Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

To read this link

This link, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20050617%2FMEMO17%2FTPInternational%2FAmericas&ord=2006382&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=trueBy PAUL KORING, Globeandmail.com, June 17, 2005, requires purchase to read it which makes it useless. It should be removed and another referrence should be made available. What do others think? --Crohnie 12:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This one is useless too, [1]. When was the last time anyone checked the sources for this article? It's a blog with old information and mostly talks about Clinton. The article is about Bush, it makes no sense. --Crohnie 12:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This referrence is no longer available, [2]. This too is no longer available [3]. I haven't gone through all of them but I think this article is lopsided and a lot of information is now outdated. There is even a link to buy a book which is spam I thought. --Crohnie 13:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried #7 [[4]] its nothing to. Do we need a citations_broken tag till someone goes through and verifies each one? buying a book, paying to read, Outdated info, blank pages are not citations. --Xiahou 02:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The last revert about Bush's veto

Please reread what you wrote. It is not encyclopedic and it is very much opinionated. Putting the veto in is a good idea, with sources and without your comments about how he doesn't care what the people think. Thanks, --Crohnie 13:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a valid inference from his statement yesterday that he esteems "military commanders" higher than an elected branch of government. Perhaps we could even extrapolate that in effect there are now only two branches of government setting policy: the White House, and the military. Nigel Barristoat 13:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nigel, I think you're right about Bush's opinions of "we the people poops," but it's not encyclopedic and it is soapboxing or, at the very least, original research.

If you want to reinsert the material regarding the actual event, without drawing conclusions within the article, I think a case could be made. However, I'm not sure it fits within the topic of this article, which is specifically about the movement to impeach Bush. If a pundit or politician has said this is a reason to impeach, then it would be much harder to argue that this event did not belong in the article.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 13:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Let's see how they react, then. Nigel Barristoat 13:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments above. Let's see what the fall out is, and you know there is going to be a lot said from both sides of the aisle on this one. Thanks, --Crohnie 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate to add info re: Cheney impeachment efforts?

I wanted to get some opinion here before proceeding. Since many people think that a successful impeachment of President Bush would first require removing VP Cheney from office, would it be appropriate to post info about a movement to impeach Cheney built around HR 333? Specifically, see links http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/transparency.cgi?paper=1&qnum=pet45 and http://www.usalone.com/cheney_impeachment.php --OtisTDog 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unrelated. There is no constitutional requirement one way or the other. A Cheney impeachment effort would be a separate topic, although I suppose it would show a political will for impeachment of an executive. bd2412 T 00:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

While the potential impeachment of Vice-President Cheney is technically a seperate topic, it is entirely appropriate to mention it in this article given that the move to impeach Cheney is intimately related to the move against Bush and is part of the overall strategy to impeach Bush.

I've added "HR 333 to Impeach Richard Cheney" under 'See Also' --Nonukes 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are increased congressional support for impeaching Cheney. [5] Terjen 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall Assessment of Movement

I would love to see a section that opines on the status of the inititives to impeach. Without such an overview, the article becomes a long list. I come here looking for what is making the most headway against this administration, and it is hard to find in the article as it is.--Raymm 03:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD for House Resolution 333

Editors, Your attention is requested in the matter of an AfD nomination for House Resolution 333. I invite your participation on the associated debate page. I realize that this is not the page for "Movement to impeach Cheney", but I also realize that many people consider impeaching Cheney to be a required pre-cursor to impeaching Bush. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.--OtisTDog 03:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In another year or two this article can be deleted

Soon there will be another election, Bush will be out of office, Democrats will be in office and it will become clear that there was never any "movement" to impeach Bush and it will no longer an exciting article to keep up for propaganda purposes. Then the article can be deleted. Right now it probably survives because people imagine that there might be such a movement, if not exactly in full force, maybe soon. Barring unforseen problems, there is exactly zero chance of an impeachment because there is no movement. A few random, powerless individuals making political points by posturing is not a movement. A movement must involve sufficient members of the Congress that it is a possibility and really, it ought to be growing.

