Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

UN support line

You guys seriously need to cut this shit out, otherwise we need to eliminate the line... Vote, discuss, whatever, but this is getting ridiculous. --kizzle 01:55, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Personally I prefer "without approval by" because it's more accurate. The UN Security Council either grants approval or it doesn't grant approval. Whether or not some fellow members approve the measure doesn't quantify to even an ambiguous support any more than 20 members of Congress voting for a bill make a law "ambiguously approved by Congress". The Security Council as a whole did not accept the proposal, and did not approve of it, and so to say that the UN in any way supported the proposal would be misleading. Sarge Baldy 04:01, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

The thing about saying, "without approval by" is that it implies that approval was not sought. If anyone can come up with a more succinct way of saying that UN support for the invasion was vetoed, that'd be good.

Well, it didn't come to a veto. Bush tried to get approval, but when it became clear he wouldn't get it, he didn't even call for the vote (although one week earlier he bluffed in a press conference: "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote"). Gzornenplatz 04:28, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's not entirely correct. Even after it was clear that France would veto the resolution, the US administration still sought support from non-permanent members of the security council with the intention to gather a majority of security council members and get some sort of "moral approval". As it became clear that it was not even possible to get the support of the majority of the "normal" members (including Mexico), the withdrew the resolution. Gugganij 18:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'm just saying I think saying (even at best) that it was ambiguously supported is dishonest. Personally I'd suggest adding in some details about the proposed initiative, how it was received by the UN, etc. which could satisfy both sides by explaining the UK's support of the initiative and the overall lack of support by the Council as a whole. Sarge Baldy 04:32, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

For those who feel the "ambigously approved" line must be included, what specifically and in detail do you mean by the UN "ambiguously" supported the US? --kizzle 04:54, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have rewritten the part that seems to cause problems, hopefully making it a bit easier to accept for everybody. Here it is. Edit away, and if it turns out reasonable we can add it to the page when it is no longer protected. P.S. 08:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

During the spring of 2003 the situation in Iraq escalated slowly. Increasing pressure from the USA forced the UN weapons inspectors to leave the country, unable to verify the existence of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). The Bush administration examined the possibility of a new resolution from the Security Council, but when it became clear that several of the permanent members (with vetoing power) would vote against such a resolution the matter was never taken to a vote. The USA managed to gather a group of countries to support the war, a total of about forty. They have been called "coalition of the willing" and while most of them are small there was some notable exceptions such as the United Kingdom, Japan and Spain. Spain has since pulled out of the war.

USA invaded Iraq in March, citing the old resolution and the lack of Iraq cooperation. The original goal of the war was to stop Iraq from developing WMD and to topple the dictator Saddam Hussein. The war proved extremely divisive, without any clear resolution and some of the U.S.'s long-term allies such as France and Germany strongly opposed it. In many countries there had not been such strong antiwar protests since the Vietnam war.

While the Iraq armed forces fell apart within a few hours the problems in Iraq has since escalated. The difficulties in the occupation and implementation of a democracy, the failure to find Saddam's alleged weapons, and claims about information having been allegedly spun or distorted to support the war have all been used to challenge the Bush administration both domestically and from abroad. These claims have been corroborated by investigations and reports by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Nevertheless, Bush states that he still believes it was the right decision, and that a demonstrably brutal tyrant has been overthrown and can no longer threaten the world. See 2003 invasion of Iraq for full coverage.

