Jump to content

Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Groundswell = Movement

According to the Merriam-Webster's OnLine Dictionary the word "groundswell" is defined [1] as:

Function: noun
1 usually ground swell : a broad deep undulation of the ocean caused by an often distant gale or seismic disturbance
2 : a rapid spontaneous growth (as of political opinion) <a groundswell of support>

Both of these definitions certainly describe (at least in linguistics and physics terminology) a "movement". The root word "swell" essentially means grow or growth, also a type of "movement".

Considering that there seems (I do not have citations for this yet) to be an increasing number of people speaking in favor of some kind of impeachment (or at the very least investigative) activity against Mr Bush I would say the 2nd definition of the term "groundswell" is very appropriate to this issue and therefor there is, in fact, a political movement towards impeachment. Low Sea 11:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a few things wrong with your analysis. One problem is the potential logical error of amphibole. "Movement" is a vague term and semantics are not like mathematics; one word does not equal another most of the time. To take the definition of one word, apply it to another and say that because it may SOMETIMES apply it MUST THEREFORE APPLY THIS TIME, is not necessarily good logic. Second, this interest in impeachment is not broad and deep enough to actually be a Groundswell. People who vocally advocate impeachment as a solution to their political problems have been around since Nixon. Their existence and their vocalization do not constitute a "Movement" but rather a "Condition". Moreover, impeachment is a very specific action that is not conditioned upon "groundswell" any more than a trial for murder is subject to a "groundswell". That sort of thing does not apply to the notion of impeachment of the President. It is a legal matter that is entirely in the control of the House. We might as well discuss a "movement" for "World Peace" because polls say that most people want it. But there is no movement toward World Peace. And there is no movement to impeach Bush. It does not exist. Look at this article. 98% of this article consists of the frustrations and expressions of people who have absolutely no say in the matter. --Blue Tie 13:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Blue, what do you want the article to be called? If you want the article gone, where do you want the information posted? This is a current event, indeed one that continues to pickup steam. When it's all over, it will be part of American history, forever, for-eva-ever. I'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to accomplish with this ongoing tirade about how "There is no movement to impeach Bush." Please, help us out and explain exactly what you want to happen. Brotherchristian 22:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thought so. Brotherchristian 19:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The article should be deleted. Here are other things thar are part of American history: grains of sand blew to the east yesterday in several cities. Also, leaves fell from trees. Several people were murdered last week. Some people died in auto accidents. These are all part of American history. Irrelevant. Just like all this stuff in this article. It is trivia. I do not, for example, see an article on "The Movement to Charge John F. Kennedy with Treason". Yet there was such a "movement" and it is "American History". I would not think such an article should be here, just as I do not think this one should be here. because there is no movement. Also...Your "thought so" insult is inappropriate. --Blue Tie 00:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps. But "inappropriate" is a relative term, isn't it? When someone belittles another person's point of view, I find that innappropriate. When someone claims a movement doesn't exist over and over in a forum full of people passionate about that movement, I find that innappropriate. When someone states that the members of that movement "Don't matter," that's innappropriate. Earlier you replied to me with "Thank you for your thoughts," followed by immediately setting aside my thoughts and re-itterating your own, I found that sarcastic and very condescending, therefore innappropriate. Do you find any of these things "innappropriate?" Or does that only arise when someone dissagrees with your pov? For god's sake, you just insulted me and called me insulting in the same post! In fact if you check all your posts here, and keep the receiving party's perspective in line, I think you'll find nearly all of them are at least a little bit condescending.
Look I'm not looking to involve myself in a pissing contest here, I'm new to Wiki and not 100% in tune with the rules (I've never even edited the actual page as of yet). If you can admit you have been a bit grandiose in your posts (albeit not as blunt as the "Thought so" remark), then I apologize for my statement. If not, then I feel I have nothing to apologize for.
We all know you think the article is silly and stupid, insignificant and the "movement doesn't exist." That being said, what is the harm in keeping it? People, including myself, check out this article periodically to see if there's anything new, withholding that glimmer of hope that this crime family may eventually be dethroned. If nothing else dramatic happens and no catalyzing event (say someone in the administration growing a concience and rolling on dubya) takes place, then I concede that the impeachment will almost certainly not take place. But that DOES NOT mean a movement doesn't exist. Personally, since the article is not about one concerted movement, I'd like to see it renamed "MovementS to impeach..." with the "S". Since a movement within the scope of this article does not require it to be made by congress and does not require the movement's members to be people who "matter," you should have no problem with it then. Would that be good enough? Would anything short of complete suppression of the article be sufficient?
