![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This link, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20050617%2FMEMO17%2FTPInternational%2FAmericas&ord=2006382&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=trueBy PAUL KORING, Globeandmail.com, June 17, 2005, requires purchase to read it which makes it useless. It should be removed and another referrence should be made available. What do others think? -- Crohnie 12:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I tried #7 [ [4]] its nothing to. Do we need a citations_broken tag till someone goes through and verifies each one? buying a book, paying to read, Outdated info, blank pages are not citations. -- Xiahou 02:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Please reread what you wrote. It is not encyclopedic and it is very much opinionated. Putting the veto in is a good idea, with sources and without your comments about how he doesn't care what the people think. Thanks, -- Crohnie 13:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to get some opinion here before proceeding. Since many people think that a successful impeachment of President Bush would first require removing VP Cheney from office, would it be appropriate to post info about a movement to impeach Cheney built around HR 333? Specifically, see links http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/transparency.cgi?paper=1&qnum=pet45 and http://www.usalone.com/cheney_impeachment.php -- OtisTDog 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
While the potential impeachment of Vice-President Cheney is technically a seperate topic, it is entirely appropriate to mention it in this article given that the move to impeach Cheney is intimately related to the move against Bush and is part of the overall strategy to impeach Bush.
I've added "HR 333 to Impeach Richard Cheney" under 'See Also' -- Nonukes 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There are increased congressional support for impeaching Cheney. [5] Terjen 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I would love to see a section that opines on the status of the inititives to impeach. Without such an overview, the article becomes a long list. I come here looking for what is making the most headway against this administration, and it is hard to find in the article as it is.-- Raymm 03:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Editors, Your attention is requested in the matter of an AfD nomination for House Resolution 333. I invite your participation on the associated debate page. I realize that this is not the page for "Movement to impeach Cheney", but I also realize that many people consider impeaching Cheney to be a required pre-cursor to impeaching Bush. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.-- OtisTDog 03:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Soon there will be another election, Bush will be out of office, Democrats will be in office and it will become clear that there was never any "movement" to impeach Bush and it will no longer an exciting article to keep up for propaganda purposes. Then the article can be deleted. Right now it probably survives because people imagine that there might be such a movement, if not exactly in full force, maybe soon. Barring unforseen problems, there is exactly zero chance of an impeachment because there is no movement. A few random, powerless individuals making political points by posturing is not a movement. A movement must involve sufficient members of the Congress that it is a possibility and really, it ought to be growing.
This article describes something that does not exist and it ought to be deleted. It ought to be deleted now. It is an example of the awful, crufty, non-substantial trash that can infest wikipedia by editors with a pov to push. -- Blue Tie 13:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Many of the comments here, especially from Blue Tie are not only absurd, they are bizzare. Regardless of how youfeel about impeaching Bush, how do you NOT see a movement to impeach him? We have never in the history of the United States had the type of support for impeaching a president that we have for impeaching Bush, not with Nixon, not with Clinton. Read the source material at the end of the article, look up the numbers of organizations devoted to impeachment, note the cold hard fact that several members of Congress are receiving bazillions of letters in support of impeachment evey day and are saying that impeachment is all the colleagues seem to talk about, consider the fact that 51% of the American people supported impeachment in the October 06 Newsweek poll, consider the States and local communities that are considering or pusing for impeachment, consider the now almost weekly demosntrations across the nation, consider the impeachbush website which has over 800,000 signatures supporting impeachment, consider the fact that several members of Congress (now including Republicans) are demonstrably supporting impeachment (and are having to fight Nancy Pelosi to get there), consider all of this and then come back and say there is "no movement for impeachment". if Bush is not impeached (which is possible) it will NOT be because there is "no support" (just typing that phrase makes me howl), but rather due to political meandering on the part of Nancy Pelois not to mention the fact that much of te media is owned by conservatives (i.e., Rupert Murdoch). If you oppose impeachment, fine, but be responsible in your statements. You will want to be taken seriously.
