Talk:Bush League/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

From: Talk:Bush League

Redirs for "Bush Knew" to this page, as the accusation is senseless without some knowledge of the family history. Thus it's one article, not two. Good edit.

While this subject warrants discussion, especially the connections between the Bush administration and the international oil power brokers (both before and after 9/11), I feel the current treatment is not even close to being NPOV.

The phrase "Bush League" is used by Bush opponents. You may remove the list to some other article, but enough is required to give the general idea of why the concerns have arisen, and why the idea of a conspiracy or "league" is popular.

My biggest problem is that the article lists accusations as if they were fact, without proof or even references.

Some of these things are more provable than others. It's fair to say that some things are widely known (like William Casey's many meetings with the Pope, although not their contents) and easily validated. Some others (like Bush Sr.'s flip-flop on Reagan) are circumstantial. Others like the Reagan administration giving money to Saddam, or Prescott Bush's dealings with Nazis are matters of record. What specifically do you consider an 'accusation'? Iran-Contra is also known to have been a real event.

Wikipedia is not a forum for debate, it is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I am open to suggestions on how to turn this article into something useful, e.g. American imperialism or an exploration of the multifaceted relationship between the Central Asian drug cartels, the international oil companies, and western intelligence agencies, e.g. as regards the Central Asian pipeline project both pre- and post-9/11. I recommend Ahmed Rashid's books on the topic.

Those articles should be written. But, with no statement of the various associations between the parties listed, it's hard to find out why Bush opponents consider this ammunition for their various theories.

However, this article, as it stands, is nothing more than anti-Bush propaganda, repeating accusations but not adding any facts to the discourse. Chadloder 07:11 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Simply list the various Bush associates, then, and what you feel has been proven about them and their associations. There is no reason to "add facts". the only fact is that these individuals were associated.

Agreed. Its slush. despite the fact that I'm about as pro-Bush as Al Gore, it serves no cause to have an article of this low caliber, and its writer to claim to be on my team.-Stevert

Al Gore is plenty pro-Bush - "My President is G. W. Bush", etc., and refusing to run in 2004.

The Bush League or Bush Buddies or Texas Taliban is a name used by opponents of President George W. Bush to emphasize his family's long history of association with unscrupulous foreign dictators including Nazis, the oil industry, the CIA and corporate executives linked to any of these. It refers simultaneously to the Bush family (including Florida Governor Jeb Bush, their brother Neil Bush, father George Bush Sr., and grandfather Prescott Bush) and a baseball "bush league" - rank amateurs unfit to play in the major leagues. It also exploits resonance with the phrase "in league with the Devil", and the meaning of "league" as a conspiracy or secret society.

It is relatively simple to construct such a list from the family's colorful past:

With such figures known to have had military and economic dealings in the past, it is quite difficult to refute any claims of a conspiracy. In particular, given the secret nature of their prior dealings, and the violent capacities of most of the individuals, it is quite clear that the capacity to plan almost any heinous act, and carry it out in secret, exists in this group. This would include acts of treason, terrorism and assassination - as indeed many characterize some of the prior activities.

However, the variety and nature of such claims makes it difficult or impossible to discuss them in the context of a neutral encyclopedia article, without appearing to give them credence.

Only one such claim has been widely discussed in the press, that being that "Bush knew" about the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack and may have been involved in planning them directly. The New York Post and Georgia Representative Cynthia McKinney have both called for a full investigation of the ties of the Bush family to the various figures involved, and those who stand to benefit from the U.S. control of Afghanistan and Iraq, both major oil producing basins.

See also: Dubya Dubya Three, October Surprise

==

The above was removed by Stevert, for lack of substance. If there is factual material here, it need not be mixed in with propagandistic crap.

You have not named any statement that is wrong. It is simply the fact that you permit such people to run your country, that bothers you so much.

ps. Its really not terrible, but its a rant. It should be a stub article and then link to an article of more substance. The bush league, is a picket term, as far as I know, and the real substance of Bush's dealings belongs in an article about himself, or the bush clan history. Bush family politics, or the like...-Stevert

Pick a name, and simply note "Bush League" as one of the synonyms, then.

I concur wholeheartedly with Chadloder and Stevert. Whether one supports Bush I or Bush II, this article is clearly polemical and in violation of the Wiki policy of neutrality. Connections of this sort (i.e., to deplorable groups such as the German National Socialists a.k.a Nazis) are more common than one might assume.

Read the article on Prescott Bush and then say that with a straight face. He went 'above and beyond'.

Should we trace any and all connections to Communist Party members and "fellow travelers" and subsequently blame them for the atrocities committed by Communist governments?