How can it be construed that this is ambiguous support from the UN? There wasn't even enough interest to hold a vote? --kizzle 08:29, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Also, at best only ambiguous support is a pretty weak phrasing to use. Nonetheless, i like the wording PS, i support the above version... i just don't get why people are so forceful to include such a weak statement. --kizzle 08:32, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

The reason, as I have understood it, is simply that you can put a proposal before the security council, which USA did. But when it became clear it would not pass, the USA did not ask for a vote. I don't really like either phrasing, it's better to tell what happened. P.S. 09:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The security council didn't vote because there was not sufficient consensus to justify one. It had nothing to do with the level of interest in the matter. I believe that there should be a mention that the security council as a body approved of intervention against Iraq, but not the overthrow of its government. It seems that the lack of that detail has led to the edit wars. Gazpacho 09:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Concerning the statment that The Bush administration examined the possibility of a new resolution from the Security Council, but when it became clear that several of the permanent members (with vetoing power) would vote against such a resolution the matter was never taken to a vote. As far as I can remember, the Bush administration at first wanted to have the permanent members to agree, as it became clear that some of them would veto the resolution, they continued to try to gather support in order to get a majority of the votes in the security council (I think the rational behind it was - at least media reports at this time argued this way - that if the resolution had been supported by an overall majority of security council members and had been vetoed by just some permanent members, it would have been amounted to some sort of "moral" approval of the UN). Just after the administration realized that this attempts were futile the withdrew the draft. 143.50.217.9 15:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"The original goal of the war was to stop Iraq from developing WMD and to topple the dictator Saddam Hussein. "->"The purported justification for the war was to remove WMD from Iraq (that Bush repeatedly told the U.S. public we "knew" existed, having "conclusive evidence") and to topple the dictator Saddam Hussein. "

"and that a demonstrably"->"and claims that a demontrably"

I also think that the U.N. section should be expanded. To respond to a comment made much earlier, about only a few "legal wars" - well then, that is the case. That is no counterargument. An illegal act is just as illegal the 100th time as it is the first. There is a clause in the U.S. Constitution which states that "all treaties entered into under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land." See also article 51 of the U.N. Charter, signed and ratified by the U.S., i.e. "entered into under the authority of the United States". The law determines the law, and nothing else. This is the law. Kevin Baas | talk 13:55, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

Page is unprotected

If this shouldn't be the case, a sysop should protect it. If this happens to be correct, the protected notice should be removed. ✑whkoh | ✖ 10:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

It appears that it was correct. ✑whkoh | ✖ 10:15, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Anybody want to start a pool on when it will be protected again? I put $5 down on 72 hours. PPGMD

do we really need pet goat as further reading? --kizzle 00:56, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Desertion

Prove it. --Golbez 11:05, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

;) Very Verily 11:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm gonna regret getting involved in this, but claiming he deserted outright without any citation was over the line. So ... I did what he asked. --Golbez 11:12, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

He's a goddam deserter and a goddam chicken-hawk and you know it. The article is a disgusting puff piece that attempts to minimise his dishonesty, his idiocy, and his many other defects. Shorne 11:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Such assertions cannot be considered NPOV. Now, in case it's not clear, you can forget about me haggling with you over your flagrantly POV additions. Very Verily 11:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When the hell have you ever haggled over anything? Readers are invited to see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Shorne 20:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, both the terms "AWOL" and "desertion" have legal meaning, and Bush meets neither. There are charges you could throw against Kerry if you wish to be so free with your definitions. I find it paericular annoying that Democrats spent a lot of time saying how much Clinton's literal avoidance of military service, even going back on a ROTC commitment to serve, was irrelevant to his Presidency, but now are wavin' the old red, white and blue and hailing their war hero. A bet more than a few Dems will breathe a sigh of relief if Kerry loses so they can stop pretending they like Vietnam Vets. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Prove it, Shorne. Saying he's a goddamn deserter and goddamn chicken hawk and I know it doesn't tell the reader jack. Prove it. --Golbez 20:53, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, guys. Let's stop being nasty, please. Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing hatred. Words like "goddam" and accusing people without proof have no place here. And, as a side note, Cecropia, not all people who dislike Bush are democrats. Now, as for the dispute, wouldn't it be better not to say he was AWOL and deserted, and instead to say that these are allegations made against him? Chewyman 21:56, 13 Oct 2004 (NZT)

And for the record, not everyone who prefers Bush to the competition is a Republican. (ps vote Badnarik) --Golbez 14:12, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