As far as the Kennedy thing, well, I'm a Kennedy fan but I wasn't around during his administration. If there was a movement to charge him with treason, I would be curious to read about it, the people's rationales etc. I'm sure it was silly and ultimately irrelevant, and if it was, I'd probably roll my eyes and move on. I would not launch a campaign to suppress the movement's existence. Brotherchristian 15:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As you say, you are new to wikipedia. You do not know what is appropriate or what is not appropriate. I accept that and you offer additional evidence. I am not going to negotiate away a position of integrity in return for a grudging apology for rudeness. That would be silly. There's more I could add but in essence it would amount to this: My interest is in wikipedia quality. Your interest is admittedly in your pov. So, if a page has cruft, tripe and baloney, but it fits your pov, its fine. With me... it is not. Therein lies our gap. I'm not interested in discussing further. --Blue Tie 05:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You are not any better than anyone else here. You are not any smarter than anyone else here, and your opinion is not more valid than anybody elses. That is where our gap in opinion lies. You think the article is baloney, the majority of us don't.
I won't address you directly in the future. Brotherchristian 15:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Factually, you are wrong. I am better than some people here. I am smarter than some people here. And my opinion is more valid than some. I could not identify these people, but it is a fact of population dynamics and the standard distributions of large populations.
But it is not a matter of "fact" that drives you. It is your pov -- which is also driving you to say rude things and make the argument "personal". Despite your objections, the gap remains commitment to pov vs commitment to wikipedia quality. I recognize that you do not see that distinction... perhaps it is because your biases are of the highest quality and there is no difference. --Blue Tie 22:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey whatever helps you sleep at night pal. What you're doing now is wordsmithing. The fact of the matter is that it's you who is driving to enforce your POV. You stated earlier that I admitted that I'm arguing because of my POV - This is not true. I simply stated my POV, and that I feel the information should be available to anyone who wants it. I have the same sentiment for the impeachment of Bill Clinton - Which in my opinion was highly partisan and just outright silly - But, it happened, therefore the information and facts surrounding it should be available to anyone who wants them.
You on the other hand, want this article deleted. Why? You think the movement is silly and pointless, but to have your own opinion is not enough, you want the information removed so that others can't get it. Make no doubt about it, it is YOU whose interests lie in your POV. Surely you realize that. Wiki has hundreds of articles about insignificant things, even characters on TV shows have their own articles (not the actors, but the actual fictional characters). Would you agree that an article about JD from Scrubs is less significant than than the movement to impeach Bush? Of course you would, but it has no gravity regarding your political beliefs, so you won't spend time on it.
Before you ask "Well why do you have such an interest in this article?", insinuating that it must be my POV as well-- Not exactly true. My interest in the matter led me to the article, but it's my interest in freedom of information that leads me to object to its removal. Now can you "see that distinction?" Brotherchristian 04:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wordsmithing huh? Are you sure? The impeachment of Clinton DID happen. That makes it infinitely more valid. But this article is detrius. It is a pov fork and reduces wikipedia quality. That is why I want it deleted. It is a trash article. It is not that I think the "movement" is pointless and silly. It is that there is no movement to impeach Bush. It does not exist. As for the article about JD from Scrubs, I would not necessarily agree that it is less important than this one. I am not a fan of pop culture articles, but I can see where they have some value for a few folks. I also cannot think of any reason to delete them. When I can, I seek for their deletion... fast. As for my political beliefs.. you are presumptuous. I have no love for Bush. If he were gone yesterday that would be fine with me. And if he were impeached, I would not care too much except for any precidents it sets. But the article is still trash. Because there is no movement to impeach Bush. Its just a bunch of whining. Again you presume to much about me. I'm fine with your "interest" in the article Nothings suspicious there. Your desire to see this article survive is obnoxious to me. You want to reduce the quality of wikipedia. But..In the name of "freedom of information" you degrade wikipedia by having an article that is tripe. In fact, an article about tripe would have more validity. There is no Movement to Impeach Bush. At best.. there is a movement to seek impeachment. But not to actually impeach him. It does not exist. That is why this is such a bad article. It is, in essence, a lie. --Blue Tie 07:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Must give credit where credit is due. That response was almost completely un-insulting. Take away "You want to reduce the quality of Wikipedia" and "Nothings suspicious there" and it would resemble a coherent, non-condescending, adult conversation. As such, I will reciprocate.
I agree that the Clinton impeachment is more significant (for now) because it did really happen, and I agree that I am presumptuous about your POV. I presume based on the fact that your agruments for deletion are so wide-ranging. You regularly challenge the use of the word "movement" but offer no alternative. You say the article is POV but offer no solution. You say "there is no movement...", twice in fact in your last post alone, but something is happening here. If it ain't a movement, then what is it?
In short, I don't believe that your motives are as pure as you claim because the only solution you offer is complete suppression. If I was in the minority here, I would feel the need to object regardless. Since I am in the majority, I should be able to ignore you altogether, but it's your demeanor that makes that difficult for me. You belittle and "talk down" to myself and anyone else who disagrees with you, sometimes ever-so-delicately and sometimes quite intentionally.
If you wish, we can now agree to disagree, and I'll bid you good luck. Brotherchristian 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Case Status

