saying this thing.
Terjen was also able to cite numerous, authoritave sources to support his argument. All of which are easily verifiable. In so doing, Terjen has satisfied the verifiability criteria for a wikipedia article. Remember, wikipedia is not about what's "true", but, rather, about what's "verifiable".
And if you look at the WP page on Political movement, it states that "'...a political movement aims to convince citizens and/or government officers to take action on the issues and concerns which are the focus of the movement.". It is not the action itself. It is that which aims to convince citizens and/or government officers to take such action. A movement to impeach is not the impeachment proceedings. Were there impeachment proceedings, a political movement to compel such proceedings would be completely superfluous. Why would one seek to compel proceedings that are already taking place? I think what you are referring to would be appropriately titled "The impeachment proceedings of George W. Bush". However, that is not the title of this article. And that is not what this article is about. I think you are getting the two confused, or that you misunderstand the definition of a political movement. Kevin Baastalk 18:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


We differ substantially on several matters. First, I think it adds to the discussion for me to repeat a basic fact that is otherwise being ignored. Second, our views of what is impressive are substantially different. I am not the least bit impressed by blogs. Furthermore, you quote wikipedia, but wikipedia is not a good source for wikipedia per wikipedia's own rules. Finally, what I am referring to in my objections would appropriately be called "Movement to impeach George W. Bush", which is exactly the title of this article and the reason I object to it. I would not have that objection if the article were called "Calls to have George Bush impeached". I am not the least bit confused on this matter. --Blue Tie 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
What you are refering to would be called "impeachment proceedings", and by your logic, we'd have to rename the "civil rights movement" to something like "calls to have civil rights". That's not to say the civil rights movement on the movement to impeach george w. bush is at all comparable in size/strength. your logic isn't one of size/strength (quantity), but one of quality. the civil rights movement was not a movement that started in congress, so by your logic, it shouldn't be classified as a political movement. Kevin Baastalk 01:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No, what I am referring to would be called a "movement to impeach" or "actions to impeach". By my logic there would be no need to rename the civil rights movement to anything else. This has nothing to do with size or strength. A movement to impeach Bush would necessarily be tiny yet could be successful. I do not think you are following my logic at all. --Blue Tie 05:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of Semantics

Blue Tie: I have been reviewing your many posts on this discussion and it seems clear to me that your concern is in the validity (or lack thereof) of the article as per WP quality standards, starting with the Title. Fair enough. You also offered potentially valid criticism of my semantics on the definition of "movement" as it related to "groundswell". Let us begin then by seeing if we can iron out the semantics that seem to be at issue. Here are some questions on your posts for which I am seeking clarification:

1. My analysis of your posts suggests that it is your position that a "movement to impeach" does not exist unless there is an active House Resolution to Impeach, validly initiated by a member of Congress. Is that a correct assessment?

2. Furthermore, if such a motion were actually before the House (or at least in a Committee) would you then cease to state "there is no movement to impeach"?

In some of your posts you have talked about "people who simply do not count in the discussion", "a list of people's rants (most who have no say in the matter)", "folks who have no direct control over impeachment", and most notably "It is a legal matter that is entirely in the control of the House."

3. Is it your belief that citizen constituents have no power over their elected Representatives?

The WP definition of the term Political movement states (in part):

A political movement may be organized around a single issue or set of issues, or around a set of shared concerns of a social group. In contrast with a political party, a political movement is not organized to elect members of the movement to government office; instead, a political movement aims to convince citizens and/or government officers to take action on the issues and concerns which are the focus of the movement.

Political movements are an expression of the struggle for the political space and benefits. These are an expression of the contentions in a polity.

4. Do you accept the aforementioned definition of a "political movement"? If not, how would you define this term?

The clear answers to these four questions should serve well to allow this discussion to move forward. Thank you. Low Sea 15:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for the questions. I think you are closer to understanding my point than many folk are. Let me clarify per your questions.
1. I do not think that a movement is only composed of a resolution. I think that a movement would not even require a bill in Congress. I believe that it could emerge out of several means: A growing sentiment among a number of Representatives... with at least 40 or 50 (about 10%) on firm official record demanding it (and this would be even stronger if there were at least 5 or 10 that were not of the same party) would be one way to demonstrate a movement -- particularly if it were growing.
Alternatively a proposed bill with a review in committee that includes hearings and witnesses. That would be a movement to impeach. I do not think that it has to go to a full vote... the movement could die. Or it could go to a vote and die there. Or it could succeed with a vote to impeach. But I do not think a movement to impeach exists outside of Congress (the House), since only the House has the power to impeach. I also think that if it goes to committee without any hearings and it just dies, that there was never really a movement, just an presumption of one. Too many things take that route to call it a valid "thing" (i.e. "movement").
2. Yes, if there were a legitimate movement in Congress, I would not object. However, I would consider MOST of THIS page to be irrelevant to THAT topic.
3. It is my opinion that they have no power "over" their representatives, but that they have influence "with" their representatives, generally in proportion to the voting population that they may represent, or in connection with the dollars invested in election campaigns. (Representatives have their own views and it helps if they match with the folk they are talking to as well).
4. I think that's an "ok" definition of political movement. However, I do not think that because something meets a definition it is thus inherently encyclopedic. In the context of this discussion, I would still consider the article to be a cruft and tripe (and possibly a POV fork with uncorrectable POV problems) but at least it would be named appropriately if it were called "The political movement to seek the impeachment of George W. Bush". Even without pov problems, I would still consider it unencyclopedic - trivial. But that's a matter of judgment and reasonable people can differ on that opinion. I generally am opposed to articles that appear to be like dust magnets -- attracting all kinds of cruft from folks with an axe to grind.
Hope that helps. --Blue Tie 20:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that does help. I do not fully agree with your position but at least now we are on the same page and can have a meaningful dialog. What I say next is not an attack on you, just a clarification of what seems to have happened in this discussion:

The bold-faced statement "There is no movement to impeach" was crystal clear to you but to others it seemed a blatant refusal to acknowledge the realities of what is happening on the political landscape. Consider if you will that I only became clued-in to what you really meant after you contrasted "movement to impeach" with "movement to seek impeachment" -- this was a fine point of distinction at first glance because I was (and still am) looking at the word "movement" in the context of popular/grassroots/political movements (I will say more on this later).
Similarly others here were seemingly (unknowingly) contrasting "no movement to impeach" with "no movement at all (related to impeachment)" and seeing them as the same idea. My analysis of the posts make it clear that it appeared to many here that you were living in a state of denial when in fact we were having a fundamental failure to communicate.
Put succinctly, you meant there is no movement in Congress but others thought you meant there is no movement in America .