And not everybody thinks grasping at a pretext to topple a dictator in the belief, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, that this will cause a modern progressive democratic free (and pro-US) society to spontaneously spring up to replace him, the shining example of which will cause all the tyrannies, autocracies, theocracies, and generally dysfunctional states in the Middle East to suddenly wither away and be replaced by other modern progressive democratic free (and pro-US) societies is a 'conservative' plan. Gzuckier 15:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, guys, let's leave it there. This sort of debate is not for Wikipedia. Sorry I even made the comment. Anyway, as for the dispute (which is, just in case you didn't realise, the point this thing was brought up), saying Bush was a deserter is clearly out of order, but saying he was AWOL is actually in agreement with Bush's military record, I believe. However, I am not sure of this, so I won't put it in unless someone can back me up. Using Yahoo! only seems to come up with extremely partisan and POV sites. However, I think in any case the allegations alone are worthy of a mention. Chewyman 16:31, 14 Oct 2004 (NZT)

Rollback of anon 24.3.253.21 edit

While what the anon posted is interesting and certainly what some people have said, it is way POV for an encyclopedia article, presenting a particular evaluation as fact, and not a single reference. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree there - While the way it was written was pretty POV, I think that's a pretty relevant piece of information. I think a rewrite would have been better than a pure revert. As for references, I'm sure we could find some. Let's discuss this properly before replacing it, though. Chewyman 22:10, 13 Oct 204 (NZT)

I agree that it's relevant information -- my personal opinion is that what happened in Florida in 2000 was an absolute scandal. What's worse is that some of the same pack of thieves are setting up to do their best to steal another one ([1], [2]). Nevertheless, we can't cram everything into this article. What's appropriate is a brief mention, with a link to U.S. presidential election, 2000, and full elaboration of the Florida fiasco in the latter article. JamesMLane 09:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Increased Spending On Military Weaposns

Let's show an example here, folks. This unsupported and unfounded statement is entirely editorial.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/mili-f06.shtml -khaosworks 06:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

World Socialist Web Site as an authoritative source? Thanks for proving my point.

Okay, how about

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32689-2004Jun10.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-02-military-budget_x.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2005/fy2005_r1.pdf (specifically, summary pages D-1 and D-2)
http://www.hillnews.com/news/083004/defense.aspx
http://www.cdi.org/issues/budget/transformation-stalls-pr.cfm (for FY 2003 budget)

-khaosworks 02:40, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, outside of modernization programs that appear to be consistent with past administrations, the only thing out of the ordinary is ballistic missile defense. If you want to say that GWB has initiated a ballistic missile defense system, be my guest. At least that's factual (although how it belongs in an encyclopedic article about GBW remains beyond me). But some vague mention of increasing spending on weapons systems procurement when he's cancelled several procurement programs (i.e. Crusader) is not at all NPOV. The mention is irrelevant to this article, it is editorial and nonspecific, it is arguably inaccurate, and it is clearly editorial in nature. It is inappropriate here.

A statement that he has increased spending on weapons systems procument when he has increased spending on weapons systems procument, by supporting some and cancelling others (as every president does, hence your supposed counter- argument, besides being a non sequitur, is reducto ad absurdum), in contrast to decreasing spending or keeping it the same, as some presidents have done, is NPOV. Kevin Baas | talk 22:15, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

Bush "space vision"

