Talk:Presidency of George W. Bush/Archive 1

PNAC
Why is there no mention of PNAC members in the Bush Administration? This is a crucial issue and yet no mention.

Check. Michael J Swassing 04:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite.

PNAC was a minor-league think tank. If the article were to mention any connection to a thinktank the AEI, Cato, or Heritage would be much more relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.148.158 (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

PNAC was hardly a minor-league think tank. Look at the names of the membership. They make up a long list of the members of GWB's administration: Richard Cheney (VP); Donald Rumsfeld (DOD) Paul Wolfowitz (DOD), Dov Zakheim (DOD); Eliot Abrams (DOD); Stephen Cambone (DOD); I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (VP Chief of Staff). How can you say that "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (2000) didn't weigh heavily in decision-making about military spending at the very LEAST? Maybe you should see the website: ; or the Statement of Principles:  to refresh your memory on how this "minor-league think tank" was involved in the Bush Administration. To not include it would be obfuscation at best. jkv (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Palast
Greg Palast claims both the 2000 and 2004 elections were 'stolen' and that the neocons have plans to 'swipe' things again in 2008. This should at least be mentioned. Palast is a journalist for the BBC, the NY Times, and the Guardian Observer. This should at least be mentioned in the interest of fairness. As this is common knowledge and is conspicuous in its absence and as there is no mention whatsoever of the controversy of Ohio there is no alternative but to regard this article as biased.
 * This statement in the article is neither accurate nor neutral: "Had a full recount been done it would have given the state [of Florida] to Gore, except that Gore never requested a full recount." The cited source itself does not even support it, except under certain conditions. Under other conditions, Bush still won. I won't make changes to the article itself because I don't have time for an edit war with anyone. 220.76.15.121 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Chiefs of staff
Should say more about deputy chiefs of staff... we all know Karl Rove has lots of sway over government policy, and Joe Hagen is also tremendously powerful per per interview in yesterday's Fresh Air with Terry Gross --66.166.234.138 23:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph is a little biased against the Bush Administration.

You cannot be biased enough against the Bush Admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.200.159 (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree first paragraph should be revised
We all have opinions, but we must maintain neutrality when authoring a bio. The first paragraph should be dates and info about when and where, not about the only democrat in his cabinet.

I agree. The first paragraph is poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totenking (talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We need a list of those who have resigned from the administration
That's what we need. --I've begun on a partial list. I need validation and additional resources to complete it. I doubt I'll return to resume my work on the section. I also made a controvercy subsection that I hope people will improve upon in a non-partisan manner ;) (User:Rekutyn)

I have completed the List of Resigned Cabinet Members. Also, the paragraph regarding Norman Mineta should probably be re-worded now that he has resigned. --TommyBoy 19:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a rationale for the order of this list? Or for that matter, the order of the Cabinet members table? I think the list of resignations could be more useful if it was ordered in chronological order. Schi 17:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maria Cino
Should we add Maria Cino, the acting Secretary of Transportation, on the "Cabinet" chart? I think it's useful information and should be noted somewhere in the article. Schi 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Rumsfeld
The page should be updated to mention Rumsfeld's resignation (about time!). On a side note, it's odd that nearly EVERYONE got replaced in 2005... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.126.146 (talk • contribs) 01:48, November 16, 2006 (UTC).
 * It is alluded to in the intro, in discussion of Robert Gates, but I've also added a footnote to Rumsfeld's name in the Cabinet chart that explains his resignation. Schi 18:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
Jhamilton2087 added a neutrality disputed tag to the article but did not discuss rationale. What's the dispute, and how can we fix it? Schi 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it. If JHamilton2087 can't explain why the tag was added, it's not up to the rest of us to try to guess. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  14:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

 * Critics allege, however, that Bush is willing to overlook mistakes made by loyal subordinates, and that Bush has surrounded himself with "yes men".