This article describes something that does not exist and it ought to be deleted. It ought to be deleted now. It is an example of the awful, crufty, non-substantial trash that can infest wikipedia by editors with a pov to push. --Blue Tie 13:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry everyone but I agree with Blue Tie. --Crohnie 13:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who you do or do not agree with. Polls show that he is factually incorrect. -- Jibal 09:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is you who is factually incorrect. For example, it does matter who people agree with. That is the way it works on wikipedia, which is run by consensus. Furthermore, polls do not define "facts", they define opinions. How then, can a poll show that I am factually incorrect? When has a poll been taken on the viability of this article? Your statement makes no sense. And, you are responding to a post that is 3 months old. --Blue Tie 01:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You folks don't get it. This material is notable, when someone important calls for the impeach of the president of the united states, you bet its notable. It will be on Wikipedia someplace, somehow. The alternative -- deleting this article--will result spreading this material out across dozens of articles, including a lengthy section in GWB's article. This has nothing to do with politics, but is a practical solution to containing and monitoring this controversial material in a single location. -- Stbalbach 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think it would be notable if he got impeached which it doesn't look like is going to happen. But I have no problem keeping it, I just think it needs balance. There are also a lot of politician and people who are against impeachment that needs to be added in. Just my thougts,--Crohnie 14:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not notable, it does not really exist. It should be deleted. That is not to say that it will be deleted. Stbalbach's arguments are at most, a reason to wait until Bush is no longer in office. After that this will be utterly non-notable cruft -- an example of what wikipedia is not. Meanwhile every possible person (and if animals could speak they would be here too) who utters the word "impeachment" gets listed here because despite the wikipedia rules on such things... this article is a list of just everything that has ever been said on the matter. It is a whole article that could be handled in two sentences on the George Bush page:

As with many modern Presidents, there have been calls to impeach Bush from a variety sources. The US Congress, which is the only entity charged with the powers of impeachment, have so far refused to consider any motions or recommendations for impeachment and, despite his historically low approval ratings, there is no organized movement to impeach George Bush. --Blue Tie 14:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The article does not say there is an organized movement to impeach the president, article titles are just symbolic place holders, not statements of fact, the lead paragraph explains the scope. There are notable individuals calling for and taking action towards impeachment. Your right, every President has calls for impeachment, and whoever is president next, even if a Democratic, will have an article like this one. The history of calls for impeachment is not "non notable cruft" people study this stuff and use it in writing history. If you honestly think this article violates WP:NOT and it non-notable cruft, then take it to AfD instead of abusing the POV tag - you want the POV tag to be permanent (you said the article is "unfixable"), which is not an acceptable solution, POV tags are not meant to be permanent. Either find a way to fix the problem or get consensus to delete the article. -- Stbalbach 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

POV issues are solved by the careful balancing of the article. As I mentioned above, the article boarders on WP:NOT#SOAP, and so justifies a POV tag. I recommend rewriting the article to rely almost entirely upon reliable, nonpartisan, secondary sources. Special attention must be taken to give proper WP:WEIGHT to the content here. If there's no reliable, nonpartisan, secondary source available that analyzes a topic, the topic should probably be not be mentioned at all. --Ronz 19:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your opinion that the article is POV or that it "boarders on WP:NOT#SOAP". I asked for specific examples and your response (above) was 1) "I'll help as I see fit and have time." and 2) show me what isn't SOAP. In the first case, well your not helping in fact being a hindrance with an unjustified POV tag and in the second case its a logic fallacy, the responsibility is yours to prove what your saying, not for me to disprove it. -- Stbalbach 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to solve the problem, only give convincing justification for the existance of it. I've also suggested how to address the problem. Sorry you're unhappy with my responses. Basically, all I'm doing is trying to apply WP:NPOV to the article. I'm not asking you to prove or disprove anything, so your arguments about fallacies are irrelevant.

I think the second sentence makes a good example of what's wrong with the article: "...that include both Democrats and Republicans which indicate a degree of public support for the impeachment of President Bush." This appears to violate WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV as written. --Ronz 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of the comments here, especially from Blue Tie are not only absurd, they are bizzare. Regardless of how youfeel about impeaching Bush, how do you NOT see a movement to impeach him? We have never in the history of the United States had the type of support for impeaching a president that we have for impeaching Bush, not with Nixon, not with Clinton. Read the source material at the end of the article, look up the numbers of organizations devoted to impeachment, note the cold hard fact that several members of Congress are receiving bazillions of letters in support of impeachment evey day and are saying that impeachment is all the colleagues seem to talk about, consider the fact that 51% of the American people supported impeachment in the October 06 Newsweek poll, consider the States and local communities that are considering or pusing for impeachment, consider the now almost weekly demosntrations across the nation, consider the impeachbush website which has over 800,000 signatures supporting impeachment, consider the fact that several members of Congress (now including Republicans) are demonstrably supporting impeachment (and are having to fight Nancy Pelosi to get there), consider all of this and then come back and say there is "no movement for impeachment". if Bush is not impeached (which is possible) it will NOT be because there is "no support" (just typing that phrase makes me howl), but rather due to political meandering on the part of Nancy Pelois not to mention the fact that much of te media is owned by conservatives (i.e., Rupert Murdoch). If you oppose impeachment, fine, but be responsible in your statements. You will want to be taken seriously.

