Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 10

== Protect? == (3/3/1)

It seems that most of the edits done to this page recently have been vandalism. What would people think of the idea of protecting this page, and only making it available for edits when discussion indicates that changes are needed?

Agreed. This is a vandal magnate between now and November (which reminds me: better check on the John Kerry page ....) DavidWBrooks 17:24, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Why are these vandals active at once? [[PaulinSaudi 17:26, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)]]
Disagree. Yes, it gets a lot of vandalism, but it also gets a lot of non-vandal edits--this is the most active page I've ever seen. Protection will tend to scare off a lot of contributors; also, any article this large has to have undiscovered grammar errors, spelling, etc. Since we all watch it, vandalism gets reverted quickly. Meelar 17:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is a weird situation. I want to think about it first, would be my opinion: we need to be very clear about this -- announcing it to the community, etc. There are some who hate page protection and will oppose it all the way. Also, it should be pointed out that we always catch the vandalism here -- whenever this article pops up on RC, several of us bounce over here. And protecting this page might give an anon the impression that we supported Bush (I know, it would be a stretch, but we do have to consider appearances). I guess I'm really on the fence -- I understand the suggestion, but am leery of actually doing this. Jwrosenzweig 17:34, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I oppose Bush, but I also oppose the vandalism this page has been getting. I do worry that, even though we've generally been pretty quick about reverting vandalism, I know it's slipped under my radar several times, and this will probably be one of the most visible wikipedia pages, out of the entire site, in upcoming months. The chances of people visiting a vandalized page will really increase, and it'll reflect poorly on us if people see a trashed page when they visit. I think we need *some* sort of protection scheme, even if it is "lock every day except Thursdays" or something like that. Rei
I'm going to disagree. There's a lot of people interested in this page and vandalism gets reverted within minutes. Seems like there could be some smarts added to the system -- like a flag that when on will prevent a page from going from 10000 words to 15. Or, perhaps, another flag that only allows modification by logged-in users; anonymous users that wish to remain anonymous could make their suggestions for change on the talk page. Mdchachi 17:39, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, such a system doesn't exist, for one thing, to the best of my knowledge. Also, note that protecting the page doesn't mean that people can't still change things: we would just post suggested changes to the talk page, discuss them here, and if it sounds like there's a desired change or two that people want to make, we unlock it for a day or so. Rei
True, but such a change would tend to limit it to people
That's right. Yesterday, someone replaced the portrait of George W. Bush with a picture of an Egyptian Cobra. However, this seems to be the most commonly vandalised page on Wikipedia and by the time I finish writing this, it will probably be vandalised again. My best friend has joked about how he might add a few words here and there that would totally change the meaning. Something needs to be done, but for now I don't think it should be protected. - Woodrow 20:45, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In addition, I think we have to remember that this is something of a test case for Wikipedia--the first presidential election during our tenure. If things get worse than they are now, I might reconsider, but we should remember that this article will probably be as bad as it gets in terms of sheer number of vandals. I don't feel that the problem is bad enough to admit failure. Meelar 22:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

--- Well, it appears there are a number of opinions here. As noted, this is going to be one of our more visible articles, so let's announce a poll or something on Wikipedia:Village Pump. Meelar 22:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd encourage us to decide what the options and scope of the poll will be prior to announcing. :-) Just a suggestion, Jwrosenzweig 22:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good thing I proposed it here ;) I'd say that options would be the following:
  1. No protection--status quo.
  2. Protect, except for a set period--Rei's "lock every day but Thursdays"
  3. Protect--changes can be proposed on talk page
  4. Look into having someone write code to prevent massive swings in the article's size.
  5. Look into having someone write code to prevent anonymous users from editing the article.
  6. Don't protect until a page is formulated which is agreed upon by consensus. At that point, hold another vote to determine if protection is necessary. [Added by AD]

Those are my suggestions, anyway--who's got other ideas? Meelar 22:50, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, with these ground rules for the poll (if we can agree to them) -- one vote per option (support or reject) per person, no anonymous votes, and if no option receives consensus support (80% support to 20% reject or better), we leave the article at the status quo. How does this sound? Jwrosenzweig 22:55, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good. I agree. Meelar 22:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll second that. I love the idea of bringing democracy (even a supermajority democracy, although 80% seems a bit extreme) into an article about someone who's running for reelection - it just seems so fitting ;) Rei
I agree, but option 2 needs to be formulated more specifically if it is going to be a poll option. I'd agree to locking every other day, for instance, but not to locking every day except Thursdays. Also, at least 3 days notice should be given before the start of the poll, during which people can organize pros and cons (rather than using the difficult to follow "thread mode"). Anthony DiPierro 00:05, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alright, what suggestions would you make on the wording of the second option? Meelar 00:09, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, it seems Anthony would prefer a "once every 2 days". I'd actually prefer it to be unlocked less than 50% of the time. Perhaps unlocked for two consecutive days in a week, so that there's enough time for people not only to get their edits in, but also to finangle over wording. This would, however, still keep it locked long enough to prevent most vandalism, and make people have to think about their edits before they put them in. What do other people think? Rei
Well, I'd prefer it not to be locked at all. However, "once every 2 days" would be acceptable to me. "Two days a week" would also be acceptable. "Every day except Thursday" wouldn't, for me (though it'd be fine as a poll option, I just don't think it'd pass, and I'd vote against it). I'm not really going to suggest wording, because none of those wordings are really my top choice. I don't think we should be protecting articles which aren't already perfect, and this article is far from perfect (yes, I understand that no articles are ever perfect, and intend that logical conclusion that therefore no articles should ever be protected). Anthony DiPierro 00:27, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How about in the poll, we have a "locked most of the time" option and let people who support it suggest their own time scheme. If that option is picked, we can decide then. Meelar 18:35, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  1. No protection.
  2. Protect for a set period (specified if this option wins)
  3. Protection, with changes discussed on the talk page.
  4. Look into having someone write code to prevent massive swings in the article's size.
  5. Look into having someone write code to prevent anonymous users from editing the article.
  6. Don't protect until a page is formulated which is agreed upon by consensus.