As for my position on this article's validity I find there is room for improvement but I will have to disagree with you on many of your points of concern, however - before starting that discussion I urge you to read the "twin brother" of this article located at sourcewatch.org [96]. It is far more encyclopedic and NPOV than this article. Pay particular attention to sections 3.1 and 3.2 of that article. Low Sea 02:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would summarize differently. There is no movement in Congress or in America to impeach -- because they are the same thing. I would not disagree that there is a "movement" of sorts to seek or encourage impeachment. I did not know about this other article and now I wonder, even more, why this article does not have that title. The other article is PERFECTLY titled. --Blue Tie 16:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Some observations:

  1. A President can be impeached and usually that process is called impeachment of X (X being the person involved)
  2. There may be no actual impeachment proceedings yet there may be groups (in Congress, organisations, private citizens) insisting such proceedings should be initiated. One might refer to this a movement to impeach.
  3. Movement to impeach is not equal to impeachment proceedings.
  4. The moment impeachment proceedings are started there no longer is a movement but there effectively is impeachment.
  5. The points 1 and 2 are seperate and may even exist without the other.

It would seem certain editors feel that point 2 is impossible without point 1 because they are the same thing. Clearly it is possible for people to advocate for impeachment without it actually happening. To insist that in such a situation there is no movement to impeach is a misunderstanding of point 3. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


I agree with #1 (partly), 2 (partly) 3 and 5. I disagree with 1 (partly), 2 (partly) and 4.

A better statement of facts would be:

  1. A President can be impeached.
  2. Once successfully accomplished (that is once the charges are successfully agreed upon and brought forward), this is called impeachment.
  3. Proceedings to debate and vote on these charges are called "Impeachment Proceedings".
  4. There may be no actual impeachment proceedings yet there may be groups insisting such procedings may be initiated.
  5. One might falsely refert to this as a "movement to impeach".
  6. The US Government is a Republic.
  7. The power to impeach exists solely within Congress, not with the people.
  8. A movement to impeach requires the certain participation of Congress
  9. A movement to seek impeachment (Or efforts to promote impeachment proceedings) may only require two men and a dog-- who do not even have to be US Citizens.
  10. "Movement to impeach" is not identical to "impeachment proceedings".
  11. "Movement to seek impeachment" or "Efforts to promote impeachment prodeedings" are not identical with "Movement to impeach"
  12. Prior to impeachment proceedings there may be a "movement to impeach".
  13. The moment impeachment proceedings start, the movement is in high gear.
  14. The moment impeachment proceedings end, the movement to impeach typically but does not necessarily come to an end.

It would seem that certain editors insist that there is a "movement to impeach" but that requires a profound misunderstanding of point #6. --Blue Tie 00:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Blue Tie, you've had ample opportunity to make your case for the necessity of changing the article's title. I think it's pretty clear that you've failed to persuade anything close to a majority of editors, and you've expended all your ammunition on this point. I hardly think it's necessary to rebut your last response to Nomen Nescio. Was that supposed to be a logical argument? You slipped in an unsubstantiated assertion of your disputed conclusion as "fact" in the middle of a bunch of irrelevant non-sequiturs! This is a misguided, pedantic argument that has become tiresome, to the point of being disruptive, whether or not that is your intention. Why not carry this absurdity further and argue that the article really should be entitled "the movement to persuade Congress to have George Bush impeached, convicted, and evicted from the White House"? There is no sign of confusion among the general public as to what is meant by the "Movement to impeach George W. Bush", and regardless of your assertions to the contrary, the simpler title is neither inaccurate nor misleading. At this point, I encourage others to vote here with your signatures, so we can put an end to this particular argument. - JCLately 04:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You claim I have had ample opportunity. I do not agree. That biased editors do not agree with me is no shock (is it a shock to you?). However, I have not expended all of my ammo. LOL. Why do you think you can dictate my abilities to me? Its ok with me if you do not want to rebutt an argument. It was a logical argument of sorts, but if you think the logic was bad, I do not mind since it was a copy of the logic I was responding to --- only a better version. That you consider my arguments disruptive does not make them disruptive. You can simply not pay any attention to them. The reason I would not argue for your version of the title is that it is not compact and lean. It can be expressed better. In addition, it may be incorrect. Whether there is a sign of confusion or there is no sign of confusion would require original research. I am not interested in a vote. Wikipedia does not work by votes. Thanks for your interest. --Blue Tie 05:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll take that as your vote. The score currently stands at 1 to 1. Let's see how it goes... - JCLately
You demonstrate an inability to correctly tally votes. I have not voted and you are not authorized to cast my vote for me. Your blatant efforts to squelch free speech are simply not appropriate on wikipedia. That is not how wikipedia operates, even if you want it to and the vote is not binding. --Blue Tie 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, if it makes you happy, I'll take that as an abstention. - JCLately
Again, you demonstrate an inability to correctly tally votes. (And there are even bigger problems with your poll). I have not abstained. --Blue Tie 05:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm flattered that you made the only other possible choice, but I wouldn't want to take advantage of you. - JCLately
There are many choices here and I have made several. It is not clear to me that you have detected any of them, but there is no cause for you to feel flattered. It is simply my nature to make choices. --Blue Tie 05:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I see you also have a sense of humor. - JCLately 05:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. You can see an example here though it may not be obvious at first. --Blue Tie 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no argument

In Jefferson's Manuel section LIII,603,of the Rules of the House of Representatives it states "impeachment may be set in motion by charges preferred by a memorial,which is usually referred to a committee for examination." Petitions are addressed to the House which could be presented by the Speaker or a Member.The first definition of movement in the free encyclopedia is motion.Go ahead,read it again.Thousands of petitions have been signed and the movement to impeach George W. Bush continues as history seeks its course.Eonblu 06:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that :"impeachment may be set in motion by charges preferred by a memorial,which is usually referred to a committee for examination." but not because it is in Jefferson's Manual. Although petitions are addressed to the House, they are irrelevant to impeachment. Nothing happens until the charges are "preferred" as described above, and as you describe, the first definition of movement is "motion" but there has been no motion to impeach George Bush. What you probably should have said is "the movement to motivate impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush continues its march into the dust bin of history." --Blue Tie 06:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So then in hindsight you would have no quarrel if the name given to this page was: The movement to start a movement to impeach George W. Bush.Am I correct.Eonblu 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that might be technically correct but I would object to that as soon as I got my seat in the Department of Redundancy Department. Instead, I would suggest something like, "Movement to motivate impeachment proceedings". Or "Efforts to Encourage the Impeachment" or something like that. --Blue Tie 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Saturday Night Massacre

For those objecting to the link, and for whatever reason prohibited to read the sources in the paragraph, I have provided some references. Please note, your personal feelings the link is not to be used are irrelevant since, as policy demands, there are sources making the connection.

