Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 13

Please cite "numerous"
The section "Groups formed to support impeachment" says "Numerous groups have been created to support impeachment." Currently 2 groups are listed - ImpeachBush.org and Constitution Summer. This is not "numerous". On 10 June I added a tag in an attempt to have cites for more of the claimed groups added to the article. User:Silly rabbit immediately removed the tag, with the comment: "please read the paragraphs to follow. Then maybe you will find the answer to your question "Who?" I've looked and I only see two. I'm asking about this because I'd like the article to be correct ("numerous" or "not numerous"?) and because I am interested in seeing a listing of pro-impeachment groups. Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Kucinich's bill (H.Res. 1258) warrant its own article?
I base this question on the existence of Impeachment of Dick Cheney, which is entirely founded on Kucinich's previous bills, H.Res 333 and H.Res 799. The article has plenty of information about the topic, and I feel a similar article could be written about Kucinich's articles of impeachment against George Bush. Given that H.Res 1258 now has 6 cosponsors (one added in the last week), more information about this resolution should be present on Wikipedia in my opinion. I believe that such an article could stand alone, apart from this article, given that the article can provide enough sources and information. I'd be more than willing to help create the article based on the precedent established by Impeachment of Dick Cheney if others believe the idea has merit. CuttlefishTech (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no news about the vote in the House on 7/15/08 to impeach Bush and have the judiciary committe porceed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.64.30 (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Only losers like me who watch c-span know, but the house sent the resolution to the judiciary committee. Unlike the 35 count earlier Kucinich Resolution, this new Kucinich Resolution is one count and has some democratic support including a the flip-flop support of speak Pelosi. The associated press reports that the judiciary committee is actually expected to hold a hearing or two looking in to the case for impeachment, but they are unlikely to go more in depth into the proceedings than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlasticJesus341 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