Barnstormer1000 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Stingray
Reading the "references" is like reading a Who's Who of Left-wing Kool-Aid drinkers. This is definitely a violation of SOAP. Then again, most of the people who believe Bush should be impeached have neglected that for a long time.-- Bedford 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Some observations"
I understand that you said:
My understanding of policy is that any article that is inherently POV, or has POV issues that cannot be fixed must be deleted. At least that is what a multitude of editors have advocated in numerous unrelated AfD's. Since you argue exactly that you should file an AfD. The fact you fail to do so contradicts your own assessment that the POV is beyond repair. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
One thing that is true: if Congress, the one body that can bring about impeachment, is not bringing about impeachment, then there is no movement to impeach. When Clinton was impeached, we could see the movement long before the impeachment. I don't think a bunch of civilian blogging counts as a "movement to impeach." This article is not worthy of an encyclopaedic listing. And I can see the movement to delete it.-- Magi Media 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I checked this out of curiousity, and found no mention. Somehow, I think that Vermont got publicity largely because of Doonesbury. As anybody who lives here can tell you, Vermont extends down intso Franklin County, which may be why we're doing it also. John Olver is too pragmatic to vote for impeachment unless there were a chance of passing it of course.
Incidentally, the Vermont house rejected the impeachment resolution. This is strictly a small government, let's do it for the heck of it sort of thing. Logic tells us that it's fun to tell Congress what to do at town meeting (why I considered a resolution modeled on the Vermont ones at my own town's meeting), but utterly pointless, aside from as a story in the paper.
Any rate, three towns in my area of western Massachusetts passed resoluttions similar to those in Vermont at town meetings, and Greenfield's town Council is also considering one. Mind, two of these are towns that voted to condemn the USA PATRIOT Act. Condemning the actions of the Feds is something that we do here in Greater Vermont.
Still, it'd be interesting if somebody knows all the states which have towns which voted to urge their Congressfolk to impeach Bush. And yes, I know that these resolutions will accomplish absolutely nothing aside from serving as a source of amusement, but they are pretty funny. I considered introducing one in Deerfield's meeting last Monday (since I was expecting Leverett to do it eventually and thought it would be amusing if Deerfield, wdhich doesn't usually bother with frivolous resolutions like that, beat them to the punch) but I really wanted to get home and go to bed.
Any rate, the sources for my claims, from most recent to least. I'm sure there's some database which will let you access the Gazette, but at least on of these stories has been syndicated in the Greenfield Recorder, which can be accessed through the Greenfield Public Library.
Shelburne voted on such a resolution too, it wasn't in the papers so I assume it didn't pass.
Any rate, if anybody else knows of other local resolutions add them. I'm rather curious. If towns outside of Greater Vermont are doing it, it should get a mention.
If it's just Franklin Mass, as I said, we're part of Vermont in all but name, so we don't really count. (Nor does the People's Republic of Amherst, which I think passed such a resolution a long time ago. Amherst is a place utterly removed from any semblence of reality.)
Massachusetts
Vermont ?
Luke -- 71.192.116.13 01:52, 8 May 2007 (EST)
Oh, and for the record. I think there are at least legal grounds for impeaching most presidents.
Though I think the case for Bush is better than for any since LBJ, I also know it's quite impossible.
I consider the whole thing rather pathetically funny. I think if it came to a vote even the impeachment of Nixon would have failed. There's simply no point, but it's still a fair sight more amusing than most media circuses. Luke --
71.192.116.13 02:00, 8 May 2007 (EST)
moved here from my page. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC) I'm still trying to understand how the discussion is relevant to the article, but is it even necessary to continue the specific line of discussion you two have been going back and forth on? It seems like it's strayed far off the topic of the article. Is there a start or summary of the discussion that you could point me to? -- Ronz 16:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The situation is fairly simple and somewhat relevant to the article. There is a section discussing the advocated reasons to impeach. Among them:
Editor Arnabdas ( talk · contribs) thinks that is not entirely correct and amends these statements by:
My problem with those edits is
Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations. -- Ronz 15:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
But I guess this much proof is not enough for the extremists that run this site. Ymous 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I applaud a reasonable effort to trim this article, but I must object to the wholesale removal of the section entitled "Online polls and surveys". The accompanying edit summaries by Jc-S0CO do not justify this action. On the first occasion, you gave this justification for removing the section:
"MSNBC's is admittedly unreliable, Democrats.org's is not going to yield representative results simply by demographics, and MoveOn's link displays no results."
