Talk:Bush family conspiracy theory - Definition and Overview

Note, with rare exceptions, add talk to the bottom of the page. Otherwise it's next to impossible to follow.

See:

• Talk:Bush League/Archive for all previous entries.
• Talk:Bush family conspiracy theory/Delete

Wow, what a contentuous lot: Ill limit my comments to the basics. Provided these are followed, then we can proceed.

• First, 141, ( or whatever your i.p is)

I want to thank you for dropping this particular stone in the pond.

• Secondly, Ill ask you to pick a "face": ( Wikipedia:Accountability), an identity, whatever it is. read the link for the wikisition on this.
• Third, dont make marks on a talk page under the assumption that we know who they are from. - Sign them- see step 2.

After these are complied with, the rest of us will find reason to have a discourse with you. Your points are not without merit, though you seem to be making some common wikipedia mistakes; your energies are going toward argument, rather than discussion, negative rather than positive. And your tendency to exaggerate and inflame the discussion will not serve you here. NPOV is more than just a fad here at WP. Though you are right to point out, that bias (in the form of proper method) does sometimes rear its head in debate and discussion. Please comply with the above basic requests, and we can proceed. and atribute your sections, when you get a chance. ---Stevert

Okay, let's parse this. The Bush family has historical associations with the oil industry, the CIA, multinational corporations, and the executive branch. We should be able to agree that's incontrovertible.

Through the oil industry, the CIA, multinational corporations, and the executive branch, the Bush family has (unsurprisingly) connections with various unsavory figures (dictators, etc.). That also should be incontrovertible.

At the same time, it should be noted (and it is) that it's pretty much impossible to be involved in the oil industry, the CIA, and the executive branch and not have dealings with people like Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeini, etc.

This is not worth getting upset about. At least it doesn't seem so to me. Those in power necessarily have blood on their hands. --The Cunctator

That last line pretty much summed up the problem. You have a POV underlying the page. Maybe you can see the connectings, but most people who look on it see it as a lot of dodgy supposition. Linking the Nazis to the CIA in a single sentence is a classic example of paranoia gone mad. You jump from 'they have links with x' to implying 'and we all know what that means.' What next: the French (eventually) overthrew Emperor Bokassa, who murdered and ate babies. George Bush is opposing the French. Therefore he must be sympathic to murdering and eating babies!

So explain: 'Those in power necessarily have blood on their hands'. Facts, not paranoid fantasies.

BTW, I have no time for any of the Bush family whatsoever. Personally, I think my dog has greater intelligence that the current US pres. (Its dog turd probably has, come to think of it!) And Homer Simpson has a greater grasp of English. But if we are going to knock these assholes, do it will a well researched, well sourced article, not this type of '*wink wink* we all know what that means' cow-manure. JTD 05:16 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

And its usually not the blood of their constituency.-豎眩

Given that other users have reverted my deletion of this strange article, I have renamed this article to "George Bush family conspiracy theory" to more closely reflect its contents. This article still reads like a paranoid conspiracy theory, without any research to back up its assertions, still less to link them together. BTW, I am not a fan of the Bush administration -- but, as JTD says, if you're going to knock them, you will have to do better than this rubbish. The Anome 07:42 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC) I have now trimmed this down further to the core allegations. This really is a non-article -- there are other more specific allegations of wrongdoing in other articles: perhaps this article should be turned into a links page to more specific conspiracy theories involving members of the Bush family? Or (my favourite) deleted? The Anome 08:54 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl, I believe your dislike of me is coloring your perception of my edits. I don't "see the connectings [sic]". I'm not engaging in paranoid fantasies. The entry is about paranoid fantasies. I did explain my "everyone in power has blood on their hands" comment. Did you read what I wrote before that?

it should be noted (and it is) that it's pretty much impossible to be involved in the oil industry, the CIA, and the executive branch and not have dealings with people like Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeini, etc.

Do you disagree with that statement?

