Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush

Constitutional question

The background section states "If a President is found guilty by two thirds of the Senate on any charge, the Constitution states that he must be removed from office and replaced by the Vice President." However, the relevant section of Article 1 of the Constitution is more vague. Article 1, Section 3 says in part "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." I'm not sure this means the President must be removed from office, only that he may be. Huadpe 00:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

14th Amendment, Section 4

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

In trying to further burden our posterity with debt, and cede control of trillions of dollars to the securities interests of the US, Bush specifically questioned the public debt instruments held by the Social Security trust fund. Not NPoV language -- but comments not whored out to content strippers (in violation of all that GNU represents) -- so OK in the Talk section -- right?? 4.248.44.247 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[1]

I'm hesitant on this one. Pres. Bush is not a creditor to the United States (unless he happens to own some T-Bills) and has not accused the US of defaulting. There is a difference between George Walker Bush and the Office of the President. Bush is free to question the validity of the debt all he likes, as he has freedom of speech. The Office of the President however is governed by this section. You would need to show that the statements were made in the context of executing the Office. For example, campaign speeches would NOT be capable of triggering a violation of this section. Huadpe 00:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

City referendums for impeachment =

• Urbana, IL,
• Chaimpaign, IL,
• some place in vermont
• Berkeley, California
• Wisconsin Rapids, WI

Anycase, these should be researched and included. Kevin Baas^talk 15:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC

Does it really matter that four cities and a vague city in Vermont want Bush removed? The Constitution delegates the right of impeachment to the House of Representatives, not to cities.Dace48 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

I've added info on Berkeley and San Francisco's referenda. Inclusion in a Wikipedia article does not turn on the item's feasibility or merits, it turns on the item's notability. I know that the California propositions are fairly notable (as proved by the press coverage and sources I have supplied). I don't know about the other referenda, but the Berkeley and S.F. ones both call upon the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings, so technically, they are feasible. Schi 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

polls and significance

regarding [2]:

It is not statistically significant that it is not statistically significant. only a tiny fraction of things are statistically significant. So why mention the obvious? I think putting the obvious in violates the rule of balance: the information should be significant and interesting.

Secondly, regarding the second part, "it should be noted...", should it? why or why not? do we have a citation providing evidence that it should be noted? it's opinion. and it is kinda redundant because it's mentioned (if very subtly) in the sentence above. Kevin Baas^talk 16:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole mention of Clinton should be dropped. This article is not about him, and mentioning a statistically insignificant fact adds no value to the article.--RWR8189 18:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. Kevin Baas^talk 21:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV (1-sided?)

It seems to me that this article is one-sided and presents no one opposing or any viewpoints that oppose impeachment. Is there a way to add in those opposing viewpoints? I am sure that not everyone is for this, least of all George Bush. Fundamentaldan 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if you can find anyone opposing impeachment who is part of the movement to impeach... Kevin Baas^talk 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you can find any specific anti-impeachement commentary, it would be great. At the moment, I have the impression that the people who oppose impeachment generally consider it too unlikely to be worth mentioning. Perhaps someone could find some quotes to that effect?

24.59.105.229 13:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• While I am admittedly pro-impeachment, it certainly would be more neutral if this article covered anti-impeachment reasons/advocates. Even some who dislike Bush don't want him impeached (pursuing impeachment would make the Democrats look bad, he makes a good scapegoat for the Democrats, what if he were removed but Cheney wasn't, etc). Perhaps this article should be titled "Controversy over impeaching Bush" and then it could more easily handle the pro & con material. Except it would get even longer! Maybe a "Controversy" article could be the parent article, then there'd be sub-articles that covered pro vs. con?

Also, why are all the NPOVs sub-ordinate to the "polls" talk topic? Seems wrong.

Jason C.K. 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV (neutrality of reverted FISA text)

I just had some changes reverted for totally invalid reasons. I'm putting this here as a warning and a defense of the changes. Rationale for changes are as follows: (1) Remove weasel words. Everyone knows that Bush violated FISA; he admitted it. His claim was that FISA didn't apply, as noted only two sentences later. (2) Replace extremely biased wording with neutral wording. "As Commander in Chief in the War on Terror" is spectacularly biased, as is "to protect the American people". 24.59.105.229 13:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV (neutrality of article content/structure)

In that Wikipedia endeavors to be an encyclopedia rather than a forum, this topic should be confined only to news of official government actions (municipal, county, state) which might actually lend legal weight or progress toward an impeachment process.

Discussions of the merit or wisdom of such subordinate government actions should not be posted.

It might however be of utility to post a section with links to the most active and authorative web discussions on the topic. Subsections could be "Openly Pro Bias", "Openly Against Bias", "Attempts at Moderated Balance", and "Unmoderated Free For All". Some thought might be given to overall seperation of links into "Membership Required" and "Open Forum" as many people find the forum membership screening of some sites offensive/invasive/suspicious.

I suggest all controversial topics not involving discussion of technical tradeoffs be handled this way.

69.23.125.173 03:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC) CJF

• Wikipedia covers plenty of scandals and controversies. Cold fusion seems to not exist as more than an idea, a lot of wishes, and some unsupported claims, but Wikipedia still has lots of material on it. Shouldn't it? Likewise with the controversy over Bush (see my NPOV 1 comments). It's an important idea in the public conciousness that frequently appears in the news (public figures discuss, polls reported upon, White House statements, actions by state legislatures, rallies, etc).

Jason C.K. 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"news of official government actions" is not a good standard for any article, for it ignores tons of other important and relavent information. Ace Frahm 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fox opinion poll

Secondly, the 2006 fox opion poll has been reinserted after two removals (by me). Don't they violate "Neutral Point Of View" and "Sources of questionable reliability"? The external link only points to what fox says the results are, not a paper detailing the actual poll questions, or sampling methods. Their strong bias wouldn't be such a big problem here if they weren't also so unreliable at the same time. Ace Frahm 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is in regards to this, moved here from the article:

A May 22 2006 poll conducted by Fox News asked if it would be right or wrong for Democrats to impeach Bush over the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction. Thirty percent of the respondents saying it would be right and 62% saying it would be wrong to impeach Bush that way. Seven percent were not sure. {{Verify credibility}}{{POV-statement}}

Please address the concerns before re-adding. -- Stbalbach 15:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Article should be featured

I don't know how to get it featured and I'd rather not bother with it all, but I think the people who maintain it should get it featured. If it gets featured soon, maybe the impeachment will happen!! Anomo 08:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The subject matter is too controversial, rapidly changing and people will think its being done for political reasons. It's no different than partisans who repeatedly put this article up for deletion to make a political statement. -- Stbalbach 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't change very rapidly. And it's certainly interesting. Though I generally agree with Stbalbach, if it's really a well-written article and fits the criteria for featured status, when then it should be a featured article. This does not mean that it is featured on the main page. Just that it's tagged and put in a category. Kevin Baas^talk 16:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuredly, Anomo, advocating that the article be featured in order to assist in getting impeachment started is about the most POV reason I could imagine. I am pretty certain that making it a featured article would have little to no effect on the public (i.e. let's not flatter ourselves about the impact of Wikipedia). I do think the article is fairly well-written, comprehensive and NPOV. --Habap 19:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a section in favor of impeachment

Do we need an opposing view, or is it the very point that this article merely list the reasons to support impeachment. If so, doesn;t this violkate POV, or do we create an article to state reasons why it is silly silly silly to impeach now. Chivista 19:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no "movement to not impeach GWB" since he has not been impeached! So no, it's not a POV split. If there is an official move to impeach GWB, this article will change dramatically, as then both sides will need to be represented, and it will no longer be a movement, by an actual impeachment. At that point there would be, say, 2006 impeachment of GWB as one article, and Criticisms against impeaching GWB as another article (assuming the criticisms section gets long enough to support a separate article, as it would). Until then this article is enough. Otherwise we just enter into an endless debate back and forth which is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, this article just documents the people and actions who want to impeach GWB. -- Stbalbach 21:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is now. My movement. it's called "The Movement to NOT Impeach George Bush". We have 51 million members. Like you, I won't provide any sources, but just hope my right wing buddies back me up. Or can I not do that? Do only the lefty authors get protection?Ymous 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• This talk topic seems to be the same issue as this talk topic (NPOV 1). Perhaps one should absorb the other? This one also seems to be mis-titled. Shouldn't it be something like "There is no section in favor of impeachment"?

Jason C.K. 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There really is no "movement" to impeach Bush. Its more like a wish that some folks talk about. --Blue Tie 19:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

that would depend upon the definition of "movement". Many tens of thousands of petition signatures; a resolution before congress; VT state senate; CA & MA Democratic parties; many town and city resolutions; several books; thousands of letters to editors and to congress. All in favor of impeachment. What would you (objectively) call it? --Nonukes 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

POV post-November

It is interesting now that the Democrats have won both houses and GWB is essentially a lame duck president, the Democrats have every opportunity to pursue impeachment, the President is wide open. But the house majority leader has said impeachment is "off the table", so it is unlikely to happen. Given this dramatic change in perspective, is the article still considered POV by anyone? The article has not changed at all from where it was before - the only thing that has changed is external events. I don't hear anyone complaining about POV now, the article has been very quiet. It makes me think the article never was POV, because if it was, then it would have to be re-written to reflect the November change in power dynamics. But that is not the case. Probably because the article is neutral and works no matter who is in power. -- Stbalbach 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I do find it interesting that there has been the switch in direction (I assume it is being done because they will get more mileage out of a "bad" president in office than out of the risky endeavor of impeachment, which has many possible outcomes) and agree that most of the arguing over whether it is POV was due to the "current events" nature of it. I suspect that there will be some changes to reduce POV, but my reading was that it was a relatively balanced article, considering the controversial nature of the topic. --Habap 17:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sections on grounds for impeachment should explain what the alleged crime is

The Katrina section is confusing to me. It says:

"The alleged responsibility of the George W. Bush administration in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina has been used ... to suggest failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens. And as such they hold that the allegations of incompetence amount to an impeachable offense."

An impeachable offense requires a crime ("high crime or misdemeanor"). I don't understand how incompetence or mishandling would be a crime. Am I missing something here? Crust 19:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me generalize the above complaint. Unlike for example a vote of non-confidence for a Prime Minister under the Westminster system, to impeach the President in the U.S. it is not sufficient to show that he is incompetent, has made bad decisions, has lied, etc. For impeachment, he must have committed a crime. (Of course there is the caveat as in the article that impeachment is a political process, but I'm putting that aside and saying what the standard is supposed to be.) Some sections do explain what the alleged crime is, but others do not. Of course, Wikipedia is not about original research and it may be that some of the arguments supporting impeachment that people advance do not involve an alleged crime; in such cases, we should find a way to note this problem (ideally by quoting a critic of the argument).Crust 17:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to get to deep into the original research, but couldn't criminal negligence count? The other question, of course, is what counts as a "high crime". The Wikipedia article says that, at least historically, it has meant crimes against the State. Schi 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Schi.

Re criminal negligence: Well, what law is he violating?

