Talk:George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States

The Purpose

I think its important to point out that the point out that the purpose of this article is to chronicle what George W. Bush did during his first term as president.--The_stuart 22:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Creating this page

This is a section of the page George W. Bush that was originally moved because of "NPOV" problems and redundent information already on that page.

Given that there is no dispute noted here, and that the only comment that *is* here is a) neutral and b) unsigned; I'm removing the dispute notice. If someone wants it back, they can sign their name. Baylink 00:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have been keeping up on the $388 billion spending bill that has been shuffled around in congress over the past week in this article. However the section is getting to be less and less about Bush. Does anyone know the actual name of that bill or if there is already an article on wikipedia about it so I can move the information out of that article and to some where more relevent?

I've placed this information in Talk:2004 congressional spending bill for the time being.--The_stuart 18:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Eric Buisson né Bush

Eric Buisson is an Englishman who lives in France, who was born in 1930. In March 2003 he reached the news when he changed his name. He was born Eric Bush, but because he didn't want to share his name with George W. Bush, he changed his name. Buisson is the French word for Bush. Buisson said that "this name Bush will go down in history as that of a tyrant". Buisson also said he was no pacifist. He served in the army in 1949, and he didn't oppose the Gulf War of 1991. The British Consulate in France wouldn't confirm his name change, stating it was a private matter. http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_765547.html?menu=news.latestheadlines.worldnews

Is there a way to integrate significant trivia onto the page? 132.205.15.43 00:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • I don't think this page is the right place for this. It dosn't really have anything to do with the events of Bush's first term--The_stuart 15:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the British Consulate in France. If this guy wants to change his name as a protest, that's his business. Myself, if I were called Bush, I'd consider that I have as much right to my own name as any American president, and try to act in such a way as to add glory to my name. Plus, this could just be urban myth anyway. - PaulHammond 12:24, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Substantive

Regardless of the argument...it stands as a fact that the coalition did argue that they had sufficient grounds for the "invasion" due to Iraqi and Saddam's failure to fully or even substantively comply with repeated UN resolutions and sanctions voted on throughout the 1990's by the UN, the UN Security Council, Nato, the EU and other organizations. Furthermore, though Rumfeld may have stated that they had conclusive proof of WMD in Iraq, inserting that this was based on a college puke's term paper is completely leftist POV. The phrase to leave Saddam in power..."especially with an arsenal of WMDs" is also inserted as if it is a quote which it is not.--MONGO 21:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's not forget that those resolutions and sanctions were also ratified by the members of the U.N.

• No one inserted that the "conclusive evidence" mentioned by Rumsfield refered to the document in question.
• The phrase re:WMD was not put in quotes in the article, nor is there any implication that it was a quotation.
• The fact that the only documents cited as evidence were a college student's term paper is FACT, not POV.
• It's inclusion adds BALANCE to the POV that the Bush Adminstration provided documentary evidence.

Kevin Baas^talk 20:00, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Opinion eliminated...stick to facts

I can find plenty of opinion that would counter this...it is nothing but opinion: " n May of 2004, Bush's approval rating had fallen to 46%. By then, George W. Bush had become one of the most hated or loved public figures in recent memory.The opinion goes on to say: "Some said that the WMDs were a lie to get access to oil reserves in Iraq, and Bush had committed young Americans lives for financial gain. Others felt that the president had adequate reason to attack, and that he truly believed there were WMDs there, and was acting in the best interest of the United States. These disagreements led to a deep division in the country, and fueled a renewed interest in politics that had long been dormant or nonexistent." I eliminated it along with: "The United States now intended to take every measure necessary to remain the only military super power in the world."--MONGO 08:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you can find plenty of opinion that would counter those things. However, opinions are opinions, not to be confused with facts. Many people have opinions that are counter to facts. However, when a fact is countered by an opinion, it remains a fact. Do you dispute the factual accuracy of the sentence:

• In May of 2004, Bush's approval rating had fallen to 46%.

or the sentence:

• By then, George W. Bush had become one of the most hated or loved public figures in recent memory.

Opinion!--MONGO 21:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another way to say this is that "the electorate became strongly divided". do you dispute that the electorate was very divided last election? Do you dispute that political attitudes became more polarized during bush's presidency? Kevin Baas^talk 06:23, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

or the sentence:

The election results do not show that people were more strongly divided or less so than 4 years earlier....I do not see that the election in 2004 results indicated a more or less polarized electorite than 4 earlier either. Why is the negative always before the positive...throughout the articles that have a lefty ramble such as this one, generalizations such as the one above always state the negative before the positive..."hated or loved" instead of loved or hated for example....--MONGO 06:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The percentage of the votes that any party got can not indicate polarization. But that's not what I'm refering to. One thing, people were very tense standing in the voting line. (as opposed to 4 years earlier) People talked about this a lot afterwards. (as opposed to 4 years earlier) There were people intimidating voters, to no small degree. (as opposed to 4 years earlier) There were tires being slashed. (as opposed to 4 years earlier) etc.

i don't know what you are refering to when you say "lefty ramble", but in circumstances of strong division, both the negative and positive have to be presented, and one of them has to precede the other. It is subtle POV to choose a particular one, but it is unavoidable that on will inevitably be in front. Perhaps one could alternate (according to statistical correlations)? Kevin Baas^talk 19:25, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

• Some said that the WMDs were a lie to get access to oil reserves in Iraq, and Bush had committed young Americans lives for financial gain.