Though there are sources, could one change this so that it doesn't use "Some say" statements? --Soliloquial 03:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Article says very little
At the risk of stating the obvious, don't we desparatly need to creat the following articles with links thereto from this page: 1. Foreign policy of Bush Administration (to match the domestic policy article linked to at the bottom. 2. Criticisms of the Bush Administration. --NYCJosh 17:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the pages for the Reagan Administration, I think it is a mistake to separate an article discribing the history of the administration from an article about criticism of policies. The result is two separate articles that are both biased instead of one with balance. Michael J Swassing 15:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
This entire subject is cut and pasted from Yahoo! Answers. Is that what we want? Hughey 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Under the sub-topic heading of "Controversy," I have tried to verify your charge of plagiarism, and have not been able to verify that. Can you be more specific about exactly where you have found identical wording, and whether the contribution on this article came before or after the posting on Yahoo! Answers? I don't think we would want to remove well referenced original contributions that have since become the source of plagiarism to another site. Michael J Swassing 14:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is a link to a self-described progressive think tank, the third way, a suitable reference? They are non-partisan but clearly biased toward a certain viewpoint. The CDC and Concerned Scientists groups are ostensibly apolitical, I don't think Third Way could be considered an objective source. Jbmcb (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added a POV tag to this section. These sorts of things really should be woven into the article, not have their own section.  Also, they really are not fair, nor very well sourced.  Newguy34 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Environment
This article needs an environmental section about how the Bush Administration is handling the issues on America's environment. Phantomwolf13 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I came across this site that has an incredibly detailed amount of information about Bush's environmental actions from 2001-2005. I want to start picking some of it apart, but it seems like a bit much for one person. Any takers on helping? Fallicarus 20:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC) I just put a general environmental section here, but I will check out your link, too. Phantomwolf13 19:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this page needs an environment section -- which should be called "Environmental record," in order to be consistent across the encyclopedia.Benzocane 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, the article has a major section on Bush's environmental record and no other such section as to his other policies. This material needs to be seriously re-worked into the article or removed, as in its present form is places undue weight on this singular aspect. QueenofBattle (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is factual accuracy disputed?
We currently have a factual accuracy dispute banner over the article. To me, this article appears to be well sourced, and I see no major dispute on this talk page about any of the claims in this article. It seems like this banner should be changed to a neutrality or controversial one instead, which I believe would better describe the situation. Any comments before moving ahead? Bradkoch2007 04:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea either. It doesn't seem any type of tag is needed at all, because the talk page already states it's a controversial subject. And anything would have to be discussed on the page. Happyme22 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Legacy
I think the repeated usage of "worst president ever" in the Legacy section is a bit unbalanced/weasel-wordy. "Poor president", or "one of the worst presidents" instead? Txmy (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On a related note should we put his farewell address [[File:Bush farewell address 2009-01-15.ogg]] to the legacy section? Zginder 2009-01-20T20:32Z (UTC)


 * Yeah, this section has a conservative POV... and I can go on a rant about it, but the fact you have one of the most controversial presidencies and there's a LOT of vague terms in there... "largely unsure" ? Tdinatale (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, funny. I find the bulk of the article to have a decidedly liberal POV.  Regardless, one's opinion that it is "one of the most controversial presidencies" is largely useless without reliable sourcing.  QueenofBattle (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Like the History channel labeling him as the 6th worst president of all time? Or, maybe under him innocent civilians were killed for the first time ever on the homeland? And for the first time ever in American history we actually tortured people; that waterboarding is not "cruel & unusual"? Or for the 1st time ever, we were spied on by the government (wiretapped) without a court order? Oh no wonder why historians are largely unsure how historians will judge him... and there are not even any reliable sources in there. You can shoot me and that would be less painful than reading that section. Tdinatale (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, your partisan rant, my friend, is precisely why we require reliable sources here in Wiki-ville. I'm comfortable with his legacy because under him there has not been another attack by terrorists on US soil.  Maybe, just maybe, it's because for the first time in history, congress gave the president the authority to determine what constitutes "torture" on people who are hell-bent on destroying the US (rather than the happier, softer interrogation techniques presently the norm, "Oh, please Mr. Bin Laden sir, please tell us who you plan to bomb next?").  Angry liberals are a funny crowd; thanks for the laugh!  QueenofBattle (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that historically the US has been against giving the president that much authority because its against the constitution. Historically torture has been one of the least effective methods of extracting information, as the newly released CIA memos about Bush's interrogation policies demonstrate again.  And the 'softer methods' aren't all that soft, just not ineffectivly violent as the methods Bush chose to impliment.  Unfortunatly, the President chose to impliment those methods and now that the secret is out of the bag, August 31's we get yet more information on how ineffective they were as opposed to the tried and true mehtods, he looks even less... successful than before.  Plus, it looks like the one terror plot they were trumping up as being worth the whole program got most of the good information from the 'standard' interrogation methods not the 'enhanced' ones.  But we may not know that definatly for 20 years, so ignorant conservatives have exactally that long to close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears.  RTRimmel (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I'm sure conservapedia is spot on. Tdinatale (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note Talk page behavior that is unacceptable: Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article. Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