1) Perjury. He told Congress Iraq had WMD and based this ona fictitious document. 2) Electoral Fraud. In the 2000 election, ballot boxes came up missing in the very state where his brother so happened to be governor, African-Americans were turned away fromt he polls and told they needn't bother voting. 3) Establishment of a domestic surveilance system which completely ignores the need for a warrant from a federal court to tap phone lines or monitor electronic information. A violation of the illegal search and seizure clause. 4) The mass murder of thousands of American youth in the Iraqi conflict. Why is it that if you kill one man it's murder, but if you kill 3,000 it's just a statistic? 169.226.136.37 02:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe none. IF you see him as being in dereliction of his duty and in violation of his oath of office, is there any crime there? I don't know. But people more knowledgeable than me seem to think there could be a crime there. I certainly think it ought to be a crime :P "Criminal negligence" is something a person can be found guilty of, depending upon the circumstances and applicable law (if any). As I mention below about Plame, the fact that he may have committed a crime in this regard is yet another reason why it's worth investigating him to see if he did.

Jason C.K. 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For another example under "Declassifying for political purposes" the article says

"Bush's misrepresentations on this point and his allegedly declassifying of information for a political purpose, is seen by some as impeachable offense."

But misrepresenting (or for that matter outright lying) isn't a crime. Is "declassifying of information for a political purpose" a crime? Not that I know of. If it is a crime, what is the law that makes it illegal and what are the standards that apply?

• Isn't there still controversy about this (hence the court case) over who said what to whom and when? Do we know Bush was/wasn't involved? Do we know it was properly de-classified before any leak was "authorized"? If it was still classified, there are laws against disseminating classified info. If it was de-classified...hmmm, de-classifying the name of a covert op?!? Is that following "procedure"? Is it legal? There seems to be a lot of smoke here. It may not be worthy of impeaching Bush, but it seems worthy of investigating whether he ought to be impeached, depending upon who did what, what happened, and what, if any, laws were broken. When you start an impeachment investigation, you don't already know the end-result. But you do want to have some reasons for starting one. And it seems we do...many reasons. So the leak issue isn't so much a "reason to impeach" as a "reason for an impeachment investigation".

Jason C.K. 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Crime" vs. "high crime" is another question as you say. Crust 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how exactly to phrase it in legal terms, but it seems painfully obvious that GWB is guilty of criminal fraud and negligence that resulted in massive death. It is actually grounds for a strong case of him being a criminal against humanity if you ask me. Luis Dantas 11:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the 1996 War Crimes Act (actually a law), carrying out a "war of aggression" (which the war on Iraq certainly was, 'tho some will of course dispute it) may be punishable by death. Would that constitute a 'high crime'. When Nixon escaped impeachment by resigning, his successor, Gerald Ford said 'a high crime is whatever congress says it is at the time'. In my opinion, this is the heart of the matter: so many in congress are complicit, that they'll just say these many crimes weren't even 'misdemeanors'. --Nonukes 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Movement Filed

http://gnn.tv/articles/2791/BREAKING_Congresswoman_McKinney_Files_Articles_of_Impeachment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.49.114 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The bill is dead as soon as the 109th Congress adjourns for the last time.--RWR8189 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Musicians

It seems the only musician listed that advocates impeachment with his song is Neil Young. The Pink and Bright Eyes songs are certainly critical of Bush, but neither go so far as to advocate impeachment as stated by the header. I'm going to remove them.--RWR8189 07:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Muddy structure in regard to organizations

This article has a section on "Groups formed to support impeachment", followed by a section about "Organizations" under "Advocates of impeachment". This seems muddy. In which section should an organization be listed? Some are listed in both. It seems you could make a case that all should be listed in both. Ultimately it seems like one of these sections ought to absorb the other, for clarity's sake. I'd suggest that the section "Groups formed to support impeachment" should be absorbed and go away, since there's existing structure that can easily accomodate it, as well as everything else it already accomodates (politicians that advocate impeachment, authors that advocate impeachment, etc). Jason C.K. 22:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Movement to impeach Bill Clinton

Where is the page for the Movement to impeach Bill Clinton?--Dr who1975 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clinton was impeached. There is no need for a movement. auburnpilot talk 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Impeachment of Bill Clinton entry. Terjen 06:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention of the Arkansas Project on that page. The impeachment of Bill CLinton was the resultoof an organized movement to impeach him. I think Id like to amke an article for that movement. I can make comparisons between this movement and that one. I could even say something like "the movement to impeahc Bush may very well be retribution for the movement to Impeahc Clinton"... surely many would agree with that statement.--Dr who1975 22:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason Bush is not yet impeached is exactly because Democrats want to avoid that accusation. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that and the small detail of who would succeed him. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's mainly because there isn't really enough concrete support to impeach him and remove him from office. There is also this argument that he did all this stuff because "he felt it was best" which many would want to let him off the hook with (so much for bringing integrity and accountability back to the white house). It's unitary executive type thinking... but it is still a reality of how people (in both parties) think about him.--Dr who1975 19:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The public support for impeachment is greater than it was for Clinton. The reason Clinton got impeached over a BJ while Bush gets away with abolishing the Constitution, international law, war crimes, political appointments, etc, is of course adequately explained through politics and the Democrats current fear it will damage 2008. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete category?

After unilaterally changing reference to this article in numerous other articles and renaming this article Dr who1975 (talk · contribs) has decided, again without any discussion, to ask for deletion of the relevant category. Unfortunately he forgot to inform all those involved in this article therefore I make this comment so all editors that want to can leave their opinion on the matter.-- Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking for deleteion of the category IS ASKING FOR DISCUSSION.The apropriate text has been added to the category now. Nomen Nescio, if you are so concerned why didn't you add it? You are simply trying to subvert elements within wikipedia to get your way. Anyone who disagress can comment on this discussion page all they'd like.--Dr who1975 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ITMFA

Some mention should be added to the article of the phenomenon of ITMFA (acronym for the phrase "Impeach The Mother F*er Already") and the fact that buttons and bumper stickers were sold bearing this acronym. I think the ITMFA phenomenon is notable as a sort of popular countermovement, even though it might be considered limited to certain types of people. I'm not sure how to introduce the subject into the article without POV, though, so I'm suggesting it here instead, in the hopes that someone braver than I will add the reference. Here are three references:

• web site of the ITMFA movement
• Article on ITMFA at UrbanDictionary.com
• ITMFA is mentioned in the Wikipedia article Savage Love

—SaxTeacher (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about nothing

And maybe should be deleted. It is comprised of, essentially, non-events -- just political posturing, in some cases by people who have reversed their views or were speaking off the cuff, not to be taken seriously. it also contains the comments and ideas of people who simply do not count in the discussion -- like minor state legislators. I am not saying that some people do not seriously want to see Bush impeached (some want him tried, convicted and burned at the stake!) but that some people want such things is not the same as it being real. There is simply no "movement" to impeach him. It does not exist. This article is in essence an effort to present a catalog of every possible statement on the matter that can be found -- and they are essentially irrelevant to anything. As wikipedia guidelines say: "Wikipedia is not ... Propaganda or advocacy of any kind". Yet this is simply a compendium of advocacy. In that regard it is sort of "a directory of everything that exists or has existed" in respect to a non-event. I don't think that this is what wikipedia is about. It is a compilation of opinions and even if it is not deleted it would be reasonable to rename it as "Opinions supporting the impeachment of George W Bush"--Blue Tie 12:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see that the sources establish that there is a movement to impeach W, as opposed to a series of often unrelated events. The idea that there is an overall movement causing these things to occur strikes me as original research at best, and some kind of wishful conspiracy theory at worst. TheronJ 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is, there don't seem to be enough rational people at Wikipedia to counter the rediculous knee-jerk reactionary behavior exhibited by those who wrote this page. Any effort to do something like this on Wikipedia to anyone's sacred cow (say, a page on Movement to disband the European Union or Movement to stop universal healthcare, or even Movement to calm global warming hysteria) would be vandalized into oblivion if it lasted a day without being deleted. Wikipedia should not be used to display political propaganda against a sitting administration. JCSeer 07:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence of thr article is a WP:OR violation. There is no "the" Movement to impeach George W. Bush. This article should be deleted. I am going to tag it as an WP:NPOV violation 66.28.139.13 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It says "refers to" which means a general phrase or term. It is grammatically redundant to add "the phrase movement.." so it just says "the movement.." - there is absolutely nothing in this article to suggest there is a single movement, in fact it goes out of its way to say otherwise. -- Stbalbach 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There was more of a concerted movement to impeach Bill Clinton, and there's no article for that. -Toptomcat 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, just an article titled Impeachment of Bill Clinton.--Mbc³⁶² 15:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That there is a movement is clear, based simply on current opinion polls (lowest ever) and recent actions, publications and statements made by various people in washington and academia. While this may be a "non-event" as you say, it is not a "non-movement." Veritas fortis 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping: By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval" http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2 Those who think this is 'about nothing', will of course claim that Bush didn't wiretap without a judge's approval, but a judge has found that he did just that. The "movement to impeach" has only grown since mid-January. --Nonukes 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Why did you revert me at Movement to impeach George W. Bush? There are (4) editors who have recently commented about that article having problems and all 4 of them are recent comments on the talk page, with none speaking against that. That's a good enough reason to tag the article. I am reverting you. 66.28.139.13 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah we've had tons of discussions about this already, there is nothing new being said, the article is not beholden to a small but vocal partisan minority, see all the previous talk page archives and AfD's. -- Stbalbach 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things to consider: #1 at this time Stbalbach is in the minority and #2 past consensus is not written in stone forever. It's really not relevant what may have been discussed in the past or what the prior consensus may have been - right now the consensus is that this article is badly written and biased. The NPOV tag is certainly appropriate. And frankly, I feel that Stbalbach has a lot of nerver slinging personal attacks such as "vocal partisan". I am un-reverting. 66.28.139.24 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When a bunch of single-purpose anon accounts show up suddenly, when the article has been quiet for 5 months, it does seem odd. Coincidently, this happened the day after leading Republicans hinted that if Bush did not back down on Iraq there were other "stronger" measures the Congress could consider. I wonder why suddenly there is focus and attention on this article again? It was dead quiet here once the Democrats won the house and assured Impeachment was not in the cards.. no one seemed to care about this article after that.. now that Republicans are hinting that impeachment might be possible[3], suddenly this article under assault again. So many coincidences... -- Stbalbach 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Article title

I propose renaming this article, to either Impeachment of George W. Bush or Potential impeachment of George W. Bush. I don't think Movement to impeach... is POV, but changing it would leave room for opposing arguments and more nuanced discussion. Quadpus 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While I whole heartedly agree that this page needs to be renamed, I believe that Impeachment... would be unsuitable, as it would imply something that is entirely untrue; Bush has not been impeached nor is the House considering it. Potential... is also problematic in my mind, as it makes it appear likely that Bush could be impeached, something I don't think is NPOV.--Mbc³⁶² 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Impeachability of...? I don't know, it's an awkward thing. Quadpus 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question is "Is this article about the movement or some hypothetical impeachment?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

An article about a hypothetical impeachment would be inappropriate in my opinion. Whether or not the material described in the article truly constitutes a movement is questionable, since there is no current action being taken in the House, no majority support in the general public, and no unified group leading it. The best title I can come up with is Support for Impeachment of George W. Bush, but even that is not a good alternative. To Stbalbach, the sky is not going to fall if there is a minor change to the title.--Mbc³⁶² 17:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is reasonable if it describes a movement that actually exists, even if it's a minority one. Much as I loathe Bush, I wouldn't have started this article, frankly. However, I don't see any reason to tweak the title, as it does appear to be about the movement for impeachment. It's true the sky won't fall if it's changed, but the current title does seem to most accurately describe the article.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with renaming. Nothing wrong with current title. There is no consensus that this article should become a idealogical battle-ground of "opposing arguments". There is nothing to oppose, he has not been impeached! This article would quickly deteriorate into a mess of original research rhetoric and POV he-said/she-said. Political punditry is not notable. -- Stbalbach 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So there really can't be any room for important points such as Hagel's recent statements? Since he isn't part of the "movement to impeach"? Quadpus 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hagel's statements? -- Stbalbach 01:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska... It's all over the news http://news.google.com/news?q=hagel+impeachment Quadpus 01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He did use the word impeachment, which I guess technically could be included in this article, but it's not very notable IMO since it was a single instance and he hasn't done anything. He's also a presidential contender which further muddles the water. -- Stbalbach 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's about as much as Nancy Pelosi has done. Quadpus 07:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bias At Its Worst

The very fact that this page exists proves that wikipedia is completely controlled by the left.