That seems good (I just altered Anthony's a tad). ugen64 22:59, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'll second that list of options. Also, I'd just like people to note that in the last 32 edits on this article, there have only been 3 minor edits which stuck (2 disambig and one additional language link). My only question is: what percent is it going to take to pass one of these? I'd be happy with a simple majority, although there was some interest in supermajority. Perhaps we should just take the vote, and then discuss the results? --Rei

Softly on Clarke for Now?

I think we could tread a little softly on Clarke until this sorts out a little. Among the various heavy hitters on both sides of the aisle testifying on 9/11, he stands alone in asserting, more or less, that there is very little to fault in the Clinton administration and nothing to compliment in the Bush.

You're spinning RNC talking points. Clarke asserts no such thing, and a number of people from Bush's administration -- Paul O'Neill, Donald Kerrick, Joseph Wilson, Greg Thielmann, Karen Kwiatkowski, Roger Cressey, Tom Maertens, and Rand Beers, at least -- support Clarke's contentions about the lack of urgency concerning terror. If the article refers to Clarke, it should simply report (NPOV) the charges and the people on record as having made them.

He is known as a brilliant but volatile personality that doesn't like to be crossed. "My way or the highway" was one comment. He has a book to promote and perhaps some scores to settle.

ad hominem garbage. The issue is the charges he makes and the evidence for or against them. For instance, Bush's comments documented in Woodward's "Bush at War" that arguably confirm the charges.

On the other hand, administration officials are denying a number of his assertions flat out.

This truism has no evidentiary value.

Obviously, they also have a self-interest. The record shows that Bush did not attack Iraq,

The record shows that Bush invaded Iraq. Duh.

but quickly moved to attack Afghanistan, a move widely criticized by many as too aggressive or doomed to failure.

That has nothing to do with Clarke's charges.

So my point is, I think we should step back just a little when two diametrically opposed, self-interested parties are at loggerheads.

This is not a valid characterization.

Cecropia 23:08, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll second treading softly on Clarke for now - I think he and O'Neil should be little more than references. However, I do have to take issue with some of the things that you said.
1) He doesn't stand alone on saying that there was very little to fault on the Clinton administration, as the Clinton administration officials testifying have supported their administration's efforts.
2) You mischaracterized the portrayal of him - given that I can only find your quote ("my way or the highway") in one article [1], that portrayal was not that he was volitile and didn't like to be crossed: it was that he "can become irritable and difficult to work with if he does not believe his views are being heeded." There's a world of difference, as this isn't a discussion over how to work with him, it's a discussion of what the Bush administration did and when. Noone that I can find described him as being the type to carry a grudge, as you implied.
3) Clark is hardly the only person to make allegations about the administration's response after Sept. 11th: remember the famous rumsfeld memo, "Best info fast - judge whether good enough to hit S.H. - not only UBL"? Remember O'Neil's comments and released documents (which the White House went after him for, claiming that they were classified)? This is nothing new - it's pretty obvious that this happened. I thought it was really amusing when McClellan denied that the conversation with Bush ever took place, and then was confronted with the other witnesses confirmation.
However, I do agree: Clarke should be little more than a sidenote: the key issue is the details which are, to say the least, well in the open. That there was a big push to tie Iraq to the September 11th attacks, and that the administration began planning the attack from their first NSC meeting onward. These things seem to be pretty much beyond dispute by now; one can argue over the specifics and the motives of the parties involved for ages. --Rei

Well, we seem to be in agreement in the emphasis at this point, but I think you're misunderstanding what I said: "he stands alone in asserting, more or less, that there is very little to fault in the Clinton administration and nothing to compliment in the Bush." I'm referring specifically to the 9/11 public hearings, and I mean that he is the only one so far that goes to this extreme. All the others have been way more balanced and less willing to say that one administration did everything right and the other nothing wrong. Albright in particular made a dividing line of "pre-9/11. post-9/11" rather than "our administration, their administration." I will try to dig up some more comments on Clarke's pesonality for you. Cecropia 00:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Are you watching the hearings? Clarke stated that Bush made fighting terrorism "an important issue but not an urgent issue." I'd hardly call that "nothing to compliment".

In other words, Cecropia is a flat-out liar. And all his lies serve only to defend Bush.

On the other hand, Berger stated "There could have not been any doubt about what President Clinton's intent was after he fired 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles at bin Laden in August 1998". It's not so clear cut "Clarke=Attack Dog, Everyone Else Played Nicely". Clarke has a lot of damaging things to say, but he hardly seems to be doing it as a grudge. And I've yet to see anyone rebut the facts that he sets forth, about who said what when - all people have done is general innuendo that Bush actually did focus on fighting terrorism before the attacks, and innuendo that Clarke isn't saying this (and documenting the things that he stated) for any reason other than to sell a book. Where is the addressing of the issues that he raised, about who said and did what? If noone is going to refute them, and if they're very important things (which they are) concerning Bush, they should be mentioned here, even if just briefly (which I support - we shouldn't dwell on, but merely report the fact that the Iraq war was being quietly planned from day 1, and they tried to use Sept. 11th as an excuse to start it).

The only thing spectacular about Clarke's testimony, really, was the fact that he was the first public official to apologize for the attacks taking place on his watch. --Rei
Maybe I put more argumentation into my comment than I intended at this point. Perhaps it's the way the press is picking up on it, but only Clarke's disparaging remarks about Bush admin members are getting any traction in the press. I think we need some weeks for this to shake itself out, because what I see right now is Clarke saying "so-and-so said this"

Then you are blinded by your ideology. Clarke says far more than that.

and then so-and-so says "no I didn't."