Do you understand how having "dealings with people like Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeini, etc." can be considered a bad thing by people, even evil? --The Cunctator 06:41 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

I agree Cuntator, I believe Jtdirl also lets his dislike of me create an unnecessary bias. Susan Mason

• cough* No-one's yet mentioned that the Bush family are reptilian shape-changes. Allegedly. Anyone wanna? Gritchka

• Deletion talk -> Talk:Bush family conspiracy theory/Delete

The Straight Dope article is titled, "Was President Bush's great-grandfather a Nazi?" I too found this odd; however, the article is not merely alleging that Bush's grandfather was a Nazi; but, his great-grandfather is said to have been a nazi as well! Pizza Puzzle

Re: "...to multinational corporations and government organizations and to figures such as dictators." I don't get this statement. Where's the conspiracy theory? Two Bushes were US Presidents, one was director of the CIA, etc., etc. - of course the Bushes have ties to "government organizations" and "multinational corporations"! There's also some fairly strong evidence that the CIA under Bush Sr. was actively supporting the Pinochet regime in Chile. Pinochet was most definitely a dictator. So again, where's the conspiracy theory in all this? The statement above is 100% true! -IP

The CIA's policy on Chile was set by the administration. Bush was not the president in the 1970s. He may well have been supportive of Pinochet; so were all too many people unfortunately. But presuming that he as CIA director set US policy towards Chile is simplistic nonsense. The above claims is classic conspiracy theory paranoia, take facts, throw in implications without factual evidence and then reach a conclusion that is supposition not evidence. FearÉIREANN 21:49 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nothing paranoid about stating some facts and drawing conclusions. Bush was a high-ranking official in a regime which was supporting Pinochet - the fact that Bush neither protested nor resigned is a pretty good reason to argue that he is not one of the good guys. Pizza Puzzle

That sums up the very stupidity at the heart of this crappy article. How do you know he didn't protest? Have you read minutes of CIA meetings? Gone to the Bush library and read his papers? Read the papers on it in the Nixon Library? Checked out the National Archives files? Spoken to those who were in the CIA in Bush's day? Interviewed Bush?

No. All you say lamely is "Bush was a high-ranking official in a regime which was supporting Pinochet". Colin Powell is a "high ranking official" in GWB's administration. So is Dick Chaney. They hold fundamentally different views and clash all the time. It would be idiotic in the extreme to treat them as the same. In governments, people battle over policy; just because they hold a post does not mean they share agreement with all the policies followed. Produce some evidence, not lame, childish presumptions with no factual evidence behind them. Bush may very well be more right wing than Adolf Hitler, but base it on evidence, not ludicrously simplistic lazy presumptions. FearÉIREANN 00:33 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Nonsense"? All I was saying is that most of the things in the opening paragraph of the article strike me as factually correct - I don't see how saying those things constitutes a conspiracy theory. As for Bush Sr. being CIA director, I do recall certain allegations being made against him in connection to the 1976 assassination of Orlando Letelier, though the CIA still refuses to release alot of the documents concerning its activities in Chile. An interesting article on the Bush-Pinochet connection is at http://www.tni.org/letelier/tniips/bush.htm. BTW, I never at any point said Bush SR. was responsible for setting the policy on Chile, but he was most certainly involved in carrying it out.-IP

The records of Bush's actions are sealed, sealed by Bush Jr no less! By definition, a conspiracy theory is one which cannot be proven. That is why these aren't considered scientific. It would appear that there is no evidence of Bush's protesting the Pinochet affair; as such, the conspiracy theory is that he most certainly didn't protest, because he supported Pinochet, because he is a right-wing extremist, because his entire family is bent on doing very bad things.

You need to stop your attitude in which you condemn others viewpoints as "lazy and childish". There is plenty of evidence already in existence in the two lone points that Bush Jr. has waged 2 wars during his presidency and that Bush's grandfather was charged under the Trading With the Enemy Act. Conspiracy theories are almost entirely formed from circumstantial evidence and are based, not on proof, but on faith. This is an especially strong conspiracy theory because the Patriot Act is as real as Halliburton's reconstruction contract which is as real as Prescott Bush which is as real as Arbusto Oil's connection to the bin Laden family. Pizza Puzzle I am no fan of the Bush family, PP. And I would love them to be exposed. But exposure to be convincing needs evidence. That's why I find this article so annoying. I would love to see a serious explosure of that clan. Emotion-based as opposed to evidence-based articles tend to backfire, because emotion rarely convinces waverers, it tends to create the response of 'if there was evidence it would be here. The emotion is simply hot air.' Evidence has the power, which is why I would like to see a much stronge hard evidence based page. FearÉIREANN 02:18 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you to an extent. The problem with this article, and with this so-called "conspiracy theory" as a whole, is that there's alot of factually correct, and plausible theories, lumped in with complete and utter nonsense, making it hard to seperate the two. This article doesn't just cover ONE conspiracy theory, it covers several theories, some of which are legitimate queries, and some of which are what most people would call conspiracy theories. And there's far too many generalizations in the article, though of course, it is a work in progress. Another thing to keep in mind - this article is specifically about a conspiracy theory (or several), and as such, that theory doesn't have to be proven (or to even make sense, for that matter). My problem, again, is that there's alot of factually correct stuff in the article, and very plausible theories, being dismissed with a blanket statement that's it's all a bunch of "paranoid" BS. It's not all paranoid BS! -IP