Good morning everyone;

Is there still hope for Mediation or should I close and refer to Medcom? Dagomar 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GATXER

Please stop edit warring as you already had one page protected by your style of contributing. Exzplain here what your objections are in light of the sources that substantiate the use of Saturday Night Massacre.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


I wish some Admin would inform editor N that someone who calls Bush the Fuhr...should not be editting any pages about Bush....It not hard to understand but he just doesnt get it. GATXER 20:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Politicized

Per this wikipedia article US Attorneys are typically fired and hired for political reasons. Hence this is not an instance of new politicization. It is just a different application of politicization. --Blue Tie 11:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Hiring/firing based on the willingness to target Democrats and protect Republicans is certainly not common practice. This is entirely different from what you are proposing.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we should go back to the original heading, "Politicization of the United States attorney offices", or maybe "Improper politicization of the United States attorney offices". If you've got a problem with inclusion of Saturday Night Massacre among the "Main articles" list, perhaps it would be better to separate that reference out from the others as an "Also see" ref for this section. It's relevant to this section, but since it's not as directly related to Bush as other refs, I can understand why one might wish to make that distinction clearer. However, I don't buy the narrower section heading of "Dismissal of the United States attorneys" or even the newer variation proposed by User:Nescio, "Dismissal of the United States attorneys for political reasons", because this doesn't cover such abuses as hiring based on purely political criteria or exerting undue pressure on U.S. attorneys for political purposes. - JCLately 17:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment of JCLately.Giovanni33 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, Blue Tie, that is not typical at all. Have you actually studied this issue? Do you care to supply the results of your study that led you to that odd conclusion? Let me present to you the words of Joseph Rich, as an expert testimony on this point. He is former head of the civil rights division of the Justice Department. He worked at the Justice Department from 1968 to 200. JOSEPH RICH: "Well, I was at the Department of Justice in the Civil Rights Division right out of law school in ’68 and worked twenty-four of the thirty-six years I was there under Republican administrations, starting with Ramsey Clark, John Mitchell, through Ed Meese, Janet Reno and finally this administration with Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft. This administration is the first administration that I felt had politicized the department to the extent that it has. And I had been the head of the Voting Section for the last six years that I was there, from 1999 to 2005, and I think the Voting Section has always been a section that is of political interest, but never had been politicized to the extent that it was in this administration."[2]Giovanni33 18:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You can read the whole intereview for yourself, but he continues to get into specific details and examples to support this view. I quote further, "Secondly, this administration had a disdain and attacked career people that they felt was disloyal, more than any other administration that I had to deal with over my long career. And this led to the removal of section chiefs. It led to a real breakdown in any good relationship between political and career people that is necessary for a Department of Justice agency to have. Without that give and take, you're not going to get good decision making. It led to a real loss of the career-based, real guts of the Civil Rights Division. After I left the Voting Section, 55% to 60% of the attorneys have either left or transferred out of the Voting Section. That, coupled with a very politicized new hiring policy that was implemented in 2002, has changed the nature of the personnel in the division from one that was a longtime committed group of attorneys to civil rights enforcement to one that has very little experience in civil rights and does not have that commitment, and indeed is -- a good deal of the hiring is done on very politicized bases, as particularly a story in the Boston Globe last summer revealed, just the loss of people who had civil rights experience and the increase in people that were ideologically aligned with the Republican Party."Giovanni33 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Your argument is that it has been done DIFFERENTLY than prior administrations. That I agree with. Some people are of the opinion that it is WORSE than prior administrations. Thats an opinion -- some agree, some do not. When I apply my professional expertise to the issue, I do not happen to think it is worse. In fact, I think its not as bad. But that too is an opinion. But the bottom line is, this has always been politicized. It is called the "Spoils System". It is an old issue in American politics. So, the title cannot be simply "Politicization" because that is not unique to this issue. The title might be "alleged impropriety". That seems to be where people are trying to find real traction. (I am not so sure that very many people care if lawyers get fired so I think the traction is more imaginary). Of course so much of this is just Washington games. I have been a lobbyist in Congress during Clinton years, so I know how they play these games... it is very deliberate and unreal and if American knew the half of it, they would either laugh or cry. For example, I used to construct the words that Executive Branch representatives, Congressmen or Senators would say ... when they were firing for effect. Little nuances mean things. Its weird... and its only inside the beltway that this drama really matters. Meanwhile Rome Burns. --Blue Tie 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is not my personal arguments, but the argument of credible sources. You think its no worse. If so, then you can cite sources that state such view, into the body of the section. However, your claim is that it IS politized, and that is always has been that way. Well then, there is no reason to change the section title, since that is the subject of debate, and of criticism. Namely that there is a qualitative difference in the degree and depths of the politicization. But regardless of claim, or the view that is has always been that bad, its still about the same issue: politicization. Saying, "alleged impropriety" is too vaugue, as that could apply to anything.Giovanni33 01:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not claim it was your personal argument.
I am not interested in adding a view that says its no worse. I think I can find one, but I do not care enough to search it out.
However, it should not say "politicized" as though that were unique because it isn't. Its always political. Something like "improper" or just "dismissal" or something like that. Yes there is reason, because the politicization is not a unique issue for Bush. It applies to all Presidents. Don't you think this article should mention special reasons that people imagine are appropriate for impeachment? Like... say... "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"? Just using the perks of office is hardly an impeachable offense so it should be something special. --Blue Tie 01:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree and fail to follow your logic. You state that politicization has always been the case. And you agree that the claim regards the qualitative difference of the degree to which this is the case with this adminstration. Its the claim in question here, the charge against Bush. So agree with all that. Yet you disagree that the subject title should specifically mention Politicization, and instead it should be under a much broader, and much more vauge, and fuzzy concept of general improprieties, such as "improper" or just "dismissal." This is less precise, less direct, and I see no valid reason to remove the real issue at hand: a question of inappropriate polititicization of the justice department with regard to firing long term career officers for political reason in a manner that exceeded all other adminstrations (as it claimed). Thus, the hedaind should remain about this very issue, not more gerneral vauge issues. You yourself agree this is the issue, so what is the problem?Giovanni33 20:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I accept that you disagree and fail to follow my logic. Perhaps it is foreign to you. Let's break it down.
1. We both agree that I have said politicization has always pertained.
2. We (possibly) both agree that the Bush administration has done it differently.
3. We both agree that I do not think the title of the section should include "politicization"
4. We both agree that I have suggested more vague titles
Somehow to you, this is all illogical. But you never quite get to WHY it is illogical. You just jump to your opinion that it is.
On the other hand, I have explained that it is not relevant that "politicization" be considered appropriate or inappropriate. It is a non-issue. There is no such thing as "appropriate" politicization to the side it goes against. There is no such thing as "inappropriate" politicization to the side it favors. So... what is the issue? The issue is THE LAW. QUERY: Is politicization standard practice? ANSWER: Yes. QUERY: With every administration? ANSWER: Yes. QUERY: Has this previously been investigated as to its legality? ANSWER: Yes. QUERY: By Whom? ANSWER: US Congress and US Supreme Court. QUERY: What were their findings? ANSWER: Congress determined that such things do not amount to guilt and the Supreme Court found that trying to limit the President's perogative in this matter is Unconstitutional.
With all of that, the issue as pertaining to IMPEACHMENT cannot be "politicization". IT CANT BE!. IT MUST BE SOMETHING ELSE. Now the truth is, that to the people who propose it, THAT is the only issue: What they call "improper politicization". However, THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN REMOVED FROM THE LIST OF THINGS THAT A PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR. By both Congress and the US Supreme Court. HENCE THE LOGIC IS THIS: If the problem is not (because it cannot be) politicization, then IT MUST BE SOMETHING ELSE. Of course, this is extremely vague now, because there is no other real reason. A movement to impeach must at least appeal to valid legal issues -- or its just lunatic mobocracy.
At the heart of it, this is another instance of how this article is just full of crap. There is no "Movement" on this score. There are skilled political manipulators who use these things for advantage -- not for impeachment, but for other sorts of "currency" in political circles -- and there are crybabies and whiners who buy into the manipulation never realizing they are tools being manipulated. But there is no movement -- or if there is any, its the pawns who are being moved about unwittingly. But politicization in the firings of the lawyers is about as impeachable as being served bread without butter. It annoys some folk but its no crime. Maybe though, there is some OTHER crime involved. So, let the title reflect at least that much possibility that this issue has some traction for impeachment. Otherwise it has none. --Blue Tie 23:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