He is the worst president ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.200.159 (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

January 20th 2009
Isn't it inaccurate to give the dates of the administration as January 20th 2001 to January 20th 2009, given that the latter date hasn't happened yet? A lot could happen in a month (death, resignation, impeachment... well not the last one). Just saying --Kick the cat (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms/Controversies section

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

In view of the facts that this discussion has been open for over a week, with advertising to direct people to it, and the talk going dead with the vast majority of opinion supporting, I think it's safe to say consensus approval of proposal for removal. Thank you to all who contributed. I will get round to enacting the proposal soon. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont understaind why an article about George W Bush's Presidency includes a Criticisms/Controversies section when on the discussion page about Barack Obama includes a FAQ that states this:

• Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?

A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT.

If this is the case then this section needs be removed or the Barack Obama page needs to be allowed to have a Criticisms/Controversies section. Otherwise there is a clear bias being displayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxpup (talk • contribs) 11:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support removal I believe the section should be removed, as per precedent established at Barack Obama, and per WP:CRIT. I will inform other editors to try and get sufficient attention drawn to this discussion so that a consensus for some kind of decision regarding this issue can be made.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Long comments without actual conclusions

 * I don't have a strong opinion, although I would like to point out that comparing one article to another should be done to look for solutions, or to introduce consistency and predictability -- but trying to enforce parity as a matter of fairness is a blind alley because that involves an unjustified assumption that one political actor or their supporters deserve the same treatment as another. Although Bush and Obama are both US presidents that may be where there differences end: Bush faced a number of significant controversies during his period in office that have major implications whereas for the most part the few controversies involving Obama are campaign issues.  Perhaps the reason for that, Bush is a former president with an 8-year record whereas Obama is a new president with a relatively short record before office.  Obama is at the moment very popular whereas Bush left office as one of the least popular and most poorly rearded presidents in history.  To point out the obvious Bush is a Republican and for the most part conservative (the two don't overlap 100% of course) whereas Obama is a Democrat who is mostly liberal by current American standards.  The two parties and political philosophies are considerably different.  In demanding that both receive equal treatment, exactly what is the objective here?  FAQ #6 concerns only the biographical article, and telling the life story of a man usually does not involve enumerating his mistakes or detractors whereas this is a presidency of article, and many people in the world think that like an art movement, movie, or dance competition, a presidency is something to be ranked, rated, and critiqued.  Unlike a bio this article is already written as a collection of lists.  It arguably is useful for informative (i.e. encyclopedic) purposes to offer a quick reference to the various successes, failures, criticisms, and praises of a political institution.  Is there a tipping point in there?  Would all these add up to a reason to have a section of controversies for one president and not another?  I can't say... I would be skeptical.  But I hope we can move beyond a simplistic approach by which we're trying to balance things out, i.e. Obama doesn't have criticms so why should Bush?  What about McCain?  Or his rival Clinton?  Or a foreign head of state, or a dissident leader?  Or the head of a corporation?  A nonprofit?  A think tank?  Before you know it this act of balancing articles will go all the way to broccoli and cabbage patch dolls and I think that takes us away from the more fundamental purpose of providing encyclopedic information to the reader.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally do not support removing the section out of a sense of being fair. I believe the section should be removed because, although 'Barack Obama' is a biographical article, as opposed to this article, WP:CIRT's assertion that "Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article" (as summarized on the talk page of Barack Obama) still applies.  