Ymous 19:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC

You did notice the part where it says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," didn't you? Wikipedia is not "controlled" by anyone; it's more like it's "barely restrained" by a few overworked administrators.

If you find the article objectionable, you should feel free to revise it (in keeping, of course, with Wikipedia's policies) so that it more accurately reflects the current state of affairs.

Alternatively, if you're displeased that there aren't corresponding articles dealing with subjects more to your liking, you should consider creating the appropriate articles. I'm sure Wikipedia would be better if it were more perfectly balanced: why not create articles that will do that instead of deleting ones that you don't like?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," is a big lie, and you know it. It should be called "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as long as it advances the left's adgenda, or as long slams, belittles, insults, anything to do with Conservatives".

The bias on this entire site is overwhelming. Even my posts in discussions of articles have been deleted by these left wing wackos. They apply certain rules to some articles, but not others. They allow no critque of any of the platform articles, but do it allow it on anything that is remotely associated with the right.

It's pathetic. Ymous 19:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem very very unhappy. I agree that things can be frustrating. And I have expressed my view on how the organization might have a liberal bias. But you won't get far if you throw rocks at people. I'm no expert at gaining consensus. Good grief, most people do not agree with me. But perhaps you would not mind taking this grief to my talk page or in email and we can find a way for you to be a happier and more productive editor! --Blue Tie 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You said ""Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," is a big lie, and you know it." Sorry, Ymous, but I don't "know" anything of the sort. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and anyone else can edit those edits; that's the way it works.

At the bottom of every edit page it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Words to live by if you're going to work on Wikipedia.

Can you show where your posts in discussions have been deleted? I don't think that's supposed to happen (except in extreme cases, like abuse or obvious vandalism, of course).

There are remedies available if you think people are breaking the rules. If you go that route, I suggest you stay cool and assume good faith; you'll be much more likely to win people to your side that way and ultimately get things resolved to your satisfaction. Or, of course, there's always the final option that all of us have, and vote with our metaphoric feet...

Here's hoping you find a satisfactory solution to your concerns.

Regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There has already been considerable discussion about this.. actually the discussion has been non-stop for about three years. -- Stbalbach 02:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Often posts on talk pages are deleted if they are not directly discussing the article itself, especially if the posts in question are seen as trolling/possible BLP infringements. Many of Ymous' edits can be perceived as the former by some.

In reply to Ymous, may I ask how ball, Michael Schumacher, or Distant signal (three "random article" presses) serve to "advance the left's agenda", or "slam, belittle, insult anything to do with Conservatives"? --Dreaded Walrus 04:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Without exactly agreeing with Ymous, I would say this article is really awful. It is probably one of the worst on wikipedia. It is biased in its basic nature, it is unencyclopedic, it is mistitled (there is no "movement" to impeach Bush, even if people wish that there were one) and it is essentially a list of people's rants (most who have no say in the matter) -- violating what wikipedia is not. It is a really bad article. --Blue Tie 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

By all means, Blue Tie, if you feel the article is unsalvageable, submit it for deletion. I'm of the feeling that almost no article is beyond salvage, but that's just me. I'm similarly of the feeling that the movement to impeach GWB is scattered and incoherent but not worthy of deletion for that reason. How organized would it have to be for you to feel that it warranted inclusion? Perhaps that should be a separate thread?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Organizationally, I do not think it should be a list of every upset person's comments. All of the comments associated with folks who have no direct control over impeachment should be simply a minor paragraph saying that "there are many other people disatisfied with Bush who would like to see him impeached." and then footnote. Right there, that would trim this article substantially.

But I also think that there is a fundamental problem with this article. It is a sort of POV Fork. For example, if we had an article on "Baby eating" an NPOV perspective might include a statement by a Baby Eater about how good it is or its benefits or something. But what sort of "contra" thing do we go to here? "The Movemenmt to be against the movement to impeach Bush"? Do we quote a Joe Blow who has no influence over the matter saying "I don't think he should be impeached?". In other words, this is a bad fork over a non-existant thing that has one purpose: Blog negative feelings about Bush. So, its not just organization that is a problem. But organization could go a long way. --Blue Tie 13:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I may not have been clear. When I said "how organized would it have to be?", I was referring to the "movement," not the article. That said, I think you have a point, and the article could stand a drastic rework to improve the structure.

My first thought when you mentioned "baby-eating" was this (followed by this, which is really disturbing). Staying on-topic, however, I'd say the Wikipedia Way would be to introduce counter-elements into the article rather than a new article of the opposite POV. So in the baby-eating example, we'd put in some comment from C.Annibal about what a good idea it is, and J.Swift on what a bad idea it is. This article shouldn't be a call for impeachment, but about calls for impeachment. If there are countervailing arguments being presented, then they should probably go in a "Contrary Positions" section or something.

I think there's enough noise being generated among politicians, pundits, and pollsters that the subject does warrant an article.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Before you submit for AfD, please see the many previous AfD's and make sure you have something new to add. Keep in mind that there is nothing in the rules of Wikipedia that stop editors from adding material every time someone says they want to impeach Bush. The choice is, either aggregate here in a "main article", or fight battles in 100 different articles all over Wikipedia. The reality is, people are calling for his impeachment, and that reality is going to be reflected on Wikipedia one way or another. You may think calling for President of the US's impeachment is "trivia", but most people would think it's pretty noteworthy. IMO this article is a simple catalog of those calls, pretty simple and straightforward. -- Stbalbach 15:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is a catalog of those calls. Just that alone is enough for me to consider it worthy of delete. I do not mind if people add these calls into other articles on wikipedia. If they belong there... then they belong there. Its fine. And having this, does not prevent them from appearing all over wikipedia anyway. I am sure that they do. But a non-existant movement, created to list POV statements is not-encyclopedic to me. And I do not need to have anything new to add to suggest it be deleted. But I am waiting a while. I like to take my time to think things over. No need to rush. --Blue Tie 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the counterargument for deleting this article is exactly in what you mentioned: it is a catalog of of the calls made to impeach Bush. From the frequency it's mentioned in the media (not much, admittedly), to the books published on the subject ("academics" and "political scientists" wanting to make money; but then again, that is *every* author's intent), there's obviously an identified movement going on to have President Bush impeached. So, why not keep it? The bias? It's written in a largely NPOV view and language. I mean, you're talking about an entire article about an entire movement to prosecute an American President. No matter how you present it, someone will take offense and blame it on "the liberal media". And I'm sorry, but the article also has obvious inherent applicability in research. If you're looking for a quick and dirty place to find a list of resources to use for research (whatever you need the stuff for), then Wikipedia provides a good concentration of materials. I say keep it. Shadowrun 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Threats of aggressive war against Iran

i added the section "Threats of aggressive war against Iran" - it seems to me rather uncontroversial that Kucinich has made this claim and that this is distinct from all the other rationales (or "reasons", as we would say in plain English). Boud 23:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Kucinich has made no formal or even informal position that he thinks Bush should be impeached. The ABC article just says he put up a trial balloon to see what other people think, and that he would let his position be known in a month or so. I think it's too early to attach Kunich to this article. -- Stbalbach 14:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

i reread the ABC article and in fact you're correct. He's proposing something to his potential supporters and promises to take a decision in a month or so depending on what they think. i couldn't find anything obvious on his website on this subject. There are some copies of speeches he's made in parliament, but none seem to commit Kucinich to impeachment on the grounds of threats of aggressive war already made by Bush. Boud 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich spoke in Parliament? I didn't even know he was a MP. Here I thought he was an American politician. hehe... We have neither Crown nor Parliament here, thanks to a pair of wars a few centuries ago. --Habap 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

i guess i was using a French linguistic convention here rather than English. The en.wikipedia articles such as parliament, congress, etc. do seem to make a big fuss about separating what in e.g. French are called the fr:régime présidentiel and fr:régime parlementaire forms of government/legislature, corresponding to congress and parliament respectively according to the en.wikipedia descriptions. According to these descriptions, the French system (Vth Republic) would have probably have to to be a congress - but in France, the word "parlement" is used for the two houses together (except when they're sitting in a joint session at Versailles, which is rarely, when the session is called "congrès"). i guess i should have said that Dennis Kucinich spoke in the "national legislature". As to whether or not you have a "Crown", it seems that the presidential system (congress) is closer to having a Crown than a parliamentary system - here's a quote from presidential system: "A presidential system, also called a congressional system, ...owes its origins to the medieval monarchies of France, England and Scotland in which executive authority was vested in the Crown, not in meetings of the estates of the realm (ie. parliament)...". Boud 23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal or political

Some editors think that impeachment is a legal process.[4][5] Personally I think since there exists no legal definition it is up to politics to determine "high crimes." I see an edit war looming so maybe we can discuss here what others think is appropriate. Can we say it is a political process because the law is too vague and Congress has the last word on this? Or is it limited to the legal system and therefore not political at all? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a legal process administered in a political forum rather than a legal forum. --Blue Tie 13:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So, we agree that mentioning its political nature, which is impossible to ignore, is allowed? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, it is. But I do not know what other editors say. --Blue Tie 17:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV revisited