I think hiring/firing with thye intention of reshaping the political landscape into a one-party system, by prosecuting Democrats and shielding Republicans, is not only a travesty of justice but arguably rises to "high crimes and ...."Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly the sort of fuzzy thinking that makes this article remain on wikipedia even though there is no movement to impeach Bush. It makes thinking liberals and concerned people wince. Crimes are defined by laws. Misdemeanors are defined by laws. We are a nation of laws and random wishes for political revenge are not laws. The President may fire attorneys at will -- for any reason he wants. It could even be because he wants to change the outcome of a trial or because the President is drunk and in a snit. It does not matter. It is not against the law. They serve entirely at his pleasure. If you think it should be against the law, that is a different matter. But it is not against the law. It is no cause for impeachment. This is simply a matter of pure fact. This article is slack and a waste of electrons. And if you think those are the words of a Republican, consider this: I was a lobbyist on the side of the Clinton Administration, working most closely with a key and highly regarded Democratic Senator and my enemies were chiefly Republicans, particularly one for whom I still feel personal animosity. But I have the sense to recognize silliness -- like this article. Just like the firing of prosecutors is not newly political and it is not a cause ... there is no movement to impeach. There are only a bunch of powerless, insignificant crybabies trying to get attention. --Blue Tie 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like we misunderstand each other. Technically everything is an impeachable offense. Since no definition exusts it is up to Congress to determine what constitutes "high Crimes and misdemeanors." If they wanted to eating a banana is an impeachable offense. Therefore the current list presented is entirely possible. To claim they do not constitute such an offense is a misrepresentation of the law. Further, the presented arguments are sufficiently grave that it is difficult to understand why proposing accountability in these cases is political. To be sure, at this point anybody requesting accountability of this administration is rebutted with claiming that asking for accountability ipso facto is a political gesture.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent). We do not misunderstand each other. You misunderstand the law. High Crimes and Misdemeanors are infractions of LAW. What Congress is charged with doing is 1). determining if there are sufficient grounds for holding a trial based upon violation of law and, then 2). determining if the President is guilty of those violations. Congress may also decide what constitutes a crime but not ex post facto. We are a government of laws. How is this hard to grasp?

