Jump to content

Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

Protecting the article

The article deserves a prominent discussion of the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents in the Introduction. After an editor critically shortened my entry on these documents and moved it lower in the article, the article was immediately protected so only certain people could edit it. The claim was the protection was required because new and anonymous editors had recently vandalized the article. Nothing could be further from the truth. A quick glance at the History of the article shows no edits by an anonymous editor. While I have not edited the page in a while, I am neither new to Wikipedia or new to editing the page. This smacks of censorship. If Bush's presidency is going to be judged by his decision to go to war in Iraq, it is only fair to present readers with evidence that his judgment is being supported by these recently released documents. RonCram 20:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Provide your evidence on talk - and if it's relevant enough to the Bush biography article (quite a stretch in my own opinion), I'm sure consensus will support it. Your errant claims of censorship are disrespectful to your fellow editors. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

But there is no evidence that "his judgment is being supported by these recently released documents." It is true that documents have been released on the internet, but none of them seem to support your claim that there was an operational connection between Hussein & the Qaeda organization. Therefore they are not really that important, or at least, not important enough to be at the beginnning of the article. Thus the move to the appropriate section. If you can find anything in the OIFDs that shows a connection, please add it to the article. Wachholder0 22:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No need for protection

No need for protection (edit, and move protection), the kiddies who usually vandalise this article are in schools. --Jozdnog 11:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

Neutrality, I'm a little confused about your recent edit. You seem to have reverted my capitalization changes wholesale; while your edit summary explains one or two of the changes, I had in fact changed 8 instances of "President" to "president" or vice versa, and most of those changes were in line with the whole "President as title, president as common noun" thing. Did you accidentally revert more than you meant to, or is there something I'm missing? --Ashenai 01:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll try myself. --Golbez 01:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Lookin' good, thanks! :) --Ashenai 01:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Is Bush a Reptilian Shapeshifter?

British best-selling author and reseacher David Icke claims that George W. Bush is descended from extraterrestrial reptilian aliens from Draco and that he is a shape-shifting reptilian, as are the other Bushes and some other major political figures. He also claims they indulge in human sacrifice and blood drinking while in their reptoid incarnations. He has plenty of witness statements. Now he could be mistaken I guess, but shouldn't allegations as serious as this be included on this page? That the President might be an alien shapeshifter is a hardly just another piece of trivia after all. --195.93.21.137 08:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord. I'm from Draco! There goes the neighborhood. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Which Draco? We are talking the constellation Draco here. If you originate from there, from what I can gather from Icke you may well possess the ability to shape-shift. If you are talking about a place on Earth called Draco, I don't think the same principles would apply. Unless you are related to Bush or whoever. Bush dosen't like people to know that he's really from New England, never mind that his ancestors come from the constellation of Draco. --195.93.21.137 15:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
See also Draco (disambiguation). bd2412 T 01:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

See Reptilian humanoid, Bohemian Grove, Nazi Mysticism and Skull and Bones. Sam Spade 01:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Any relation: Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet??? --LV (Dark Mark) 03:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Could well be, if the Canadian Tories have insider knowledge. Also, a leading lawyer once called Republicans 'reptilian bastards' and the people at Little Green Footballs call themselves 'Reptilian Minions' or 'Lizardoid Minions'. I reckon there is something in all of this. --195.93.21.137 08:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Bush Stroke his Blue Tie?

He does like blue ties.--Ban.WMA 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan and the "mixed results"

So, let's see. Bush assembles a broad international coalition, defeats the Taliban government in 2 months, reduced the Taliban insurgency to a negligible threat, waged the least bloodiest war in Afghani history, established democracy in Afghanistan with free and fair elections, brought some stability to a country with countless ethnic groups, secured rights for women in a place where they have been unpopular and denied for hundreds of years, suffers low U.S. casualties, destroyed a huge of Al-Qaeda, averted the mass aid crisis expected, and has given aid to rebuild the country. So basically, after accomplishing this almost impossible task, Its a "mixed result" just because some candidates are upset that they lost. Does anyone else think that assessment is unfair? I don't believe that any balanced media organization has said that Bush's efforts in Afghanistan have had "mixed results".

Also its inaccurate to say Bush claimed that the Taliban harbored bin Laden, because its indisputable that they did. If anyone has any evidence that bin Laden was not harbored by the Taliban, I'd like to see it. CJK 00:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete my comments again just because you don't like them. CJK 23:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • fine, your trolling can stay, but that means from now on no trolling will be deleted, from this point on, every wacky conspiracy theory, every strawman, every idiot typing in all caps for no reason, every random bit of crap, they all stay--205.188.116.138 00:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • you have no idea what you've asked for, the sheer number of trolls on this page alone, could crash wikipedia's servers if they all tried to edit at the same time--205.188.116.138 00:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Please try to assume good faith. Thanks. :) --Ashenai 01:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Does that apply to the Reptilian Shapeshifters as well? --205.188.116.138 01:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Ayup. If you believe someone is trolling, just ignore them. It's a much better solution, all round. --Ashenai 01:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
yes, well what about situations like this where one troll blanks another troll, to replace one bit of nonsense with another? Do I have an obligation to restore both so that they may coexist and I can ignore both at the same time?--205.188.116.138 01:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I was amused at that, myself. If you feel both are trolls, then just ignore the whole issue. There's nothing to be gained from jumping in.
Generally, only delete patent nonsense from talk pages. The reptilian business is not patent nonsense, it's just stupid (or funny, I guess). --Ashenai 16:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

new downing street memo

Kevin Baastalk 23:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be one day after Hans Blix came out and said Iraq was not fully cooperating. CJK 00:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