This section seems way overblown and out of place. The correct place would be as a subheading under "Presidency", not as a separate heading of its own. Furthermore, the subject doesn't deserve such extensive attention, given that, as per the source that Khaosworks added, Bush hasn't mentioned it since January and almost none of it would be new funding even if Bush's January proposal were adopted. I would delete it completely. If it's to stay at all, it should be moved and drastically pruned. JamesMLane 05:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I vote delete. WP is not a place for political propaganda. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 05:17, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that, as it stands, it's political propaganda. That being said, the reason I added the details is because when it was first added, it was triumphalist in tone, and I felt the problems with it deserved to be pointed out. Space travel is an issue that some people - me included - think is important, and Bush's policy on it should be spelled out. I would be more than open, of course, to any suggestions as to how to prune it.-khaosworks 09:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I vote to keep and rewrite. The space vision got quite a lot attention here, especially compared to many of the other things mentioned in the article. We do not know what will happen with it. However, I think it should be compared to the apollo project with it's $100-billion price tag to show that the commitment made is quite small, especially as it shall cover all the research at NASA also. P.S. 07:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The original addition about space policy was indeed triumphalist in tone, and the down-to-earth facts added by Khaosworks are very valuable to put it in context. That said, as I read the current text, it means that a proposal to increase spending by $1 billion over the next five years is given three paragraphs in the article. Tax cuts that cost literally hundreds of times as much get one paragraph. I'd suggest moving these three paragraphs to the article on Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration. (OK, it's not exactly domestic, but it's more domestic than foreign, in terms of placement in our current articles. A completely separate article would be a possibility, but I don't know if there's enough material to make that a good choice.) For this article, it would be enough to have a short paragraph under the domestic policy section:

On January 14, 2004, Bush announced a "space vision" for a return to the Moon, the completion of the International Space Station and eventual manned travel to Mars. He has not pursued the idea since then. [3]

(By the way, I haven't checked the second external link because I was too lazy to register. If we can find a non-registration link, so much the better.) The "Domestic policy" subheading in this article is followed by a wikilink to the other article, so no further wikilink would be needed here if the detailed coverage was in that existing article. A new article on space, if created, would of course be wikilinked here. JamesMLane 19:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. -khaosworks 19:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Further Vandalism...

If you look closely, someone has put the goatse.cx man on Bush's laptop. Anyone kind enough to fix this?

Trying; can't figure out what happened. If anyone does, I'd love to hear how. --Golbez 15:49, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Another subtle vandalism that's occurring: The picture of "George W. Bush in his national guardsman uniform" displays properly in the article but if you click on it, the enlarged version is of Hitler. I think this has now been fixed but it may be vandalized again. JamesMLane 21:42, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with caching. Try clearing your cache and hitting shift-reload. Evercat 21:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yet another creative vandalism, redirecting to Hitler. At least they are showing some knowledge of Wiki, instead of the old replacing paragraphs. Though I am getting sick of it, but IMO I don't think that this article will stabilize until a couple of years after he is out of office, when ever that happens (whether next year or 4 years from now). PPGMD

Whatever happened to his portrait? --Valentino 21:26, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Fixed PPGMD

They put that he was born in "Hell." What? I'm not a Bush supporter, but this is a place to inform the public, not to post opinions. Andre Wong 22:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism fix, probably would take a code change, but perhaps make it so unlogged in users can't make changes to often vandalized pages (as determined by the admins). That would possibly slow down the number of Vandals to common political pages like this one. PPGMD

"Fat Mike and Rock Against Bush"

This section, recently added, is interesting, but it's not really about Bush. It seems to me that campaign-related material like this belongs in U.S. presidential election, 2004, which is where we refer to the campaigning by groups like SBVT. The substance of SBVT's attack on Kerry relates to Kerry's biography, and so is mentioned in John Kerry, with a wikilink. If some punk fan can tell us that the Rock Against Bush effort has any similar content, then, by analogy, that could be summarized and linked here. Pending such information, I'm deleting this section, moving some of the information to Rock Against Bush and some to U.S. presidential election, 2004. JamesMLane 02:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think a quick mention somewhere would be good, but you're right - not a whole section. Chewyman 16:08, 22 Oct 2004 (NZT)

I don't see even a quick mention as appropriate, because it's about the campaign, not about Bush. Another anti-Bush group, Texans for Truth, used to be mentioned in this article, just as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is mentioned in John Kerry. Both these links are appropriate because the group's criticism relates to the candidate's military service, a biographical subject. I'm restoring the TfT link here, because the two candidates should be treated fairly. As for Rock Against Bush, I think the increasing role played this year by groups like that, not affiliated with a candidate (some of them 527's, some not), deserves to be included in U.S. presidential election, 2004. JamesMLane 17:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image crowding

This article has a lot of images, and they're all pretty close to each other if not right next to each other. This causes them to stack up horizontally, meaning the text of the article is squished into a thin little column. This is bad design and really fouls up legibility, especially for people who have a resolution of 800x600 or lower. Editors, could you spread the images out a bit? Aligning some on the left may help too. Garrett Albright

Neutrality??