Barnstormer1000 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Stingray

Reading the "references" is like reading a Who's Who of Left-wing Kool-Aid drinkers. This is definitely a violation of SOAP. Then again, most of the people who believe Bush should be impeached have neglected that for a long time.--Bedford 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What wingnuts think reading the references is like isn't relevant to anything. -- Jibal 09:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For StBalbach, if you want to nominate for deletion, that is up to you and I will be willing to second the nomination. I prefer not to nominate on my own right now because I do not have confidence that the relatively young population of editors on wikipedia have the depth of experience to recognize ephemeral issues when they are so immediately upon us and I have doubts that they would support a delete even with perfect logic and evidence (though I am not claiming perfection in either). As I have said, if the article is here after Bush is no longer an issue, I will nominate it then, because at that future point, its crufty, unencyclopedic and temporary nature will be more evident -- like a lime green leisure suit from the 70's. As for now, I am just smart enough to see that it is pov, but not quite smart enough to figure out how to fix it. Hence, I consider it unfixable. But I could be wrong. Others may be more clever than I am... and they might be able to fix it. A pov tag along with the discussion points may guide them in their goal. In fact, you might be able to fix the problems I have described, and I sincerely encourage you to do so, but I am not able. To me, the article is irreparable because it is dealing with allegations and innuendo that are so partisan and such obvious gimmicks that they have not been deemed worthy of any significant response that could be quoted. It is as if a gang of small children declared themselves to be nuclear scientists. It might make its way into a newspaper, particularly if a photographer or an editor were somehow related or sympathetic to the children, but no seriously reputable agency -- no degree granting instution, no national lab, no government agency would hold press conferences or publish papers to refute such nonsense. It would be ignored -- because it would be essentially irrelevant. Certainly, it would not deserve an article in wikipedia. My example may be a wee bit extreme, but in essence, that is pretty close to how I view this article. And if no one is clever enough to figure out how to fix that sort of problem, it will simply remain pov. So, I think the POV tag is appropriate even if it is permanent. But, I am not bound to it being permanent. As I said, recognizing my limitations, I conceed that someone else might be more clever and could fix it. But I have to wonder... why would a clever person waste time fixing an article, that even in pov perfection would still be irrelevant and unencyclopedic?

Now, I realize that as the protector of the article, with most of the edits (and perhaps you created it, I do not recall) my words will seem almost like an attack on a cherished friend. That is not my intent. I mean you no personal affront. I consider you, like me, to be a good person and one who is muddling through life and wikipedia doing their best. We just happen to disagree on what is or is not a worthwhile article. I do not think that this is any reflection on either you or me in terms of the quality of our other contributions or in terms of our natures and basic qualities as people. In fact, I accept that you have done your best to make the article NPOV. It is just Mission Impossible. So, if you have felt offended at my words, edits or actions, I hope you will at least take some time to ponder and remember that across from a screen and keyboard sits a real and sincere person who means no disrespect to you and would be pleased to buy you dinner if we should meet. But perhaps your feelings are so offended that you would not accept the invitation. If so, I sincerely apologize. --Blue Tie 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To Barnstormer or Stingray or whoever it was... I see no Movement to Impeach because there is no Movement to Impeach. Your comments are unpersuasive because a movement to impeach would need to either be a groundswell -- which it isn't (and 800,000 internet signatures is hardly relevant. How many are Islamic Fundamentalists on the Internet? How many are Americans? Its trash) or it would have to be something that has some measurable possibility in Congress, which it doesn't. (No one is fighting Pelosi over this -- what a funny idea!) There simply is no movement in any coherent direction. It does not exist. --Blue Tie 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Some observations"

1. To me it is impossible to understand the logic that says, "the article is beyond repair but I am not listing it for deletion." Either the article should not exist, or problems should be addressed. The positon just outlined is a contradictio in terminis. So, be a man (err, or woman?) and list it for deletion, or remove the tag. To tag while thinking that is pointless to me seems disengenious and a waste of time.
2. Whether there exists a movement is an interesting topic. However, would yoo consider global terrorism in the same manner? Meaning, looking at the cold hard facts there is no single global organisation with a unified goal to overthrow western democracies. We do have alot of seperate and local groups with their local agendas. Nevertheless we accept that Wikipedia has articles on this subject that although it does not exist. Please, why would we have articles on a non-existent global netwerk of terrorists (I stress, fighting for a unified goal and with ONE leader is not equal to haphazzardly listing all known terrorist organisation in the world and saying they are ONE organisation) while we are not allowed to write about something that has large support and which is substantiated by numerous legal experts. If you really believe what you are saying you should be consistent and argue the same on those pages.
3. If there is a need to incorporate the view of those opposing impeachment then do. If we were to tag every article that needs works we essentially are tagging all Wikipedia articles.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought I expressed my logic clearly. Let me try again but this time in very short, to the point sentences.

