Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevin Baas (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 4 February 2005 (→The price of freedom). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

George W. Bush and Hatfield's allegations

Someone has restored the section you have repeatedly removed, so I've edited it to clarify the source of the allegations. Hatfield said he confirmed the cocaine bust story with unnamed sources close to the Bush family. Not having the sources, and without any records to support the story, we cannot say whether Hatfield's allegations are true or false. They're plausible, however, and not something that should just be kicked under the carpet.

Rather than a partisan approach, Misplaced Pages adopts a neutral point of view (NPOV). The essence of this can be expressed as follows: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves". The founder, Jimmy Wales. has described the neutral point of view principle on Misplaced Pages as "non-negotiable". It's a rule we must all follow as contributors.

If as appears to me you are fairly new to Misplaced Pages, you may find this a little difficult to get used to, but I urge you to watch how talk pages are used to iron out differences of opinion so that a form of words that conforms to NPOV can be found. If you have problems with the current form of words--for instance, you seem to be concerned that allegations are being treated as facts rather than opinions--please join the discussion on Talk:George W. Bush. We should be able to work something out without engaging in edit wars. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plausible doesn't cut it

I disagree in regards to the George Bush article. J.H. Hatfield's book has no proven facts, only assertions and inuendo. Therefore, in an effort to be NPOV I still continue to state that the reference to this book and the allegations of cocaine use by President George Bush are not what I can say are good examples of NPOV. They are instead placed in the article purely from the standpoint of POV and that POV is an effort to slander, not an effort to educate. With that much said, and in light of the fact that I obviously have a serious difference in perspective with the major contributors to the George Bush article, I would like to clearly state that I feel that this one point is only a minute part of the problem with that article. I feel that the entire article is rubbish and beyond any hope of repair because the major contributors are those that have a POV of dislike of George Bush to an extreme and it is impossible for them to adopt a NPOV. --MONGO|Talk

I've already laid out the essence of NPOV for you. It's "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." So in my edit to the restored paragraph about Hatfield's allegations I gave more background detail (the circulated email discussed in Salon, the three people close to the Bush family that Hatfield claimed acknowledged the story of the alleged coke bust and coverup). The section also contains information about the revelations about Hatfield's felony conviction, which effectively killed his credibility and probably led to his suicide. I do this because it constituted a significant investigation of moderately serious allegations about George W. Bush's early adult life; to leave it out would be a serious omission.

If you think I've got the balance of facts, or facts about opinions, wrong, feel free to obtain more facts, or facts about opinions, and add them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discrediting Hatfield

Jeez... are we writing an article about George Bush here or someone else? I don't care to further discredit Hatfield, he did that for himself, and wrote the book just to make a buck...would anyone buy it if he didn't have slander to sell? The article isn't worthy of any credit as far as being a worthwhile enterprise of research...it is just too leftist, angry and well, the main contributors are biased beyond hope. --MONGO|Talk

Could you explain which parts of the article you think are leftist and which parts appear to be angry? I have to admit that the article seems to my tastes to be, if anything, a little dry, but is refreshingly free of the hectoring tones of left and right partisan propaganda. But if you could give an example perhaps we could discuss it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Leftist redundancy

Tony...let's explain so you understand...I think this entire GEORGE BUSH article reeks of leftist redundancy and I am not going to detail it for you. I can say that I would NEVER recommend this source as a point of reference for anyone doing legitimate research on George Bush. I stated that there are published articles, books and related material that portray Adolph Hitler as a different man than the one we know to be true and that these articles are so ridiculous that we would never even mention them on any Wiki page about that man. We accept Hitler as the one of the biggest mistakes of evolution and as a matter of providing a factual based accord of his misdeeds, these published books which cast him in a completely different light and are without basis in fact, are OMITTED. But this rule doesn't apply for the major contributors to the George Bush article. Repeatedly, ad nauseum, references are made that attempt to show that George Bush is a cocaine user or at least was, that he is still a drunk and these references are all from questionable sources. My opponents in this seem to think that the allegations are admissible based on the fact that someone said them...and therefore follow WIKI rules...I say, they are to be OMITTED because they are of a questionable source that has no PROOF and unless it can be shown to be TRUE, they have no place here. I say that they are in the article because the major contributors are leftist and are anti Bush and therefore there is no hope they can be swayed. --MONGO 13:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea for writing an encyclopedia--omit all opinions that are not provable--but would be rather difficult to implement. We wouldn't be able to report Adolf Hitler's belief that the Jews were an inferior race because that cannot be proven. We wouldn't be able to report on any politicians' opinions at all except perhaps very old ones and then only that portion of their beliefs that had been proven true by events. The allegations of criminal conduct by President Clinton and Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater scandal? Special Prosecutor Ray reported to Congress: "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct." The Whitewater allegations could not stand in a court of law, so we could not report them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