This article breaks WP:POV. I'm adding a tag to it. This article is one side; it is taken from a liberal view, and NPOV prohibits that. I believe this article should be deleted because no real legal actions have taken place to impeach him, but it has been saved three times so it isn't worth it. The article really needs a "criticism" section before the tag is removed. Questions? Direct them to my talk page. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody objects to any criticism. If you can find sourced material feel free to add it. Unfortunately there is limited analysis on why impeachment is not warranted. If such material remains not available the POV tag can be removed. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag justifications need to list actionable items. Just giving a personal opinion that it is "a liberal view" doesn't mean anything concrete in terms of editing the article. What words and sentences are a "liberal view"? If we are going to address the POV tag, we need a list of specific, actionable items. As for a "criticisms" section, since he has not been impeached, there is nothing to criticize and in any case, it just makes the article into an idealogical battle ground of he-said/she-said which we want to avoid -- all this article does is list who is calling for impeachment and why they are doing so -- very simple and straightforward. -- Stbalbach 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

actually no they don't need to list it see - [[6]] The end sentence sums it up. "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed" so a pov tag should be added to the article. Reading the wiki page on it doesn't say you have to say exactly what needs to be addressed. Feel free to quote where if it does. If there is this much dispute on the talk page about the article not being NPOV chances are that its not. Like the quote sentence earlier says. So the article should be tagged. It doesn't take away credibility it doesn't mean for sure it is. But according the talk page here there seems to be a dispute that it is. And "you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." So I am going to add the tag, and when the talk page reaches some kind of concensus on it to remove then remove it. Till then...--Xiahou 23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. If nobody knows what exactly is considered POV nobody can correct it. And since nobody can correct it the tag will be in place forever. In short, the NPOV tag without explanation is totally pointless. Or, maybe there is one, it seems to be making a point. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus to remove the POV tag -- it has been achieved in multiple AfDs and discussions on this talk page -- a rationale that there is debate as the rationale for the POV tag is circular logic and is using the Wiki rules to try and get around actually providing debate of substance. There is also this policy: WP:IAR. -- Stbalbach 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Politicization of the United States attorney offices

This section has become a problem. It is too long and only in the last paragraph does it mention anything about impeachment, and only very weakly in the sources. The whole thing should be condensed down into 1 or 2 paragraph, focusing on those sources and people that specifically talk about impeachment, and use the Main article links for more information about the case elsewhere. -- Stbalbach 15:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I was only making a start of this section so feel free to make the summary more succinct. However, I do think it needs to include the following

1. Retributioon for prosecuting Republicans, and possible obstruction of justice.
2. Dismissal for not prosecuting crimes that did not take place: voter-fraud.
3. Possible rigging of elections by means of the previous
4. Possible connection with other dismissals

Regarding "... and only very weakly in the sources," this is confusing me.

• "If Rove or President Bush tried to do this, it is they who need firing. A president must uphold the law, not to subvert it for political or partisan ends. As we learned in Watergate, our Constitution and our shared values are more important than any single officeholder."[7]
• "But the corruption, the lawbreaking, and the cover-up go deeper - all the way up to the Oval Office. Hopefully, Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers will put impeachment back on the table."[8]
• “Impeach Bush Over Purgegate!”[9] as title for an article.
• "From Prosecutorgate, every road leads to impeachment."[10]

It is difficult for me to see what part of these quotations you describe. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The above quotes should be the highlite and core content of the section. -- Stbalbach 12:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying two things. 1 The sources are indeed valid and not "weak," thereby amending your previous assertion. 2 We should use a bulletlist instead of paragraphs with a summary. Why should we not present a condensed version of the main stories so people at least have some incling as to why impeachment is suggested. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say either one of those things. Basically, this is a highly controversial article - many people complain that it is being misused for partisan purposes. Only one side of the story is being presented, it is unfair and unbalanced. To answer to that legitimate concern, we say this article simply lists those people and organizations who call for the impeachment of Bush and refrain from getting into idealogical debates. Your section is close too or crossing that line - it is a lengthy diatribe about the attorney scandal with only one side being presented - this opens up the entire article to critics who say that article is unbalanced, and it opens the article up to yet another round of AfD. The solution is your section should focus on impeachment only, trim down the lengthy justification part, because there are two sides to every story, and your not presenting both sides. The article is about impeachment, focus on that, report on what other people are saying in relation to impeachment and the attorney issue. -- Stbalbach 13:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should not invite another AfD. Surely you understand everybody is welcome to make the summary more succinct and amend sentences that are to POV. What I find difficult to undrrstand is why mentioning the facts is POV.

1. Fhey were fired for ever shifting reasons.
2. The WH and DOJ have made contradictory statements.
3. The WH has redacted a report on voter-fraud making the publicized version the opposite of what it originally said: there is no widespread voter-fraud.
4. Some USA were not prosecuting Democrats for the nonexistent fraud and now are fired.
5. One of those not prosecuting Democrats got listed for removal.
6. That USA prosecuted a woman for involvement in the corruption of a Democratic Governor yet has been set free after the appeal because the stunned judges could not see any case to prosecute in the first place.
7. This USA was delisted and not fired.
8. Another USA was fired and subsequently his investigation into Abramoff was stopped. In light of the cureent investigation people have pointed to a possible link.

Not sure why we could not mention this. And, of course, the logical conclusion, and more perfidious idea, that the USA scandal is not about the dismissals but the possibility they are used to steer elections by specifically targeting Democrats during elections. As to the sources, seeing the quotes above, do you still contend impeachment is discussed " only very weakly in the sources?" Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tried to clean it up and looking at the NSA paragraph it is certainly shorter. As to POV please amend poorly worded sentences. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Organization

The layout of parts of this article need serious work. This section in particular is headed as "State Legislatures" but not very much of the info under each of the states is actually actions within the respective legislatures. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 00:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking out pertinent information that was absolutely correct

You had edited the Bush Impeachment article because, according to you, I had editorialized when UN Resolution 686, 3(a) specifically stated how the members state demand that Iraq not fire upon aircraft of member states. Violating the terms of a cease fire provides ample justification for the resuming of hostilities. That was a clear violation of the resolution. Even if the resolution itself didnt exist, firing upon the military of another nation constitutes an Act of War. Please stop taking out factual accuracies just because you disagree with what happened. Whether or not it was a good idea is another debate (in my opinion it was a bad idea looking back in hindsight), but the legality is there all day long.Arnabdas 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortumately you added talking points but no sourced material. Therefore it can't be used.

• 1 It is ridiculous to claim that a statement in 1998 is pertinent to actions taken in 2003 while conspicuously ignoring the fact that in 2003 weapon inspectors for months were unable to find any WMD:

That is completely absurd! The issue is of lying to the nation and the world and fabricating intelligence reports of WMD. The issue isnt about whether or not the war was justified, the purpose of mentioning President Clinton's State of the Union speech is to prove that the US had long suspected Saddam Hussein was pursuing WMD. By saying that the previous administration had been pursuing WMD it proves that Bush did not fabricate intelligence or make up the threat. Your argument is absolutely false and your are purposely keeping the truth out through vandalism of this page. Arnabdas 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK Clinton did not invade Iraq. To claim he had the same info and same interpretation begs the question: why did he not invade? Don't answer I know he is a liberal wimp. Anyhow, to equate his words with Bush is misrepresenting the facts. And still ignores the fact that Bush was told by the intelligence agencies and the UN and IAEA that SH most likely did NOT have WMD. Information Clinton did not have. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, clinton (yes, lower case "c") didn't invade Iraq, he just bombed an asprin factory the day the Monica story broke to take America's attention elsewhere.

“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

“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

So even though most of the left believed the same thing Bush did, Bush is the one that is wrong, and Bush is the one that deserves an "article" (more like left wing propaganda piece) on impeachment. Ymous 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether Clinton invaded Iraq or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not Bush fabricated intelligence. You and I may even both agree (in hindsight for me) that an invasion was a bad idea. My point is however that the invasion was based on reasonable claims at the time and from a former President's own words.Arnabdas 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Eventhough some supporters of the impeachment allege that the Administration falsified the threat that Iraq had WMD, it should be noted that President Bill Clinton also supported the claim that Iraq was developing WMD in his 1998 State of the Union address to Congress where he said

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.

Those whom argue against the impeachment bring up this point to illustrate how American officials have long suspected that Iraq had a viable and active WMD program to challenge the assertion that Bush Administration officials had fabricated intelligence reports.

• 2 I again took out this because it is unsourced speculation, Please add legal experts to counter the opinion of the legal experts in that paragraph:

What the heck are you talking about?!? I specifically sourced both the 1998 State of the Union. Are you talking about UN Resolution 686? That is specifically sourced too! You are engaging in vandalism here by removing pertinent sourced information!!!

You sourced a resolution. Nowhere have you provided a source for the claim that the resolution makes the war legal. Without WP:RS it is nothing more than your WP:OR. Please provide a source that states the same. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

By sourcing the Resolution, it shows that there was an obvious violation of it. It was a contractual violation. That is indesputable. You may not agree that a contractual violation means legality or not, but that is YOUR opinion. Legal violation is legal violation and violating a contract is basis of legal action.Arnabdas 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The violation of UN law argument has been challenged by some. UN Resolution 686, 3(a) specifically cites how the UN demands that Iraq Cease hostile or provacative actions by its forces against Member States, including missile attacks and flights of combat aircraft;

which was violated by Iraq's military forces "every day" according to military commanders as they fired upon American and British aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zone multiple times. By breaching the contract, legally, this provided argument for Member State military forces to resume hostility against the government of Iraq. Some would also argue that firing upon coalition aircraft also constitutes an act of war and therefore justifies a military response.

• 3 Also, I corrected the misinformation that there was a link with AQ. I inserted another rebuttal with the latest report proving there was no active and working relationship. To claim otherwise, like Cheney[11][12], to me seems desperate and at this point delusional.

• Since this is a controversial topic I think you should add only relevant, factual and sourced material. Inserting incorrect talking points is not what WP:NPOV is about. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

EVERYTHING I wrote had been backed up by who and when and where each of the transcripts were signed. Both the 1998 State of the Union was documented with its transcript from the Federal News Service via The Wasghington Post. Furthermore, a link to UN Resolution 686 was specifically linked. You are purposely engaging in misinformation!Arnabdas 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The SOTU is sourced but irrelevant. The resolution exists but you have to provide a source that says therefore the war was legitimate and legal. The AQ link has been refuted time and time again, even recently in a report with still wet ink. All you have to do is provide sources for your conclusions and then it can be used. Without that you are only adding speculation and OR on your part. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WHAT are you talking about? The allegations were of FABRICATION of a WMD threat. Clinton mentioned the threat. Therefore there was no fabrication of it on Bush's part. I am not addressing any issue of cherry picking intelligence or an opinion of ignoring certain claims that there was no threat. I am talking about specifically that there was a threat mentioned by Clinton. Bush chose to listen to the intel mentioned by Clinton and that was corroborated by several other governments. The AQ link has been refuted by SOME people and I doubt there is anyone who says both AQ and Saddam Hussein engaged in joint operations, but you still have not refuted the 9-11 Commission Report itself. I don't see a problem of putting both the 9-11 Commission Report finding along with any refutal. My point was to show that there was evidence that supported both points of view. You write the article strictly from a POV of trying to already hold Bush guilty. That is not NPOV and is purposely and deceitfully witholding crucial evidence from the article. A similar situation would be to say "Bob killed Joe" but conveniently leave out that "Joe was about to kill Bob and then Bob, in self defense, killed Joe." Please be thorough. Arnabdas 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello all,

Recently, the Mediation Cabal recieved a request for mediation on this article, due to the ongoing dispute. If people want to do this, I'll be helping you try to reach an agreement on what should be in this article and what should not.

