Talk:George W. Bush

Bush is no longer "in office" please correct!!!

The page is locked but Bush is obviously no longer "in office".. Someone please update the status to reflect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.37.61 (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of him being in office still, it says 2001-2009. It might be the "In office [for]" in the infobox that you are refering to. --Clark89 (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

relax. read the line immediately after "in office". Anastrophe (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias in article

I think the following sentence at the end, making reference to his low approval rating, should be placed elsewhere in the article. This is his bio, not an attack on him. Ricky.Adams (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC).

Neoconservative?

For several years, I've heard the term neoconservative applied to Bush. The article on neonservatism even mentions that the term was heavily used when he became president. I came to this Wiki article wanting to find out when he had ever been a liberal and found nothing, not even a mention of the term here. Can anyone answer how the term neoconservative can be applied to him, and maybe put it in the article? Thanks. --Tim010987 (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• The trouble is that the term neoconservative, like many political labels, is slippery. It originally referred to ex-Democrats like Wolfowitz and Perle who were hawkish on foreign policy and therefore aligned with the Nixon and Reagan administrations. It then came to be applied to other conservatives with similar (highly interventionist) foreign-policy views like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who had never been liberals. Given that the Bush administration has closely followed their viewpoint, it seems fair to call Bush himself a neoconservative. Unfortunately, I don't have sources on hand for any of this. A. Parrot (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• The artixlw on neoconservatism seems to explain resonably well how the term is variously applied. In particular, it makes it clear that it is often applied to people who were always conservative. Actually not being an American, I've always thought the term was applied to people who were supportive of what is seens as new form of conservatism as opposed to the old form called paleoconservatism. I never knew it had some roots in conservatives who used to be liberals. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Counting the seconds

The top of the article mentions the exact point in time when Bush will no longer be president. I think mentioning the date is completely relevant, since he will be out of office in a matter of days, but saying the precise time when his second term expires makes it seem like the article is counting the seconds until he will be gone. If it is, then the neutrality of this article, or at least that sentence, is questionable. Not everybody is on the edge of their seat, waiting expectantly for Obama to solve all of our problems forever. Just a thought. --Sir Bradfordshire (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Are you actually questioning the neutrality of the article because it uses precise language regarding time?

I'm literally counting the seconds until you reply. You probably don't like that using a clock, but when you come up with a better way to mark time you let me know, OK?--71.17.188.132 (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a slap in the face, "Oh my gosh, we are 12 hours, 55 minutes, and 13 seconds before he is gone!!!". Most people would say the date, excluding the exact time, is more professional. 206.174.71.100 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush official website

The website for the George W. Bush Presidential Center (GWB's personal website) http://www.georgewbushlibrary.com, should be listed in addition to the White House website on GWB's page. After 1/20/09, it should just list the Presidential Center's site.

deleted, what the hell does barrack obama have to do with bush

Bush played baseball and was the head cheerleader senior year

This line is misleading. The article says Bush dressed up as a cheerleader on stage at a school event. This is misleading and needs to be taken off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transkar (talk • contribs) 07:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Which line are you referring to? According to reliable sources like CNN, he was head cheerleader at Andover Academy. He was also involved in various pranks, but these are incidental. Read the sources referenced in the article, please, rather than just attempt to guess their contents from the pictures. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

needs research - did bush graduate harvard or yale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.197.102 (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Both. See the article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's Al Gore

in the introduction to the article? It says who he defeated to become Governor of Texas and who he defeated to win his second term. But Al is curiously missing from the sentence, "In a close and controversial election, Bush was elected president in 2000 as the Republican candidate, receiving a majority of the electoral votes, but losing the popular vote." As this was the most important of the 3 elections, I think Al merits a mention (or you should take the names of the other two defeated candidates out). Atrapalhado (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added Al Gore at the end of the quoted sentence. SMP0328. (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Perceived shortcomings in response to Hurricane Katrina?