(cur) (last) 20:15, 23 Oct 2004 Neutrality m (rv vandalism)
(cur) (last) 20:15, 23 Oct 2004 Neutrality m (Reverted edits by 66.120.158.84 to last version by 66.185.84.208)
(cur) (last) 19:40, 23 Oct 2004 66.120.158.84 (removed POV vandalism)
(cur) (last) 19:35, 23 Oct 2004 66.185.84.208

So, in short:

66.185.84.208 vandalizes page
66.120.158.84 (me) removes vandalism
You revert to 66.185.84.208's vandalized version
Then you do exactly what I did in removing that vandalism

What's up?

Education

It is not neutral to counter the Critics' claim that schools were not given the resources to help meet new standards with "despite a 50% increase in federal education spending" unless it is described the basis of the critics' claim as well. The source in the article says Federal money accounts to only 11% of the total education budget, was raised by only 35% rather than 50% since Bush took office and that the program is so costly that many schools opted out. Get-back-world-respect 23:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It feels pretty neutral considering this is the largest increase in federal education spending in history. If we claim that education is underfunded, this statistic is meaningful.

Relevancy of Polling Data

National and international polling data are included in this biography. I'm not certain whether this is relevant. While domestic presidential approval statistics might possibly be relevant (although they don't seem to appear anywhere else here but with Bush) the international polling numbers really seem irrelevant. Bush serves the United States, and international polling data questions a group whom he does not claim to represent in any way. Or will we include international approval ratings of Kim Jong-Il, Jacques Chirac and Robert Mugabe in order to be fully NPOV?

That would be desirable: to include international approval ratings of other leaders to be fully NPOV. It's important because we live in an international world, where the decisions made in one place have a great effect on things in totally different places. This is the significance: the effect. In effect, he inadvertently "serves", and through diplomacy and international policy, it is his duty to serve the international interests as well as the domestic interests.

With any other president, I would have to concede your final point that the data questions a group that "he does not claim to represent in any way", but in this case, I am not so confident. Indeed, he has a record of claiming that he represents groups of people who vociferously refute that claim of allegiance. Kevin Baas | talk 16:36, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

Nice Word, Kev. While such polls would be nice, anonymous, I'm not sure how easy they would be able to get hold of. If you have them, please (for me, anyway) feel free to use them. Chewyman 16:56, 28 Oct 2004 (NZT)

U.S. presidents are answerable to the american people, who were the ones who elected them. Last time I checked, Pakistanis didn't cast ballots in presidential elections. Whether they support or oppose a candidate for U.S. office is about as relevant as how shareholders of Comcast regard Michael Eisner. Have we included international polling data for any other president on his biographic page? No. International opinion regarding Ronald Regan was easily as fractious as with Bush, yet it receives no mention. If it is relevant here, why not there? Or is our current political passion such that we feel compelled to include any criticism that can be found on this page?

If you are subject to any confusion regarding the responsibilities of the president, review the oath of office. It succinctly states the role and responsibilities of the office, and nowhere in that oath is a statement regarding international service. A president's duty is to the constitution of the united states, and to the american people who chose him to serve in the office.