  • Questions for Karl Rove – and President Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman and Cynthia L. Cooper
The stealth dismissal of U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration carries echoes of the Nixon administration firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox in 1973. .... Cox was investigating White House misdeeds when Nixon told Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire him. Richardson refused and resigned, as did Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. Third-in-charge, Robert Bork, complied, and the “Saturday Night Massacre,” as it was called, came to epitomize an imperial administration, acting above the law and using its power to interfere with legitimate processes of justice.[97]
  • Deconstructing the Dispute over the Politicization of U.S. Attorney Firings: The News Stories, the Testimony, and What Should Happen Next
Some Democrats portray these developments as an enormous scandal, which has overpoliticized U.S. Attorney hiring and firing -- even analogizing the forced resignations to the "Saturday Night Massacre."[98]
  • Firings raise concern over Justice Dept. and politics - Gonzales admits mistakes were were made, but he stands by dismissal of federal prosecutors
"What comes to everybody's mind is the Saturday Night Massacre, the president not liking what an independent prosecutor is supposed to do and firing him, said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor.[99]
  • Prosecutor fired so ex-Rove aide could get his job
"What happened here doesn't sound like business as usual; it appears more reminiscent of a different sort of Saturday night massacre," Schumer said, referring to Watergate-era firings at Justice that were ordered by President Nixon.[100]
  • Capitol Hill Showdown Looms Over U.S. Attorney Scandal as Bush Refuses to Let Officials Testify Under Oath
Again, we were down that road in Watergate with the Saturday Night Massacre.[101]
  • President and Congress clash over Justice Department dismissals
The Bush administration’s sudden firing of eight chief federal prosecutors around the country has provoked a congressional inquiry, heavy news coverage and recollections of an infamous 1973 Justice Department shakeup known as “the Saturday night massacre.”[102]
  • Executive privilege must not derail probe
If even one U.S. attorney was fired because he or she failed to yield to political pressure in an ongoing case, the administration was sending the message department-wide that it was willing — perhaps even anxious — to pervert justice for political gain. That, of course, is beyond presidential prerogative. President Richard Nixon learned as much when he fired Attorney General Archibald Cox to prevent him from pursuing the Watergate investigation during the “Saturday Night Massacre” some 35 years ago.[103]
  • Showdown in the hospital[105]

Since we have sufficient sources supporting the link I will restore it. Please do not remove it again as removing sourced material may be seen as tendentious editing and disruptive editing. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Even with those sources, it is not handled correctly in the article. Instead. it should be expressed as a quoted opinion ("Some Democrats portray these developments as an enormous scandal, which has overpoliticized U.S. Attorney hiring and firing -- even analogizing the forced resignations to the "Saturday Night Massacre.") instead of as a direct link without explanation that this is NOTHING like the Saturday Night Massacre. (What is true is that some people have made the analogy. What is not true is that the analogy is apt or appropriate-- its nonsense).--65.183.218.42 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No valid reason advanced to ignore sources. The fact you feel there is no connection, or it is not the same, is not an argument. Sources that is what WP is about not your opinion or mine. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Could somebody inform GATXER/65.183.218.42 that removing sourced material is bad form, as is using sockpuppets to mislead us into thinking more editors share his disruptive editing style. Again GATXER I demand you stop being uncivil and adhere to what you have been told. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 20:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Well Editor N....you have now posted more lies....my IP is not 65.183.218.42 and never has been any Admin can see that. Could someone tell me what board I can refer his lies to for punishment? I'm sure there is one for people who tell lies about sockpuppets with no evidence except what they want to believe. I don't care what a guy who call Bush the Fuhr and then edits Bush pages with is sick POV. Unless you are a Admin...you cant Demand ANYTHING! If you are so desperate that you need to lie about me.....maybe you should check into medical help. While I think the Sat Night doesnt belong at all...I could live with what Blue Tie edits did putting it in the section and not at the top. The resons for it being on the page are just silly and POV....but if it must be there...put in by a Bully.....left it be in the base and not at top....unless we are going to add links for every guy who ever left office. GATXER 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I am a doctor. And in my professional opinion the above comment is evidence of the lack of coherent thought by this increasingly disruptive editor. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The above statement is a violation of professional ethics guidelines agreed to by mental health professionals. It is also a violation of wikipedia rules of discourse. --13:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
...huh huh... he said "check into medical help"... huh huh...68.45.171.156 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that the existence of sources is not the only criteria for inclusion. My first question is, what relevance does the attorney firings have to the movement to impeach the President? Do any of these reliable sources mention that this is a reason or motivation for impeachment? If not, then this information is irrelevant to this article, and including it is POV, and a synthesis of thought advancing a position (original research). - Crockspot 12:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
None of the mention a movement to impeach but they do provide opinions (they are oped or blog type sources) for supporting impeachinment. They are inherently biased sources and there is not other side presented. The sections is pov--Blue Tie 13:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. We have one op ed piece, and some ranting on partisan websites. Nothing here convinces me that this is other than the view of an extreme partisan minority, and so much coverage violates WP:UNDUE. Which brings me to problem number two, and this goes beyond just this section. There are wikilinks at the top of each section that go to articles that cover these events in minute detail. Normally, in a case like this, you would have the links to the "main article", and just a short summary of what is at those links. I would also tie these events to the impeachment movement here too. This should only require two short paragraphs, plus sources. There is way too much detail in this article, that is covered better elsewhere. Keeping them all in sync with each other is a nightmare. - Crockspot 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if Editor N is a Dr...which I doubt......he cant be a good one based on his own actions......most Dr. dont lie!. It should also be pointed out that on HIS block list which is long....he was once blocked for being a sockpuppet. As for POV Editor N doesnt care as long as it his POV.....what others say means nothing to him....and he will keep making POV edits....if his past record shows nothing it shows that at least. GATXER 14:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Intro - Aug 4

The first section of this article must state that this is a minority-led movement. This is not a mainstream topic. Please use the 9/11 conspiracy page as a reference for this page. The terms "some people..." (etc.) need to be used. This article is not legitimate when the writing does not qualify the people (or lack thereof) in this movement.