Please note that the goal of mediation is for the involved parties to make a compromise or come to an agreement on an issue. It is not the same thing as arbitration and we will not ban users, protect pages, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nathanww (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

May I infer from the lack of response by Arnabdas he agrees with my explanation in the previous paragraph and sees no further need to continue mediation? That is:

1. Bill Clinton is irrelevant since he did not have the same information as Bush had.
2. Including any resoltion prior to 2003, or attacks on US planes, to counter allegations of Iraq being a war crime needs WP:RS otherwise it constitutes WP:OR. To be sure: not a source substantiating the resolution or attack, but a source saying because of that Iraq is not a war crime!
3. No WMD or active links to AQ existed, contrary to what was said.

Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of response =! agreement.

I will contact him to see what he says.Nathanww 22:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The SOTU is DEFINITELY relevent because it proves that there were suspicions well before Bush was in office and therefore Bush could not have possibly fabricated the threat. The issue is not about whether or not an invasion was the appropriate response, the issue is the accuasation the President Bush fabricated the WMD threat which has been proven untrue...yet you keep taking it out.
2. Any violation of any contract by one party warrants that the other party or parties are not obligated to adhere by that contract as well. The Resolution was passed to cease hostilities against Iraq. Iraq violated the contract. Hostilities resumed. Legality is there all day long.
3. I have specifically sourced the 9-11 Commission Report. You are free to discredit the report all you want, but that is a bi-partisan resport that said there were links between the two entities. You saying there wasn't doesn't disprove the 9-11 Commission's findings. Arnabdas 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly we are going in circles so I will try something else:

ad 1 Did Clinton know that UN weaponinspectors were unable to find any weapons for months? Did Clinton know his intelligence agencies said that there was scant, if any, evidence corroborating the allegation? Specifically did he have a Presidential Daily Brief dated September 21, 2001, saying there was no evidence of a link between SH and AQ? Did Clinton know about the yellowcake forgery?

ad 2 I agree with your opinion regardiung a contract. Unfortunately editors are not allowed to have opinions. Could you therefore include some outside source making the statement that violating the resolutions validates the Iraq war, eventhough the UN has already said no single member (i.e. the US) can speak for the entire body?

ad 3 Does the 9-11 Commission's findings include the suggestion SH was behind 9-11? If not, would you agree that some sporadic contact does not equal the suggestion by the Bush administration that SH himself was flying the airplanes (hyperbole to stress what they were insinuating from day 1)? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so as I see it this discussion is getting quite into the territory of WP:SOAP.

Nescio, Arnabdas, am I correct in stating that the views you are presenting are those accepted by a significantnumber of people? If so, a WP:NPOV "controversy" section could be made to present the different rationales. Nathanww 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem adding sourced, factual and neutral (all editors are required to adhere to WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:RS) counterarguments in the same paragraph, i.e. the rationales section which we are discussing here, but a new "criticism"-paragraph is unnecessary. This means that:

ad 1 adding Clinton is a logical fallacy by ignoring the multitude of information Bush had which Clinton did not have. Better yet, let's mention Cheney and his visit to SH, proving Cheney lied when he said SH was such a threat.(sorry, sarcasm, couldn't help myself)

Again ignoring the fact that your accusation tone of Bush was that he fabricated a threat. The point was that a threat was not fabricated by Bush.Arnabdas 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, the allegation is that Bush fabricated the WMD threat. You allege that Clinton also thought there was a threat and your proof is his SOTU. All I want to know is did Clinton base his assessment on the same evidence as Bush did? Again, did Clinton know weapon inspectors were unable to find WMD for months, did Clinton know that the uranium deal was forged and was Clinton aware that IAEA, CIA, NSA all stated the WMD were not likely to be present? Clearly all you have to do is answer this. However, should you chose to answer Clinton did not know these things, which is of course is true, then you have to explain how his words are comparable to the famous 16 words by Bush. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again IGNORING the fact that your crusade to impeach Bush and provide a one-sided POV without giving background information. The accusations are that Bush made up the whole threat. The threat was there, as utterred by Clinton himself and also proven by Saddam Hussein's own use of those weapons against his own populace. This is no way advocating that what the Bush Administration did was an appropriate response, but it is obvious enough to see that there was an OBVIOUS perceived threat of WMD history with Iraq going back to the Reagan Administration. The threat was there and you wishing it wasn't because of some vendetta you have makes things sound ridiculous on your part. The most hillarious thing is if you actually were smart enough, you would just accept that Bush didn't fabricate anything but instead go after him for his actual mistakes, such as rushing to war or mismanagement of it. There wouldn't even be a cause for impeachment because if tactics like what you're doing here wasnt done by mainstream Democrats, Kerry would be President right now. You are your own worst enemy. That aside, if Bush makes horribly wrong decisions, they are not impeachable offenses. His Administration wanted to find facts to justify an invasion and were not objective in looking at facts that gave doubt. You, just like they, are looking only for facts to justify your point of view while trying to omit facts that would totally derail the case for impeachment. Not allowing pertinent facts that directly proves Bush didn't fabricate the threat is misleading propaganda. Wikipedia is not a propaganda outfit for fanatic points of view that aim to suppress dissenting evidence.Arnabdas 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you refuse to explain why you ignore the fact that Bush had tons of additional intel and other information it is evident you either are unable or unwilling to accept that Bush made his statement while he should be aware of the miles and miles of reports explicitely doubting his claims that Clinton did not have. As long as you keep ignoring my questions on this it is useless to continue debating. Cheers. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ad 2 all I ask is a WP:RS claiming the war is legal because of previous resolutions. Otherwise we can just as well include Ignaz Semmelweis's work to prove the war is legal.

As opposed to your "sources" of people giving their OPINION. Any question of legality is based upon opinion. Good and responsible opinion is based on fact. The fact is that there was a Resolution violation there.Arnabdas 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, provide a source. Not your opinion, but a source as defined by WP:RS. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We should take out your "sources" since they are opinions themselves then shouldn't we?Arnabdas 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS to discover they are valid under wikipedia policy whereas the opinion of editors is not allowed. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ad 3 Clearly, nobody today believes there SH was plotting with AQ to attack the US, (except Arnabdas that is) therefore we cannot include these right-wing talking points. Even the Bush administration said so! Come on. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, you are obviously a pathological liar purposely leaving out what I wrote or simply illiterate. I just sourced a BIPARTISAN 9-11 Commission Report which you conveniently left out. Convenient how your fanatic anti-Bush fervor is out to withold important information about this topic that directly contradicts your delusions that the 9-11 Commission Report said that the two entities met. Never did I claim that they actually operated in any coordinated attack upon the United States or its allies. I just quoted the 9-11 Commission Report. That doesn't make me "right wing." Of course, it is obvious that anyone to the right of Joseph Stalin obviously is "right-wing" to you.Arnabdas 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How am I lying when I say that the report never said SH and OBL were working together? And if they were not working together does that not mean the claims by the Bush administration they indeed plotted against the US were incorrect? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember any claims that they were "working together" but I do remember Cheney once saying that they may be linked. That was actually proven true, there was a link. It wasn't an operative link, but the 9-11 Commission Report specifically stated there was a link. Furthermore, I don't know where Bush himself ever said they were working together (he might have, just havent seen it) but "working together" doesn't mean necessarily that there is some imminent danger. It is political spin, which is not an impeachable offense, and therefore should be taken out. If it was Cheney who said it, or some other official aside from Bush, then it is irrelevent to be posted here because this is for an impeachment of Bush, not of Cheney or any other official.Arnabdas 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember the "mushroom clouds" and "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here?" Clearly the Bush administration repeatedly said, implied, alluded, suggested that the perpetrators of 9-11 were in Iraq. This is what report after report disproved. Second, if we were to include every country that had contacts with OBL, however remorely, we should include the USA since they financed, trained and supplied him while committing terrorist acts in Afghanistan. And let's not forget who paid the IRA for years. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think this is getting anywhere! Nathanww is correct, this article and mediation discussion have really turned into a soapbox, and it seems that this is not going to be solved by a simple mediation. I put in a request for comment, let's see if we can get another idea of what should be done with the article. -Lauren^whisper 22:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be premature. All somebody has to do is ask my fellow editor to respond to my questions. As long as he refuses to even answer them, which is not the same as agree with me, I see no reason to even continue debating. Thanks for trying to mediate.

Just to be sure maybe someone might help Arnabdas (talk · contribs) in finding the time to at least answer the following:

1. Did the 9-11 Commission Report conclude SH was involved with AQ? If not, why do we need to mention the nonexistent working relationship?

They DID mention they were "involved" with AQ (pp66-67). There was no operational link, but a meeting to discuss a possible relationship constitutes "involvement" in your own words. The meeting is very relevent because it was a bi-partisan example that directly refutes that there were no ties between the two entities. It again doesnt advocate any response nor any type of concrete working relationship, but the fact that there was a meeting showed that there were ties between the two entities and the two entities did discuss operations on how to attack US interests. Ultimately, as the report goes on to say, Bin Laden decided against the relationship and decided to remain with the Taliban, despite the tensions that were growing between AQ and the Taliban, instead of taking haven in Iraq. Arnabdas 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No operational link means that the Bush administration incorrectly stated the people behind 9-11 were in Iraq! Undoubtedly we can find the same type of remote, possible, non-workingrelation-type of contact between any terrorist organisation and the US, France, Russia, et cetera. The point of the debate is Bush claimed an active relationship in which SH was part of the 9-11 attacks! Clearly that is a now totally refuted allegation which was already evident before the invasion of Iraq. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Did Clinton possess the same information regarding Iraq as Bush? If not, why do we need to mention his SOTU?