It is for that reason that I also do not support removing the section simply because the article on Barack Obama doesn't have one, but because I believe the WP:CIRT standard applies here.  As for the kind of precedent any decision here may establish, maybe a re-write of WP:CIRT is required to prevent such a sweeping change as described that may result if that is what the majority of editors wish.  I must confess that I do not understand why a comparison between Obama's and Bush's beliefs is directly relevant to the proposed application of WP:CIRT to this article.  And, I would like to note that I think current criticisms and controversies regarding Barack Obama have extended beyond "the few" during the campaigning; criticisms at Presidency of Barack Obama are incorporated into the prose instead of just having their own section.  Thanks for your input, Wikidemon.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'd be interested to see what a criticism and controversies section on broccoli would say. :) JEdgarFreeman (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose a criticism section of broccoli which mentions the media controversy in which this president's father was, erm, boiled. I would also add the degree to which popular conception of the vegetable is negative and explore the degree to which this is due to poor product placement in films and rap videos and the degree to which it's due to the aroma of the vegetable and of the gas which it produces.  (We must include scientific data explaining the flatulence.)  I see a potential controversy in the fact that China and India have cornered the market, producing more than 75% of existing supply.  Are they stockpiling?  And could this be a greater threat to the environment than their increased usage of coal power?  Or perhaps they have invented a technology to harness the gas it produces, a la methane.  Or will Australia become the next great economy by mass-producing kangaroo stomach bacteria to combat these effects?  Most of the U.S. production (less than 1/10th the amount of China and India) is in California, which of course raises several implicit concerns.  Can this be traced somehow to Nancy Pelosi?  Just because there is no mention of any of this in the MSM doesn't mean we shouldn't seek out legitimate sources of information wherever they may be found.  I would suggest investigating Jacques Diouf of the FAO—who openly admits to having been educated by the French—and proceeding to Birds Eye. Abrazame (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, never saw it that way. :) JEdgarFreeman (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We certainly can find plenty of "criticism of broccoli". Believe it or not, back in the 1930s or 1940s I think, in order to help farmers and promote health and the war effort, the US government sponsored a bunch of local women to be radio hosts and talk about recipes, nutrition, and so on.  Once cause the government wanted them to push was eating Broccoli, which many Americans at the time shunned as too "ethnic" (i.e. Italian).  People trusted what the government said back then, and it worked - today we would call them government administration lackeys spreading their POV propaganda about foreign vegetables.  Also, it's pretty well known that Bush's father did not like broccoli at all, and forbade the White House chef from serving it.  This got him into some real controversy with food experts, but he said that he was the president so nobody could tell him he had to eat broccoli.  I wish I had the cites for this. Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support removal because the section has grown to become an unbalanced, unfair portrayal and completely violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV (not to mention WP:CRITICISM). However, I support keeping relevant, well cited material from the section and incoporating it in the appropriate sections throughout the article. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I too support incorporating valid text from the section into the rest of the article. If the proposal gains consensus, I will be happy to undertake the re-arrangement of information.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support article restructuring. I should note that Bush no longer has a "criticism of" article, bringing it into line with the most recent presidents. This is just an extension. Sceptre (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If consensus still supports removal of section, and incorporation of text from section, in 5 days, I think the discussion should be closed, and the proposal carried out. Sound good?  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bush administration and science
I noticed above that the criticisms section has recently been removed. Which I disagree with btw, because Bush has a history of criticism of his administration so it would not be undue weight. Whereas Obama just got into office, so there's nothing to write about yet. Nevertheless here's some material I came across that could possibly be incorporated into this article.