Now, I do not want you to imagine that I am saying Bush is not impeachable on technical grounds. The term "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is sufficiently broad that it could possibly cover actions by just about any sitting president of the last 200 years. Lincoln and Roosevelt are two that come to mind as egregious examples. So Bush could be included as much as some (but probably less than some as well). However, partisan and political decisions regarding government employees who serve at your pleasure is not a crime. (This was already tested in impeachment trial and Congressional efforts to control it has already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court). Incompetence such as Katrina is also not a crime, but it may lead to other determinations of guilt or inability to hold office. Proceeding to conduct wartime operations under authority of Congress cannot be described as a crime even if Congress later disapproves -- ex post facto applies. This article is full of the dreams of people who are clueless on the matter. --Blue Tie 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Unless you can identify which law or where in the Constitution there is a list detailing impeachable offences nobody knows what they are. Admittedly eating a banana is not likely to be one of them. However, to suggest that incompetence (Katrina), lying about war (Iraq), declaring war in violation of the Constitution (Iraq), violating FISA (this is a crime under US law!), rearranging the DoJ to ensure one political party can take over the country (potentially a one-party rule), are not sufficiently serious and claiming impeachment is absolutely not applicable is either a gross misunderstanding of the allegations presented or a willful disregard for the rule of law (Constitution) and the principles of democracy.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much, your argument and list are nonsensical. I'll agree to this exception: Technically, actual impeachment is a political issue rather than a legal one. It is simply laying out a charge by vote. So, I suppose from that perspective, while there is presently NO movement to impeach this President (absolutely none), there is almost always a "movement" to "seek the impeachment" of every President... by laying out charges against them and accusing them of all sorts of things. If this article were called "Movement to seek the impeachment of G. W. Bush" it would be more accurate because there is certainly a movement to seek it. But there is no movement to impeach him.
Still, actual impeachment does not require any guilt or even sensibility, and a President could theoretically be impeached for wearing the wrong suit or cutting himself while shaving -- or eating a banana. The charge does not have to be reasonable, logical, legal, or even have substance.
That's all technical. But there is a practical aspect that overrules. Congress is not so irresponsible (or self abusing) as to impeach on a laundry list of half-baked, legally vacant issues. So, if this article is to be encyclopedic, and present a valid, real movement to impeach it should not be the dreams of random minor people who disagree with Bush. Instead it should be looking at the serious matter of removal from office, which is what is generally THOUGHT OF when impeachment is discussed. And as far as THAT goes this this article, and your list above, are bereft of legal or substantive valdity. --Blue Tie 00:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging that the presented arguments fall within the scope of "impeachable offences." Second, could you elaborate on "bereft of legal or substantive valdity" in light of the numerous legal experts, stating the opposite, used as sources? As for "Congress is not so irresponsible (or self abusing) as to impeach on a laundry list of half-baked, legally vacant issues." how exactly is impeachment over an extra-marrital affair not "irresponsible?" Lying about it you say? Hmm, how about lying to start a war, or lying to politicize the DoJ?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome although you do not seem to be paying attention. ANYTHING, even the act of breathing or drinking water is potentially or theoretically an impeachable offense. Of course, that is ridiculous from a practical point of view. And also, practically speaking, nothing on the list you gave is actually impeachable, because though Congress is highly political, it does not want to impeach if there isn't SOME sort of substantial and provable legal crime. (Note that in the only two successful impeachments, the allegations were validated in law and legal opinion, not in politics). I could, as you request, "elaborate on legal or substantive validity", and originally I did present a long argument on each of the points raised, but in the end, I decided to remove it because it would not matter anyway. The friends and lovers of this article do not care if there is no substance to the issues. Look at yourself: You do not care that there is no movement to Impeach the President; you like the article anyway. So why bother going to the trouble of explaining in detail how there is no crime here? In most cases, the criminal issues have even, already been explored and rejected in court or by Congress. Has that mattered to anyone about this article? No. Because it does not matter that there is no substance. It does not matter that there is no movement. All that matters is that this is a cool place to laundry list some crybaby allegations. Totally unencyclopedic.
As for your concern about the Clinton impeachment, perhaps you are not aware, but he was not impeached for an extramarital affair. In fact, there was no charge of adultery or affairs or what have you in the impeachment proceedings. He was impeached for two regular ol' every-day violations of law - felonies actually. Though the Senate did not vote to hold him accountable for that (which in my view was an "OK" decision), he was later cited (found guilty) for contempt of court over that same charge. The Arkansas Supreme Court, ordered to review the issue said he was guilty of "serious misconduct" .."involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud and misrepresentation." In the resulting plea agreements that he entered into, he was substantially fined, suspended from the Arkansas bar and suspended from practicing before the Supreme Court on those same grounds.
So, interestingly, though he was impeached, and legally guilty, the Senate voted not to remove him from office. So far, no President has been removed from office and it would be impossible to remove Bush from office. --Blue Tie 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