U.S. presidents are different from other leaders in that they are considered the "leader of the free world" in some respects. This is not ethnocentricism, this is just a common perception that the U.S. president's ability to influence foreign countries makes him one of the most powerful men in the world. So, while Pakistanis do not cast ballots in presidential elections, they are subject to his policies. It is important to note the effect that the president has on people of other nations because it reflects the consequences of a president's foreign policy. There is a sharp contrast in approval rating from within and outside the united states, and such polling data is the only scientific way to measure and represent this phenomenon. It used to be "Bush is regarded lower outside the US than from within" but incited edit wars due to rightful concerns that such a statement was mere conjecture, thus polling data was added. Simply because a president's constiuency does not lie outside the united states is not justification to remove such polling data. However, the consequences of a president's foreign policy in terms of foreign reaction is justification for relevance in this article. --kizzle 18:13, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Do I hear a tinge of hypernationalism? Let me quote some Albert Camus:

You said to me "The greatness of one's country is beyond price, everything is good that contributes to its greatness, and in a world where everything has lost its meaning, those lucky few who, like us young Germans, are fortunate enough to find a meaning in the destiny of our country, must sacrifice everything else to it." I loved you then, but at this point we diverged. "No." I told you, "Everything must not be subordinated to a single end, there are means which cannot be excused, and I should like to be able to love my country and still love justice." You retorted "Well you don't love your country."

That was five years ago, and I can tell you that not a single day has passed during those long years (so brief, so dazzling swift for you) without my remembering your remark "You don't love your country." When I think of those words today I feel a choking sensation. No, I didn't love my country, if pointing out what is unjust about what one loves amounts to not loving. No, I didn't love my county, if holding what one loves up to the finest image you have of her amounts to not loving, then I do not love my country.

That was five years ago, and many men in France thought as I did. Some of them have already been stood up against the wall facing the twelve little black eyes of german "destiny", and those men, who, in your opinion, did not love their country, did more for it than you can ever do...

I think you get the idea. That's from memory, and I typed it without pause or erasing a single word. And that's only a fraction of it. Not let me quote something you might be more familiar with:

"... I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ..." Notice Article 2 of the Consititution, wherein the presidential responsibilities are stated: The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed.", and also notice article 6, wherein "all treaties entered into under the authority of the United States are the Supreme law of the land."

So you see, I am not subject to any confusion regarding the responsibilities of the president.

Now regarding your first paragraph, U.S. Presidents, in practice, are not neccessarily answerable to anyone, as has recently been made clear, but they have a moral obligation to conduct themselves in a responsible manner and to make considerations of depth and diversity commensurate to the ramifications of potential executive decisions. In this sense, they are to answer to the world, and by the world be held accountable.

The analogy that you made, in this aspect as well as many others, is greatly lacking and can ptly be called a false analogy. Apples and oranges are more similiar. Who casts ballots is completely irrelevant, and if I'm not mistaken that argument is a well-known logical fallacy: a Non sequitur. The fact that we have yet to include international opinion on other political figures is no counterargument to including it: you have to start somewhere. Ronald Reagan was nowhere near as unpopular in the world community as George W. Bush is. People from other countries on the wiki and in person are telling me all the time that his unpopularity outside the U.S. in unprecedented. (I'll take their word over an American's any day, because they are outside of the U.S..) Your blanket allegation of partisianship is empty rhetoric and yet another logical fallacy: Appeal to motive. We did not make the polls the way they are. You have the education of people throughout the world, the ability that has given them to think for themselves, and their ability to see the world around them, think about what's happening and what could be done, and speak their mind, to blame for that. If loving my country means disrespecting that, then, in the sense that Albert Camus expressed, I do not love my country. Kevin Baas | talk 18:17, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

In respect to your particular comments on there being no polling data in other presidents' pages, kizzle, please, if you can find some, put them in. As for Pakistanis' views on Bush, they are important, because whether Bush gets elected or Kerry will likely affect them reasonably heavily - all countries' economies are heavily interconnected.Chewyman 08:55, 29 Oct 2004 (NZT)

So put them in, I'm not stopping you. I'm merely justifying their inclusion here. And Pakistanis' views on Bush are indeed important, that's exactly what I am arguing.--kizzle 00:28, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Relevancy of Polling Data-break1

