Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 54

Presidency
The whole section on presidency seems to not have any type of ordering. The section 3.7 (Civ. lib.) comes before 3.9 (Sept. 11) yet refrances the events of 3.9. Personally the section should follow chronological order. Covah79 (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Feb 7, 2008

Section Seems to be missing this

Supreme Court appointments
George W. Bush appointed the following justices to the Supreme Court:
 * John Glover Roberts, Jr. - 2005
 * Samuel Alito - 2006

Malsmith (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perceptions & Polls
The sections dealing with "perceptions" are per se suspect. While I do not doubt that the cited polls took place and I accept the results of those polls as correctly cited, it should be noted that polls are easily manipulated. What questions are asked and what information is given along with the question can tilt the result one way or another. Also, if the party that conducted the poll has an agenda the poll results should be taken with a grain of salt.--SMP0328. (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have retitled the "Criticism and public perception" section to "Public perceptions." All perceptions are either critical, complimentary, a mix of those two, or are strictly factual (e.g. "It's raining outside").  Placing the word "Criticism" in the title of this section is superfluous at best and biased at worst.  The new title removes the emphasis on the critical perceptions.--SMP0328. (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On many articles regarding politicians, instead of a sections entitled "Criticism and public perception" there is a section, with similar content, entitled "Cultural and political image." That title is certainly neutral, as opposed to one that uses the word "Criticism."  I suggest renaming the section "Criticism and public perception" to "Cultural and political image." --SMP0328. (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category
May I ask how George Bush is in the category American Cheerleaders? Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He was a cheerleader in school. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok....Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I just have to say that I cannot believe that even though this is a locked article, a fairly obvious act of vandalism exists at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.239.13 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that he is doing a good job in the role of presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.46.130 (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * this article is not locked, it is merely restricted. the vandalism was autoreverted by a bot moments after it was done. Anastrophe (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * actually, I think it's still there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.103.219 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * okay. then perhaps you'd be kind enough to point out what exactly it is then. Anastrophe (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stated before that I thought this category was silly. It was a brief occupation in school and had nothing to do with his life; you will notice other people with brief cheerleading stints did not have it mentioned on their page for precisely this reason. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

End of Term
There's seem to be an edit battle going on regarding when President Bush's term ends. If he finishes the current term, then it will be January 20, 2009. Technically, it could be sooner (death, resignation, or removal). Some keep putting in the end of term assuming President Bush will finish this term. Others keep removing the date, because he could leave sooner. I suggest "January 20, 2009 (assuming he finishes term)." This would cover both contingencies. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A slightly cleaner version might be "Bush's term is scheduled to end of January 20, 2009". But good idea. - Revolving Bugbear  20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine, too. That area should not be blank (as blank, it serves no purpose), but it should recognize that it's possible that President Bush could leave office prematurely. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that's a bit much for the infobox. ;-) If people must have something, feel free to change it to "January 20, 2001 - present" but we don't predict the future. There are just too many variables to state January 20, 2009 as a definitive end date within the infobox. I know there's a guideline or manual of style page somewhere that covers this, but there are so many of them now, I can't seem to find it. An alternative would be to include a sentence within the text of the article, as suggested by Revolving Bugbear. However, being blank is exactly as the end term parameter should be. Without a date specified, the infobox reads "Assumed office", an accurate description/field for that date. - auburn pilot   talk  21:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a sentence very similarly worded to that suggested by Revolving Bugbear  in the introduction to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest it should not say "January 20, 2001 - January 20, 2009" as that is original research because that date has not came yet, and he could be kicked out, have a heart attack, be assassinated, be impeached, resign, and anything like that. That is why i think it should simply say "January 20, 2001 - present" or "Assumed office: January 20, 2001". Mythdon (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also removed a 44th President edit from the infobox. Wiki editors out there, have got to learn to be patient. PS- Imagine the headaches we'll have between November 4, 2008 & January 20, 2009?? GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * President Bush will not succeed himself, so the word "Incumbent" (who is Bush) is not correct. The successor to the current President will be the 44th President.  The 44th President will, unless something unforeseen occurs, take office via this year's Presidential election.  Hence the link to the article about this year's Presidential election. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note: at Stephen Harper he's not followed by 23rd Prime Minister; at Kevin Rudd he's not followed by 27th Prime Minister etc. Incumbent is used for 'current office holders', please respect that. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand by what I said earlier. For Stephen Harper, it should say "23rd Prime Minister."  The word "Incumbent" has a meaning.  The fact that something is done repeatedly does not make it correct.  For how many centuries was the belief that the Earth was flat repeated?  The successor to an office holder is never that office holding.  We know for a fact that George W. Bush will not be his own successor, so the word "Incumbent" is unquestionably wrong.  Whatever should be in that part of the infobox, the word "Incumbent" shouldn't be it. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But currently the Infoboxes use incumbent in the successor section. Personally, I like your idea - bring it up at WikiProject Infoboxes, see if they like it. My personal suggestion? 'Remove' the successor section from incumbent infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made my suggestion at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Infoboxes. Feel free to make your similar suggestion (remove successor section). Thanks for your help. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the successor section in the Infobox. In Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Infoboxes I have been told that the successor section in the Infobox is optional and that it is permissible to remove it.  Since it's superfluous ("Incumbent" is below the name) and factually incorrect (see my comments above), I have made the removal. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * PS- What a bone-head I was, in saying the infoboxes used 'incumbent'. The incumbent infoboxes have their 'successor section' removed. My blunder, sorry SMP0328 and everyone else. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should definately be mentioned in the infobox under 20th January 2009 but insert a footnote or an asterisk stating that this is considering that he completes his term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.87.22 (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous! There has been zero speculation outside the usual fevered imaginations of Bush's ideological enemies, that his term will in any way end prematurely. Until this changes, listing his Constitutional final day of office January 20, 2009 is not in any way "controversial" or even subject to legitimate debate. If you wiki editors and other posters wish to indulge in your left wing fantasies it would be best to do so on a private blog and not a public encyclopedia. You are violating the NPOV policy of Wikipedia by nursing your delusions on his encyclopedia entry. I know it is a tall order...but try to be fair. -RKT4MAYOR —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKT4MAYOR (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The end of the current Presidential term is mentioned in the first paragraph of the Introduction. Do you want it mentioned elsewhere in the article? --SMP0328. (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct that there is currently nothing to indicate he will not finish out his term. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. He has nearly a year to go, and anything can happen in that time.  As of 9 March there was nothing to indicate Elliot Spitzer wouldn't finish out his term, and any speculation to that effect would have been rightly dismissed as fantastic; barely a week later he was history.  WP records facts, not crystal-ball gazing about the future.  When Bush leaves office, by whatever means he does so, we will record the date; until then it remains blank.
 * (BTW, I thought the usual lefty fantasy was not that he'll leave office early, but that he won't leave when his term is up, because he'll pull some sort of coup or something, possibly involving Diebold and/or Halliburton. I almost had a lefty friend put money down on the proposition, but I felt guilty taking advantage of him like that.)  -- Zsero (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Clinton-Bush Article Editing Double Standard?
- The main Wiki article on Bill Clinton contains extensive info on the (unproven) sexual allegations made by Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. And yet the main Wiki George W. Bush article contains no mention of Margie Schoedinger (who filed a rape lawsuit against Bush and who was found dead of a gunshot wound the following year). True, Schoedinger's allegation was unproven, but then so were Willey's and Broaddrick's allegations. - Why the Wiki double-standard? - More importantly, why is this considered vandalism on a discussion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeMongo (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign. DeMongo (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.35.79 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * do you have a reliable source that corroborates what you're alleging? note that BLP talk pages are held to approximately the same standard as the BLP page itself. thus, unsubstantiated claims about a LP are subject to removal. if you can't provide a WP:RS to back up the above, it will likely be removed as well. so, i'd recommend moving with alacrity on that. Anastrophe (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. http://www.fortbendstar.com/Archives/2003_4q/122403/n_Woman%20who%20filed%20lawsuit%20found%20dead.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.156.186 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i'm afraid this sounds like a case of a mentally disturbed individual who imagined quite a lot of things. from the article "Furthermore she states, "Throughout this conversation, she learned that there was no time that the Defendant (Bush) ever stopped watching Plaintiff', nor did he stop having sex with Plaintiff. ". unfortunately, there's no credibility behind her claims. i can't see this single, far-fetched claim meriting inclusion in a BLP. others may disagree. Anastrophe (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. So if it's a woman making a sexual assault allegation against Bush, then she is a "mentally disturbed individual" and this info should be kept out of the main Bush article. However, if it's a woman making a sexual assault allegation against Clinton, then it is important, vital information that must be included in the main Wiki article on the Clinton presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * you're not assuming good faith. read the article that was cited. everything in it points to a classic disturbed individual making the allegations. it's quite sad, really. clinton had a notable - and corroborated - history of sexually intimate contact with women other than his wife. bush has none, besides this bizarre claim. i'm sure conspiracy adherents will presume bush had her killed to silence her, rather than what sounds like a deeply screwed up individual who eventually took her own life. considering the general antipathy towards bush, don't you think these allegations would have been relentlessly pursued for political gain, had they a shred of credibility? rhetorical query, that. Anastrophe (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of placing an unsubstantiated allegation against George W. Bush in this article, how about removing the similar allegation in the Bill Clinton article? The only reference in that article is to an interview with the accuser. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * the difference i believe is the repeated pattern of allegations against clinton, his agreement to settle out of court with paula jones, and the lewinsky scandal. taken together, they add up to a notable pattern. the clinton article also incorrectly lists only the wiley and broaderick allegations in the 'sexual misconduct' section - it should also list paula jones and gennifer flowers as related articles. that makes four separate allegations, and one proven instance. i believe that meets notability. Anastrophe (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can rationalize this all you want, but the fact remains: if a woman makes a sexual allegation against Clinton, it's included in Wiki's main article and if a woman does the same with Bush, it's not included in Wiki's main article. Incidentally, I don't place any credence in the "notable pattern" argument. The Right-Wing Fringe also hollered about a "notable pattern" of Clinton supposedly murdering various people, including Ron Brown and Vince Foster. But no sane person would believe such charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see both sides to this. Why not hold all presidents equally accountable?  However, the fact is that Clinton spent a much larger amount of his time and energy on affairs than Bush.  If there are fewer allegations against Bush, it's because he's done less to elicit them.  And after all, every famous man and woman has allegations made against him or her.  No reason to dwell on Bush's indiscretions in this article, because they didn't define his presidency in any way.  Clinton is another matter. RoverRexSpot (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no conspiracy to keep this out of the Bush article, or to force sex scandals into the Clinton article. Clinton's own actions made his sex acts into scandals, but no proof whatsoever exists to verify the one claim against Bush. This isn't a partisan issue, it's basic fact. The media has treated the allegations against Bush with the attention they deserve, and there is no need or reason to include them in this article. - auburn pilot   talk  23:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: "no proof whatsoever exists." Well, dead people don't talk---but while we're on the subject, I'd like to point out that no proof exists for the allegations made by Willey and Broaddrick. We're not saying there is a "conspiracy." But there is clearly a double standard. And I won't even get into asking why there is zero mention of Valerie Plame case or the Downing Street memo in the main Bush article. (Any reasonable, intelligent person can see that both of those news stories were vastly more important than the tabloid sleaze sexual allegations included in the main Clinton article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with the Clinton article, the page you are looking for is Talk:Bill Clinton. We don't make decisions about that article on this talk page. For the Plame issue, see Plame affair. If you believe it should be added to this article, register an account and add it. Or, make a suggestion of content to add (not just that it should be added). - auburn pilot   talk  23:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Clinton sexual charges are included because enough people believe them. The Bush sexual charges are not included because not enough people believe them. Simple. Wikipedia is a community, and community opinion dictates what is right. Herunar (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's quite a double standard we have going. So the logic is pretty much if someone did something once, you don't have to prove they did it twice? That makes a whole lot of sense. Stop Me Now! (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As others have alluded to, I'm going to say this once, to make it clear as possible. There is no double standard. There is, in fact, a common standard. When an incredible amount of verifiable information exists on a subject (George Bush, in this case), we only include in the main article those facts/incidents that received the most attention. Clinton's extramarital affairs (alleged and otherwise) received obscene amounts of attention from the press. This one incident has received comparatively nill. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the paragraph about albanian perception of Bush
I removed the paragraph as it appears to be a unique case and highly unrepresentative of the subject as a whole, and thus is not notable enough to warrant a paragraph in a tight article like this. Albania is famous for being hated by just about every other country in the world, much like the United States, so I don't find the support surprising. Herunar (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * it's there for NPOV; it shows that revulsion of bush is not universal. it's properly cited, and interesting. it should be restored. Anastrophe (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the material should be restored, but phrased in a more encyclopedic tone. The "rockstar reception" is a bit over the top, even if it is a direct quote from the article.  I suggest forming a separate paragraph for the purposes of emphasizing some of the positive international perceptions, since the article now dwells exclusively on the negative.  The support of Albania should certainly be mentioned in this capacity. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Anatrophe. The edit made by Herunar was unjustified and so I have returned the removed material to the article by reverting Herunar's edit. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Herunar, you could probably read up on WP:NPOV: making statements like "Albania is famous for being hated by just about every other country in the world, much like the United States..." does not lend credibility to your statement. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It should definitely stay, although it could probably do with some trimming per WP:Undue weight. His reception in one country, a relatively small country at that, is probably not noteable enough for such a long paragraph in the main article. If there are more examples of a positive reception for Bush internationally they probably should be added but bearing in mind that the section is likely to always concentrate on the negative more then the positive since as that section summarises, the perception of Bush internationally is generally much more negative then positive. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Peace prize nomination
I think that mention about Bush being a 2001 Nobel Prize nominee should be removed.

First, the statement appears to be factually incorrect. The source cited in the article to justify this statement,, says as much: Despite a rumor that circulated late in 2001,  President Bush wasn't amongst the nominees for the 2001 prize...In February 2002, however, reports began circulating that members of the Norwegian Nobel committee had let it slip that George W. Bush was among the persons (along with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani) being considered for the 2002 Peace Prize.

So it seems that Bush was nominated for the 2002 prize, rather then for the 2001 one.

Second, the source cited, snopes.com, seems like a rather weak choice of a source for this kind of information. There ought to be some more direct references in mass media.

Third, and most importantly, the mere fact that some-one was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize does not seem to be sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned here. That is certainly the case when we are talking about a U.S. President. If he won the prize or at least if he was considered a serious contender, that would have been a different story. However, the same snopes.com article says:

''The Reuters news agency noted, however: "Neither Bush nor Blair is likely to win. Bishop Gunnar Staalsett, a member of the secretive five-member Nobel committee which elects the winner, has spoken out against the U.S.-led and British-backed strikes on Afghanistan." President Bush was reportedly one of 156 candidates considered for the 2002 Peace Prize, which was awarded in October 2002 to former President Jimmy Carter.''