I stumbled across this page randomly — I'm glad I did. This page needs to become more neutral. Timneu22 19:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

According to public opinion polls, the movement could be construed as just-barely minority or just-barely majority...68.45.171.156 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I assume by "minority-led" you don't mean to suggest that the Republican party is behind it! Seriously, though, I think your comparison to the 9/11 conspiracy theory reveals a considerable misapprehension of the magnitude of popular sentiment in favor of impeachment. You asked for citations supporting the poll figures: a separate section of this article is devoted to that topic, including cites, which you can easily confirm. While I wasn't being serious about the "Republican conspiracy" to impeach, I hope you appreciate the point - the insertion of "minority" is either trivial, or it disguises a speculative judgment as relevant fact. Of course the "actions and commentary" by people on any subject represents a minority, since most people have not acted or commented at all, so in that sense the meaning is trivial. Of those who have acted or commented, have the majority opposed impeachment? Perhaps, but it would be misleading to assert as factual, and this really isn't the central issue. The movement to impeach George W. Bush includes such actions and commentary, but more broadly, it refers to a general public sentiment, which may be inferred, but can hardly be asserted as a quantifiable fact. The verifiable facts, duly summarized in this introduction, could be paraphrased "polls tend to indicate that more than a quarter and fewer than half currently advocate impeachment". However, there is no justification for simply inserting the unqualified word "minority" as you have done. - JCLately 21:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I generally do not agree with using adjectives in wikipedia. And this would be an adjective. --Blue Tie 22:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. - JCLately 22:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, this is not an ongoing news story or something that is being covered. I'm an independent and quite neutral on the whole American political system... there just really isn't an important movement for his impeachment. This article is quite unbalanced. It is giving life to something that doesn't really exist. You gung-ho editors are clearly from the left. I'm trying to keep this article neutral. If someone clicks "random article" to get here — as I did — they'll read this and say, really? There's a movement to impeach him?. This was my reaction, too. It's just not a mainstream reality. Timneu22 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article is unbalanced in a variety of ways. I also think it is not a very good article for an encyclopedia. At best, it is incorrectly titled. But it is popular now, to imagine that somehow this might happen. In a couple of years, Bush will be out of office in the normal course of events. and this article will look silly. Meanwhile it could certainly be less pov. Among other things its way too long... violation of WP:FIVE and WP:NOT. --Blue Tie 05:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well perhaps there's a small movement! Look what was found in the The Washington Post today... a liberal journalist who basically calls the movement a worthless joke. It's nice to have references. Timneu22 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I presume you intended to refer to the opinion piece The Dumbest Move the Dems Could Make by Michael Tomasky. I don't think you summarized his point by stating that he "basically calls the movement a worthless joke". In constrast, he seems to fear it, writing that politically "Impeachment is not merely a bad idea, but the single worst course of action that Democrats could possibly undertake". Terjen 23:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
In any case, it's worth having something resembling neutrality in multiple places in the article, instead of hiding this information in one little section. Timneu22 00:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The first subsection in the entry leads with Pelosi's position against impeachment. Terjen 05:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the movement itself has been called The Dumbest Move the Dems Could Make by liberal journalist Michael Tomasky. This is not sufficiently notable to mention in the intro. Terjen 05:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You just beat me to it. I was making the same edit myself when the text disappeared under my feet. Neutrality is not achieved by piling on an equal measure of opposing POV, without regard to notability. A better way to assure the fairness and neutrality of the intro is to stick to relevant facts, presented without extra spin. - JCLately 05:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Terjen, I see that you also beat me to another edit - removing the re-inserted "minority" in the first sentence - thank you. Timneu22 - I hope you can see that we are trying to be fair and balanced about this: the numbers speak for themselves. I gave you a cogent argument why that adjective (in this case a noun used as an adjective) was not called for in this context. Your justification based on poll figures misses the point. Please read my previous comments carefully. The way you inserted the word comes off as unnecessary spin - or "counter-spin". - JCLately 06:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutlely not being fair and balanced. My last edit to this awful article will be to re-insert "minority" into the header. You're not thinking about the first-time reader. Someone who logs in from India for the first time and cruises to this article may read the intro and think, "wow, they're impeaching Bush!" No they aren't. There is simply a minority that thinks it should happen. I will NOT edit this again, so long as "minority" stays in the intro. Timneu22 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The intro already explicitely states that the House of Representatives has taken no action to impeach Bush. Besides, including "minority" in the lead does not make this any clearer. I will remove the term myself if reinserted, and consider it a bonus that you may stick around and perhaps provide valueable contributions to the article as you get more familiar with the subject. Terjen 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the Impeach bush page

It is very neutral. Just the facts. I wonder why people are uncomfortable with the truth?