This is nonsense; the challenges to Clarke are almost all ad hominem. Provide an example of your did say/didn't say claim. The only one I know of is the claim that Bush didn't speak to Clarke in the situation room, a falsehood confirmed by Rice's acknowledgement on 60 Minutes that the meeting took place. OTOH, Clarke said that Rice *gave the impression* that she had never heard of the term "Al Qaeda", which would put her with the vast majority -- there are only 13 Lexis references to the term for 2000 -- but she's supposed to be national security advisor. She says that's absurd, but she doesn't say that she replied to him "Of course I know what Al Qaeda is" after he explained it when she looked blank, as you would expect if she really did know what he was talking about. The right wing is all excited about her Oct 2000 interview with radio station WJR, where she supposedly talked all about Al Qaeda -- but in fact she never used the term (in that interview or anywhere else, prior to her exchange with Clarke), talking only of Osama bin Laden (who *everyone* had heard of) and of "state support" -- the opposite of Al Qaeda, and exactly the sort of lack of understanding of the nature of OBL's support that Clarke has noted, and what was behind Wolfowitz's and Cheney's arguments for going after Iraq. But most likely you've been following Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, et. al. and have swallowed this supposed "refutation" hook and sinker.

BTW, have you read Clarke's book? Cecropia 03:32, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've read excerpts... it's actually very well written, and I'm thinking about buying the whole thing. Would you like an excerpt or two? --Rei
Just in case anyone needs any better of an idea about how coordinated the Bush admin's attempt to discredit Clarke is, I think these paragraphs from a WP article are apt:
"Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before 9/11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban; the CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats; and Rice's assertion this week that Bush told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.
Rice, in turn, has contradicted Vice President Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" and his intimation that Clarke had been demoted. Rice has also given various conflicting accounts. She criticized Clarke for being the architect of failed Clinton administration policies, but also said she retained Clarke so the Bush administration could continue to pursue Clinton's terrorism policies."
(it keeps going - Rice has been contradicted or contradicted herself over a dozen times on this)
Of course, they still haven't attacked the core facts, but that's been mentioned several times now. They just want to try and discredit the person (Clarke) so that they don't have to address unconfortable facts - such as how Cheney's counterterrorism task force never once met, how they had a war plan against Iraq since the first NSC meeting but no al-Qaeda plan until September and that plan would take 3 years before any attacks, how they were, the day after Sept. 11th, trying to find any excuse to invade Iraq, how they withdrew all of the predators from Afghanistan, etc. If noone is going to dispute these, then they're facts. But, let's tread lightly for now. --Rei

DUI arrest

"Bush was pulled over by police for driving too slowly near his family's Kennebunkport, Maine, summer home"

I believe the "too slowly" explanation was spin by the Bush people, and the actual explanation for the arrest was a minor car accident. Admittedly my source for this is the not-terribly-impartial Al Franken, but I think he was quoting the actual police report (or perhaps the arresting officer), while "too slowly" was mentioned by an aide who admitted not knowing the details of the situation. If someone can correct me on this (from some source outside the Bush camp) then by all means keep it as it is, but if not I think simply stating "Bush was pulled over by police near his family's Kennebunkport, Maine, summer home" would be neutral enough to satisfy everyone.

(the above written by an anon)

I briefly tried to check up on this, but couldn't find any reliable info. The arrest record is on The Smoking Gun [2], and does not say anything about an accident. Thus, I'm skeptical of Franken's claim; the police report isn't there, to be sure, but I'd think it would be if it were public enough that Franken had it. :) If this really is a controversy, something should be said about the two sides of it. -- VV 04:54, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Franken is a prominent critic and a comedian besides. This needs more realistic corroboration, IMO, to even elevate to the status of debatable. One assumes that if it were an actual accident (1) the police report would mention damage and/or (2) it would have been all over the press in the current atmosphere. Does the term "beating a dead horse" mean anything to anyone? There is much more current and relevant stuff to squabble over. Cecropia 05:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You're almost certainly right, but one thing that makes me hesitant to dismiss it is that as soon as the story broke the Gore campaign distanced themselves from it, not I guess wanting to be seen as petty mudslingers. Thus, maybe there really wasn't maximal muckraking, and the details were kept under the radar. I'm not saying this is likely, only possible. Perhaps the anon above can bring a more specific reference than that he heard Franken maybe quoting a police report? (And 'tis a dead horse, true, but it's in the article, so it should be right.) -- VV 05:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The arrest record simply says "Operating Under the Influence" and technical details. [3]. My own experience (as an officer, not a DUI) says that an accident causing damage would have been noted. Or, if you want to take the opposite tack and say the officer didn't want to get in the way of a possibly influential local, the DUI wouldn't have been written up either. Cecropia 05:36, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Also, maybe I'm using the wrong search terms, but I can't find Franken's statement on either Google web or news. Cecropia 05:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A "minor accident" need not lead to damage. I've read Franken, and I seem to recall him mentioning that Bush actually drove into a shrubbery. He does mention that the Bush aide who said "driving too slowly" later admitted not knowing all the details. This is Franken speaking, but if this helps people check it out, all the better. Meelar 05:49, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ah! A shrubbery! "Dog bites man" isn't news, but "Bush commits shrubicide" is! Now I'll have to vote for Kerry for sure, or I'll lose my membership in the Sierra Club. Cecropia 05:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I guess whether or not Bush drove into a shrub or whatever isn't the point as much as whether he actually was driving too slowly. No one seems to have any concrete evidence for either assertion, which is why i suggest removing the stated reason altogether. If the "too slowly" excuse was Bush's aides trying to put the best spin on it possible (obviously that sounds much better than "too fast" or "irradically") then it would be a shame to have it stated as fact in this forum. Just saying he was pulled over seems like a neutral way of stating it. The source for this, specifically, is Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them", page 46. He cites what the arresting officer told a news reporter. As I said, Franken is not impartial, but certainly Bush spokeswoman Karen Hughes isn't either, and it is apprently from her that the too slowly story comes. The arrest report says nothing about slow driving. And yes, I fully realize this is a dead horse and there are much more important things to discuss, but I did notice it, and it seems no one else had addressed it, so I decided to. If no one can substantiate either story in the next few days would it be fair to have the words "for driving too slowly" removed? Also, as someone pointed out, my previous post was anonymous. This is not in an effort to seem surruptious, but merely it being my first post I'm not completely clear on protocol for signing names. Do I just end with whatever pseduonym strikes my fancy at the moment (and i have many)? Or is there somethign more specfic? I suppose there are stated guidelines somewhere, but I just can't be bothered to look for them. Thanx.