I did a bit of google-searching and it looks like President Bush was nominated by a single rightwing Norwegian MP, see. It seems to me that this episode perhaps belongs as a footnote together with various oddities and curiosities related to President Bush's biography, but not in the first sentence of his biographical entry, where it appears now. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just looked up the Nobel Peace Prize wikipedia article and it says that Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini have also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, being nominated for a medal so partisan and politically influenced that it makes that UN look functional, and it being refuted by a newspaper with equally partisan marks. Maybe we should look into this more: did it have any chance of success, or was it a fringe nomination, as the guardian states? Can you find any sources about this in mainstream media? The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There did not seem to be a lot of press coverage of the nomination. However, here are links to news-stories by the BBC and by Reuters . Both say that Bush was considered unlikely to win. There is some evidence that the nomination was considered a bit of a joke, e.g. see the parody cite . On the other hand, we should remember that this was before the Iraq war and fairly soon after September 11, when the world opinion of George W. Bush was quite different from what it is today.
 * Interestingly, it turns out that Bush was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004, see, , [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1068699/posts]. That nomination was made by another right-wing Norwegian MP and was widely viewed even more unlikely to succeed than the 2002 nomination. According to the Free Republic story referenced above, the Libian leader Muammar Gaddafi was also nominated in 2004.
 * The Free Republic story also says [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1068699/posts]: Lundestad said many people wrongly believed being a "Nobel prize nominee" was itself a kind of honour. Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have made it to the list -- every member of all the world's parliaments, university professors from law to theology, ex-winners and committee members can submit names.
 * In my view, this shows that the standard for a nomination is quite low and, in and of itself, being nominated does not represent a particular distinction or honor. This is especially true for some-one like the President of the United States, who has more than enough bona fide distinctions, honors and awards, and other biographical facts that are much more significant than a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. Therefore, I do not believe that the mention of such a nomination belongs in the first sentence of George W Bush's biographical wikipedia article, where it is currently listed. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear me, it's in the lead? Given the evidence you've presented, if it's accurate, this is not appropriate. I agree it should at least be moved down near the bottom (please do so). If it had no chance of success, it deserves nothing more than a passing mention at best, and probably could be taken out altogether uncontroversially. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've corrected the 2001 error and moved the mention of the nomination to from the opening sentence to the foreign perceptions section. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I added it. I wasn't aware anyone could be a nominee. I agree to not include it.  Mønobi 03:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Skulls and Bones
I think it is relevant to acknowledge him being in the Skulls and Bones. The Anti-Vandalism King (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Skull and Bones article, there is a one sentence reference to Bush being in the secret society. It says Bush refused comment. If you can find more information regarding this matter, and have it properly referenced, then put it in the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

www.fascism.com
Why does attempting to go to this website result in getting to this article? --SMP0328. (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * it simply means that whomever owns the fascism.com domain has put in place a web redirect to this page. it's completely outside of wikipedia's control. well, i suppose if the wikipedia network admins had some free time on their hands, they could block traffic being directed in from 216.52.184.243, but there's no guarantee that the address won't change. it's just part of the way the web works. Anastrophe (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. This is the nature of the web, and I do not believe blocking traffic from a domain sets a good precedent. Would they then block any web pages that linked the word fascism to this site? rob3r —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob3r (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to mention we should also therefore block any site which links to Bush while expressing a POV. If we're going to block people who call Bush fascist, we should also block those who call him a great person etc Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some people just don't have anything better to do with their time or money. It's outside our jurisdiction in this case, so we just have to live with it. ~ S0CO ( talk 03:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Recognition of Kosovo
George Bush has recognized independence of Kosovo, and we should note this fact in the article. Bosniak (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Check the last sentence of the "foreign policy" section. His recognizing of Kosovo's independence is mentioned there. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
It seems interesting that George Bush's wiki page has been locked from editing, no doubt of course from various vandalism, when in fact at least one thing so far has been missed.

In the 'Child-hood to Mid-Life' section, someone changed the entry to read as follows: Bush was raised in [vulgar language removed]|Midland]] and Houston, Texas

Maybe the admins might want to change that?!

--24.31.174.129 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What's really interesting is that 24.31.174.129 made this comment at 23:32 UTC, referring to this edit by Harry is so cool 33 minutes earlier, which lasted less than a minute. I wonder how  24.31.174.129 ever saw it, let alone thought it hadn't been reverted.  Of course I wouldn't dream of Assuming anything but Good Faith here!  -- Zsero (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the vulgar language quoted by 24.31.174.129. Quoting acts of vandalism, especially the vulgar versions, in a talk page only encourages such vandalism. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

More Vandalism
If some moderator could please fix this, that would be great. (Kinda says something about me being straight, that aint right?!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.67.125 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this edit comes from an IP all of whose other recent edits have been reverted as vandalism. It is a school IP, however, and some of the edits have been self-reverts, so it's possible that there are vandals and anti-vandals operating out of the same IP.  Take that for what it's worth.  In any case, this is a marginally legit comment for this talk page, not outright vandalism, so I've restored it. -- Zsero (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Executive Privilege
I made a recent edit

Despite President Bush's lack of involvement in this affair, he still maintains the claim of Executive Privilege for his aides. As Bush has repeatedly stated he has no involvement in this case, "this calls into question any claim of executive privilege."

Executive Privilege in the United States requires the direct involvement of the president of the United States. As Bush has repeated stated he has no involvement in the Midterm firings, he therefor has no claim of executive privilege and therefor the fact that he still claims is significant. Given that it comes up in every meaningful article (including the sources within the section) but is not mentioned in the section proper is a rather glaring omission. Hopping over to the Executive Privilege section of the wiki, all cases directly involve the president of the United States and the United States v. Nixon sets its precedent as requiring the President's involvement. Hence, this calls into question any claims of said privilege and makes it worthy of entry. RTRimmel (talk) 05:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The internal workings of the executive branch are not the business of the legislative branch. The entire executive branch works for the president, his personal involvement is not required for the privilege to attach. It's a matter of the separation of powers.  At least, that's the position the executive branch has always taken; the legislature is entitled to its own opinion, but it can't enforce it, and the judicial branch has no business deciding, because of the political questions doctrine, so that's how it's going to remain indefinitely.  -- Zsero (talk) 06:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem being that the supreme court disagrees with you meaning that there is at least some disagreement. And many times the executive branch has not taken the position you are expounding, Bush's executive branch has and that's the point. The two main angles are the president where everything in his office is covered and the democrats where only things directly involving the president are.  The supreme court has only weighed in on it protecting the president, hence its significant.  At minimum, we only have half the first half of the quote for the previous source, at worst we are misrepresenting the whole thing as this may well boil down to a constitutional crisis. as the Dems have filed contempt of congress against bush's former aides, who are being protected by Bush who is claiming executive privilege more broadly than any prior president including Nixon.  RTRimmel (talk) 12:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court hasn't – and can't – give an opinion on this. And every president since Washington has asserted this privilege.  Every time a president has allowed executive branch members to testify to Congress it has always been with an explicit waiver of privilege and a reminder to Congress that he didn't have to waive it.  -- Zsero (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ... United States v. Nixon is the supreme court giving an opinion on it. Not every president has used Executive Privilege, many could but have not due to lack of need.  Every president has not used this privilege to avoid contempt of congress charges for its aides.  Executive Privilege does not grant the President absolute privilage in Article II of the constitution.  Further, the Supreme Court allows for Executive Privilege to be voided if the information in question is not vital to the security of the nation and if the information is essential to the justice of the case.  In short, how is knowing if attorneys were fired for political purposes critical to the security of the nation?  Further Executive Privilege applies to "Presidential Materials" and by specifically stating that he was not involved the President has effectivly removed himself... and he still claims the privilege.  And given that he has claimed Executive Privilege at least 4 times during these proceedings, the fact that Executive Privilege is not mentioned at all in the article is dubious at best. RTRimmel (talk)


 * The full quote of the sentence is The executive privilege claim "is surprising in light of the significant and uncontroverted evidence that the president had no involvement in these firings," Leahy wrote in his ruling. "The president's lack of involvement in these firings _ by his own account and that of many others _ calls into question any claim of executive privilege."  So by quote mining, we misrepresent Leahy rather badly.  RTRimmel (talk)


 * Either we need to expand the quote to contain the full intent of the speaker. Are we to remove the misquote or write in the full text?  RTRimmel (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * US v Nixon did not address the question at all; it had no need to since the material at issue was directly linked to the president. And US v Nixon was about a dispute within the executive branch, not between branches; essentially the Court ended up treating it as a conflict of interest between The President of the United States and Mr Richard Nixon.


 * No president has ever allowed executive branch members to testify to Congress about the internal affairs of that branch without an explicit waiver preserving the privilege. That is the position of the executive branch, and it's not up to any other branch, including the judicial, to challenge it.


 * I don't understand what you mean by quote mining. Leahy acknowledged that the president was not involved.  That admission is not qualified by anything not quoted.  His partisan opinion about privilege is unrelated, and unimportant.  He doesn't get to decide how far the executive privilege extends.
 * -- Zsero (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's one read of it. There is some dispute and Article 2 of the constition lies out Presidential Powers pretty clearly.  In any event, the fact that Bush has claimed Executive Privilage 4 times on this one specific event is not worth mentioning at all?  Seriously? He claimed Excutive Privilage more than the last several presidents.  That not interesting enough to merit anything?  Executive Privilage isn't mentioned at all in Bush's article.  Claimed it on a congressional investigation like Nixon?  Not a bit?  When would the use of executive privilage merit mentioning?


 * So your view is that the President is above the law? RTRimmel (talk)


 * By quote mining I mean removing portions of a quote to make it sound as if it is a completly different thought. The full quote reads The executive privilege claim "is surprising in light of the significant and uncontroverted evidence that the president had no involvement in these firings,"   You see how it actually is about Executive Privilge and its been mined to make it look like Leahy's exonerating Bush. He's actually questioning Executive Privilege! Then the quote is mined to completly change what it means.  That's quote mining for you! Given that the full sentence has a completly different meaning than the quote suggests, don't you think we need to at least expand it to the full passage or should we remove this misrepersenting passage?  RTRimmel (talk)


 * Finally the constitution, not the executive branch, decides how far that privilage extends.  Bush's lack of direct involvement only further muddies the waters, hence the possiblity of a constituional crisis over the whole thing.  In cases where the constitution is in question, the Judicial Branch decides the outcome and so they can become involved, just like in US v Nixon.  RTRimmel (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. The fact that he's invoked executive privilege may be worth a brief mention; Leahy's opinion that this is questionable is not. 2. It doesn't matter what Leahy thinks about the extent of the privilege or whether it's been properly exercised. What's important in the quote is his admission that Bush had no involvement.  The fact that this was not the purpose of the statement is precisely what makes it so reliable and notable; as is the fact that it's an admission against interest.  This is basic logic and rules of evidence. 3. No, in a conflict between two branches of government, the third co-equal branch does not decide the outcome.  That's the political questions doctrine.  Don't keep dragging US v Nixon in, because a) it wasn't a separation-of-powers case, and b) a stronger president would never have accepted the Court's jurisdiction.  -- Zsero (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. So we use the whole quote or not at all. 2. His full quote is about executive privilage, the latter half of the sentence is about involvement.  We should use the full quote. 3.  Its a constitutional matter.  When the constitution is in question then the Judicial Branch decides it.  This is not a seperation of powers issue, per Article 2 Bush doesn't have the power to do what he is doing in the first place.  Or he's above the law.   Just because a more powerful president can bypass his constitutional obligations doesn't mean it was legal there either, and further Nixon was so unpowerful due to illegal acts which is what the investigation is looking for in the first place.  RTRimmel (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. No. We use the part of the quote that's an unintended admission, and an admission against interest, and not the part that's an attack.  2. It doesn't matter what the full quote's about; in fact that's precisely why the admission is reliable and significant, because it's not the point Leahy was making.  3. Do you understand the Separation of Powers doctrine?  How about the Political Questions doctrine?  The judicial branch is equal to the other two branches, not superior to them.  The separation of powers in inherent in the structure of the constitution, and thus the executive branch cannot be compelled to testify about its inner workings to either of the other two branches.  The president is not above the law, but he is entitled to his own view of the law, and can't be compelled to accept the views of the other branches.  -- Zsero (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. So we are quote mining. I didn't realize you had psyic powers as to be able to tell he did not intend on revealing it... in the middle of a press conference.  I'm glad you are here to demonstrate to us all what the correct viewpoint is.  2.  Its exactly the point he was making.  I read that and can easily comprehend what he is trying to do, but if you want to spin it to follow your viewpoint that's cool too.  If we can't use the entire thing we shouldn't use it at all.  3.  Again, you are saying that the President can perform illegal actions as long as it follows his viewpoint.  If the president takes a gun and shoots someone in the face and then claims executive privilege he's off the hook?  If his view of the law says that he cannot be tried for performing illegal acts and therefor he's fine?   That sounds as highly corrupt as is possible on this earth.  This is a constitutional issue, not a separation of powers issue.  It doesn't matter who asks, he's overstepped his authority as president in invoking privilege over this, or at least an argument can be made over it so it should be included.  The fact that you are twisting facts to get your viewpoint out there (in terms of quote mining) is not exactly encyclopedic.  Why can't we just use the entire quote?  If only the portion of the quote you agree with is used, isn't that POV and therefor shouldn't we not use the quote at all?  Instead of misrepresenting Leahy, why not just remove the quote and state that the Judicial commite chair had absolve Bush from his role in the firings?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RTRimmel, please stop it
Look, stop edit warring, and giving undue weight to a matter of little importance. Leahy's opinion about the executive privilege is irrelevant. Of course he thinks it's that limited. He's a) a Democrat, and b) a Congressman. On both counts it's not surprising that he has this opinion, but that doesn't mean it's notable enough to be worth mentioning here, let alone giving it a whole damn paragraph. What is notable is that in the course of his attack on Bush he admitted that there was clear evidence that Bush was not involved in the firings. That is notable, and it's appropriate to quote his exact words in making this admission – and no more.

Dowdifying, or "Quote mining" as you call it, would be if he'd said something like "the president's supporters claim there's clear evidence...but that's not true", and "it seems like there's clear evidence...but appearances are deceptive", and someone quoted just "there's clear evidence...". That would be dishonest. That's what Maureen Dowd did to Bush in the famous incident that gave Dowdifying its name. But that's not what's going on here. Leahy said Bush wasn't involved, and he meant it; naturally his purpose wasn't out support Bush but to attack him, by drawing a conclusion from Bush's non-involvement. But that doesn't make the quote any less genuine, or any less important. It's an admission, and an admission against interest, which is the best kind of admission. It should stay, without the rest of what Leahy said, which isn't relevant.

As for the fact that Bush wouldn't let his advisors testify, that's barely notable at all, and doesn't deserve more than one sentence. The space you've given it is undue weight, and it must be reverted.

-- Zsero (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote you insist on using a quote referring to one of the President's advisors as opposed to multiple others that clearly are speaking about the president and his lack of involvement. Lets be clear here, Leahy has said the president was not involved.  Instead of using one of the multiple one sentence statements you instead pick a longer sentence that involves: One of Bush's Advisors, Bush, Executive Privilage, Bush's advisors claiming of privilage on his behalf, the fact that Executive Privilage doesn't apply, and then cut it down to a position that supports your argument INSTEAD of one of the short stubby ones clearly stating just that.  At best, this is a very poor editing choice.  You keep reverting without providing ANY citations as to why.  That section is poorly written and needs modified, if you won't do it, that is fine however it betrays your own bias.
 * And your viewpoing that Executive privilage is unimportant is hard to justify considering that most of the sources in the article mention it extensivly. It is noteworth that he will not let his advisors testify in this case, that's what the case is about, the fact that it only gets one sentence without even mentioning the privilege by name is not giving it any of its deserved weight. The reason the case has not gone further than it has is entirly based on executive privilege, yet again we don't even have the words executive privilege in the section.  RTRimmel (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Several of the sources used in the article site this as involving Executive Privelage.