Robert

Whether it is neutral or not (it is not), is irrelevant to whether it should stay. It is simply unencyclopedic and it details something that does not exist -- in essence it is a lie. --Blue Tie 11:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
For whatever reason there are numerous articles detailing non-existent entities, i.e. Valhalla, Ragnarök, Satan. Please advise as to why we should have those. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not a reasonable argument. Mythology is a basis of literature, culture and religion. An article that is, in essence, a lie, does not compare. --Blue Tie 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Robert, it's fairly common knowledge that conservative republicans not only do not like being told the truth, but in fact have a lot of contempt for those who tell it, as is illustrated here. Brotherchristian 11:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I just lurk mostly do to my feelings about this subject but just wanted to say something. I know three times this has come up for deletion and it has failed. But keep in mind; even if people wanted to impeach him, and yes many do including me, there is not enough time in his term to accomplish this. I think this article is very not encyclopedic and serves no just cause other than Bush bashing. I can't believe I said that! But it's true. If there comes a time for any kind of action against him, then maybe something like this might be appropriate. Of course, this is just my opinion. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Crohnie, to my knowledge there's nobody here who actually believes the impeachment will happen-- I certainly don't because for one there's not nearly enough congressional votes to remove him from office even if he were impeached, and like you stated, there's not enough time. Many believe it would be political suicide - I certainly see the rationale, not sure if I agree or not. The question is, "Is there enough sentiment for impeachment to make it worth mentioning," and I believe there certainly is. Actions within the government and private sectors prove that, and the very mention of the word by several congressmen cement it further. An earlier poster stated that a stranger from India would read this and say "They're impeaching bush" - I don't think they would or should think that from reading this page. They should conclude "Wow, a *LOT* of Americans want to impeach Bush, and are trying to impeach Bush" a statement which is both true and very noteworthy for present and future generations. Brotherchristian 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
O.K. I'm really confused here. Several months ago we had a discussion over whether to keep or delete the page. As you can see from looking at it, there was roughly a 2 to 1 consensus to delete the page. So why is it still here? I'm still mostly a lurker, but I didn't know that something else was required. Hadoren 05:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The article was not tagged during that debate. All 3 debates in which it was tagged yielded results remarkably in favor of "Keep."
People, don't be silly. If the article needs work lets clean it up. But this argument "The movement doesn't exist" is just... well, silly. Brotherchristian 13:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no movement to impeach Bush. The article should actually be deleted because it is unencyclopedic. But if kept it should be renamed. --Blue Tie 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we know Blue. What a compelling argument. Just a few dozen lefty nut-jobs in Vermont, right? You forgot to use either "Tripe" or "Cruft" in that post. Brotherchristian 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No, did not forget. They just were not relevant to the issue under discussion. --Blue Tie 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It shall be renamed "The movement to give Blu tie something to do at night"Eonblu 02:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no logical rationale to remove the page. Some of us (ahem) are simply wrapping their point of view in the disguise of "improving Wikipedia quality." There's no way you can read the article and concede that the reports therein are true-- And again if there are any lies, half-truths or exhaggerations lets fix them-- and conclude that a movement doesn't exist. Perhaps we can split hairs and argue that it's not a movement by definition, but that's as far as a logical argument can possibly take you.
No, what we have here folks is, at best, a case of willful ignorance. But I don't believe that its even that. More likely it's people who so firmly believe that Bush doesn't deserve to be impeached that they'll say anything to get the article deleted. If you read from the top you'll see one argument for deletion after another absolutely dismantled, then a new, unrelated, but equally silly rationale emerges. This will continue for eternity until posters are threatening to throw bubbly-gum in your hair if it's not deleted. But as for the posters themselves- The more intelligent among them must realize how ridiculous they sound arguing that a movement (or something like it) doesn't exist. Brotherchristian 00:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is logical rationale to remove the page. But this is not about logic as you demonstrate -- for you it is emotional. Look at how you attack others rather than focus on the page content. That is emotion. This page is too long on a topic that does not really exist. There is no movement to impeach Bush. There is at best a bunch of folks who want there to be a movement to impeach Bush. But that is not the same as there actually being one. --Blue Tie 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Generally when someone wants something to remain the same (in this case me), the avenue is to refute the arguments of those who want it to change. "The article's content is evidence of a movement. The article consists of true facts. The movement, or whatever we choose to call it, is significant and notable." What more can be said on a "Keep the article" platform? It would be moot for me to attempt to explain why a movement exists because all I'd be doing is reitterating the article's content. Brotherchristian 00:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is evidence of a movement... but not a movement to impeach. I have never argued that there was no movement. There just is no movement to impeach. A movement to protest maybe. And ... It is not particularly significant or notable. Its cruft. --Blue Tie 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok this is my take, this article should now be put up for deletion to get a larger group of opinions. The last AFD (there where three times) was to keep but here are the dates when this happened. Keep, AfD 31 July 2005. Keep, AfD 12 May 2006. Keep, AfD 19 October 2006. As can be seen this was done last year. Maybe a new speedy delete should be attempted to see what the thought is about this article now. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
OK with me. I doubt the results will be any different, but if they are, the majority speaks and I go quietly into the night. Unfortunately I worry that if it ever is removed it will be for all the wrong reasons. Brotherchristian 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe it should be put up for deletion yet. I have said that repeatedly. I have said it should be deleted, but that because it is popular, it will not be. So we must wait a few years when it will be so obviously silly. It will look like a rainbow Afro Wig in a couple of years -- very silly -- because there is no movement to impeach and there isn't even much of a movement to create a movement to impeach. This is a non-player. Non-encyclopedic. But it is exactly the sort of thing that youthful, liberal, cruft loving wikipedians want to see. --Blue Tie 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
BrotherChristian, you stated that "The article was not tagged during that debate. All 3 debates in which it was tagged yielded results remarkably in favor of 'Keep.' " Now, I'm not sure if you and I are looking at the same link here. The link I posted (here) says Category:Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Also, the conclusion was reached that "The result of the debate was delete. Just because there are several people who wish to impeach them does not mean they are "grouped" as a movement. In fact most of those people are unrelated. >Radiant< 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)" There was definitely consensus (11 to 5) to delete the article. Edit: Sorry, I made a mistake; I thought that the title Category wasn't part of the article being discussed. Hadoren 03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I can follow that logic to a point, but I guess the question is, who decides what is encyclopedic or not, and what is the procedure? The only benchmark I can think of is "Would this be appropriate for a tradional, paper encyclopedia?" The answer to which is no, it wouldn't -- A category that probably half or more of the articles on Wiki fall into. You must remember that Wiki is not bound by the constraints of a traditional encyclopedia. It can be browsed at will, extra articles do not impede users from finding the information they seek, and the storage space is infinate for all intents and purposes. You must also remember that Wiki is more than an encyclopedia, it's a current events venue as well. The paper encyclopedias of coming generations will not have an article titled "Movement to impeach George W. Bush", but a good deal of the information in this article will be present in "George W. Bush," perhaps under a heading of "Calls for impeachment." This article is more or less a collaboration of links to related information. A paper encyclopedia lacks the luxury of having such a page. Just the same, Impeachpac.org, Feingold, Feinstein, Hagel, the respective polls, etc will all have pages in future encyclopedias, and the majority of the information here will be present, just in a different, less convenient form.
Would it be safe to say, Blue, that a super-streamlined sub-section of "George W. Bush" called "Calls for impeachment," which catalogued super-brief summaries of the information of this page and links to respective pages, would not offend you? If the answer is no, it wouldn't offend you, then why does this page offend you? Brotherchristian 16:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is definitely not a paper encyclopedia. Among other things, this means that it can be more up to date about things. And I agree that many many articles in wikipedia are cruft, although I must bend to the sense that even cruft sometimes has such a wide following that it deserves at least some mention. You hit the nail on the head when you said this article will not exist. You also hit the nail on the head when you said that "it is a collection of links to related information". Which is what wikipedia is NOT supposed to be per WP:NOT. I would say that Bush's article ought to include a section on opposition and that should describe some of the comments or interests in impeachment. That would not offend me. The reason this page offends me is because it is crufty, I think it is misleading, I think it is too long and I think it should be part of the Bush article, not a separate gigantic piece. In essence, it offends me because it is a "popular culture" type of article -- and I hate almost all of those, but this one also impinges on politics in a pov way. So that is my problem with it.--Blue Tie 19:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You may have missed the jist of my argument there. While I do concede that there will be no article titled "Movement to impeach George W. Bush" in future encyclopedias, my point was that despite that fact, it can still be appropriate for Wiki. There are thousands of Wiki articles that fall into this category, usually under a Main article/Sub article format- It's nothing more than separating specific topics within one category to make them easier to access. A paper encyclopedia does not have the luxury of being organized in this fashion because there's a finite amount of storage space and the "sub-article" is not a click away - It must be looked up separately.
Anyway, if I'm understanding you properly, I gather that 1. You do concede that the article is factual, and 2. The facts are not exhaggerated or half-truths, however, you feel that 1. The article itself is presented in a way that exhaggerates the gravity of the movement (or whatever), and 2. The "Movement" is not a "Movement to impeach" by definition. Are those the only two things?
If so, would it be agreeable to everyone if the article was renamed "Calls for Impeachment of George W. Bush" and made a sub-article of George W. Bush, with a "Calls for Impeachment" section in the dubya page with a link to the calls for impeachment article, and a streamlined (say, 15 lines or less) version on the dubya page, with "Movement to Impeach George W. Bush" redirecting to to the calls for impeachment page? That'd be fine with me. Brotherchristian 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I would not say that I concede the article is factual. More correctly, I have not questioned the factual nature of the information presented. I think that some of the facts may be exaggerated or half truths. But I have not examined that either and have not bothered to question them, though sometimes I have read them and said "thats messed up". I do not say that the article is presented in a way that exaggerates the movement or whatever.. I would say that the article itself is an exaggeration of the movement or whatever. An exaggeration in that there is no Movement to Impeach. I think this deserves a few sentences in the Bush article -- relating to opposition to the Bush Presidency, but probably not more than a paragraph. On the other hand, this article is now larger than articles on Hitler, Jesus, The Koran, China, Abraham Lincoln or the article on George W. Bush himself. This confirms that this article is fancruft -- which I hate. Look at how many justifications for edits on this page or for keeping the page are essentially "I hope that happens so the page needs to stay" as though adulterating the quality of wikipedia will save the world. (It actually hurts). And note, that the very first sentence is original research. But this is the foundation of the article. So I do not like this article for all kinds of reasons. --Blue Tie 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Larouche?