Because once again you try to claim Bush fabricated the threat. Change your wording. If you want to include that Bush had more information saying that there was no threat, that is absolutely legitimate. However, you saying that Bush just pulled it out of his you know what is misleading and an outright lie.Arnabdas 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if Bush used the same information Clinton had he concommittantly ignored a myriad of reports disproving the alleged WMD-threat. Even if there was a "smoking gun" in Clinton's intel it is hard to believe that -1 after months of not finding WMD's by weapon inspectors going through Iraq, 2 and the CIA, NSA, IAEA, concluding the available evidence did not support the WMD-claims, 3 and of course the infamous yellowcake forgery also discoverd before the invasion- Bush was not inclined to re-evaluate his insistent assertions. Any other person would at least think, "hmm, there is so much evidence disproving my view maybe I am wrong." Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Regarding the resolutions making the Iraq war legal, please provide WP:RS. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, Arnabdas why do you contribute to this discussion on a weekly basis but edit nowhere else? Is there any compelling reason not to contribute on any other article? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a life outside wiki and that is why I don't post often here. I can't stand dishonesty. Let people know the entire truth and let people make up their minds for themselves. Witholding information from people is dishonest and plain fascist. Personally, I could care less whether you want Bush impeached or not. Put up the article, but don't engage in ridiculous propaganda that totally omits the entire story of it all. This isn't about legality/impeachment. It is about a policy mistake. Impeachment shouldn't be used as a political tool. That is what you are trying to do here. Impeachment should only be used if a President breaks the law. If the House alleges that he does, the Senate then decides whether or not it warrants his removal. You are not writing the article from an objective point of view. You are purposely trying to withold information from readers so they see YOUR point of view. That is dishonesty, goes against wiki procedures and is frankly also un-American and dangerous in what is supposed to be a democratic proccess.Arnabdas 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Including the "whole story" is not haphazzardly including every comment you can think of regarding AQ and WMD's. At least make sure the information is relevant to this article and try and avoid logical fallacies while you argue the inclusion of information. Since you keep evading the questions I repeatedly asked you I see no reason to prolonge this non-debate. Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that while the discussions meander a bit, and the topic could be controversial, a fundamental issue is that the article, in its basic existence, is probably pov (an article about a subject that does not exist but is wished for is pov). I think that this is problem that is leading to the heat of the discussion. --Blue Tie 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Added discussion from my talk page below. Please continue discussion there. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Current event tag

Hey there, yesterday I added a {{currentevent}} tag to the article Movement to impeach George W. Bush, as it certainly represents an ongoing series of events (at the very least in Vermont). User:Stbalbach removed the tag without an explanation in the edit summary, and I cannot think of a valid reason for its removal. I am going to reapply the tag: I hope that if you decided to re-remove it you will provide an explanation. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 16:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there are certain articles on Wikipedia that are always current events. For example, George W. Bush, and this article. The purpose of the CE tag is notify editors and readers that an article is undergoing rapid changes. It is not meant to stay in place for very long, and certainly not forever, which would need to be the case for this article (at least, until Fall 2008). This article has new ongoing current events all the time, but they are not of the nature that requires a permanent CE tag, there are just not that many changes being made that a warning is required. -- Stbalbach 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Please provide actionable, detailed rationales for the POV tag. The complaints about this article being POV have been so general and so often knocked down as irrational and unsupportable that putting up a POV tag just because certain parties complain about it without actually providing a solution to the problem it is just a way to complain about this articles mere existence, which is not what POV tags are for. -- Stbalbach 18:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

as stated above [[13]] those putting the tags don't have to have a solution first. If every tag placer on wiki had the solution there wouldn't be ANY tags. The solution would be implemented. Also as stated above in the tag discussion the person placing the tag doesn't have to have specific reasons if a debate on the neutrality exists, then the tag should be placed. I am not taking sides on the issue myself but to read through it makes its point. Quite nicely. Problem is there is no critic section, no counter point. On a hot button issue how could there not be? By me saying this That merrits a tag. I don't have to have the solution, I don't have to have the links or cites, You own words the complaints are 'general' thats just it. The whole feel of the article is 'generally' pov. It doesn't mean the article isn't true, lacking credibility it means parts, sections or the entire thing people have opposing views of that are not shown. Your ignore rule link? You complained about the circular reasoning in an above discussion. One can use the exactly logic when you show the IAR link. The tag should be placed due to IAR. It would improve the article by showing editors it needs more content showing the opposing side. By doing this you improve the article. By saying the tag shouldn't be there, some editors would not be inclined as much to put in opposing material. Hense you are not helping the quality of the aricle. (what IAR is about). Putting the tag improves it. By saying "hey, we need to show both sides to make a complete article, for now its not" You keep the politics and feelings out of it and treat it like any other article its not as big a deal as its being made into. Also you say above - "There is consensus to remove the POV tag -- it has been achieved in multiple AfDs and discussions on this talk page " where is this talk page concensus? --Xiahou 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"those putting the tags don't have to have a solution first." Nobody is saying that. Only tagging an article without any explanation makes it impossible to address the issues at hand (what issue?). Now you mention the lack of criticism. Of course that is something editors can look at and if need be amend. But I still think a tag without explanation can be removed: does it refer to WP:RS, or weasel words, or biased sentences, or the headers, article title, et cetera? See, by telling us about the criticism which is lacking I now know I don't have to look for semantical problems. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody is saying that"? "just because certain parties complain about it without actually providing a solution to the problem " as seen in first paragraph of this section. He specifically asked for a solution before tag placement. Which is why the whole section is there saying how that isn't how it logically works. If you have a solution you impletment it, there isn't a issue.

I don't get your sentence " Now you mention the lack of criticism. Of course that is something editors can look at and if need be amend. But I still think a tag without explanation can be removed" there you go. The tag is up there needing a section on criticism. The tag directs to the talk page discussions people see this saying "lack of criticism" is why the tag. There. Ok so we are agreed it lacking an obvious political criticism section thats what the tag is for. So I am putting the tag up till there is a critical section something from the other side to balance the article. I can quote all the wiki acronymns, but it breaks down to this. The article which has its own merrits like any good article needs balance. As of now it has none. Its not up to the tag placer to fix this (as editor Stbalback seems to think) the issue is it needs some sort of critical section to be NPOV since its lacking I am replacing the tag. Once some more sections opposing/criticism is added. I just get this feeling around here about this article its some sort of sacred cow like I cannont talk bad about. As I mentioned before I am not looking at it from my political feelings I am looking at it as a wiki editor and in all the political articles I've looked at the some Ive edited Ive never seen one with 0, none, not a single section in opposition to the said article. This one needs it. By lacking anything opposing it lacks balance, its pov. Doesn't matter if I am a walking protestor for it or totally against. Its the article, it needs a criticism section. There black and white text for all to see. The tag has reasons. The tag goes up. The reasons taken care of balance added tag comes down. --Xiahou 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, you have started explaining why the tag is needed therefore you agree with me that tagging without telling why is pointless. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Problem is there is no critic section, no counter point. - This article is not a debate panel. That would indeed be a hopelessly POV article, with ideologues from both sides trying to make their position, point after counterpoint etc... This article is, as the lead paragraph says, a place to mention those people who want to impeach Bush, that's it. This article exists for a very good reason. Without this article this material would be spread across dozens of articles and would become a real problem -- aggregating all of this into a central place makes sense for a lot of reasons. Trying to turn it into a debate forum where we do "he said she said" between political pundents would not solve POV problems, it would in fact create them. Bush has not been impeached. Until that happens, there is nothing to counter. -- Stbalbach 19:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How to reply to this. "Bush has not been impeached. Until that happens, there is nothing to counter" this is an encyclopia article not your personal soapbox. I am looking at it like an article not a personal political agenda here. "Without this article this material would be spread across dozens of articles and would become a real problem -- aggregating all of this into a central place makes sense for a lot of reasons" all the more reason to have parts of criticism otherwise you would have to have a seperate article. Its not a debate look at ANY other political page that doesn't have pov problems it shows both sides of the issue of the article. So both sides of this article would be those for the movement and critics of. If you take personal political feelings out and look at it like the encyclopdia article that it is, you can see its lacking balance. I am here trying to improve the article not deleting it, not to discredit it, but to show it needs balance to improve it. Saying its just "a place to mention those people who want to impeach Bush, that's it" Is selling the article short. Its hardly just that. Its not just a list of names its an issue, its an encyclopedia article. As mentioned before it would go agaisnt what you said having multiple pages for same thing having another aritcle of a group of names against the movement. The tag should stay until its balanced out more. simple as that regardless of the issue. --Xiahou 21:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Did some more looking and noticed [[14]] Content forking. So the information on those against the movement and are critical of it should be added to this article. A seperate article for this wouldn't be appropriate. So to acheive npov and not to content fork we need a criticism section or something of that nature. --Xiahou 21:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag b/c this seems to have been hashed out. Please just move forward and add your rebuttals, or "controversy/criticism" section, or whatever. Hopefully then the article will be "fair and balanced" enough. Fox can go ahead and sue me now. --Jackbirdsong 02:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was hashed out. Until a enough is added to add some sort of sembelence of balance some sort of criticism the tag should stay. Showing that its needed once they see why by reading this and other sections. Once the info is added and the article is balanced on bias Then the tag is removed and the article is all the better due to more info showing what the issue is about (which is done well) and those who are critical of it and why (which isn't done at all). --Xiahou 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What kind of "balance" are you looking for? Are you looking for some sort of criticism of the "Movement to Impeach George W Bush?" This article isn't about the merits of impeachment, it's about the movement to impeach. It's not as though the article is fawning over those who want to impeach Bush, either. It doesn't describe them as "heroic freedom fighters" or somesuch, it just discusses those who are calling for impeachment and why they are doing so.

If you think the article is unbalanced, feel free to balance it out. You might want to discuss any such balancing before you post it, in order to avoid edit wars and bad feelings, but that's up to you.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"What kind of "balance" are you looking for" see the entire above comments.

"It doesn't describe them as "heroic freedom fighters" or somesuch, it just discusses those who are calling for impeachment and why they are doing so.

" No one but you till now said it did??

"If you think the article is unbalanced, feel free to balance it out" I don't need to I tagged it for other editors to. If I had the info I agree no tag I would have added it. I don't have the info off hand, someone does or knows where and when they do they can add it and tag out the tag. Its how articles work. A person can see whats missing but not know specifically what to put in. If I by happen-stance to find the info in other browsings of the internet or reading I will till then the tag is there to alert other editors what it needs, the talk sections says what and possibly they can help. --Xiahou 23:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

When an above editor says, quite rationally, "If you think the article is unbalanced, feel free to balance it out", your response is "I don't need to I tagged it for other editors to."? This to me is the antithesis of what wikipedia is about - individuals adding pertinent info to a database under their own volition, not being persuaded to add info from a certain POV by tags or other editors. If you think an article needs more info, then add it! Be bold! The tag makes the whole article appear unbalanced, and I think the general concensus on this page is that a lot of effort has been made to lay out the article in an objective and fair way. Not every political article requires a criticism page, but if you think one is needed here then add it. I'm removing the tag again, as it seems unfair and silly for you to tag an article but refuse to remedy the problem that your tag pertains to.--Jackbirdsong 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I replied quite rationally as well. Just because an editor doesn't have the info to add doesn't mean the tag is no less valid. Using that logic the pov tag would not exist anywhere on wiki. Because saying that means those that add the tag should fix it then and there.

"Not every political article requires a criticism page, but if you think one is needed here then add it. I'm removing the tag again, as it seems unfair and silly for you to tag an article but refuse to remedy the problem that your tag pertains to." So if one is acceptable here to add. Then the article would benifit from it. Then if its lacking it then its deserved of a pov tag. Its far from silly. In fact one could say I wonder why you try to hide the fact by removing it? The editors who remove the tag continue to say go ahead and add the info. I don't have it. But till i or someone else does it shows the article is lacking in its point of view. So why do you and the other editor continue to delete a tag stating the article needs something you agree can be put in? I am trying to improve the article. So how is my adding a tag to alert other editors to look at the talk page and to see what needs to be improved that merrited the tag (that editors who keep removing it and calling putting it in silly) in the first place. How do you justify tag usage in direct relation to your personal feelings about wiki? a person who wants to tag has to have the solution handy? I am being bold I am adding a tag. I find it 'silly' it keeps getting removed by editors who agree the section could be added. Now apparently I have to wait a while so know one waves the 3rr card at me. Still going to put it up in a day. The article needs some sort of criticism section. Both editors against the tag this have not dismissed this. So again I ask how is alerting other editors with the tag (the purpose of it) that something is needed while I find the info or someone beats me to it. It just boggles me that the logic for removing the tag is "I" should provide the info. Have you ever placed a cleanup tag, pov, any tag and not fixed whatever the issue is right away then removed the tag? I could play the check your contributions and see. I am not. That would be 'silly' I hope you see what I mean. Straight from the NPOV page "the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner"--Xiahou 00:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. If the article is about the movement to impeach, rather than the merits of the movement, then I don't see what kind of "balance" you're looking for. Saying "see the above entire comments" isn't really helpful, as I've read your comments through and am still not clear on what you're looking for.