 * You tell me to "cite sources". Sources for what?  The quote says what it says.  I don't need any sources to use that quote.  It is a source.  Leahy's admission that Bush wasn't involved is significant; his opinion on the limits of privilege is not significant.  It's really as simple as that.  I've explained this over and over and you keep repeating the same nonsense.


 * The fact that the president isn't letting his advisers testify just isn't that significant, it's one of the things presidents do, and you're giving it undue weight. I'm coming to believe your reason for doing so is because you want to bury Leahy's admission to make it less noticeable.  -- Zsero (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For previous presidents who have not let their aides testify and to support your additional claims about the unimportance of Executive Privilege. Leahy's article indicates that Presidential aides have in the past without the writ you claim they have had.  His opinion carrys the legal weight of the Senate.  Your misquote of him is stupid considering that there are several quotes within the articles I've sited that actually clearly and expressly say that Bush is not involved.  Your questionable opinion is discounted by the Supreme Court, the Senate, the AP, and a host of constitutional scholars meaning that you have to explain why rather than just delete and claim that the other side is wrong.  IE Cite your sources as to why Executive Privilege is not important when the Senate and the AP thinks it is and mention it repeatedly, explain why you would like to use what amounts to quote mining when there are perfectly clear quotes that say the same thing without having to cut anything. You keep spouting off bits and pieces of what Leahy says after cutting massive portions of it out when Leahy actually says what you want him to say in several short, clear sentences.


 * The fact that Bush is keeping his advisers clear of this rather sensitive subject is significant. You'll notice that most(if not all) of the sources in the article keep flipping back to the aides not testifying AND executive privlege.  You need to pick a source or two that don't mention his adviors testifying or his use of privlege and I don't think you'll be abel to find any because that's what makes this noteworthy.


 * Finally,... I've left in a Leahy quote absolving Bush in the edits I've made and its still there as of now. I just use a different one, one that actually talks about Bush and his lack of involvement.  Or I expand the one thats there so that its in some context.  You insist on using a quote about one of his advisors using the president's privilege in a case where the president has no involvement and then, instead of using a short and to the point quote about the situation, cutting off all portions of it that go against your point and keeping in the section that sounds like it fits.  I'm removing that quote because its not a quote about Bush's involement, rather than its about his advisor using his Executive Privilege (which you don't even mention) incorrectly.  Then I put in a Leahy quote that says Bush was not involved.  So, again, I'm actually using a Leahy quote in context to prove Bush's lack of involvement rather than 'Dowdifying' one to make it sound like Leahy is. You seem intent on hacking apart a quote that is talking about executive privilege as applied by an advisor and turning into a new quote about Bush's lack of involvment... when there are already so many of those to choose from.  Why not use an actual quote where there can be no questions rather than mining one to bits to get the words you need out of it? RTRimmel (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's like I'm banging my head against a wall. You obviously have no grasp of the separation of powers, or the political questions doctrine, or what "quote mining" and "admission against interest" mean.  I keep explaining and you keep on ignoring.  Someone else better step in here.  But the paragraph as it stands gives too much weight to the privilege issue, and buries Leahy's admission of Bush's non-involvement, which should be given in his own words, in a strong quote such as this one.  I don't have to look for another quote, because this one is enough.  I am not going to argue with you any more, and I don't want to edit-war, but someone is going to have to fix the article; I've still got one revert left before I hit 3RR, but I won't use it now in the hope that either you'll see reason or someone else will step in and fix it.  I fear, though, that if anyone is reading this their eyes have glazed over long ago.  -- Zsero (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a constituional issue, not a seperation of powers one as I said earlier and as the documents provided and supported by multiple consitutional scholars as well as the AP. The Supreme Court has stated the Bush's stance is invalid in a consitutional light and as we preport to goven through that document your statements here are meaningless.  Your inability to grasp the significance of the use of power betrays your lack of understanding of how the US constitution layed out the seperation of powers and checks and balances.  The quote you insist on using is about Executive Privilage and one of his aides invoking it. Your reduction of the quote well past Fox's reduction of the quote takes it entirly out of context and significantly changes the meaning.  If you want to use it, use enough to retain the original intent rather than what you have converted it into.  This is a bad quote.  It is not encyclopedic to use a quote that tangentially states involvement where there are multiple, sourced, quotes that say exactally what you are looking for.  I used one of those instead.  To be clear, again, I used a short Leahy quote that says exactally that bush was not involved rather than his aide's use of his executive powers is surprising and then cutting out every bit of it that made sense and only keeping the back portion because without the first half it can be interpreted multiple different ways.


 * Yellowdesk already stepped in and reviewed it.


 * I have read the above discussion between Zsero and RTRimmel and compared their edits. While I am not entirely happy with RTRimmel's version, I think it is better than Zsero's. The nature of the controversy involves both the role of Bush in the firings (or lack thereof) and the nature of the constitutional disagreement regarding the blanket assertion of executive priveledge. Thus it is necessary both to mention Leahy saying that Bush was not involved in the firings, as well as to explain the nature of the constitutional disagreement in the case. In this regard RTRimmel's version is better since it mentions both. Maybe it would be preferable to have two separate sentences/paragraphs: one regarding Leahy accepting that Bush was not directly involved in the firings, and another regarding Leahy stating that there is no blanket executive priveledge for presidential advisors. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

References in a drop down menu
Is it at all possible to have the list of references in a drop down menu, as in hide them by default but reveal them at the click of a button? Because at my default resolution and text size the references measure eight pages long, just under a quarter of this article is taken up by references alone. JayKeaton (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. They have to be searchable and printable.  -- Zsero (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * CSS could make them hideable on screen while at the same time always showing them in printouts. Therefore it should be possible to have a template do the same. —MJBurrage(T•C) 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See this discussion. -- Zsero (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

19%? No way...
Look at any other poll, none of them even come close to 19%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=19 I don't see any other 19%. Redsox7897 (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The ARG poll is just not credible. For comparison with three other polls taken at about the same time, see here.


 * And this is not just a fluke; ARG has consistently understated Bush's approval compared to every other poll. One difference between ARG's methodology and that of every other pollster is that ARG always asks a series of questions about the economy first, and then asks about the president's approval.  The flaw in this should be obvious.


 * If nobody comes up in the next 12 hours with a convincing argument why I should not, I'm going to take it out of the article text, and relegate it to a footnote. -- Zsero (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it does look like a blip. That said, the 3 prior months of ARG polls run about average with the other polls on the page.  For example, the January poll is 34 for Gallup, 33 for Fox, 29 for CBS and 34 for ARG tying them for highest(so given the sources provided they do NOT consistently under report Bush, there may be other sources I didn't see anything at a quick glance).  Now, their January results are significantly lower than the prior months which is odd assuming they are using a consistent methodology which we have to unless we can find information otherwise.  I can find enough information that ARG may be shady and some of their practices are not quite as ethical as one would like, though unfortunately many pollsters in the present age use these tactics as well, but I think we can push that down to a footnote in Domestic Perceptions, a "and 19 per cent—the lowest of his tenure—in a survey by American Research Group." esq quote such as was in the source.  We don't need to qualify it either unless someone can find a good source indicating that the poll was in fact junk at which point I'm more inclined to remove it than keep it in any fashion.  That said, I didn't find anything that definitively stated that they were polling improperly, and again their numbers in the prior months were within a few points (higher in some cases) than their contemporaries.  I'm curious as to the fact that no specific date was mentioned vs what happened in February?  An easier way to get a bad result of an individual is to simply ask after he did something that would cause a negative perception (for example Bush's polls dropped when he pardoned scooter libby or when a big recession report came out) that could cause a similar drop, but we don't have enough information to achieve a valid answer.  RTRimmel (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Upon further review, I can't find a smoking gun that says that they are bad numbers. I'm not inclined to remove facts without a valid reason and a gut feeling that the numbers are shady isn't one.  Do we have any sources that says those are bad numbers?  Last time the results were removed, someone validly put it back because they remover couldn't argue the invalidity of the poll result and I suspect that will happen again.  The 19% has been used by a variety of news organizations at this point, so I think more detail in the section, "Bush's approval numbers were significantly lower in his second term, averaging 3X% with some polls results going as low as 19%, the lowest ever recorded " rather than going back to the 24% number from October would be better.  RTRimmel (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And vandalism again -_-
Will they ever learn? Will a moderator please delete the vandalism on top of the George W. Bush page? Brokenspirits (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific? What is at the "top of the George W. Bush page" that is vandalism? -- SMP0328. (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Disgusting, irrelevant facts not related to the topic of George W. Bush. I believe it's fixed now. (Sorry, I'm new at this :b Brokenspirits (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No doubt he is talking about this, which was done at 23:36 and was reverted at 23:37, while Broken was complaining about it here. -- Zsero (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I am. Sorry, I'm very new at this. Brokenspirits (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is precisely where you should leave a comment if you see something inappropriate in the article and cannot remove it. Thanks for letting us know. Sometimes vandalism is cached, and you must purge the cache to see the corrected version. That is likely what happened here. - auburn pilot   talk  00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep watching Brokenspirits. Vandalism is easily committed here and vandals are not punished often enough. We must be vigilant. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource Collaboration project
This week, Wikisource is collaborating on works by and about George Walker Bush. Please consider helping out; if you dont have time to transcribe documents, we also need help identifying important documents that should be transcribed, so ... hit the talk page! See you there. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection?
Why can't articles like this be fully protected? Also, why can't vandalism from REGISTERED USERS spark full protection. Footballfan190 (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the vast majority of vandalism on this page is dealt with in mere seconds. Why would we want to prevent everyone from contributing to this article, simply because of a problem that is corrected within seconds? The vandalism is quite tolerable. - auburn pilot   talk  04:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Full protection would mean that the article could not be edited, except by administrators. The article is already semi-protected (no anon edits). --SMP0328. (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Waterboarding bill"
There were reasons other than waterboarding that Bush stated for vetoing the bill. Please amend to note that waterboarding (Section 327) was only a small part of the bill. Full details of the veto can be found here. Also, if this is going to be here, please include "H.R. 2082" (the bill's number). --198.185.18.207 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Given how the press has latched onto the waterboarding section of the bill, I find that its focus is appropriate. Bluntly the other sections encroach on executive power per the constitution and a veto based on those would have hardly been noteworthy in and of itself.   Type torture president into google and you get thousands of results proclaiming George W Bush the "torture president" and enough sources to indicate that both waterboarding is Torture and the US has done it with executive approval.  If you can read languages other than English the results get far worse.  I'll stick on the bill number though, surprised I missed that.  RTRimmel (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How about lowercasing the heading too, per the manual of style. Cheers. --198.185.18.207 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Intelligence Community Impact"
I feel we need a paragraph or two on Bush's alteration of the Intelligence Community, namely removing the DCI as the oversight for the CIA and the creation of Homeland Security and if possible projections on what Clinton Obama or McCain might do during their administrative transitions to the White House. Would they have the authority to undermine Bush's architecture, could they revert it, would they? It might be a little tangent but I definitely feel that the article needs something to describe the effect he's had on international and domestic espionage, ect besides extensive use of NSA eavesdropping, ty and sorry for spelling. Sanitycult (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no way to know how the next President will act. As for what the successor could do, anything done by Executive order can be undone by a later Executive Order. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lame duck
It is not normal for a president to become a lame duck until after the November elections of his or her fourth year in office. It is important to add a section about Bush becoming a lame duck after the mid term elections of his second term. Also it is important to note that the military has refused to cooperate with any possible attack of Iran, in fact it is surprising that one general was not court-martialed after refusing a direct order from the president. --Gonezales (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, one thing at a time here. 1) Mentioning the lame duck presidency is a great idea which I fully support. However, the non-sequitur on Bush's (un)popularity has got to go: . 2) The bit about Bush wanting to attack Iran is not only pure conjecture, it's not even supported by the sources (the article is a *hypothetical*). As for the generals who might quit according to some uncited hearsay put forward by the Times in a hypothetical situation: the reason not to include this should speak for itself. I imagine the UK generals would revolt if Gordon Brown called for a second Holocaust, but since he hasn't, we don't put it in his article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the POV-nature of the additions made by Gonezales (although I don't think Gonezales in necessarily acting in bad faith here), the additions are false. A lame duck is any president approaching the end of his presidency; whether or not such a president lost his re-election bid is irrelevant. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Only a president who has lost political power becomes a lame duck. --Gonezales (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please lay off the personal attacks and stick to the article. Read the lame duck article. While technically every second term president is a lame duck president, they do not normally become a lame duck president until after the November election has named a successor. I couldn't care less how you edit the section, just don't delete it. According to the article the evaporation of support is what lead to him becoming a lame duck. As to Iran - there is still a lot of posturing in the administration about attacking Iran. It is worthwhile noting that Nixon was bereaved of his finger from the trigger, because insiders were afraid that he would start a nuclear war. A similar situation is manifesting in a less brutal manner. I would also like to see a flow chart for decision making within the Bush white house. I don't think that anyone should think that ideas originate from the top, nor are they approved at the top. --Gonezales (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is making personal attacks. The Evil Spartan's objections are legitimate, and you may want to rewrite the proposed text to reflect his suggestions. Also, to get material into this article, your assertions must be supported by reliable sources. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Hi Gonezales. I think you may have a misunderstanding of what the word lame duck means - please read up on the article - it means any president who is in his second term of office, and as such, Bush's popularity has nothing to do with his lame duck status. And, if you want to start a thread about the Iran issue, please feel free, but as said, please don't mix the issues. As for deleting the section; as has been shown by 4 people other than yourself (3 on talk pages, one simply reverting and giving a warning): please understand that your edits are not neutral, though you may thus believe them to be; therefore, they have been removed. If you have a more neutral version to suggest, please feel free to do so here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What part of "an elected official who has lost political power" are you missing? --Gonezales (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you move past the disambiguation page, the article itself explains that a lame duck "lost political power" because of "a term limit which keeps the official from running for that particular office again, losing an election, or the elimination of the official's office, but who continues to hold office until the end of the official's term." (See Lame duck (politics)). Thus, Bush became a lame duck on 20 January 2005. Lordjeff06 (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep reading. In the section on the United States it says "However, presidents are not usually considered to be lame ducks until the election of their successor" --Gonezales (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The fundamental question you're evading is, who decides when someone "becomes" a lame duck? It's a term the press use, and as usual some reporters start using it as soon as a president wins his second election, while others hold off until after the midterms, or until the next president has been elected.  It mostly depends on context, and to a certain extent on how much delight the individual reporter takes in using the term of the president.  That some reporters have started using it of Bush now is not notable; it's their own stylistic choice and nothing more.   -- Zsero (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Some reporters called this president a lame duck right after his re-election. That is not normal. It is not "usual" for any reporters to call a U.S. president a lame duck until after a successor is chosen in the November election. The fact that GW became a lame duck two years early is highly notable. --Gonezales (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Along with the objections raised above, the source used to assert that Bush is refered to as a lame duck is an opinion piece, not a news article. Unless a stronger source can be found, or a reason provided to cite one random writer's opinion, the section should stay out. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem with that argument is that the "lame duck" designation will always appear in opinion articles, at least until after the next president is elected, because it is just a matter of perception, not a technical designation. It's never a question of whether a president is a lame duck but whether he's seen as one.  A better point to make is that it's not notable if only one or a handful of sources call him one; it might be notable if all the press were using that term.  -- Zsero (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't consider it a problem, just a fact. You'll also always see opinion pieces calling Bush an idiot or saying that he's considered one (in some newspapers) and something more veiled (in the better newspapers). And the inclusion criterion is unchanged: It must be demonstrated that the opinion is worth presenting, for whatever reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but out of politeness you will always find some reporters who decline to call him a lame duck until November 2008. --Gonezales (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't just declare it to be notable and expect us to agree with you. If you can demonstrate that it's a notable opinion, then we can consider it. But opinion pieces don't do that. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with everyone who has supported removing this edit and not allowing it back in unless multiple reliable sources can be provided. Every president becomes a lame duck; this is nothing new or specific to Bush. - auburn pilot   talk  17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So add a couple of sources. Add a dozen sources. Be my guest. And yes every U.S. president becomes a lame duck, when a successor is chosen, although theoretically we could one day have a president who was actually respected and who never became a lame duck. --Gonezales (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Iran
As to Iran - there is still a lot of posturing in the administration about attacking Iran. It is worthwhile noting that Nixon was bereaved of his finger from the trigger, because insiders were afraid that he would start a nuclear war. A similar situation is manifesting in a less brutal manner. I would also like to see a flow chart for decision making within the Bush white house. I don't think that anyone should think that ideas originate from the top, nor are they approved at the top. The most likely decision maker appears to be Cheney, but the role of other advisers is clearly significant. Bush says that he is the decider, but that seems to be just idle rhetoric. --Gonezales (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is all nonsense. An attack on Iran may very well become necessary, and if it does there is no reason to doubt that the military will take orders just as it has always done.  If you want to allege a serious threat of mutiny, you'd better have a much better source than you have provided.  -- Zsero (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Necessary? Don't make me laugh. As if the Iraq war was necessary? --Gonezales (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't about our opinion of what is necessary. You simply cannot assert that Bush has tried to attack Iran, but was thwarted by military commanders, unless you have some seriously reliable sources. So far, you do not. Additionally, a "flow chart for decision making within the Bush white house" has POV written all over it. - auburn pilot   talk  17:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about Bush? I said there was posturing in the administration about attacking Iran. Since Bush is part of the administration he should be included in the discussion. You could make a better case for "wanting" to attack than you could for "tried" to attack Iran. Here are a few RS's to get you started:
 * http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2558296.ece
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/12/usa6?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews
 * http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
 * http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRE20070204&articleId=4670
 * http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2007/11/06/Metro/Edwards.Critical.Of.White.House.Bellicosity-3081472.shtml
 * This one says Cheney and the neocons are "desperate to start a war with Iraq". http://www.alternet.org/story/40042/
 * I would equate "trying" to "wanting", not to "tried". And yes there are plenty of reliable sources to indicate the refusal by the military to cooperate. I'm looking for a reliable, accurate flow chart, not someone's opinion of the flow chart. Gonezales (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * None of these sources support your claim of a mutiny. That the president is considering a strike on Iran is neither controversial nor notable - of course he's considering it, as any president would be.  It would be very irresponsible of the president not to be constantly considering it, with the situation as it is.  That's not news.  And if he decides it is time for such a strike, no doubt the military will accept his orders as is its duty; if you have reliable sources suggesting otherwise, that would be notable.  -- Zsero (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now it is my turn to ask you to keep your "of course" opinions to yourself. Feel free to start the section with the "wanting" to attack Iran portion. I'll look for some sources for you to add to the "refusal" portion. None of the above were intended to show mutiny, all were intended to show intent to attack Iran. Below are the sources intended to show mutiny.