Yes, it's often useful to sign Talk contributions, if only so they don't get mixed up with other people's; that's why I noted that above, so it would be clear it was not part of my comment. I definitely did not mean to accuse you of being surreptitious! If you plan to contribute to Wikipedia a lot, you might consider getting an account, using any name or pseudonym you choose; then you can use ~~~~ to sign your messages. Anyway, based on what you say, I am led to agree that the "too slowly" part should be removed. Cecropia, do you object? Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you stick around! -- VV 07:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I didn't realize you were talking about the DUI section before I just reworked it. If you have any issues with what I did, please mention it here before starting a revert war. Mdchachi 21:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think your edits were independent of this issue (the reason for him being pulled over). I see you worked off the most current text, so I wouldn't worry about a revert war. :) -- VV 23:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I personally would support removing the "driving too slowly" allegation, putting in simply "pulled over". Whoever this anon is should really consider an account--that's an edit that I wish I had thought of, and it was discussed rationally and calmly. Admiringly, Meelar 23:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


The German entry says GWB invested $17,000 in Arbusto Energy, the rest was financed by Salem Bin Laden, which Bush got to know via texan millionaire James Bath. When years later Harken Energy had financial trouble, Bath helped out with an additional 1.4 Mio.$. Any truth in that? Get-back-world-respect 23:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Should we not distinguish between Bush Sr and Bush Jr, in the title? - Sundar

Bush Sr. is George H. W. Bush. -- VV 08:09, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not only that, but the words "Jr./Junior" and "Sr./Senior" don't appear in their names, so there's nothing to distinguish. If he had been given the same middle name(s) as his father, they would have probably added a Jr. But they didn't. --Golbez 13:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed - Sundar
It seemed like a problem at first, but it sorts out, even if little uncomfortably. Almost anyone refering to "George Bush" now means the current President, and George H.W. Bush, or "the former President Bush," or "the first President Bush" means the former. Collequially, some say "Bush 41" and "Bush 43." By nickname they are "Poppy" (how WASPy) and "Dubya" or, of course, Jr and Sr., but I wouldn't use Jr. and Sr. in an encyclopedia because they're not. Cecropia 14:04, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed - Sundar
As an aside, I never realized where the Dubya came from or what it meant until just last week when I was doing some online reading about Bush. Somehow I never connected the printed word with the spoken W. How dumb is that? (You don't have to answer, it's a rhetorical question ;) Mdchachi 16:25, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jesselyn Radack

Cecropia, we already had that discussion. She was not overruled by her superiors, her advice was ignored by those who had asked for it. If you changed your mind about that issue you at least need to explain why after it seemed to have settled. - get-back-world-respect

I was the one that removed it because I couldn't figure out a way to de-weaselize it. If you can, please do so. Review Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms and Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles. Mdchachi 22:55, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
GBWR, I get your point that, if the FBI asked for it, they ignored it, though there is still the issue that they are not required to take the advice, any more than you have to take your lawyer's advice. Nevertheless, I won't argue that further unless I find find out solid info to the contrary. However, as Mdchachi said, the "weasel words" need to go. Cecropia 22:59, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I provided two links, just read them and you see that there is much more behind the issue than just people not taking the advice they had asked for. The information was suppressed, she was mobbed out of her job and even her new job at a non-governmental law firm. Get-back-world-respect 23:31, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Did you read your own articles? Or did you only read what you wanted to believe? Radack acnowledged that "the interview might hold up legally and technically." So now it's simply a question of ethics. I agree with you that the reaction and consequences she faced looks like an overreaction. But what all this has to do with GW Bush is beyond me. Fact: Radack recommended the FBI not interview Lindh without a lawyer. Fact: Security agencies do this all the time for intelligence purposes (however they usually can't use such interviews to prosecute) Fact: Radack herself states that the interview might be technically legal Unknown: Whether the judge would have received her emails if she hadn't acted Fact: She broke client-attorney privilege and, seemingly, the law. So, again, how is this relevant to GWB? Lindh isn't even mentioned in the whole entry except in the Radack paragraph. Mdchachi 13:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