Opinion!--MONGO 21:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, that is not an opinion. It is a simple fact that some said just that. I said that, my sister said that, my best friend said that. There--that makes three. And there have been a few more along the way. Have you never read the letters to the editor of your local paper? I would happily guess that you could have read at least one, no matter how conservative the region or paper. --Sean Lotz 20:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think more than one person said this? I've heard more than one person say this. Is it true, then, that more than one person said this? Kevin Baas^talk 06:23, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

or the sentence:

• Others felt that the president had adequate reason to attack, and that he truly believed there were WMDs there, and was acting in the best interest of the United States.

or the sentence:

• These disagreements led to a deep division in the country, and fueled a renewed interest in politics that had long been dormant or nonexistent.

Written by a child...long been dormant...according to who...nonexistent would mean that no one or virtually no one voted last time. next time, sign your work here.--MONGO 21:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, divided electorate - many articles in newspapers about this. Record voter turnout this election, lots of political discussion, record protests, stronger views... this means that people were less interested? the same?

I say the turnout was as much due to the closeness of the previous election and the beief that people actually thought their vote may count afterall....the protests were record...compared to what...1968?... not hardly as based on the size of the population then and now...Stronger views...such as? Were the views stronger in 2004 than in 1860 or 1932 or 1968 or 1976 or even 1980? No way!--MONGO 06:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Compared to the (recorded) history of this earth on this entire planet - see the guinness book of world records. Stronger views, such as iraq war (for instance, whether it is okay for a representative of a people to lie to those people whom it is his sworn duty to represent and protect, and whether he in fact did lie), the environment (whether we exist interdependantly with it or independantly of it, whether it is okay to lower protections on it, whether the environment is a scientific issue, and whether in fact the scientific community can be trusted when they come to a consensus on a scientific issue.), the human rights of humans, such as prisoners of war, etc. There are many issues that people (such as you) have very strong feelings about. It does not need to be established that the views were "strongest", just that they were notably stronger than usual. Kevin Baas^talk 19:34, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

"Written by a child": what is the relevancy of this comment? What is the point of it? How do you know the author's age? What does that have to do with whether the sentence is true or not? (not signing this comment, because you were rude about it.)

? 19:45, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

How's this...much of the article looks childish.--MONGO 06:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nope. still did not apologize for your personal attack on the author. and you made an ontological statement instead of an epistemological statement; you didn't not say "i think" or "i feel". And you did not substantiate what you said: how is it so? spelling? grammer? specific style features? how can the statement be used constructively? Kevin Baas^talk 19:14, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

The strong POV writing is back again. "On his first day in office, Bush began his career of a two faced loser" (emphesis mine). Amusingly, this is also bad grammar. It should be "his career as a two faced loser." (209.33.232.7 19:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

This debate is pointless

What are the NPOV issues? Point out examples and it can be discussed, but this argument is way off base. Since I fixed what I saw a problematic(very few thing) and can't find any other flaws, and there is no real discussion on neutrality, the NPOV sign is down.Voice of All(MTG) 17:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Importance of 9/11 in term

September 11, 2001 was the sole day that defined Bush's first term. Please do not remove that information, if it's there. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 15:24, 3 Jun 2006 (UTC) Is there a reason why this language be used? Though Bushes presidency was heavily defined by the events of September 11, 2001, there is no reason for the dramatic language. It not something objective about the effects of 9/11 on the presidency of George W. Bush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.208.140.225 (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This Article should be Removed in favor of the George W. Bush Page

I am trying to start a discussion of removing this article and George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States at the Bush talk page. Additional and important facts from these pages could be added to the main Bush article but the duplication and differences are only going to create growing problms. Let's discuss it there at Talk: George W. Bush. -JLSWiki 16:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The main article is already huge. If you take a look at it in edit view, you will see the recommendation to split it in different articles at the top. That is actually why I started this article. --The_stuart 15:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Executive Order 13233

Should not Executive Order 13233 be mentioned? Badagnani 08:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose we remove the armstrong william section

While this was a juicy story in the media for a couple of days, given several years perspective, I think it becomes more clear that it no longer deserves an entire section, and I'm not even sure it deserves a sentence. 1. Gov't agencies have budgets for advertising and getting out their message. Education dept has a $56 billion budget. Would any sane person not spend some money on getting their ideas out to the public? 2. Hiring a commentator who didn't tell others he was receiving money was bad, but that more reflects on the man than on the administration. 3. No crimes were committed. 4. He was not a cabinet officer. 5. Bush did not hire him. KeithCu 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be removed entirely. Perhaps, rephrased and integrated into another section. --The_stuart 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, I think removing it entirely is bad. I could make a sentence in the education section. When you see that NCLB has only a few sentences, and this is legislation was the biggest piece of education legislation in decades which literally affects 10s of millions of children and their teachers, an entire section on armstrong williams seems very disproportionate, tho.KeithCu 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

January 2001 airstrikes

This is an attempt to begin discussion on this issue.