White House memo - I've created an article for it. Kevin Baastalk 00:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it. CJK 00:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

scratch that. I've requested one here. Kevin Baastalk 02:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

controversial controversies

This segment, a pair of users (one them new) keep re-adding to the introduction the last couple days.

Bush has also attempted to increase the power of the president in response to 9/11, claiming the executive branch can indefinitely suspend habeas corpus rights of U.S. citizens declared "enemy combatants," and authorizing a controversial domestic surveillance program.

Pretty much every assertion in there is worded in a pov manner. Especially nice are the sneaky wiki links. And the sources you would need to make those claims are not notable enough to go in the introduction. keith 01:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • exaclty! It's the liberal media I tell you! i suggest you and a few other people can get together and edit war over whether the controversies section should include controversies, or pictures of george bush climbing trees to help rescue trapped kittens from crazy kitten eating liberals!--205.188.116.138 01:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Both Bush and Cheney have both spoken of the importance of increasing executive power, and I went out of my way to write it in an NPOV yet not euphemistic way.

"Speaking with reporters traveling with him aboard Air Force Two to Oman, Cheney said the period after the Watergate scandal and Vietnam War proved to be "the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy" and harmed the chief executive's ability to lead in a complicated, dangerous era. "But I do think that to some extent now we've been able to restore the legitimate authority of the presidency." (My emphasis) -From Clash Is Latest Chapter in Bush Effort to Widen Executive Power, By Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writers, Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Page A01 [1] Wachholder0 23:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see any factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations, etc. What is your problem with it? Kevin Baastalk 01:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Bush has repeatedly claimed that the executive branch can indefinitely suspend habeas corpus rights of U.S. citizens declared "enemy combatants". Bush has authorized a controversial (this is an understatement) domestic surveillance program. Bush has also attempted to increase the power of the president in response to 9/11, see Unitary executive theory. So what's wrong with telling people those interesting and important facts in an encyclopedia article about the guy? Kevin Baastalk 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Clearly the only NPOV thing to do is to blank the entire controversies section, and replace it with a section entitled Ted Kennedy is fat, only way to ensure NPOV--205.188.116.138 02:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The president's argument is that he has acted within presidential power, not expanded it. I made no assertion about truth or falsehood of the details, I said they were worded in a pov manner and not worthy of the introduction. It's a big article and while I haven't read the whole thing lately, somehow I suspect they are in there, if not massive sub-articles of their own by now. keith 02:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse one can operate within "presidential powers" whereas one could not before after expanding them. That's the definition of expansion. One's "interpretation" of powers includes one's interpretations of the limits, and by having an interpretation of the limits markedly different than that of the constitution and its signatories, namely, more expansive, well believing that this is "right" and acting on that belief is neccessarily attempting to expand the powers beyond what they were originally meant to be (by the signatories of the constitution) so as to fit one's unique "interpretation". I'm sure he's operating well within his interpreation of what he wants them to be for him and what he wants people to think they are. (or actually believes they are? i give him more credit than this.) The question is whether this scope of operation is bigger or smaller than it was before, and whether he is actively pursued making it bigger or smaller than it was originally. Kevin Baastalk 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So he's acted within presidential powers that did not exist before, without expanding them. good for him. Maybe he should write that into law. Next thing you know he'll be citing his "constitutional authority" to bypass a law. Oh wait, that is written in the consitution, isn't it? I think that's article 76 subsection 43. Kevin Baastalk 03:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

These are the powers of the president:

  • The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
  • He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
  • The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

These are the responsibilities:

  • He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;
  • he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;
  • he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers;
  • he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and
  • shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

and finally,

  • The President commissions all United States military officers.

Kevin Baastalk 03:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


I'll concede that there's a matter of executive privelege, and it is well known that the administration has been attempted to expand (and has been expanding) that privelege beyond to unprecedented levels.