Neutrality is great, but I don't think you can call the government response a 'perceived shortcoming'. Naturally you don't want to have inflammatory language, but perceived makes it seem like their is some debate about it. I don't think logically that case can be made. JohnLease (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is perceived by many, but not by all. Thus the perception differs. Happyme22 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if 99% or far more of the experts believed and were quoted, repeatedly by all sources, that the Administration's handling of Katrina was either poor or terrible, someone somewhere views it differently and they should receive equal weight. I certainly couldn't find any sources that said that the government's handling of Katrina was anything other than bad, but if I removed that it would be edited out entirely as a POV violation despite the fact that none of the other editors would be able to find a source that said otherwise. Then again, some people don't believe water boarding is Torture, for example, despite the fact that 100% of experts are on board with that and the water boarding page sought out ANY differing opinions and found nothing that was not fringe and had to fight for months to get the language to refer to it for what it was... torture. RTRimmel (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I sent National Guard troops to LA in response. In talking to them and many workers with FEMA and other organizations the whole story isn't told. First of all the state has to send the declaration to the Federal Government. It did not get done in a timely manner. Second, I know first hand, all you had to do was drive over the border and get a different response. At the displaced person center at the convention center in Baton Rouge I witnessed a lot of what didn't get reported. People too lazy to walk 50 yards to the Red Cross Mess tent to eat, it had to be brought to them, people using their government cards to buy non-essentials and to go gamble at a recently reopened casino, no willingness to help in clean up, people to lazy to go to the bathroom so they urinated in bottles, and having sex in front of kids. When we crossed the border into Mississippi, we thought we were in heaven. They felt for the most part the response was adequate. People helped us unload materials and were very thankful we were there. Didn't get a lot of that in LA.76.177.224.238 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to imply anything, but I work for a state chief executives office of emergency services, and it's well know in the community that like the rest of us Louisiana had been given millions and millions of dollars year after rear for disaster preparation... including levy reinforcement. And year after year the money given for disaster preparation was diverted by the local officials to people and programs that had more to do with getting re-elected than it did with disaster preparation. The money diversion is easily tracked through FEMA but no one wants to shed light on Louisiana's "creative money handling" else they be labeled as something that they aren't. So I'm not sure it does the truth much good to point at Mr. Bush as the root of the problem. --A. Renner (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Trying to make language more accurate

the U.S. economy entered its second recession under Bush, and his administration took a firmer hand with the economy, enacting multiple economic stimulus packages.

To say "a firmer hand" is perhaps overstating the case. It would probably be more accurate to say that the admin became more involved in dealing with the economy. A firmer hand...not so clear.

I changed it to 'firmer hand' since more firm is grammatically less desireable. Firm has a strong form, firmer. More and most should be used on adjectives that do not have this form. JohnLease (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to another's post re Katrina...it would probably be more accurate to say that the admin's response was widely perceived as a failure. The current language is probably somewhat misleading. A CBS/NYT poll said 17% thought response adequate and 80% did not (in the few days after Katrina). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrucker (talk • contribs) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

criticism

howcome there's no section on criticism, yet, on the vladimir putin page, there is. This shows wikipedia is clearly biased: either there should be criticism of everybody, or criticism of nobody? am I right? it's a clear double standard. I'm sure there's plenty to criticise bush on....219.79.53.187 (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Criticism of George W. Bush didn't fit the article - it got one on its own. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 10:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Very funny, but that's not true. Please see WP:CRITICISM. It is pretty consistent across Wikipedia political biographies that criticism sections intrude on WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Criticisms are interpersed throughout the article. Happyme22 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there no article called Criticism of George W. Bush on your Wikipedia? Is the internet censored in your region? Poor you... ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 10:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Happyme22 you say there's no section on criticism, it's included across the article, and this is in all wikipedia articles. but vladimir putin has a section, and a WHOLE ARTICLE on criticism. This seems to contradict what you say, does this mean I am allowed to delete the criticism article on Putin?

This shows that people are using wikipedia to put forward their pro-western political point of view. It's unacceptable. check the putin article, it's unacceptable219.78.14.77 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Criticism of George W. Bush covers the criticism, while this article represents the consensus of what has been agreed upon to be a neutral depiction of the man. Of course, consensus can change and you're welcome to make a case for any additional material you'd like to include.--Loodog (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

term not over?

Both Obama's and Bush's pages both say they are president. Shouldn't something be done about this?

I've made some preparatory edits: seems to make little difference seeing that Barack's presidency is imminent. --Marianian (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ok good stuff ah, Bush has been chosen to be president for a little longer i see. He's probably checking on here himself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.99.114 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't see how it's fair to have a whole page of criticism of Bush when Bill Clinton and Barack Obama don't even have criticism sections in their articles, much less entire pages. Are we trying to be just another biased CNN or MSNBC? By the way, shouldn't there be a mention of the page in the article? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. It seems a bit too unfair and it struck me as very odd. I think it needs to be deleted.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Criticism of George W. Bush article is linked in the fourth paragraph of the lead. If you think that Criticism of Bill Clinton and Criticism of Barack Obama articles should exist, then please create them. If you think Criticism of George W. Bush should be deleted, then please nominate it for deletion. This really isn't the place to discuss such things. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Um why the heck did you reply here as opposed to the thread above which is actually discussing the criticism section Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I cite slow server speeds (at the time, probably due to history in the making) and a nearing end of the lunch hour at school as my excuses. :) PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush's Presidential Portrait

His portrait should be here. What does everyone think? I know he's unpopular and all but talking neutrally. Imadaqu93 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, his official White House portrait should indeed be present in this article. I plan on adding some more to the post presidency section a little later and will work it in there. Happyme22 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No longer current President

Can someone please update the first line of the article to say that Bush is no longer the current President? Obama's term began two and a half hours ago. 87.65.158.193 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that change has already been made. SMP0328. (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"becoming the first national leader in history to declare war upon a strategy."