No, but those who sold them arms are implicated in crimes more than those who sold them food.

Should proponents of free markets be accused of collaboration with corporations who have attempted to abuse positions of power?

If they actively subverted regulations and such, then yes, surely.

Clearly the answer is an unequivocal "No" for contributors to an encyclopedia that has the opportunity to be considered respectable.

This is a US-centric viewpoint. Anyone from Europe care to comment?

Investigation of influences on the elected leader of the USA are certainly important, especially when the tense situations involving Iraq, North Korea, and the international community's response to such are concerned. Nonetheless, the Wikipedia is not the forum for the connections drawn in this article. As it stands on 25 Jan 2003, this is not an encyclopedia article.

The connections are drawn by the press and the admissions of the players themselves. Read about them in the articles on the players.

I would consider deletion or a severe trimming of this article to be in keeping with Wikipedia's standards. If you have reliable, verifiable sources for this article, please supply them. Most contributors, I hope, would agree that unverified comments require satisfaction in the form of references to reliable sources.-- Rethunk

Nonsense. These are heavily verified and widely repeated claims which can easily be sourced with a web search. They are easy to validate.

Yeah , ill not object to reforming the article. The original author seemingly has some ability to put words together well, but is new, and doesnt understand NPOV -Stevert

Neutrality is a different concept than "give evil people the benefit of the doubt because they are professionals at making accusations against them harder to prove". Given the difficulty of investigating any of the accusations, the levels of power involved, the statements made are fair.

It had to happen. Someday I'd find an article that made me feel slightly less repulsed by George W. I'm sure there probably are some truths, some facts in the article that are correct. But it is so overloaded that it achieves the exact opposite of what the writer hoped; it actually makes Bush rise in estimation, because it suggests that somewhere in that family there actually is a clump of braincells.

Good point. So this is an argument for the approach being 'neutral' if this is its effect.

How else could they do all of that? Up to now, when it came to Bush's incident with the pretzel, you kinda believed the lower lifeform swallowed the higher one. Please, could someone find the truth if its in there and separate it from the fiction. Truth told accurately through NPOV hurts Bush. POV Paranoia just gives him credibility.

That's the problem of the reader, not the writer. Now you are asking for things that are useful to you as ammo in the US mainstream press - that is not neutrality either.

And as the rest of the world has been asking for years, how can a man who can come off second best in a battle with a pretzel become US president?

Easy - your system promotes morons deliberately. That's its function.

No wonder the rest of the world (bar Tony B.) is opposed to Bush's forthcoming war! They wonder that he has been even able to find Iraq on the map! Or maybe he just looks that the whole middle east, pust on a Homer accent and whimpers 'ah, oil'. (OK. enough of my bitching and Bushophobia!) Please someone, produce a credible article instead of this rant. JTD 07:46 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Could be - by all means you may make the same accusations of the same people, that they are all driven made by oil.

The above arguments fall into several POV categories:

  • stories widely reported and verified by press sources require somehow more validation, perhaps a conviction in a US court, for inclusion here than for inclusion in a history book
  • the article makes such a blunt case against Bush on the facts and the circumstances that it isn't useful to Bush opponents in the United States.
  • the article should report the positions of Bush defenders, even though it is about a term of reference, and type of implication, drawn only by Bush opponents - rather like asking for articles with titles like "pro life movement" to explain the case for abortion.

The article was credible as it was, or it would not have provoked the debate. Accordingly, it goes back in, minus any accusations that can be shown to be ill-founded or which can't be validated with a web search.

Will attempt to avoid implications that these allegations are proven, will state only that they were made. And NO the final article is not intended to be useful to Bush opponents, convincing to US readers, or otherwise. It simply should report what opponents say, and why they see these people as all part of a single group, loosely arrayed around the military dictatorships in the oil producing nations of hte Middle East.

This is nonsense. Many of these statements are either false, or simply propagandist oversimplifications.

No, your statement here is nonsense. You have not pointed out any such false statemetns, and I deal with your so-called oversimplification below:

You are indicting an entire family

No, the disclaimer is very clear.
based on only the loosest connections
Sending money and guns is 'loose'? Nomination by the Republican Party for a major post after taking heat for something done on its behalf is 'loose'? Right.

between various different events which, often times, they had nothing to do with.

Just one example:

Nobody refutes the connections between western intelligence agencies and WWII-era German officials (including Nazis). But ss everyone who has ever worked for or been involved with the CIA therefore a Nazi co-conspirator? Please show that Bush had ANYTHING substantial to do with this issue, or remove the statement.