<Outdent> Let's start again. Are you suggesting that the sourced opinion of numerous legal experts is to be ignored in favour of your opinion? On what grounds is starting a war of aggression not impeachable? And how is violating FISA, a crime under US law, not impeachable? Or, obstruction of justice? I think you misunderstand WP. It is not about what you think, or what I think. If we can find outside sources saying it there is no valid reason to exclude the notion these are impeachable offences. You have yet to explain why we should ignore the sources, or even on what legal premisse your opinion is based. As for Clinton, my question was, how is lying about an extra-marrital affair impeachable yet lying about the reasons for going to war not? Lying is lying in my part of the world.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In order: 1). I have never suggested that. 2) Breathing is technically impeachable. But assuming that you are in agreement that impeachable offenses should be crimes then a) Any war is an act of aggression, so starting a "War of Aggression" is no more criminal than any other war; b) the nature of the illegality of the war is governed by several different laws but chiefly, Public Law 93-148 "War Powers Resolution". The President has authority on his own to commence military action for up to 92 days, at which point he must have explicit approval (a vote -- either a declaration of war OR authorization of the use of forces) from Congress. In addition, though he may commence these actions on his own authority he must consult with congress before and after the commencement of those actions. At the point that he has the resolution of congress, he is no longer acting upon his own authority but at the behest of the whole government. If he does not get the resolution, he must withdraw forces. THAT IS THE LAW. It has been validated many times in court even if a lunatic fringe wants to opine that it is not the law. It is. This is just like people who say that we do not have to pay taxes because it is not in the Constitution. Sure we do. 3). With regard to your FISA question, you should understand that a violation of FISA may not be impeachable or criminal if it falls outside of FISA but under Article II of the Constitution. The Constitutional Law prevails over FISA. Various court cases have determined that there is no need for warrants when intercepting foreign communications: (See In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 20(2); United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972) and Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347,363-64 -especially White's concurring opinion). The Supreme Court has essentially stated "The President is presumed to have this power". Finally, the Authorization to Use Military Force after 9/11, specifically charges the President to: "use all necessary and appropriate force ... to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States" and uses the term "both at home and abroad" -- because the 9/11 terrorists had lived in the US for an extended time. Note that Congress, after review of the specifics, has not taken any steps against it. 4). There is no obstruction of justice. 5). I think you underestimate me. I completely understand wikipedia. It is not a system of "truth" or "right". It is not even actually a system of valid sourcing - though it claims to be. Instead it is a system of anarchy/mobocracy under an aegis of rules that are unevenly accepted or enforced. 6). About Clinton. (Again.... duh.. can you not get this out of your head? It has nothing to do with Bush.) The issue is one of a common crime... a premeditated felony as determined by competent and Authorized official investigators with legal requirement to pass a judgment, not merely crybabies nagging people about it. No such thing has happened with regard to Bush. In the case of Bush, investigations reviewing the evidence have not even begun to hint at a lie (much less perjury). There is simply no evidence of lying. Hence there is no cause for action there. In the case of Clinton, multiple competent legal investigations led directly to the conclusion of a perjury. If you do not recognize the difference between the volunteered opinions of political enemies with an axe to grind, people who have no legal standing nor special knowledge of the facts vs the considered and studied decisions, after a review of all the evidence, by authorized investigators and judges known for objectivity -- then I am not sufficiently bright enough to explain it to you in more detail than this: There is no objectively credible evidence Bush lied and there is objective credible determination that Clinton committed a premeditated felony perjury. But Clinton has nothing to do with this (except that he did some of the things you think Bush should be impeached for) and I wish you would get off it -- its a Red Herring. --Blue Tie 22:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Now we have established that sourced material is allowed, and we have sources making the claims you feel are incorrect there is no argument to exclude them from the article. This settles the matter, even though I respect your opinion they are wrong. There is no furhter need to object to the material. As for your comments, they are easily rebutted but since this is about the article and not a debating club I will leave it at that. If you are interested to hear why your comments are incorrect let me know.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • First, you have now changed the argument. Your original proposed question on "sourcing" was whether I considered MY opinion to be superior to the sourced opinions you want to cite. I answered that I have never argued that my opinion was superior. But somehow you have taken that response as an endorsement of your sources. You switched the discussion. This is a textbook example of the dishonest practice of "Red Herring". And, ignoring that dissimulation, I consider your summary statement "sourced material is allowed" to be wrong in its implication that if material is sourced, it is thus allowed. That is not true. To be clear: It should be from a reliable source (for example, blogs do not count), it should not be abusive. For example, quoting an editorial or opinion as a fact when it actually contradicts established fact is abusive. And finally, it should really be in support of an encyclopedic topic -- something that actually exists.
    • Second, your response in no way addresses the points I brought up. Even though your questions were not really focussed on the issue: "There is no movement to impeach", I was being considerate to answer your questions. But, now, you are are conflating issues, not responding appropriately, using strawman and then without due consideration, you declare some sort of victory ("this settles the matter"). This is called "failure to deliberate" and is separately an indicator of the logical fallacy of "strawman". Perhaps you do not want to respond in detail.. that's fine. But at least be honest and say "I do not agree but I do not feel like discussing it". But do not be self-deluding: You have not answered the questions and things are NOT settled.--Blue Tie 17:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

AEB 1

Apparently I move too fast. Again let me try and understand your position. Are you advocating that the sources are not allowed? Most notable Elizabeth Holtzman, Marjhorie Cohn, FindLaw, et cetera? If not I again state the matter is settled. We have sources stating such and such are impeachable offences. We have you agreeing that such sources can be used. Ergo: matter settled. If however you object to the sources I am curious as to why. A former prosecuter part of the Watergate investigation seems more than acceptable under WP policy.
Regarding your opinion, that is not the topic of this page that is why I feel reluctant to discuss it here. But let me answer the lie part.
  1. We have Bush insisting SH was involved in 9-11. There was no evidence supporting that claim.
  2. We have Bush insisting SH had WMD and wanted to sell them to terrorists in order to attack the US. Again, no evidence exist supporting that claim.
  3. We have Bush saying the invasion of Iraq was because SH did not allow the inspectors in. Oddly enough the entire world witnessed how these non-existent inspectors were forced out of Iraq because Bush had ordered the invasion.
  4. We have Bush saying that anyone involved in Plamegate would be fired. As of today both Cheney and Rove are still working for the WH.
  5. We have Bush saying the Libby sentence was excessive. Nevertheless, it was clearly within official guidelines, as evidenced by another conviction only two weeks prior to this statement.
These are just a few examples. True, another explanation for these statements being incompatable with the known facts is he was unaware and inadequately informed. A President not aware of pressing matters of national security is evidently incompetent. So, either he lied or he is incompetent. There are no other logical explanations for the evidently false statements he made.
If you have sourced material detailing your opinion you are more than welcome to include it. Respectfully.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