I meant the loopy stuff is paranoid BS. There is good stuff as well but its credibility is undermined by ludicrous stuff. FearÉIREANN 20:31 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you would like more concrete proof, read Greg Palast or some other article. This article is about a conspiracy theory that, essentially, some people think Bush is the AntiChrist. Ive heard, in published but not necessarily reliable journals, that even the Pope has made some indications that he is worried about such a possibility. Pizza Puzzle

They're amusing, but i don't see what Perle's nicknames have to do w/ the "conspiracy theory"...his personal conflicts of interest would be more relevent.[lobbyist at DoD for Global Crossing while on Defense Policy Board]---Kwantus

I must confess that the Bush-Hinckley connection is my favourite. "Conspiracy theorists" are all painted as loonies with no handle on reality (and indeed some are). But that this "demented drifter who did it all for Jody Foster" story is supposed to be more plausible than the obvious alternative ... Occam's laughing at us all. --Kwantus

W's claims about seeing the first 9/11 crash on TV long before it was on any known public broadcast is the scariest thing I've heard him say. For either: He was basically right, and getting his own private viewing of the Cabal's plan going off, etc etc and so brazen/stupid he can't keep his trap shut; or he's just so plain stupid he can't keep straight what happened first on 9/11. It's not like he was in a big rush--not until long after Card told him about the 2nd crash. Who of the rest of us can't remember precisely what we were doing when we first heard the news? Either way, the man in nominal charge of the world's deadliest and most hawkish military is not posessed of normal mental capacity. -- Kwantus

Furthermore: The Germans claim to have warned W himself of an impending attack; IIRC, an attack against prominent landmarks using hijacked aircraft. Yet, W supposedly saw the first crash on TV and thought, not "oh shit this is it" but "that's one baaad pilot". (Even if you take a weaker interpretation of his comment eg "I saw the smoking tower caused by the first crash".) And totally did not leap into action. Then after Card tells him of the second crash...he persists in not leaping to action. All W does is sit and look guilty (I've seen the video, on Frontline...don't try to tell me otherwise). Is that the action of a total dipstick, or a total accomplice? I don't much like the implications of either -- and I see no third choice. Kwantus

I've just read that there's an "unusually long" Wall St Journal article, 1988 Aug 9 or thereabouts, listing misdeeds of Neil and/or JEB. Anyone got access to WSJ archives? --Kwantus

"I don't think the Bush's or most Bush supporters would go for that argument, rephrasing a bit" Heehee =) Just don't mess with the basic truth too much: there was a lot of Big Money thrown at the Nazis, and the Bushes (PSB) were basically working for someone else. (I think Farish was a bigger traitor in practical terms than PSB...whether you want to read it as good capitalism or good fascism, is not my field =) -- Kwantus

Well, it was listed in the counter-argument section. As such, it should not have been written as part of the argument for a conspiracy. The entire conspiracy theory article seems pretty fishy as an encyclopedia article, it seems more like a dumping ground for any charge leveled at either Bush. Daniel Quinlan 19:29, Sep 9, 2003 (EDT)

it should not have been written as part of the argument for a conspiracy. And, uhhh, it wasn't. Certainly not in sinister sense of conspiracy. The Nazis were a terrific business opportunity through the '30s, there was nothing particularly amiss or conspiratorial about what US companies were doing, until 1941 Dec 11. And PSB's enterprises were far from unique in continuing the relationship through the war. That's the point: Even though the PSB did work with the Nazis (there's no disputing that), he wasn't the only one and wasn't the biggest one. -- k

Note that the quote I used is the quote from the AP story which I double-checked against the audio file as accurate. I think removing part of the AP story quote is POV as we should not be taking quotes out of context in articles. It's not like the AP quote (or any AP quote, for that matter) is long-winded. Daniel Quinlan 22:54, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

It is irrelevant that Bush doesn't appreciate it. This is about Bush saying "There ought to be limits to freedom" not, "I dont appreciate X". Lirath Q. Pynnor

It's always relevant when a quote is taken out of context. Wikipedia should not do that. Period. Daniel Quinlan 19:27, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how its being taken out of context. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Moved from Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles

• • Daniel seems to think that this conspiracy theory requires that certain quotes, by Bush, need to be "taken out of context" in order to support the theory. The quotes are not taken out of context. Daniels proof, by which he links to a mailing list post, is not very good at proving much of anything. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Actually, someone else added that link. If that is your issue, I can easily link to direct sources, the Bush conspiracy sites themselves. I don't think conspiracy theorists are required to take quotes out of context, but it's clear that they do. Anyway, some examples: [1] (http://www.juicycerebellum.com/bushbullshit.htm) [2] (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/dictatorTime.html) [3] (http://www.gwbush.com/multimedia/index.shtml) and even earlier versions of the page itself written by Lir/Pizza Puzzle: [4] (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Bush_family_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1513960) [5] (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Bush_family_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1194331) Daniel Quinlan 00:46, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • Not only do these links fail to prove your assertation that these quotes are "out of context"; but a link to "bushbullshit.htm" hardly helps your case. In addition, it is silly to state that "conspiracy theorists often take this quotes out of context" simply because I had earlier written something incorrect. In fact, you yourself did a far greater mistake -- adding a reference to prostitution -- something Bush did not mention at all! Should we instead state, "Opponents of the Bush conspiracy theory often take these quotes out of context?" Lirath Q. Pynnor

Note that the gwbush.com site itself [6] (http://www.gwbush.com/multimedia/index.shtml) can't even refrain from quoting out of context (although you can at least find the full quotation as a marginal audio file) and they even add an exclamation (!) to the article when Bush was clearly not exclaiming nor finished his response to the reporter question.

To respond to your criticism of my mistake, I already acknowledged it (although the quotation was in regard to pornography and was a real quote made by Bush in an interview (I believe it was ZDNET, I can't find the original interview text any more, but a reference to it is here: [7] (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-521671.html?legacy=zdnn)). Anyway, after doing additional research, I was easily convinced that that particular quote was clearly not the same fodder for conspiracy theorists, so I agree it is better to use the one from the gwbush.com audio clip. Daniel Quinlan 01:01, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Lir says: Should we instead state, "Opponents of the Bush conspiracy theory often take these quotes out of context?"

What? Are you insane? It's the conspiracy folks and Bush opponents that take the quotes out of context, not opponents of the theory. You yourself have stated as an edit Summary that "who needs to express these out of context? Bush is a bad guy and these quotes, as is, are damning enough without being taken out of context". Daniel Quinlan 01:04, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Please discuss this here rather than the disputes page. And please don't make personal attacks. Thanks. Angela 01:08, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Hey folks, how about moving the links to full context below to the "misrepresented" section. That way the quotes are presented the way conspiracy theorists present it above and in full context the way critics of the theory dismiss it below? Would that satisfy all?Ark30inf 01:11, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ive tried to suggest that but he calls me insane. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I asked if you were insane when you claimed that it is the opponents of the conspiracy theory are the ones who take the quotes out of context. It's not Bush supporters who are misquoting. Daniel Quinlan 01:35, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Daniel that the quotes are taken out of context but agree with Lir that the context should go at the bottom with the rest of the criticism. I guess saying that is all that I can do and will not make me beloved by anybody.Ark30inf 01:30, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ark30inf, thank you for trying to find a compromise, but I don't think your suggestion would be a good one. I believe it's necessary for Wikipedia to represent matters factually. The fact is that when these quotes are used by conspiracy theorists, they are almost always misquoted or taken out of context. It is wrong for a NPOV page to include any form of misquote or out-of-context quote anywhere in the article. Putting a fake quote up top and the real quote further down might mislead people. Even if the entire top or bottom of the article were removed, what remains should be true, factual, and not include misquotes or out-of-context quotes. (Such a half-article would fail to be neutral, of course.) Daniel Quinlan 01:35, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Im not seeing much proof that anti-Bush people misquote Bush. There is no need to misquote him! Lirath Q. Pynnor

I agree with you Lir that its not a misquote, he said it, but is instead just misleading people about his intent by being taken out of context. The context can go below though.Ark30inf 01:46, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Calling for protection. Sorry folks, I tried.Ark30inf 01:40, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Now protected. Angela 01:44, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Very well. I tried too. ;-) Daniel Quinlan 01:55, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