POV
Not so much in the actual tone, but in what it chooses to represent - absolutely no sources indicating that he shouldn't be impeached, that the charges are either non-impeachable or false, etc. The article basically gives one the idea that the only reason he hasn't been impeached is that the Democratic senators are being oddly lazy, not that he's done nothing to be impeached for or even, wonder of wonders, a moderately good job. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. You are welcome to find and add sources contending that the specified charges do not constitute a basis for impeachment. But bear in mind that impeachment is a form of political theater. What constitutes an impeachable offense is something of a moving target, determined by the majority of Congress itself. If 216 members of Congress were to vote to impeach a President because they didn't like his haircut, then the President would be impeached. The check on such frivolity is the ability of voters to punish their Representatives for it. bd2412  T 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Libby
Is this even usable? It's opinion, and against a very shaky argument. The reference listed is an opinionated editorial that seems convinced that Bush orchestrated the thing from beginning to end. Can we get something a little less partisan? Soxwon (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The motion to censure was introduced by a member of Congress, and all the other opinions mentioned in the article are well documented, and were expressed by notable people. Dems on the move (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Censure and impeach are two very different things, one doesn't guarantee the other. John Adams and Jackson had motions to censure them, neither was impeached. The only other was Bill Clinton. Soxwon (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. If you want to list the Libby pardon in a different way, go ahead, as some notable people have called for Bush's impeachment over it (that fact that you do not believe this is an impeachable offense is just your POV). For the mean time, I am restoring it as it last appeared in the article. Dems on the move (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying a constitutionally given right is not impeachable is hardly POV. Soxwon (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What is "impeachable" is a political decision that is up to Congress. If a President were to give a blanket pardon and release from prison to every murderer in the federal prison system, that would clearly be within his constitutional power to pardon, and would also clearly be misfeasance in office. bd2412  T 20:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What if strawman arguments were valid? And besides, I believe Clinton already did that and he wasn't impeached. Soxwon (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and Clinton seemed to make more than Bush. Soxwon (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not making an argument against Bush, simply pointing out that there are clearly circumstances where a pardon would constitute an impeachable offense. We're just haggling over what kind of pardon gets into that territory. bd2412  T 20:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You've still yet to show how Bush can be impeached for a constitutionally given right. Soxwon (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to stick my head in the lion's den, especially since I disagree with the existence of this very page, but a President can be impeached for a "constitutionally given right." If a President were to say "I will give you a pardon if you give me $1,000,000," he would be free to exercise his Constitutionally-given power to pardon but I submit he would also be committing an impeachable offense. I do not believe Bush could be impeached for his commutation of Libby's sentence or his possible pardon of Libby, but I write to say that I think a President could be subjected to impeachment even if he is just exercising his nearly unlimited power to pardon. JasonCNJ (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Presidents can be impeached for anything that 50%+1 of the House of Representatives feel is an impeachable offense. Dems on the move (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean to suggest that if 218 Members of the House wanted to impeach President Bush tomorrow because he was from Texas that would be an impeachable offense? "Resolved: George W. Bush, President of the United States, be and he hereby is, impeached for being from the State of Texas." Perhaps this isn't the proper forum for this discussion but the idea that anything is "an impeachable offense" without regard to the Constitutional limitations imposed upon the House is ridiculous. JasonCNJ (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, are "the Constitutional limitations imposed upon the House" with respect to impeachment? bd2412  T 20:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe he means that Congress is expected to use common sense. The seperation of powers was created so that no one branch could dominate the others. If Congress has the blank check for impeachment as has been claimed in this discussion, that really defeats the purpose of having a seperate executive branch. Soxwon (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Common sense may be a limitation, but not a "constitutional" limitation. The limits that the Constitution places on Congress are (1) they have to be able to drum up a majority vote in the House, and (2) there must be "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Being from Texas could not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. Pardoning a perjurer who may be covering up crimes by others in your administration is at least a plausible misdemeanor (although not one that would carry the day). bd2412  T 16:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
Is there ANY statement here in Bush's defense that isn't immediately followed by a "Yeah but" type statement? Soxwon (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ornament
Alright despite the argument over notability, I also noticed a couple of misspellings, and it was under the wrong heading. You might want to fix these things. However, I woud like to ask for other's opinions on whether or not an ornament is notable enough. I mean really, this has to stop somewhere people Soxwon (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed the misspelling (I only found one), and changed the paragraph title. I think it is hard to argue notability given that now the White House has reversed itself to bring even more attention to this ornament. In addition to the Washington Post references provided in the article, here are some more references
 * ABC News
 * Seattle Post
 * Christian Science Monitor
 * USA Today
 * The list will surely grow. Dems on the move (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are more important things out there than an ornament. This article is absurdly long considering the topic and the size of other articles of greater importance. The last thing it needs is to become a collection of Bush-hating trivia. Soxwon (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia operates 100% on a volunteer basis. The article is "absurdly long" because many Wikipedians are interested in the topic. In the particular case of the ornament, it is noteworty because the ornament passed two hurdles
 * Jim McDermott approved it
 * The White House initially decided to hang it
 * and as I have already said, the White House's reversal makes it even more noteworthy.
 * If it makes you feel better, I agree that the article need not mention every street sign or bumper sticker saying "Impeach Bush". Dems on the move (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So by your logic anything that has interest from a few individuals should be massive? I guess that justifies why this article is almost as large as the Revolutionary war, and larger than others such as mythology. An encyclopedia is supposed to summarize, this is far from summarization. And your argument about reversal is absurd. Anyone would do the same thing if they weren't aware of the "fine print," when it was first selected. Soxwon (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that if Wikipedia was around during the time of the Revolutionary War, the article about the Revolutionary War would have been much longer. Dems on the move (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And has much more lasting and significant results than does this movement (note: if it weren't for the Revolutionary War, we wouldn't be having this discussion) This document should be trimmed to a reasonalbe size Soxwon (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have stated that the ornament is not notable. I don't see what reasoning you could give to contradict but I'll assume good faith and ask you to provide it. Soxwon (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already made the case for Notability (see above), and do not plan to remake the case. Dems on the move (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I still say it wouldn't make it due to: WP:IINFO. This article is long enough (WP:SPLIT, "Almost certainly should be divided") and it isn't really that notable.Soxwon (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should be included, but it should not be an entire section, and it should be summarized in two lines, e.g.:
 * In 2008, artist Deborah Lawrence was solicited to contribute a ornament for the National Christmas Tree by Representative Jim McDermott; Lawrence wrote "Impeach Bush" in fine print on her ornament, which was selected to be hung on the tree, but removed following publication of the fine print.
 * Cheers! bd2412  T 20:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where would you say it would fit if not in a sub section of its own? Dems on the move (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where it is right now, under Democrats in Congress (as the artist was solicited by one of them). Sorry, but it is preposterous to have an entire section on what is basically a PR foul-up that is of very limited use in assessing public opinion. I'm sure you can find some individual in the nation who would be willing to submit an "Impeach Obama" ornament (or someone who would have been willing to submit one to impeach Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, and any of the rest going all the way back) - but can you find a Congressman willing to get that person to submit the ornament? bd2412  T 03:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Katrina
Ok, I have sources that claim he should be impeached for: "failing to sign the Kyoto conference," "9/11 occuring on his watch," "appointing Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld," "packing the courts with ideologue-judges intent on overthrowing Roe v. Wade, and institutionalizing the police-state abuses of Patriot Acts I and II," "His "No Child Left Behind" education policies have replaced learning with testing and allowed military recruiters access to our schools, cajoling our children with military options before their minds have had a chance to open, question and challenge," attempting to dismantle the Social Security system, "presided over the most egregious media consolidation in the nation's history," and his attempts to "subjugate his Administration to Neocon ideologues like Richard Perle, William Kristol and Douglas Feith; men who have endorsed the "settlement," expansionist and Wall-them-in policies of Ariel Sharon, sowing the seeds of anti-Arab racism, war and destruction in the Middle East for generations to come." These are all "sourced" and could be techniqually be added to the article if that seems to be the only requirement. Is there any other test that can be applied? Soxwon (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Splitting
Alright, IMO this article is too long. Is there anyway to split or trim the article? Soxwon (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no one has responded, I believe splitting of the rationels for impeachment would be best. Does anyone disagree? Soxwon (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Better trimmed than split, I think. After Bush has been out of office for a few weeks, there is a lot that can be cut down in this article. bd2412  T 06:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD this article
Seeing as the House of Representatives never seriously considered Impeachment, perhaps this article should be deleted. If there should be Movement to impeach... articles, they should cover Presidents Tyler & Nixon. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been several attempts at this, they keep saying "it might happen and this is an actual movement." Soxwon (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With five days left in his term? I doubt it. Other US Presidents, have had a impeachment movements against them (usually not taken seriously & usually politically partisan). GWB, is not a special case. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably every President after Washington has had some sort of impeachment rumblings raised against them in some quarters (maybe Washington too). But in terms of well-documented support from political figures and the public, it is hard to imagine that the sentiment has been more strongly expressed without resulting in an actual impeachment vote. bd2412  T 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it just seems that way. The internet can make a small group seem large. Seriously though, Hoover, Harrison, Hayes, and others were probably as loathed. Soxwon (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the sources exist to write substantial articles on comparable movements with respect to Hoover, Harrison, and Hayes, they would be equally welcome. bd2412  T 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But the House never had a vote on Impeachment. The House Judiciary Cmt, never recommended it. Such an article as this, would be more proper for Tyler, A.Johnson, Nixon & Clinton. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to bring an AFD on this article based on the argument presented above. bd2412  T 23:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for awhile. After Bush leaves office, this article may become less necessary. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And the AfD will fail, but good luck with that. This is about a movement, not about an impeachment.  So most of these arguments are irrelevant.  Other movements for other Presidents?  Great - write the articles.  Removing sourced articles about movements, and one that was quite strong, isn't the way to build an encyclopedia. It's just a way to get yourself frustrated. -- David  Shankbone  06:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between a well documented article and a dumping ground for Bush-haters which is what this is. Soxwon (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're more than welcome to try. But in the end, impeachment of Bush was discussed legally, by members of Congress, in the news, etc., and whether you like it or not, it was a notable movement.  But, never hurts to try to AfD it -it's been tried three times before.  And this encyclopedia exists to explain things, and that there was a strong movement for impeachment is all that matters. -- David  Shankbone  01:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't AfD it, I just suggested it be split as per Wikipedia policy. I do think it is a load of crap, since the movement was never taken seriously (no it wasn't, it didn't even make it into the house for a vote, they sent it to committee which as everyone knows is the preferred method for killing bills that are ludicrous and unreasonable). It's really nothing but a Bush-Bash and the "reasons" section is the biggest laugh of all since the Bush-haters can use the excuse that "Congress can say anything is high crimes and misdemeanors" to put whatever they disagree with. Soxwon (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your POV is noted. Thanks.  -- David  Shankbone  01:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see the article trimmed than split - after all, if it is split, then you have two article carrying forward the same theme. Regarding your "Congress can say anything is high crimes and misdemeanors" objection, the article should, obviously, be limited to matters that have been raised as impeachable offenses by members of Congress or other equally credible sources (mind you, I do not mean to say that members of Congress are exceptionally "credible", just that suggestions falling below this level of credibility should be right out). bd2412  T 01:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's what we should do: merge this article with Bush Derangement Syndrome.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  13:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * good luck with that -- David  Shankbone  15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What I find particularily confusing is how large this article is comparred to ones regarding actual impeachments. If anything, this is a very obvious case of an article being given undue weight. -- TRTX T / C 02:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea to expand those others! -- David  Shankbone  05:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But that would mean that the Bush Bashers wouldn't get their chance to rant. Soxwon (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with TRTX that this article has undue weight. It should really be trimmed down, especially when compared with actual impeached presidents. This article is quite obviously POV pushing and ranting. There was no impeachment; who will be gutsy enough to cut this down to a reasonable size? Timneu22 (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point it really should lose the public opinion polls section (c'mon, they're over 3 years old); the attorneys, Plame, and wiretapping are ridiculously long; and the whole Political Views and Action really needs some look at how much weight is given to individual items (a press release, Conyers, and just random events that really don't carry any weight). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 15:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What part about historical record do you have difficulty with? -- David  Shankbone  15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