 * This one you already have - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece
 * Here are some more: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/preventing-a-rogue-president-from-committing-a-war-crime-open-letter-to-the-new-generation-of-military-officers-by-lt-col-robert-m-bowman/
 * There is a petition asking the military to refuse orders: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/iran
 * Here is a group of citizens asking that the U.S. not attack: http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-10-02-14-05-07-news.php
 * This one is a retired colonel: http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/022807WA.shtml
 * And a retired general: http://www.rense.com/general78/pdet.htm
 * Here is an opinion by Dana Priest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/26/DI2007092601556.html
 * Fallon refused to send a carrier to Iran: http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37738
 * Here is an article in the Nation about the duty to refuse: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071022/brechersmith

--Gonezales (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * None of these sources are about the President. They're about various people attempting to foment insubordination among the military.  If they were notable people, then this information would belong on the articles about them, provided the sources are reliable, since it would be defamation to accuse them of this without a RS.  But it has nothing to do with this article.  If any active-duty officer showed insubordination, you can be sure they'd be out or in jail by now; the fact that they're not means this hasn't happened, and thus doesn't belong in the article. -- Zsero (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your speculation has no place either here or in the article. --Gonezales (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Information about the situation with Iran belongs at Iran and weapons of mass destruction. It's not information about the President as such; it's just a world situation that any US president would have to be on top of, including preparations for a possible strike against Iran.  If and when he were to order such a strike, it would become news about him.  -- Zsero (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah. Intent is equally important to report. What are his intentions? --Gonezales (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "What are his intentions?" unless you own a crystal ball, it has no relevance to this BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't climb a mountain or hit any target unless you aim for it. I want to know where he is aiming now, not in the future. --Gonezales (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You want to know? I can tell you, of course he's got contingency plans for the Iran situation, including all-out war.  That much is obvious, because he'd be derelict in his duty not to.  But that's not what WP is for.  -- Zsero (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't feed the trolls. Let's leave Gonezales alone.  He is clearly here to push a POV, as is evident in his contributions and blatant anti-Bush vandalism.   Diligent Terrier  and friends 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know I'm sure I'm not the only one who has access to Google, I'd appreciate a little help. And no I am not here to push any POV, I'm here to provide factual information for an encyclopedia. I am just as willing to provide pro-bush information as anti-bush or no position-bush information. The only thing I'm looking for is the truth. --Gonezales (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for the truth, you've come to the wrong place. Simply put, what you've proposed thus far will not be included in this article. It violates NPOV and frankly isn't relevant. I'll have to find the quote, but when asked if there were plans to attack a certain country, a recent president responded with something along the lines of "Of course we have contingency plans. We have plans for everything". Having plans doesn't mean they'll be used; it simply means somebody is prepared. - auburn pilot   talk  21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be thinking of the West Wing episode, where the contingency plans for an invasion of Canada are found to be woefully out of date. (I'm sure that the Pentagon's actual plans for such an  invasion not only exist but are no more than 10 years old.) -- Zsero (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, I am here to provide truth that I have found in reliable sources, not to find truth here. If I don't find truth here, I am here to fix it. It is beyond the scope of this encyclopedia to speculate on the schemes of the bush administration, but well within scope to document plans that have been revealed. I'm not talking about contingency plans, I'm talking about actual plans. In this case I'm not even talking about plans as much as objectives. Is an objective of the administration to invade Canada? No. Is it an objective to attack Iraq? I don't know, and like I said I have no opinion, but there are plenty of references that make it sound like it is. Now the question is how do you put that into an encyclopedia? --Gonezales (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * " Now the question is how do you put that into an encyclopedia?" You don't. We don't speculate, or use sources that "make it sound like" something is or isn't happening. We use reliable sources and state facts. That is what an encyclopedia does, and I'm afraid you don't understand that. If you can provide proof that the Bush administration is plotting to attack Iran, then we'll have something to add. Until then, we don't add unsubstantiated opinions/conjecture/rumors. - auburn pilot   talk  22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Plotting" sounds like something nefarious. Given the current situation, they must be actively planning for a variety of scenarios, including both air strikes and a full invasion.  Even if we had sources for this, I'd oppose putting it in the article because it isn't notable.  If one of these plans were to be implemented, then it would be notable.  -- Zsero (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Republican candidate succession box
I put John McCain as Bush's successor in the succession box. Surely, with the note that McCain is only the presumptive nominee, this is acceptable? --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the big hurry? Let's wait until he is the nominee (assuming nothing dramatic happens between now and the convention). -- Zsero (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. No need to try to guess the future. --Gonezales (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He is not the nominee until he gives his "official" acceptance speech at the RNC later this year. We should wait until then to add him to the succession box. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. McCain is the presumptive nominee, not the nominee. There is a difference. - auburn pilot   talk  17:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New approval ratings?
So we are ignoring the 19% poll, did someone finally find something that said it was a bad poll. Please throw that up there as a source. And the sources provided indicated that Bush's lowest approval was a Newsweek poll of 26%, and sepearatly Reuters has his lowest at 24%. Both are verifyable and lower than the 'lowest' section we currently have up. Unless of course Newsweek and Reuters are both also unreliable? I'll fix it later, but again I'm inclined to leave the 19% up there unless someone can find me something that says that its not a reliable number. So far we've had two people saying that it sounds bad but haven't backed anything up with anything other than their own gut feelings. And then acted on it. I'll drop the ARG poll like a dirty fish if someone can find something that indicates that someone non-partisan and crediable considers it a bad number, the worst I found was that they used occasionally questionable methodology in an article that was describing common polling practices during the Artic Wildlife Refugee drilling debate(drilling vs energy exploation or otherwise modifying the wording to gain approval), but the polling was considered 'good' then so I'm inclined to wonder why the same methodology as used by other organizations is bad now? RTRimmel (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When we have four other polls from the same period that have significantly higher numbers, we have to treat the ARG poll as an outlier. It deserves a mention in the footnote, but it cannot be reported as the actual approval rating, which the other polls measured in the 24-28 range.  -- Zsero (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Outlier or Trend would be a better question as the poll is not all that old. Hate to say it, but what would be better is a morrandum on putting approval ratings in the article until 3-6 months after they happened but that's not practical.  That said, after reviewing Truman's polls I'm not sure they should be there as well as the methodology between polls done 50 years ago vs today are quite a bit more primitive(Remember Dewey beats Truman after all).  I'd prefer to see something like casting Bush in the same light as Presidents such as Nixon and Truman, or just remove that entirely and let the interested bodies go down to the approval ratings section for comparisons against other presidents as I am still leary about having that comparison in the header.  Now, if we get more polls in the very low 20's next month the 19% number is going back in, but if they go up then I'll agree it is a pointless outlier.    RTRimmel (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We're talking about polls taken in the same period. All except one measured an approval in the 24-28 range, and one measured 19.  That's clearly an outlier.  The suggestion that perhaps it's a "trend" is refuted simply by stating it.  -- Zsero (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A review of the date range when the data for the poll was gathered came at the time of a stock market down turn, an increase in unemployment, additional reporting on the mortgage meltdown, and a general consensus in the economic community that the US was were headed into a recession. Its as valid a number as say, an abnormally high number caused by a national tragedy causing people to flock under a President more due to his title than for any actual belief in his policies.  That number cannot be relevant if this one isn't, or maybe not because no one has cited anything that declares the numbers bad.  So it may very well be the beginning of a trend.  It may not.   I'll entertain either depending on how the US economy goes.  Again, the ARG numbers were consistent with all of the other sources until that month so I'm just curious for an actual source that can credibly dissect why the number is low.  So far we have your opinion, which is fine and possible correct, however as you are not a statistical mathematician with a psychology/political background I'd prefer to hear from an expert. Its a citing sources thing.  We are removing a cited source that has been used by the media because... you believe it to be bad without providing any evidence that fits into the citation guidelines.  If someone adds it back all you have to go to is a very inconclusive discussion that ends with no one can find a source that says its a bad number.  If its a bad number then and expert somewhere has torn it to bits, find it.  Otherwise someone will just tack it back on and you don't really have a leg to stand on for its removal.  RTRimmel (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. How many times do I have to say this: it's an outlier because all the other polls from the same period gave much higher measurements.  When you have five measurements of the same thing, and four give results in one range while another is significantly outside that range, that's the definition of an outlier.  And it is standard practise to eliminate outliers from reporting, and relegate them to footnotes.  -- Zsero (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh. And a trend is the beginning of a shift in positions that we haven't had enough time to properly evaluate.  Hence they have a term for it.  Again, its a wait and see thing.  Patience young one.  RTRimmel (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, because the polls are all for the same period. Either one poll got it badly wrong, or all the rest did.  Whatever the explanation is, a "trend" cannot be it.  If the ARG poll accurately detected the beginning of a trend, why did none of the others also pick it up?  And if all the other polls were correct, then the drop ARG reported did not exist, and so can't be the beginning of a trend.  -- Zsero (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is almost funny, but ok. Polls get it wrong all of the time, ask a pollster, thats why they take a bunch of them.  Trends are almost always only caught by a handful, or even one, of the polls when they begin and they typically begin as outliers or simple low/high results.  THe ARG poll is actually within the statistical margin for several of the polls in question, so it is a low outlier, but not so much that the poll would be considered much more than an odd blip, and if you were gathering data you would have to include its results within your formula because of that, odds are you'd have several others within the margin lines of your results.  Trends occur OVER TIME, so looking at 100 results from the same period will not let you find them as they don't work like that.  You actually have to wait a few months and look at the same polls with the same questions and the same kinds of sample groups.  Trends occur over time.  Trends occur over time.  And again, Trends occur over time.  Repeat that to yourself and move on.  You can look at a million results for the same day and you will not find a trend because they occurred on the same day and trends don't.  Be patient.  It will sort itself out.  We need to see if the outlier result ends up being the beginning of a trend, as I've said before, it could be either and trends do begin this way.  Of course, trends don't always start from one odd outlier and the 19% is an outlier and that could be due to terrible methodology or a really bad sample group.  We really have to wait 2-3 months for a meaningful discussion of this. As of now, March's results are pegging it more and more into an outlier, and numbers did seem to be tightening up.  So maybe you and your crystal ball are dead on.  I'd prefer to wait for the data though, its more encyclopedic.