Why are we quoting Lyndon Larouche, as though he is some sort of respectible pundit? 17:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No original research was required to discover the movement to impeach Bush

Blue Tie: I object to your persistent defacement of the lead sentence of this article on the basis of your opinion that a "movement" to impeach Bush does not exist, according to your personal definition. Having failed to persuasively argue that there are insufficient references, you switch to the ploy of claiming that it constitutes "original research", or some other contrived objection. This is not a factual dispute, but a semantic one: I don't see how the question of whether or not something qualifies as a "movement" in the sense of political movement is a matter of "research", original or otherwise. In the face of numerous legitimate references alluding to the movement to impeach Bush, for example those cited by Terjen in the previous discussion, Documentable proof that there is a Movement to Impeach Bush, and none disputing the very existence of such a movement, I see no justification for prominently elevating your bizarre personal opinion on this matter. If you can find a credible reference supporting your contention that a movement to impeach Bush doesn't even exist, not simply that it is weak, unwise, or unlikely to succeed, feel free to cite it in the Criticisms section. However, I doubt that many would consider such an obscure, hair-splitting, semantic debate to have the slightest significance. This preposterous line of argument is entirely unworthy of sullying the article's introduction. - JCLately 04:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you object. We evidently have a disagreement about what constitutes defacement. I am not making any changes to the article based upon my view that a "movement" to impeach Bush does not exist. That is not the issue as I have said several times. And I am not claiming that the existence of a movement is original research. What I am claiming is original research is what the movement is composed of. The opening sentence says the movement is _________. That's fine. I have no problem with that if it can be cited. But if it cannot be cited it is Original Research. This has NOTHING to do with an objection that it does not exist, so please do not refer to that. Instead, focus on the real issue: There is no source for the definition of the "movement". And as a fellow editor, it is entirely appropriate for me to request a citation. This is appropriate per wikipedia's policies on NPOV and Verifiability (which is in support of NPOV). And I do not particularly have a preference for which tag is used: OR or Fact but one of them belongs. I actually prefer Fact to OR.
Here are the policy guidelines that I am referring to:
  • Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. ... Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. -- WP:NPOV
  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. --WP:VER
  • The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. ...Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{Tl|Fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{Refimprove|date=April 2008}} or {{Unreferenced|date=April 2008}}. -- WP:PROVEIT (You will note that is what I am trying to do)
  • Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses -- WP:NOR IN A NUTSHELL
  • Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position ... Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately. ... any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication. --WP:NOR
  • An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: * It defines new terms; * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; -- WP:NOR
You may consider it evil of me to want to exercise the wikipedia standards in wikipedia articles, but I think it is a good thing to do. Everyone is different. So we have a difference of opinion on this. And notice, I am not changing the article. I am only asking, in good faith, for validation of the definition given here of what the "movement" consists of. A reliable source for that definition. And the burden of proof is on those who propose it. There is nothing wrong with challenging an unsourced statement that relies upon synthesis for its validity. --Blue Tie 04:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
One of the things that impresses me about Wikipedia is the amount of thought that went into crafting its policies and guidelines, which are clear and reasonable, while leaving room for editorial discretion and common sense. There is no need for an immediate reference to support the obvious fact that the movement exists as described, especially since this statement is swiftly expanded into a chain of further elaboration and hundreds of supporting references, any one of which would satisfy your request for a citation. There is no cite on the first sentence, because it's not needed, not because of a shortage of references. Offhand, I don't see any single reference that perfectly suits this statement, nor do I see a need for one - at this point. The reader will not find this article wanting for lack of references.
As you are well aware, Wikipedia is based on reaching concensus, yet you have persisted in repeatedly making the same edits that have been shot down multiple times by a number of editors. You're not just in the minority, you are a minority of one. We are advised to assume good faith, but I find it increasingly difficult to explain your behavior as anything but deliberate disruption that serves no constructive purpose. - JCLately 05:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules are not always that great. But they are what they are. I accept them. The policy on NPOV is unambiguous in its pervasiveness and its primacy. It is absolute. No exceptions. All articles. All editors. All subjects. The way to be NPOV is to provide verifiability. Through Reliable Sources. This is very clear. This article does not do that and I think that this is a problem -- a fundamental problem with the article. Notice that in your reply, once again, you do not address the issue. You seem stuck on the idea that the existence of a movement needs a reference. THAT is not the issue. It is the definition. What do I mean by that? Well, the "Movement to Impeach George Bush" might possibly be:
1. A coalition effort by anti-war veterans groups using Facebook.com to seek the impeachment of George Bush on a nationwide basis. (This is actually citable.)
2. A political effort by various Vermont towns to vote for impeachment and seek to have these votes influence the House of Representatives to impeach Bush. (I think that could almost be cited.)
3. A motion or motions made in the House of Representatives (this could be cited but it would mean the article had no purpose if this were the movement.)
4. An alternative Rock/Hip Hop Band, briefly in existence from February to April 2007.
5. A phrased used by bloggers, activists and some press to describe efforts opposing Bush by seeking his impeachment. (To me this is synthesis but perhaps it could be supported).
6. Statements and actions supporting the removal of Bush from Office by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Which of these is the right definition for the phrase? Like you, I might claim it to be any one of these things. But simply claiming it is not enough. That is how the policy works. Original Research in particular, contemplates the "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position", and that could definitely be a factor here. I believe other editors have mentioned it previously. You are simply waving your hand and saying "We do not need to follow policy for citing" -- because you just do not want to. The article has been and is tagged for neutrality issues. This is one way to take care of neutrality problems.
You also claim that the term is "obvious". I say it is only obvious by SYNTHESIS of ideas -- which is defined as Original Research. Looking at it from your perspective you are, I think, making the argument that it is reasonable to make some assumptions and justs pass over them without discussion. Here is wikipedia guidance on that: "there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. --WP:NPOVFAQ But the assumption you are making is not discussed on any other page. It is right here. So it needs to be dealt with, particularly if it is challenged or likely to be challenged. And this page has been challenged quite a bit. Wikipedia guidelines also say: "Though 99% of the world may see something exactly the way you do, still your view is just one of many possible views that might be reasonably held." --WP:NPOVT I read that to say "Do not be so quick to suppose that because you do not agree with me, that I am wrong." The best way to fix the problem I have identified is to provide a cite of the definition from a Reliable Source.
So, you claim that citation is not needed but the policy is very clear. You must absolutely WP:PROVEIT. If this is very easy to do, then why not do it. I personally have tried to find a reference and cannot. But it is not up to me to find it anyway, because I am not asserting the definition. (I am also not removing it, just seeking a citation from a reliable source).
And you are right, wikipedia runs by consensus. But that does not mean Majority Rules. Nor does it mean that NPOV can be overrun by some agreement among editors to do away with it. I have not made changes to the text of the article. I am simply making the appropriate observation that it is uncited. So, as long as I am not changing the text but (recognizing a flaw and) putting an inline request for a citation, per wikipedia policies (which have also been established by consensus) does not, in my mind, violate consensus . If you do not agree, that is fine with me, but it just means we disagree. I can accept that. And really, I have only seen two objections to my request for a cite. So, to me that does not seem like a huge bunch of folks saying "We can suspend wikipedia rules and standards of NPOV and Verifiability for this article". --Blue Tie 12:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead is weak, but at least neutral