←We get it Shankbone, you are not a big fan of Bush. There are several legitmate concerns about the size and scope of this article. Especially when there's an almost equally long article regarding Criticism of George W. Bush, it's almost redundant, and should be considered for a well planned and monitered merge. -- TRTX T / C 16:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 75% of Americans are not a fan of George Bush; my own personal feelings are irrelevant, and including them in the discussion violates WP:AGF. Regardless, if this is the time you guys want to start this up, then it will require several official RfCs from the community.  -- David  Shankbone  16:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually find your lackidasical and somehwat dismissive responses to legitimate concerns to be pretty counterproductive to the nature of Wikipedia as a whole. That is the reasoning behind my comments. I am attempting to put together an AfD request, however something is causing it to incorrectly point to an already existent 2nd nomination, as opposed to the what should be the article's 4th. And instead of simply dismissing me with a statistic, why not also address my other concern, which is the somewhat redundant nature of this article comparred to an already sizeable Criticism of George W. Bush article. -- TRTX T / C 16:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my disposition will destroy Wikipedia - bring it up on my Talk page; this isn't the right forum to discuss it. I think the AfD is a good idea to get more eyes on this article and the desire to remove from our history that many people from farmers to Congressmen to legal scholars felt this President had committed far more impeachable offenses than a blow job.  So, the AfD is a good idea. -- David  Shankbone  16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you need to calm down a bit here. Nobody is requesting the full on deletion of the article's information. Simply condensing the material down to revelant info and merging it into one of several existing articles discussing controversies under the Bush administration.  As I have pointed out twice now (which you have failed to comment on), there's a sizeable Criticism of George W. Bush article which has a number of redundancies with this article. -- TRTX T / C 16:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep your cool, TRTX, for your own health - at one moment I'm "lackidasical" and another I need to calm down. Once again, focus on edits, not editors - I'm laying here in my jammies drinkin' my coffee, as calm as can be.  As for counterproductive - I'm sure that your astute observations about my disposition also lend to, "It would be productive on inaugural day to propose deleting this article, since emotions on both sides are unlikely to run high."  heh.  I'm looking forward to the AfD [Shankbone grabs popcorn]. -- David  Shankbone  16:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about deleting this article, in fact I would be against it. However, considering Wikipedia policy for article length ([WP:TOOLONG]) this article should be reduced or split.