Here is a quote from bush: "The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . " now the word "unitary" is new. It is consistent with the unitary executive theory, which is a new theory not consistent with the constitution. Furthermore, notice that it is the judiciary branch that delineates executive privelege, not the executive branch. Kevin Baastalk 03:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think unitary executive theory is new. It's been around a long, long time. It recently became porminent in the news becasue Samuel Alito subscribes to this opinion and has written opinions on it. The simple interpretation is that the Constitution places all the executive power in a single office of the presidency. It is very consistent with the Constitution and separation of powers. In fact, the statement "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" is pretty clear. The argument of the administration is that the resolution that gave the executive branch the authority of war (I think it's worded to be consistent with the War Powers Act) to pursue the 9/11 attackers using all available means. Th eadminsitration has interpreted this to mean that those responsible for 9/11 can be held as enemy combatants and they can have their phones taps (as well as being shot and killed). It seems odd that the bill would allow cruise missiles to be sent to Afghanistan, but Afghanistan phone calls could not be monitored. Also it seems odd that if you believe the military would be authorized to shoot down an airliner that is hijacked without a warrant, but not listen to the phone calls of the hijackers without a warrant. Just an observation. --Tbeatty 05:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To adhere to NPOV these arguments need to be made by sources, which will undoubtedly be very partisan. And criticisms especially from partisan sources seeking to make points/arguments/allegations about specific policies or cases do not belong in the introductory paragraph to a president's biography. If people want to read about details such as the historical or contextual analysis made by a politician's opponents they need to read further down. keith 14:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Totallydisputed and Cleanup tag to be placed Noncompliant tag placed

We had a big discussion on this board over the fact that the substance abuse controversy and military was the only material in the Bush before 2000 section whilst there is NO significant information on Bush's governorship. This is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia, not a liberal blog. The fact that people are reverting consensus that was developed earlier on the talk page is disconcerting. BlueGoose 05:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--Tbeatty 05:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

When is a one-time DWI considered absolutely indicative of an ongoing substance abuse problem (with substance abuse usually meaning illicit drugs)? It would help if these titles actually were reflective of the sections to begin with. BlueGoose 05:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are other events which provide a much clearer picture of Bush's past with regards to consuming alcohol and other substances, which last i recal were in the article (perhaps they have been moved to a subarticle?), including, but not limited to, bush's personal remarks on the subject. Kevin Baastalk 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You know making absolutly no content edits, then flagging an article with a half a dozen {{totallydisputed}} templates while making vauge accusations of mysterious liberal bias, is the next best thing to actually carrying around a flag with a picture of a troll on it--152.163.100.74 05:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Forgive the anon the implicit character attack, but notwithstanding that, he gave a pretty accurate description of your actions. And I wouldn't consider BlueGoose's accusing the editors of making the article a liberal blog an act of good faith. Kevin Baastalk 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I had any actions other than agreeing with the talk page. I probably wouldn't have put in more than one tag at a time. But I do agree that in tone, it sounds like a liberal blog. I don't think it's intentional. Tone usually comes with weasel words so it's pretty easy to undo usually. As for the content, there does seem to be lacking in accomplishment details. He did become president so there should be substantial accomplishments both before and during his presidency. Most presidents have been accomplished people and we need to look beyond present cirumstances and political biases. --Tbeatty 08:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I took off those tags and put one that I think is appropriate for these concerns we're discussing. BlueGoose 08:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider overriding discussion on the talk page and reverting the move of the sections from the elections category an act of good faith either. But the dispute here is about the article, not about personal character assassination. BlueGoose 05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

reverting is standard procedure. it's not an act of bad faith, it's an act of dispute, which is standard procedure (and neccessary for improving article quality). after a revert, esp. on a controversial page, it's usually productive for the person who made the reverted change to bring the change to the talk page and discuss it. (in pragmatic diplomacy, the status quo is given precedence in conflict situations) Kevin Baastalk 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, if I read this article without knowing anything about George W. Bush, I would get the impression that all he was was a druggie and a deserter before January 1, 2000. Would you believe it is OK for me to change the header on John Kerry's Vietnam War section to "military service controversy" or if I went to Bill Clinton's page, deleted or minimized information on his governorship, and posted a large section on his alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick under "Bill Clinton before 1992"? By having these large sections of an election issue posted under the "Bush before 2000" page, the article implies that these were major defining issues in Bush's life before he went into politics, which is absolutely not true. BlueGoose 06:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's funny you should mention that because there are a half dozen currently blocked users who had been obsessing over exactly those changes since about 2004, in all of the articles you just listed, there was one rather nasty debate where someone actually did change the header on John Kerry's Vietnam War section to "military service controversy", over, and over, and over, and over, which degenerated into edit warring over his choice of ice cream, his height, his pet dog, the type of bandage used to dress his wound, the actual word 'wound', his pet dog again, and eventually fell apart compelty and ended with a long string of pagemove vandalism, would be funny if it wasn't true, took up 4 or 5 archives of the John Kerry talk page--205.188.116.138 15:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What's even funnier is someone who makes such accusations from behind an anonymous AOL ip. Conspiracy theories aside, it sounds like you agree with his premise that elevating every accusation to the lofty status of a "controversy", as in here as well as the Kerry article, is a smear tactic. keith 16:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. After all no one takes your impotent trolling seriously. keith 17:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's Template:Noncompliant now?

