Talk:Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration

message: TimShell has argued on the Talk:Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration page that international trade polcies, currently in the surgical subsection of the domestic policy section, belong in the foreign policy section.  Would people be accepting of making a new section for international trade here? Kevin Baas | talk 15:07, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
POV Commentary
The article reads:
Bush's point of view was much diffremt from the others
 to impose a tariff on imported steel, and to withdraw from global initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol, the ABM Treaty, and an international land mine treaty, has been argued as evidence that he and his administration have a policy of acting unilaterally in international affairs.
According to the Constitution, no treaty not ratified by the US Senate has the force of law, so it is impossible to "withdraw" from the Kyoto protocol regardless of the Clinton Administration's apparent desire to have the treaty ratified.  It was signed by the executive at the time, but never ratified, so "withdrawal" really isn't an accurate description.  It was never in force.
To characterize not adhering to a signed, but unratified treaty as engaging in "unilateral action" feels pretty editorial.  A better discussion of the ABM treaty, Kyoto and the land mine treaty leaving the reader to come to his own conclusions might be more appropriate.
:The point of "unilateral" is that he acts as if noone else exists; he ignores the objection, argumentation, reasoning, grievances, etc. of other nations.  He even completly disregards their decisions; their legal resolutions.  He is simply uncooperative to the extent of no cooperation at all.  This is the reason for the term "unilateral" - it's actually much softer on bush than the much more taboo word "uncooperative", which in many ways is more appropriate.  Using the word "unilateral" is being nice. He is certainly "acting alone".  Is that not what unilateral action means?  
:(Oh, and FWIW, regarding clinton environmental initiatives and bush: bush indefinetly halted _ALL_ of clinton's environmental initiatives immediately upon taking office -Bush is the first president in u.s. history to do this.)  
:I think "withdrawal" is pretty clear, given, as you discribed, as we were interested, and now we are withdrawing.  If it was ratified, it could not be "withdrawn" from - either it would expire or a new law would supercede it.  Kevin Baas | talk 13:58, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)
:On the contrary, once a treaty is ratified, a state can withdraw from it. Case in point, the N. Korean withdrawal from the NPT.  This depends on the text of the treaties, but it can be done.  The US did not withdraw from the treaties listed--congress did not ratify them and Bush did not give them his support.  Withdrawal is not an accurate term here.  It needs to be clarified that the US congress refused to ratify them with no objections from the executive.  The term unilateral is a term that pundits love to throw around these days to make the US look bad, as exemplified by the pretty obviously anti-Bush ranting 3 comments up from me.  "Unilateral" has no implications whatsoever about the feelings or grievences of other countries.  Moreover, in an international context, who cares about the legal resolution of other nations.  No nation rules the world, hence acting against another nation's laws doesn't mean we're "unilateral"--last time I checked, congress made my laws, not Ghana.  If you want to debate the "unilateral" decision to withdraw from a treaty, we can.  What other kind of decision can be made?  Shall we make a multilateral decision to not ratify a treaty--how would that work?  The word is redundant here.  Moreover, to imply that the refusal of CONGRESS to ratify treaties gives Bush a "unilateral" foreign policy is ridiculous.  Here you should cite actions taken by the executive without the support or consultation of foreign nations. They are two totally separate things.  I think that some of you need to do a bit of reading on international relations and law before you make Wikipedia a place to rant about your political leanings--it makes it a much less reputable resource.
I think there should be something here about relations with Canada
SD6-Agent 23:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Policy and other Criticisms 

message: Is there any way that the intro can be cut to a few hundred words?  As it is, one has to scroll down a ways to get to the table of contents. Rkevins82 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: This is pretty good, from the previous administration's last Secretary of State. --James S. 00:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madaline Albright commentary 

message: These groups should be mentioned in the article if it is to be legitimate.  From the ones I have seen Bush's subpages are still "immature".  They are intended to go into more depth than his main page but some do not mention things covered in decent detail in the main article.  His main article and articles about related events and issues beyond that concern Bush tend to be more complete. Minutiaman 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is not mentioned at all which is a major oversight. Arniep 16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamas and Hezbollah 