1. I (and others) believe the whole article is pov. It may be a pov fork based upon what StBalbach says.
2. I am not clever enough to fix it. I simply am not. But my lack of cleverness does not make the article NPOV. POV remains a problem even though I do not know how to fix it.
3. Someone else might be clever enough to fix it. They should try.
4. The POV Tag will help notify readers of the need to fix it. Someone cleverer than I may be able to do it.
5. Deletion is not exactly connected to NPOV or POV. The article may be NPOV and still be deleted as irrelevant or POV and still remain on wikipedia. It is two separate issues.

Is the logic still unclear? I would not mind explaining further any unclear points to the best of my ability.--Blue Tie 06:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you said:

1. The article is POV,
2. The POV cannot be fixed

My understanding of policy is that any article that is inherently POV, or has POV issues that cannot be fixed must be deleted. At least that is what a multitude of editors have advocated in numerous unrelated AfD's. Since you argue exactly that you should file an AfD. The fact you fail to do so contradicts your own assessment that the POV is beyond repair.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of that policy. If you think it should be nominated for deletion, go right ahead. I also promise I will nominate it for deletion when I feel it is best to do so. I do not feel it is best to do so right now. If this is not satisfactory to you, I do not know what can be done about that. While it is an active article but with pov problems it should wear the tag. --Blue Tie 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing that is true: if Congress, the one body that can bring about impeachment, is not bringing about impeachment, then there is no movement to impeach. When Clinton was impeached, we could see the movement long before the impeachment. I don't think a bunch of civilian blogging counts as a "movement to impeach." This article is not worthy of an encyclopaedic listing. And I can see the movement to delete it.--Magi Media 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is absurd; a movement to do something would be unnecessary if the thing had already been done. That Congress hasn't acted on immigration doesn't mean that there isn't a movement to bring about such action. With nearly half of Americans indicating in polls that they favor the impeachment of Bush (and more than half favoring the impeachment of Cheney), the claim that there isn't such a movement is an obvious falsehood. -- Jibal 09:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Local Governments outside Vermont

I checked this out of curiousity, and found no mention. Somehow, I think that Vermont got publicity largely because of Doonesbury. As anybody who lives here can tell you, Vermont extends down intso Franklin County, which may be why we're doing it also. John Olver is too pragmatic to vote for impeachment unless there were a chance of passing it of course.

Incidentally, the Vermont house rejected the impeachment resolution. This is strictly a small government, let's do it for the heck of it sort of thing. Logic tells us that it's fun to tell Congress what to do at town meeting (why I considered a resolution modeled on the Vermont ones at my own town's meeting), but utterly pointless, aside from as a story in the paper.

Any rate, three towns in my area of western Massachusetts passed resoluttions similar to those in Vermont at town meetings, and Greenfield's town Council is also considering one. Mind, two of these are towns that voted to condemn the USA PATRIOT Act. Condemning the actions of the Feds is something that we do here in Greater Vermont.

Still, it'd be interesting if somebody knows all the states which have towns which voted to urge their Congressfolk to impeach Bush. And yes, I know that these resolutions will accomplish absolutely nothing aside from serving as a source of amusement, but they are pretty funny. I considered introducing one in Deerfield's meeting last Monday (since I was expecting Leverett to do it eventually and thought it would be amusing if Deerfield, wdhich doesn't usually bother with frivolous resolutions like that, beat them to the punch) but I really wanted to get home and go to bed.

Any rate, the sources for my claims, from most recent to least. I'm sure there's some database which will let you access the Gazette, but at least on of these stories has been syndicated in the Greenfield Recorder, which can be accessed through the Greenfield Public Library.

Dunn, Bob. "Shutesbury votes to impeach Bush and Cheney." Daily Hampshire Gazette. 7 May 2007.

Dunn, Bob. "Leverett residents call for impeachment of Bush." Daily Hampshire Gazette. 30 April 2007.

Carl, Chris. "Whately backs call for impeachment." Daily Hampshire Gazette. 26 April 2007.

Fritz, Anita. "A petition signed by 130 voters asking Congress to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will go before Town Council without a recommendation from one of its subcommittees." Greenfield Recorder. 18 April 2007.

Shelburne voted on such a resolution too, it wasn't in the papers so I assume it didn't pass.