Haven't you heard of Hitler's book Mein Kamph? Perhaps it wasn't spoken that Hitler was anti semtic, but it certainly was spoken that he believed the "Aryan" peoples to be superior to all others. The whitewater scandal is like comparing a mountain to an anthill to the alleged cocaine use by George Bush. Sure, it was proven that there was reasonable doubt that the Clintons had nothing to do with the allegations yet it is reported because it is of a different magnitude. Grand jury investigations, millions and millions of your tax dollars, special prosecutors sure do sound to me to be a little bit more serious than the writings of a convicted felon whose book was pulled from shelfs and a known leftist enterprise such as Salon which has operated on a narrow margin, needs money or attention and has an axe to grind. --MONGO 10:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it...at all. This article is a worthless rag and the only place it is acceptable is here. I'm not going to discuss it any further and you can say whatever you wish as my opinion is different which means that since it is in opposition to yours, we are at an impasse. It is unfortunate that preposterous rubbish like this can be used in what is to be considered a point of reference and is, along with a considerable more unsubstantiated baloney, included in this article.--MONGO 21:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Newspapers and books use confidential sources all the time. That's usually the only way to get the dirt -- otherwise nobody would talk. It's an accepted, legitimate practice in journalism. By all means, discredit it (in NPOV language of course), but it was a big enough controversy that it needs to be included. Timbo ( t a l k ) 19:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should not surprise me (although it does) that you can characterize Salon as any kind of leftist enterprise. Goodness, if you ever found a copy of New Statesman, you'd run out of words to describe it. As for The Morning Star, you'd be absolutely speechless. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I find CBS news to be leftist. I consider all of Hollywood to be leftist. I consider Micheal Moore to be a scary leftist. I do not fear these people, but in fact, I think they are extremists. If you read my user page, and fail to see that I set it up to be preposterous, then you miss my point. Folks that call the George Bush article good editing or sound research, folks like Michael Moore and loud mouthed Hollywood types that need to stick to acting, make people like me become MORE conservative. On a political spectrum, our country is far more liberal than it was even 20 years ago. Kennedy would have definitely been to the right of Clinton. Truman would have been to the right of Kennedy, Wilson would have been to the right of Truman. That modern day hollywood types and leftist rags can refer to Bush as an ultra conservative is absurd. He is only so in light of modern politics and would have been a liberal if he held the same perspectives even 50 years ago. He is, however far right of anyone since Reagan, though probably not more so. --MONGO 07:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. I've got a clearer picture of your point of view now. However from an external perspective things look very different It seems clear to most outsiders that US politics has become extremely right wing in the past thirty years or so. The public demands ever more savage prison sentences, welfare provision is attacked, moves to a comprehensive health service are widely regarded as political suicide, senior politicians openly contemplate a federal amendment banning gay marriage, political parties favor an interventionist foreign policy characteristic of the extreme right rather than the moderate right (which is usually isolationist or at least in favor of actions in favor of a narrowly defined national interest), the word "liberal" acquires the status of a swearword, frequent challenges are made to the rights of the individual (for instance, attempt to introduce a flag burning amendment, somewhat successful attempts by the Executive to imprison citizens without trial and without full access to legal representation). Although I'm aware that these changes are not monolithic and are the product of distinct and sometimes antagonistic social movements, to outsiders these changes make the USA appear to be galloping quickly rightwards.

• It is my belief that this difference in perception on where the political center lies may be coloring your view of the Bush article. On whether it really is socialist propaganda I don't know. I'm pretty sure that anybody who likes to can edit that article, but it's possible that socialists feel more motivated to edit it than those of the center or right. And they may be more successful in driving an anti-Bush agenda and getting it accepted. It looks okay to me, but then again my politics are considerably further to the left than one person whom you have described as a "scary leftist", so my perceptions may be colored by my politics.