In reply, I am not sure what sources you are asking about. Blogs, Self-referencing, etc are not reliable sources. But sourcing is allowed. In the expression of opinion, the opinion must not only be from a credible source but also must be expressed as an opinion in and ascribed to that person, not to wikipedia. Otherwise...Not sure what you are asking or why you think I am objecting to something.
You claim that you have firm statements that some things are impeachable. What you actually have is OPINIONS that such and such are impeachable offenses. There are, of course, court rulings to the contrary and these naturally take precidence over the opinions of private citizens whining in the editorial pages. Secondary to court rulings, you also have white papers and decisions by authorized administrative legal authorities. In absence of finaly court determination, these also take precidence over the whinings of private parties in editorial comments.
We have policies by wikipedia regarding NPOV and Reliable Sources, including prioritization of those sources, Ergo Matter Settled. However, you seem to want to assert that private opinions are more valid than Supreme Court rulings and statements. But Supreme Court rulings are usually more than sufficient in declaring what the Law is and relying upon those statements generally grants a shield against prosecution or liability.
Although the lie part is not integral to this issue, you insist on bringing it up and with bad information. Lets go through it.
  1. You claim Bush insisted SH was involved in 9-11. Bush never insisted that. Bush never said that.
  2. You claim that "Bush insisting SH had WMD and wanted to sell them to terrorists in order to attack the US". Not exactly right, but close enough not to argue. However, you go on to say: "no evidence exist supporting that claim", which is false. There was plenty of evidence to support that claim.
  3. You claim "We have Bush saying the invasion of Iraq was because SH did not allow the inspectors in.". That is false. Bush did not say that.
  4. You claim that "We have Bush saying that anyone involved in Plamegate would be fired. As of today both Cheney and Rove are still working for the WH." Again, you have your facts mixed up. Bush said that anyone who leaked the name would be fired. That was before he was made aware that Richard Armitage was the leaker. Armitage was at first unaware that he had leaked, but when he did become aware, he came completely clean. Armitage was a very honest moderate and Bush changed his mind upon knowing that it was Armitage. Nevertheless, Armitage resigned and has not worked in the Administration since 2004. That Cheney and Rove are still employed is irrelevant since they did not fall under the issue of having leaked the name (though that is a common misperception).
  5. Now you say "We have Bush saying the Libby sentence was excessive...etc... etc.". Wasn't this supposed to be about how he lied? Bush can do whatever he wants with his pardon power. Its not an impeachable offense nor is it a lie.
Your black and white thinking about there being only one of two ways it could be... either he knew and lied or he is incompetent is more of a reflection on your abilities to consider the issues in a wide variety of possibilities than it is a reflection of the facts. But so you know, of those two , I think Bush is somewhat incompetent. However, I am open to many other possibilities as well. --Blue Tie 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. May I invite you to first read the sources in the rationale section before continuing to claim they are mere "blogs" or "private opinions." Again please note the fact that FindLaw is used, Elizabeth Holtzman who was a prosecutor in Watergate, et cetera. Surely there is no possible reason to argue these are not allowed. Unless you detail which person and for what reason you feel violates WP:RS I consider the matter closed.
  2. We have a section adequately detailing that so and so, thinks such and such is an impeachable offence. On what grounds is that not allowed?
  3. Are you claiming there are "Supreme Court rulings and statements" detailing these are not impeachable offences? If so could you provide a link?
  4. The fact you are rewriting history is unfortunate. Either you are insufficiently informed or you are willfully ignoring the numerous newspaper reports detailing the facts I mentioned. No, the available evidence was highly dubious if not contradictng the claims of WMD and AQ links. In any case on the whole no prosecutor would go to court based on the evidence Bush had. Flimsy at best every judge would throw out the case on account of lack of evidence. Please see the most recent report on this which concluded that the available evidence did not support the claims made. It is in the Rationale section under invading Iraq.
  5. Further, to suggest Rove and Cheney had nothing to do with the leak is a stunning example of contradicting court papers (Fitzgerald) tantamount to a state of denial.
  6. Are you asking me to provide links so you can see that what I say is based in fact and Bush did make the statements I say he did?

RespectfullyNomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I missed this a long time ago. I will reply now.
  1. First, I know that there are some good sources to some things in the article. However, you were being and are being vague. I said "I am not sure what sources you are asking about. Blogs, Self-referencing, etc are not reliable sources. " That statement has not been answered.
  2. I have not said that opinions are not allowed. Where did you get that idea? But when these opinions are from relatively insignificant or minor people they probably should not be expressed here particularly in the face of more weighty opinions.
  3. Yes, there such rulings and I might be able to find a link or two.
  4. I am not re-writing history. It is rather crass for you to claim that without any justification.
  5. Rove and Cheney had nothing to do with the leak of Plame's name. They were too late and from what I recall they did not do it. No investigator has ever said they did it. Indeed, the investigator said there was no evidence that they did that. I am sorry that this bugs you but it is the way it is.
  6. I have not asked you to provide any links. In the cases where I have disagreed with you, you cannot provide such links. What you can provide however, is links to things that seem similar and that you have conflated. For example, Bush stating SH was involved in 9-11. You can't find it. But you can find statements where Bush expressed his concern about Sadaam having potential terrorist connections or interests. You may conflate that to say terrorism from the mideast = 911 bomber. --Blue Tie 20:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Senator Feingold's censure resolution