Is there some sort of citation for this or an explanation? The lacking explanation, as is, may be perceived as either a negative or novel opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akane00 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The President can't declare war, only Congress can76.177.39.156 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Happyme22 (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually (as far as my understanding goes) the President declares war and usually (but not in general) needs the approval of congress. I beg for more detailed clarification from knowledgeable editors.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Article I of the U.S. Constitution give Congress the power to declare war and fund a military. Article II gives the Pres the power of Commander-in-Chief and the ability to mobilize said miltary. However, the Pres has to report any movement to Congress and after a period of time under the War Powers Act, Congress has the decision to if troops stay or go home. That is why I have felt people have given the President far too much credit over Iraq in all accounts. If Congress felt things were wrong they could have pulled them out of there over 5 years ago since they have that power.MustangSixZero 01:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Read up on what Rosevelt did with the navy and you'll realize how little power congress actually has when faced with an exectutive that 'goes it alone'. In short, Rosevelt wanted to send essentially the entire US navy around the world. Congress gave him enough money to move half the navy around the world. He sent the whole navy half way around the world and then came back and asked for more money. Congress gave him more money. Pulling out the troops through lack of funding is a quick way to lose an election, historically, Congress will never do it. Simple as that. RTRimmel (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in the political reasoning. However, by definition and by the Consititution that is not correct. That still does not mean that Roosevelt could declare war. No President by Article II and I of the Consitution can declare war, only Congress. President's can, through the power of CinC and the War Powers Act, move troops at their discretion. However, the funding and allowance comes only from Congress after a period of time. Thus the statement that Bush declared war is incorrect. All you have to do is read the Constitution and the War Powers Act to understand. Congress still has an obligation and power to move troops if need be.76.177.224.238 (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So we are in agreement that there is a difference between what the Constitution says and what the President/Congress actually does in some situations. I didn't say a thing about Bush declaring war on anything, however technically several 'wars' have been conducted by the President with little approval of Congress. None of this is relevant to this discussion however. If you'll remember, Congress attempted to place a timetable for withdrawal into the funding for the war on several occasions only to have Bush veto them. Sure they have the power, but Bush had the power to ignore them and did so. RTRimmel (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"In 2008, the U.S. economy entered its second recession under Bush"

The word "entered" may be considered misleading depending on the definition of recession. It is generally known that Bush inherited a recession, which would make the "second" recession "entered" invalid. Again, this depends on definition, i.e. if you count the stock market drop after 9/11 as a recession then this statement is true. If that period after 9/11 is termed a recession then it is important to put it in context of the time as well as a balanced view of the market's upswing after.

This seems to be an endemic problem with this page. There are a lot of words that call into question the neutrality of the information being presented. Word choice is very important and I would encourage others to help refine this page to a more balanced presentation of data. I understand Mr. Bush is not liked by many of us, but this is not the place to sneak in cheap shots or a forum of political opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akane00 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Bush inherited the recession that began on March 2001 (according to the NBER), from the president at that time. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be reworded. Happyme22 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to comply with WP:NPOV in the strict sense, the article should say something like: "According to the NBER, George W. Bush inherited the recession from whomever was president during the month of March 2001." siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

