Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-25 Movement to impeach George W. Bush

Who are the involved parties?

 * Arnabdas
 * Nescio

What's going on?
User Arnabdas has cited links that legally challenge the movement to impeach President Bush. Points of contention are listed below:
 * Arnabdas put up information that would contradict the assertion that George Bush fabricated a WMD threat by Saddam Hussein's Iraq by citing the 1998 State of the Union speech where President Clinton mentioned that there was a threat. Arnabdas argues that this blatantly proves that Bush did not fabricate the intelligence. Arnabdas is not making any editorial claims about relevence or whether this warranted an action by President Bush to go to war. The issue is of whether or not Bush should be impeached for making up a threat. He clearly did not make up the threat as mentioned in the State of the Union Address in 1998 by President Clinton. Therefore supporting an impeachment of Bush for fabricating the threat can be challenged.
 * User Nescio explained that Clinton did not have the intel Bush did (which already doubted there were WMD), did not have the reports made by the IAEA (i.e. yellowcake forgery), did not have the knowledge that weaponinspectors were unable to find WMD despite looking for months. Because of that whatever Clinton might have said in 1998!!! is old news. Second, clearly even if thge info was identical, which we know is not the case, why did he not invade? A five year old statement which does not take in account the info I mentioned is not relevant so I think we should not include it. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Arnabdas put up information about the legality of going to war in Iraq. User Nescio put up many links about commentaries and opinions by many pundits. That is very valid and Arnabdas is not challenging that. However, Arnabdas wants to cite that UN Resolution 686 3(a) specifically states how the UN demanded in 1991 that Iraq cease any and all attacks against member states including missile attacks on coalition aircraft. It has been well known that between the war in 1991 and the US invasion in 2003, Saddam Hussein's forces constantly fired upon American and British airplanes patrolling the no-fly zone, which of course in itself is an Act of War, aside from a clear violation of UN Resolution 686, 3(a) (which was linked). User Arnabdas wrote in a NPOV that proponents of the attack argued that this gave them justification to go to war. User Arnabdas is not arguing whether or not this was a good idea, but rather the justification war supporters used.
 * User Nescio asks for a WP:RS linking that resolution, or the airplan thingy, to the claim that the war is legal. Absent such a source using the resolution as rebuttal is WP:OR. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * User Arnabdas sourced information from pp 66-67 the 9-11 Commission Report that stated that there were some talks between Al Qaeda and Iraq. User Arnabdas never alleged any operational links, in fact specifically sourced the Report saying that there were none, yet User Nescio allegedly vandalized the report by removing the source by a bi-partisan commission.
 * User Nescio has included the most recent report stating that at the time there was no evidence for an active working relationship. Although there have been many pundits stressing the AQ link, to ignore report after report debunking that claim is beyond believe. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
User Arnabdas would like to have any and all the above information put back in and stop being vandalized. Everything is veriable and sourced and in a NPOV. The wording was not taking any advocacy position at all, just stating facts of the matter that challenge the commentary links User Nescio posted before.
 * User Nescio appreciates it if it is possible to explain to us the meaning of WP:RS and WP:OR. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 06:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The lack of discussion and the absence of the other party involved, here and on the article's page, leads me to conclude the matter is closed. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 09:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediator response
Okay, I'm willing to help the involved parties reach an agreement, if that's okay with everybody.

I prefer to dicuss on the article's talk page, as this makes it easier for more people to participate, but if neccesary for some reason you can also contact me on my talk page, or through email(nathanww@gmail.com) Nathanww 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the parties are willing to have a logical discussion, I will moderate one. Otherwise this goes into the Medcom bin Dagomar 19:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes
It looks to me like this is a request for us to mediate a political discussion more than it's a request for us to mediate a Wikipedia-related dispute. While at its surface the issue is (apparently) one of inclusion and sourcing, the discussion is quite obviously a heated political debate involving Presidents Bush and Clinton and their impact on the events on September 11.

I don't think it's the Mediation Cabal's place to be mediating political disputes. And even if it is, this request has been around for too long and the dispute ongoing for months. I don't think there's much we can do. If the parties have an issue related to Wikipedia policy or the editing and maintenance of the encyclopedia, it would be helpful if they could summarize that issue for us, or move on to MedCom. --Moralis (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)