Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 14

Comparisons to watergate
What is the relevance of this section?

Schumer, other Democrats, Holtzman, Cooper, and Laurie Levenson — a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor — compared the firings -allegedly to influence investigations- to the Saturday Night Massacre, in which the Nixon administration fired Archibald Cox while he was investigating the alleged misconduct by the White House in the Watergate scandal.[69][59][70][71]

What does this add to the article? Who cares if some people made a watergate comparison? Bonewah (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This to me is an example of the primary problem with this article. Instead of reporting facts associated with potential impeachment precedings, the article presents "evidence" and then via synthesis puts it together to present a case that the (now former) President should be impeached.  Those who continue to restore the information do so because it is "sourced", though there is no actual discussion of impeachment in said sources. -- TRTX T / C 15:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to read those sections that have been excised. I made sure they explicitly used sources discussing impeachment for that reason. Since nobody has offered an expanation for why we should exclude information that multiple sources have discussed as reason to impeach I will restore it in the coming days. Also those objecting should come here and explain their reason for deleting sections that are extensively sourced. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I do question the synthesis, I do think that it is giving undue weight. Soxwon (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourselves with WP:V and WP:TRUTH. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 15:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Three seperate editors (or even four) appear to have an issue with this content, yet you have reverted it three times simply because it is "sourced". Nobody is disputing the fact that there is a source.  People are disputing the relevance of the material to the article at hand.  You have yet to prove that, and have gone ahead with a reversion 3 times now. -- TRTX T / C 15:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

When the prosecutor involved in Watergate makes the comparison why is it not rel;evant. Further, if it is reverted to a state which it was in for years your edits should be explained. On top of that this is not a democracy. We do not get a vote on this. If it is sourced it can be used! As last remark please have the decency not to accuse somebody of editwarring when there is no edit war. This is highly inflammatory and coming from an editor that reverts merely on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is pretty absurd. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 16:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is not a vote.  We have information multiple, independent sources.  --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You havent even attempted to justify the inclusion of the above statement. Why is it relevant?  Why include it in this article?  As I said from the start, I removed this paragraph because it has no bearing on the subject at hand, it is irrelevant, and, therefor, must be removed.  Bonewah (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's get the facts sstrait the President of the US is accused of doing exactly that what was part of impeaching Nixon and you think that is not relevant? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 20:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Besides the fact that the article is about possible impeachment of a president?!? --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this article is the potential existance of a movement that unsuccessfully attempted to impeach former President George W. Bush. The comparisons to Watergate are being used to build a case against him.  The purpose of this article is not to attempt to build that case, but rather attempt to inform readers of a case that may have been built.  That is the primary issue that I and several other editors have with this article.  It has evolved from being an article about impeachment movements and instead turned into a thesis as to why the former President should have been impeached.  -- TRTX T / C 19:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's possible to separate the topics, nor should we. These "movement" articles always have these problems. Having information supported by multiple, independent, reliable sources is the best we can do.  If your concern is SYN, take it to the relevant noticeboard, WP:OR/N. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However, again as with the Scooter Libby commutation, should we take what the law says is a crime, or what people with political motivations say? Soxwon (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