...sorry. I shouldn't be so facetious. I actually do agree with Happyme, that better sources and more suitable wording should be found. The "March 2001" recession was from the slow deflation of the dot-com bubble, which definitely happened under Clinton's watch. Nonetheless, I would like to see a solid and politically uninvolved comment on the matter. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If Bush took office in Jan 2001, and a recession officially began in Mar 2001, then how could he have inherited it? My recollection is that the recession actually began in the Fall of 2000 during the election. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That was a downturn, the recession officially began in March 2001. Soft quarter before, soft quarter after. The 9 11 attack also triggered a downturn, but the economy recovered enough that the effects could not be considered a recession. The statement "In 2008, the U.S. economy entered its second recession under Bush" is factually true and quite bluntly most presidents have at least one recession under their belts so its not even worth its own sentence, which is why I crammed in with talk about the signifigant recession under Bush. It was also used in the source and I thought it clever. There have been 8 recessions since WW2 and 11 presidents. Those are not good odds. RTRimmel (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem was that the recession was very mild by any standard and was followed up with 52 months of growth in the jobs. The way the administration always spun it was that the recession was Clinton's fault, but the recovery in all of its glory was Bush's due to tax cuts. The critics can spin it, easily, that changes in the economic structure by Bush's tax plans caused the recession and strong growth under Clinton allowed the market to recover easily and caused more jobs. Neither is 100% correct and both are oversimplifying it of course, but recessions do happen to the best of presidents. RTRimmel (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I would follow the general concensis of the certain editors on the page and simply delete the offending section via a subtraction edit without any commentantary, or misleading comments, and hope no one notices. Say its controvertial or something. That's a good way of getting rid of sourced material as well. For example, recently someone removed the section about Iraq war casualties because it was controvertial (despite the fact that the source listed was from the US) and then when it was reverted someone else split it in half and required cites for the 2nd half, despite the fact that the same number of cites were on teh first half. After it was cited and a cite tag was placed on the first half was it finally 'done'. Another editor recently removed the fact that Bush left office with the lowest approval numbers in history with a vague BLP notation which was not accurate. Quoting Wiki policy only works when you are right, mainly. Another example would be the Katrina Debacle, it went bad. Very very bad. But its POV to say that it was handled about as badly as it could possibly be handled, and despite the fact that no-one provided any sources saying that it was an utter failure, we have to leave the percieved weasle word in front of it. REmember, it was the percieved destruction of the US Fleet in Hawaii, allegedly by Japan, that possibly caused the US to enter what some consider to be World War 2(despite the fact that many small african nations were not involved at all). But if you try to put something postitive about Bush on the page, remember those very same editors who will fight tooth and nail about the exact level and accuracy of the negative cites will politely, and quickly, turn the other way. Not that there is a double standard mind you. And the first recession was by all accounts a very minor one, which is the reason it didn't get much of a mention, such minor recessions are part of the US economy every few years and are hardly noteworthy despite what some might think. It wasn't Bush's fault, but it also wasn't signifigant enough that anyone cared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.18.30 (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's funny how some try to rewrite history in WP, bending the facts to blame negative aspects on someone else. The real world doesn't buy it anyway.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, I spent a bit of time digging up sources on a few of those points. RTRimmel (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not the duty of Wikipedia to decide who is right and who is wrong, and we will never be able to fairly determine who should get their way; it is our duty to neutrally explain both sides of the issue. I say we ought to report that some people blame Bill Clinton while other people blame Bush. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

assassination as foreign policy

Why is the 2005 assassination attempt listed under the foreign policy section? Did this effect Bush's foreign policy some how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.91.24 (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess because of where it happened. But it could be moved or mentioned in the "Presidency" section which should have a short summary of the subs.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but assassination is not the foreign policy of the United States, no matter what you may think. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

post presidency

The Bushes have bought a house in Dallas.[1] I think this should be mentioned. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Add a sentence.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If anything, I believe that the Bushes' purchase is the only part of his post presidency that is worth being included in an Encyclopedia article as it is indicative of where he plans to spend a substantial amount of time. (I think it would be absurd to read in what type of buggy Lincoln left town.) Keep in mind that this section was created by someone who wanted to add a POV comment that Bush watched the inauguration 'with a cross look on his face.' See 'Revision as of 21:18, 20 January 2009' by user:Galaxydog2000 Ellensn (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeating facts

The last two sentences of the lead, although technically differant, say the same thing. Must we continue to bash the man and not follow WP:BLP?--Jojhutton (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To those who wish to know or care. Bush got a bump in the polls in the last few days, so the statement about him having the lowest approval rating of any president when leaving office is no longer true. See this article from Gallup.com [2]. So it no longer matters either way.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

More accurately he got a bump in ONE poll. So it still matters. The historical unpopularity of this "leader" is well worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.128.178 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Assertion in opening section

From the third paragraph:

"...Bush announced a global War on Terrorism, ordered an invasion of Afghanistan that same year and an invasion of Iraq in 2003, becoming the first national leader in history to declare war upon a strategy." (emphasis mine)

The first national leader in history? Nah. I can think of plenty of examples that could pass as declaring war "upon a strategy", which is a pretty vague term in any case. Unless there's a good citation in support of that, I think the bolded part needs to go -- or be rewritten -- especially given that it's on the opener to a widely-read article. Would an admin please comment on this and make the change if in agreement? Thanks. 24.174.68.191 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this issue was mentioned a couple of sections up. I'd apologize for repetition just a day later, but since the statement in question is still there...24.174.68.191 (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Article I of the US Constitution, only the Congress can declare war.76.177.224.238 (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 to be exact. SMP0328. (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"former President "

Has everybody noticed how people are going round to various articles and adding "former" in describing events that BWB did when he was in the office of president. This is wrong. Same for Cheney. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

He isnt the President

SO why does Wikipedia claim he still is, he's been out for more then 24hrs! Thanatos465 (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say he is still President? It looks like you found a place that just hasn't been caught yet. Let someone know where you found it or fix it when you find it. A new name 2008 (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

succession box

I added the exact dates (Jan. 20) to when his presidency began and ended in the succession box. This brings uniformity (other presidential pages give the exact date), and I think people would want to know the exact date. --EATC —Preceding unsigned comment added by EATC (talk • contribs) 22:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

broadness

This page seems to be a bit too broad, especially the opening section. The article also seems somewhat over negative and fails to mention some of the greater achievements of the Bush Administration. Can we get that fixed up? I would like wikipedia to remain nonpartisan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.81.184 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Update