Any rate, if anybody else knows of other local resolutions add them. I'm rather curious. If towns outside of Greater Vermont are doing it, it should get a mention.

If it's just Franklin Mass, as I said, we're part of Vermont in all but name, so we don't really count. (Nor does the People's Republic of Amherst, which I think passed such a resolution a long time ago. Amherst is a place utterly removed from any semblence of reality.)

Massachusetts

Whately

Leverett

Shutesbury

Vermont ?

Luke --71.192.116.13 01:52, 8 May 2007 (EST)

Oh, and for the record. I think there are at least legal grounds for impeaching most presidents.
Though I think the case for Bush is better than for any since LBJ, I also know it's quite impossible.
I consider the whole thing rather pathetically funny. I think if it came to a vote even the impeachment of Nixon would have failed. There's simply no point, but it's still a fair sight more amusing than most media circuses. Luke --71.192.116.13 02:00, 8 May 2007 (EST)

Mediation continued

moved here from my page.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC) I'm still trying to understand how the discussion is relevant to the article, but is it even necessary to continue the specific line of discussion you two have been going back and forth on? It seems like it's strayed far off the topic of the article. Is there a start or summary of the discussion that you could point me to? --Ronz 16:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The situation is fairly simple and somewhat relevant to the article. There is a section discussing the advocated reasons to impeach. Among them:

1. the allegation the Bush administration manipulated intelligence regarding the WMD's.
2. the suggestion the Bush administration invented active links between SH and OBL/AQ.
3. the analysis the war in Iraq is a war of aggression and as such a war crime.

Editor Arnabdas (talk · contribs) thinks that is not entirely correct and amends these statements by:

ad 1 adding the SOTU by Clinton proving Bush was not the first to assert SH was working on WMD's.[6]

ad 2 removing according to all official reports. from the possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be false, according to all official reports.[7]

ad 3 claiming that because SH violated previous resolutions the war is legal.[8]

My problem with those edits is

1. Since the intelligence community probably had additional information in 2003, as compared to 1998, I do not see how the two speeches are comparable. Most notably since Clinton did not know that weaponinspectors could not find any WMD's for months, and was not told by IAEA, the NIE, NSA, CIA, et cetera, that those WMD's probaly did not exist, had not been told the uranium thingy was a hoax, it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion as to what Clinton said in 1998. Just as Cheney's visit to SH is irrelevant.
2. Since every report has concluded SH and AQ did not have an active working relationship it is difficult to understand why we cannot mention that. Especially in light of the most recent report which effectively nullifies any previous investagation.[9]
3. if SH violated previous resolutions and that is sufficent to warrant an invasion we can surely provide a source saying that. Absent such a source this is merely speculation on the part of an editor.

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is the issue of the article being pov-rotten to the core. ALL of the allegations mentioned are actually and truly mentioned by the people who seek Bush's dismissal, impeachment, death, etc. So they really are "valid" in that context. However, as allegations they are disingenuous and there are many counter arguments to them. HUGE counter arguments including Clinton, and Intelligence collecting methods and so on. It is a bit as though someone decided to accuse a random person on the street of baby eating and take them to court for it. In the US Court systems, you can sue ANYONE for ANYTHING. Of course it may not stick. But meanwhile a huge effort has to go forth to demonstrate that the charges are false and a waste of time. This article STARTS with the premise that such charges are notable and worthy of discussion. Then it is up to others to produce the various bits of evidence refuting them per WP:NPOV. In essence, this turns the article into a judgment chamber. It is a really really bad article. Having said that, one of the points being made is that "Bush Lied". This is repeated throughout the article. On that note, sometimes people bring up the "fact" that there "was no connection between AQ and SH" or "there were no WMD". On a matter of whether Bush lied, the actual facts are almost irrelevant. The only relevance is whether he KNEW that there was no connection or whether he KNEW that there were no WMD. The issue is "Did he have cause to believe these things were true?". Because the charge is that "He Lied", not that "He was Wrong" or "He made a mistake". So the facts behind these issues do not seem relevant because they were "hindsight" and were not a priori involved in his decisions.. But the intelligence issues that would have informed his opinion are relevant and should be mentioned. Because in an issue of lying, the basic state of the universe is not at issue -- but the perception of that state in the mind of the accused is at issue. Since 1) this is an article about an imagined movement to impeach and 2) since impeachment requires crimes to have been committed and since 3) ignorance or idiocy is not a crime, ignorance or idiocy about the state of nature is not relevant. The only relevant items would be related to crimes -- such as lying to create a war. And lying requires a belief that what one said was false. We cannot really know what Bush thought. But we can know what information he had. Per NPOV a description of that information should be sufficient and the reader can decide on their own if Bush Lied. But the fact that LATER we found out that there were no WMD,or later we found out something else, is not relevant. --Blue Tie 14:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