I wasn't ordering you to "fix" the article, I was suggesting that if you see it as biased you might want to do something about it beyond simply flagging it. If you choose not to, that's your decision, of course.

As for the "freedom fighters" remark, I was using that as an example of what would make the article biased and POV. However, as I pointed out and you did not really address, if the article simply reports on the movement, then I don't see where there can be bias. Should there be a section entitled "Opposition to Movement to Impeach George W Bush"?

Your quote from the NPOV page seems out of place to me. There are competing approaches to the topic mentioned, because different people are advancing different rationales for impeachment. Are you looking for a discussion of people advancing rationales against impeachment? That might be a valid section; perhaps you could find some references and write it?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to draw your attention to a few things - [[15]] WP:NPOVD - Key parts "That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is.

Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral — or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias. The salient point is that one side — who cares enough to be making the point — thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with." - Other editors including myself have claimed its pov/bias. Editors who remove the tag admit the section could be added alievating that.

"It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."

I think our discussion here has shown it hasn't.

Under the "How can one disagree about NPOV?" heading the last one is very key - "Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms." the alternate view point is not even addressed. Which the the key to the tag being up and trying to add something to flesh the article out to true npov quality status. It shows its side very well no one at least that Ive seen is disputing that, its a current hotbutton issue. There are two sides to this movement those for and part of it. Those against and working against. They are not represented not even a criticism section.--Xiahou 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Either change the article, or leave off the POV tag. No one is stopping you from editing the article. No one can say what you personally desire to remove the POV tag. Your holding the article hostage with revert warring. Want a criticism section? Fine, I'll add one. Anything you else you want? How about actually contributing instead of playing games with rules and nag tags. -- Stbalbach 01:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you guys arguing? He see the article needs change by adding some sort of criticism section. So he tags it mentions what is needed. And you are coming unglued at him saying he's playing games with rules? All I see is someone asking to make the article NPOV? You say he's playing games, but then you just add a criticism header and no content. Sounds like you are playing games. I've been watching this develop. You mention no one can say what you personally desire to remove the tag - That seems rather obvious some sort of critical balance to the article. Which would make it NPOV then the tag should go. A portion of it showing that the movement does have it detractors or those who don't see it as a movement etc etc. Seems obvious. He only said it a half dozen times. Tagging an article for improvement is not holding it hostage? I think the article is very well written I agree with much of it. I also know that it comes across 100% one sided. So I agree with Xiahou that we should tag the article for others to come here and see that something else is needed and that something else is another pov to make it NPOV.--74.38.143.245 06:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is, I don't think it can be done. A "critical balance" would either be hopelessly original research, or contain sources that are non-notable. I've been watching this article for over 2 years and I have yet to see anyone provide decent sources or NPOV material that is "critical" - it's all been political pundentry by non-notable people or original research. This "critical balance" stuff is nothing but a strawman to discredit the article with a pov-tag. BTW if your going to participate in this article, which is highly controversial, please login with a user ID - people are hitting 3RR maximums now and I don't want to start doing IP check's for IP sock puppets. -- Stbalbach 11:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I have some suggestions so please be patient with me as I am new here. First off, there are dead links that need replacement, I noted this a few days ago but do to the tensions here I did not doing anything with them in hopes someone who has been working this article would update them. Second, POV is an issue, even with me which is another reason I am being very careful here. How about adding into the context the notable republicans that are standing by Bush, McCain comes to immediate mind but I know there are others, which is probably why no impeachment has even taken place. You can also think of adding in the huge sums of money being spent to non-bid contractors, which is another area of dispute and call for impeachments of many in office right now. This is just a few ideas off the top of my head, it's early. :) Also, with the disputes that have been on going in the past, I noticed the articles has been voted to keep three times, how would I best catch up to understand what has been talked about and done? I don't want to have to spend days of reading arguments so any suggestion about what parts of the archives would catch me up so that maybe I can help with another view to help the article would be appreciated. Lastly, the tag up or down really doesn't matter to me, I caught interest in the article without the tag and felt even then that the article needs balance which should be easy to do. There are plenty of people that are notable that have spoken out on the news, in congress and so forth to give primary and secondary sources. Maybe if some focus is applied in this direction for awhile, boy I hope that all I have said hasn't already been said before, it will take the article to a balance satisfactory to at least most who are interested. I obviously need to go back and see what has been discussed in the past so I am not talking in the blind. If the time comes and I want to change anything, I always take it to the talk pages first. I only do spelling and other checks like that to the article without discussion first. I hope I am welcomed to join in. --Crohnie 12:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How would doing the opposite of the article be hopeless original research? 2 years you don't own the article. I have been reading Wikipedia.com for quite few months and just started editing but I know no one owns the articles. Just because someone has not provided NPOV based information to better make the article NPOV doesn't make the current article anyless POV than it is. Strawman arguments to discredit the article? Are you not reading what others wrote. You currently have 3 editors right now and claming others in the past saying its a POV article. Myself and Crohnie have said nothing about disagreeing with the content of the article. Heck I agree with it, it's the fact its hopelessly biased. So your defense is we are trying to discredit it? Are you kidding me? I want it to be credible by showing others are against it, but the movement is there. Not some one sided article that has an editor who disallows any form of disagreement to protect it from possible challenge when all I want to do along with others is show both sides. As far as 3RR maximums I just read about them I don't know what you are getting at with this but this is only my second talk and going to be in a minute my 2nd article entry so I don't know what you are referring to. Sockpuppet? I just started editing. I may get an account since I apparently like to edit. Hard for me to sockpuppet when I just started Ive only edited here and on Thunderstorms --74.38.143.245 12:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I set up an account User:Fujita (after my favortie tornado researcher) so now you will at least listen to my points rather than worry about User name status. Formally - 74.38.143.245 --Fujita 13:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For someone who "just started editing here" you sure seem to be pretty sophisticated in your knowledge of how wikipedia operates. There are a couple vocal minority partisans who keep hacking away at this article under different and various names and IPs and never achieve anything or add anything constructive or help in any way. There is nothing wrong with this article, currently the POV tag is being abused for partisan reasons. This article has become a giant target for a couple Republican and Bush supporters, yet they don't realize this article is doing them a great favor, by keeping this material out of dozens of other articles across Wikipedia. When important and powerful politicians call for the Impeachment of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES it is more than notable enough for Wikipedia, no matter who the President is. -- Stbalbach 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(WP:AGF). I think an NPOV tag is appropriate. However, I also think a discussion of what the problem is needs to accompany it on the talk page. I do not think a solution HAS to be proposed, nor do I think that the person putting the tag on must correct the article. But he or she must describe the problem in sufficient detail so that the article can be fixed.

And therein lies the problem. This article details something that does not exist. There is no movement to impeach President Bush. Hence there cannot be any real organized counterpoint. (For example, if I created a page that described how various random kooks accused the Clintons of murder, would the fact that there are such people that the Clinton's ignored, mean that it was an NPOV article when nothing substantive and attributable was presented in the article in a countering viewpoint?) Just by itself, that alone is the reason why this article is POV and why it should not exist. It is simply a bad article, an example of a bad article, and probably cannot be fixed. --Blue Tie 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems there is no concensus. You have more than a few editors now. So far no one has disagreed outwardly untill Blue Tie and he brings up good points as well. How can you say trying to make the article NPOV is some kind of political game- I thought this was a goal of all ariticles on Wikipedia?. Bringing partisan politics into a debate on if an article needs some sort of section that makes it NPOV is very partisan itself. Sure I've used wiki to edit for a short time. I am an amaetur meterologist I just started editing after seeing citation needed tags in articles and felt it should be helped. So I did. I stumbled on this article and agreed with it. I also realized We were only seeing one side of it. I had never seen a political article without something from the other side mentioned. I read the talk pages and saw what was going on. I don't agree at all that its partisan politics its not asking to take away from what is already said it should be tagged so we can get something said from the other side to have a truly complete and NPOV article. Why are you arguing about the issue of impeachment itself? I don't understand. It hasn't been about this?--Fujita 15:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the article boarders on WP:NOT#SOAP, and so justifies a POV tag until the problems can be addressed. There is a great deal of discussion about impeaching Bush, even organized campaigns. However, this article is more a dumping ground of anything about impeaching Bush. The only way that I can see to make this article encyclopedic is to rely almost entirely on reliable, nonpartisan, secondary sources, especially to determine proper WP:WEIGHT of the various topics, issues, individuals, campaigns, etc. --Ronz 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please list, specifically, which sentence, words and sources in the article are "SOAP". Just saying its SOAP without actionable items makes it impossible to address, and thus in effect a permanent POV tag, which is an abuse of the purpose of the tag. -- Stbalbach 19:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I'm here to help, and I'll help as I see fit and have time.

How about we all start listing, specifically, which sections actually meet WP:NPOV by being properly sourced with reliable, nonpartisan, secondary sources such that those sections are fairly balanced and not giving undue weight to any topic? --Ronz 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach - "I don't want to start doing IP check's for IP sock puppets" this is Xiahou not logged in. Please don't play games stick to the issue. More editors are coming on board saying the article is pov big time. I was nice but to accuse a new guy of being a sock. That's low. Now I am going to log in do some other stuff. Then I will reply back on here to catch up on current debate. --63.163.213.245 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Xiahou logged in now. I'll get back to this later just trying to show Mr. IP check that its quite possible and happening that others don't feel the same way he does without being sockpuppets. --Xiahou 20:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am just going to quote Ronz he nails it good - 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)

---That says it pretty good --Xiahou 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

An IP Check has been done, and Xiahou and Fujita are the same person - sock puppets. This of course means more of the anon IPs that have been editing here recently are probably also sock puppets. See User_talk:Jpgordon#User_talk:Xiahou.23break for verification. Xiahou says he's on an "extended break" but just as likely using another account and still active. -- Stbalbach 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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, [16]. 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, [17]. This too is no longer available [18]. 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 [[19]] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[20]

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.[21]

ad 3 claiming that because SH violated previous resolutions the war is legal.[22]

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.[23]
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.[24] Hillary Clinton knew.[25]. Yet both voted to authorize the invasion. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul[26] 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.[27]. Terjen 04:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section

According to Wikipedia's lead section guideline, the first paragraph of the article "needs to establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it", and the first sentence "should be a concise definition of the topic". The perfect article guideline recommends that a lead "begins with a clear description of the subject at hand."