Hes not currently "In office." Change needs to be made below his picture. (Outonawhim (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

→ The "In Office" tag, which is part of the template, denotes the dates that the person occupied the office (shown directly below "In Office"). The dates of his Presidency and Gubernatorial terms in Texas are accurate and reflect the dates from which he served as the Governor of Texas, and then President of the United States. No changes required, the template is accurate as it stands... --Wikisystole (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Executive One

The Post presidency sections contains the following

Following the inauguration of Barack Obama, former President Bush and his family boarded a presidential helicopter typically used as Marine One to travel to Andrews Air Force Base.[289] The call sign of the helicopter was designated Executive One for the flight to Andrews Air Force Base.[290]

The article it references is most likely in error but I did not edit the page because I do not know this for a certainty. Executive One is a call sign used exclusively by the sitting President if he is flying on a civilian aircraft (to date it has never happened). See the Executive One article. If normal aviation rules are followed the helicopter normally called Marine One would have gone by its tail number and NOT by Executive One. Likewise if the President is not aboard one of the two Executive air craft they go by the call signs A2800 or A2900 and not as Air Force One. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoss789 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be bad information, or they may have made an exception -- in any event, it not detrimental to our understanding of the 2009 inauguration or George W. Bush. I'm going to remove it. Happyme22 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran-contra 2.0

Rose, David (2008-04). "The Gaza Bombshell". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2009-01-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeandré du Toit (talk • contribs) 11:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So? One "investigative" reporter, to date, trying to sell a controversial fashion magazine. I think we will need a bit more before the POV pushers can use this to kick him after he is gone. Newguy34 (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we wait and see if the Obama Administration does anything regarding this. If there's any prosecutions, then we can put it in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Article is simply an op-ed. And I'm quite certain we don't source opinion pieces to support facts, unless it's commentary by an individual. A little off-topic: the Obama Administration has no control over any silly persecution of our ex-President, though I'm sure any idea of his would be instantly met with wild and glorious cheering. Blah. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush approval rating