Bush's father Prescott Bush clearly had dealings with Nazis. That is a matter of record. No, not everyone who worked with the CIA is or was a Nazi. But, it is enough to show a family tie, for the purposes of this article, as it is not about Bush specifically, but about a cloud of shady associated people who have historically always hid their alliances.
Your standard of evidence is inappropriate. Certainly the CIA used Nazis to get dirt on the Soviets. Certainly Prescott Bush worked with Nazis. Certainly Bush Sr. was head of the CIA. Certainly at that time formal agents of the USA were being forbidden assassination as a tactic. Circumstantially, one can draw a lot from that. But there is simply no disputing any of what I just said 'certainly'.
Yeah right. If I could demonstrate that Bush Sr. had anything to do with Nazis directly, I'd already be dead. You are playing right into his hands, if he did have anything to do with 'em.

Most of the rest of the statements fall into the same category (Prescott Bush being excluded -- he was a real bastard). But information about Prescott Bush belong in the Prescott Bush entry. Please keep in mind this is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to grind your axe. Chadloder 03:24 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Prescott Bush is NOT the most heinous character - he is simply doing what comes naturally to Texan oilmen - making money. You are upset because the accusations are credible and may cause Bush supporters to dislike wikipedia, in other words, you are toadying to power.
Finally, you ask for something to be changed, ask for evidence, then make the change yourself, proving you are asking for nothing, but simply following a formality intending to censor it regardless of response. Thus there's no point debating.
Don't attribute bias to those of us who want to keep Wikipedia NPOV. -- Zoe
I am simply asking you to provide substantial documentation and references for the very contentious claims you have made. I have already pointed out several errors of fact in your article, for example: that Bush had anything to do with the Taleban coming to Texas in '97. In fact, the Taleban met with Bridas and Unocal representatives, NOT the Bush family or companies. I suggest that you go read Taliban by Ahmed Rashid. Your statement that evidence of conspiracy is easy to find unfortunately doesn't qualify as evidence itself. Only irrefutable proof counts. Put up or shut up. Let's see links to magazine articles from respectable publications which document substantial connections of Bush to the events you brought up. Chadloder 03:40 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Remember many Wiki sites use CIA factbooks (though if these 'facts' are in any way indicating the level of CIA 'knowledge' God help America! I've spent ages correcting basic 'facts' that are garbage!). Does the fact that Wiki uses CIA stuff (and I for one wished it didn't. Can we ban it?) does that make Wiki by extension linked to the nazis? I have no time for Bush or baby Bush now in the White House, but linking him to nazis is going too far. It is paranoia gone mad! Even if grandad Bush had such links, that is no evidence to be levelled against later Bushs. Whatever value there was in the original article is completely lost by over the top claims, dodgy links and a blatent agenda. NPOV offers facts, not agenda-led propaganda, which invariably backfires, as this article clearly does. JTD 03:42 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

True NPOV offers the evidence and lets the reader make their mind up. Ramming your view down readers throats through loaded statements, false premises and pushing agendas is counter-productive. (And it doesn't try to blank out talk pages of criticism JTD 04:05 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Your strategy on w:Bush League is transparent - remove every circumstantial claim or accusation, claiming it 'doesn't belong', so that the associations of the figures aren't clear, then argue that listing them all there is some kind of conspiracy in itself. Certainly Bush called Reagan's economics "voodoo economics" so there is reason to believe there was tension - but Reagan made him VP anyway. Why? Certainly the Republican Party ultimately approved Iran-Contra and the w:October Surprise at a high level.

Yes, of course, one is dealing with shadows in these matters. But removing the facts that make the story hang together, doesn't make the article NPOV. To the contrary, it simply makes it appear to have CHOSEN to string such figures together in a list, as opposed to those figures having dealings with each other.

If you wish to say that "stupidity is a more likely explanation than conspiracy" by all means say it. No one would believe conspiracy of a Bush if stupidity was just as likely. But do not pretend you are making it more NPOV - you are just exercising a POV of your own by deciding 'what belongs where' etc..

A Bush League article is properly balanced by a w:Contract with America article or something where the positive elements of the Republican programs of the last 20 years can be discussed. And by links to articles on conspiracy theory, etc.

The goal of Wikipedia is to be neutral on all articles, not to be nasty to every side so as to be neutral overall. -- Zoe

By your logic Stalin is excused in the Ukraine for efficiently killing all the witnesses.