I restored the section, with some updated numbers, and added this comment:
"these are notable and reputable, albeit different from other type[s] of polls"
Jc-S0CO then removed the section again, adding this:
"MSNBC's doesn't restrict people from voting more than once, and the others are skewed by demographics. They are not representative or even defensibly accurate, hence they are unreliable."
Before I (or perhaps someone else) add the section back again, I'll respond in further detail. The MSNBC poll is admittedly unscientific, and although it is reasonable to infer that it is not a reliable substitute for a scientific poll, it is not represented as one. You are mistaken, I believe, in your assertion that MSNBC doesn't restrict people from voting more than once. While their cookies-based restriction might be easily circumvented by some, there is no reason to assume this has been done by a significant percentage of the respondents. Furthermore, any such abuse could just as well be committed by those on either side of the issue. It is not our place to pass judgment on how these figures should be interpreted, only to duly note that a reputable news organization has gathered and presented them. This is certainly relevant to the general heading of "Public opinion" under which it falls.
Your contention that "the others are skewed by demographics" also makes an unwarranted and irrelevant presumption about interpretation. It simply is to be noted that a reputable group has gone to the trouble of gathering and presenting a poll of public opinion, with some measure of protection against abuse. This is not represented as a scientific poll, and I don't doubt that its protections against abuse could be circumvented, but the same argument still holds: any such abuse could come equally from either side. The fact that Democrats.org is sponsoring the poll is duly noted - that doesn't mean that their poll results are meaningless or inconsequential. Why don't we let the reader make that decision for himself?
As to your objection to the MoveOn poll, I'm not sure what your point is. The link is valid, and it supports the claim that MoveOn has been conducting such a poll. If you are complaining that they don't show the tally of results, well that wasn't the point of the reference. In fact, the point was that MoveOn has been strangely reluctant to pursue the issue more openly and vigorously, for whatever reason, yet they have been quietly polling the impeachment question for a while. I think these are things worthy of bringing to the reader's attention, without the need for any further censorship or editorializing on our part. - JCLately ( talk) 07:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This link, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20050617%2FMEMO17%2FTPInternational%2FAmericas&ord=2006382&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=trueBy PAUL KORING, Globeandmail.com, June 17, 2005, requires purchase to read it which makes it useless. It should be removed and another referrence should be made available. What do others think? -- Crohnie 12:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I tried #7 [ [4]] its nothing to. Do we need a citations_broken tag till someone goes through and verifies each one? buying a book, paying to read, Outdated info, blank pages are not citations. -- Xiahou 02:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Please reread what you wrote. It is not encyclopedic and it is very much opinionated. Putting the veto in is a good idea, with sources and without your comments about how he doesn't care what the people think. Thanks, -- Crohnie 13:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to get some opinion here before proceeding. Since many people think that a successful impeachment of President Bush would first require removing VP Cheney from office, would it be appropriate to post info about a movement to impeach Cheney built around HR 333? Specifically, see links http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/transparency.cgi?paper=1&qnum=pet45 and http://www.usalone.com/cheney_impeachment.php -- OtisTDog 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
While the potential impeachment of Vice-President Cheney is technically a seperate topic, it is entirely appropriate to mention it in this article given that the move to impeach Cheney is intimately related to the move against Bush and is part of the overall strategy to impeach Bush.
I've added "HR 333 to Impeach Richard Cheney" under 'See Also' -- Nonukes 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There are increased congressional support for impeaching Cheney. [5] Terjen 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I would love to see a section that opines on the status of the inititives to impeach. Without such an overview, the article becomes a long list. I come here looking for what is making the most headway against this administration, and it is hard to find in the article as it is.-- Raymm 03:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Editors, Your attention is requested in the matter of an AfD nomination for House Resolution 333. I invite your participation on the associated debate page. I realize that this is not the page for "Movement to impeach Cheney", but I also realize that many people consider impeaching Cheney to be a required pre-cursor to impeaching Bush. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.-- OtisTDog 03:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Soon there will be another election, Bush will be out of office, Democrats will be in office and it will become clear that there was never any "movement" to impeach Bush and it will no longer an exciting article to keep up for propaganda purposes. Then the article can be deleted. Right now it probably survives because people imagine that there might be such a movement, if not exactly in full force, maybe soon. Barring unforseen problems, there is exactly zero chance of an impeachment because there is no movement. A few random, powerless individuals making political points by posturing is not a movement. A movement must involve sufficient members of the Congress that it is a possibility and really, it ought to be growing.