The article states that Bush's approval rantings fell to 19%, yet the sources show Bush not falling below a 23-24% approval ranting.75.54.130.202 (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the source, which is in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Approval ratings are based on polls, so reports based on certain polls will differ from reports based on other polls. There's probably no "official" approval rating, and there's no telling that any of them are accurate anyway. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is under this line of logic, you can discredit any source that you do not feel is accurate. Fortunately Wikipedia has a policy for that. Wikipedia:Verifiability They are verifiable numbers from credible sources. Polling is a science even if you happen to disagree with it. RTRimmel (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This section is very important to those who want to make sure history is written "correctly" and that sentiments about the subject are etched in stone as soon as possible. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem being, of cource, that the sentiments about the subject will change over time making the "etching in stone" part unfair, impractical, and revisionist (in the future). Newguy34 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that logic is that we have information now that comes from reliable sources and to discount all of it because it may be proven wrong in 20 years leaves us with very little to actually put in the article. If you've looked at the edit summaries of this article, nothing in here is etched in stone and as new information becomes available we can add it in. RTRimmel (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating it, just recognizing it. I agree that we go with what we have that is as current as possible. Given that, there is a statement in the current BLP about a "poll" taken in 2006 of 744 historians about how Bush's presidency has been regarded. I think it (and the remainder of that paragraph) is a candidate for either "freshening" up or removing given that it lacks current relevance. Newguy34 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A 'poll' containing 744 members professional historians and another including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners. Its the only professional academic opinion in the section right now. If you can find another poll with that many diplomas behind it I'd suggest replacing it but until we have one I don't see how we could. RTRimmel (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on now. 400 years ago many thousand academics thought the world was flat. Should we still include that information today? Newguy34 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that? In 400 years things have been proven different? Okay. We are talking about 3 years. Its another apples to oranges comparison. We have a 400 year old theory vs the weight of current scientific theory and unsurprisingly current scientists think different. We have a 3 year old poll, and we don't have anything more current and both are likely to be using the same methodology to get their answers and its doubtful that there will have been a massive shift in their professional opinions. Instead of complaining that the poll is dated, find a current academic poll that has a bunch of diplomas behind it that says otherwise and your argument gets much more tenable, but right now it doesn't hold any water. RTRimmel (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A million diplomas wouldn't matter. The "same methodology" wouldn't matter. It's about reliable sources, remember? How do you know there isn't a more current poll? Newguy34 (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked? Then I looked again. Did you find one? If so, again, please post it. The ones I found were less through than the first one and not statistically different enough in their results so I did not feel inclined to add them in. And the polls meets all of the requirements for verifiability and can be considered reliable as Wikipedia needs it to be additionally it is as reliable as many other cites on the page so that argument falls flat too. You are not adding anything to the quality of this article with your current logic so either find a good source that proves your argument or let it die. RTRimmel (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, what about my statement "I'm not advocating" are you unable to understand? If there is a more recent poll from a reliable source, I believe it should be substituted. "Less th[o]rough", you say? You don't get to decide on quality, so please watch the bias. As to the rest of what you wrote, I am unable to decipher your run-on sentence, and therefore incapable of adequately responding. That you are incapable of understanding my "logic" (it's not really my logic, but rather my assertion), is insufficient to declare that I am not adding to the quality of the article. Let's try to watch the POV, shall we? Please comment on the article and edits, not other editors. Thanks. Newguy34 (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So you don't have any other sources. Fine. And I always love the ad hominin followed by a discussion of an editors lack of bias and brilliant intellect (while making a yet another circular argument, so far you've done an apples to oranges comparison, an attack on the sources while providing no other sources to back it up, and then an attack on me) whereas the other editor is attempting to destroy both the article and Wikipedia as a whole, by saying to find a better source if you disagree with the one in the article. Any who, back to the original point. The paragraph is fine. The cites are fine. The sources are the most current. So, given a lack of any meaningful improvements offered by other editors, it sounds like it should stay. Thanks for the help. RTRimmel (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem?! Where? I see a hasty generalization with your comments about how I may be trying to claim that you are destroying Wikipedia. I also see a red herring by attempting to point out all the places you perceive me to have proferred logical fallicies. No matter how many times you throw up the proverbial and time-honored "there's another apples to oranges comparison" you are missing the point, with all due respect. Where in my comments have I attacked the source? Where in my comments have I made a circular arguement? Where in my comments have I said I lacked bias? Bias is fine, but the articles have to be free of bias (as much as possible). I suggest two doses of "read my comments more closely before you attribute statements to me that I did not make" and then let's get back to improving the article. I think most prudent people would agree that suggesting that there may be a more current source for some statement, is attempting to do just that. Newguy34 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So, as promised, back to the article. The statement regarding the results of the poll seem fine, if that is the most current writing on the subject. But, the rest of the paragarph about the credentials of those polled is unnecessary and irrelevant. If the cite comes from a reliable source, then it is in. If it doesn't, then it is out. Simple as that, without all the "here's, reader, why you should believe this more than other polls that may get added to this article because it has a lot of historians with a lot of letters after their names." Wiki doesn't decide quality (as it related to this matter). Wiki doesn't decide truth. If the source is good, the cite should be able to stand on its own. Newguy34 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article should properly represent the poll, which HNN states up front is "unscientific". To present it otherwise is highly misleading. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and the article text already says that the polls in question were "informal", but to include the rest about the pedigreed historians seems to cut the exact opposite way. What does it add to the validity of the poll or relevance to the BLP? Newguy34 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Because if you ask a room full of doctors about an infection you'll get a more accurate answer than if you ask a room full of the general population? A recent poll asked a question that amounted to "is intelligent design the reason that we are here" and 45% of Americans said yes, the same question asked to a room full of biologists got less than a 1% response (0% actually). So if you ask a group of historians what their opinion on a historical figure is, even informally, it carries more weight than with the general population who tend to be stupid and uninformed about a great number of things. Then again, if your average person could do a quadruple bypass while waxing nostalgic about the greater benefits of the Lincoln Presidency and giving tips on molecular biology, the world would be a strange place indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.18.30 (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not even sure where to go with this, so I'll give it the "huh?!" The poll was an opinion poll, which didn't ask for an expert analysis, just personal opinion. We could have asked a bunch of professional chefs, or a gaggle of CPA's and the fact that they were chefs or CPA's wouldn't matter. Let me be clearer since I sometimes get accused of making convoluted arguements that don't seem to make much sense on their face: When conducting an opinion poll, what matters (i.e., what is relevant) are the poll results, not the intelligence of those polled. Newguy34 (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The intelligence of those polled directly affects the results and is therefor relevant. If you polled Arizona what they thought of the Steelers, you would anticipate different results than if you asked the same question in Pittsburg and that sort of information would have to be put into the article to give context to the results. So a poll of professional historians is going to have different results than a poll from the general us population and is therefor notable. RTRimmel (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you in all cases except when dealing with the highly-scientific matter of personal opinion. On that subject, we all get the same say, and we all (well, all who are US citizens) have valued input, which is no more and no less valuable than anyone else, including the professional historians. Newguy34 (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So if you ask a doctor and a 3 year old their personal opinion on a disease, you should expect both to offer advise of the same value because both answers are just personal opinion and therefor have the same value(d input). No more and no less valuable than anyone else, including the professional historians doctors. Of course, we might ... (just maybe and its a stretch) say that the doctor may know a tad more than a toddler, about something in his field of study. Or we could go with the proven and true logic that all people have the valued input at the same level(excepting of course that any polling expert will tell you that that opinion is a load.) But a polling of doctors vs a polling of toddlers about something medical, as Newguy has pointed out, would have opinions that are are equally as valuable. An average US citizen would look at the results and think, "Hmmm. . . terible disease ravages midwest, the doctors say to get innoculated and the toddlers say crayons, both are equally valuable... I'll go crayons."