Nowhere in the Constitution is the president of the United States charged with being the "leader of the free world". It is a possibly temporary aberration of history that we now have the military power and the potential moral authority to have this extralegal title thrust on this office, but nowhere is it codified that the president has any obligation towards peoples who are not citizens of the United States. Our laws may be loosely bound to obligations that the president and senate have undertaken, but no U.S. law has jusridiction outside of our national borders. Our nation is sovereign, and our laws brook no illusions that we have legal sovereignty outside of our borders. You cannot be responsible over what you have no authority with.

Now if there is a legal requirement or authority in the Constitution or U.S. Code that I have overlooked, please disillusion me. Appeals to french philosophers aside, we are ultimately a nation of laws, designed under our Constitution to ensure the natural rights that we have been endowed with. Camus is not our ultimate legal or moral authority here. Authority for government in the United States is strictly controlled, and doesn't have the luxuries that philosophers can afford themselves with.

If the U.S. has no authority outside of it's borders other than what it effects by force of arms, there is little reason to believe that those outside of U.S. borders have any authority in regards to the United States, other than what others may effect by force of arms. Their opinions are utterly irrelevent to the nation, and absolutely irrelevant in regards to a biography of a man who currently serves as president. Apparently those that may remember the protests in Europe regarding Pershing II deployments under Reagan understood when writing Reagan's biography that it was not germaine to his biography. But here and now, Bush has been saddled with an extralegal obligation to represent world interests in addition to United States interests, and suppossed failures in that realm refelect on his personal biography rather than political discussions that encompass a larger cast of characters. It is a responsibility we have applied nowhere else, to any other president.

GWB is responsible to the american people, and the opinions of others from other nations regarding how he has discharged his duties is irrelevent, in a legal and practical sense.

If we are to merely fall back on the constitution, it does not say that the president must answer to those of other countries. There is nothing you have overlooked in the constitution or U.S. code. However, the constitution was also written by a bunch of white slaveowners and explicitly allows the trading in human life. It is not a perfect document. Simply because there is not an explicit code that makes a president answer to other countries (which wouldn't make sense) does not mean that their perceptions of us are irrelevent. Are Saudi Arabians' perceptions of the U.S. and Bush irrelevent, considering that this measurement of perception is a highly accurate precursor towards Al Qaeda or at the very least anti-American concentration of idealogy? One key example of how we are responsible for the perceptions of us we create is North Korea. When Bush labeled them as part of an "Axis of Evil", it iced talks between them and S. Korea and us. Now, a part of the mess we face with N. Korea is made worse due to the president's labeling and thus the subsequent public reaction in N. Korea. This blind ignorance that you share with the president of the reactions of other countries is the very reason we are in this mess called Iraq in the first place. And just because it does not say in the constitution that the president is not the leader of the free world, this does not mean that this title is erroneously attributed. "With great power comes great responsibility"... Stan Lee is a wise man, maybe Bush should listen. --kizzle 05:10, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

There are so many specific issues to address in your reply, but it seems that the larger issue is an ingrained belief of yours that America is not inter-dependant with the rest of the world; that we live precisely in a box and a vacuum. That is demonstrably false. I cannot stress this enough. As within our community, we are interdependent with each other, so within the world community are the nations. I depend on other people for my survival. America depends on other nations for agricultural, industrial, and technological products, for scientific advancement, for culture and art, and for international security. Likewise do others nations depend on us. Cooperation is imperative.

Legally, you are wrong. Did you read the passages? I'm not so sure you read and understood them, because what you said: "GWB is responsible to the american people, and the opinions of others from other nations regarding how he has discharged his duties is irrelevent, in a legal and practical sense." contradicts them. In a legal sense, it is not only against the law for him to abrogate treaty engagements made with other nations under the authority of the U.S., but it is his sworn duty to make sure that these international laws are faithfully carried out. Judicially, he is thus answerable to those that the U.S. made a contract with: the legal representatives of the people of other nations. "all treaties entered into or which shall be made under the authority of the United States are the supreme Law of the Land" "The President...shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." We are responsible for all agreements made in treaties entered into under the authority of the united states, whether they involve actions performed by the U.S. in our nation or in other nations. Perhaps this is what you have overlooked?