The current lead sentence is "The movement to impeach George W. Bush is a political movement advocating the impeachment of United States President George W. Bush."

I am not against this sentence but I consider it to be so simple it is redundant [i.e. "The Movement to impeach George W. Bush is a (political) movement to (seek the) impeach(ment of) George Bush"]. It is "self defining" and in at least that regard, it is neutral. But self definition is really weak. That underscores and highlights the inadequacy of this subject as an encyclopedia article. It really should just be a 2-3 sentence paragraph in the Bush article saying "During his presidency he faced opposition, including people who wanted to see him impeached". --Blue Tie 16:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the lead sentence states the obvious and little more. That's why I previously added the seemingly innocuous "loosely organized", but you then contested this qualification with your mis-quoted Dean reference. Dean didn't say the movement was "highly organized", he said it was "well organized", which I don't regard as particularly notable or contradictory to "loosely organized". That the movement is loosely organized doesn't strike me as a controversial judgment. It also doesn't seem like a point easily cited or worthy of citing - it's pretty obvious, but still adds a shred of additional information to the lackluster first sentence. If someone is going to demand a cite for this minor addition, I'd rather just omit it than besmirch the lead sentence with an obnoxious [citation needed] request. - JCLately 17:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, if it is organized in any way -- loosely or rigorously, we ought to find a cite that says so -- otherwise it is OR. I made a mistake in misquoting Dean. Sorry! You could have corrected it to "well organized". I take no issue with the current sentence either. Its fine. But it highlights the problem with this article. It is an article that is approximately like "People who want speed limits increased". And the lead could be: "People who want speed limits increased are people who express a desire to have speed limits increased". OK, its dumb. But some people might just have an axe to grind about speed limits and so they want to see it in wikipedia. --Blue Tie 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you have painted yourself into a corner with your overly dogmatic interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines, leaving insufficient room for common sense and editorial discretion. Is there really any controversy that the movement is "loosely organized"? I don't read Dean's statement as contradicting this, and I doubt you could find a credible reference on this hypothetical "highly organized" conspiracy. There are plenty of references that support the contention that the movement is loosely organized, but mainly by implication and not necessarily in so many words. It is not reasonable to demand that every single word in a Wikipedia article be cited, or it would become rather tedious, don't you think? Think about it - what reference could possibly be expected to substantiate the claim that a movement is loosely organized? Because someone says so? But if it's loosely organized, no one can speak for the movement as a whole, by definition. Yet it is obvious and non-controversial to make this observation. So I would prefer to add "loosely organized" and leave it at that, without a [citation needed] unless someone produces some obscure but credible reference to the contrary, in which case I would simply amend the qualification to "is generally regarded as loosely organized". Lacking any such contradictory reference, I think it would be best simply to assert the widely agreed-upon fact, which is not the least bit controversial. - JCLately 19:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not think I am in any corner. If there is no controversy that the movement is loosely organized you can find a cite for it. Otherwise that is original research. I personally believe that the term "loosely organized" is pov and is a matter of opinion. I read Dean's statement as opposite to "loosely" organized. But if we just quote people, we do not have to interpret. We can just let the reader decide. Whether it is tedious or not, it is wikipedia's standard that things which are contested must be cited. I would not necessarily expect there to be a cite that credibly describes something as "loosely organized" because that is more of an opinion than a verifiable fact, but I have seen stranger things out of "Reliable Sources" so it is possible. In any case, it is exactly wrong for wikipedia to invent this description. If you put in the reference to "loosely organized" I will want to see a cite. This is not unreasonable. If this article is about something then that something should be well cited. Otherwise, I will prefer the cited opinion of Dean -- that it is -- in his opinion -- "well organized". But it should be credited as his opinion not as an objective fact. --Blue Tie 20:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
You complain that the lead sentence is lacking in informational content, yet it is your own contrived objections that stand in the way of offering the reader a morsel of additional information. "Well organized" is not the opposite of "loosely organized": "tightly organized" or "centrally organized" would be, but that's not what Dean says. A tightly organized movement is not necessarily well organized, and a loosely organized movement might be well organized, in some piecemeal fashion. In any case, it's clear that "well organized" is a value judgment, whereas "loosely" or "tightly" organized is more genuinely descriptive. Many of Dean's comments are noteworthy, but his opinion that the movement is well organized is not a central point of the reference in question, nor does he offer anything to back up that statement, so I would object to the attachment of this controversial description to the lead sentence, with or without the reference.
It does not follow that there must exist a suitable cite for something to be true and clearly evident, when the something in question is an absence - in this case the absence of a tight, centralized organization. If such an organization existed, we would have heard about it: after all, political movements don't try to keep themselves secret. Here is a somewhat random reference that specifically uses the phrase "loosely organized": [106], if that makes you happy. I don't think it merits citing in this context, because the point in question is not sufficiently significant or controversial to warrant an explicit cite. It would look a bit silly to attach this as a footnote to the lead sentence, and I just don't think it's necessary. If you aren't satisfied with my reasoning, I'm content to leave the lead sentence in its present, mildly anemic form. - JCLately 00:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The lead is lacking informational content, but that is just the way it has to be. As I said, it is part of the problem with the article. I accept that. Whether well organized is an opposite or not, is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it is reasonably "opposite". It is ok with me if you disagree, but either way, that is an opinion. I also think that "loosely organized" is a value judgment as well, requiring a citation. I do not mind if we do not quote Dean.
It may not follow that there must exist a suitable cite from a logical standpoint but it does follow from the rules of wikipedia. As wikipedia says, it is not about Truth it is about Verifiability. I do not mind if you want to use the cite regarding the nannies as a loosely organized group, but if you do, then this article should be about the grannies and not about the movement to impeach bush, unless they are exactly the same thing.
I too am content to leave the lead in its anemic form -- though I do not claim it is mildly anemic. I would even suggest that there is no need for a defining statement if the article were titled "Calls for the impeachment of George W. Bush" or something like that. It is only the sense of "movement" that suggest a definition ought to be provided. --Blue Tie 01:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Very funny, except that I'm not so sure you're kidding: we don't need to go down that route again! No number of such specific references could ever satisfy you, despite their cumulative weight and lack of contradiction. As I see it, you've defined an unreasonable requirement based on your warped conception of Wikipedia guidelines. Fortunately, we've managed to settle on a mutually acceptable, if not ideal result. Of course, I completely reject your analysis, and you, no doubt, will insist upon having the last word. - JCLately 06:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
While I do not agree that my perceptions are warped, I am, of course, biased in my favor. But it appears that I offended you. I apologize for that. --Blue Tie 06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What will happen to this article?