Name Pronunciation has ben Vandalized

I'm not sure which "established registered user" did this, but I doubt "Wan-kur" is the pronunciation key for George W. Bush.

Someone please change this back to the correct key.

Magnus357 (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been reverted. Thanks for the heads up! --Happyme22 (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush's Presidential Portrait 2

Someone who can, please change the caption for the portrait shown in the Post Presidency section. It is not his Official White House portrait. It is a portrait commissioned by the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery. The official White House portrait has not yet been commissioned. 204.128.192.3 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are correct. I'll change it. Happyme22 (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush Final Approval Rating

Instead of mentioning his low approval rating of 19%, which I would like to a source for, his exit approval rating show be placed in the opening section. He ended his Presidency with a 34% approval rating with gallup and 35% with rasmussen reports.[3][4] His exit approval rating is also actually the 3rd lowest in history, not lowest. This can be found in the gallup link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.81.184 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the specific polling numbers and other things from the lead into the "public perception" section, where they rightfully belong. All the numbers and such were too much for the lead section, which is meant to provide a very broad and general overview of the subject. I've chronologically ordered his poll numbers in the perception section as well (rest assured, it is all there).

As for what the IP is saying above, those too are interesting numbers and should be included alongside the others in the public perception section. Depending on who the poll was conducted by, there is never going to be a definite "he was second" or "he was third" in disapproval. Happyme22 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is here, it is in the article. Right after the 19% actually. As I said before, we had those references up at the top of the page for the past several months, sans the actual numbers, and you can move them into the perceptions section but I give it about a week, at most, before we get a Bush has the Highest approval rating on record back in there. I would prefer to see us add it back in before then as it gets to be a nasty set of edit wars to get what, in essence, we had before a few users decided that more information was necessary. In short, you solution will aggravate the problem more than correct it. Further we are getting a string of double standard edits, so hopefully now that Bush is out of office things will die down a bit sooner rather than later. RTRimmel (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If the "Bush had the highest" comes back, I'll be the first to support its removal. In my time here on Wikipedia, I've learned not to be afraid to do something because of a consequence that may or may not happen. If it is added back, we take it to the talk page and say why it is inappropriate. But those poll numbers, long sentences, and a careful attempt at NPOV was, as I said in my edit summary, a bit silly and needed to go. Happyme22 (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning on going to President Truman's article and removing the popularity information from the lead there as well? The main reason the information about Bush's popularity keeps popping up is that it is notable. He did have the highest. He did have the lowest. He did have the worst 2nd term, in terms of popularity, on record. He did have the highest disapproval numbers on record. Whitewashing it doesn't do anyone any favors either. RTRimmel (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see what real whitewashing is, go to the Obama page.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was also hoping that accusations of "whitewashing" wouldn't start flying. My edits were in accordance with WP:LEAD, which says that the lead is an overview of the article's subject; everything included should be given appropriate weight. Giving out specific numbers -- highest, lowest, highest approval, highest disapproval, lowest ever, etc -- does not contribute positively to the lead. Statements should be general to encourage readers to actually read the full article. If readers want more on exactly how high Bush's approval went then they can read the article. If they want more on exactly how low it went, they can read the article. If we are to present everything in the lead, why write the rest of the article? There's no whitewashing going on. If you read the public perception section, all the numbers -- from 90% to 19% -- are there. And that is where they should be. Happyme22 (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What is this "near record low" bullshit? Unarguably he left office with the lowst aproval rating since the polling's inception. I'm fixing this. Neverfades (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief

Maybe some more words about PEPFAR would be appropriate. Among other things it supported the prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission allowing nearly 240,000 infants to be born HIV-free. The PEPFAR website describes it as the the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease in history. The Avert website states that funding for HIV/AIDS treatment increased steadily to reach $18.8 billion for the first five-year period - exceeding the original commitment of $15 billion.

However, looking at the current Wikipedia article a totally different picture is outlined. Here I only see two lines about a broken promise. So can someone shed some light on this? -Armin B. Wagner (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that PEPFAR needs to be added. I had planned on doing this, but I ran into a lot of other things and just lost the time. I'll add it soon, though. --Happyme22 (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, probably the article should also mention the Global gag rule, and the negative impact this has had on HIV prevention. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic data