It is a responsbility that we have applied to other presidents, and that some (such as John F. Kennedy) have taken upon themselves without solicitation. And took full responsibility for things when they went wrong, before anyone even began to distribute blame. This stands in stark contrast to some other presidents, who have demonstrated a somewhat different philosophy.

FWIW, Camus could not afford himself many luxuries: he lived in abject poverty during a war. In his later years, he helped to bring that war to an end, and I have nothing but respect for the man for being able to accomplish so much from so little. The philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson (who, as I'm sure you know, wrote the Constitution), arguably place a somewhat higher value on philosophy, upon which this nation is founded, than you do. Our nation is based on Rule of Law because of philosophy. Kevin Baas | talk 19:06, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

I correct myself: Thomas Jefferson was serving as an envoy to France at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. However, he drafted the Declaration of Independance and many other important political documents. The point still stands. (BTW, he considered this one of his three greatest achievements. Another great achievement was funding, designing, selecting the building material for, and supervising the construction of the University of Virginia, the first fully secular university, hand-picking all of the professors from throughout the U.S., writting the cirriculum for every course, and selecting the books to be in the library.) The natural law that you speak of is a philosophical concept discussed by Thomas Aquinas and John Locke. Kevin Baas | talk 18:55, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

International approval ratrings for national leaders by persons outside of their constituency are nothing more than trivia. It is irrelevant to a biographical discussion of George Bush. This trivia, for those interested in it, would be better addressed in a page regarding international approval ratings regarding various presidents over time, or international opinions of various other international leaders. This is not George Bush's issue: it is an issue that has come up in various ways for many U.S. presidents as well as other world leaders. To discuss it only on this page at this time is arbitrary, and unmistakably partisan. It harms the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

This apparently racist and ogliarchal document of the Constitution is the law we have, and until it's changed it's the law we follow. That's the way it works. If it doesn't specify a responsibility of the U.S. president towards the international community other than specifying that ratified treaties have the force of domestic law, there is no responsibility other than the moral character that the officeholder personally brings to the office. Feel free to try to change that, but until that happens no amount of wishing and creative interpretation coming from what you might like the constitution should read trumps what it actually does read. Your vision of moral responsibility is separate from mandated legal responsibility, and there's an obvious reason for that.

If you believe I am responsible for something and I haven't agreed to assume that responsibility, nor are legally charged with that responsibility, I cannot be held accountable. You strive to hold GWB accountable for international approval, something he has never agreed to be responsible for and is not a specified duty of his office. If this is the new way responsibility is managed, fine. Perhaps I hold you personally responsible for Kim Jong-Il's starvation of hundreds of thousands of his people, because you're a caring and loving person who has failed to do anything to avert this catastrophe. Fair?

This whole discussion is beside the point. The issue for Wikipedia isn't the extent of George Bush's moral responsibility. The issue is to summarize notable aspects of his presidency. If the fact is that he's very unpopular worldwide, and your personal opinion is that his global unpopularity is not a strike against him because it's not mentioned in the Constitution, fine, you can go ahead and hold that opinion. This article shouldn't endorse your opinion; nor, of course, should it say anything like, "Bush has been a bad President, as indicated by his global unpopularity." We simply report the fact and let each reader make of it what he or she chooses. The issue is to find suitably NPOV wording. JamesMLane 03:40, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with JamesMLane. The thing is, this upcoming election is seen by almost the entire world as one with huge, enormous effects on the Earth's future, and, therefore, the data is relevant. If you want to get into a philosophical debate on responsibilty, here isn't the time or place. Chewyman 14:07, 1 Nov 2004 (NZT)