The misquoting thing would go under "Critics of the theory allege that its proponents mispresent events as part of the theory." Evil saltine 01:43, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Isn't it evident from Lir's attempts to remove parts of the quotes, from the gwbush.com misquote, from numerous anti-Bush sites that get the quotes wrong (either intentionally or by copying other sites that provided incorrect quotes)? Implying that proponents of the theory use the full quotes, or worse, changing the page to use the misquotes, seems like a poor substitute for the facts. The top of the page should write accurately about the conspiracy argument, not attempt to reproduce it exactly. The same should be true of the bottom of the page. It should not attempt to distort the truth of things that are correct in the top. Daniel Quinlan 01:55, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Thats an interesting argument. Essentially what we could end up with is two separate sections of contrary POV (and theoretically two sets of lies). My thought is that we MUST allow POV at the top in order to let the conspiracy theory be told in its entirety including any lies, misquotes, truth, divine revelation, or slander. The voice at the bottom should be NPOV verification, rebutting, or contextualizing, of what was presented above. It should be made clear to the reader that the top is the voice of the theorists and not wikipedia.Ark30inf 02:08, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If it was just a short quote or a bullet or two, that would probably be okay (and the technique is used somewhat successfully elsewhere), but it's a really long list so I think the bullets all need to be 100% factual. And yes, I'm not really interested in presenting optimal arguments for either side, but in presenting the best factual information about objective reality. It's not just an NPOV issue for me, but also that we need to strive to present verifiable facts and try (despite our opinions) to be objective. Also, the best NPOV isn't always simply 50% one side and 50% the other (as the media often does when setting up a debate between some partisan and some other partisan). Daniel Quinlan 02:19, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

You have still provided no evidence that anti-Bush people use "false quotes". Why would anybody need to distort what Bush says? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Hmmm... 95% of the time I have said "misquote or out-of-context quote", never "false quotes" just as the alternate Bush quote I used (because it illustrated why Bush objected to the gwbush.com site and filed a complaint to the FCC) said "pornography", not "prostitution". And I think the evidence is more than ample: [8] (http://www.flux.org/pipermail/talk/2001-November/002625.html) [9] (http://www.juicycerebellum.com/bushbullshit.htm) [10] (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/dictatorTime.html) [11] (http://www.gwbush.com/multimedia/index.shtml) [12] (http://www.mind.net/basile/DeficitDubya4.html) [13] (http://www.rtmark.com/bush.html) [14] (http://www.columbiacentral.com/dubya/) [15] (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Bush_family_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1513960) [16] (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Bush_family_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1194331) ... also, the netnews article you criticized included a reference article which took the "dictator quote" out of context (and strongly implied that Bush was not joking rather than leaving it up to the reader): [17] (http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/121800/gen_1218007459.shtml) and I still don't understand why you think Bush supporters would distort these quotes. I used news sources, transcripts, and audio files to compile the original quotes because they were nearly impossible to get from anti-Bush sites that almost always present quotes that have been truncated or altered to make them look sinister. — Daniel Quinlan 03:30, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Ive looked at a number of your links and I fail to see how the quotes are being taken out of context. At least two of your links are to this article -- this article is not a reference unto itself. It is not appropriate to link to my own edits, as some sort of "proof". #11 is a link to a sound recording of the quote -- how is that possibly "out of context", "truncated", or "altered to make them look sinister"? As for your argument that Bush was "just joking" -- obviously some of us don't think there is anything funny about a President who makes jokes about how he much easier things would be if he were a dictator. Lirath Q. Pynnor

#11 displays: "There Ought to be Limits to Freedom!" which is not what Bush says in the audio clip, he follows "freedom" with a false start ("but uhhh") and then the rest of the quote. I link to your edits (which use the same quote) as additional proof that anti-Bush people use truncated out-of-context quotes. As to whether or not he was joking, I guess we'll have to wait until the end of Bush's first or second term to know for certain whether Bush was joking. All I want to make clear in the article is how the quotes are truncated and altered to make them look sinister. Here are the original quotes from this article which are blatant misquotes -- there was never any exclamation, the context is gone, and the first quote is not even close.

• "The job of the President would be easier, if I were a dictator!"
• "There ought to be limits to freedom!" (May 21, 1999 -- gwbush.com]

Q.E.D. Daniel Quinlan 04:15, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

W has at least occasionally acted in a dictatorial manner...for instance when one of his faith-based initiatives got stuck in Congress, he ruled by executive dictat, and is not shy about it. "I called on Congress to join me in passing laws...they balked. They got caught up in the process. So I signed an executive order"[18] (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/15/se.03.html) "Congress killed the proposal last spring. I couldn't get the bill passed through Congress, so I signed an executive order. I did it on my own."[19] (http://www.pe.com/breakingnews/local/stories/PE_News_Local_bush04.ec0e.html)