← I apologize for attempting to resolve the issue on the talk page prior to "tattling" on a notice board. -- TRTX T / C 19:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, this is a straight forward question, what is the thinking behind including the paragraph above? We dont need to run off to some notice board to have that question answered.  If you feel that paragraph should be included, then simply explain why, its not a trick question.  Bonewah (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the other way around. You feel it is not relevant so you explain why the prosecutor in Watergate should be considered irrelevant when she makes the connection. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 20:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Only one of the four sources listed in that section even mentions impeachment as a potential recourse. However, the four articles are glued together by the article to make it appear as though all four are in support.  It is misrepresentation of sources as is usually seen with synthesis. -- TRTX T / C 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok ill answer your question, even though wp:burden makes it clear that the editor who would like to add or restore a portion of an article has the burden of justifying its inclusion. Having said that, i will explain my objection, even though you decline to explain yours.  The prosecutor from watergate did not impeach George W Bush.  The prosecutor from watergate did not attempt to impeach George W Bush nor take any part in any impeachment.  In short, the prosecutor from watergate is not part of any movement to impeach George W Bush, the subject of this article. See how easy that was?  When asked to explain my reasoning, I just spell it out rather then constantly dodging the question and redirecting it back on my questioner.  So ill ask again, if you want to include this passage in the article then just explain why.  What is your justification for its inclusion? Bonewah (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is questioning that the information is verifiable, so WP:V isn't at issue. --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the article with OR, and the section being discussed with SYN. I didn't know what to tag the section in Call for censure.  Has there been a discussion on it? --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there something that can be used to question relevance? I'm not too familiar with the full impeachment process, but does Censorship of an gov't office have any relation to impeachment? -- TRTX T / C 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I argued that they can't impeach for him using his constitutional rights, so they added the bit about censorship which has nothing to do with impeachment. Soxwon (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the President can be impeached for eating a banana if Congress so chooses! But that is not the poiunt. Whatever you or I think is absolutely not a reason to include or exclude information. The relevant policy is can it be sourced. Since we have multiple sources claiming so-and-so is an impeachable offence you have no argument in policy to remove those sections. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 09:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, CONSTITUTIONAL POWER. Mention that they are saying his constitutionally granted power is a high-crime then. The argument that "anything is impeachable" means that anything advocated by "experts" is up for grabs. I think this might be a time to exercise WP:COMMON Soxwon (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh ppleahease. What exactly do you know about this procedure? The fact is that anything Congess finds actionable and results in starting impeachment is ipso facto an impeachable offense. Is there a defenition somewhere that describes specific actions? No! This then brings us to : whatever Congress sees as "high crimes." I wish you use some common sense. More to the point, this is not about what we think, or even being sensible. It is about policy allowing sourced information. And boy do we have sources. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 23:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, if you put in that he is getting impeached for his constitutionally granted power and that it's speculation by partisan politicians with an ax to grind sure. I'm tired of this argument that "anything is high crimes and misdemeanors" bull. I know how it works, but to think that they would truly go that far is not using WP:COMMON and you know it. And if it's not about being sensible what is the point? Soxwon (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nixon wasn't impeached. He probably would have been had we not resigned, but that speculation is the subject of another article. Rather than saying Bush did something which people have said is comparable to Watergate (for which Nixon could or should have been impeached), this article should focus on specific assertions that Bush did something for which Bush could or should have been impeached. bd2412 T 00:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Which is why the content was first removed.  The article as it is now is using four different sources (three of which say "Bush did ____" and one which says "Bush should be impeached") and glues them together to give the illusion that all four sources specifically constitute a part of this motion. That is the very definition of synthesis. -- TRTX T / C 14:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ronz and Nescio need to read wp:syn at a minimum because they both act like verifiability is the only criteria for inclusion in an article. Verifiability is the minimum necessary for inclusion, but is not sufficient for inclusion. Consider these lines from wp:syn

Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research
 * As several of us have said before, verifiability is not the issue here, relevance to the article is. You guys were quick to revert my edits, but im still waiting on an explanation of why this information should be included, so ill ask one more time.  What is the rationale behind including this text in the article? Bonewah (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer: It is sourced by multiple reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the SYN issue, which is a different issue completely, how about starting by comparing the conclusions as provided in the sources with that in the article? --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As several of us have said before, verifiability is not the issue here, relevance to the article is. Ive said this every time ive asked the question, please stop ignoring parts of the discussion you do not like. Bonewah (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "relevance to the article is" I don't understand what you're trying to say here.  Please indicate what policies or guidelines you feel deal with "relevance to the article" --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly need to see a specific wikipolicy that says "Please only post relevant information in an article"? How about the policy on original research for starters?  How about the policy on synthesis, which directly relates to sources (even reliable ones) being used out of context to further a point of view?  How about policy regarding using WP as a soapbox to push a movement or piece together a thesis?  Do any of those sound familiar when reading this article?   The more I read this article, the more problems I see with the way sources are used.  You cannot take one source which said "Bush did ____", take a second source that says "Bush should be impeached", and piece them together to say "Bush should be impeached for ____" -- TRTX T / C 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. What I need is for the editors here to follow WP:TALK and clearly state their concerns with references to relevant policies and guidelines.  What I'm seeing are editors ignoring my good faith efforts to address the SYN problems.
 * Given the subject of this article, NPOV concerns need to be very specific. In the case of this article, I think relevant main sources should be about a movement to impeach GW Bush, and the viewpoints of notable individuals and organizations that are associated with this movement. Those should be the prominent viewpoints of this article. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it's fine for notable individuals and organizations (as I mention above), to make their own syntheses. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "the viewpoints of notable individuals and organizations that are associated with this movement" ok, based on that, please explain how Schumer, Holtzman, Cooper, and Laurie Levenson are both notable in this instance, and demonstrably part of a movement to impeach GWB. Furthermore, TRTX noted above that the sources dont say what is claimed in the article here, do you guys have any response to that, and the charges of wp:syn that go with it? Bonewah (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As per the discussion above, I am removing the passage in question. If there is still disagreement about this subject, then re-add the material and justify the inclusion here. Bonewah (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are these people and why do we care?
Many places in this article contain passages such as "Marjorie Cohn, Elizabeth Holtzman, Cynthia L. Cooper, and Thom Hartmann have suggested that impeachment proceedings are warranted" or "Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Marjorie Cohn, and Elizabeth de la Vega suggested it to be an impeachable offense." Now I can see citing the opinion of a sitting member of the house or senate(because they were in a position to actually impeach GWB) but why are we citing reporters and columnists? Who really cares what Elizabeth de la Vega thinks? Or Dan Froomkin? Bonewah (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To a large extent, it seems that the purpose of this article is to conjure the existence of a pro-impeachment movement out of the repeated assertions of a few scattered critics. Unless someone can provide evidence of coordinated group(s) of a noteworthy scale citing the specific perceived offenses which have been so extensively documented in this article as justification of impeachment, I think removal of this material would be entirely justified. »S0CO ( talk 20:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had wondered about Dan Froomkin and think that someone should be bold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the following line " An article in the Progressive supported the view that these alleged violations of US and international law could be an impeachable offense too." for the reasons listed above, the author is not notable, the article cited is just an Op-Ed and no attempt is made to establish why this particular opinion piece should be cited. Bonewah (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am removing the following lines "Elizabeth de la Vega, Ray McGovern, and Greg Mitchell have noted that the Bush Administration's asserted motivation — that this declassification was needed to counter misinformation spread by opponents of the Bush administration's casus belli — is odd, since only an obscure part of the NIE, which supports the claims advanced by the US government, has been released, while the rest of the report, in which the CIA in 2002 allegedly dismissed that claim as unlikely, is still classified. Bush's misrepresentations on this point and his allegedly declassifying of information for a political purpose, is seen by some[who?] as an impeachable offense." for the reasons cited above, no notability, as well as possible wp:syn and wp:undue problems.

This passage is terrible
Because of that, and the uncommon[peacock term] nature of these firings,[36] critics suggested ulterior motives. Among them, Elizabeth Holtzman and Cynthia L. Cooper wrote that "we may be witnessing criminal acts of obstruction of justice at the highest levels of government."[37] They alleged that the attorneys were fired as retribution for prosecuting Republicans,[37] for failing to prosecute enough Democrats,[38] and/or for failing to prosecute instances of voter fraud which had not in fact taken place.[citation needed] This supposed fraud led The New York Times to the following response:

Where to begin on this passage? Citing as sources people who lack notability. Why does anyone care what Cynthia Cooper thinks? Even if we get past the notability of "critics" in this passage, they only suggested ulterior motives. We are reporting someone's opinion on someone else's motives, which is quite absurd. Even beyond that, I dont see a clear connection between this and any movement to impeach GWB, at least not without extensive wp:syn to make the connection. Further, the whole passage has NPOV issues, from citing "allegations" to boldly declaring (without citation) that voter fraud had not taken place. Im sure if i thought about it, i could find even more reasons to object to this passage, although i think the above will suffice to remove the passage in question. Bonewah (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Improper use of sources
I have a problem with this line:

Reviewing the book The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals, by Jane Mayer, The New York Times reported on July 11, 2008, that:

Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes .....[28]

and that the techniques applied to Abu Zubaydah

were “categorically” torture,....[28]

First off, the article cited here is a book review, yet is quoted in such a way as to make it seem that the New York Times reported this stuff themselves. They didnt, they were quoting Jane Mayer's book. Beyond that, why is this book relevant? Like so many other sources in this article, this one is used here because the author favors impeachment, the choice of sources creates undue weight and synthesis. Bonewah (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Im going to remove the above section for the reasons listed above. If anyone has any objection, please take it up here. Bonewah (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Check that, I already did remove it before. Bonewah (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Authors
Added this, probably didn't sign.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth Holtzman with Cynthia Cooper, The Impeachment of George W Bush A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens, (2006) ISBN-10: 156025940X
 * Marjorie Cohn, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, (2007) ISBN-10: 0977825337
 * Seymour Hersh, Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, (2005) ISBN 0060955376
 * Charlie Savage, Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, (2007) ISBN 0316118052

Alleged declassification for political purposes --dubious
This section is of dubious value to this article. I see nothing here that is connected with impeachment, and the sources used are largely opinion pieces. Even the title of this section is weasly, alleged for political purposes, alleged by whom and why do we care? Bonewah (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Im deleting this section on the above basis. Without some external source tying all this to a impeachment movement, this section is OR.  Bonewah (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Polls section needs trimming
The section on polls should be trimmed down to the essential elements. As it stands now we, randomly, have 2005 2006 and 2007 polls each with their own subsection. Why those years? And there doesnt seem to be any rhyme or reason to who's polls we cite or what questions they ask. Lets be concise and consistent.Bonewah (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Im removing the whole polling section as OR. If anyone objects, please address the concerns above. Bonewah (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Commutation of Lewis "Scooter" Libby
This section has the same problems as the other sections i have deleted. It doesnt establish that commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence is in any way connected to a movement to impeach GWB, Its inclusion is largely OR, its sources are marginal or op-eds, etc. Bonewah (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This link is probably worth saving Censuring the President by Robert Wexler, Huffington Post, July 6, 2007

Bonewah (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunate gutting of this article
It's unfortunate this article has been gutted. It contained a lot of information that would of have been helpful for researching GWB's tenure. It seems the rationale for removing large chunks of material are based on a "synthesis" argument, which is entirely false - this article made no claim to a single movement and simply documented actions - article titles are placeholders of convenience and not statements of fact, this article had to be named something logical enough to find and remember. Luckily we still have material available in the history tab. I'd like to see it restored someplace outside of Wikipedia where it's more visible and available to researchers. Perhaps on doc.google.com where it can be indexed on Google easily enough. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The movement to impeach George W. Bush, November 26 2008. A stable version. If someone believes there is a better stable version, representative of the work done by literally 100's of individuals over the past 8 years (pro/con/neutral on the issue), please let me know. With Bush out of office, no one seems to care about this article anymore and so a few people seem to be taking it over and gutting it out without much discussion. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that a lot of actions that may or may not have been related, a lot of ppl who may or not have been important, and a many other things were thrown in. The relevance of the actions or events in question were not always clear and sometimes downright ludicrous, yet they were included. The rationales for impeachment section was overblown and far to large. While I think that User Bonewah probably went too far, I also think he raised some valid points. It may take awhile, but why don't discuss some of the sections before sticking them back in again. Soxwon (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are opinions. I have no interest in fighting over this article, nor I suspect do most of the 100s of people who contributed to the article and talk pages over the past 4 or 5 years, it was mostly a painful experience for all involved. At this point, the event is history, it's a shame to see the article still treated like a political football and not as a historical resource, which would favor inclusiveness over deletionism. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The sections included in the more "stable version" include actions that are techniqually unimpeachable and others that are loosely connected at best. Soxwon (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you hit the nail on the head, there are lots of better places on the internet for this sort of thing than Wikipedia. As for the rest, if you really feel that ive removed something improperly, be specific and ill be happy to discuss it. Bonewah (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the section on the justification for invasion of Iraq should not have been removed. This was the leading specific charges made in Kucinich's actual resolution of impeachment - that Bush had used his administration to present false or misleading data in order to justify the war. Specifically, that section of the impeachment resolution stated:

ARTICLE I CREATING A SECRET PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE FOR WAR AGAINST IRAQ In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, illegally spent public dollars on a secret propaganda program to manufacture a false cause for war against Iraq. The Department of Defense (DOD) has engaged in a years-long secret domestic propaganda campaign to promote the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This secret program was defended by the White House Press Secretary following its exposure. This program follows the pattern of crimes detailed in Article I, II, IV and VIII. The mission of this program placed it within the field controlled by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a White House task-force formed in August 2002 to market an invasion of Iraq to the American people. The group included Karl Rove, I. Lewis Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, Stephen Hadley, Nicholas E. Calio, and James R. Wilkinson. The WHIG produced white papers detailing so-called intelligence of Iraq's nuclear threat that later proved to be false. This supposed intelligence included the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger as well as the claim that the high strength aluminum tubes Iraq purchased from China were to be used for the sole purpose of building centrifuges to enrich uranium. Unlike the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, the WHIG's white papers provided "gripping images and stories" and used "literary license" with intelligence. The WHIG's white papers were written at the same time and by the same people as speeches and talking points prepared for President Bush and some of his top officials. The WHIG also organized a media blitz in which, between September 7-8, 2002, President Bush and his top advisers appeared on numerous interviews and all provided similarly gripping images about the possibility of nuclear attack by Iraq. The timing was no coincidence, as Andrew Card explained in an interview regarding waiting until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." September 7-8, 2002: NBC's "Meet the Press: Vice President Cheney accused Saddam of moving aggressively to developnuclear weapons over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms. CNN: Then-National Security Adviser Rice said, regarding the likelihood of Iraq obtaining a nuclear weapon, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." CBS: President Bush declared that Saddam was "six months away from developing a weapon," and cited satellite photos of construction in Iraq where weapons inspectors once visited as evidence that Saddam was trying to develop nuclear arms. The Pentagon military analyst propaganda program was revealed in an April 20, 2002, New York Times article. The program illegally involved "covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recruited 75 retired military officers and gave them talking points to deliver on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC, and according to the New York Times report, which has not been disputed by the Pentagon or the White House, "Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon." According to the Pentagon's own internal documents, the military analysts were considered "message force multipliers" or "surrogates" who would deliver administration "themes and messages" to millions of Americans "in the form of their own opinions." In fact, they did deliver the themes and the messages but did not reveal that the Pentagon had provided them with their talking points. Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and Fox News military analyst described this as follows: "It was them saying, 'We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.'" Congress has restricted annual appropriations bills since 1951 with this language: "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress." A March 21, 2005, report by the Congressional Research Service states that "publicity or propaganda" is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert propaganda." These concerns about "covert propaganda" were also the basis for the GAO's standard for determining when government-funded video news releases are illegal: "The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the viewing audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual -- the essential fact of attribution is missing." The White House's own Office of Legal Council stated in a memorandum written in 2005 following the controversy over the Armstrong Williams scandal: "Over the years, GAO has interpreted 'publicity or propaganda' restrictions to preclude use of appropriated funds for, among other things, so-called 'covert propaganda.' ... Consistent with that view, the OLC determined in 1988 that a statutory prohibition on using appropriated funds for 'publicity or propaganda' precluded undisclosed agency funding of advocacy by third-party groups. We stated that 'covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties' would run afoul of restrictions on using appropriated funds for 'propaganda.'" Asked about the Pentagon's propaganda program at White House press briefing in April 2008, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino defended it, not by arguing that it was legal but by suggesting that it "should" be: "Look, I didn't know look, I think that you guys should take a step back and look at this look, DOD has made a decision, they've decided to stop this program. But I would say that one of the things that we try to do in the administration is get information out to a variety of people so that everybody else can call them and ask their opinion about something. And I don't think that that should be against the law. And I think that it's absolutely appropriate to provide information to people who are seeking it and are going to be providing their opinions on it. It doesn't necessarily mean that all of those military analysts ever agreed with the administration. I think you can go back and look and think that a lot of their analysis was pretty tough on the administration. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk to people." In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
 * Whether the facts are as alleged, this was probably the biggest thing on the mind of everyone who was shouting for impeachment or throwing an "Impeach Bush" bumper sticker on their car; but irrespective of whether it was, it was the "lead" grounds presented in the actual article read on the House floor, which is as close to impeachment as Congress got. bd2412  T 03:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Articles II, III, and IV of that resolution were respectively directed at "Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression"; "Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War"; and "Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States". Again, irrespective of the facts, that was the primary basis for the impeachment resolution. bd2412  T 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can agree to that going back in, it's things like the attorney firings and the Katrina response that smack of WP:SYN. Soxwon (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to the material that has been re-added, as i feel that it is improper WP:SYN. Look, if Kucinich used the Iraq war as the basis for impeachment, then quote Kucinich, rather than a hodge-podge of minor critics of GWB. Consider this line