Over 50 top scientists go public over Bush's abuse of science Reports: Policy, Not Science, Drives Bush Administration - Benjamin Radford

-- &oelig; &trade; 00:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing here that qualifies as a reliable source. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They're out there, just try harder. I might find you a source or two myself when I get bored.  RTRimmel (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * QueenofBattle is wrong. The link leads to an article which specifically and clearly cites two reliable sources.


 * First, it claims that www.ucsusa.org (website of Union of Concerned Scientists, co-founded by Physics Nobel Laureate Henry Way Kendall) states: “'A growing number of scientists, policy makers, and technical specialists both inside and outside the govern ment allege that the current Bush administration has suppressed or dis torted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy.' The findings cover many policy areas, including environmental protec tion, abstinence/sex education, and pre-war claims that aluminum tubes found in Iraq were to be used for enriching uranium—and thus creating nuclear weapons. In response to an EPA report on the effects of climate change, the report charges that “the Bush administration has sought to exaggerate uncertainty by relying on disreputable and fringe-science reports and preventing informed discussion on the issue.”  While acknowledging that previous presidents also engaged in distorting and manipulating science, the report concluded that the Bush administra tion’s efforts to do so were “unprece dented.” The White House largely dis missed the report as a politically driven collection of unrelated incidents that do not constitute a pervasive anti-science bias."


 * All someone has to do is go to that website and confirm it from the source.


 * The article then notes a second reliable source: "Still, many of the report’s findings have been independently verified. One high-profile example, Iraq’s aluminum tubes, was the subject of a 60 Minutes II segment titled 'The Man Who Knew' (February 4, 2004)". Again a clear example of a reliable journalistic source, if someone can find a corroborating reliable source mentioning the segment or a transcript of the show.


 * So the phrase "There is nothing here that qualifies as a reliable source" incorrectly goes beyond claiming that this isn't a reliable source to aver that this is a dead end with no potential lead to any other reliable source. Abrazame (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the casual reader, on the surface, there is nothing provided by the editor that is a reliable source. Readers of Wikipedia need not dig through rabbit holes, past the links of links, into other websites, to find the sizzle.  That Abrazame has wasted so much bandwidth here to navigate us through those rabbit holes is clearly telling of the truth that I write.  QueenofBattle (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk pages aren't for "readers of Wikipedia", they are for editors of Wikipedia to comment on issues of article improvement, moving through discussions of sourcing and relevancy and weight, etc., in the interests of arriving at material reaching the various thresholds of article inclusion. The first editor provided one link to a short article which I did not read, but in scanning instantly noted two sources.  I don't know where your rabbits come in, but it seems the alternative for a casual editor, such as the one who started this thread, would be to cut-and-paste the whole article (or relevant sections) here to indicate the two sources (as I have done), so that you and the leporiphobic editors for whom you seem to speak don't have to click on links to arrive at the information they contain.  Yet of course you characterize that as a waste of bandwidth.  (I find it ironically superfluous that you would wikilink my name.)  So you would leave both casual editors and myself with one of two options: 1.) Refrain from any participation whatsoever, or 2.) Ignore your self-contradictory bridge ogre hyperbole in favor of taking their editorial work to the next step.  I would advise interested parties to do the latter.  Abrazame (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Abrazame oops, I mean Abrazame, cute and impressive use of the thesaurus, my friend. Also, I am most appreciative that you recognize the efficiency with which I merely copied your username from the text immediately preceding my latest addition of text, any perceived irony aside.  But, back to trying to improve the article, which (note the grammatically correct use of the word "which" devoid of ostentatious pufferation) is what we are here to accomplish.  So many links and so many steps to get to a straight-forward assertion is clearly not what Wiki-peeps need access.  So, let the editors bring forth the easy-to-use, straight forward reliable sources to support the opinions and assertions of Bush's critics.  QueenofBattle (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Leporiphobic! heheh I just had to add that one to List of phobias. Just wanted to clear something up, I would've done the digging myself for the reliable sources and added the content myself to the article but as I've noted above the entire section on criticism has been removed, so I decided to post the link here in case it ever came back, or some diligent, resourceful editor manages to incorporate the useful bits into the article. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it is lepori holes that drive my phobia! On a serious note, separate criticism sections are frowned upon here at Wikipedia in BLPs.  QueenofBattle (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Iraq Military Conflict
No weapons of mass destruction were found. This is not even questioned in the article. If there are no weapons found, then why did the U.S. invade Iraq in 2002?