"Congress wouldn't act, so I signed an executive order. That means I did it on my own."[20] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28377-2004Mar3.html) So let me get this right, because an anti-Bushite doesn't include the fact that Bush said "uhhh" -- thus, the quote is truncated and out of context? And just because someone puts an ! where you heard a . -- that means its "out of context" and a "blatant misquote"? Lirath Q. Pynnor

"Context" means "The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning." [21] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=context), and yes, it's definitely not a ! and anyone may listen to the MP3 (http://www.gwbush.com/multimedia/gwtv/limits_to_freedom.mp3) if they wish to decide for themselves. Besides the second quote being distorted by removal of context and changing to an exclamatory declaration, the first quote remains incorrect. Plus, the other links contain similar distortions. I don't see why this is an issue. It's a single factual sentence about the quotes and how conspiracy theorists use them in their arguments. Daniel Quinlan 04:35, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

Given the article title, concerns here, and concerns in the delete discussion, I've put the NPOV dispute label at the top of the article. Fuzheado 00:08, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

New discussion

Re: reversion: VeryVerily (new stupid accusations moved to s.a. list)

I reverted back to previous and obviously my version. Reasons:

a) Overall my edits were not anti-Bush. I've attempted however poorly to create a better article. The prose is quite poor for instance. So selecting some of points rather than all is just being selective.

b) the second paragraph removed is clearly pro Bush. It points out the fact that allegations have been made because the Bush's have become identified as the presidency/republican government and republican party because they are so successful and their acts have been confused with acts of said organisations but some people. Also pointed out power and wealth thing. Those are the two and most important reasons for disbelieveing any Bush family conspiracy. I don't see the logic of deleting this paragraph as a stupid allegation.

c) In third paragraph do point out that however some of these allegations are serious and matter of public debate. And that the most important is the last election which I think is incontrovertibly true. Indeed it is the only 'conspiracy' theory I hold any importance to as someone from the UK, and personally I don't think of it as a family conspiracy, more so very dodgy politics by republicans.

d) If people want to edit these two paragraphs to make them better, or replace them with better one's I'm quite happy; but there is never going to be a proper article if we don't try to put it on some sensible footing. :ChrisG 10:52, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying to integrate your concerns with mine. Just reverting all my changes, a few of which did not have to do with what you had said, is not acceptable to me. Here are my remaining concerns:

(a) I don't see the 2000 election controversy as towering above the others; this is very POV. Certainly many of the other accusations, if true, could be considered more serious. However, I will add a note that some consider it more serious than the others.

(b) I have never heard any mainstream source accuse Bush of rigging the election; it was merely very hotly contested due to closeness. So I don't know what makes this more serious than the empty allegation that he is a closet totalitarian.

There are many things that take a long time to show up in the Mercan Mainstream Media. If you can go through the overview in Stupid White Men (incomplete--eg, IIRC, doesn't go into the Diebold machines that decremented Gore's count--but the best bundle I've yet encountered of things to think about), and still think W is legitimately President, then you're just mentally defective. If those shenanigans happened anywhere else we'd call it a little tinpot African dictatorship and get it over with. (Mugabe's a piker compared to the Bushes. Disclaimer: I'm not a whiny sore Gore loser. I'm a Canadian, of the Chomsky-Vidal school that there's no diff between the Repocrats and the Demublicans to bother with. All I care about is how the crooks that've run the US for decades can get this obvious about it and still get away with it. Kwantus 00:54, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC))

(c) The "owing to" paragraph is better written now, but it still should be in the "Background" section and does not need to be part of the definition given in the intro.

(d) I don't think a recap of the 2000 election controversy is appropriate, either (plus I find the synopsis lacking). Besides giving this allegation excessive prominence, there is the fact that this is all covered in better depth in U.S. presidential election, 2000, which is linked to, and does not need to be repeated here.

I also made the last sentence before the list more NPOV. Let me know what you think of my latest effort. -- VV 00:19, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Big text move

How much of this article comes from Best Democracy Money Can Buy? If it's mostly a rehash of Palast's book, then we should move most of it to The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. --Uncle Ed 20:34, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC) Pretty much none, Ive read the book. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Okay, thanks, Lir. I guess we don't have to move any text then. :-) --Uncle Ed 22:09, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You removed several points from the Bush theory page, why? Lirath Q. Pynnor

I have to do something because u remove things like: "*George W. Bush's Defense Advisor Richard Perle is said to have a nickname, amongst friends, as "The Prince of Darkness" If you were just sorting the text, I wouldn't care -- but you are removing stuff!