i think a strong case can be made for not allowing poll numbers into the article until they've 'aged' at least one month. this is wikipedia, not wikinews. as it stands the article suffers from recentism. one thing is clear though, it's not appropriate to cherry pick which poll to quote in the article. one reliable poll organization should be chosen, and should remain the standard. gallup? ARG is not nearly as widely quoted as gallup (or the other 'big ones', names of which escape me). either that, or we add a section purely on popularity polls, and quote four or five of them each time new results come out. not a practical or encyclopedic path, that.Anastrophe (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * RealClearPolitics.com was used in the past; it has an average of four or five major polls (such as gallup, AP-ipsos and Rasmussen) for a given time period.--70.113.72.230 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is in several important polls in the past (Dewey beats Truman, for example) small research groups have gathered correct information while the bigger pollsters have been plainly wrong, they were ridiculed when they provided their results only to be proven correct later, so I'm not necessarily inclined to lock out the small polls but certainly we omni-sentient editors can throw them in after the fact, proving our awesomeness, when they apply, so if the ARG poll is correct we can fling it back on if it's not then to the digital dustbin with it.  RTRimmel (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Polls Again
I've rationalised the collection of polls into one footnote. As it stood, the sentence in the lede was simply false; it said that Gallup had found a high of 90 and a low of 24, and that is just not true. The lowest Gallup found was 29. The bulk of polls have shown lows in the low 30s. The CNN story says the 31 that it just found is the lowest it's ever found; that's not at all notable, because it's right in the mainstream of the polls, as shown at Polling Report and Real Clear Politics. The only two polls that have found significantly less than 30 are Reuters/Zogby at 24, and ARG at 19; those are certainly noteworthy enough to be in the footnote, which is where I've put them. So the footnote now has these five links. -- Zsero (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Bush's lowest approval ratings were in October and June in 2007, so while the information in the sentence is correct... the sentence is also false. We need to include the 2007 numbers and the lowest approval rating in 07 which was 24%, or the 26% newsweek numbers.  We cannot pick and choose the polls we use, you cannot determine that poll A is valid and poll B is not.  I'll let the ARG slide simply because I want to see it play out, but they do appear to be erronious at this moment.  Reuters, on the other hand, is a valid source and so it has to go back up there unless you have a reason not too and a pollster will tell you citing poll averages that all use different methodologies and questions is not a way to do it.  In 2007 Bush's appoval rating was bad with numerous polls in the mid 20's, with Reuters being the lowest credible one with an approval rating of 24%. That is worthy of an actual line in the paragraph, not a footnote that most people will not read.  RTRimmel (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to the page George W. Bush
Is it true that if you vandalize the page George W. Bush, you can get arrested? Footballfan190 (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * yes, absolutely true. persons who vandalize the george w. bush page are taken into custody by the secret service, which is responsible for the protection of the president. after initial processing, the suspect is transferred to military control as an 'enemy combatant', and moved to guantanimo, where suspect is forced to listen to john ashcroft's rendition of 'let the eagle soar' until death. Anastrophe (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You better believe it's true. They trace your IP address all the way back to your house to find out where you live ... and then, yes, you are arrested by the Wikipedia CIA.  - Diligent Terrier  and friends 18:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Would someone that can edit this page, remove the entries for "Texas Ranger" and Dropping the Soap" I do not have the ability to edit. Matthew Glennon (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx :) I warned him too. Matthew Glennon (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fully Protect this Page
Why is it that this article which is the most heavily vandalised of all articles on wikipedia does not get full protection? Why is it that we have to have users constantly refreshing this page every single second for vandalism when this could save them a lot of time by having no one edit the page. Having it semi-protected is useless, people just constantly make new users and even if you block their IP address there will NEVER be a stop to the vandalism. Have it fully protected so only admins can edit the page. This will save a lot of time for everyone. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't have to have users constantly refreshing this page; we only need a good number of active users to keep it on their watchlists. Looking at the last week's worth of vandalism to this article, the longest any vandalism lasted was 16 minutes. The second longest was 4 minutes, and the third longest was 3 minutes. There were many incidents of vandalism that lasted no more than 2 minutes, and much was probably reverted almost instantaneously by RC patrollers. That's another reason we don't need full protection, as a page like this is always going to be more heavily scrutinized by such individuals, and they're the ones who can see an edit the very moment it's made (with no need for refreshing!). All in all, the vandalism to this page is actually pretty light compared to what I've seen elsewhere, and I think the semi-protection is to thank for a lot of that. I don't think locking 99.998% of registered users from editing this article is justified by saving ourselves from the occasional need to hit the undo button. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, i guess you know best. Its just that there must be an easier way to do this, its sort of like grafitti out there in the public, you erase it and then it comes back. But can you give me some example of the heavily vandalised pages you were talking about. If this is light then show me something, i was just interested. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, take a look at this history of Popcorn, and scroll down to Christmas and then four days earlier (as well as some random other spurts), and you'll see the frequency of vandalism that I consider bad. And the two dates I specified were but a single vandal, mind you. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to see a heavily-vandalised page, have a look at the history of Zebra before it got semi-protection. Or Condom.  -- Zsero (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 16 minutes should be completely unacceptable. that WP finds it acceptable to fritter away the time and effort of serious editors by allowing vandals free-rein here should be unacceptable. but i digress, in my bitter, cynical mood. Anastrophe (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bias: Economy section fails to describe impact of tech bubble burst and 9/11
In the economy section about this president, the very important negative economic details are somehow omitted. How can you describe economic downturns without describing: 1) Tech bubble bursting just PRIOR to bush administration 2) Devastating effect of 9/11 on economy. Leaving these important economic influences out of the article makes it appear as if you attribute all of the economic downturns to the president - only leftist bias in editors could be the reason for leaving out these indisputable economic FACTS which had more bearing on economy during his administration than anything he has done. His policies have been introduced largely to try to offset losses which occured as a result of these incidents beyond his control. 24.197.149.26 (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bluntly, the Economists are out on these Facts. A significant number of them believe that the continued deregulation (which bush supported) coupled with the massive devaluation of the US Dollar (again, caused by Bush's policies) have had a very significant downturn in the overall economic might of the United States.  The fact that the rich have been getting richer at the highest rate in a century and the fact that the economic difference between the top 10% of earners and the middle class is the largest its ever been despite the fact that the overall disparity in wealth had been the smallest only 8-10 years before have been negative impacts.  The fact that the inflation index has had both fuel and food removed to keep it even (and were they back in the US would have been subject to massive inflation on paper as well as in reality) speaks worlds of Bush's economic policy.  Despite the current rightest mentality of absolute deregulation and lower takes, the economy grew at a faster pace and with a more even distribution of wealth during the higher taxed Clinton years.  Yes, the dot com bubble burst was significant.  9/11 was arguably recovered with 18 months.  The Afghanistan war cost significantly over what was projected and is a downturn on the economy.  The Iraq war will cost around 3 trillion at current projections, slightly over the 300 billion that was initially claimed.  The Sub-Prime crisis was largely caused by deregulated banks (free market ideas there) coupled with historically low interest rates (to prevent that inflation index from shooting up on paper) caused that fiasco and we may or may not see the first depression in quite a while.  The Federal Government, and the us taxpayers, picking up the tab for risky investments is a good example of privatized rewards and socialized risks that is also causing some underlying problems with the economy.  At this point in the game, its not worth rewriting until after the fallout of the sub-prime mortgage crisis is done with.  Some of the things that happened under President Bush's administration certainly were not his fault.  Sub-Prime, Devalued Dollar, Massive debts owed to potentially hostile foreign powers granting them a massive lever in negotiations with us, the 3 trillion dollar Iraq war, massive tax cuts to the wealthy, the largest reduction in the size and buying power of the middle class since the great depression are all his though.  Bush has obviously not done a spectacular job on the economy, that's not all a president is graded on but one can hardly expect the economy section of the article to be honey and roses.  RTRimmel (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Some biased lines that persist in this 'protected' article
In the section on foreign policy, there is a quirky and awkward jump into the following sentence: "Some national leaders alleged abuse by U.S. troops and called for the U.S. to shut down detention centers in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere." I think this quote should continue as follows: Sadly, none of these 'national leaders' ever 'alledged abuse' by the regimes of Saddam, the Iranian fanatics, Kim Jung Il, or Pol Pot for that matter. These 'national leaders' appear to prefer to 'look away' when there are gross human rights violations by true dictators, but they become very disturbed when the US imprisons some known terrorsists. 24.197.149.26 (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an article about Bush, not other national leaders. What they do is irrelevant here. RTRimmel (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased statements without rebuttals
In the section 'the war on terror' there are several statements that are apparently politically biased conjecture. Simply because something has a 'source' does not make it 'fact'. I urge people to read this section and ask themselves 'is Wikipedia left biased?'. You shouldn't post these types of subjective commentary without posting the alternative (there are 'sources' on both sides). I am not going to spend any more time on this because if these are not blatantly obvious and doesn't get changed, then the editors are biased. I am starting to think 'this page is protected' is an Orwellian doublespeak meaning 'this page is propogandized for only leftist viewpoints to be expressed'. I imagine they will even delete this entry from discussion. Looks like pretty soon only leftists and those who favor terrorists and dictator states will be able to engage in so called 'free speech'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.149.26 (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read through that section and it seems pretty neutral to me. True lefties would be scathingly critical of Bush. The section is mild and relatively balanced in its treatment of the man, IMO. Sunray (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So why can't we add something factual like the following... Despite these many critics, there have been no additional terrorist attacks on US soil since the president started his controversial but proactive campaign against international terrorists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.149.26 (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think any truly reliable source would even implicitly suggest the validity of such a fallacious argument. It is inappropriate to either respond to criticism for him or to construct responses from information in other contexts ("No original research"). We can consider adding these alternative viewpoints when you can provide reliable sources that at least mention them, and demonstrate the viewpoint is significant. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So who gets to decide to leave out this overriding critical fact, yet include statements that imply US troops are doing something wrong at Guantanamo without providing an alternate opinion. Or take for example this statement...  Dissent from, and criticism of, Bush's leadership in the War on Terror increased as the war in Iraq expanded.[123][124][125]   However, I might add that the media predicted the overturn of Bush, Howard (Australia), and Blair (UK) - yet all 3 won subsequent elections despite the critics of their Iraq policies. Is this fact not as relevant as the fact that there were 'critics'.????  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.149.26 (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As with my above comment, this is an example of constructing a response to criticism using information in other contexts. Don't respond to criticism, find sources that do. We can't even consider making the changes until you do that. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

40.000 edits
According to this tool, the GWB article has been edited 40K times now. here's the edit by MagnusA. Congrats ;) --Winterus (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

BioMovie
There's a movie being filmed in the northwest Louisiana area about Bush. Though I loathe him I suggest those that mean no ill will watch for the film for perhaps further edits. The film will be called either "Dubya" or "W". I believe the latter since the former would best befit a comedy (though his presidency is much of one already) Jerky Chid (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They should name the movie "Wanted Dead or Alive" as some historians already calling him..:) Igor Berger (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead should be struck
"After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism." I think the article shows that he has seen "heated criticism" since he was the Republican nominee until today, and though you could make the case it has fluctuated, such as right after 9/11, it has been heated and intense all other times. He wasn't given a reprieve after his re-election. I propose this sentence instead; "Bush has received heated criticism throughout his presidential career." That at least would be accurate. Thoughts and modifications welcome! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The last major article I read on this topic was that Bush has the lowest second term approval rating in history basically. (It was within the margin of error for the tying Truman who was also highly unpopular).  I do agree that the "Uniter" has received some pretty solid criticism for his doublespeak throughout his terms so I'm not opposed to changing it.  RTRimmel (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He's the only President to have his inauguration protested so I think that's pretty appropriate.--78.86.19.210 (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware he was the only, we'd need a source for that. 76.181.100.218 (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you know that he was the only President to have his inauguration protested? Also, I'm not sure of its relevance. There have been plenty of controversial Presidents. The fact that there inaugurations weren't protested could be explained by the fact that it was difficult to reach those inaugurations (e.g., those inaugurations before the invention of the car). --SMP0328. (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We could do only modern president to have his inauguration protested, but unless it was a pretty big protest I'm unsure as to why? Bush has the singular distinction of having the most people vote for him to be president... and the most people voting against him as president in the history of the US. He's a very polarizing figure, but unless the protests stopped traffic in the streets etc, I don't think they are all that significant.  RTRimmel (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure he's not the only modern president to have his inauguration protested. I distinctly remember a small but vocal group of protesters at Clinton's second inaugural - they were standing just across the parade route from me and my folks. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
The Introduction to this article is excessively long. Some of the material in the Introduction should either be deleted or moved into the main body of the article. An Introduction is supposed to be short synopses of its article. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you to such an effect, but we will need to get a consensus, of what stays and what goes. If we try to rewrite it in the article live it will be a mess. If you want to give it a shot, write up on the talk page and see what other say. Maybe use a sandbox Talk:George W. Bush/introduction And once we finished we can request it to be deleted. Igor Berger (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll do that tomorrow. For now, a guide should be to see what is in the Introduction, but not elsewhere in the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I quite disagree that the lead is "excessively long" and would, in contrast, say it it exactly as long as it should be. Could it be reworded? Sure. But look at the articles for the last five presidents (Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford) and only one is slightly shorter than this one. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be up to four paragraphs and summarize the article. A longer article such as this one will have a longer lead. - auburn pilot   talk  00:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is certainly not too long, and conforms well to standards. I've been involved in multiple discussions over the lead on Reagan's page, and what we came up with there is a gist of the article, as this is and should be (see WP:LEAD). Happyme22 (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead is fine, it may need tightening up a bit (the unscientific poll seems a bit ... odd) but I don't think it needs to be fundamentally changed, at least until he leaves office. RTRimmel (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point: I don't agree with the unscientific poll being there. After all it is... unscientific. Perhaps another poll from Gallup could replace it? Or just remove it altogether. Happyme22 (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to remove it... I think you'd need a 'scientific' poll, or at least a researched one after he has left office. Then again... its not like Bush = Worst President ever doesn't come up all the time.  I vote remove it, replace it with something sensical.  RTRimmel (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would definitely support that. Happyme22 (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that in addition to the Introduction, this poll is also referenced here. I have no objection to references to this poll being removed. The editor who added this material should be contacted before any such removal in order to prevent any chance of an edit war. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I disagree. What is a unscientific a poll is a poll and not need to be statistic to be meaningful. If the world belives in a flat earth does that mean it is true? Bush is the worst president because he behaves so relevent to other presidents as stated by majority of historians; this is logical and deductive reasoning. Hence it makes it sientific!
 * Well that's what we call original reasearch, which is strictly banned by Wikipedia policy. It is still your opinion that Bush is the worst president; it is also cited thrice in the lead that the poll is unscientific. Happyme22 (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the unscientific poll should be included within the article is questionable, but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. I've removed it. - auburn pilot   talk  01:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note, for historians to really figure out the well or woe of a president and his impact to the country they need time. Declaring Bush the worst president while he's still in office would require him to do some pretty outlandish things like suspend habeas corpus or launch unprovoked wars of aggression on false ev... oh wait, I see where you are going with that.  But still, to be encyclopedic, we have to wait until a meaningful dissection of his presidency can be performed which will have to wait until several years after Bush has left office.  In the mean time, it has no place here. RTRimmel (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope we will not be all Dead by the time everyone agrees! It is like socks, we all know they are dirty but we still keep wearing them..:) And this is not WP:OR but FACT. Igor Berger (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, on the bright side, at least The Grandpa is getting The Evil Eye. Makes one wonder if it genetic? Igor Berger (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bush and Torture
Another report has come out stating that Bush knew more than he let on, and is basically standing behind a shaky legal definition of torture so he can say he haven't been or hasn't authorized. One can argue about the specifics, but in any case we should have something listed in the main article concerning this. Before someone goes through and deletes the additions because they disagree witht hem, and you know who you are, please explain why it should be removed and what should be mentioned in its place. Google Torture president and you get millions of hits, many of them are about Bush. This needs to be mentioned, though I'm unsure as to of what degree, thoughts? RTRimmel (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please rephrase "a reference to the scandals and impeachment of his predecessor, Bill Clinton."
Bill Clinton was never impeached. Please rephrase to "calls for impeachment" or something. the current entry is incorrect.139.85.238.86 (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC) AM