message: The termination dates in this article conflict with that in Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.  There, I read, "On December 13, 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' withdrawal from the treaty".  The present article claims, "On December 14, 2001, Bush withdrew the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty".  I see two problems with this:  First, there's the difference between December 13 and December 14.  At least one of those dates is wrong or misleading.  Second, there's a difference between "giving notice of withdrawal" and "withdrawing".  
Could someone more knowledgeable than I about this fix both these articles?  It's a small thing, but we don't need this kinds of discrepancies challenging the credibility of Wikipedia.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Wikipedia article on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the United States announced its intent to withdraw from the ABM Treaty on 13 December 2001.  The article cites this announcement, which states that under the terms of the treaty the withdrawal would become effective six months later. NPguy (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding termination date 

message: Please see if we can state sources, like "many experts, including Lorem Ipsum, believe that Iran is ..." 
Thanks, 66.215.99.224 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bit of a weasel word on Iran

message: This article is in need of major reworking.  Not only is the intro poorly structured, but every piece of information within this article has a slanted POV against the Bush administration.  While I am not a strong Bush advocate, I find it hard to believe that the total outcome of his foreign policy has been unidirectionally negative.  
Here is an excerpt of quotes representing many of the paragraphs in the intro:
"has been argued as evidence that he and his administration have a policy of acting unilaterally in international affairs."
"The Bush presidency has also been marked by diplomatic tensions with the People's Republic of China and North Korea"
"Bush came under criticism from European leaders for his rejection of the Kyoto treaty"
"Many governments have criticized the failure of the United States to ratify the Kyoto protocol"
"In July of 2002, Bush cut off all funding, approximately $34 million, for the United Nations Population Fund "
"Many other women's rights groups criticized the decision "
"Bush's foreign policy has been accused of being influenced by the right-wing think tank Project for the New American Century, and other neoconservative organisations. PNAC's goal is to promote "American global leadership". Critics allege that its policies are hegemonic and excessively interventionist."
"Commentators such as the previous administration's last Secretary of State Madeleine Albright have been quite critical of Bush's foreign policy."
This is not to say that these things are not true, but that this article is in need of balancing.  While I am not the expert needed to do such work, I do know that there is more to the Bush administration's foreign policy than simply negative aspects.  Terry 01:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One of the most biased articles I have yet to find on Wikipedia

message: Why on earth is the supposed improvement of U.S./Canada relations following the election of the Harper government mentioned in this section?  Sure, Canada has the Queen of England on their currency, but isn't this a bit of a stretch? 216.251.130.70 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe subsection 

message: The following links are broken and need a replacement:
*"See [1] for more information on the PRI."
*"Commentators such as the previous administration's last Secretary of State Madeleine Albright have been quite critical of Bush's foreign policy. [2]"
*"attacks, the United States refused and instead threatened the Taliban with military action. As an attack became imminent, the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan, where he could be tried under Islamic law.[3] "
*"The Bush Administration and its supporters claim that the war against America by al-Qaeda is ongoing, that it is unconventional, and that the "battlefield" extends into the U.S. itself.[6]"
*"The order comes as the Bush administration's new special envoy for Sudan, Andrew Natsios, began a trip to Sudan, where he plans to meet with government officials and visit war-torn Darfur.[18]"
*"On August 31, 2004, WTO arbitrators authorized the European Union and other leading U.S. trade partners to impose economic sanctions against the United States for violation of global trade laws. The decision by the WTO is the latest example of several recent cases where Washington has been found to be in breach of international trade rules.[21]"
*"Most of those funds were for U.S. military operations in the two countries. [24]"
BlueAg09 (Talk) 08:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken links

message: There is virtually nothing here about President Bush's foreign policy concerning Latin or South America. Also I have had trouble finding really any comprehensive information on this or President Bushs foreign policy in relation to Asia. If anyone finds any info be sure to include it. 216.201.48.26 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin America