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was the most substantial portion of the articles of impeachment introduced by Kucinich and Wexler. 15 of the 35 articles directly relate to alleged misconduct by Bush in seeking authority for the war, and in the conduct of military action itself.
 * We then go on to quote everyone but Kucinich and Wexler. If those articles really are the most substantial portion of impeachment, then detail them, not John Bonifaz or Francis Boyle or whomever else. Bonewah (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page moved. Skomorokh, barbarian  10:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush → Efforts to impeach George W. Bush — Current title requires OR ties together disparate impeachment efforts into previously undocumented 'movement'. — Bonewah (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Note: Reformatted request for the WP:RM page. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Related discussion - Articles for deletion/Los Angeles National Impeachment Center
I have nominated Los Angeles National Impeachment Center for deletion. Since that organization is related to the subject matter of this page, editors here may wish to opine at Articles for deletion/Los Angeles National Impeachment Center. bd2412 T 15:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's another relevant AfD - Articles for deletion/The World Can't Wait. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

saved references
The following section will be used to save refs that might be needed later, but dont quite fit in at the moment.

Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment originally Web-posted by House Judiciary Committee member Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)

UN Committee against Torture report
 * US 'must end secret detentions' BBC, May 19, 2006
 * U.N.: U.S. Should Close Gitmo Panel On Torture Also Says U.S. Should Avoid Using Secret Prisons CBS News, May 19, 2006

Bonewah (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tree ornament
I have removed the following Every year, the National Christmas Tree is decorated by ornaments from all 435 congressional districts throughout the United States. To assist in this task, each member of Congress solicits a contribution from local artists in their district. In 2008, Representative Jim McDermott selected an artist from his district, Deborah Lawrence, to submit an ornament for the tree. Lawrence wrote in fine print "Impeach Bush" on her ornament. Initially, Lawrence's ornament was selected to be hung on the National Christmas Tree, but following publication of the fine print on the ornament, the ornament was removed from the tree. because it no longer fits in to the subject of this article. Efforts to impeach GWB are just that, actual attempts to impeach, as opposed to minor acts of defiance and protest. This tree ornament is just that, a minor protest that happened to get some press. Read the rest of the article, you will notice it consists entirely of actual legislative and political moves, making this ornament thing out of place. Bonewah (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is an advocation, not an "effort". While public opinion polling is relevant as an indicator of political impetus, this lone act is neither a barometer of public opinion, nor an action with any legal significance as a move towards an actual impeachment. bd2412  T 14:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The arguments presented here are very reasonable, and I agree with this consensus.
 * My apologies for this edit. I did not see this discussion at the time I made that edit.
 * Victor Victoria (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)