←My suggestion to "keep your cool" comes from your comment that this content would be "removed from history" due to an AfD request (if I misunderstood the meaning of that phrase I apologize). As this article demonstrates, there are a number of places where it has been suggested that Bush be impeached. As such, deleting this specific article would come nowhere close to removing the concept from the record books. Furthmore, the desire isn't to remove the contents, but rather to condense them down to the most important aspects and place them within the context of a less WP:NPOV article (again, the Criticism of George W. Bush article I continue to reference). As far as emotions "running high"...when it comes to my experiences, it'd be hard to find a time on the Internet when any discussion regarding Bush will not lead to emotions running high. In all honesty, it will be difficult to find a time on the Internet when any political discussion will be met with what could be considered "low" emotions. -- TRTX T / C 17:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes in Democrats in Congress
"Regarding this report, Conyers makes several allegations favoring impeachment on his blog."
 * -Removed, He made the report, blog not necessary

"In all fairness to the gentleman from Minneapolis, he is a freshman member. I understand that he was endorsed by ImpeachPAC and supported financially. ... He probably feels that he made a commitment and he's got to make some noise, but so what?”
 * -Removed, Irrelevant

"As of May 18, 2006, Conyers' current position regarding impeachment is "... rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses."
 * -Removed, a more current statement later in the article

"Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) has said that Bush should be impeached for authorizing the NSA's actions."
 * -Removed, okay did he do anything?

"On December 19, 2005, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) issued a press release,[86] saying that she had written to four undisclosed legal scholars, asking if there were grounds for impeachment. In the press release, she cited the December 16, 2005, New York Times disclosure of Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to monitor Americans without warrants. However, in a December 20, 2005, CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, Boxer stated she was not ready to call for Bush's impeachment"
 * -Removed, A press release?

"In late July 2007, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) stated his intentions to introduce legislation to formally censure the president and vice president "within days." During an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Feingold stated "there's a lot of sentiment in the country...for actually impeaching the President and the Vice President. I think that they have committed impeachable offenses with regard to this terrorist surveillance program and making up their own program", later referring to censure as a "moderate course."
 * -Removed, Intentions are nice, if it happened it would be worth mentioning

Those are a few edits, please discuss before blanket reverts. Soxwon (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleted Republicans, first explicitly said it wasn't a legitimate call for impeachment, second was not a real call for impeachment. Soxwon (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will be reverting some of these, particularly the Lewis, Boxer and Feingold deletions. Since you are on a rampage with this article, I'll let you finish before I start un-doing. -- David  Shankbone  15:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Justify their presence. I'll stop for now, I want to see what reason they have for being in the article when Feingold, Boxer, and Lewis especially didn't lead to any real action to remove him from office. Soxwon (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your accusations that a fellow editor is "on a rampage" appear to violate WP:AGF. Soxwon appears to be just as interetsed in you in creating a quality, WP:NPOV article. -- TRTX T / C 16:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving on
Should we start putting this into the past tense as Barak Obama becomes president and George Bush leaves, thus making himself ineligible for impeachment? Soxwon (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It will need to be changed, but no harm to wait until January 20. bd2412  T 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, Bush will not be ineligible for impeachment after he leaves office. Impeachment could still lie against a former official; conviction in the Senate would not force removal from office (removal already having happened) but would permit the Senate the option to impose a disqualification for any future office of honor or trust under the United States. Obviously this is largely an academic question and I do think most of this article will need to be adjusted post January 20th, but just wanted to share my thoughts on the "ineligible for impeachment" idea. JasonCNJ (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The Constitution permits impeachment of the President, and says nothing about an ex-president. The question has never been brought up before a body capable of adjudicating it (Nixon, after all, was not impeached even after he resigned), but I would find it to be a strained interpretation of the Constitution that a private citizen who used to be president could be impeached. bd2412  T 03:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And even if it were, do you honestly think they could ever get enough votes to impeach him? Soxwon (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Impeach? Possibly, that only takes a majority in the House. But they would never get the 2/3 needed in the Senate to impose a penalty, which would make the impeachment a waste of time. bd2412  T 19:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the current Congress does that after he is out of office, then I don't see how that can looked upon as anything but wasting valuable time with the other issues at hand. After the other issues at hand have been taken care of, I doubt there will be enough resentment to still impeach him (otherwise it would have already happened) Soxwon (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the distance between what is legally possible, and what is politically possible. bd2412  T 23:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