 * Bill Clinton was impeached. He was acquitted by the subsequent trial in the Senate. Jpers36 (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See Article II, Section 4. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archive automation
I just want to mention that the talk page archive automation that has just been put in place is an excellent idea. Jpers36 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks :)  Equazcion •✗/C • 22:53, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Biography Section (First Section)
I believe this detail "despite scoring the lowest acceptable passing grade on the pilot's written aptitude test" shows a bit of bias against bush.. 24.16.192.56 (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Either after mentioning of his current 19% approval rating or in the information about impeachment movement, it may be worth mentioning that Bush is not expected to be impeached as the Democratic-controlled Congress can't muster enough courage or even half the courage that the Republican-controlled Congress had when they impeached a President with an approval rating above 50%. Wotring3 (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the third paragraph states: "As president, Bush signed into law a US$1.35 trillion tax cut program in 2001,[3]" It should be followed with "This tax cut was not accompanied by reduced spending and resulted in the National Debt increasing for only the second time in 50 Years (Reagan's Administration being the other time).[226]

226. National Debt History by President. White House Data on Gross National Debt. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Factsonly1 (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. May be worth mentioning, but we also don't want to poison the well. Could go either way. My reasoning: we already mention the national debt rising below. We don't want to be redundant, necessarily. Perhaps, instead, we could make mention in the national debt part that "many economists attribute the rise to a failure to cut spending coupled with the tax cuts". The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could go either way. I find it hard to imagine a reliable economist would say that the national debt rising is in anyway due to tax cuts though.  The federal government has been collecting record tax reciepts ever since those tax cuts went into effect.  Finding an economist stating that the rise in national debt is at least partially due to failure to cut spending shouldn't be to hard to find though. Elhector (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, I read an article from the AP the other day that stated as much in just as many words. It stated directly that the tax cuts were not enough, by themselves, to reduce debts. They made it sound like they used some sort of metrics and mathematical data. I'm sensitive to the fact that the media is quite eager to make Bush look bad, but it still is a reliable source; now, finding it would be another issue. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem there I presume is the assumption the rising tax collection was because of the tax cuts. In reality many countries without tax cuts have rising tax collection, probably because of growing economies etc and therefore there's no reason to presume that the US tax collection wouldn't have gone up more were it not for the tax cuts. Of course I'm not suggesting that all economists agree I'm sure many wouldn't but I'm also sure many would in fact question how effective the Bush tax cuts have been at growing the economy and reducing US debt Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From a quick search I came across this . Also this while obviously not a RS may have some helpful links Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can find just as many reliable sources saying the tax cuts have helped grow the econonmy and increased tax revenue as we can find reliable sources stating the tax cuts have not helped grow the economy and have had no effect on tax revenue. It seems to be more and more of a problem for Wikipedia as a whole now.  It's possible to find reliable sources that completely contradict each other even though they both meet all reliability guidlines.  I'm even starting to notice situations where 2 peices from the same source completely contradict them selves.  I guess that's the issue here.  Is it really a good idea to go that in depth in analysis of 1 small part of GW's domestic policy on an article that is meant to be more of an overall biography of his entire life?  I think this would be more appropriate for a different article.  That's just my opinion though. Elhector (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Under: "Additionally, questions of possible insider trading involving Harken have arisen, though the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) investigation of Bush concluded that he did not have enough insider information before his stock sale to warrant a case.[33]" .. should we add that the head of the SEC, at the time of the investigation, was formerly GWH's personal counsel? Do you think that might have influenced the decision that there was "not enough information"? James D. Rockefeller (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No. That's pure speculation and a stupid assumption to make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.71.254 (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pure speculation?? I think not. Bruce Hiler, the associate director of the SEC's enforcement division, who wrote the letter to Bush's attorney saying the investigation was being terminated, now represents former Enron president Jeff Skilling in matters before the government. Richard Breeden, the SEC chairman at the time, was deputy counsel to Bush's father when he was Vice President and was appointed SEC chairman when H.W. Bush became President. James Doty, the SEC's general counsel at the time, helped W. Bush negotiate the contract to buy the Texas Rangers.

Martha Stewart did time for less, and she wasn't even an "insider." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.186.36 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bush
George W. Bush is probably the worst president in history, I have no clue why this 'article' praises him like he's god. Please tone it down a notch. Dwilso 10:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of him bears no consequence on the article.  Equazcion •✗/C • 22:58, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * The article contains plenty of criticism of President Bush. In what way do feel the article treats the President "like he's god"? --SMP0328. (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone take away the "Jerks"s over his picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaman4ever (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for pointing it out. - auburn pilot   talk  01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is misleading:
"2000 Presidential candidacy Main article: United States presidential election, 2000 Bowing out from the Texas governorship, Bush sought his own bid for President of the United States in 2000."

Bush did not "bow out" from the Texas governorship until December 21, 2000, twelve days after the Supreme Court ruling. He ran for president while he was the governor and only resigned a month before taking the oath of office. The "bowing out" sounds like he resigned in order to run for president, which he certainly did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.15.100 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification; I have made a change to reflect the truth. Happyme22 (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bush and the Economy
I found an interesting link <> concerning the Economy under Bush. Is it link worthy in the article proper? RTRimmel (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems like a POV. There's no proof to what that person is claiming. I don't think it belongs in the article anymore than one by a person who thinks Bush is the best President ever. The article should contain objective facts, not editorials. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly with SMP. Happyme22 (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The huge list of facts below it, and while i haven't checked everything I've poked enough of the numbers to be content with their accuracy, seems to be... well facts. His opinions at the top are largely ignorable, but I like the diagrams.  Remember when gas was under a buck fifty? RTRimmel (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I still wouldn't label duggmiror.com as a reliable source. As for the issue of rising gas prices in the US, the rise cannot be blamed entirely on President Bush. Happyme22 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * At this time, any discussion of President Bush's affect on the economy is going to be a POV. If you add a link to a negative assessment of his affect, you have to balance it with a positive affect. As I said earlier, I would leave it out. Otherwise, the article will quickly be filled with editorials (positive and negative) about various parts of the Bush Presidency. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've agreed with that from the beginning, and only provided that link because RTRimmel provided his link. So I am with you, SMP, on this matter. Happyme22 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll let it slide for now, but I'm checking around and the remaining economists that are still giving rosy projections are few and far between. With real GDP growing at the lowest rate in the last 60 years (amounting for only around half of the typical growth) for the entire term of Bush's presidency since the tax cuts, I'd imagine he's going to come out as a bit of a flop economically.  Bush isn't exactly hitting the targets on the economic goals one would hope to in order for there to be many positive rankings unless you are looking at the pure corporate side at which point they are making a killing.  Again, I liked the side by side comparisons, but its probably not the best source.  SMP though I'd argue WP:Weight here pretty soon, unless you happen to be a corporation or very rich, Bush's policies have really done a number on you, and all the key figures for a prosperous citizenry are tanking.  76.181.100.218 (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are certainly entitled to your opinion. My point is that an opinion is not a fact. There are many opinions regarding Bush's economic policies, but the article is for facts. Whatever any of us thinks of Bush's economic policies, only properly sourced facts belong in the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Facts: National Debt 2001 5.7 trillion, 2008 9.2 trillion. Real GDP growth 2001 4.09%, 2008 2.65%. Corporate profit 2001 $719.2 Billion, 2008 1769.5 Billion.  Top 1%'s Wealth, 2001 186 Billion, 2008 816 Billion.  Median Pre-Tax income 2001 $49,158, 2008 $48,201.  Those are properly sourced facts that are included in that article, but we'll ignore them for now for the sake of ... fairness? 76.181.100.218 (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Declaring something a fact doesn't necessarily make it so. You need to provide a reliable source. The article to which RTRimmel wanted to link wasn't one. It provided no sourcing for its claims. Also, drop the sarcasm. This isn't about George W. Bush; it's about the integrity of this article. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed from article
I have removed the following from the Governor of Texas subsection of the Elected positions section:

The Bush campaign was criticized for allegedly using controversial methods to disparage Richards.

This sentence was unsourced and vague. What were the "controversial methods" that "allegedly" (i.e. unproven) occurred? Who made this criticism? If sourced answers, that aren't vague, can be given to these questions then they can be put in the article, but unsupported vague claims do not. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I was the one who added the cn tag to it because of the reasons listed by SMP. We have to keep in mind that this is a BLP. Happyme22 (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The short answer is the Karl Rove was Bush's advisor and a typical Rove style campaign, Richards was hardly a saint and fired back but obviously not as well ect. The factors I've found were unfounded drug abuse accusations about ms. richards.  They were unfounded... but heavily used in bush's campaign commercials.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DA103BF935A35750C0A966958260

What was someone thinking?
"He is almost universally regarded as by historians as one of the two greatest Presidents of the 21st Century."

This sentence in the header doesn't make any sense at all, it should be removed. 92.9.190.208 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been removed. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Explain your reasoning for deleting it besides just saying "It's been removed" That's illogical to do so. There is nothing nonsensical about it. Unless there was no source provided, it should have remained. --DiamondElusive (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just stating a fact. I was not the editor who removed the quoted material. Here's when the removal of that material occurred. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 21st century? Years 2001 and further?  He's the ONLY president of the 21st century.  Clinton was in the 20th century.  We could put he is universally regarded as the absolute worst president of the 21st century, or the most sexy, best dressed, or basically anything.  Its a stupid fact that while technically true doesn't add anything to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * President Bush is currently, and unquestionably, the best, worst, handsomest, ugliest, smartest, and dumbest President of the 21st Century. Should that be put in the article? --SMP0328. (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course (lol). Happyme22 (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal Bias has no place in wikipedia. --DiamondElusive (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think SMP0328 and I were just kidding... Happyme22 (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that works  I'll go ahead and add it.  - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Diligent Terrier did add my joke statement to the Introduction. That was quickly reverted. As RTRimmel put it, such a statement is "technically true" but it's also meaningless. George W. Bush is the only President of the 21st Century, so any statement saying that he's the best or worst of X as President in the 21st Century is a useless statement. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite true. Clinton was president until Bush's swearing in in early 2000 (I am way too lazy to look up the actual date, even though it's probably in this article I am commenting on, heh...)  So actually, there have been two US presidents in the 21st century.  Hence the joke behind the original comment:  One of the two best presidents in the 21st century, i.e. it is a roundabout way of saying Bill Clinton was a better president.  That's the joke.
 * It's really depressing that Wikipedia is the type of place that has several kilobytes of Talk explaining this joke. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is, as you say, getting rather irrelevant, but nonetheless 2000 was the last year of the 20th century (see also the Century article). -- Jao (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for future reference, Bush was actually sworn in January 20, 2001, not 2000. The election was in November of 2000, then the inauguration was in 2001. - auburn pilot   talk  19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Man, that poor horse must have really done something terrible... ;)
 * Thanks to Jao, for reminding me of that technicality (for a similar phenomenon, see also all the marketing that incorrectly referred to Superbowl XL as the "40th anniversary" Superbowl), and thanks to Auburn Pilot for correcting my other ridiculous off-by-one error. In my defense, my two stupid mistakes did cancel each other out to produce an accurate statement, though... eh?  heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Jaysweet, technically Bill Clinton was President during the 21st Century (the first 19 1/2 days), but I doubt anyone thinks of him as truly being a President of the 21st Century. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course is a technicality. The entire joke hinges on technicalities.  It is a statement that sounds on the surface like a compliment ("Bush is one of the greatest!") but when parsed literally, is actually an insult (the only literal interpretation of the statement is "Clinton was a better president than Bush").  I think maybe that is what people are missing here.  The original edit in question was not a pov-push or an erroneous meaningless statement -- it was a joke.  Therefore, it's removal is entirely uncontroversial.
 * So now, the question is, is the horse we are beating techincally dead, or do we just doubt that anyone really thinks of this horse as alive? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I bow to your two-wrongs-making-a-right-skills, feel a little ashamed for not catching the correct inauguration year myself, and hereby leave the fate of the horse to Schrödinger. -- Jao (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the referenced quote could be removed from this article based purely on human-fact knowledge. It's like somone posting "The sky is red!" on wikipedia. It's that false. 98.165.5.200 (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated Citation Needed
The third paragraph of the economics section and others have claimed the exact opposite covers a well researched and thoughtout rebuttal of the downsides of Bush's economics plans and their impacts by Alan Reynolds, a noteworth economist. However, many of the key factors he has used in his article have been mitigated or removed due to the sub prime mortage crisis and are no longer applicable. An updated rebuttal after the sub-prime mortage crisis is required. I have placed a cn flag until we can get a more current one. RTRimmel (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've re-added the citation you removed. If additional citations are needed, we can address that, but we shouldn't be removing already included sources. - auburn pilot   talk  16:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The existing cite was good and well researched, with the exception that it is no longer accurate due to an economic crisis that has occured that the cite doesn't mention. Given the sentence, and others have claimed the exact opposite we either have to revise the section to prior to the sub-prime mortage crisis others have claimed the exact opposite which though accurate to the citation sounds cheesy, or we need to find a source that reflects this as the thrust of the rebuttal to the economy is going down the tubes doesn't include any significant discussion of the sub-prime crisis and therefor at best it is a poor editorial choice and at worse it is NPOV.  In short I would prefer and others have claimed the exact opposite with a good citation as opposed to prior to the sub-prime mortage crisis others had claimed the exact opposite which is what we would need to change the section into to properly refelect the citation provided. RTRimmel (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it back, its not a reliable source. He makes extensive use of economic doublespeak to highlight non-issues while at the same time downplays or ignores many critical values that other economists (and the field of economics as a whole) consider critical to the wellbeing of the economy.  Further, the source indicates that it was written in 2007, but it was written about a report generated in 2004.  We need to update this section with a new citation that properly reflects the economy as a whole through bush's term, and not just the 1st term.  RTRimmel (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Highest disapproval rating
Bush just achieved the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080422/a_pollbox22.art.htm Rvk41 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, Gallup gave him the worst ever. Well, I've included it. RTRimmel (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
I have placed a POV tag on the "Economic policy" section. I can not believe that there are no people who believe that President Bush has improved the economy. That section needs to have sourced positive reviews regarding President Bush's effect on the economy before it can be considered to be balanced. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've glanced around and at this point in the game most of the sources I'd are pumping between recession or recession leading to depression. Bush has recently come out saying that we are not in a recession, but we need some credible sources to back him up.  When I was going through the economics section, most of the articles were negative, even those that were cited as being positive.  A straight look at the key economic indicators doesn't paint a pretty picture, however there are some sections of the economy that could be seen as a positive (trying to think of one) Exports are up, the weak dollar has been pumping those up massively, but our trade deficit is up even more massively due to oil prices so any gains in exports should be taken with a grain of salt.  Corporate profits are at record levels, but we need a source on that (and with wages stagnate or falling that too should be taken with a grain of salt).  I think we should have some more pro-bush in here, but the economy is turning into a major fiasco right now so I'm unsure as to where we are going to pull credible sources, I've found a few but nothing I'd consider credible as most are laced with so much double-speak and lies of omission.  One could arguably say that the sub-prime is not entirely Bush's fault, but the other side has a much easier argument.  The economy has grown, just at the slowest pace in years and not in the best places, and the Dow Jones is at record levels, due mainly to the plunging dollar and the reserve hiding inflation, oil prices are a record highs and certain sectors of the economy are benefited from that, but overall this is a downward force on the economy, farmers are making record revenue due to high food prices, but profits are stable due to increased cost of operation.  Is WP:Weight proper here?  The economy isn't doing all that well, we are not going to find a bevy of pro-Bush Economy people out there right now, but only quoting the 1st term really isn't any better.  RTRimmel (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we let the facts speak for themselves and simply remove the 3rd paragraph entirely. It relies on asserting facts on opinions and presently its going to be rather challenging to find any that are credible and pro-bush (I just searched again and didn't find anything credible). All this section will do is poison the well concerning the article. The facts may pay a poor portrait of the economy, but they are not POV. We can reinsert asserted opinions after Bush has left office. RTRimmel (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a reference, and a link, to an American Research Group survey that showed that perceptions of President Bush regarding the economy are affected by political party affiliation. This helps give balance to other poll results regarding the economy. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Per RTRimmel's suggestion, I have removed the third paragraph of the Economic policy section. I searched for an hour to find positive remarks about the economy and couldn't find any. It still bothers me when a section of an article is all positive or all negative. There should be balance. With that said, the section is as neutral as possible at this time. Therefore, I have removed the POV tag. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