She has the right to blow a whistle. She was mobbed out of two jobs, her information was suppressed, is that "seemingly breaking the law"? The Radack scandal is an example of how the US under Bush and the Patriot Act hand away the civil rights and liberties the country was once well known for. Get-back-world-respect 18:07, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
She may have had a first amendment right to say what she said, but this does not immunize her from the consequences of speech. She was the US Government's attorney, not Lyndh's. Professional ethics of an attorney do not allow the attorney to breach confidentiality or their duty to a client because they think their client is wrong. If she really felt that the government's action (or lack of) was so egregious that she had to speak to the court about it on her own, the proper thing would have been to resign her position, and then file an amicus brief, and even then I'm not certain that she could not be disbarred. And yet, you think she should have gotten a good job evaluation?
As I pointed out earlier in this discussion, if she had been Lyndh's attorney, and had sent a note to the judge (and then to the media) saying "Your Honor, I can't tell a lie, my client is guilty as hell" (which he was, by his own open admission), she would surely have been both censured and disbarred. She also was in the position (if the judge had agreed with her assertion) of forcing the government's hand and lousing up Lindh's eventual plea bargain. How? If Lindh thought he could win at trial without the confession the government could have (a) moved to revoke his citizenship (8 USC 1481) or tried him for treason according to the U.S. Constitution. Cecropia 19:38, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"(which he was, by his own open admission)"
Which admission would you be referring to? His plea bargain, or his confession from when Spann was threatening to make him dissapear and his captors at one point trussed him up and blindfolded him with an obsenity-covered cloth to pose with him for a photo like a trophy deer?
I was thinking of the statements he made to news reporters when he was captured:
Asked by a reporter about his experience in Afghanistan, he replied: "It's exactly what I thought it would be."

Did he think he had been fighting on the right side?

"Definitely," was the answer.Source:BBC
Now I'll freely stipulate that this may not be admissible in a court of law, but this isn't a court of law. Do you think he wasn't fighting with the Taliban of his own free will? Do you think his confession on his plea bargain was a lie? If you do, what is it you think Lindh was doing in Afghanistan?
Regardless, your analogy of "if she had been Lindh's attorney..." is pointless - she wasn't Lindh's attorney. Why did you bother to even state that? --Rei
Ou contraire, mon cher:) It's quite relevant. My point is that if we cast the issue the other way; had she been Lindh's attorney, who would doubt that she had breached her legal duty by revealing confidential but true information to the detrement of her client? Cecropia 20:46, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You simply do not understand what whistle blowing means. It means someone who works for the public has the right to blow a whistle when a public gremium breaks the law. The FBI did break the law by questioning Lindh without a lawyer and using the information in the trial. She was not an attorney but an ethics advisor. The differnce between an attorney for a citizen and soemone working for the public service is that the citizen has a right of privacy and confidentiality while the public service is expected to act in the best interest of the public and has a special responsibility that legitimizes to point out any threat that the law might be broken. Get-back-world-respect 20:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Domestic policies?

There is currently a large section on foriegn affairs/security policy of Bush. Shouldn't there be an equally large section on the Domestic policies? I think there should, and that such should be consistent throughout all pages about past, present, and candidate presidents.

You're welcome to edit the article, adding info on his domestic policies. However, I think that asking consistency across all presidents is too much. Our article on Franklin D. Roosevelt will always be longer than Benjamin Harrison. Go ahead and edit if you want, but don't add material to conform to some "consistency" requirement that we couldn't keep up. Aside from that, good luck! I wish you well. Our policy here is to be bold. Meelar 22:15, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sadly enough the Bush term was dominated by 9/11 and the wars. Since I agree that the domestic policies were neglected I had added some information about the legislation like Children left behind. Get-back-world-respect 23:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Origin of Guantanamo Detainees

What is your citation for majority of detainees being captured in Pakistan? Cecropia 22:07, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) (copied from my talk page)

I had it from a German site, but since I guess you would not understand it I did a google search. Using <<guantanamo "arrested in pakistan">> 1,760 sites show up. Many of them name individuals that were arrested in Pakistan, such as Binalshib or the British detainees. Aug 17, 2002: Most of the detainees at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who were arrested in Pakistan, are non-al-Qaeda Arabs, the majority of whom arrived in Afghanistan after September 11 to fight against the US, which was attacking a Muslim country. In only a few instances have the coalition forces caught actual al-Qaeda members in Pakistan, such as Abu Zubaida, a senior aide to bin Laden, and some of his accomplices.

July 14, 2003: Nearly 500 al Qaeda suspects have been arrested in Pakistan and most of them have been handed over to the United States.

4 Apr 2004: Pakistan, a pivotal US ally in the 16-month campaign against terror, has arrested and handed over around 430 al-Qaeda fugitives to the United States.

Most remain in US custody at a maximum security prison on a US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Get-back-world-respect 23:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is it time to let them go?

As most of the Guantanamo detainees have not been found guilty of anything - in fact, those releseasd to the custody of the British government have been released without trial - would it now be better now to do the same for all those who remain?

After all, there is no legal precedent for their imprisonment - and no moral justification either. It's plain illegal - everyone knows that, from GWB down.

Hasn't the US military now made it's point? We now know you're a great big country with lots of soldiers. We get the point. Well done.

Now is the time to get with it, realise why the rest of the world hates the US - and let em go!

Thanks for your opinion, but Wikipedia isn't really a debating forum. What suggestions would you make on the article (keeping Wikipedia:NPOV in mind? Meelar 00:31, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Loony Paranoia"