message: This article's neutrality is debatable. In some ways this issue ties in with the claim that its introduction is too long. Rather than beginning with a synopsis of Bush's policies, it begins chronologically, by discussing Bush's campaign platform of a "reduction in 'nation building.'" While this fact does speak for itself, invoking that phrase so early (especially given Bush's Iraq policy) also sets up an evaluative, rather than informative, tone to the rest of the piece. This segment should belong in its own section - perhaps, "Campaign platforms: 2000 | 2004 re-election."
The second paragraph also presents some trouble. "The National Missile Defense project Bush supports is supposed to detect intercontinental ballistic missiles and to destroy them in flight. Critics doubt that the project could ever work and point out that it will cost US$53 billion from 2004 to 2009, being the largest single line item in The Pentagon's balance." Criticisms pertaining to an issue should be placed in their own, separate "Criticisms" section, not in the introduction, as again, it is an evaluative tactic.
Hope this makes sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.53.3 (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Hi,
if anyone feels like helping out us editors on the Bush Doctrine article, it would be most helpful and welcome. We could need more quality content to help expand on the historical development, ideological foundation and policy practices from the Bush Doctrine and its formation. At the centre of the Bush Doctrine article, are the ideas - the criticism and defence of the doctrine. There is very strong theories supporting the Bush Doctrine, while these have been challenged in a crescendo throughout the George W. Bush presidency. The main difference between this article, specifically on the foreign policy, is that the Bush Doctrine article deals with the formation of the doctrine - which is set as a collection of practical policy decisions, strategy and ideology - a belief system included into the formation of the doctrine, and giving it logical, rational strength through science and proven efficiency. You are most welcome to participate on the article, and be aware that on the Talk:Bush Doctrine there have been numerous disputes. However, any contribution is helpful at this time, with so few editors on the article. See you there! ;-) Scierguy (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush Doctrine 

message: (Copy from Talk:George W. Bush, )
To get the context I had to rely on foreign sources, in this case a German one which gives much more input about why it happened and what the attacker (if you want to call a "shoe-thrower" so *lol*) had in mind doing so. This is just plain info from my side (and of course the news channels website). So don't blame me if you don't like it but feel free to ask me if something isn't clear. Don't know how good the translation is but it's accurate (and it's not Google  :)   ). 
::Soooo, here is some translation of a very reliable German source  :
**He throws his shoes and shouts:"That's a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog."
**To hit somebody with a shoe or just showing the shoe sole and call him a dog, an animal that is considered in the middle east as unclean (like a pig) is in the Arabic world is probably the strongest way to insult a person.
**As Mohammed Abdul Rahman, a college of him said:"He just couldn't hold back since Mr. Bush was talking about achievements in Iraq, achievements he [Bush] accomplished (like democracy) which we just can't confirm". Just the opposite: there is no (electric) power, no provision of services and no reconstruction. "That's why he wanted to insult Bush and tell him: You're a liar and you can't deal with us in this manner." Abdul Rahman further said, "It is an irony of history: After Bush defeated Saddam Hussein in 2003, the people of Iraq slapped the dictators statue with shoes; now it is Bush who gets the shoes of the Iraqi people."
Hope it helps. I'll post this also at the Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration talk page since one editor included this incident and even so this would be the proper page to include it he did a good faith "bad" edit since he left out context (that he might not had at the time). I'd rather see it gone for the moment and reintroduced more proper at some point if there is consensus over there.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know German skin-deeply, but surely more info comes as the time passes. --Brandспойт 06:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shoe" incidence 

message: So I don't really edit Wikipedia, but I use it quite frequently. I visited this article because I'm writing a paper on the Iraq war...and noticed that the Iraq war was not mentioned once in the very long introduction. Maybe it's just me, but I would consider the Iraq war one of the most important foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration, if not the most important. It seems obvious to me that it deserves a mention in the intro, especially if it's going to be this long. Cela (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq war in introduction... 

message: What the hell is this doing as a reference? I hope no one actually believes that the "document" it leads to is real. So what point does it have in being in this article? L1ght5h0w (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the first reference 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321080348/http://icasualties.org:80/Iraq/index.aspx to http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130207165656/http://army.mil.nz/army-overseas/deployments/iraq/20070219-ifaq.htm to http://www.army.mil.nz/army-overseas/deployments/iraq/20070219-ifaq.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930220648/http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf to http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919045657/http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/08/halberstam200708 to http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/08/halberstam200708
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070122130520/http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html to http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930220648/http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf to http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210110311/http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/06/12/itinerary/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/06/12/itinerary/index.html
*Added  tag to http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/50th/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170306151351/http://news.asiaone.com/News/The%2BStraits%2BTimes/Story/A1Story20071220-41882.html to http://news.asiaone.com/News/The%2BStraits%2BTimes/Story/A1Story20071220-41882.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625063534/http://www.idss.edu.sg/publications/WorkingPapers/WP90.pdf to http://www.idss.edu.sg/publications/WorkingPapers/WP90.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "google1":
From Alexander Lukashenko: 
From Gaza Strip: 
From List of drone strikes in Yemen: 
From Bangladesh: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration]]