This article is fully sourced, doesn't actually contain any origional research, so how exactly is this tag any more appropriate then totallydisputed was? The only issue you even raised was that the article was "written like a liberal blog", which would be template:POV if it was even remotely true--205.188.116.138 15:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's more than a simple POV issue. The fact that there is little information on Bush's Governorship and the fact that the only significant information under the Bush before 2000 are some hyped up election issues presented as facts, the article (or at least the first part) is currently not encyclopedic (which is why I initially put the cleanup tag). As it stands right now, all the first part of the article is is just a collection of selected topics that are loosely associated. This is what Wikipedia is not. BlueGoose 16:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, seriously, the template is being missused, some should probably remove it at this point since it's clear you have no intention of actually making content changes to the article, only smacking it with {{OMGliberalBIASconspiracy}} templates--205.188.116.138 16:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and I have removed it. --Ashenai 17:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the tag should be removed. I think the article does a pretty good job of being NPOV. Yu seem to have a problem with one particular section of the article. That section is not new and what is in it does seem to be NPOV. If additions are needed to the pre-2000 section, then go ahead and add new material. But I don't think the whole article should be tarred with the NPOV accusation. - Hayne 18:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the tag should be removed. It adds nothing to the NPOV tag. Of course what the article really needs is Template:About-as-neutral-as-we're-ever-going-to-get-but-some-people-are-never-satisfied. DJ Clayworth 18:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It needs to go. Someone is misusing templates here to force an issue. WP:POINT. FeloniousMonk 19:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Working to make an article better is forcing an issue? Wow, I didn't know that ... Please cite that policy on here for the rest of us, FeloniousMonk. BlueGoose 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to edit and add to some of the sections and either post it in the article or if it's potentially too controversial post it in the talk page. The first part of this article needs facts, not a disccussion of comments from Terry McCauliffe or Michael Moore. This has less to do with POV and more to do with relevance. Honestly, I don't care so much that Bush was honorably discharged as I care about the dates he served, where he served, what he did, etc. How can you explain a military service controversy without explaining the military service (or required military service) first. How do you explain the death row controversy as governor, without explaining Bush's overall role as governor (it wasn't just death row that Bush had control over and the Texas Governor can't even pardon death row inmates without recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Paroles.) I think the conservatives have put up some nice rebuttals in this article to a lot of the controversies, but that should not be the focus of the section on Bush's early life. If you were to read a World Book or a Britannica, you would know that the quality of this article is nowhere near the quality of the article on Presidents in those encyclopedia. Let's stop treating Wikipedia like a debating ground, which is exactly how this article reads from both sides, and more like an encyclopaedia. BlueGoose 22:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BlueGoose: the article absolutely SHOULD contain info on Bush's governorship of Texas. However, the persitent pushing for various forms of POV-dispute and cleanup tagging is not exactly helpful. Of course this article isn't perfect. However, claiming it's "noncompliant" with Wikipedia policy is beyond ridiculous. In a sense, all our articles are "noncompliant", insomuch as they're not perfect and could use some improvement. Also, the lack of information about Bush's governorship is an issue of completeness, not of accuracy. If the article were a stub that consisted of only the following:
George Walker Bush (1946–) has been President of the United States since January 20 2001.
...it would be absolutely accurate. Now let's stop this go-nowhere argument. From what I can see, BlueGoose, Capitalister and Tbeatty want the article tagged {{noncompliant}}. No one else thinks it deserves that fat, ugly tag. Consensus is clear on this issue. Let's move on. szyslak (t, c, e) 03:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BlueGoose, but the pastel box wasn't explaining their opinion very well. I created {{debate}} to fudge it. Ashibaka tock 04:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Template:Debate is applicable, and that one seems to be far too vague for my tastes (I'm inclined to put it on TFD, but will wait a bit to see how it is used). You can say that about almost any NPOV article on a controversial issue -- it will always be a back and forth between different arguments. What's this obsession with tagging? Why not simply debate and edit? The primary purpose of cleanup-tags is to attract attention, something this article is certainly not lacking.--Eloquence* 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the 'debate' template. It is stupid to inflict the readers of this article with that tag at the top of the article. It doesn't serve the readers well. As Eloquence has said, the purpose of that sort of tag is to attract the attention of editors and it already has lots of attention. - Hayne 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that BlueGoose has re-added a non-conformant template tag saying that "multiple people support" this kind of thing. While it isn't really a matter of numbers, I think there are more people who think that it is stupid to have a tag like that in this particular article. Having it there in this case amounts to an announcement like "Some people don't like the content of this article - and we want all the readers to know about this dispute". As has been said many times before, please fix the parts that you think need fixing, debate things in this Talk page, etc. No need whatsoever to have a tag at the top of this article announcing your displeasure. - Hayne 18:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
In this case, "multiple people" means BlueGoose, Capitalister and Tbeatty. All showed up at the same time, all demand some sort of dispute tagging for this article, and all have similar editing patterns. Yes, WP:AGF and all that, but does anyone else suspect some sort of puppet show is going on? szyslak (t, c, e) 21:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush signs bill into law that wasn't passed by Congress