This article describes something that does not exist and it ought to be deleted. It ought to be deleted now. It is an example of the awful, crufty, non-substantial trash that can infest wikipedia by editors with a pov to push. -- Blue Tie 13:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Many of the comments here, especially from Blue Tie are not only absurd, they are bizzare. Regardless of how youfeel about impeaching Bush, how do you NOT see a movement to impeach him? We have never in the history of the United States had the type of support for impeaching a president that we have for impeaching Bush, not with Nixon, not with Clinton. Read the source material at the end of the article, look up the numbers of organizations devoted to impeachment, note the cold hard fact that several members of Congress are receiving bazillions of letters in support of impeachment evey day and are saying that impeachment is all the colleagues seem to talk about, consider the fact that 51% of the American people supported impeachment in the October 06 Newsweek poll, consider the States and local communities that are considering or pusing for impeachment, consider the now almost weekly demosntrations across the nation, consider the impeachbush website which has over 800,000 signatures supporting impeachment, consider the fact that several members of Congress (now including Republicans) are demonstrably supporting impeachment (and are having to fight Nancy Pelosi to get there), consider all of this and then come back and say there is "no movement for impeachment". if Bush is not impeached (which is possible) it will NOT be because there is "no support" (just typing that phrase makes me howl), but rather due to political meandering on the part of Nancy Pelois not to mention the fact that much of te media is owned by conservatives (i.e., Rupert Murdoch). If you oppose impeachment, fine, but be responsible in your statements. You will want to be taken seriously.
Barnstormer1000 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Stingray
Reading the "references" is like reading a Who's Who of Left-wing Kool-Aid drinkers. This is definitely a violation of SOAP. Then again, most of the people who believe Bush should be impeached have neglected that for a long time.-- Bedford 04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Some observations"
I understand that you said:
My understanding of policy is that any article that is inherently POV, or has POV issues that cannot be fixed must be deleted. At least that is what a multitude of editors have advocated in numerous unrelated AfD's. Since you argue exactly that you should file an AfD. The fact you fail to do so contradicts your own assessment that the POV is beyond repair. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
One thing that is true: if Congress, the one body that can bring about impeachment, is not bringing about impeachment, then there is no movement to impeach. When Clinton was impeached, we could see the movement long before the impeachment. I don't think a bunch of civilian blogging counts as a "movement to impeach." This article is not worthy of an encyclopaedic listing. And I can see the movement to delete it.-- Magi Media 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I checked this out of curiousity, and found no mention. Somehow, I think that Vermont got publicity largely because of Doonesbury. As anybody who lives here can tell you, Vermont extends down intso Franklin County, which may be why we're doing it also. John Olver is too pragmatic to vote for impeachment unless there were a chance of passing it of course.
Incidentally, the Vermont house rejected the impeachment resolution. This is strictly a small government, let's do it for the heck of it sort of thing. Logic tells us that it's fun to tell Congress what to do at town meeting (why I considered a resolution modeled on the Vermont ones at my own town's meeting), but utterly pointless, aside from as a story in the paper.
Any rate, three towns in my area of western Massachusetts passed resoluttions similar to those in Vermont at town meetings, and Greenfield's town Council is also considering one. Mind, two of these are towns that voted to condemn the USA PATRIOT Act. Condemning the actions of the Feds is something that we do here in Greater Vermont.
Still, it'd be interesting if somebody knows all the states which have towns which voted to urge their Congressfolk to impeach Bush. And yes, I know that these resolutions will accomplish absolutely nothing aside from serving as a source of amusement, but they are pretty funny. I considered introducing one in Deerfield's meeting last Monday (since I was expecting Leverett to do it eventually and thought it would be amusing if Deerfield, wdhich doesn't usually bother with frivolous resolutions like that, beat them to the punch) but I really wanted to get home and go to bed.