2004 Election Controversies
The section labeled 2004 Presidential Candidacy does not even mention any election controversy even though the link through article contains extensive evidence and analysis of voting fraud, an issue which was broadly covered and quite controversial. What is going on here?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?
Who the hell locked dubya's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.27.55 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is semi-protected. That means anons, such as yourself, can't edit the article, but that registered editors can. This was done due to repeated vandalism to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But why does not the Wikipedia article on the 2004 election controversy inform or have expression in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Bush articles not referenced in George W. Bush
None of the following articles is mentioned in the George W. Bush and perhaps should be: GregManninLB (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential
 * Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration
 * Early life of George W. Bush
 * Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration
 * Electoral history of George W. Bush
 * Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush
 * Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration
 * George W. Bush and the Iraq War
 * George W. Bush as Governor of Texas
 * George W. Bush Cabinet
 * George W. Bush presidential campaign
 * George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000
 * George W. Bush Presidential Library
 * George W. Bush pretzel incident
 * George W. Bush substance abuse controversy
 * George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates
 * George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States
 * George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States
 * List of books and films about George W. Bush
 * List of George W. Bush legislation and programs
 * List of nicknames used by George W. Bush
 * List of people pardoned by George W. Bush
 * Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to George W. Bush
 * Movement to impeach George W. Bush
 * Presidency of George W. Bush
 * Professional life of George W. Bush
 * Public perception of George W. Bush
 * Religious faith of George W. Bush
 * The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception


 * See, btw. I came here from Religious faith of George W. Bush to see if someone would like to make it a little more NPOV. Sample:"While other presidents have openly discussed their faith and how it has influenced their politics (notable examples include Ronald Reagan), George W. Bush is thus far the only one to have attempted desecularising the United States government through social and educational programs such as faith-based initiatives, using an inordinate amount of religious terminology in speeches and harangues, and formulating a faith-based foreign policy which divides the world into two absolutes, the side of good (the United States and her allies) and the side of evil (everyone else)." Andyvphil (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup request
The Early - Mid Life section on this needs some serious clean up. It features awkward and unclear phrasing, wordiness, and redundancy, and incorrect use of the word "ironically" which is infuriating to many people, including myself. I LOVE GEORGE W BUSHH YO ! CALL ME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.168.174 (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia removed
I have removed the following from the "Education and health" subsection:

In 2006, President George W. Bush became the first sitting President to speak at a community college graduation, when he spoke at Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College.

This is clearly trivial information. The quoted material is as important as what President Bush ate for dinner during each of his Presidential inaugurations (no offense to Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College). --SMP0328. (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed that myself (a week ago?). Unless a source that's not from MGCCC makes a big deal out of it...Someguy1221 (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WPBS versus WPB
An editor has changed this talk page's usage of WPBS to WPB without consensus or discussion twice. I have reverted and am now opening this thread to discuss why. Currently the instructions for these templates require a discussion before a change of this magnitude. -MBK004 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe from studying this edit the reasons for the proposed switch are to rid this talk page of Blp and Activepol, which are required to be displayed on this page in the first place. The switch to WPB would require each of these templates to be manually inserted on the page, whereas currently they are automatically enabled through the coding with WPBS. Hence, I believe that this switch is un-needed and unnecessary. In short, I oppose any switch unless there is a valid argument (that doesn't smell like WP:IDONTLIKEIT) to do so. -MBK004 00:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no preference in general, but WPBS says it should be used when there are three or more banners, and WPB says it shouldn't be used to replace WPBS without consensus. So in this case WPBS should be used. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll just leave it alone. You guys decide on what the banner should look like. Dabbydabby (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bush/Hager
I can't make the edit on my new account, but someone should change Jenna Bush to Jenna Hager (while keeping the link to Jenna Bush, as her article's name hasn't been changed) in the infobox. Malan70 (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the Infobox to reflect the name change. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Halo?
The photo showing a halo around the head with a subtext stating his religiosity is a bit weird, possibly unencyclopedic. JMK (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the presidential seal, not a halo. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The photo's caption refers to President Bush and religion. It appears the photo, when viewed together with its caption, is meant to give the negative impression that President Bush views himself as a religious figure. The Presidential Seal, in this case, appears to be intended to look like a halo. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The text in conjunction with the photo is clearly a hit job on the president. That said, it's a moot point, because the image is a copyright violation, so far as I can tell, and I've so marked it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted. - auburn pilot   talk  00:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference Problem
The "Mission Accomplished" speech was not named such. Linking to "Mission Accomplished" makes a connection between the speech and the actions of the crew in hanging the sign that is only circumstantial. Bush made a speech declaring the end of major combat operations. That is the necessary information the article should convey. If "Mission Accomplished" is to be included, it should be appropriately framed. 'The crew had hung a banner on the ship which read "Mission Accomplished."' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.203.187 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * but the Crew didn't hang the banner, White House staff did. It went from the crew did it, to the crew requested it, to the white house suggested it, to white house staffers hung the banner.  It was a badly timed and ill informed speech that is the subject of widespread derision from home and abroad.  It was one of the more important speeches of Bush's Presidency, and having him fly in on a Jet despite the fact that the Carrier was well in range of his much less expensive helicopter, just made him look out of touch.  The actual speech indicated the 'end of combat operations' and 97% of the casualties occurred after the speech.  RTRimmel (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a reliable source for who hung that banner? If so, then that information should be added to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point, I believe that the White House admitted to hanging it, though the Navy has gone on record as they requested it (though the record for the request only appeared after that became the story so ...) In short, the whole thing is fishy and while the "Mission Accomplished" was a ... banner moment (it hurts) in Bush's Presidency for a variety of reasons, I'm not entirely sure who hung the banner is absolutely necessary.  There is a whole article about Mission Accomplished, I'd let them have who hung it, we honestly don't want to get into that debate here.  RTRimmel (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see much of a problem with it; it was in fact the gist of the speech. We might unlink it, but I don't see it doing much good. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Impeachment
Maybe I missed it...where in the impeachment article does it care to point out the 2/3ds majority required for it, and how that's what the dems don't have? Seems like it's the biggest hurdle, and the naiveness to this is most major criticism with the so-called "movement". It's party loyalty.Rodrigue (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House, while Removal requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Are you referring to Impeachment or Removal? --SMP0328. (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've edited both sections, as they had NPOV issues. The latter only mentioned the one poll favoring impeachment and ignored the several not supporting it, and the former dealt with a non-possibility. Any inclusion of the data in a neutral manner is welcomed. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The cited source doesn't have any results speaking of any other polls so we need to list another citation that does before changing the information. Further, aside from the general lack of support bush has, why is that poll important? The republican controlled house voted to impeach Clinton despite the fact that the majority of the country was against it and the removal had a 0% chance of passing (they couldn't even get all the republicans on board for it, let alone ANY of the democrats).  RTRimmel (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, RTR: 1) the source did have one poll saying far less than the majority supported impeachment, 2) the edit summary clearly showed a link to another article stating the same, and 3) "polls" have stated most in favor of impeachment is just as much horsehockey and not supported either. If you'd like to help me to do research and grab some more polls from Movement to impeach George W. Bush, please do so. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bluntly, the source indicates that the majority of voters approved of impeachment, it was broken down several different ways so that you could make that case, however in polling typically the likely voters is the only useful statistic. Further as it is less than 50% I'm still not even sure it needs to be included other than there have been several movements to have Bush impeached.  Bush is not going to be impeached, so I think the overall value to the article beyond many groups have petitioned for Bush's impeachment over XYZ however the House never began proceedings would be about all that is necessary for this topic.  If there was honestly a shot that he might be impeached, then I'd say expand the section but it is not going to happen so the section needs reduced.  And there is no 'vote of no confidence' or whatnot in the US constitution so public opinion over the validity of the impeachment is next to worthless.  A polling of Representatives and Senators would be worthwhile, but not opinions that do not matter should not be given any airtime.  Be they for or against impeachment.  Polls such as these carry as much weight as a poll from Europe about impeaching Bush, ie none.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you largely here. A polling of senators (which I doubt exists, unless it's anonymous) would be considerably more valuable than polls. However, I do believe polls concerning the issue are encyclopedic. My only issue is with the statement that "most polls have shown a plurality in favor of impeachment". This appears to be completely untrue. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe, at present, that the impeachment movement has died down to the point that there are not going to be any polls with more than 46% in favor of impeaching bush. That said, public opinion will not get bush impeached in any case so I still disagree that the information comes off as anything other than trivia.  As opinion polls have no impact on this, the polls are trivia and trivia is not allowed.  If the polls had any meaningful influence over the situation I would say fine, but public approval for the Clinton impeachment never hit the lofty 46% that Bush peaked at (I found some that were 30-38% during the height of the situation and less than 20% when the impeachment was declared.)  In short, as it carries no weight it is trivia and therefor should be removed.  If you can find some significance for the opinion poll on an actual impeachment feel free to keep it, but barring that it should go.  RTRimmel (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that public opinion is reliable, or really means anything for this kind of thing, considering what it would be after the fact, but seeing as neither a strong majority of public, or likely enough of a majority politicians favour a removal from office, article seems rather fruitless...seems the so-called "movement" is from those who don't realize is futility.

Other presidents have been called for impeachment regardless anyway, is it just the seemingly strong rationale for the article that's exceptional?. Rodrigue (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd argue its worth a paragraph or so, but not much more. I think its more noteworthy that the Democratic Congress didn't attempt an impeachment but that wouldn't go in a Bush article.  I have a feeling that several of the actions President Bush has taken, when brought to light, are going to be messy so I'm just playing the odds.  The NSA wiretapping is enough of a rational for an impeachment that it should be mentioned, but it should not have its own header by any means.  Note, by Impeachment I am referring to an investigation here and not simply removing the President.   RTRimmel (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well considering the party-line vote impeachment for Clinton, I'm not sure how note worthy it is that they didn't attempt an impeachment, even given the rationales.

But isn't impeachment simply a vote for removal from office anyway?. Whether or not they get charged/indicted for they're alleged crimes afterwards is irrelevant. Rodrigue (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Think of impeachment as a type of indictment. A vote to impeach likely, but not officially, is a vote to remove that government official from office. The official vote to remove occurs at the impeachment trial in the Senate. Any fines or imprisonment would have to come from conviction at a separate criminal trial. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, so ultimately it's just removal from office. Unless you mean the impeachment indictment also counts towards the actual criminal trial itself, in which case I suppose the politicians effectively become the grand jury/judge(s)??. Rodrigue (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Impeachment and removal from office have no legal affect on any criminal trial. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The seperate criminal indictment could easily fail following conviction in the senate, the whole thing may not even go to "trial"...unless you meant what I said.Rodrigue (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

CIA Director
The list of the cabinet also includes budget director, and drug enforcement director. What is the logic for not including the CIA Directors, and the new Director of National Intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.240.220 (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the CIA director and the DNI are not cabinet-level officials. See the White House page on the cabinet .  In addition to the Secretaries, cabinet-level officials are: the VP, the White  House Chief of Staff, head of the OMB, US Trade Representative, head of the EPA, and the Drug Czar. JEB90 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal images
I'm sorry to talk about this again but I just cleaned up my browser catche but even if the image is now blocked (I hope), I can still see the blocked image on the article even if it got removed and the editting page doesn't indicate that it's still there. Now things are really weird. @_@ --Hundred-Man (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The image has been removed and deleted. - auburn pilot   talk  19:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a Vietnam Vet
George Bush never served on active duty in Vietnam. It is clear from both the timeline of this article and a link in the article titled "Critics allege" that he was never even in country. As such the reference to Battles/Service at the top right of this article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.208.121 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon my ignorance, but when did he enter the service?  RC-0722 361.0/ 1  19:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he's referring to the Infobox. That's saying that he served in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, not that he was a member of the United States Armed Forces in the Vietnam War. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. I was just wondering because if he entered the service shortly before the war ended, he could be considered a vet.  RC-0722 361.0/ 1  20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Military Service" Info Misleading
In the "Military Service" part of the infobox, it says "Battles/Wars Vietnam War." Huh? Bush was never in battle in his life. And he was never in Vietnam. Also, I'm unclear: why does this article include a prominent photo of Bush in military uniform, when the main John Kerry article has no photo of this genuine war hero in uniform? Typical right-wing Wikipedia bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 27 May 2008