• All I can do is encourage you to continue contributing your critiques on the article, and your edits, which I assure you I and others will take seriously provided they are not accompanied by personal slurs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem like there are more and more loonies everyday? The aggregate center of political opinion is so far left of the aggregate center of political opinion, that soon we will be overrun by extremists left-wing loony conspiracy-theorists! Personally, I think it's a conspiracy by the media, which is 90% bias to the left. Kevin Baas 21:29, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Slanders

It wasn't that big a controversy....the fact that the slanders were ever published were the controversy or did you sleep through that part when the "big story broke". --MONGO 21:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend you visit Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette and Misplaced Pages:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. You're not going to convince other people that you're right by being patronizing and rude. I hope you can separate yourself from your political persuasion and actually contribute constructively. Timbo ( t a l k ) 21:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, let's see, I didn't think I was hot or rude, quite the contrary. I feel that the warnings and etc. I have gotten such as this from you are rude as I don't remember going into your talk page and handing out advice on courtesy. I fail to see how the slander that constitutes the George Bush article is anything other than the political persuasion of the far left and fail to see how the incorporation of so much inuendo and heresay makes for good reporting. Perhaps it is the likes of your political persuasion that won't allow you to edit the article with a NPOV, not mine. As I mentioned, I consider this an impossible impasse.--MONGO 10:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Unless you assume good faith, there's no way you'll be able to work with others. You might be surprised to hear this, but you can't rewrite the article to suit your own POV. This is a community. Timbo ( t a l k ) 17:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can rewrite the article to fit my POV because I choose to eliminate National Enquirer type of reporting which is not quantifable and not pertainent except to those that wish to see Bush slandered. It is you and the leftist that seem to think that only their misconceptions are valid. I encourage you to switch your battle to the main discussion pages of the article on George Bush rather than continue to make private personal attacks here in my user page.--MONGO 20:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is your user talk page. An item written here is a way of communicating with you on a one-to-one basis, and is commonly used for dealing with interpersonal stuff such as reminding a user of Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette.

This article can be edited by anyone, they don't even have to be a logged in user, and yet you claim that it shows what you call an extreme leftist bias. How does that work? Is everybody who works on this article, or even the majority, a "leftist"? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, this has become a tit for tat and as I have said before, it is an impossible impasse. I'm sure you won't change your mind because of anything I say, and I know nothing you have to say will change mine. In my eyes, the article is written with a bias and that bais is left wing. I can't make it any more simple than that. I don't know if the majority of those that work on the article are leftist. I do know that the folks that seem to be protecting the existing document, based on what their user pages state, and on their commentary are not centrist and they sure aren't conservative. Being liberal isn't a bad thing, I am the last person to truly condemn it. But I am in disagreement with that perspective because I think it to be short sighted and unrealistic. --MONGO 06:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The price of freedom

My qualms about the vitroil on your user page, and about having vitroil on one's user page in the first place aside, I agree with you on one thing: freedom is expensive. The manner in which it is paid for, however, I differ in opinion on: I agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Kevin Baas 08:06, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

My family has fought in every war the USA has been in including the revolution. I myself have two siblings that have gone to both Afghanistan and Iraq in the past 3 years as part of their service to this country. I was so fortunate to not have been eligible to be in harms way due to having been born with only one kidney. Not a day or sometimes an hour goes by that I won't hope they are well, and that their compatriots in arms are as well. I cannot think of what it must feel like to be the parent or spouse or child of those killed in action. We owe a debt to all of them we can never repay. My siblings are educated and not prone to believing propaganda and they both feel that we did the right thing when it comes to Iraq, regardless of the presence of WMD. This world is becoming smaller everyday...how much room is there for governments that pose a threat to their neighbors? Beyond any shadow of doubt in my mind, the USA and it's allies and the entire world were incredibly patient with Saddam Hussein, but the time had come to do something and I do not believe that we could afford to continue with diplomacy. As worded in UN resolution 1441 that meant SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. We had already done everything else we could do...what was left but to go to war? Some have argued that there never were any WMD, that Saddam behaved the way he did because it gave him strength with his people because they admired his defiance. However, WMD's are not something to take an action of wait and see. A leader must lead, regardless of the consequences, and must accept his political fate based on the outcome. It is my hope that democracy will be born in Iraq so that those persons there can begin to enjoy in freedoms the rights most of us in the western world take as normal.--MONGO 11:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevancy of that ramble. It is clear that you have strong emotions on what you are talking about. But your strong emotions are besides the point. The point is what is the gravest threat to freedom, and what, therefore, is the first and most neccessary defense? For example, if one looks at it like a war, as you seem to like doing, then one has only to consult the first page of the first book on war, "Sun Tzu: The Art of War", and read the first line: "War is all about deception." It goes on to talk about assesments and calculations, gathering information, and misinforming and disinforming the enemy. There are no heroic pictures of violent battles in it, but it does go along way into stressing how everything in war hinges on knowledge of the "battlefield". Kevin Baas 19:08, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