>Undent> Should this information be added to the article? ~ Paul T +/C 17:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If any reliable sources begin covering possible impeachment attempts, then it can be added. But there is already an article on WP dedicated to impeachment that would likely contain information regarding the rules/processes/exceptions. -- TRTX T / C 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Should which information be added? The fact that it's probably impossible to impeach a former President? Since there is no precedent for that, I think it is presumptive and would be a waste to mention here. As TRTX suggests, absent a highly unlikely actual effort being mounted for a post-presidential impeachment, it should be treated as a past tense issue. bd2412  T 19:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is this article up for Afd? This should not be merged, but indeed remain seperate. Now that he is out of office, more evidence will surface as to who did what(to help prevent his impeachment) and what steps he took to avoid impeachment.

Archiving
I've boldly added auto archiving for threads stale 45+ days leaving a minimum of 7 threads. I've also formatted all the archives so they link concurrently. -- Banj e b oi   20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. -- David  Shankbone  22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward from the 4th AfD
The article is looking like it is going to be kept. In the interest of the project, I'd like to propose how to go about trimming this article: There has to be some common ground here about how to structure the article, and at the very least, what notable issues belong in those sections. -- David  Shankbone  22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Decide how the sections should be laid out, e.g. "Alleged Constitutional violations" (not a proposal, just an example)
 * 2) After section headings are decided, it will help the discussion over what should/should not be put in that section.
 * 3) Work with the interest of historical knowledge in mind, and not our own POVs
 * 4) Once the major sections that consensus agrees belong, and those sections have consensus, then replace article.
 * 5) Work out most controversial issues on talk page after consensus sections replace entirety of article.
 * 6) Refrain from any substantive changes until major sections are done.
 * 7) Refrain from all attempts at dry humor, snarky comments, or accusations of bias.
 * I think the first major focus should be on the "Rational" section, which is currently a majority of repeated material from "further readings". If there is specific reliable sources that are citing the situation as a reason for impeachment, then that is what should be focused on.  I noticed this in the section I just reverted my own changes on (the NSA wiretapping).  While there is a large amount of criticism regarding the decision, there is only one paragraph which specifically links it to impeachment.  The rest appears to be summary and "common" criticism, which is better suited in the Criticism of George W. Bush article.  Also, the Iraq War "rationale" currently is only a link to the Iraq War article.  If there are no sources that form an argument for impeachment over that reason, then it really doesn't have a place in the article.
 * One other note, I feel that a rename should be done on the article. One editor suggested Efforts to impeach George W. Bush which seems like a good kick off point. -- TRTX T / C 16:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points, although I'd prefer to stick to what belongs before we start to discuss what doesn't. If we can all come to agreement on the least controversial aspects of the article, we can replace the article and by default the most controversial will go out until we hammer try to come to consensus on them.  It's a process I think that will work more toward productive collaboration for all of us.  You are right that the rationales should be prime. -- David  Shankbone  16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul wanted to impeach bush