Now, Im not reverting. The current version includes a number of your edits; however, you deleted several paragraphs; which I have to go to an earlier version in order to recover them. I urge you to edit the current version, which has adopted your notion of sorting the theories and allegations. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The fact that Bush's friend has an evil nickname, is a critical part of the theory that bush is evil. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You also removed: *Critics also note Bush's stance on capital punishment and allege that he "made fun of" various people prior to and after their executions. -- which is critical to the "Bush is an evil bastard from hell" conspiracy theory. Lirath Q. Pynnor

As far as I've been able to find out, the Karla Faye Tucker mockery was reported by Tucker Carlson—eg Dangerous Citizen (http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Photo+Gallery/568.aspx) specs not only Talk Sep 1999 as most do, but author, title ("Devil May Care"), and page (106). Carlson, at least at present, is hardly what I'd recognise as a Bush "critic". (And it is "that" Tucker Carlson, according to Clientplus (http://www.clientplus.com/fintimes/t_leaders/tl_display.cfm?tl_ID=139).) 142.177.24.141 20:19, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Id be more than happy to put more effort into amalgamating your edits into the text; however, Im not going to do so atm since if you revert it; then all my work will have been for naught. Lirath Q. Pynnor

"Bush is an evil bastard from hell" is not a conspiracy theory. "Bush is working to dismantle the federal government and civil protections in order to make the US a totalitarian state" is a conspiracy theory. The executions and Perle are back in. --The Cunctator 00:24, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is a popular conspiracy theory that Bush is the anti-christ. Lirath Q. Pynnor

That's not really a conspiracy theory, though is it? It's a weird theory about Bush. Unless you're saying that the "conspiracy" here is between Bush and Satan, I suppose. And unless you can name three people who believe it, how is it "popular"? Onebyone 11:20, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe LQP still hasn't realised "conspiracy theory" is an English phrase with discernible meaning totally different from its use in the mass media. That's not to be condescending; I was quite awhile realising that myself. Think: when did you last see the media refer to the official 9/11 story as a "conspiracy theory"? Yet that is literally and exactly what it is. They don't call it that because it's a label reserved for "an idea we want you to ignore" regardless of whether which it involves conspiracy or theorising. (Witness this timely example (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/andres_oppenheimer/7464976.htm)) -- fmr Kwantus

Cleanup

Lir probably wants to know why I made such-and-such changes, so here's the diff:

-	* The Bushes, as part of the [[Skull and Bones Society]], is allegedly associated with [[crime]] and [[satanism]].
+	* The Bush family supports [[crime]] and [[Satanism]] through the [[Skull and Bones Society]].

This didn't make much sense, you must admit.

- * Halliburton gained contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq due (at least in part) to its connections to Dick Cheney.
+ * [[Dick Cheney]] planned and executed the Second Gulf War for the benefit of [[Halliburton]].

The former is inarticulate. The latter shows exactly what's being talked about.

- * The Bushes generally support policies that support the [[oil]] industry.

This is a conspiracy theory?!

+ ===Conspiracy-oriented books===
+ ===Mainstream books===

I don't think "Bush's Brain" belongs there next to "The Dirty Truth" and Michael Moore's poorly researched (albeit well-written) work.

 - * [[George W. Bush]] is the [[Antichrist]].

That doesn't belong on Wikipedia! It also ridicules and diminishes the elements of the conspiracy theory that actually have evidence going for them. Either move that to somewhere like "List of totally ludicrous beliefs", or kill it entirely.

Feel free to fiddle with any of my changes, this is a Wiki after all. --Ashi

I think it's pointless to dispute the neutrality of this page, as there's no possible way to discuss a conspiracy theory with neutrality.

Division of "Further reading"

The division of the "Further reading" section into "Conspiracy-oriented books" and "Mainstream books" is unwise, in my opinion. First off, there is a distinct negative slant to "Conspiracy-oriented books", and a positive slant to "Mainstream books". That's POV. Second, there doesn't seem to be much to objectively discriminate between the two groups. "Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the US betrayed its own POWs in Vietnam" and "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential" both involve conspiracies, after all. And since "Stupid White Men" outsold any of the books in the "Mainstream" section, wouldn't it be more mainstream? I'm removing the division for this reason. If you disagree, please let me know. Quadell (talk) 17:08, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia - Conspiracy Theory - Who Cares?