The information presented by User:Cgersten misrepresents the source material. His justification for the wording is a commentary by the same news paper, that is not a reliable source. I have attempted several times to remove the misquoted and non notable paragraph, but have been reverted with swift resistance. Every single decision made by a president is not notable to wikipedia, unless it was some sort of major turning, or defined his presidency. This did not, because the first source clearly states that the decision was just a continuation of policy under the Clinton Administration.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

From first citation, New York Times page 1, 2nd paragraph: "The raid — carried out by more than three dozen aircraft shortly after night fell in Baghdad — represented an escalation of the long-running, low-level skirmishes between American and British jets and Iraqi forces." Also Jojhutton states: "His justification for removing items is that the commentary by the same newspaper, is not a reliable source." The source btw is the New York Times.--cgersten (talk)tuco_bad 21:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The source you are attempting to use is a commentary, by the NYT, not a news article, therefore not a reliable source of information, as it will be slanted. You should read WP:RS.

2. As to the part about the escalation, you seem to leave out other parts of the article, such as

- That the raid was routine.

- That it was the was the same policy as the previous administration (Clinton too struck north od the no-fly zone)

- That the strikes were far below the scale of the attacks under Clinton.

3. Every decision that a president makes is not worthy of inclusion on wikipedia, unless that decision defined his presidency or was a major turning point. The continuation of policy is hardly a turning point.

The second paragraph is entirely original research. Taking a routine news story and trying to use a routine commentary, to justify inclusion.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bush Administration stated that the raid was routine.

Strike not routine – first strike in two years beyond the no-fly zone.

Raid ordered by Bush while in office less than one month.

You should read WP:RS.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered; News analysis of raid appeared on page 1 of the New York Times, and not refuted anywhere to my knowledge..--cgersten (talk)tuco_bad 02:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bush orders attack beyond "no fly zone" in Iraq

I posted the following, which was removed by Jojhutton because he/she felt of little importance. I countered that the New York Times page 1 article wrote that it was an escalation of hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.

In February 2001, U.S. and British warplanes struck air command centers in Iraq, including targets around Bagdad, in what Bush described as necessary to respond to Iraqi provocation. News analysis of the decision by Bush approving the air strikes against Iraq beyond the ‘no fly zone’ suggested that Bush was sending a message not only for Iraq but for the rest of the world that he is approaching the role of world leader without timidity.

Should this item be included in the article.? cgersten -- tuco_bad 02:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Does somebody have a link to the NYT article? Bonewah (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/world/attack-on-iraq-news-analysis-the-world-stage-act-i.html?pagewanted=1 cgersten (talk) tuco_bad 13:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That link contains a significant amount of editorializing, and that editorializing should not be viewed as reliable. The facts about this action are fine, detailing what someone thinks is the deeper meaning is not. In that vein the line "News analysis of the decision by Bush approving the air strikes against Iraq beyond the ‘no fly zone’ suggested that Bush was sending a message not only for Iraq but for the rest of the world that he is approaching the role of world leader without timidity." should be eliminated. It may be 'suggested' to the writers at the NYT, but the mere fact that someone believes that does not warrant inclusion here. Bonewah (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I added the NY Times analysis so to create reflection on the significance (if any) on the air strikes. cgersten (talk) tuco_bad 22:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I would say remove the whole thing. Analysis is just another word for opinion, which has no place here. Bonewah (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Article as well as many other articles contains opinions from "established" sources. An example in this article: Public perceptions of Bush were reputedly of lacking interest in foreign affairs. cgersten (talk) tuco_bad 14:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion is the key word here. Perhaps the NYT opinion of Bush might be appropriate in Public perceptions of George Bush, but this article is for facts about Bush, not opinions on his motivations, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyedited

Richard asr (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Image deletion

Commons:Deletion requests/File:George W. Bush being told about second plane hitting WTC.png czar 06:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060228084150/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/nationworld/2002215324_texaslaw22.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002215324_texaslaw22.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006034714/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031208-2.html to http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031208-2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830190752/http://www.usnews.com:80/usnews/9_11/articles/911opener.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911opener.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:66y7GXpNQZoJ:198.65.148.234/national/20050119-123017-8028r.htm&strip=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225062850/https://fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/news/010501bush.html to https://fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/news/010501bush.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)