Loony paranoia my shiny metal rear. I've met several reasonable, lucid people who are perfectly willing to make a claim that Bush stole FL. We should label that this is a viewpoint, but we should not censor it. Meelar 22:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Saying Bush may have "rigged the election" is over the top. It's much more respectable to say there were alleged "irregularities". The details can be in the election article. The version you prefer (a) makes critics of what happened in FL look stupid by imputing to them an absurd theory, (b) implicitly elevates this to a reasonable option when it is not. -- VV 22:46, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think this level of phrase/wording selection is politically charged. At such a point, in order to mantain NPOV, one should simply state the facts as they logically stand. It is quite possible that Bush "rigged the election". There are no laws of physics stating that this is ontologicaly inconsistent or meaningless. If there are "irregularities" that followed from a chain of events leading back to a politically motivated person or group of people, and these irregularities altered the outcome of the election, than the election was indeed, by definition, "rigged". It is an indisputable fact that the number of votes and obstructed votes with disputed (disputed with good reason) legitmacy is more than sufficient to alter the outcome of the election. (By a long shoot, in fact: more than ten times the margin of victory.) These considerations meet one condition for the election to be logically, irrefutably "rigged". There are two remaining.
  • 2. Whether the outcome would have, indeed, resulted in a different outcome had the disputed votes been indisputably legitimate. There are very good demographic arguments for this.
  • 3. Whether these "irregularities" could be followed back through a chain of causes and effects to the supposed primal causer: "Bush". This is where the dispute lies. It is not a question over whether the election was legitimate. There is, by any standard, sufficient evidence to show that it was not. (The empirical statistical error margin was easily beyond the threshold of scientific acceptance.) It is a question of who or what caused the election to be (empirically) illegitimate.
In any case, back to my original point, it is "reasonable" that any election, whatsoever, is "rigged". There is no divine intervention that prevents a given election from being rigged. There is nothing "over the top" about any such statement. "Respectability" is completely irrelevant, NPOV is relevant. I agree with Meelar and the entire wikipedian community in regards to no censorship. Kevin Baas 23:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is no more censorship than would be removal of the claim that Bush is a reptilian humanoid, which too does not contravene the laws of physics. There is already a Bush family conspiracy theory where all manner of "theories" are discussed; again, this is not censorship, but maintaining relevant information in the relevant article. "Rigged" is much stronger than a causal chain which altered the outcome of the election. Especially pegging Bush as the "primal causer" is extremely dubious. In this particular case, at any rate, it is better to have the more general accusation than the more specific one, as it covers more allegations. -- VV 23:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Rigged" is a highly charged word, and implies much more than has been proven or charged, other than by partisans, in the Florida election. People make all kinds of charges, but their rhetoric is not always appropriate in a NPOV context simply because someone said it. You could just as easily claim the press "rigs" elections by their timing of announcements as to winners, such as happened by calling Florida before the Republican-leaning panhandle had finished voting. Cecropia 23:38, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Regarding the press rigging: I think that would be much, much more difficult to claim/demonstrate. There is simply no evidence to support such a claim. Talk about rhetoric, how about this comparison that you made!
  • Partisans! Oh no! You know what's even scarier? The vast majority of people are partisans! We're surrounded by them! Ahhh!! Wait, did I say people were partisans? No, partisans aren't people. They should be discredited on account that they are partisans. Very little has been proven or charged other than by partisans. Very few people are not partisan. Good job excluding 90% of what is with one politically charged word.
  • "What people say." - Actually, that is indeed what the NPOV page says: discuss what people say, as that which people say, as Meelar has already stated.
  • I agree that relevant information should be mantained in relevant articles. I'm glad to hear that you agree with me.
  • I never said that I thought the word "rigged" should be in the document. I disputed the rhetorical grounds upon which it is being disputed. I think the phrase:
"The legitimacy of the outcome of the election is disputed."
is most factual and NPOV. The word disputed should then link to a page about the dispute. I would be quite satisfied with this non-rhetorical and indisputable statement. Kevin Baas 00:06, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say the legitimacy of the process is disputed, than the legitimacy of the outcome is. The Constitution of the U.S. specifies what you do when a presidential election is disputed, it ends up in the House of Representatives. This was not done, so the issue ended up in the Supreme Court. Many decisions by the SC are disputed by people across the political spectrum, but the Supreme Court ultimately decides the law, and therefore legitimacy. Cecropia 00:20, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The Supreme Court does not decide legitmacy. the law decides legitimacy. Kevin Baas 00:29, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And the Supreme Court decides the law. Cecropia 00:38, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The Supreme Court does not decide the law. The legislative branch of the government decides the law. Kevin Baas 00:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Alright Alfred North Whitehead, if a->b is disputed, and b is not substantiated by any other relationship, than is not b disputed, regardless of whether or not a is? Kevin Baas 00:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I correct myself - I took a look at the context:
"These election results are still contested by some, who claim that ___ or that the judiciary made partisan rulings.
This is clearly a statement as to what is claimed by those who contest the election results. It has nothing to do with what objectively did or did not happen, but rather what a statistical poll of the populace might reveal. I am quite confident that the word "rigged" would be used. Perhaps not "rigged by Bush", but definitely "rigged", that is to say that the discrepancies were motivated and altered the outcome such that popular suffrage was effectively obstructed. I don't think the same people who claim that the ruling were motivated by "partisan" injustices (injustice insofar as this implies the abrogation of due process by member(s) of the Judicary system) would say simply that the results were "irregular", and not likewise motivated by "partisan" injustices. That seems quite inconsistent to me. Besides being logically inconsistent, it is inconsistent with what I see and hear. Every voice I've heard or read that contests the results contests them on the grounds that they were intentionally interfered with, in other words, "rigged". Kevin Baas 00:29, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Then you don't need the loaded word "rigged"; use "intentionally interfered," though, as far as that's concerned, there are a lot of attempts to interfere with the straightforward work of elections, so then virutally any election of consequence is "rigged." Cecropia 00:38, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No. Rigged carries the added connotation that the interference was successfull in altering the outcome. You know this. Why do you rhetorically refute this straightforward definition? Kevin Baas 00:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Rigged carries two other connotations which make the word overly contentious: (1) that the election was manipulated or controlled (which is more than efforts to help your side and hobble the other) and (2) that it was fixed in advance for a desired result. If you "really" want to use the word rigged, it would be more proper to obtain a direct quote: "Democratic Councilperson Blodgett called the election 'rigged.' " with a citation. Otherwise it begs a judgment in an encyclopedic entry. Cecropia 00:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'll work on that, but I have no Franken or Moore on me. Can I get back to you? Meelar 00:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, on the second point, I really don't see how the results of an election can be affected after the fact, and on the first point: when does a pile of sand become a hill? Perhaps when one has to climb it. (Please excuse the difficult metaphor.) Kevin Baas 01:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, if you get out your Franken or Moore, you can probably add a whole bunch of other interesting charges, as well ;=) Cecropia 01:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What is this supposed to mean? It is clearly not an argument, and I don't understand the logic behind it. Kevin Baas 01:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Certainly so! Such charges belong on Al Franken and Michael Moore or Bush family conspiracy theory or some such. -- VV 01:03, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And what is this?! Slandering? Kevin Baas 01:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You'll have to explain this one to me. -- VV 01:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The point is that Bush's critics (these being examples) have made these