With a controversial article like this I feel it is important we do not forget the facts

• The Bush administration repeatedly and emphatically stated as fact - not as suspicion, not as opinion, not as possibility but as fact - that SH was involved with AQ and he had WMD's. Case in point: Cheney told the world he not only had proof but also knew exactly where SH was hiding those WMD's.
• Every subsequent investigation has shown that the then available evidence, which is not hindsight!, was at best dubious regarding the AQ links and WMD.
• Confronted with anyone teling me he knows, he has evidence, there is no doubt, et cetera, while in fact he only has a ton of conjecture I have no reason not to describe his comments as lies. In which lying stands for intentionally making any statement that is at odds with the available facts/evidence.

The enormous gap between the official statements made by the Bush administration and the intelligence available to them at that time is so wide -i.e. the change from we have great doubts(what was said by the intelligence agencies) into we absolutely know for sure and have the evidence to prove it(what Bush c.s. publicly stated)- it cannot sufficiently be explained with bad luck, a mistake, or simply stupidity..Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that you focus on the available evidence at the time -- AND HIS KNOWLEDGE OF IT, that is appropriate. If it was available but he did not know it, or, if he had conflicting evidence, or if it was not available at the time, all of that would make the charges of lying, wrong. So, the inclusion of these things should be specifically required to show that the evidence was available to him at that time, that he was made aware of it (not that it existed but that he was briefed on it) and that it was not part of a larger package of information that provided conflicting intelligence. Otherwise, it is not relevant to the notion of lying, which is the key element behind the issue of impeachment. And that we are now 4 degrees away from real impeachment on very speculative matters is an indication of the problems with this article. It is really awful. --Blue Tie 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Aside from a Presidential Daily Brief stating there are no links between SH and OBL you are right it is possible, although highly improbable, the President was not informed. Please consider the following. A major company, i.e. Shel, Enron, Unilever, the Carlyle Group, et cetera, makes crucial decisions which turn out to be flawed. The person in charge then says "I did not know," (BTW sounds alot like "ich habe es nicht gewust" the infamous response by the German population confronted with the Holocaust after WW II), would you accept that? We then are informed that his research departement concluded the decision was ill-advised, his friends said it was ill-advised. But for some stramge reason his board of directors was oblivious to all that information, available but nevertheless they are unaware. This sounds either utterly improbable to the point of lying or it's evidence of sheer incompetence. I guarantee you should this happen in such a company said director is fired before you can say "what do you mean you don't know?"Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, let me make myself an example. I am a physician, suppose you come to me and I start therapy for your hypothetical disease. Then it turns out my diagnosis was wrong. Of course you go to court and of course I defend myself. Turns out that the X-rays, lab results, CT, all show a different diagnosis than the one I made. Nevertheless I explain that I was not aware of that and nobody told me this. Clearly you will not accept such a defense since it is my job to be aware of all those details before making a diagnosis and chosing a form of therapy. Without a doubt you will win the malpractise suit.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As a physician, you may be professionally liable for the misdiagnosis. However, that does not mean that you lied. You may not be fit to be a Doctor and perhaps your license should be suspended, but that does not mean you lied. You may only have been stupid. I have never given Bush much credit for being sophisticated. And maybe the same is true for you if the above happened. I am pretty sure that Bush was not told that there was no connection between SH and AQ. I am pretty sure he was told that there WAS such a connection. Why am I sure of this? Because the people who told him this have said that they told him this. Maybe you think that they are lying too. But why would they lie to make themselves look bad? How could they possibly be protecting themselves by saying that they told the President this, when they really did not? And wouldn't it be likely that some would break ranks and tell the "truth" that Bush heard for sure that there was no connection? There is no evidence Bush lied. If you want to declare that there is evidence he was stupid, that may be so. But stupid is not an impeachable offense.--Blue Tie 00:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said: he either is utterly incompetent (he did not ensure he was aware of all information available before making such a monumentous decision) or he lied (he was aware of the info). In either case impeachment is warranted. Further, I suspect you have not heard of the idea that people fall on their sword to protect their superior. It is a concept widely used, i.e. business, politics, media, et cetera. To suggest it is impossible that people are willing (loyalty, monetary, or other advantage?) or even forced ("if you want to stay in this line of work") to state Bush is totally unaware of any wrongdoings sounds rather naive to me. Certainly we know previous Presidents were protected by this behaviour, i.e. Iran-Contra.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All of these allegations you made are your opinion and not of fact. Incompetence does not warrant Impeachment by the House of Representatives. It is only if a President knowingly and willingly commits a crime of "bribery, treason or any other high crime or misdemeanor", something that you cannot prove no matter how much you want to. You also have no proof of a "fall guy" as you say it. Conspiracy theories are not credible discussions and must be shown for the farces they are. Circumstantial evidence does not prove anything. This is just a nutty movement by a lunatic fringe in this country. Maybe we should start charging the Truman Administration for coverups at Roswell if we follow the logic laid out here.Arnabdas 19:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be sure. You are saying it is my opinion that 1 the intelligence agencies saud there was at best dubious evidence for the claim about WMD and AQ, 2 the Bush administration stated as fact Iraq had WMD and was part of 9-11, 3 there is a discrepancy between the official position and the available evidence? If you are seriously saying this I advise you to read other newspapers and watch other newsreports.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. --Ronz 15:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am here in response to the RfC. The topic of the article seems unencyclopedic to me. People don't consult an encyclopedia as a reference for topics of this sort-- it's more a USENET sort of topic. A summary of the article should be merged into George W. Bush. Incidentally, my POV in the matter is strongly pro-impeachment. If an impeachment takes place, it should have its own article. --Marvin Diode 21:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Interestingly enough, even though I am not pro-impeachment (I do not see the cause and I consider it a disruption to government), my views seem to be EXACTLY, word for word identical to yours. It is more like a USENET topic. I agree it should be summarized in George W. Bush. And if an impeachment takes place -- or even if the House votes DOWN the impeachment, that would be sufficient for its own article. I think it is interesting how two different pov perspectives, can, under the guidelines of wikipedia come to agreement. I like it when that happens. So, though I do not usually give my pov, because I try to stay neutral, I gave it out this time because it seemed like it was a right response to you. --Blue Tie 22:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is garbage, a joke, and the left wing Editors know it. Everyone in Washington believed Saddam had WMDs, and yet that fact is mysteriously absent:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