I think this flagrantly unconstitutional action needs some mention. [2][3][4] 71.236.33.191 23:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Struck into law - this bill will almost certainly not become enforceable as "a law" until the courts decide whether this procedure was constitutional. bd2412 T 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The courts don't get to decide. I doubt they will even hear it. This is a procedural issue in the House and Senate and they get to make up their own rules without interference from the court (very explicit in the constitution). By certifying the bill, it goes to the President for signing. The President doesn't collate two version, he signs the single version certified by both houses. It would be up to the Senate or House to correct their procedural error. --Tbeatty 23:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that suit should get thrown out because the watchdog group didn't pay the correct filing fee. keith 00:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of persons/groups filing suits - someone will pay the fee. And the Speaker of the House/President Pro Tem of the Senate have no power to certify an unpassed bill - if Ted Stevens and Dennis Hastert can decide what has passed the Congress without conforming to a vote, then what the hell are we paying our Congresspeople for? bd2412 T 00:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
swish! keith 02:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
They get to make their own internal rules. However, the Constitution is quite clear that any bill has to be passed by both houses of Congress to become law. In this case, that didn't happen. There is no "single version certified by both houses". It doesn't matter that the cause was a clerical error; the fact remains that the House and the Senate voted on different bills. They have to pass exactly the same bill before it can become law. 71.236.33.191 00:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes they do get to make their internal rules. And that includes rules on how a bill is passed. But when they both say they passed the same bill and they say htey passed it, certified and sent on, the court has no power to review the process that each house went through to pass it. Only one bill was sent to the President. It was certified as passed by each house. The court has no authority to delve into the procedure that each house used. The House and Senate said they passed the bill that went to the President. The court could review each aspect of the law if it's constitutional but they will never get that far because the process will be longer than the next budget bill which will render it moot. This is all a red herring. --Tbeatty 02:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it doens't work that way. The President Pro Tem of the Senate cannot simply declare that a bill other than the one actually voted on was what passed the Senate. If that were the case, none of the other Senators would be relevant. The internal rules of the Senate do not include whether bills have to actually be voted on. That much is very explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Ted Stevens has declared that the Senate passed a bill that it never voted on, which is something he has no authority to do. 71.236.33.191 03:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Then it's a rule problem with the senate and a senator will have to bring it up. When the court asks the clerk of the senate if they passed the bill, the answer will be "yes". That's as far as the court can look. Or will look. I predict the court will just claim they don't have standing and be done with it. And BTW, the president Pro Tem often says that a bill is passed without a vote. And then a Senator requests the formal recorded vote. That's the way it works. --Tbeatty 03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
When the President signs a bill that never passed in the Senate, it's a purely Constitutional issue. The Constitution requires a vote. None was held on this bill. 71.236.33.191 04:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - say Ted Stevens, Dennis Hastert, and George W. Bush decide they want to get really, really rich, so the three of them get together and decide to pocket a billion dollars each taken out of Social Security or Medicare or what have you; and Stevens certifies that the Senate has approved this (even though they did no such thing), and Hastert certifies that the House has approved this (even though they too did no such thing), and Bush signs it into "law". So a Court can not review this, even though faith in our government would be wrecked and cognizable individuals (beneficiaries of the entitlement) are injured? bd2412 T 04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The rules guy in both houses is the clerk. He is not elected but appointed. And then they would have to hope no senator or representative challenges it in each body. Remember, they can pass laws and correct their mistakes. But in your case, they would only need to add a judge to their payroll to get away with it. And the guilty parties would face the wrath of each house and then perjury charges. These guys vote themselves pay raises. And also keep in mind this is a technicality. No judge will shut down the government on a technicality that has been corrected. It's a waste of time. --Tbeatty 05:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That's one POV. As the WaPo put it, in their piece entitled "Spending Measure Not a Law, Suit Says":
The issue is bizarre, with even constitutional scholars saying they could not think of any precedent for the journey the budget bill took to becoming a law. Opponents of the budget law point to elementary-school civics lessons to make their case, while Republicans are evoking an obscure Supreme Court ruling from the 1890s to suggest a bill does not actually have to pass both chambers of Congress to become law.
For their part, congressional leaders and administration officials point to an 1892 Supreme Court decision, Field v. Clark , to argue that as long as the speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate certify a bill passed, it is passed. In that case, a bill signed by President Benjamin Harrison and authenticated by the leaders of the House and Senate was different from the version printed in the official journals of Congress, known now as the Congressional Record.
In the 1892 case, the Supreme Court did not rule that the law really was a law but instead said the dispute was not a matter for the courts to decide, said Michael C. Dorf, a professor of constitutional law at Columbia University. The main problem for Public Citizen will not be showing that the budget law is technically not a law, but getting the courts involved, Dorf said, especially with a measure as sweeping as this one.
The issue would be solved if the House voted again, this time on the version that passed the Senate. But that would mark the third time House members would have to cast their votes on a politically difficult bill, containing cuts in many popular programs, and it would be that much closer to the November election.
But the issue may be snowballing. On Feb. 13, James Zeigler, a Republican lawyer in Alabama who specializes in elder-care issues, filed a similar suit, challenging the budget measure's constitutionality.
"The Constitution is broad and vague on a number of things; this is not one of them," Zeigler said. "The same bill must be passed by House and Senate and signed by the president. Otherwise it's not law. Case over." [5] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
What is POV? I said the same thing the court said when it happened before: It wasn't for the courts to decide. That's not POV, it's precedent. The WaPo article reaffirms everything I said about the issue. --Tbeatty 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
What's also missing, which I pointed out, is the mootness of it. This will take YEARS to move through the courts if a lower court decides to hear it. This is a budget measure. No court will shut down the entire government (and if they did, it would be appealed immediately and stayed until an appeal). That process will take longer than the next budget bill. The item that is in discrpancy will take longer to surface than the next bill will take to pass. It's moot befire it even starts. --Tbeatty 18:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
"That process will take longer than the next budget bill." Yes, it would. So then Congress would do what it's required to do by the Constitution to enact a law: pass an identical bill in both houses. 71.236.33.191 19:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they will. Assuming no other clerical errors. --Tbeatty 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Even if the bill does pass it can it be challenged in federal court on Constitutional grounds.
It's not moot if it is "capable of repetition, yet evading review" - see Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, since there are identifiable injured parties here (elderly people who will lose Medicaid funding for needed oxygen), they could sue to recover for their expenditures made necessary by this glitch even after the budget year ends. bd2412 T 21:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the medicaid patients. They are the ones with standing. But the problem is that they won't suffer damages for 13 months (the earliest of the two versions). A new budget will already have been passed before those damage. Also, I would be surprised if congress didn't pass a specific update to the section in question and thereby taking away their standing to sue. In any event, this really has nothing to do with Bush as it was a congressional internal clerical error. --Tbeatty 23:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
We are failing to grasp the most basic constiutional concepts behind this whole fiasco.
A law doesn't need to be signed by the POTUS to become law, assuming that Congress isn't about to go out of session, if the POTUS doesn't veto it becomes law 10 days after it is passed by Congress. Bush basically signed a worthless piece of paper. Both Houses after words passed clarifying resolutions saying which version they supported, 10 days later that version becomes law. No issue here.--RWR8189 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm, that would be true. Then there's no case (harmless error, basically). bd2412 T 22:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about 'harmless'. In a letter dated February 16, 2006 House Democratic Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called for an ethics committee investigation on a controversial change made to the budget reconciliation bill before it was signed by President Bush last week. Her resolution suggests that "knowledge of this mistake may have influenced the outcome of this vote."
"Once again, Republican leaders have burned the book on how our laws are made," Pelosi said in a written statement. "Every elementary school student knows that the exact same bill must pass the House and the Senate first, before it can be signed into law by the president." [6]
In addition, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card on March 15, stating that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.
"I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.
"I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.
"The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.
"I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law. [7]