 * Ron paul supports bush impeachment investigation. [][]Smallman12q (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Size
Well, it's now down to a reasonable size and has links to the all the rational reasons people could want. Soxwon (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the deletion of that much content to less than half (37.8KB) it's former size (82.3KB) does not have consensus here. The process of discussing if and what to trim and how to restructure has just started. This change is just your opinion as to what's worth keeping. Unilateral actions of this magnitude do not have a place in articles that are contentious and are under active discussion. Deletion reverted.— Becksguy (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Becksguy - Soxwon appears to want to war, when most of the rest of us are trying to discuss this civilly on this Talk page. Becksguy, please protect the article from editing if further deletion of material without consensus occurs.  -- David  Shankbone  00:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh please, I don't want war. This article is too long by wikipedia standards. What do you suggest gets cut? Soxwon (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already described above how I think this process should be carried out to make it productive for all of us, and it's not "what gets cut" as the first question. It's just two threads up.  If either side approaches this heavy-handed, I will ask for it to be protected given the charged nature of the subject.  -- David  Shankbone  04:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blogs
There are a lot of blogs and partisan sources, with quite a few being flagged as questionable. Would it be prudent to go through and evaluate them for merit? Soxwon (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Wikipedia should not rely on blogs as sources (unless of course the author of the blog is independently notable for something other than being the author of a blog). bd2412  T 01:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. As it is, I see 4 citations from the Huffington Post, 8 from CommonDreams, and 8 from CounterPunch. Surely better sources than these can be found for the material they cover. »S0CO ( talk 01:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree. If some event is important enough to warrant impeachment, then it will get covered in the mainstream press, no need to cite blogs at all. Bonewah (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Im going to kick off the edit cycle and remove citations pointing to self published sources. If anyone objects, feel free to discuss it here. Bonewah (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok i removed the bulk of the blog citations, leaving some that were authored by senators or congressmen. I also left some in that i think are wp:sps but maybe an argument can be made to include them.  One final note, if anyone has a problem with my edits, please do not do a mass revert; rather find the citation and put it back in.  That way, we can discuss them individually. Bonewah (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Starting to notice a pattern...
In reviewing the content of this article, I've started to notice a pattern with the "rationales". This is where I've been saying time and time again that this article reads more like a thesis as to why former-President Bush should hvae been impeached, rather than a presentation of information regarding any actual movement. I feel the best place to start trimming the article is to get rid of the "recap" information, and leave that to the "further reading links". That would remove a large portion of content that is for the most part superfluous in relation to an actual movement. The second step seems to be what's been causing me to feel that synthesis is being applied. The content in these portions of the article are again not specifically related to impeachment, but rather just arguements against what Bush did during his time in office. This is content that is better suited in Criticism of George W. Bush, if it isn't already included. That just leaves step 3, which is content directly related to any sort of "movement" to remove Bush from office. With the bulk from steps 1 and 2 removed, this would leave a much more clear picture of who actually was pushing for impeachment and who was simply crticizing Bush. I think cutting content that falls into steps 1 and 2 would go a long ways to getting the POV-pushing out of the article. -- TRTX T / C 21:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Step 1: Recap the controversy already described in the "Further reading"/"See also" links.
 * Step 2: Organize complaints from different sources as to why what happened was bad.
 * Step 3: Include section with who felt this constitutes impeachment.

How to use a talk page

 * Could you read the archives before starting this debate yet again for the 1.000.000.000 time. If anything you say is not addressed there discussing further is appropriate. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 16:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's in the archives, then it can't be updated with new comments now can it? -- TRTX T / C 18:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Best to link to the past discussions and include your summary of them, then contrast that against your own opinions. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about this, if you think something from the archives is relevant then link to it or copy and paste it here. Bonewah (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Links are great. Copying important comments to emphasize them is very useful too. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If new editors on this page want to revisit a debate that took months to reach a consensus the onus is on them to reach a new consensus. That is: they have to offer new argument and not merely rehash the old ones already available in archive. If they are unable to find the discussions we can provide a link. No more, no less. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 08:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

← Okay, instead of turning this into a discussion on how to use a talk page, why don't we agree to move on and actually discuss ways to address the concerns above? -- TRTX T / C 14:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I emphatically second that call. There is a lot of talking going on, but some dont want to answer basic questions about how to improve the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonewah (talk • contribs) 14:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've split off the sidetrack. That'll hopefully get people to actually focus on the concerns rather than the talk page discussion. -- TRTX T / C 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding those concerns, your questions have been answered, and led to the consensus you oppose, in the archives. Merely rehasing the same argument does not help. Maube we can creat a FAQ page where you can find the already answered points? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 17:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then it's a good thing that consensus can change. -- TRTX T / C 18:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If we are rehashing an old argument, do you care to link to it so that we can judge the merits of the points raised? Bonewah (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)