 * If you look in the section directly above this one, you'll see this issue is already being discussed. The image of Bush in uniform is in a section which discusses his time in uniform and is perfectly acceptable; it has no bearing on what happens in the Kerry article. Of course, if you'd rather spin conspiracy theories about right wing bias in Wikipedia (which is quite rare in my experience, as most accuse Wikipedia of being exceedingly liberal), we can't help you. - auburn pilot   talk  13:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The citation of how many national guard members went to fight in Vietnam gives a highly false impression. Bush was under a zero percent chance of going to fly in Vietnam with an obsolete plane. JohnLease (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the "battles" section from the Infobox. That should eliminate any misimpression that the Infobox was suggesting that Bush served in Vietnam. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct decision. --BenBurch (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * John, SOME aircraft of that type DID serve in Vietnam. Just none, ever, from his unit.  And I recall none of the specific variant of that type assigned to that unit.  I believe it was the RC (recon) version which did the duty.  I could look that up if you are interested, but you are correct that it is irrelevant to this article.  --BenBurch (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Scott McClellan's new book
Well, this looks to possibly be interesting. Let's hold off for a brief moment for the experts to tear into this document before we add anything to the article. The talking points I've heard so far is that the main reason it is interesting was that McClellan was a very loyal bulldog for Bush's policies and having him pull an essential 180 is rather... extreme. Most of the other points have already been covered before at a quick glance but it is highly possible more information will come out. RTRimmel (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We should wait at least a week before adding any description of this book to the Criticism section. By that time, any discussion of this book will likely have died down. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The only part about this is the rather significant number of former white house insiders of Bush that have come out against the administration about misleading the public into war. Powell, McClellan etc.  But we'll see if it dies down in a week or not.  Thought it might be worthwhile to pop it up on the discussion page prior to any overzelous edits.  RTRimmel (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully disagree with both on this one. Well, it's been at least a week, and the book certainly made waves, and ought to be included. This is not your typical Bush critic: he's a former member of the administration. This is notable. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with The Evil Spartan. This is more of a critique of the administration as a whole rather than simply President Bush. And this article is about President Bush, the man; Presidency of George W. Bush deals with in-depth matters on his presidency. As Evil Spartan correctly mentioned, however, the book has been in the media. But other former members of the administration rebutted McClellan's book, saying it was false. So it's one former staffer's words against another's. Happyme22 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that multiple editors are discussing it lends credibility to the need to add it to the article. I think that the omission is starting to stink of POV but I'll let it ride for another week.  If its still in the news (is he still going before the senate?) its going in.  RTRimmel (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bush owns an oil company in the middle east?
I heard today that President Bush owns an oil company in the Middle East and the reason gas prices are so high right now is because he is trying to make as much money as possible before he leaves office...Does anyone know if this is true??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.218.26 (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible but we need citations before we can add information such as that to the article. Eatspie (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did you hear this claim? Not only must this claim be sourced before it can be added to the article, but that source must be reliable. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Sounds too much like an urban legend, doesn't it?  Also, public officials must liquidate their funds into blind trusts as not to cause any conflicts of interest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.150.78 (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This section is a borderline WP:BLP violation. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Classic case conspiracy theory. Even if it is true, it is not QED that gas prices are going up because GWB wants to make money, and ought not be included in the article under WP:NPOV. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you guys do realize that if Oil goes up ANYWHERE it goes up EVERYWHERE so him having an oil company in the middle east is patently stupid. It would be in Texas or anywhere in the world and he does have family connections to Oil in Texas and family connections to Oil in Saudia Arabia.  One could make the argument that Bush's actions of undermining the dollar by moving the country into a very significant amount of debt to the tune of several trillion dollars coupled would also cause Oil prices to rise because they are sold in US dollars, but that relies on a wholesale economic strategy that would only benefit the ultra rich and unless you can pull out statistics that prove that the top 1% of Americans are increasing in wealth at record pace it is meaningless.  His money is in a blind trust and, of course, not invested in the many key industries that have really benefitted from his economic policies but more generally invested with the failing sectors as well because at least a few economists didn't see what was comming and I'm sure he used those and NOT intelligent ones who accuratly predicted what is happening now when he first stated his tax cuts/energy policy.  His Vice President, for certain, has sold off any of his assets in Hallaburton so when the government gave them a several billion dollar no bid contract that did not help him out (or any of his friends on the board out) at all.  Nope, Bush and Chaney run a completly honest and open ship with no imporpriety whatsoever.  Its not like Bush is pardoning criminals directly attached to his administration because he can or anything.  Or issuing warentless wiretaps.  Or misrepresenting facts to force a declaration of war against a neutral power.  Nope, on the up an up.  Totally honest and good.  Really.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.90.242 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Senate Intelligence Comittee says Bush distorted information to go to war. http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=24994710&pg1=1 Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.206.205 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Victory Margin
Shouldn't the article mention that the election was a fraud, as reported by Greg Palast/BBC? The only place this isn't considered a "fact" is the USA. 76.102.87.224 (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing a few of the passages on his election, I feel that it is worth mentioning that in the 2004 election bush only won by 2.4% against an opponent who was essentially declaring that Bush was an abject failure and his efforts would be to do more or less the exact opposite of Bush. The prior passages made it sound as if Bush won overwhelming victories, and while he won majorities... Kerry got the 2nd most number of votes ever in a presidential election and would have won the 2000 election by around 9 million votes with his tallies. RTRimmel (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point to the passage with which you have an issue? In fact, 2.4% seems like a landslide compared to 2000 and compared to expectations, but a note on the closeness of the contest would not be out of line. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its in the history log. The short of it is that this article has gotten slopping using weasel words that can be interpreted different, mostly, bare majority etc instead of actual hard numbers.  Given that the numbers are available and much more direct to interpret I injected them instead of maintaining passages that could be read multiple ways.  And declaring 2.4% a landslide is POV, I consider it a squeaker and you don't, so its better to use the actual numbers.  Saying Bush won 50% to Kerry's 48 (or whatever) percent of the vote is better overall.  RTRimmel (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weasel words? Most of this article has a slant against the man.  You won't be happy until the entire article does.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by
 * I'm sorry that the facts make him look bad? WP:Civil and all. RTRimmel (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

209.191.205.48 (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There was alleged cheating in Ohio during 2004 election, if would be good if someone can mention it. Easymem (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there proof that such cheating occurred? Accusations are made all the time in politics, especially elections. In order for such accusations to have any chance of being in a Wikipedia article, they need to be properly sourced and have corroborating evidence. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, the joys of the inability to prove. The ballots in Ohio were electronic and deleted before anything like a meaningful investigation could occur.  It is very probably that something screwy happened in Ohio, whether it was for Bush's woe or favor is unknown as are the actual results.  This, due to the nature of it, belongs elsewhere in the wiki. 76.181.90.242 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of Votes
I shortened the following sentence:

Original:

Bush was re-elected on November 2, 2004 garnering 50.7% of the popular vote and earning more total votes than any other candidate in the history of the United States"[9]

New

Bush was re-elected on November 2, 2004 garnering 50.7% of the popular vote.

While this is a factual statement, it is not notable since the size of the US electorate was also at its highest point. This same statement can be made about nearly every elected president.

Mister Tog (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you sound like you know what you are talking about, which is very good, but you have a citation to back up your claims? Because right now, by removing the fact that Bush won more total votes than other candidate in U.S. history, we are disputing a reliable source: . Happyme22 (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

--

It does not seem very notable to me. Since popular vote has been calculated, more Presidents have gotten "more total votes than any other candidate in the history of the United States" than not. Assuming this is correct.

71.162.121.102 (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bluntly, given that he won by less than 3%% I think that entire sentence needs rewritten as it sounds like he won by a landslide but really won with the lowest margin of any wartime president in the history of the US. That and yes, nearly every president wins by the largest number of votes in history, Bush Sr did, Regan did, Clinton did on his first election so that's as noteworthy as Bush throwing out the first pitch of the baseball season, IE Trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not complaining, but citations still have not been provided. Happyme22 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So to prove its trivia you want us to list more trivia? We could stick is, "As an interesting bit of presidential trivia, George W Bush won the election 2004 with the single largest number of votes in the history of the United States since the 2000 presidential election" and the remove it when Obama or McCain wins as either of them is going to have even more votes in 6 months if you want.  Or we could just leave in the percentages, they are numbers and are not subject to debate.  How about, "Bush won with 50.7% of the vote, versus his opponents 48.X% of the vote, in the highest voter turn out for a US Presidential Election since the 2000 election."  Which is factually accurate and only contains a moderate amount of trivia.  Better would be what we have, but if you really want to add that in I suggest this until the next election cycle and we can remove it as trivia... again.  Ultimately it is just meaningless trivia and not really all that encyclopedic because at most it stands for 4-8 years and is more an influence of the increase in US population than any particular noteworthiness of the candidate. RTRimmel (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the cited source doesn't say anything about Bush receiving the most votes, just how many votes he received, so you'll need to cite something that actually says that to even bother to include such trivia. RTRimmel (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 02:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The line currently reads "Bush won a majority of the popular vote, the first president to do so since his father in 1988 with 50.7% of the vote to his opponents 48.3%." I removed the portion "the first president to do so since his father in 1988," because I don't believe it is noteworthy, and it may be misleading.  The implication is that it is an unusual accomplishment to receive the majority of the popular vote, but the only presidential election between 1988 and 2004 when only two candidates received a significant number of votes was the 2000 election, so the only person Bush bested by receiving the majority of the popular vote was himself.  Most of the rest of the presidents also received the majority of the popular vote (not just a plurality), so I don't believe it is noteworthy to mention that Bush was the first to do it since his father. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. If it is historically common for the president to win a majority of the popular vote (and I don't know if it is), then isn't it noteworthy that there were three consecutive elections in which the president did not receive a majority? And doesn't it follow that it is noteworthy that Bush broke that string of three elections? I think so. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The main reason that Bush Sr. lost and Clinton couldn't not possibly win with more than 50% had far more to do with Ross Perot than any perceived popularity. In a race where there are actually 3 valid candidates getting more than 50% of the vote is difficult.  So that makes 92 kind of worthless to mine for that angle.  After that in 1996 and 2000 I guess you could make the argument that it is significant, but again unless the elected leader can successfully claim a mandate from that victory (and while Bush claimed a mandate he achieved nothing with it and it was arguable if he even had it...) If you really want to see a president who was able to successfully use his political capitol you need to go back to Regan and he did win by huge margins and was very successful in his first term and, while less so, still arguably effective in his 2nd term.  Using that as a comparison, Bush looks pretty anemic.  The main reason that Bush was able to claim a majority is that the presence of 3rd party candidates was significantly reduced during the 2004 election cycle was significantly reduced.  In the 2000 election 3rd parties claimed 20% of the vote.  In the 1996 election 3rd parties claimed about 10% of the votes.  In 2000 it was around 5%.  In 2004 it was nearly 0%.  In order to put his more than 50% win in context we would have to explain away the fact that 3rd party votes were reduced to nearly 0 in the 2004 election, probably sticking the "Anyone But Bush" mentality in, even though it failed.  I ultimately think that adding that in is just a can of worms so I'd be inclined to forget it and just leave up the straight percentages without any addition comments and let the numbers speak for themselves.  RTRimmel (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, there was only one election in the intervening time when only two candidates received significant votes. Clinton's margin of victory in 1996 was much bigger than Bush's in 2004 despite only winning a plurality of the vote.  There is nothing noteworthy about winning with a majority in a two candidate election.  --Mugsywwiii (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism requiring cleanup
It seems that some comic genius has added a section about his 'assassination.' I can't remove this myself for some reason, so I bring it to the attention of somebody with editing permission of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.96.251 (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Information-poor sentence

 * Bush's view within the international community is mixed, with countries such as Israel[209] and Albania[210] supporting him, and Venezuela and Iran largely opposed to him.

Israel and Albania can be expected to support any U.S. President these days, and Venezuela and Iran will oppose any of them. This sentence is not very enlightening. We would do well to explain how Bush has been different from other presidents, e.g., relations with Europe and the Far East. Shii (tock) 21:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. The sentence now has France and Great-Britain in it, though I'm going to remove GB because it's wholly untrue, and the Guardian is anything but neutral when it comes to the matter of Bush (GB, despite differences, has largely stood with Bush on policy grounds). I will also remove Venezuela and Albania for the above reasons. However, Israel supported the Iraq war, and it would seem to me that Israel would be more in favor of a hawkish US policy towards the Middle-East (and thus would favor Bush over many other presidents). The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't there a clearly labeled Criticism/Controversy section?
I would think it would be quite appropriate for someone as influential and controversial as the current POTUS to have his own Criticism section, especially when Clinton has sections dedicated to the Lewinsky scandal, Whitewater, and other sexual misconduct allegations on his own front page. Even if it's just a paragraph summary of some of Bush's more controversial scandals and a link to the main article, Bush's involvement in scandals should be made clear. 169.232.78.24 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The criticisms are integrated throughout the various sections. See also Criticism of George W. Bush. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that, but given that Bush is an extremely controversial and polarizing figure, why isn't this fact more prominent in his main page? It would make sense to have at least one paragraph devoted to his controversial image that would provide a clear link (or "see also" reference) to Criticism of George W. Bush. 169.232.78.24 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because that section would balloon to epic proportions rather quickly. Bush has done ALOT of controversial things, consider the 35 articles of impeachment brought against him.  Even if they aren't really impeachment worthy, I'd still argue each one is controversial enough to merit inclusion in that section... and then he's done quite a bit more that is within the power of the presidency but don't exactly scream ethical.  In short, he is so controversial that its best to thread all of the stuff he's done through the entire article and leave it be.  Most sections contain criticism of Bush, and bluntly its for good reason.  Clinton, by the same token, was more of a moderate president and he certainly had his issues... but its a night and day difference between Clinton and Bush.  Heck, Regan had his issues... but again they are nothing when compared against Bush.  I mean, Grant had his issues... but even compared against Grant, Bush still has even more serious critisms.  RTRimmel (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's try to help users by citing Wikipedia guidelines. For one, WP:CRITICISM advises against a POV-fork criticism section. Happyme22 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Criticism sections are the bane of Wikipedia. The fact that there isn't one here but that's it's spready out simply shows that is a well-written article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Albania
Normally, I wouldn't bring something like this up, because I'm not an ardent supporter of President Bush (I feel he's done many things well and many poorly). But the paragraph on Albania cheering and idolizing him is certainly appropriate and has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT. The only WEIGHT matter is balancing the critical views vs. positive views. The paragraph read:

"During a June 2007 visit to Albania Bush was greeted enthusiastically as the Albanian people cheered, shook his hands, and kissed his cheeks. Albanian prime minister, Sali Berisha commented that Bush 'was [the] greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had in all times.' The largely Islamic nation has troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the country's government is highly supportive of American foreign policy. A huge image of the President now hangs in the middle of the capital city of Tirana flanked by Albanian and American flags."

User:Gamaliel removed the phrases 'as the Albanian people cheered, shook his hands, and kissed his cheeks. Albanian prime minister, Sali Berisha commented that Bush "was [the] greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had in all times." '

First, the people's reaction to Bush is 100% relevant, for they are a largely Muslim nation that supports him. This also serves as a stark contrast to what the people of many other Muslim nations are doing to effigies of the president. The prime minister's comments are even more so relevant. Here we have a man disliked by much of the world, yet not by this country, as evident by this quote. Again, the only WP:WEIGHT issue is balancing the positive vs. negative in the section. And frankly I feel one full positive paragraph on a recent event in the 'foreign perceptions' section merits inclusion. Happyme22 (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Albania, seriously? It has a population of 3.6 million and a GDP of 21 billion (the population rivals that of ... Oklahoma and the GDP rivals the state of ... well, ok it doesn't rival a single US state, let me check Puerto Rico... wait, not there either, that's actually smaller than most South American Countries that no one has ever heard of either that also aren't significant).  It has no influence whatsoever in the world at large as it is not a member of the EU or Nato.  Wanna guess how they afford those troops considering the overall size of its standing army?  (I'll give you a hint, the US paid for it so they could have another coalition partner.)  While this is a nice feel good story and certainly good for the people, their total lack of weight in the world makes this meaningless trivia.  Lets look at an actual Arabic Nation, such as Iran, they have a population of 70 million and a GDP of 892 billion, and they HATE bush.  So if we want to put something with equal weight in here we'd have to do 10 -20 words per word.  You could use SAudia Arabia, they are a nomianal US ally and at least have a place in the world community, course Bush ain't screaming popular over there and most of the 9/11 terrorists came from SA so that's probably not the best example to use but . . .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.90.242 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think most Iranians would be quite surprised to find out they're "an actual Arabic Nation". There is an Arabic minority near the Iraqi border and along the southern coast, but the vast majority of the population of Iran is not Arabic. —Angr 16:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suspect he meant Islamic. In either case, Albania is a minor country with little actual influence so ... I suppose... the thrust of his argument is still valid.  RTRimmel (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)