--- Submit bug continues to destroy long talk files, here is what was lost in Talk:Bush League, someone may add it to that Talk file who can do so: ---

Don't attribute bias to those of us who want to keep Wikipedia NPOV. -- Zoe
You don't know what NPOV is, and you certainly can't apply it to controversial material. The correct test is "is this article useful to either side of the debate?" - and in its original form, the article as written isn't.
I am simply asking you to provide substantial documentation and references for the very contentious claims you have made. I have already pointed out several errors of fact in your article, for example: that Bush had anything to do with the Taleban coming to Texas in '97. In fact, the Taleban met with Bridas and Unocal representatives, NOT the Bush family or companies.
This is the ONLY correction you have made, and it's accepted. That should say 'reputed' as well. But the common investment interests with the bin Laden family, and strong Osama-Taliban links, makes this another strong circumstantial link.
I suggest that you go read Taliban by Ahmed Rashid. Your statement that evidence of conspiracy is easy to find unfortunately doesn't qualify as evidence itself. Only irrefutable proof counts.
If I wished to provide 'irrefutable proof' on matters of history, I'd be wasting my time talking to AxelBoldt, who also applies such irrational and censorious standards.
Put up or shut up. Let's see links to magazine articles from respectable publications which document substantial connections of Bush to the events you brought up. Chadloder 03:40 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
Easily found with any web search. I'm out of time here. Goodbye.

Remember many Wiki sites use CIA factbooks (though if these 'facts' are in any way indicating the level of CIA 'knowledge' God help America! I've spent ages correcting basic 'facts' that are garbage!). Does the fact that Wiki uses CIA stuff (and I for one wished it didn't. Can we ban it?) does that make Wiki by extension linked to the nazis? I have no time for Bush or baby Bush now in the White House, but linking him to nazis is going too far. It is paranoia gone mad! Even if grandad Bush had such links, that is no evidence to be levelled against later Bushs.

That is not the logic about family values that applies in most of the world.
Only among paranoid conspiracy freaks, friend!

Whatever value there was in the original article is completely lost by over the top claims, dodgy links and a blatent agenda. NPOV offers facts, not agenda-led propaganda, which invariably backfires, as this article clearly does. JTD 03:42 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Backfires against what? The article is not useful to Bush proponents nor opponents in its original form, which is the closest to NPOV one can hope for. It had exactly one flaw, that being the accusation of a proven lnk between Bush and the Taliban. However, it didn't bother to make the point that the G. W. Bush administration was sending money to the Taliban 'to eradicate poppies'.
When you said the article is not useful to Bush proponents nor opponents, you hit the nail on the head. Whatever FACTS existed in there were so jumbled up with wacky theories, conspiracies, jumping to conclusions, far fetched ideas and paranoia that the only thing all sides would be able to do with it is laugh. The tone of the article is simply - lets throw whatever allegation that has ever been made in against Bush, add in a few weak disclaimers and hey presto, an NPOV article. You obviously don't grasp what NPOV means. There are questions that need to be asked about Bush, but throwing in everything, even the most ludicrous makes the article a joke. (Linking Bush to 9-11 is about as ludicrous as they come. That's about as absurd as saying Prescott Bush was the man who shot JFK on the grassy knoll!)
Saying it has been widely discussed is a cop-out. It has been widely discussed that Lyndon Johnson had Kennedy shot, but that doesn't mean it has an ounce of credibility. It is widely discussed that Prince Albert Victor was Jack the Ripper. Yet we know he wasn't, not least because he was hundreds of miles away, in view of large numbers of people, when some of the murders were committed. It has even been 'widely discussed' (largely by one infamous nutter and his supporters!) that Queen Elizabeth is behind flooding America with drugs!!! NPOV means not just having a balancing act between opinions, but not equating ludicrous, widely disbelieved theories with theories backed by verified evidence. Please show the evidence, not say 'its on the internet somewhere'. It is your job to say where, say what sources you used, and not hide behind 'look for it yourself' or 'widely discussed' cop-outs.

And Stevertigo is right, please have the courtesy to sign or name.) JTD 06:43 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

A True NPOV article is one that is useful to neither side of the given debate.

Remove all the facts that make the story hang together, and the list shortly looks like an accusation, rather than an observation, of the associations of the persons involved. Which were BTW voluntary - no one has to deal with such people - and yes *some* of the individuals involved clearly have violent natures, e.g. Saddam Hussein

Just because some people have violent natures isn't evidence against the Bush family. If you have evidence, show it, if you don't, don't make such a claim. No matter how much I may dislike Bush's right wing agenda, I wouldn't dare make such a claim without concrete evidence. JTD 06:43 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Nobody has provided any proof or even a shred of a reference yet. I have. I will say it again, put up or shut up. Chadloder 04:11 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Cont: Talk:Bush League