Our opening paragraph may benefit from being improved with these concerns in mind. The current first sentence is a mushy "The phrase movement to impeach George W. Bush for the purpose of this article refers to actions and commentary within the public and private spheres tending towards support for the impeachment of United States President George W. Bush." Let's turn it into a concise definition of the topic instead. This will not only be an improvement for the readers, but also help editors by clarifying the scope of the article.

Furthermore, the lead section guideline on providing an accessible overivew states that the lead section should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question)." I suggest we clean up the subsequent paragraphs of the lead accordingly. -- Terjen 23:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed "for the purpose of this article" from the opening sentence as it is gibberish, despite another editor arguing that "it is necessary because otherwise the fundamental basis of this article starts to go away" where "this underscores the problem with the pov of the article". I don't see a reason to maintain an introduction that underscores a POV. If the fundamental basis of the article is POV, as some seem to argue, then it may not be such a bad thing that the fundamental basis for the article starts to go away... Terjen 00:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you remove "for the purposes of this article" then you must find a Verifiable, Reliable Source that describes or defines "The movement to impeach George W. Bush. Otherwise, what you have is original research. If the basis of the article is original research the whole article is trash. (Which it is, but assume otherwise for the moment).--Blue Tie 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stating "for the purposes of this article" is essentially the same as admitting the article subject is original research, so I can't see a reason to include it unless that's one's POV. It would be better to use the first paragraph to concisely define the topic. I presume the concern is whether or not there really is a social movement to impeach Bush. I can certainly understand both sides of that issue. Although there appears to be quite a bit of activities and people working towards an impeachment of Bush, it is open for discussion whether or not these in total is a "social movement" of people "with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals" or alternatively is just a number of individuals doing their own thing. A Google search for "movement to impeach" indicates that many see a movement, and a google search for "movement to impeach" in recent news" provides a few examples such as [28][29][30][31]. Terjen 07:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do any define what the term means? --Blue Tie 10:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote above is from the Wordnet dictionary defintion of the term movement.Terjen 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for a definition or description of the phrase that is now the title of an article. --Blue Tie 18:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I also agree with your comment that there could be several different things that could apply to "movement". What different meanings do you find in the various uses of the term movement to impeach, particularly as applied to Bush? Terjen 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Here is a sample:

[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] Terjen 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Here are a few more from a search for the related phrase impeachment movement: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] Terjen 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Here is a sample of news mentioning "Impeachment Movement": [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] ----Terjen 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As applied to Bush, and based upon your cites, I would say that a "Movement to Impeach Bush" is like movements to impeach other presidents in its general character and in its specific character it is a grassroots effort, chiefly in Vermont that is rejected by National Leaders of both Republican and Democratic parties, decision makers responsible for any fulfillment of the issue. There may be other meanings but that is what I see from the cites you gave, particularly after applying WP:RS and WP:NOTE. It is possible that the movement is actually some sort of organization spearheaded by an individual. --Blue Tie 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you accept that there is a "grassroots movement?" If so, does that constitute a "movement" as you interpret the word in this article? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would accept that an organization in Vermont has developed a process that is called a "Grass Roots" effort in that state. It may not be only in Vermont and it does not appear to be national. It is also irrelevant to any actual effort to impeach Bush. --Blue Tie 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you accept a local movement as movement. And, being aware that impeachment may also be started by states, not only Congress, it is entirely possible that if a local movement can sway a staee that might result in impeachment proceedings. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 06:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You gave two conditions upon which it is "entirely possible". One of those two conditions does not exist. The states cannot initiate impeachment proceedings. Much less local communities. Consequently, I do not accept it as "entirely possible". Indeed, it is impossible because the people who control this are not considering at all, for good as well as political reasons. --Blue Tie 12:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blue Tie. What difference does it make who does or doesn't support it, in terms of leaders? If it does have genuine popular support, that makes it a genuine "movement", regardless of what various officials may say. --Sm8900 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its pretty important that it cannot happen. If there was a "movement to repeal the law of gravity", it would be similar. How can you have a movement to do the impossible? --Blue Tie 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about improbable. Unless you suggest that if tommorrow all members of Congress would start impeachment it still will not happen it is not impossible but at this time not likely. If you do mean impossible the Constitution needs to be rewritten because it mentions it while clearly it can mever be implemented. Removing that redundant clause would be the next step. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 06:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am talking about impossible. But this will not be established until after Bush is no longer President. Then it will be clear, by the fact that it never happened and never even came close, that it was never possible. I have said before that this article should be deleted but it is too exciting to biased editors right now. Why is it impossible? Because no one who matters wants it to happen. They specifically do NOT want it to happen and will studiously ignore any such desires. And with that in place, there is simply not enough time for it to happen. It is impossible. It is just as impossible as the US landing another person on the moon by 2010. Not that it is a theoretical impossibility but that it is impossible because there is no movement to make it happen. It is impossible not simply improbable. It cannot happen. --Blue Tie 12:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that all of you who want this article removed are gripping at straws; Especially you blue. I agree with barnstormer that the arguments being used are quite bizarre. If we can agree that the article itself is of a factual nature, then it's evidence enough that a movement exists. If anything within the article is false, then it should be promptly removed; If the entire article is false, the entire article should be removed. But once we agree that the facts are in line; that is, that the events in the article did in fact take place, we establish that "a movement" or "movements" exist. We can attack the definition of the word "Movement," nitpick about whether or not it should have its own article, etc., but the article is informative and obviously people are interested in it. It seems as though certain members are not part of the movement, or do not approve of the movement, therefore are attempting to suppress the very fact that a movement, or movements, exist.

Incidentally I am pro-impeachment, and although it does seem unlikely, I am far from alone in that opinion... From available evidence, I think it's far more probable then undoing the laws of gravity. Brotherchristian 22:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. But there is no movement to impeach Bush. There are pretenders. But nothing real. This is like the movement to reseat royalty on thrones in Europe. Sure there are some people who want that. But its bogus.. never gonna happen. And, when Bush is out of office for a year or so, the irrelevance of this article will be evident. --Blue Tie 00:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So the improbability of success is evidence that no movement exists? Brotherchristian 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I am formally starting, right here, right now, the Movement to Impeach All Liberals. We've got slogans, signs, bumper stickers and press releases. Our mission to impeach and prosecute for treason, all democrats, liberals and socialists for giving aid and comfort to the enemy: both in the invaders from the south, and the terrorists in the middle east. Where's my page? Ymous 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Two words, Ymous: Be Bold.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, so create a page then if it'll make you feel better. Brotherchristian 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I DEEPLY AGREE

I 100% AGREE WITH THIS PAGE BEING BIAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Politics rule 00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Beyond writing something with all caps and lots of exclamation marks, could you elaborate? Your emotion is felt by all, but nobody knows what you're referring to. scotteaux 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you see bias in this article, or in the movement for impeachment? Your user page (not to get to personal) clearly touts your support of this president and his party, so I can understand your disagreement with the subject of the article. But the article itself is merely relaying this information - not creating it. So my question would be: what, exactly, is this bias and/or POV everybody is so heated about? This is a legitimate and broad political movement, and it deserves documentation. The opposing view that would be represented in a criticism/controversy section would merely be the POV of die-hard Bushites. Unless there is a major cohesive movement rallying to prevent any potential impeachment of this president, the article is, IMHO, not in violation of any wiki policy, nor is it in any way biased.--Jackbirdsong 04:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem? This is a very scientifically accurate and fair article. It's an uneasy topic, but it's fair none the less. Turn your caps lock off, you know that button to the left of "A"? Chenzo23 01:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What is fair about this article? There's nothing at all fair about this article. A survey, by a polling organization no one has ever heard of before now, has been mentioned in the lead of the article as if it had credibility. If one knew nothing at all about American politics and read this article, one would get the impression that NO ONE opposes impeachment. Only those who support impeachment are mentioned. One would also get the impression that the impeachment movement has never been criticized by anyone. Conservative writers have frequently heaped well-deserved ridicule (as well as thoughtful, well-researched examinations of the profound flaws in the impeachment argument) on those who suggest impeachment, but it is nowhere to be found in this article.

The deleted May 2007 survey showing 39% of Americans favoring impeachment of Bush was listed by Angus Reid Strategies and commented on by former Republican Congressman Bob Barr in the cited article from conservative Human Events. In its place is now a cherry-picked stat from a Washington Times article saying that less than 1% per January 2007 thought impeachment should be a "top priority" for Congress.[79] This is not an improvement but a step backwards. -- Terjen 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is some information about the pollster for the May 2007 survey showing 39% support for impeachment: "Mr. Towery served as the chairman of former Speaker Newt Gingrich's political organization from 1992 until Gingrich left Congress. He is a former Georgia state representative, the author of several books and currently heads the polling and political information firm InsiderAdvantage."[[80] -- Terjen 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

About References to Polls

I would like to see a better reference for the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll conducted in January 2007, which purportedly showed less than 1 percent thought a Bush impeachment should be a "top priority" for Congress. The reference cited is hearsay from a source, The Washington Times, whose neutrality is doubtful. In any case, such prominent mention of a poll that is radically out of line with most other polls, including many more recent, seems inappropriate. See for example the results of a Google search on "impeachment poll 2007".

Rather than cite individual polls in the article introduction, it might be better simply to note any significant trends and refer the reader to further details about polls in a later section. A summary table of poll results would certainly be helpful to the discovery of any patterns or trends. Also there should be external links to notable sites where there are ongoing impeachment petitions, so people can cast their vote one way or the other. For example, both MoveOn and Democrats.com have active petitions, and these should be listed conspicuously. JCLately 03:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Barnstormer contributions

Terjen, I get the impresion that Barnstormer is trying to own this article. The account has made a total of ten edits since joining Wikipedia: eight to this article, and two to this discussion page. I'm trying to improve the article and make it more balanced; Barnstormer is trying to own it.

It seemed at first like Barnstormer was trying to make a point - I took the extensively verbose edit as commentary that the paragraph in the intro about who supports impeachment is a little too detailed (which I think it was before you added to it, so it isn't meant personally). But now it looks more like Barnstormere is a freshly minted editor, possibly in need of some guidance. -- Terjen 06:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked by AuburnPilot for 3RR, vandalism and refusal to discuss his proposed edits. I think you and I will be able to work out our differences. FreedomAintFree 06:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss the changes you want to make to this article on the Talk page. After we reach consensus, we'll make the changes. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? For example, for about a month there was a poll conducted by Matt Towery on this subject that you found appropriate to include in the article lead. But Mr. Towery's commentary that accompanied those poll results has been deleted ... not just moved to a different part of the article, but deleted. Why? Is it because that commentary is the only criticism of the movement to impeach (which I will abbreviate as "MTI") that has ever appeared in this article? I'm assuming good faith and just asking a question.

I'd appreciate an answer. Before I made my most recent edit (restoring last night's version), it was a hagiography of MTI. And before I started working on this article in the first place, it was a hagiography of MTI. The purpose of Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken, is not to publish hagiographies for anti-Bush movements, politicians and organizations. It is to publish balanced and neutral articles about all subjects. Looking forward to working constructively with you all on this article and many more. FreedomAintFree 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)