MY ramble, as you wish to put it, is relevent in light of the simple knowledge that our borders are pourous, and we have more difficulty here maintaining our freedoms, and are in essence less free, if we cannot insure freedom elsewhere. You assume that our leaders, in that our current administration is guided by a feeling of revenge, oil and simplistic things as such which are easy to point at, when the rational for invading Iraq are much more complex. My ramble was an attempt, successfully I feel, to elaborate on the theme that freedom isn't cheap...ie, my family is in active engagement there and in all liklihood I have more to lose than many others may. It was my answer as well to your assumption that we can be protected simply by maintaining vigilance. Vigilance is hard to maintain, and it's easy to get lazy. Sorry, I have no understanding about what you think by invoking the quote that war is all about deception. I doubt that this stage of war is obvious when the planes have already hit the WTC towers....seems at that point the deception is over and the reality should have become obvious. I assume from your quote, that due to his constantly dancing a jig around UN resolutions, that Saddam was being deceptive, and that since we invaded Iraq, we fell for his deception. Or that our current leaders have used deception to put us in this situation.....otherwise, your response is quite academic but lacking in simple realities.--MONGO 19:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The war is a war of ideas. The battlefield of freedom is the mind. I do not assume what you say I assume, rather, you are the one who are assuming: you are assuming my thoughts and motivations. This is an example of the battlefield.

I do not believe that the situation is simple, rather, I believe it is more complex than you have espoused.

I believe that Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush, are motivated by the reasons that they state: securing a geopolitical landscape unquestionably favorable to American principles and interests. I have a problem with this. A really, really, really big problem with this. And "I have more to lose than many others may," for I am an American.

It feels good to hear the word "freedom", but what does it mean? In the era of World War 2, there were two conflicting definitions of "freedom": Kruschev's and Kennedy's.

Kruschev's version was the spread of one ideology, thought to be manifestly superior, throughout the world. He thought it would bring peace, freedom, and prosperity to everyone. He saw it as the future, and believed, therefore, that he was manifestly right in spreading this kind of "freedom" throughout the world.

Kennedy defined freedom as political diversity and the flow of ideas. This meant not enforcing American policies on developing nations, but helping them grow through cooperation, and letting them determine their own path.

The distinction between these two forms of freedom is subtle, but important. What form of "freedom" do we believe in today, Kruschev's or Kennedy's?

I have much more to say in response to what have written, but for fear of spreading the discussion out to thin, I decided to focus on a theme. Kevin Baas 20:38, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Well, I get the impression that you allude to Bush's view of freedom as being more similar to Kruschev's than to Kennedy's. I mentioned before that the world in general has become a more liberal place. To wish to instill democracy in Iraq is a liberal hope in light of the fact that they most recently were ruled by a dictator. I can see how, to the outside world that Bush is viewed as a vengeful warmonger, yet I see little precedent for any neocolonialism aside from what happened in Japan in 1945 when MacArthur essentially wrote their constitution for them. I consider the events of 9/11 to be an attack on the western world so all of us have a lot to lose if we allow freedom to fail. It is a traditional train of thought that if you can defeat the big guy on the block, then it makes you the new big guy. I believe that if say France had the economic and military power of the U.S. and was as strong an ally of Israel as the U.S. is, then the target would have been in Paris, not N.Y. I understand that many might feel that Bush would wish to control and regulate other countries, espcially in the third world, yet there is little precedent for our intervention aside from when requested, when the action will improve stability, or when it is mandatory... All comments of Vietnam aside. It is possible that due to the ever expanding population, vast improvements in transportation, ever increasing technology and extremist groups that wish to return some areas of the world to a barbarious state, that intervention may be necessary to ensure world security....and that the net result may be the establishment of a government which is friendly to the U.S., which by the way, will most likely be friendly it's neighbors. If you suggest that Afghanistan and or Iraq are worse places now than they were before 9/11 then you are gravely mistaken. When asked by the press how Bush would respond if the Shite majority in Iraq won the election, he essentially said that if that is the way they vote then so be it....so long as it is done democratically. You can't always allow vigilance to be your only defense...there may not be enough time.--MONGO 08:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there is not enough time, it's because one could not see far enough ahead.

These are straw men you are talking about; not the actual people in the world or these nations, but manifestations of a social imagination. They do not desire a barbarious state. If anything, there are people who desire vindication, whether warranted or not, and there are people who are angry and/or uneducated, etc. These are aspects that every human being shares. There is no alien race on this planet. We are as likely to be the "aggressors" as anyone else, as aggression is not a person, but a human feeling. Things like this must be kept in perspective to understand things and be able to respond to them constructively.