Welcome to the Conspiracy Theory page, "all conspiracy all of the time". Some of you really need to get over yourselves and get on with your lives. You may not like them (Bushes, et al) but we elected them, for better of for worse. Go to the polls and do your civic duty and stop crieng like a bunch of broken hearted school-girls. There is more at stake here than pandering to the overeducated self-appointed elite and there "anyone else" attitude. Did we ever play fair? Read the article on the War of 1812. The Civil War. The American Revolution. How bout Pearl Harbor with FDR? How bout the Sinking of the Lusitania with Woodrow Wilson. They did what they needed to do to get the job done, doesn't make it right but there it is. We are where we are today because of it. Nuff said bout dat!!--68.80.223.233 18:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Quadell (talk) 18:54, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

James R. Bath

The current version states the following as fact: "James R. Bath's name should have been inked out on the National Guard documents released in 2000 as well. This is standard policy when the military releases personal records." Is there a source for this? If not, I think it should be changed. Quadell (talk) 04:16, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Was this proven to WP's satisfaction, or does it go in the wacky allegations? At least six Nazis/fascists/antijudens/"Holocaust deniers" were found in the 1988 Bush campaign team by Washington Jewish Week: Method Balco; Bohdan Fedorak, "pogromist"; Florian Galdau, fmr Iron Guard recruiter; Walter Melianovich; Nicholas Nazarenko, ex Waffen-SS officer; Radi Slavoff.[22] (http://www.rememberjohn.com/Nazis.html)[23] (http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_printable/16434/index.php)[24] (http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/bushhoax.htm)[25] (http://www.antipasministries.com/oldnews/bedfells.html) 142.177.24.144 00:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Pity Shrubadub didn't have this much evidence of Saddam-OBL coöperation...)

Another thing for proven/unproven classing: the costly and nearly useless Blue Thunder catamarans for US Customs drug interdiction, contracted by GHWB to friend Don Aronow (sometimes mistakenly (?) spelled Arnow) who had drug-smuggling ties.[26] (http://boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=75)[27] (http://www.outdoorshub.com/Blue_Thunder_How_the_Mafia_Owned_and_Finally_Murdered_Cigarette_Boat_King_Donald_Aronow_0671663216.html)[28] (http://www.american-buddha.com/unauthor.bio.bush.20.htm) 142.177.24.144 20:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vote: Keep or Delete Entire Article

DELETEIf I had to vote, I'd say let's delete this article. It has no business here in Wikipedia. It is nothing more than rumor and innuendo, and does not present any real facts. Nor does it seem to have a focus. It seems to just be a list of accusations. This site is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a rag sheet. So my vote is to delete this entire article.Ramsquire 18:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV tag

How can the article be biased when it states the FACTS??? (comment by)

If you believe there's no neutrality dispute, just remove the tag. If someone puts it back (I won't), it's best to leave it. Thanks. Gazpacho 22:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because people believe that it does not, in fact, state the facts? Jtrainor 21:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The very name of the article is evidence that it does not state "FACTS". It states "theories"! This is not a political blog or a usenet site so the existence of this section is truly in poor taste. If Wiki wants to have a page dedicated to some of the more popular conspiracies out there (e.g. the Illuminati) then it should put them all in one place. But to have one based simply on one President is silly, and unencyclopedic.Ramsquire 17:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletion... Questions

I agree, this article isn't exactly factual in the way that it should or could be, but let's face it; it is entertaining. I've never had something so interesting that made me willingly miss Friday Night Stand-Up. Now, that said, I'd like to see more with the real, factual, dirt on Bush, because I do believe it exists... the stuff about him being a reptillian shape-shifter is priceless.

Keep, but reorganize

I think there is a place in an encyclopedia to state theories and the truth known about them. Many people may have only heard the theory and believe it true having not heard anything else except an official denial. I would, however, reorganize this page to handle each theory in turn, and then what is know about it below it. Rick 14:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Listen Up

This article lists current conspiracy theories, some well-substantiated and some dubious, about the Bush family. The article is 100% factual because these theories exist -- people believe in them and research them. They are real theories, whether true or not.

If you think the theories aren't true, that is not a problem with the article. The article only lists and describes the theories. It is an article about 'conspiracy theories.'

If there are any questions, please see me after class, or on my talk page. Auto movil 21:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

vfd archive link

This article was proposed for deletion December 2004. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bush family conspiracy theory.

Reptiloids

What happened to the following theory?

• The Bush family is descended from European royal lineages which are alleged to have reptiloid origins. [29] (http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/bushblood.html)

countered by

• Many people of European origin have royal ancestors if one looks back far enough.

It may be daft, but David Icke has published his conspiracy theory in books. --Henrygb 02:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)