Talk:United States President George W. Bush makes speech to rally support for war in Iraq


 * unrelated 9-11 attacks

This is somebody's POV. As good journalists, we should tell our readers who.


 * COMMENT! The "somebody" is the official 9/11 Commission. I will edit accordingly. Paulrevere2005 30 June 2005 12:17 (UTC)

Otherwise it would give the impression that this web site is saying that 9-11 and Iraq are unrelated. They probably are, but it isn't common knowledge. it's a Point of view. Ed Poor 30 June 2005 00:01 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ed it is POV to say they are unrelated, even if we might belive they are. --Cspurrier 30 June 2005 00:03 (UTC)


 * Sorry Ed, only meant to revert the "unrelated" deletion. A relationship must be proven, not disproven. The Whitehouse has never proven a relationship, therefore it is NPOV to say it is unrelated. - Amgine/talk 30 June 2005 00:05 (UTC)

commentary and backgroud
How much commentary and background does a news article need? Is it common knowledge that Bush cited (alleged) Iraqi possession of WMD to justify the invasion? If not, what's the best way to mention this in an article about a speech?

Also, Bush makes a POV statement. (His whole speech looks like the promotion of his POV on a hasty first glance to me, but I haven't studied it careffully yet.) My concern is how WikiNews treats unpopular POVs. Do we simply say he's wrong? Do we attribute opposing POV to Democrats, or administration opponents, or what?

Stop me if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here. There's probably an NPOV statement around here somewhere which I should have looked at before jumping in.

Or stop me if I'm simply going too fast! I'm really a newbie here. Ed Poor 30 June 2005 00:28 (UTC)


 * I think you're doing okay, as far as I'm concerned. Bush, or anyone else pushing an agenda, makes many POV statements. What Wikinews tends to do is to report on the events, and less on the rhetoric. Where something is not true to facts, it would be pointed out, usually with a citation (often a link to Wikipedia) if it is not common knowledge.


 * One thing we try not to do is give point-counterpoint for every argued statement. That's just a general tendency, not a rule set in stone or anything. Especially since, in political settings, there's rarely only two views on a given point.


 * Our NPOV statement is at NPOV. - Amgine/talk 30 June 2005 00:34 (UTC)


 * I read it. It looks the same as NPOV. Ed Poor 30 June 2005 00:39 (UTC)
 * - Amgine/talk 30 June 2005 00:44 (UTC)

Bush is so biased!
I don't think George W. Bush stands a chance of becoming an admin at this web site. His speech is full of POV.


 * After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.


 * Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war.

Here, for the second time, he links 9-11 and Iraq - without citing any facts to prove that there is a link. I suppose he just assumes it is common knowledge.

"Taking the fight to the enemy" means battling them on their home ground. Thus Bush is implying that Iraq is the home ground of the 'terrorists' who attacked the WTC on 9-11-01.

It's neutral and accurate to attribute this POV to G.W. Bush. The story is all about his speech, and he's making lots of points in it. There's not much more to the story than the contents of the speech.

Unless we also want to cover reactions to the speech. Did anyone comment afterwards, like a Democratic senator maybe? It should not be hard to find an opposing POV to balance the article. Ed Poor 30 June 2005 00:59 (UTC)


 * There were many many comments after the speech. The biggest question is: Why did this president, who is the least-photographed and accessible president since the invention of TV, make this speech? Why would he break with his usual secrecy and hiding from the press? The reason, of course, is the public is beginning to question the legitimacy of what has happened, and he needs to regain public support. A few days before this speech the republican-controlled Senate allowed Mr. Rumsfeld to be asked to hand in his resignation, an event unthinkable a few months ago when he was previously interviewed on the hill.


 * I don't know how to balance the article, other than to attempt to answer the question why he gave the speech. - Amgine/talk 30 June 2005 01:12 (UTC)

I'm not going to second guess you on why he gave the speech. It seems pretty obvious that he feels the need to regain public support. I'm more interested in keeping WikiNews from asserting as fact the anti-Bush POV that: It would be better to quote prominent / notable people who make these assertions.
 * 1) there is no link between Iraq and 9-11
 * 2) Bush should either withdraw all the troops now, or provide a timetable for their withdrawal.

The first point is significant, because Bush used the opposite POV as justification for the military campaign which invaded Iraq and toppled its government.

I see the balance as:
 * Bush insists there a link between Iraq and 9-11
 * He uses this supposed link to justify America's militar policy.
 * Opponents say Bush has failed to establish even the remotest possibility of a link
 * Bush opponents want him to set a troop withdrawal timetable - the earlier the better
 * Bush refuses to withdraw now, claiming that would undermine democratic "progress" in Iraq
 * Bush refuses to set a troop withdrawal timetable, claming that this would strengthen the "anti-democratic" opposition, which he says would simply conserve their forces until the withdrawal and launch an onslaught afterwards.

I hope that you are unable to detect my own ideas about whether Bush or his opponents are right on the link thing or the withdrawal thing. If so, then we can use my framework as a basis for neutral reporting. Ed Poor 30 June 2005 01:38 (UTC)
 * Only able to detect the article is ruined by the meddling of Ed Poor.

Hard to believe that our contributors don't know that a connection between Iraq and 9/11 has been disproven!
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States" "The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

This situation shows to me the overwhelming power of "battering ram" programming; where now not only do half the people think Saddam was involved in 9/11, another 40% must think it's possible but unproven...the fact is it has been disproven, but even our contributors don't seem to know that important fact.

Paulrevere2005 30 June 2005 12:17 (UTC)

Editprotected
Please add this article to Category:9/11. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)