A contrast in competency
The reference to John Ashcroft as being "competent" reads like a slight to Ashcroft, as in merely so, without the second part of the contrast that must surely have been the intention for that word's placement there; clearly this was initially balancing out a reference to the fact that Alberto Gonzales was widely accused of incompetence and calls came equally from both sides of the aisle for his removal. (This was not some petty partisan thing.) Anyone familiar with article history here want to restore something, or should we source a mention from the Gonzales bio? And in that vein, I'm trying to understand justification for the notability of Mineta's resignation (not to mention those of Ridge and Ashcroft), but not Gonzales'. Abrazame (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is embarrassing.
A search for "critic" comes up with 9 results of "critics" "criticism" and "criticized" on Clinton's Wiki article. There are 7 results on John Kerry's page and there are 8 instances of criticism against Gore on Gore's article. This article? One passing instance. It is a shame to the very idea of Wikipedia that a figure who has been criticized more than perhaps anyone in the past decade has barely any mention of it in his Wikipedia article. Bush has not only been criticized far more than these other figures, he has been criticized on a widespread and global scale, by a very wide and diverse segment of people of all political persuasions and backgrounds, his fervent criticism is one of the most important aspects of his persona and his legacy. Naturally, avoiding weasel words like "critics say" is fine, but you can't present an unbiased article on George W. Bush without using the word "criticism" at least a few times. From an unbiased perspective this article is failing. MarcelB612 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. This article appears largely to be whitewashed. No description of controversies, no outline of criticism -- it reads like the whitehouse.gov web site. --71.235.239.166 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree too. Who wrote this article? Karl Rove?  This is one of the most controversial administrations in US history and the article should reflect that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.222.91 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. This article is almost comically whitewashed. (I thought there was to be no whitewash at the Whitehouse). or example the global recession of 2007-2009 is mentioned only in the phrase of Bush "stimulating the economy during the recession" - there is no indication of Bush's policies being a major factor in its cause or anything! Fig (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. This article is a joke.  Read the last paragraph of the intro; it makes Bush's second term seem like a tremendous success.  Wikipediarul e s 2221  03:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Karl Rove
Rove might not have held an official title normally noted, but his role was significant and should be at least mentioned. Mulp (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Point/Counter-Point on Africa Aid in Lead
I took out both the Guardian and the BBC commentary from the lead. Neither favorable nor negative perspectives on Bush's activities re: Africa are in the article proper. The lead is not the place to have an extended debate about the effectiveness of any of these policies. If someone wants to make a new section in the main part of the article, and then show these varying opinions, that's fine. For pretty much every one of his policies/supported legislation/executive decisions, I'm sure we could site dozens of positive and dozens of negative news articles/commentary. But, per WP:LEAD, "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Not list all of the details. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pathetic
This is one of the most biased articles ever written. It is literally swimming with pro conservative statements. Just goes to show how wikipedia can be used as a propaganda tool... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.45.87 (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article is biased as hell--most of it reads like it was written by a Bush staffer. Virtually all of Bush's actions are portrayed in an overwhelmingly positive light, with no mention of negative results or popular criticism.

The introduction is especially guilty of this. There is, for instance, no mention at all of Hurricane Katrina in the introduction, nor does it appear anywhere in the article except for a simple "Responded to Hurricane Katrina" bullet, buried down at the bottom of an accomplishments tree. Many would consider the administration's response to Katrina to be a major moment in the Bush presidency, and it is certainly more notable than a good number of the items mentioned in the intro.