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070723/cm_thenation/1216694 Will someone please review this and add it? I'm not 100% comfortable editing pages yet but I suppose I'll take a stab at it in a few days if nobody else does.Brotherchristian 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No response, no objections. I'm adding it. Brotherchristian 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just added it, then moved it from "5.2 Politicians and Gov't officials" to "2.1 Democrats in Congress." Any objections to putting 2.1 in chronological order and making it a bullet list? Brotherchristian 20:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's be consistent about omitting "Undecided" counts in polls

I can see no benefit to the inclusion of "Undecided" poll statistics, and since this article generally omits them, I suggest that we omit them consistently. If the sum of Yes + No + Undecided is less than 100%, what are we to assume about the remaining percentage? Who cares whether the remainder were undecided or whatever other categorization might have been applied? In response to User:Niteshift36: I thought my edit summaries were pretty clear as to why I reverted your selective addition of this piece of trivia, but obviously you missed my point. Now why don't you explain to us what line of reasoning led you to revert my changes, providing this seemingly nonsensical justification: "Unsure is far more relevant than some township in NH voting on it." - JCLately (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my "justification", it was commentary. The "justification" is that the poll reported it. I reported the poll results ACCURATELY. The 7% "unsure" is significant. My commentary is because you aren't running around the article deleting other totally irrelevant things, like a single township in NH votong on some totally pointless resolution with no legal effect. You allow things like that to stand unmolested and want to nit-pick over including 7% that felt they needed more info. That makes no real sense. You reverted without discussion, then reverted again when asked to discuss BEFORE making the reversion. Why do you refuse to discuss prior to reverting yet again? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you take a look at Help:Edit summary. If you wish to exhort others into paring down this article, the appropriate way to do that would be on the Talk page, not by adding general commentary as an irrelevant edit summary, which certainly seems to imply a justification for your change. Better still, you might yourself participate in removing trivia, instead of adding it. I didn't dispute the accuracy of your addition, only its significance. Especially considering the narrower scope of the poll in question, whether Bush should be impeached "over the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction", the 7% undecided is utterly inconsequential. Furthermore, it is a trivial matter to deduce that 8% didn't either say Yes or No, so I question how it can possibly be of any notable significance that 7% were undecided and the remaining 1% were presumably something else. What were they, going to the bathroom? Busy picking their noses? Who the hell cares?? The only point to telling us that 7% were undecided is to clarify that of the 8% who obviously didn't say Yes or No, 1% didn't do so for some unspecified reason. Why is this an important fact, and if it's so damn important, why is it moreso than in every other poll statistic provided in this article? How do you justify this inconsistency? I did not refuse to discuss my reversions before making them: I added a relevant edit summary each time, and I added this new Talk section before the last time I reverted your change. This time I'll leave it to someone else to revert your change, if anyone agrees with my point of view. Finally, as to your absurd suggestion that I should personally bear responsibility for trimming what you consider to be excessive trivia from this article, let me suggest this: instead of vaguely disputing the neutrality of the article, why don't you try to balance it appropriately, by providing credible counter-arguments and suitable references supporting them. If you can't do that, I'd suggest removing the Template:POV-check tag at the front of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCLately (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you considered that the missing 1% that you are so overly fixated on is lost in rounding of numbers? No, probably not given how much energy you've spent focused on it. And it's not more important in thos poll than in others, but I didn't add the others, did I? I take responsibility for what I added. If other editors chose to eliminate that, it was their call, not mine. If you want to get down to brass tacks, what is the significance of ANY of the polls from 2005 or 2006? They are outdated. You may have added this talk section before you reverted, but you did the revet before any discussion took place, so you're really just engaging in semantics there. And I haven't suggested you bear personal responsibility for paring the article. I am simply pointing out your fixation with this particular point, while ignoring the rampant inclusion of information in the article that truly has no bearing at all on the topic. Instead of caring about paragraphs of worthless trivia, you focus so much effort on a half of a sentence. Nor am I disputing the neutrality of the article. By it's very nature, it is going to be biased. I have no interest in debating the minutia of each arguement with the army of Bush haters who authored the article. But that doesn't prevent my making any contributions I make accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
"Have you considered..." That question clearly demonstrates that you continue to miss the point, which is simply that no one on either side of the issue gives a damn about the "Undecided" statistics, and in all this time you have yet to make a single cogent reply that is responsive to that point. If you take responsibility for your edits, why not demonstrate your magnanimity and just concede the point - feel free to delete this superfluous addition yourself. If you consider these polls to be of no significance, why did you make this addition in the first place? If you think this poll is so telling, why did you find it necessary to omit mention of its narrower scope, which then required further clarification by another editor. Do you imagine that puffing up your contribution with a piece of superfluous trivia somehow gives it greater weight? I don't regard this particular dispute as a big deal one way or the other, which is why I was content to confine my previous remarks to the edit summaries. It was you who suggested that we elevate this discussion to the talk page, so I did that. Now you criticize me for pursuing the matter and state that you "have no interest in debating the minutia". Very well, why don't you try a little harder to avoid contradicting yourself, and consider making a more significant and constructive contribution, if you are capable of it. - JCLately (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you are talkkng to, but about half of that drivel is mainly stuff you've made up in your mind. And I didn't purposely omit the narrowed scope, it was simply an error. I'm sure you never make those. You've proven to be both unwillingly to actually listen to what was said or actually be honest in how you discuss it. You are a waste of my time to further converse with. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush/Archive_10&oldid=1052239177"