Name?

I have always wondered about George W. Bush's 'name.' He has his father's name with the difference being the middle part, W(alker). So wasn't he called 'Junior' as a kid? Is 'Junior' a part of his name? ````Northridge

I think he was often casually refered to as 'George Bush, Jr' prior to him becoming more famous in his own right and still is occasionally. He may have been called 'Junior' as a kid but it certainly isn't an offical part of his name. I think 'Junior' can only be any sort of official part of a person's name if they share their father's exact name, such as James Earl Carter Jr. for instance. Because he lacks the 'Herbert' of his father, I don't think he could really be offically called Bush Jr. --195.93.21.137 08:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Immigration

The section on immigration could probably be expanded by someone knowledgable on the topic, as it seems to be evolving into one of the hot-button issues on the domestic front in the US. youngamerican (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Presidential Firsts

The Presidential firsts section is at best irrelevant and at worst bias towards an anti-bush POV. There have been many firsts for President Bush both positive and negative depending on the POV. Stating that he is the first president to win the presidency despite losing the popular vote is also inaccurate. This honor would belong to Rutherford Hayes in the 1876 Election when "Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, was the favorite to win the presidential election and, in fact, won the popular vote by about 250,000 votes (with about 8.5 million voters in total)."

Making a point of the fact that Bush was the first nominated for a Razzie seems somewhat irrelevant.

If we are going to have a section on presidential firsts it should include a multitude of firsts for which his presidency has mamy including the first to have an African American Women as Secretary of State and the first to publicly supoprt the creation of a Palenstinian state.

The point is that the section needs to be more balanced and comprhensive with a NPOV. If not then the section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTaylorCU (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not an indsiscrimate collection of information. BlueGoose 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush

Most of the "missing" information is already in the daughter article, created not to "whitewash" his past accomplishments, but to keep this page from reaching size where it might actually violate wikimedia size restraints and break the software so to speak, the reason this article was splintered in the first place was because it was on the verge of being browser-crashingly-large, simply copying content from the daughter articles back into the original is not all that useful, if you are really insistent on adding something, I suppose we could always change {{see also|Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush}} into {{Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush}}, but that would mean bypassing the page size restrictions in the software, and restoring the page to browser-crashing-largeness again--64.12.117.13 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oil

According to CNN.com, KBR, a branch of Halliburton, has profited 15.4 billion from the operations in Iraq. Halliburton itself has yet to release it's full profit. Would this information be relivant towards the whole controversy about the war being for other reasons then WMD or idealogical differences?