In the article it's said "Inflation-adjusted median household income was flat while the nation's poverty rate increased", while in the source nothing of the sort's said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha best (talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Its on page 18 of the source, it basically says that the adjusted income increased less than one percent (significantly less) and poverty increased several percentages. Anything less than a percent is considered flat in economic terms. I believe that the quote is lifted directly from somewhere in that 88 page document, but the document clearly supports the sentence that he included. If necessary I'll pop 3 or 4 more cites into the article that quote from that so that its more obvious but the short is the Economy didn't do very well under Bush. Whether or not that is Bush's fault is debatable, but the fact that is performed poorly is not. RTRimmel (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In the source it's said that the real median income between 2004 and 2005 increased by 1.1%. On page 20 it's said: "the official poverty rate in 2005 was 12.6 percent, not statistically different from 2005." So the data in the article contradicts the source.Sasha best (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting bout of selective reading. The next sentence is "After 4 years of consecutive

increases, the poverty rate stabilized at 12.6 percent in 2005— higher than the most recent low of 11.3 percent in 2000 and lower than the rate in 1959 (22.4 percent), the first year for which poverty estimates are available" Which seems to support the sources. I'll go out and find a simpler source that says the same thing if you dislike the official census pages so much. Since Bush's term is over, I'll get a 2000-2008 numbers as the current numbers are overly generous. RTRimmel (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is responsible for material edits to this page?

From time to time I have checked on this page and (at times) it seems to try to be honest with the facts. But other times I have to say it misses the mark.

A few years ago Mr. Bush's primary bio was accurate but it seems to have been changed. I'm just wondering why.

In my opinion there has been an ongoing attempt to paint this man as something of a "dunce" and minimizes his education and experience. To that end I would bring your attention to the missing reference to his Harvard education and post graduate degree in Business Administration.

I don't know about you, but Harvard is one of the hardest schools to get into, and the business schools if one of the hardest schools to get into at Harvard.

I think it would give a more accurate impression of the man's education if the reference to his FULL educational credentials be replaced in the primary bio rather than relegated to two words half way down the article.

Thank you, A. Renner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renner95634 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.
--A. Renner (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that GW Bush is not as dumb as some have made him out to be. A Harvard education is by no means a gimme, no matter who your father and grand father were. It comes down to linguistics sometimes. He sounds and speaks like the southerner he is. He is laid back in his articulation of the english language. Obama is just the opposite. Obama doesn't have a southern drawl, so he must automatically must be smarter than everyone else. My opinion is that Bush's education is very relevant to the article and should be readded.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you feel improvements need to be made to the article, I recommend you make them when you can. SMP0328. (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing Parts of Opening Section

I look at Barack Obama's opening section and then I look at George W. Bush's and I see a big difference. Obama's seems to praise him in a slanted way whereas Bush's contains a lot of negativity, including nothing about his second term.

I think the President's AIDS Program and the fact that he graduated from Harvard Business school need to be added to the opening section. Can we actually have these done by the editors?? The editors here always say "yeah we'll take care of it" but they don't do it. Lets make this website a bit more balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.81.184 (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Changes to Article

I’m suggesting a few changes to the third and fourth paragraphs of this article, as it appears biased. In the spirit of scholarly honesty, I’ll admit that I did support many of Bush’s policies, though I hope that fact has not clouded my judgment when making these suggestions. I believe they’re mostly grammatical suggestions—changing a word or phrase here and there that can be perceived as biased to something that is neutral.

Change: In addition to national security issues, President Bush attempted to promote policies on the economy, health care, education, and social security reform.

To: In addition to national security issues, President Bush promoted policies on the economy, health care, education, and social security reform.

Bush promoted policies; whether or not any or all of the promoted policies were acted upon doesn’t mean that they weren’t promoted. To say he “attempted to promote” policies is inaccurate.

Change: In 2005, the Bush administration was forced to deal with the apparent failures of its handling of Hurricane Katrina.

To: In 2005, the Bush administration was forced to deal with widespread criticism of its handling of Hurricane Katrina.

“apparent failures” seems entirely too biased, especially when the argument can be made that the federal government could not act before the state and local governments. “Widespread criticism” captures the public opinion of the administration’s actions (or lack thereof) without blatant appearance of bias.

Possible Change: and his administration took more direct control of the economy, enacting multiple economic stimulus packages.

If we’re going to say “more direct control,” we need to cite a source stating why it is “more direct.” Specifically, “more direct” than what—previous administrations or his administration prior to that time? “More direct” implies that at some other point there was a less direct control, and such a statement needs to be cited.

Change: Though Bush was a popular president for much of his first term,[10] his popularity declined sharply during his second term to a near-record low.[11][12][13][14][15]

To: For much of his first term, Bush was regarded as a popular president, obtaining at one point the highest approval rating of any US president [I believe that information is correct, but do correct me if I’m mistaken]. His popularity declined sharply during his second term to a near-record low.

The term “though” implies that his popularity is overshadowed by his unpopularity. In an unbiased article, that should be left for the reader to decide.

Finally, throughout the discussion (I haven’t scanned through the article for this), contributors have been using the phrase “Mr. Bush.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a former US president keep the title “President”? I understand many people don’t approve of his actions as president, but that doesn’t negate the fact that he was elected president (at least) once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.179.123 (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)