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

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.

←

→

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 Baas^talk 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 Baas^talk 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 Baas^talk 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 Baas^talk 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 Baas^talk 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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:

web site of the ITMFA movement
Article on ITMFA at UrbanDictionary.com
ITMFA is mentioned in the Wikipedia article Savage Love

—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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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

Retributioon for prosecuting Republicans, and possible obstruction of justice.
Dismissal for not prosecuting crimes that did not take place: voter-fraud.
Possible rigging of elections by means of the previous
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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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.

Fhey were fired for ever shifting reasons.
The WH and DOJ have made contradictory statements.
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.
Some USA were not prosecuting Democrats for the nonexistent fraud and now are fired.
One of those not prosecuting Democrats got listed for removal.
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.
This USA was delisted and not fired.
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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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:

Bill Clinton is irrelevant since he did not have the same information as Bush had.
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!
No WMD or active links to AQ existed, contrary to what was said.

Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi 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)

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.
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.
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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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. -Lauren^whisper 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:

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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the resolutions making the Iraq war legal, please provide WP:RS.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi 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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

^ http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/11956
^ "1998 State of the Union Address" [13] Federal News Service, The Washington Post, January 27 1998
^ http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0686.htm