KBR is the engeneering branch of Halliburton. Cheney has 433,333 unexercised stocks in it.

If there is civil war, KBR profits off of it through their rebuilding efforts.

They have profited 15.4 billion, according to CNN, since operations in Iraq.

I think this is very important to look into. It is very scary, but I think that this ought to be addressed when considering the controversies about the war..... was it really oil or rebuilding? What is going on here? I honestly do not know, I just started researching KBR. Please check it out, I think it would be a VERY important factor to have on this site. Anyone who knows more about this, please reply so I can research it more. Thanks —This unsigned comment was added by 149.169.45.2 (talk • contribs) .



If anywhere, this belongs on Talk:Dick Cheney, not here. This is not a Bush discussion forum. --Golbez 08:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Original Research is not welcome in Wikipedia. Find a reputable source that George Bush started the war for any reason and post it. --Tbeatty 18:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush called the war, and he pressed extremely hard for it. Thus, Bush holds responsibility as the leader of our country for this war. What I would say is that we need to research Bush not just Cheney. There is a problem when profit can be made off of destruction, espeically when our leadership is involved. Bush, no doubt, was not an idiot and ought to have realized Cheney and the situation of KBR. What was his position, and was there any advantage to him personally for this? He really pushed hard for this war, that much is clear. A very aggressive 'pre-emptive' strike.... Why? I just say, that it warants investigation and also ought to be involved in the controversy over why Bush declaired the war, which is still in doubt. The fact that it is still in doubt ought to include all options if this source is to be 'neutral'. There is just so much.... so much... and the leader of our country holds the responsibility for the war - he said so himself in one of his speeches.—This unsigned comment was added by 149.169.45.2 (talk • contribs) .

The stock options are controlled by an irrevocable trust which gives the profits to charity. Cheney is can never earn a penny from them. The end. Now go away. keith 13:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
In addition, this is the specific agreement regarding Cheney's stock on Halliburton: [8]. And here's an analysis posted by a reader on Josh Marshall's TPM:
"1) It is *not* a trust agreement, nor does factcheck.com have the title correct. It is titled "Gift Administration Agreement," not "Gift Trust Agreement" and does not create a trust (a separate legal entity) to oversee the stock options. Instead, it is an agreement granting power of attorney to someone (whose identity we don't know) to exercise and sell the options for the benefit of the specified charities. There is no requirement that the stock be sold by any specific date.
"2) While it says in section 8(e) that it is irrevocable, section 8(c) goes out of its way to state that the agreement creates no legal rights for any of the charities. And section 7(b) provides a mechanism for the agreement to terminate without having completely donated all of the stock (the agent needs only to be in breach of the agreement, which could easily be arranged). Section 7(a) might also provide a way out, if the agent resigns, and no new agreement is signed.
"3) I see nothing in that document that indicates that this wouldn't create a huge tax deduction for the Cheneys. [9]
Thoughts? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
How about please go away. keith 00:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Still uncivil. Try again :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There are simple resaons. 1) Unvested Stock option are non-transferable as they have no intrinsic value and it violates the companies stock issuance plan. Cheney is the only one who can excercise them, therefore transferring them to a legal entity is not possible. The two choices are forfeit them (and the proceeds essentially go back to Halliburton shareholders) or create an executor with power of attorney and beneficiary so that the charity can benefit. It seems to me that the enemies of Halliburton would prefer option 2. Cheney is essentially taking money from Halliburton and giving it to charity.
2) This is covers future transactions and transactions over time. Options vest and they expire. U.S. options (as opposed to European options) can be excercised at any time after they vest and not just on their expiration date. Therefore, during the time between vesting and expiration they have cash value. It would be stupid to give a person exclusive control over charitable funds without the power to review and remove him. For example, if the "administrator" suddenly decides to raise his fee to $100,000 an hour, that breaches the agreement. Without an escape clause, the administrator would, in essence, be able to steal this money from charity. It is a stupid person who gives an irrevocable power of attorney to someone. I am not even sure that it is possible to do this (written or not). Legally there may not be difference as to whether this clause is included or not.
3) Cheney gets no tax advantage in this arrangement. He donates the gain. He is required by law to report the excercise and the gain and then report the charitable donation. The stock option excercise is treated as ordinary income. It may even create a tax liability for him as his deductions may be limited. Halliburton will send him a W2 with the stock options gain as ordinary income. --Tbeatty 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
At the end of 2002, Vice President Cheney's financial disclosure form stated that he continued to hold 433,333 unexercised Halliburton stock options, with exercise prices above the company's current stock market price. The Vice President has signed an agreement to donate any profits from these stock options to charity, and has pledged not to take any tax deduction for the donations. Should Halliburton's stock price increase over the next few years, the Vice President could exercise his stock options for a substantial profit, benefiting not only his designated charities, but also providing Halliburton with a substantial tax deduction. [10] And it has.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asserted in September 2005 that Cheney's stock options which were worth $241,498 a year ago, are now valued at more than $8 million-- for an increase of 3,281% . Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity. Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. He was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004. [11], [12],
Moreover, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded in Sept. 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities. CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest. [13] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Lautenbergs press release is misleading (not surprising). First of all, how Halliburton accounts for stock that has been donated to Charity is a matter of tax law. It certainly doesn't benefit Cheney. If Lautenberg wants to change the law to punish companies that have their stocks donated, he can certainly submit a bill to do just that. Cheney donates his 'after tax' proceeds to charity.
Second, it is not surprising that Cheney's stock options have grown in value. It still doesn't change the fact that he doesn't receive the money. HTis is very good news for the Hospitals and Childrens organization that are receiving millions of dollars.
Third, Cheney's deferred compensation is not tied to Halliburton. He has no personal interest in Halliburton's performance. Up or down, the compensation is guaranteed through an annuity.
Fourth, the CRS expressly says this does not apply to the Vice President.
If you can show that Cheney's compensation (i.e. dollars in his pocket) will change in any way with Halliburton performance, please do. But the reality is that he firewalled himself to the benefit of a lot of deserving charities. The alternative is to forfeit the stock options in which case, Halliburton gets the money back. If Cheney was only interested in Halliburton doing well, this is what he would do. --Tbeatty 06:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Calling Lautenberg's press release 'misleading' is certainly POV, and your observations don't challenge the facts of his report. As far as 3). is concerned, that's not being claimed. And as to 4.)... you should know that the CRS states that the President and Vice President are excluded from the provisions of divestiture and disqualification, not from a definition of financial interest. Those exclusions are protections for the office, not exclusions from propriety. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok... Cheney has a lot of stocks in it... How about other people in our leadership? Did or do any of them have stocks in it? What potential support might Halliburton and its branch KBR be offering for future campaigne elections? Was there any evidence for other aggreements, besides simply having stock in the company?