But I guess this much proof is not enough for the extremists that run this site. Ymous 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This clearly falls under the heading misunderstanding. After the Bush administration told the world how dangerous SH was indeed most might have thought that. However, we are not interested in what the general public was thinking but what the US intelligence agencies said. Without exception they all concluded there was insufficient evidence for that claim. If we were told that, instead of what we were told, I can assure you most people would not have believed in the fantasies people nowadays amazingly still keep telling.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding. They all knew, and then changed thier opinions when it was time for re-election. All of congress voted for the war, funded the war, and gave their support to Bush. The going got tough, the left flip-flopped as it always does, and not Bush is the only one left that should be Impeached? What a joke. There was no outcry when Clinton bombed that asprin factory in 1996. This article is pure rubbish, garbage, biased to the extreme. Ymous 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You fail to acknowledge that nobody, and I stress nobody, outside the Bush administration had seen the evidence. So to claim "They all knew" sounds like historical revisionism.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Before the vote on the Resolution to invade Iraq, former weapons inspector Scott Ritter told everybody he could in the House and Senate what he knew about the lack of WMD in Iraq. Dianne Feinstein knew.[10] Hillary Clinton knew.[11]. Yet both voted to authorize the invasion. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul[12] also knew, but in contrast they voted and spoke against the Iraq war resolution.

However, let's keep our eyes on the ball. The article should not be about whether we think Bush should be impeached or not, or whether we think others deserves to be impeached. Hence it is off-topic for this discussion page, as explicitely stated on the top. We may however discuss whether to cover calls for booting others based on related reasons as those in favor of impeaching Bush, including Democrats. There have also been calls for impeaching members of the Bush administration beyond obviously Dick Cheney. If there are substantial sources to back it up, I am open for a section towards the end of the article that documents this.

-- Terjen 23:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, who of these was privy to the intelligence reports? Oddly enough all these reports contradicted what the administration said but even today we need to ignore this. Why?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Those was privy to the classified intelligence reports include Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, although neither read it before voting to authorize force in Iraq.[13]. Terjen 04:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Online polls and surveys

I applaud a reasonable effort to trim this article, but I must object to the wholesale removal of the section entitled "Online polls and surveys". The accompanying edit summaries by Jc-S0CO do not justify this action. On the first occasion, you gave this justification for removing the section:

"MSNBC's is admittedly unreliable, Democrats.org's is not going to yield representative results simply by demographics, and MoveOn's link displays no results."

I restored the section, with some updated numbers, and added this comment:

"these are notable and reputable, albeit different from other type[s] of polls"

Jc-S0CO then removed the section again, adding this:

"MSNBC's doesn't restrict people from voting more than once, and the others are skewed by demographics. They are not representative or even defensibly accurate, hence they are unreliable."

