Talk:George W. Bush

Fiscal figures etc. removed

The article is missing the main fiscal figures of the Bush administration. I added some of them in the following insertion, which was completely removed by another user even though the first paragraph is from the Congressional Budget Office, and in the last (third) paragraph just a dead link was replaced by a working one (it was reverted back to the dead link). The explanation was: "(Reverted 1 edit by Forp (talk): Removed polemic & restored sourced material. (TW))". If there is something to be improved in these well-sourced and relatively objective central fiscal figures, please, improve instead of removing them without replacing by an even better corresponding improvement. --Forp (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

During the George W. Bush administration federal government spending increased from $1789 billion to $2983 billion (70%) but the revenues only increased from $2025 billion to $2524 billion (from 2000 to 2008). Individual income tax revenues increased by 14%, corporate tax revenues by 50%, customs and duties by 40%. Discretionary defense spending increased by 107%, discretionary domestic spending by 62%, Medicare spending by 131%, social security by 51%, and income security spending by 130%. Cyclically adjusted revenues rose by 35% and spending by 65%.

The number of economic regulation governmental workers was increased by 91,196, whereas Bill Clinton had cut down the number by 969.

In a February 28, 2001, message to the Congress, Bush estimated that there would be a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next ten years.

I then Googled for further sources, should also the following paragraph be added? --Forp (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Also proportionally Bush increased government spending more than any predecessor since LBJ (including).

Are these facts meaningful in some way? Or are they just random facts used to reinforce a negative stereotype? 79.211.131.132 (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

They are among the most important figures about the presidency, and they are not to reinforce the stereotype: without these the article pretty much builds a stereotype. Of course, these paragraphs alone would not suffice, also much of the rest is needed to get a pluralistic view on Bush. Maybe some republican deleted them as they did not fit to their "anti-spending" hero? Or a left-wing democrat liking the biased "anti-spending" stereotype image that cannot stand those fiscal facts? Or somebody just did not believe those numbers and did not check the sources? Or? Hard to know, but these facts do not reinforce the stereotype. --Forp (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. These are clear and relevant facts related to the presidency of the person in the article. How can these not be relevant!? We should have a fact box in each president's Wikipedia article to showcase these kind of objective measures of all presidents. Also, I don't really understand the quarrel about "reinforcing a negative stereotype" - is Wikipedia supposed to be a politically correct and censored source that only showcases a specific point of view? Have I understood Wikipedia's rules poorly somehow, that all relevant and objective facts should be included? --Paukkumaissi70 (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to say these are relevant, especially because then-electee Bush campaigned with both issues. I think it is somewhat relevant as to his legacy and his integrity how he fared on such, for once, very clear cut measures, which he himself chose. Plus, that same yardstick has already been applied to most of the former US Presidents within Wikipedia, so that it's only just to continue the tradition. Decoy (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Bush found guilty of war crimes at an international war crimes tribunal. Relevant?

Nombember 2011 George Bush and Tony Blair was found guilty of War crimes at the international Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission [1, 2, 3]. Bush has even been sought arrested in Africa by Amnesty International [4]

It's my point of view that such information are relevant and should be included on this page also. It's already in Wikipedia [1].

Best regards, Martin Kaarup, Sweden

Sources:

[1] "Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission, viewed 2011-12-19

[2] Kuala Lumpur tribunal: Bush and Blair guilty, 2011-11-28, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111128105712109215.html, viewed 2011-12-19

[3] Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes (Video), 2011-11-23, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/211590.html, viewed 2011-12-19

[4] Amnesty calls on Africans to arrest Bush, 2011-12-02, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/213316.html, viewed 2011-12-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.24.106 (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually bother to read our article on this 'commission'? It has no authority whatsoever. It's creator, Mahathir Mohamad, is a questionable character to be running a 'tribunal', given his past record. While there may be a strong case that Bush should be held accountable for his actions (and Blair too, for that matter), nonsense like this isn't going to achieve anything beyond making more serious endeavours to bring this about lose credibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Check out this article on the "war crimes." I don't think one person or country can unilaterally declare someone a war criminal. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/22/george-w-bush-tony-blair-found-guilty-of-war-crimes-in-malaysia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmac36 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Post-presidency" section

I would be surprised if this correction has not come up. But in case it has not, the following statement is false: "In February 2011, Bush scrapped a planned visit to Switzerland because he feared arrest by Swiss authorities based on his acknowledgement that he ordered the waterboarding of detainees". No official statement made by Bush or those representing him made the claim that he "feared arrest" by the Swiss. In fact, numerous other articles - by more reputable news sources as well - directly contradict this statement. For example, the following AP news source states:

"Bush spokesman David Sherzer expressed regret that the Feb. 12 event was scrapped, but declined to comment on the reasons for the cancellation." It goes on to say: "A Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman told the AP that Bush would have enjoyed immunity from prosecution for any actions taken while in office based on an initial assessment of international law." Finally, "A lawyer for the Jewish nonprofit that had invited Bush, Robert Equey, said that the looming protests, including the potential for violence, were the primary factors for cancelling the event, not the threat of legal action against Bush." These statements are direct quotes from those leaders in power who know the situation first hand. There are no such quotes in the link cited on this Wikipedia article. The claim by protestors that their protests caused President Bush to cancel his trip lacks evidence, and is based more on speculation - given the statements from the authorities above who have the power to make these types of decisions - possibly to further their own agenda. Whatever the reasons, the article needs to be updated to erase the inherent bias it presents, perhaps as follows:

"In February 2011, a planned visit by Bush was canceled due to concerns of riots erupting from protests, stemming from the controversy over waterboarding of enemy combatants during the Bush Administration."

The next sentence discussing the Humans rights organizations submitting paperwork is false. In fact, they did not submit any paperwork because President Bush never made his trip to Switzerland (source 2). Therefore that sentence should also be deleted.

Source 1: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-cancels-swiss-trip-rights-activists-vow/story?id=12857195#.TwvYRPmwXsQ Source 2: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/07/george-bush-issued-travel-warning

I would make these edits myself but the page is locked down. To the moderator - please make these much needed corrections to erase false information from this page. Thank you.--Scuba31 (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You are a registered editor, so you should be able to make those edits. SMP0328. (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The page is "semi-locked" down. I am a new editor to the community, so maybe that is the problem? If I knew how to make the changes, believe me, I would.--Scuba31 (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This will tell when you can edit the article. SMP0328. (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So, at the current edit rate of 0.013 edits/day, that would be about... August 22? Time to step up the volume a bit. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)