It clearly needs to be investigated. The complexity of this issue, furthermore, warrants this site to include it if they are to attempt to consider why Bush might have declaired the war - if it does not include possibilities, it is not 'neutral' - because common knowledge and the majority of society is starting to be very suspicious of all that is going on about KBR and the real reason for war - because it is not just some conspiracy theory anymore. Most think it was for profit and/or oil from my personal experience with people. Many are talking, both in the U.S. and throughout the world.

As for my opinion: there is a problem when any leader has potential to profit off of his actions in office. What can we do about this? Even if there is no profit, the capacity for them to do this could create huge proglems, espeically if one company gets rich and its stock holders get rich if we are excedingly militaristically aggressive. People are then no longer voting or voicing their opion on whether we ought to or ought to not go to war, but rather knowing that an aggressive stance means more money for their stock. How much support, financial, is connected with Halliburton and Bush? How much for other candidates who really pushed for this war? What is the history here?

There is something important that needs to be addressed about this in this article.

I'm not sure I agree with you - you're asking questions and making statements about general public opinion, rather than hard facts... so you may want to do some original research elsewhere, and if you can corroborate your facts, then perhaps they belong somewhere on Wikipedia (like a more Halliburton-focused article). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Ok... I will do just that. First, I will present the facts throughout Arizona State University. Maybe I can even get students together to do a university protest in the process. And then conduct a survey here, and will supply statistics for it. It is time to get something done. However, to collaborate this survey I ask anyone else who is willing to conduct surveys for their local community and/or university. Nevertheless, I have a big research paper I need to finish, so results will not be in immediately.

Good for you! Please let me know if I can be of assistance. ASU's a really good school. However, An 'unofficial survey' is not really the kind of evidence that Wikipedia can reliably base its' content from. I suggest you gather the facts around Bush and Halliburton and write a research paper or factual, cited essay demonstrating your view of the relationship and it's supposed impacts.
One piece of advice... organizing groups of people for civil demonstration requires openness, not secrecy. Publish your agendas. Make outreach efforts to the administration. Share ideas and invite discussion... and even if some oppose you in sinister or 'unfair' ways, you keep the high road and your group cohesion only grows. Read Martin Luther King, Jr's speeches. Love your country. And good luck. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable achievements

All that is stated under the heading "Notable achievements" is: "The most important accomplishments of President Bush and his administration thus far are:"

I'm going to say that this is irrelevant as a topic if there is nothing to be written following the colon. It seems to be purely POV and should not be included on this page. -- IBeDrummin

I second this point. It's a sarcastic POV comment and has no place in an encyclopedia. Please delete this section or populate it with meaningful content

Why no criticism article?

I mean with the whole world, and 1/2 our country hating him, (United States) Why not add a "common criticism" article?? I mean we made one for Tony Blair, why not George W. Bush???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.99.161 (talk • contribs)

  • because having a criticisms section on an article that isn't about liberals, would indicate a clear liberal bias, we can't have that here! NPOV = White house biography POV, either learn to live with it, or come back in larger numbers than the freeprs have--205.188.116.138 00:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You're free to start one. Just keep it factual, well-referenced, and NPOV. Derex 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_41&oldid=1136760758"