Before I (or perhaps someone else) add the section back again, I'll respond in further detail. The MSNBC poll is admittedly unscientific, and although it is reasonable to infer that it is not a reliable substitute for a scientific poll, it is not represented as one. You are mistaken, I believe, in your assertion that MSNBC doesn't restrict people from voting more than once. While their cookies-based restriction might be easily circumvented by some, there is no reason to assume this has been done by a significant percentage of the respondents. Furthermore, any such abuse could just as well be committed by those on either side of the issue. It is not our place to pass judgment on how these figures should be interpreted, only to duly note that a reputable news organization has gathered and presented them. This is certainly relevant to the general heading of "Public opinion" under which it falls.

Your contention that "the others are skewed by demographics" also makes an unwarranted and irrelevant presumption about interpretation. It simply is to be noted that a reputable group has gone to the trouble of gathering and presenting a poll of public opinion, with some measure of protection against abuse. This is not represented as a scientific poll, and I don't doubt that its protections against abuse could be circumvented, but the same argument still holds: any such abuse could come equally from either side. The fact that Democrats.org is sponsoring the poll is duly noted - that doesn't mean that their poll results are meaningless or inconsequential. Why don't we let the reader make that decision for himself?

As to your objection to the MoveOn poll, I'm not sure what your point is. The link is valid, and it supports the claim that MoveOn has been conducting such a poll. If you are complaining that they don't show the tally of results, well that wasn't the point of the reference. In fact, the point was that MoveOn has been strangely reluctant to pursue the issue more openly and vigorously, for whatever reason, yet they have been quietly polling the impeachment question for a while. I think these are things worthy of bringing to the reader's attention, without the need for any further censorship or editorializing on our part. - JCLately (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would briefly like to direct attention to the topic which I created above. As policy clearly states, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this article (while certainly deserving to exist) stands in pointed violation of this standard. I have been attempting to trim information in this article on the basis of notability, and as such, I have been removing information which either constitutes little importance or is patently unreliable. Though it is my opinion that these polls fall under the second category, I want to make it clear that I am not impugning the credibility of the sources of these polls and surveys. I based this decision on the nature of the surveys themselves. As you stated, these works are unscientific, and do not give a representative view of the population. The fact that abuse may have come from both sides by no means implies that the two cancel each other out, and one can reasonably assume that the more frequent visitors of sites such as democrats.org and moveon.org will be those of similar political orientations. As far as voting multiple times goes... considering the person who is the subject of this article, this would be the last place I would expect to find dismissal for polls of questionable accuracy.

The standard which I had hoped to promote through my changes was to shorten the article to perhaps half of its present length and to focus the article more towards the collective legal justifications offered in support of impeachment, rather than an indiscriminate list of small organizations or individuals which have promoted the effort. Congress alone has the legal authority to begin the process of impeachment, and when congresspersons are promoting motions towards this end, online opinion polls which are prone to tampering seem of negligible importance in comparison. I am not opposed to the reinstatement of the section, but as previously noted this article is in desperate need of cleanup if not a complete rewrite. In any case, I would hope that other editors will assist me in the goal of shortening this article to a respectable length with nonpartisan citations. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You have repeatedly made the point that online polls and surveys such as those that were listed are not representative of the population as a whole and are of questionable accuracy. The extent to which this is true is impossible to ascertain, but more to the point, this line of objection is largely irrelevant. Perhaps it would be clearer to title the disputed section "Online petitions and surveys", to stress the distinction from scientific polls, whose explicit purpose is to obtain an accurate, representative sampling of the entire population. By contrast, the purpose of an online petition or an open survey is to provide a means of directly enabling people to collectively voice their opinion on an issue widely considered to be of some importance. For a scientific poll, the size of the sample is significant only to the extent that it bears on the accuracy of the statistical analysis. On the other hand, in a petition or an open poll the absolute number of votes is of considerably greater significance: it provides an indication of how many people care enough to actively make a statement at their own initiative. The results are not representative of the entire population, by definition, because an open petition self-selects only those who care enough to bother, whether they vote one way or the other. Nevertheless, those results are interesting and of some historical value, if nothing else. While it is true that Congress alone has the legal authority to begin the process of impeachment, it is also true that Congress is not entirely unaffected by public opinion as expressed in such online petitions and surveys, which is the central motivation for people's participation in the first place. Of course one must make some judgment as to the extent of fraud or inaccuracy in any type of poll, but the best we can do is to provide references from reputable sources and leave it to the reader to make his own determination about the credibility of what is presented. - JCLately (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)