It's not long before Bush is no longer the president, so what will happen to this article if he is not impeach by then? --CrohnieGalTalk 11:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Presuming no impeachment occurs, the article will chronicle a historic movement that did not achieve its goals, just like Blaine Amendment chronicles a failed attempt to amend the Constitution. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What?

No article on the movement to impeach Bill Clinton? Congress never has voted on even impeaching Bush, but they voted on impeaching Clinton. Major POV on behalf of wikipedia. Carbon Monoxide 23:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a false accusation. There is an article on the Impeachment of Bill Clinton. Terjen 03:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the NORTH AMERICAN UNION??

I am surprised that the most important reason for impeachment is not even mentioned here. George Bush has BETRAYED HIS PRESIDENTIAL OATH OF OFFICE. He is betraying the sovereignty of our nation by his clandestine meetings with both Canada and Mexico with the intent to dissolve our national borders and establish a NORTH AMERICAN UNION which would engulf the United States and obliterate our sovereignty as an independent nation.

Too few of the plans already in place to build a "superhighway" across our nation which would expedite transportation of goods and persons from other countries - without proper security measures - or the fact that Bush, and others in power, visualize a merging of all North America in a manner to replicate the European Union (complete with an "Amero" dollar). For more info see youtube.

All other reasons proposed for impeachment are debatable, often motivated by partisanship. However, the very dissolution of our country and its subsequent subjugation to the laws of other nations should be our primary reason for impeachment. Furthermore, we should be finding means to QUESTION ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AND THEIR PARTIES ON THIS SUBJECT before the next presidential election and the possibility that this threat may be perpetuated by the next administration! KCMax 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Feel free to add any sourced paragraph discussing this as argument to impeach. If no source lins this notion to impeachment WP:OR applies and we cannot use it. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

president is gay and a dushe bag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warbonnett (talk • contribs) 16:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Two of the magazine covers are up for deletion

Two of the three covers are up for deletion now. All three were up for deletion but I removed one.

You can remove the deletion tag by simply:

  1. clicking on the image and then clicking "edit page"
  2. then remove the warning from the image description itself.

I removed the book tag because the reason given for the deletion is:

Image of magazine cover used in article that the magazine is not the subject of..

The book image clearly is the subject of this article. The magazine images may fail the draconian wikipeidia fair use rules. If anyone cares to remove these warnings, you need to post a reason. I have no desire to get into a fair use argument.

Travb (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheney is a separate issue.

I noticed that information about the Kucinich impeachment resolutions has been added, but the article fails to mention that they are directed at Dick Cheney. This effort to impeach Cheney is distinct from any movement aimed at Bush (even if the reasons are said to be the same). This needs to be made clear in the article (or removed from the article). Cheers! bd2412 T 05:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:Be Bold 99.9% of all recommendations on talk pages are ignored. Travb (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh, you don't know who you are talking to. Prodego talk 02:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've sort of downshifted into a mode of nudging others to do for themselves as much as possible before I do for them. I think it raises people's involvement. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no particular preference as to how it is addressed. Just raising the issue so that those more involved in the page can make a decision. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The efforts to impeach Cheney is linked to the hip with the efforts to impeach Bush, so I am comfortable with including Cheney in the entry.Terjen (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this explained in the article? bd2412 T 17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

International Community?

The intro to this article sites that many members of the American public support the impeachment of Bush and also states that the international community has feelings on the subject of impeachment.

The importance of what the international community opines is useless when we are talking about the removal of an AMERICAN president by the AMERICAN VOTERS. I request that we review the importance of even entertaining the international communities' ideas about an issue that is totally AMERICAN.

Thanks

RRM MBA (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


POV again

This acticle is so full of POV it looks like a liberal left wing site.

There is NO counter point to ANY of the supposed "charges" that would even warrant impeachment. By not providing counter points to each of the specific charges, then you are being biased. I would highly recommend that this entire article be wholesale deleted. Remember, President Bush's testimony for the 911 commision was NOT done under oath. VS Bill Clinton's Grand Jury testimony. So a Perjury clause does NOT pertain to President Bush. Also WMD WAS found in Iraq, just not anything made after the Iran/Iraq war. Did Pres. Bush specifically say WMD made after a certain day? NO. The FISA issue has its own problems, Pres. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush have ALL done things under this WITHOUT a warrant. Precident CAN be cited as a source of a legal ruling wich has been done many times in the past. Chefantwon 216.153.166.69 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to second this, even at a glance at the section detailing justifications re the War in Iraq, it is so rife with non-facts it displays the kind of POV garbage that has turned Wikipedia into a laughingstock to be used as legitimate reference in any politically influenced subject. If the case for prosecution for leaders lying to go to war must itself be comprised of half truths, distortions and outright lies, not only is that no case but perhaps the accusers need to be on trial. (this kind of thing also guarantees there will only be a "movement to" impeach page, and never "the impeachment of" page on Wiki. I stand by that belief 100%) The Joint Resolution is displayed currently on the white house website, you would think those citing "arguments" used for the war would be able to find the one document the government generated and controlled- not provide thirdhand media filtered spin recollected in the twisted memories of those with anti-war, anti-Bush agenda. A POV Wiki, is an ignored Wiki. Batvette (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
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.