claims. See my comment just below. Meelar 01:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the point is that this is not making a claim as to whether or not the election was rigged. The issue at hand is: do Bush's critics claim that the election was rigged? The answer is certainly yes. Meelar 00:48, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is not enough. See my original reasons above. Few critics make such a ridiculous claim, just as few claim Bush is a reptilian humanoid. Such far-out theories should not be mentioned in this article when a general mention of alleged irregularities will suffice (and this includes more reasonable criticism). -- VV 01:03, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There are clearly those who beg to differ. Kevin Baas 01:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That's a riduculous comparison. Franken and Moore certainly aren't nonpartisan, but neither are they claiming that Bush is a reptilian humanoid. However, both have made claims about possible rigging of the election in Florida. I think it was Stupid White Men, but I'm not sure. Meelar 01:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Besides the implausibility of this (Bush "rigging" a 537-vote victory and one-month court battle), this claim does little justice to those who allege more modest irregularities. No, F and M do not make this specific claim (nor do I know of F alleging "rigging"), but M's claims are unrepresentative of Bush's critics. -- VV 01:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is quite true, after all, M is not a critic of Bush, and the (undisputable) number of "file mix-ups" in the Florida prison system that caused votes by registered democrats to be inappropriately discounted alone was less than a hundred times the margin of victory (but more than ten), making claims of "rigging" quite unreasonable. Kevin Baas 01:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Even if Bush is a reptilian humanoid, there is no research showing that reptilian humanoids rig elections; I think they sell car insuarance, though. Cecropia 01:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Alright, you stopped making sense a while ago, but this is ridiculous. Kevin Baas
Kevin, what are you talking about? That was hilarious! Meelar 01:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I admit, it was funny. But what does a reptilian humanoid have to do with the rigging of elections? Kevin Baas 01:20, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, a vandal kept on inserting his theory that Bush was a reptilian humanoid--VeryVerily is comparing these accusations to that. I disagree with him, but what can you do? That's life, and it goes on. Meelar 01:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sometimes a little humor lets up step back a bit in a heated discussion. Cecropia 01:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Kevin Baas 01:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "irregularities" simply doesn't accurately describe the charges that Bush's critics are making. I think even Bush himself might concede that there were "irregularities"--that was a weird election. The charge being made is that Bush, or someone acting on his behalf, consciously altered the election's outcome (or sought to) through skulduggery of some illegal or quasi-legal nature. That charge has been made by prominent critics of the President, and I feel that it's significant enough to be included in the article. You may think they're unreasonable, but they're not fringe kooks and they're certainly not believers in reptilian humanoids (AFAIK). Yours, Meelar 01:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In context, I agree with that point. But I'd certainly like to see more on the entire issue, and the Bush article isn't the place to do it, IMO. "Rigging" intentionally conjures the image of a marionette--i.e., preordained. There were a lot of doubtful things going on in that election, not the least of which was to send teams of lawyers into Florida to demand an indefinite number of recounts when the Constitution is specific as to how to deal with election disputes. I don't see any way it wouldn't have ended up in the Supreme Court, one way or another. Cecropia 01:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Granted. But in the context of "Bush's opponents claim", I think the sentence as it stands is more accurate. On the other hand, I can honestly say to everyone here that it's been a pleasure disagreeing with you. Yours, Meelar 01:36, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ditto. Now if only elections could be solved this amicably, we wouldn't even have to argue all of this. Cheers! Cecropia 01:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
P.s., that was four reverts in three hours. Yes, "rigging" is too strong, as Cecropia points out. A good compromise would be to suggest intermediate language, if you feel "irregularities" is not enough. But this has not been done. Belief in reptilian humanoids was given as another example of a freak belief. Which prominent critics have made this charge, anyway? And you have not answered by objections about being inclusive about charges made. -- VV 01:40, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just got my hands on this (borrowed from a friend). I'll quote from the first page of the introduction to "Stupid White Men": "There are those who say it all started to unravel the night of November 7, 2000, when Jeb Bush gave his brother George Jr. an early Christmas present--the state of Florida." That's the first sentence of the book. Sure sounds like an accusation of rigging to me. And not from a tinfoil hatter, either. It's a prominent charge, made by prominent critics (of whom Moore is simply the first example I could find) and deserves to be in the article. Meelar 01:47, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Isn't that book selling a whole lot of copies? Kevin Baas 01:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Also, see the following quote from a Molly Ivins piece published December 19, 2000 (right after Bush v. Gore): "I not only think the Republicans stole this, I know they stole it". Partisan, yes. Freak belief, no. Meelar 01:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, stole is not rigged, nor is the distinction nitpicking. I assume Ivins is referring to the use of legal challenges and other means after the election to bring about an outcome contrary to the "right" one. Rigging would be setting it up beforehand so that the election would go a certain way. As for what Moore's comment means, that's anyone's guess. It could just mean Jeb campaigned actively for his brother. I'm not saying Moore isn't a kook who'd believe anything, I just think you're reading too much into that quote. -- VV 04:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yet, when you refer to the legal challenges to get the "right" result, it was the Gore camp that initiated most of them. Whatever people imagine the eventual outcome might have been, at no point was Gore ahead in the Florida voting. It was a fear in the Bush camp that, if at any time Gore went ahead, he would declare victory and move that all counting stop. Cecropia 04:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I said I was going to bed, but I'm not really tired apparently.
  • C-You talked about paranoia before, if the Bush camp really felt that way, that would be an extreme case of paranoia - you can't stop a count! All votes must be tallied. There's no way that would get past the courts.
  • VV-This the second time you've confused the topic (the first was when you said that it is the "process" in question) with a different part of the statement in dispute. We are not discussing the second part of the statment in dispute: "...or that the judiciary made partisan rulings.", but rather, the first part, which deals with the election itself; the before - if you will. The statements cited by Meelar were made under this context. That's pretty clear, and I'm sure Meelar, having the cited material with him, would be a much better judge of that than you, who does not have the material with you, and have at least twice confused the context of this debate.
  • Even if the statement did refer to the ruling in court, that would imply that it was believed that the ruling should have been the other way: that the vote was not legal. She further stated that she knew this; that she had knowledge about at least one event which made the vote unambiguously illegal. Furthermore, she blatently accused Jeb Bush of this act. Kevin Baas 04:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Self-correction: "Republicans" of this act. Kevin Baas 05:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Regarding "stole" vs. "rigged". Stole from who? The people, clearly. How can the election be stolen from the people? There is only one way this could happen: if it was rigged. Kevin Baas 04:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I think Moore's statement is pretty clear. I think his stance on the matter is pretty clear. It would be going quite out-of-one's-way to attempt to throw the nature of this comment into doubt.
  • All-in-all, you are really going out of your way here. Kevin Baas 04:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not saying I agree with Ivins; I'm just trying to interpret her, in support of the thesis that her charges are not "rigging". Your analysis is interesting, and does seem to put another angle on it. Personally, I don't think Bush "stole" the election, nor that Gore was trying to "steal" it, as liberals and conservative often think, respectively; rather, it was a tricky legal question which was resolved by the supreme court, the Supreme Court. I do tend to think that Bush had the stronger case, and (FWIW) I did want him to win. -- VV 04:35, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's not perfect, but I can accept that wording. Meelar 02:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think this wording is better than "irregularities", but I think it lacks certain qualities:

  • It does not communicate that the claim involves the claim that the final result of the election was altered by this interference.
  • It does not accurately portray the general feeling of the people who make the claim.

In sum, I consider the statement factual, but incomplete. But I let it stand today, as I am logging off. Have a goodnight everyone (or morning or what have you, depending on time zone.) Kevin Baas 02:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not very happy with it either. I'd prefer to say something such as "or that there were irregularities which favored Bush", but having found wording nominally acceptable to all parties, I'm afraid to touch it again. -- VV 04:35, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I highly doubt that "critics of Bush" would claim that "there were irregularities which favored Bush". I don't see how this is critical of Bush. It is also difficult for me to fathom that you, or anyone for that matter, would trully believe that. I think you are getting what you believe confused with what critics of Bush claim. Kevin Baas 05:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Come on Kevin, you're making me feel guilty. You're not getting any sleep, and it's my fault! The issue will still be here tomorrow morning. Promise! :) Cecropia 05:04, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention for those that don't know, Moore plays fast & loose with the facts. He is trying to further an agenda and a POV and doesn't let little details like the truth get in his way. So if anything in this article is coming from Moore he should be named explicitly (so people could take the source into consideration). See Moore Exposed.
I haven't read the book, so it's really quite irrelevant to anything I have said or will say. (I checked out that link, BTW, and the website seems pretty non-neutral POV.) Regardless, it is all besides the point. The question is what critics of Bush say. (Which means what critics of Bush say critics of Bush say. "From the horse's mouth.", as they say.) Moore was cited as an example of a critic of Bush. Kevin Baas 15:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(Yes, the site is non NPOV but it's useful for pointing out the falsehoods in Moore's work. I especially recommend the article about the Columbine movie, I haven't read much of the other material. Anyway my comment was aimed at Meelar who seemed to be giving Moore's work credit; I'd trust Molly Ivans words far more than Moore's.) Gratuitous use of "critics say" is considered to be Weasel Writing because the reader can't tell if the viewpoint represents a lot of people or just a couple. So it's better to specify the source of a comment whenever possible. --Mdchachi 16:07, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, if you'd like, I can try to dig up more critics who claim a stolen election. I thought I'd just show that a good number of them do. The problem with weasel words is that the "he rigged the election" charge is not especially attributable--numerous people made it, and nobody is really identified as the primary one to make that claim. Again, I'm satisfied with the compromise wording (nice work, VV, and sorry if things got a tad heated). Yours, Meelar 16:21, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, that won't be necessary, I'm not disputing this; I was mainly trying to point out that Moore is a doofus and to make sure people think about the weasel policy and follow it as far as possible. Mdchachi 16:48, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
As for current wording. Isn't "illegitimate interference" redundant? Is there ever "legitimate interference"? Mdchachi 16:48, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It depends on how broad your definition of "interference" is. I'd say leave it in, just to make the point clear. Oh, and Michael Moore is a doofus, as long as Rush Limabaugh is a big fat idiot. Cheekily, Meelar 17:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I completely agree. I've got a butt cheek reserved for liars & hate mongers from both the right and the left. :-) Mdchachi 17:35, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to make another self-correction: above I mentioned that the Florida prison system had "mixed-up" files, preventing votes from registered democrats of quantity more than ten times the margin of victory, but less than 100 times. It seems I was off by a factor of 10: it was, indeed, over a hundred times the margin of victory. The 2000 election page will verify this. Kevin Baas 16:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow, we're wordy. As Harry Caray would say, "Holy Cow!" I'll archive this soon.Meelar 17:43, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)