The introduction also mentions the economic collapse that occurred at the end of his administration only in such a way as to remove all responsibility: "His second term was highlighted by...several different economic initiatives aimed at preventing a banking system collapse, stopping foreclosures, and stimulating the economy during the recession." Really? This writing makes it sound as though Bush proactively pushed through legislation beforehand--his second term was highlighted more accurately by the collapse itself, not by the relatively limited actions taken by Bush in its wake. The wording here is like saying that Hoover's presidency was "highlighted by initiatives aimed at stimulating the economy" without mentioning the crash of 1929.

These two are just a couple of examples--much of this article's wording seems to be deliberately chosen to present a pro-Bush POV.

The legacy section is totally worthless as well--the results of the Bush Presidency, positive or not, have already been the subject of substantial debate both by historians and the general public. A simple parting quote from Bush himself has little to do with his actual legacy.

Did Bush do some good things during his administration? Definitely. But this article so substantially plays up the good while glossing over the bad as to raise serious neutrality issues.

The George_W._Bush article is substantially better written than this one and does not read like something out of a conservative blog, as this one often does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incaustic (talk • contribs) 06:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edited By Another Reader: The Wiki article could be taken as the exact opposite of the critique above. It reads like a liberal biased blog and does not fully envelop the many aspects and tribulations of this presidency. It does in fact portray a certain blase attitude, is not well written, and leaves greyness and the element of speculation and quasi blame in some form in a lot of areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.200.86 (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardons
why no section on pardons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.56.182 (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nov 2004 election
This article should mention the very close election in 2004 and the possible corruption involved therein. Here is one reference, among many: http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1318 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWaterBottle (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The following article is probably a better location for that discussion: United States presidential election, 2004.Jarhed (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bush regime
the term Bush regime redirects here I was looking for an article on the term. is there one? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bush regime, Bush administration, Bush White House, and others, are all terms that refer to the subject of the current article.Jarhed (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Censorship?
What happen(ED ED ED ED ED. Rememb how to spell?!) to the criticism page? There seems to be alot of political editing to remove or downpay criticism and controversy. Re-writing history..... ThanatosXRS (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Add wikilink Effects_of_global_warming for "global warming had been a contributor"
Add wikilink Effects_of_global_warming for "global warming had been a contributor" 99.181.140.195 (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an WP:EGG. Although it's a stretch, perhaps linking global warming might be plausible.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States for specific "greenhouse gas emissions"
Wikilink Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States for specific "greenhouse gas emissions" 99.181.140.195 (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't tell from context whether it was referring to greenhouse gas emissions by the United States or worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where, but resource
Torturer’s Apprentice "The new science of interrogation is not, in fact, so new at all: “extraordinary rendition” and “enhanced interrogation” and “waterboarding” all spring directly from the practices of the medieval Roman Catholic Church. The distance, in both technique and ideology, between the Inquisition’s interrogation regime and 21st-century America’s is uncomfortably short—and provides a chilling harbinger of what can happen when moral certainty gets yoked to the machinery of torture." by Cullen Murphy The Atlantic January/February 2012

Also see Inquisition (disambiguation) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality and weasel word banners
I removed the neutrality and weasel word banners because the talk page lacks any specific objections or instructions for fixing problems. The article appears to be reasonably NPOV to me. However, this is a controversial article and there should be a lot of room for disagreement. If someone has a specific objection, please specify it with as much detail as you can.Jarhed (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done the same (ie removed the neutrality banner). I have not reviewed for NPOV. But this tag has been up now for three years. I'm therefore removing the neutrality banner. If someone has a neutrality objection, please reinstate banner & state a case. 10stone5 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

War Criminal
Where is the write up on the violations of international law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.169.228 (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

More points and sources
This is not a source, but it points to things not well covered in this article: malaria, Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, African Debt relief, Darfur, South Sudan. The video fails to mention Bush's resistance to condoms in Africa though. Pepfar is in the article, but not expanded upon. TGCP (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Presidency of George W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/nature-article

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No criticism section!?
Even Reagan's presidency has one. GW Bush's presidency certainly deserves one as well. This article is more hagiography than an encyclopedia article. For example, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#2001.E2.80.932009_George_W._Bush_Administration

2606:6000:FECF:4100:DDEC:359F:14D2:CDBE (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)