As to the idea that we can wave a magic wand and end poverty; that we can plow through a country and transform a non-industrialized latent theocracy into an industralized democractic nation with sheer "boldness of will", that's a good dream, MONGO, but it's not reality, it's rape. It's equivocable to thinking that you can make a woman love you by simply expressing your desire in a reckless abandon of sex. It takes thinking, it takes patience, it takes understanding of what is possible and what is not, it takes acceptance, it takes restraint. You can't transform a nation in 10 years anymore than you can raise a child in 1. It's an illusion, a dangerous illusion. Kevin Baas 20:45, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Well, when a person is fairly young as it seems to me that you may be, time seems to be longer, not shorter. I think you fail to see far enough ahead...what kind of power vacuum do you think would have happened in a dictatorial state if Saddam had died while in power? It will take time for these countries to transform, but transform they must. I know that when I was born we had less than half the people on the planet than we do today. By the time I die, we will have more than 3 times maybe 4 times the number of people all sharing spaceship Earth. We don't have the time to wait for them to catch up in a social standards kind of way. If the Taliban wasn't barbarous, then you're deluding yourself. We waited 12 years for Saddam to be straight up with all his facts...it may take another 12 years to tranform Iraq into a better place for their citizens...it only took Japan half that long. I never said we could do it with sheer force, but what to do, sit around and play games? Meanwhile, tortures go on, human rights are snuffed, on and on we go. Why is it liberals are so quick to talk about rights and freedoms and liberties, yet fail to understand that not in all cases can these issues be resolved with diplomacy. Not especially when a dictator is in charge. The terrorist organizations in some cases don't want to be diplomatic, so should we still invite them to sit down and talk? They wish to turn the entire middle east, perhaps more, into a feudal society with archaic notions of human rights and have explicitly said so. If you wish to play Neville Chamberlain that's fine, I'll continue to play Winston Churchill. As far as Iraq and Afganistan go, they are already on the road to a better tomorrow and they didn't have to wait it out for decades more perhaps.--MONGO 10:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your patronization one bit. And I am frustrated with how confused you are on the facts. You really need to get your facts straight before you can discuss this coherently. I won't even start, it would be counter-productive; you'd be adversarial and resist the information. I can only ask you to bear in mind that convictions are worse enemies to truth than are lies, and encourage you to do some research on your own. Kevin Baas 22:52, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Kevin, you attempt to lecture with every entry...I feel that this is patronizing as well. I am not the least confused on my facts. The price of freedom...is never cheap. It cannot be attained in our world as it exists today purely by appeasement or diplomacy. Every now and then the ugly truth is that a war results. There was never any doubt who would win the war in Iraq militarily...there has always been doubt that we could win their hearts or souls. The best chance we have for the sacrifice is to establish a stable, democratic government based on universal sufferage, restore their ability to provide a decent way of life and then leave as quickly as possible so they can truly be independent. The hope is that if we can do this that just maybe, Islam will once again flourish as the peaceful intelligent religion it was founded to be, with a tremendous tolerance for non muslims as it once was. It may be a hope or illusion, but one must aspire to create a better world and as ugly as it may be, the price of that better world sometimes leads to war. The best chance Iraq ever has had in hundreds of years is now. Terrorism will wane and have fewer adherents when they can establish a tolerate democratic society. I suggest that you underestimate the ability of third world countries to change and adapt...that is a pessimistic view and I am glad I don't share it. I believe that it is possible and as I said about Japan, history has shown that it can. Utopian perhaps, but better than to remain as they were.--MONGO 13:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can say, at least, and without being arrogant, that I know one thing more than you, and it is perhaps the first and only thing that I know: I know that I know not. Read. That is all I have to say. Learn about Iraq, 9/11, Afghanistan (not to be confused with Iraq), the history of Islam, Muslims, the Bush administration, war, the founding fathers, comparative government, American foreign policy since WW2, psychology, political sociology, etc. Read about what interests you, regardless of me. I always encourage people to read. Kevin Baas 18:57, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

gay ambassadorship

MONGO, I took out the line about Ambassador Guest and Romania because it simply isn't true that Bush was the first President to appoint an openly gay ambassador. James Hormel, the former Dean of the Univ. of Chicago Law School, was appointed ambassador to Luxembourg by Bill Clinton, an appointment which languished in the Senate for nearly a term because the Republican majority refused to approve it. Hormel was finally able to assume his post in 1999.

I will grant you that Bush may well have been the first President to appoint an openly gay ambassador to Romania. But that's about it. Sandover 15:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right...corrected passage so that it details that Guest was the first one officially confirmed by the U.S. Senate...I undertand Clinton was the first, by Jesse Helms played obstructionist...click Micheal Guest stub and please edit or elborate as you see fit. --MONGO 16:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)