Any rate, the sources for my claims, from most recent to least. I'm sure there's some database which will let you access the Gazette, but at least on of these stories has been syndicated in the Greenfield Recorder, which can be accessed through the Greenfield Public Library.
Shelburne voted on such a resolution too, it wasn't in the papers so I assume it didn't pass.
Any rate, if anybody else knows of other local resolutions add them. I'm rather curious. If towns outside of Greater Vermont are doing it, it should get a mention.
If it's just Franklin Mass, as I said, we're part of Vermont in all but name, so we don't really count. (Nor does the People's Republic of Amherst, which I think passed such a resolution a long time ago. Amherst is a place utterly removed from any semblence of reality.)
Massachusetts
Vermont ?
Luke -- 71.192.116.13 01:52, 8 May 2007 (EST)
Oh, and for the record. I think there are at least legal grounds for impeaching most presidents.
Though I think the case for Bush is better than for any since LBJ, I also know it's quite impossible.
I consider the whole thing rather pathetically funny. I think if it came to a vote even the impeachment of Nixon would have failed. There's simply no point, but it's still a fair sight more amusing than most media circuses. Luke --
71.192.116.13 02:00, 8 May 2007 (EST)
moved here from my page. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC) I'm still trying to understand how the discussion is relevant to the article, but is it even necessary to continue the specific line of discussion you two have been going back and forth on? It seems like it's strayed far off the topic of the article. Is there a start or summary of the discussion that you could point me to? -- Ronz 16:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The situation is fairly simple and somewhat relevant to the article. There is a section discussing the advocated reasons to impeach. Among them:
Editor Arnabdas ( talk · contribs) thinks that is not entirely correct and amends these statements by:
My problem with those edits is
Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations. -- Ronz 15:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
But I guess this much proof is not enough for the extremists that run this site. Ymous 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I applaud a reasonable effort to trim this article, but I must object to the wholesale removal of the section entitled "Online polls and surveys". The accompanying edit summaries by Jc-S0CO do not justify this action. On the first occasion, you gave this justification for removing the section:
"MSNBC's is admittedly unreliable, Democrats.org's is not going to yield representative results simply by demographics, and MoveOn's link displays no results."
I restored the section, with some updated numbers, and added this comment:
"these are notable and reputable, albeit different from other type[s] of polls"
Jc-S0CO then removed the section again, adding this:
"MSNBC's doesn't restrict people from voting more than once, and the others are skewed by demographics. They are not representative or even defensibly accurate, hence they are unreliable."
Before I (or perhaps someone else) add the section back again, I'll respond in further detail. The MSNBC poll is admittedly unscientific, and although it is reasonable to infer that it is not a reliable substitute for a scientific poll, it is not represented as one. You are mistaken, I believe, in your assertion that MSNBC doesn't restrict people from voting more than once. While their cookies-based restriction might be easily circumvented by some, there is no reason to assume this has been done by a significant percentage of the respondents. Furthermore, any such abuse could just as well be committed by those on either side of the issue. It is not our place to pass judgment on how these figures should be interpreted, only to duly note that a reputable news organization has gathered and presented them. This is certainly relevant to the general heading of "Public opinion" under which it falls.
Your contention that "the others are skewed by demographics" also makes an unwarranted and irrelevant presumption about interpretation. It simply is to be noted that a reputable group has gone to the trouble of gathering and presenting a poll of public opinion, with some measure of protection against abuse. This is not represented as a scientific poll, and I don't doubt that its protections against abuse could be circumvented, but the same argument still holds: any such abuse could come equally from either side. The fact that Democrats.org is sponsoring the poll is duly noted - that doesn't mean that their poll results are meaningless or inconsequential. Why don't we let the reader make that decision for himself?
As to your objection to the MoveOn poll, I'm not sure what your point is. The link is valid, and it supports the claim that MoveOn has been conducting such a poll. If you are complaining that they don't show the tally of results, well that wasn't the point of the reference. In fact, the point was that MoveOn has been strangely reluctant to pursue the issue more openly and vigorously, for whatever reason, yet they have been quietly polling the impeachment question for a while. I think these are things worthy of bringing to the reader's attention, without the need for any further censorship or editorializing on our part. - JCLately ( talk) 07:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)