Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 6

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

text: Yes, it's often useful to sign Talk contributions, if only so they don't get mixed up with other people's; that's why I noted that above, so it would be clear it was not part of my comment.  I definitely did not mean to accuse you of being surreptitious!  If you plan to contribute to Wikipedia a lot, you might consider getting an account, using any name or pseudonym you choose; then you can use ~~~~ to sign your messages.  Anyway, based on what you say, I am led to agree that the "too slowly" part should be removed.  Cecropia, do you object?  Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you stick around! -- VV 07:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I didn't realize you were talking about the DUI section before I just reworked it. If you have any issues with what I did, please mention it here before starting a revert war. Mdchachi 21:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your edits were independent of this issue (the reason for him being pulled over).  I see you worked off the most current text, so I wouldn't worry about a revert war. :) -- VV 23:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I personally would support removing the "driving too slowly" allegation, putting in simply "pulled over".  Whoever this anon is should really consider an account--that's an edit that I wish I had thought of, and it was discussed rationally and calmly.  Admiringly, Meelar 23:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  DUI arrest 

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

message: There is currently a large section on foriegn affairs/security policy of Bush.  Shouldn't there be an equally large section on the Domestic policies?  I think there should, and that such should be consistent throughout all pages about past, present, and candidate presidents.
:You're welcome to edit the article, adding info on his domestic policies.  However, I think that asking consistency across all presidents is too much.  Our article on Franklin D. Roosevelt will always be longer than Benjamin Harrison.  Go ahead and edit if you want, but don't add material to conform to some "consistency" requirement that we couldn't keep up.  Aside from that, good luck! I wish you well.  Our policy here is to be bold. Meelar 22:15, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic policies? 

message: What is your citation for majority of detainees being captured in Pakistan? Cecropia 22:07, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Guantanamo Detainees 

message: As most of the Guantanamo detainees have not been found guilty of anything - in fact, those releseasd  to the custody of the British government have been released without trial - would it now be better now to do the same for all those who remain? 
After all, there is no legal precedent for their imprisonment - and no moral justification either. It's plain illegal - everyone knows that, from GWB down.
Hasn't the US military now made it's point? We now know you're a great big country with lots of soldiers. We get the point. Well done.
Now is the time to get with it, realise why the rest of the world hates the US - and let em go!
217.137.54.12
:Thanks for your opinion, but Wikipedia isn't really a debating forum.  What suggestions would you make on the article (keeping Wikipedia:NPOV in mind? Meelar 00:31, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it time to let them go?